Fine-Structure Constant Maybe Not So Constant 105
Kilrah_il writes "The fine-structure constant, a coupling constant characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction, has been measured lately by scientists from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia and has been found to change slightly in light sent from quasars in galaxies as far back as 12 billion years ago. Although the results look promising, caution is advised: 'This would be sensational if it were real, but I'm still not completely convinced that it's not simply systematic errors' in the data, comments cosmologist Max Tegmark of MIT. Craig Hogan of the University of Chicago and the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill., acknowledges that 'it's a competent team and a thorough analysis.' But because the work has such profound implications for physics and requires such a high level of precision measurements, 'it needs more proof before we'll believe it.'"
Re:first constant post (Score:3, Insightful)
this should get at least a +1 funny (:
Don't Hold Your Breath (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't the first time that some team has claimed this. Around 2000, someone made the same claim. I recall it not standing up when other teams checked it.
Measurements like this have been done before and usually show a constant, er, constant to within experimental uncertainty.
Note, for example, this paragraph buried at the end of the article:
Nonetheless, the study “is as speculative as the previous claims,” asserts Patrick Petitjean of the Institute of Astrophysics in Paris, whose team has looked for variations in the fine-structure constant with the Very Large Telescope as far back as about 11.5 billion years ago and found none (SN: 4/8/04, p. 301).
In other words, I wouldn't get excited at all yet.
Re:Don't Hold Your Breath (Score:1, Insightful)
The farther out you look with a telescope, the farther back in time you're seeing.
Re:A link to the paper itself (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's just say that if called upon to review this paper I would have a lot of comments on techniques and assumptions. They are also sending it to a journal where it is likely they will find reviewers who don't understand the details of the instruments used.
I'm not saying its definitely wrong, but it definitely needs a peer review cycle or two before publication. If published in this form, the editor will get some "feedback" on the editorial process. Longer term, I and a lot of other people would like to see confirmation from independent groups using independent instrumentation before we put too much effort into explaining an effect that might not exist.
Posting anonymously so I won't be excluded from the review pool for having opinions.