Fundamental Constant Possibly Inconsistent 317
dylanduck writes "Cosmologists have begun thinking that yet another fundamental constant of nature is, er, not constant. The constant in question is the ratio of a proton's mass to that of an electron. It governs the strong nuclear force but there's no explanation for why that ratio should be constant. If true it would provide support for string theory, which predicts extra spatial dimensions." From the article: "Researchers at the Free University in Amsterdam in the Netherlands and the European Southern Observatory in Chile discovered the variation in mu. They did it by comparing the spectrum of molecular hydrogen gas in the laboratory to what it was in quasars 12 billion light years away. The spectrum depends on the relative masses of protons and electrons in the molecule."
Thus proving once and for all (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thus proving once and for all (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Thus proving once and for all (Score:4, Funny)
--
Constants aren't.
Variables are.
- Murphy's (Computer) Law
Re:Thus proving once and for all (Score:3, Funny)
BTW - you *should* know what I'm pissed off about - you know what I mean when I say "Nothing".
Re:Thus proving once and for all (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Thus proving once and for all (Score:2)
Re:Thus proving once and for all (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Thus proving once and for all (Score:4, Insightful)
Then I'm going to hell, and I won't even know why.
Electron Constants not Constant??!! (Score:4, Funny)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089869/ [imdb.com]
Ob. Farnsworth quote (Score:5, Funny)
Cubert: That's impossible. You can't go faster than the speed of light.
Farnsworth: Of course not. That's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208.
Re:Ob. Farnsworth quote (Score:2)
Re:Electron Constants not Constant??!! (Score:2, Interesting)
(not in the habit of checking Wikipedia for movie details
Apparently, the meaning of "constant" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Apparently, the meaning of "constant" (Score:4, Funny)
1!=2 is, for example, always true, except for with very small values of 2 or very large values of 1. Possibly you need both small values of 2 and large values of 1.
Re:Apparently, the meaning of "constant" (Score:2)
Re:Apparently, the meaning of "constant" (Score:5, Funny)
Well, that's what God gets for using C++. You think you've got a well-designed system, then you realize that to make your next set of changes work you're going to have to throw in a bunch of const_casts or mutables.
You can tell He's new to object oriented programming, too - he's got this whole overeager class hierarchy of tau derived from muon derived from electron, top derived from charm derived from up, and on and on, but then when it's finally time to put together the universe He gets sick of the whole thing and builds all His matter from the base classes!
Re:Apparently, the meaning of "constant" (Score:2)
Hang on a second... (Score:3, Insightful)
How the hell does that work?
Re:Hang on a second... (Score:2)
Re:Hang on a second... (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't forget the proton is a composite of quarks. So the mass of the proton is a function of the mass of the quarks and the binding energy. A hack but E=mc^2, so m(proton) = m(quarks) - (binding energy)/c^2. The binding energy changes if the strengths of the forces that bind it change. This means that a change in the electromagnetic force (e.g. changing alpha fine structure constant) or the strong force will change the mass also. Of course, the mass of the electrons or quarks could have changed as well :P
Re:Hang on a second... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hang on a second... (Score:4, Informative)
Intelligent Design? (Score:3, Interesting)
String theory makes my head hurt.
Re:Intelligent Design? (Score:2, Insightful)
However I was seeing the case from the other side as 'proof' that if such fundemental scientific principles can be shown to be inaccurate, how much 'faith' can we have in the theory of Evolution which is laregely based on much less demonstrable certainties that the fields of physics and math.
Either way, I say just screw it and wait till you're dead. It's the only way to know who's right for sure anyway.
Re:Intelligent Design? (O/T) (Score:2)
The concept of "Faith" was a magnificant and powerful creation--a tool that can allow a few people to control millions--and I'd like to meet the amazingly talented P/R man who figured out how to tag such a horrid, evil concept as "Good".
Question Everything.
