Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 04/12/2005 View Mon 04/11/2005 View Sun 04/10/2005 View Sat 04/09/2005 View Fri 04/08/2005 View Thu 04/07/2005 View Wed 04/06/2005
1
2005-04-12 Home Front: Tech
Universal Constant May Not Be As Constant As Previously Thought
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Anonymoose 2005-04-12 11:36:08 AM|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Dang! Can't depend on anything these days . . . .
Posted by Mike  2005-04-12 12:12:50 PM||   2005-04-12 12:12:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 I bet the left will find a way to blame President Bush. "If only he hadn't repudiated Kyoto . . . ."
Posted by Tibor 2005-04-12 1:28:29 PM||   2005-04-12 1:28:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Anonymoose, so... you would adhere to theoretical considerations rather than accept observations?

Granted, the observations may not be what they seem. The main problem seems to be with the interpretation of Doppler's Red Shift. It is believed that it reflects the distance in time and space--more red shift is interpreted as more distance and thus age. I did not make a mistake when I said 'it is believed', because that is exactly what it is. However, observations do not seem to support this belief. When you find a galaxy with a jet sprite that is in front of it and is more red-shifted than galaxy, 'Houston, we have a problem'. Also, red shift seems to be quantized, which brings anuther can of worms forth.

There are many other discrepancies, but the red shift example illustrates that we may need to accept that our cosmological ideas will need a drastic reevaluation very soon. I'd venture to say that we've got most of our established 'facts' simply wrong.
Posted by Sobiesky 2005-04-12 1:57:05 PM||   2005-04-12 1:57:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Sobiesky-
Doppler shifts are due to relative motion, not distance. A red shift is due to something moving away from the observer and a blue shift is due to something moving towards the observer.
Posted by Spot  2005-04-12 2:23:17 PM||   2005-04-12 2:23:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Spot, yes, relative motion... and based on that, you extrapolate the distance in time and space.

But, A red shift is due to something moving away from the observer and a blue shift is due to something moving towards the observer. this widely accepted wisdom may not be true, based on latest observations. The quantized red/blue shift may be property of an entirely different process.
Posted by Sobiesky 2005-04-12 2:46:15 PM||   2005-04-12 2:46:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 The fine structure constant is a product of several other constants, which means that if this is true, one (or more) of the underlying 'constants' has changed over time. It's possible that they're actually themselves the result of some other underlying set of constants, produced by a formula that depends (perhaps indirectly) on something like the size of the universe or density of matter.

The values of the constants that make up alpha are critical to the viability of life. If some of them were slightly off, we would not have certain important things like large nuclei and complex hydrocarbons. We're in a "sweet spot" that might not have always existed.
Posted by Dishman  2005-04-12 2:48:04 PM||   2005-04-12 2:48:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 This is SOOOOOO cool. High energy physics, cosmology and p chem. Where else but Rantburg?

I would suggest, as a rank amateur, that the solution involves a process that changes over time, but so slowly that we [being so short lived] cannot measure it as yet. What would your observations of an ice cube at 1 degree C be if you only lived for a nanosecond? Could you tell that it was melting?

The red/blus shift is produced by a device in every Galactic Patrol vehicle that changes the traffic light as the vehicle approaches.
Posted by Chuck Simmins  2005-04-12 3:32:36 PM|| [http://blog.simmins.org]  2005-04-12 3:32:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Dishman, I see what you are trying to say... that there may have been a shift in several constants simultaneusly that would facilitate the transition and not necessarily preclude existence of life in the previous configuration. One may argue that a substantial shift over just minute variances would preclude life, basta. However, I would qualify it as "life as we know it".

It is possible that another set of values of universal constants may establish conditions that would result in processes that may be called life. We don't know. We just know our specific configuration and are certain that is conductive to life, QED.

I think that the reading of alpha constant was, possibly, skewed and that it is, in fact, constant in our corner of universe. But the problem should be thoroughly investigated, before reaching some conclusion either way--in fact, leaving it open ended may be the best course for a while.

There are other things, though, that we seem to be certain of and they may be not so certain.
Posted by Sobiesky 2005-04-12 3:35:27 PM||   2005-04-12 3:35:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I always thought there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe.
Posted by Jeamp Ebbereting9442 2005-04-12 4:02:10 PM||   2005-04-12 4:02:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Reminds me of a Peanuts strip I read long ago: Charlie Brown is talking to Linus and tells him how he read that scientists think the force of gravity on Earth is gradually weakening and is less than it was millions of years ago. Linus runs off and comes back with a ball, which he drops and observes: "Hmmmm, they're right."
Posted by Xbalanke  2005-04-12 4:02:41 PM||   2005-04-12 4:02:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Jeamp Ebbereting9442, I reckon that you are applying an anthropic principle here. ;-)
Posted by Sobiesky 2005-04-12 4:05:59 PM||   2005-04-12 4:05:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 
Posted by .com 2005-04-12 4:25:54 PM||   2005-04-12 4:25:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Thinking further...
IIUC, Hubble and those who followed based their work on spectral lines to determine red shift.

If they're getting a different value for alpha... that would suggest that maybe something was different which affects the spectral lines... which would mean that our basis for determining red shift was off.

It would be like finding out you had been looking at the world through a low magnification lens.