Re:Intelligent Design? (O/T) (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, to stay a little bit on topic, the theoretically observed change in mu is extremely small. Physicists don't know why mu should be about 1836 instead of about 1836.5 or 3 or 11,296,428. My understanding is (and I am not an expert on this), that really small change in mu like we're talking about here wouldn't significantly affect the universe and it would still look largely like it does, but somewhat small change in mu, like an order of magnitude would, a lot. This bugs physicists because they don't know why it is what it is. Why do we have the universe we have instead of something drastically different like one that collapsed or blew apart 10 minutes after the Big Bang? The only answer they can offer is the anthropic principle: It is the way it is because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to notice.
The existence of God does not hinge on the constancy of mu. This doesn't even disprove intelligent design, which is as bad from a theological perspective as it is from a scientific perspective, being vain in both schools. Several prominent Catholic theologians have stated as much. The perplexing question of why fundamental particles are the way they are and therefore allow us to exist does not constitute a proof of God's existence, but they are rather suggestive.
For the record, I think a brief discussion of creation concepts would be appropriate in social studies (as part of a survey of religions) or in philosophy classes (the study of being) in public schools, but not in science. I want to point out that if God created the phenomena which allows and upon which we base our science, it's unlikely that we would be able to prove or disprove His existence directly through science.
I wasn't going to reply, but it seemed worthwhile to Question this statement. Who is controlled here? The billions of faithful who find meaning in life? In what way are we controlled? By adherence to principles that are conducive to the betterment of mankind like "love your neighbor as yourself" and "Thou shalt not kill?" What is the gain for these scheming, evil leaders and their P/R man? You don't exactly see a lot of priests pimping it up with 22" rims on their Lincolns and an escort on each arm. Celibacy, the difficulties of working with a faith-community, itchy robes, and a badly off-key choir...now there's a good reason to cook up a religion. I'm willing to guarantee you the overwhelming majority of religious leaders really do believe in the faith they profess. Yes there is a large degree of misdirection and a few unscrupulous groups that are nothing more than pyramid schemes or printing companies, but the basic precepts of most religions out there are founded, promoted, and executed with good intent.
Re:Intelligent Design? (O/T) (Score:3, Insightful)
The first part of your post is good...but the second one about faith leaves a lot to be desired.
The billions of faithful who find meaning in life?
Actually no one finds meaning in life from religion...because religion dictates that this life is just a test for the afterlife. People usually find meaning in life when they get rid of religions, i.e superstitions, witchcraft and the like.
In what way are we controlled?
Religion makes people pathetic command receptors. They await like sheep for an orde
Re:Intelligent Design? (O/T) (Score:3, Insightful)
Who is being controlled by faith??? Are you seriously asking?
Okay, Let's see...
Terrorists seeking virgins in the afterlife.
Christians voting for Bush.
Christians bombing abortion clinics and/or murdering abortion doctors.
Any religious followers donating to these filthy-rich preachers.
Catholics agreeing to avoid birth control.
Catholic priests avoiding sex (added by the church so they wouldn't leave churches t
Re:The real God says, "Question Everything." (Score:3, Insightful)
As for what you can really observe, the bible is the word of god is it not?
Where in the bible does it say to question anything? Also, if you are questioning everything, how do you know the bible is the word of god?
In fact, the bible was written by humans and the books were selected by a power-hungry church. The sections chosen were chosen specifically because they had the least conflicts and supported the church the most.
I don't really worry about weat
Re:Intelligent Design? (Score:2)
I think not... *POOF!*
Re:Intelligent Design? (Score:2)
Book on the subject (fiction) (Score:2)
A more serious article [sciam.com] was published about a year ago on similar changes in constants.
Anthropic principle? (Score:2)
Re:Intelligent Design? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Intelligent Design? (Score:2, Insightful)
But wouldn't God know what should be constant and what should be variable?
Sorry, I have a far, far more difficult time getting my mind around "it's all just mere chance" than "God is in the details."