I've got some vague notion that something could fall out of this that helps explain the uniformity of cosmic background radiation, and lower the upper bounds on some of terms in Drake's Equation. We might even actually be at (or near) the center of the universe. That's all just wild speculation, though.
Posted by Dishman  2005-04-12 4:26:45 PM||   2005-04-12 4:26:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Wow, after reading all this RB commentary, all I can add is:
So, anybody see Tigers chip at the 16th???
Posted by Capsu78 2005-04-12 5:00:19 PM||   2005-04-12 5:00:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Dishman, Determining R/B shift's fine. We just have no clue what it signifies.

As for the center of the universe, relative to what? I mean, how you can find a center on a structure that really does not have any? You mean Big Bang origin in S/T continuum? A) Metaphysical conjecture; and B) How do you propose we stayed nearby the dot after the wholesale expansion? In fact, the uniformity of backround radiation giveth the Big Bada Boom idea a foot to trip over.

Well, I have an explanation for uniformity of backgroud radiation, but no one wants to hear it! LOL
Posted by Sobiesky 2005-04-12 5:21:03 PM||   2005-04-12 5:21:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 OK, before the universe messes up its alphas I better have another beer. Sounds like a line I haven't used yet.
Posted by True German Ally 2005-04-12 5:27:34 PM||   2005-04-12 5:27:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Dishman, one more thing... IMHO, Drake equation is a crap. It is based on a whole set of ideas that may have no reflection in reality.

As you said, this universe may be a sweet place fine-tuned for teeming with life. That does not mean our planet is a typical example. I would tend to think it is closer to the harsher boundary that specifies optimum conditions. We are searching all quadrants for radio signals. We did not find one that may be interpreted as intelligent message, yet. It may mean that we are alone at this juncture in time at the specific civilization level. But it may, OTOH, mean that we are in an atypical planetary configuration and that expecting radio messages may be unwarranted.
Posted by Sobiesky 2005-04-12 5:38:46 PM||   2005-04-12 5:38:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 When I said "we", I only referred to us turkeys.

Lowering uppper bounds on Drake's would have the effect of reducing our estimated probability of other life.

For myself, I'm fairly confident that, contrary to claims of others, the universe was not created 20 minutes ago by the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The current concept I use as a holding place is that the universe can be described in terms of a mathematical function, and that the validity of that function is sufficient for its existence, independent of any evaluation. The universe is interesting because it supports intelligent life.
Posted by Dishman  2005-04-12 7:16:46 PM||   2005-04-12 7:16:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Dishman, I don't like to sound polemic, but...

I would say that probability of other life in the universe is almost certain--the ingredients are extremely conductive to that status quo. Less certain are occurences of civilizations comparable to ours, that is at the similar state of development. I already told you what I think of Drake's equation, lowering some values or not may not be related to any portion of reality. GIGO.

The current concept I use as a holding place is that the universe can be described in terms of a mathematical function

Quite possibly. I haven't really seen it yet.

and that the validity of that function is sufficient for its existence, independent of any evaluation.

Going in circles? Actually, this IS Pink Unicorn, except you do not specify its delta t! LOL

Math is a cool proxy, but a proxy nevertheless. It allows us to create models of reality. That is all to it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by Sobiesky 2005-04-12 8:08:18 PM||   2005-04-12 8:08:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 "It allows us to create models of reality."
And sometimes models that have more to do with politics than reality (e.g., global warming).
Posted by Tom 2005-04-12 8:27:58 PM||   2005-04-12 8:27:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Tom, unfortunately, most of the time. That is also valid for the academe niveuau, as well.
Posted by Sobiesky 2005-04-12 8:55:31 PM||   2005-04-12 8:55:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 This research is several years old now, and still unconfirmed. There's a possibility that there may be experimental error associated with the instrument. If I recall correctly, right now there is only one instrument capable of doing their observations. If that instrument has a systematic error, their results may be wrong.

The constant in question here is the speed of light (which is contained in the fine structure constant).

It's not the red shift per se that they're measuring (although they do that too), but the distance between the two lines in various doublets in quasar absorption spectra. (Many ions produce two -- or even three -- closely spaced spectral lines from the same electronic transition; these are called doublets or triplets.) The space between the lines is determined by the fine structure constant.

If the speed of light is not a constant, the doublet spacing from distant objects will be different from that of nearer objects.

It'll be a very exciting result if true, but I'm waiting for a bit more data.
Posted by Angie Schultz 2005-04-12 9:56:28 PM|| [http://darkblogules.blogspot.com]  2005-04-12 9:56:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 There's a saying which I heard attributed to Einstein (though I haven't succeeded in tracing it): "A theory is believed by nobody except its creator. An experiment is believed by everybody except the experimenter."
Posted by James  2005-04-12 10:35:56 PM|| [http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]  2005-04-12 10:35:56 PM|| Front Page Top

00:15 Desert Blondie
00:02 Bomb-a-rama
23:54 Desert Blondie
23:49 Bomb-a-rama
23:43 3dc
23:13 Jame Retief
23:09 .com
23:06 Dennis Kucinich
22:58 phil_b
22:50 Whutch Sneth6118
22:35 James
22:33 Jonathan
22:30 RWV
22:19 Financial Advisor
22:07 Frank G
22:04 Pappy
21:58 Sock Puppet 0’ Doom
21:56 Angie Schultz
21:54 thibaud (aka lex)
21:50 thibaud (aka lex)
21:47 Sock Puppet 0’ Doom
21:45 thibaud (aka lex)
21:43 Jackal
21:40 Jackal









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com