Re:Intelligent Design? (Score:2)
The summary brought up ID in my mind, too, but in the opposite way: that the universe was being tweaked to affect some unknown purpose.
Re:Intelligent Design? (Score:2)
Re:Intelligent Design? (Score:2)
Re:Intelligent Design? (Score:2)
If they had faith, why would they need "proof that God does exist"?
Hmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's interesting that they think the ratio effects the strong force. Electrons don't see the strong force, so I'm not sure that this is true - anyone know any better?
The result is accurate to 3.5 sigma - so (possibly) good to about 95 %. Based on a new model of H2 molecule, not sure how well verified it is. I suspect any fool could make any non-standard model measurement fit with string theory so I wouldn't read too much into that.
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
Are the laws of physics changing themselves ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Also I would like to know little more about the error analysis here. A claim like 0.002% should be carefully checked to make sure about the measurement limitations etc.
Readers are directed to another good article [swin.edu.au] (not flooded with scientific jargon).
Re:Are the laws of physics changing themselves ? (Score:2)
Re:Are the laws of physics changing themselves ? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the laws of physics are changing, there must be some law governing this change. If that law is changing there must be some other law governing that change. At some point it has to stop.
Re:Are the laws of physics changing themselves ? (Score:2, Insightful)
In other news.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In other news.. (Score:2)
Re:In other news.. (Score:2)
Not merely rational, its integral to the new world order...
Re:In other news.. (Score:2)
Re:In other news.. (Score:2)
Re:In other news.. (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe where you come from, but in California, it is 3.
Re:In other news.. (Score:5, Funny)
I remember one time, in my youth, while partaking of illicit mind-altering substances, looking at a window. More specifically, a small piece of stained-glass hanging from the window. Hanging by a suction cup.
A circular suction cup.
This piece of stained glass had been hanging on that very window for years.
Deep in thought, looking at this stained glass, I thought to myself "You know, if I was God, I'd probably round off pi to a million decimal places or so - it wouldn't really effect anything and it would make things much simpler". At which point, this stained glass, hanging from a circular suction cup, which had been there, unmoving, for years, due to a failure in the circular suction cup, fell to the ground and shattered.
I learned my lesson - don't mess with universal constants.
Re:In other news.. (Score:2)
Looks like it's time to change my handle.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Provides evidence for string theory? (Score:2)
Re:Provides evidence for string theory? (Score:3, Insightful)
JFMILLER
The universe is too low level to have strings (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Provides evidence for string theory? (Score:2)
Doesn't it?
Some comments (Score:3, Informative)
Also, with regard to string theory... well, string theory is more or less compatible with practically any scenario you can think of, because it's so flexible (to phrase it charitably). Any "new physics" can generally be claimed to "support" some string-inspired model. This does not in itself constitute strong evidence for string theory (since you can cook up specific non-string models too).
Here is a link to one string theorist's (opinionated) blog regarding this issue [blogspot.com]. He notes that this ratio being constant is also consistent with string theory (and is what he believes is likely to be true).
Other constants (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Other constants (Score:2)
Say I observe a spherical object which is impossibly perfect, matching the mathematical properties of a sphere. Now let's say the observed value of pi changes within that sphere, and as a result I observe the volume of the sphere growing while the surface area of the sphere remains constant.
You are saying: congratulations, you've changed the sphere into a non-euclidean spa
Re:Other constants (Score:2)
Re:Other constants (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Other constants (Score:3, Insightful)
Pi is not a physical constant. It is the result of a mathematical expression. It can't change.
Sure. (Score:2)
.002% change (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:.002% change (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:.002% change (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait... (Score:2)
So there's this atom .... (Score:5, Funny)
"I think I have lost an electron!"
Another atom asks..
"Are you sure?"
The atom says
"I'm positive!"
I'll be here all week, enjoy the veal.....
Re:So there's this atom .... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So there's this atom .... (Score:5, Funny)
The bartender says, "For you, no charge."
The one true constant in the universe (Score:3, Funny)
confirms an old fact (Score:2, Funny)
What's all this talk... (Score:2, Funny)
Oh.
Never mind.
The PRL paper (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~wimu/PUBS.html [nat.vu.nl]
Mind-blowing... (Score:2, Interesting)
FORTRAN (Score:5, Funny)
What is mass? (Score:5, Insightful)
But a change in the ratio of their masses might shed some light on exactly what mass is to begin with. Yes, it's the ability to curve space, and also the resistance to being accelerated. But never mind the p/e ratio being fixed, no one really understands why the individual values are what they are to begin with.
For example, something that always gets me is the muon. Identical to the electron in virtually every way (charge, apparent point-like non-structure, lepton) except is has a mass roughly 207 times as great. Why? What does it have 207 times more of than the electron does to make it 207 times more efficient at curving space? What kind of goo is there that makes it 207 times more resistant to acceleration? And if it's truly a fundamental particle, as we suspect for leptons, why 207-point-something?
It nags at me.
Just a little bit of precedent (Score:2, Informative)
Well for simple calculations about things on the earth's surface it still is, but as soon as you widen your perspective a little bit you have to start reworking where that number comes from. I don't see how this is much different than that. They look a little further and realize another 'constant' can also vary based on some principle they will hopefully figure out later with more observation.
Constant?...sounds like a Global Variable (Score:2, Interesting)
To me it sounds like these values aren't actually constants but more like global variables. No matter where you are, at any one time the value is the same. So it is constant with respect to position, motion, etc. However, across time the value can change... but it will change universally so that it remains "constant" (in the sense that I mentioned before hand).
Of course this is unfortunate because this means any sufficiently sophisticated simulator will require global variables to run. Dijkstra will be agh
Re:Constant?...sounds like a Global Variable (Score:2)
The concept of "any one time no matter where you are" is inconsistent with general relativity. Granted, GR has not been reconciled with quantum mechanics, but on the scale of galaxies Einstein still hasn't been proven wrong.
Re:Does this mean (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does this mean (Score:5, Funny)
Even if he did, he wouldn't know how to use his digits.
Re:Does this mean (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, that was true since Einstein: The value of pi as you learned it is only valid in Euklidean (flat) space, and our space is Riemannian (curved). However, to your relieve, the Riemannian space is locally Euclidean, so if you restrict yourself to a small enough volume, your 100 digits are accurate again. Unless you get into trouble with quantum physics (I'm now too lazy to calculate if you could get 100 digits of pi right on Earth without getting close to the Planck length).
Re:Does this mean (Score:2)
--jeffk++
Re:Does this mean (Score:2)
But it will be really, really, really close. Probably closer than you could get with any Pi algorithim after 100 computations.
Ten Minutes to Wapner (Score:4, Funny)
Out of curiosity, are you an excellent driver?
Grue and Bleen (Score:2)
Re:Grue and Bleen (Score:2)
Whoa, slow down cowboy - that is too radical a change in universal constants. I can accept that alpha [wikipedia.org] isn't constant, but the grue always gets you ...
Re:Grue and Bleen (Score:2)
Re:Problem of Induction (Score:2)
The solution to it has always been simple: assume that the number of correct observations with no counter observations indicates the likelyhood of something being "always". Then run with it. It's really only a problem in philosoph
Re:The Dawn of Quantish Physics ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Researchers at the Free University in Amsterdam (Score:2)
Re:Questionable (Score:2)
Re:Questionable (Score:2)
It's obvious you know so little about Relativity that you have no idea how ignorant you are. Velocities don't add by simple arithmatic at relativistic speeds; they add in such a way that the total never exceeds c. Thus, two photons, each travelling at c in opposite directions have a relative velocity of c, no matter how counter-intuitive it seems.
In my opinion, the fact that they m
Re:"If true" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This has nothing to do with Heisenberg... (Score:3, Interesting)