A Constant of Nature May Vary in Different Parts of the Universe

[n2doc]

Data from the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile to analyze the light from distant quasars, which shows that one of the constants of nature appears to be different in different parts of the cosmos, supports the theory that our solar system is an area of the Universe that is "just right" for life; which negates Einstein's equivalence principle, which states that the laws of physics are the same everywhere.

"This finding was a real surprise to everyone," says John Webb of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. The change in the constant appears to have an orientation, creating a "preferred direction", or axis, across the cosmos, an idea that was dismissed more than 100 years ago with the creation of Einstein's special theory of relativity.

The report describes how the "magic number" known as the fine-structure constant –- dubbed alpha for short –- appears to vary throughout the Universe, says the team from the University of New South Wales, Swinburne University of Technology and the University of Cambridge. The work is currently under peer review.

“After measuring alpha in around 300 distant galaxies, a consistency emerged: this magic number, which tells us the strength of electromagnetism, is not the same everywhere as it is here on Earth, and seems to vary continuously along a preferred axis through the Universe,” said Webb.

more
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/05/-epic-finding-a-constant-of-nature-may-vary-in-different-parts-of-the-universe.html#more

[ananda]

1. Wow.

It almost speaks for an anthropic principle.

[MineralMan]

2. If that's the case, then it isn't actually a constant,

and should be taken of the list of constants.

Science is always working to falsify theories. When evidence demonstrates that a theory is false by finding an example where it doesn't apply, the theory is no longer a valid one.

If it isn't constant, it's not a constant in physics.

[DavidDvorkin]

3. Fascinating, but we'll see if this holds up

Fundies will jump on it immediately, I suppose.

[Rabblevox]

4. I still think Terry Pratchett was right, and we are living on the back of a giant space turtle. n/t

[Tesha]

8. And it's turtles all the way down! (NT)

[qazplm]

5. goes back to C not being constant too right

since it is a part of alpha.

The more we learn, the more we learn we don't know much.

[laconicsax]

6. Or it could be the magnetic constant or electric constant.

Or it could be a problem with the data.

[qazplm]

7. a lot of folks have thought

C might not have always been its present value for a long time, so it wouldn't be surprising to see it be a factor in the change of alpha if determined to be true.

[laconicsax]

9. Doesn't a constant value for c emerge from Maxwell's equations?

Without a constant value for c, much of what we've discovered since the mid-19th century is wrong.

[jberryhill]

10. It falls out of the electrostatic permittivity and magnetic permeability of free space

...if they vary, c varies, and Maxwell's equations are the same as they are in any non-homogeneous medium.

[laconicsax]

13. Ok, that still ends up affecting a lot of stuff, right?

I mean, if alpha varies, we're talking a revolution in physics, right?

[jberryhill]

14. I wouldn't call in late for work claiming time is passing more slowly at your house...

...if that's what you had in mind.

[laconicsax]

15. Crap...I'd better get dressed. n/t

[qazplm]

16. yes but not French revolution

more like a revolutionary new product from Whamco.

I mean it's important if true, and it would mean changes in physics, but I don't think it would mean anything huge in the sense I think you are meaning.

[laconicsax]

17. A variable c would force a dramatic change in a lot of areas.

Anything defined by c would need to be reworked or tossed out--the Planck constant would become variable for starters. The energy of photons would no longer be determinable by frequency alone since frequency is dependent on the ratio of c to wavelength. Relativity is out, as is much of cosmology.

[jberryhill]

18. You know the creationists have been arguing this for a long time /nt

[laconicsax]

19. Yes, I do. The last thing they need is ammo.

[jberryhill]

20. Reminds me of an old charity campaign

I am told that a collection of physics grad students would keep a donation jar in their lab for visiting dignitaries and prospective student tours which read:

"Help Fight Anisotropy"

[qazplm]

21. I dont know that relativity is "out"

I don't think Einstein's theories require C to be exactly the number it is. I think if C was widely variable over short time periods then maybe, but we are probably talking small differences over a long, long time.

[laconicsax]

22. Relativity is based, in part, on symmetry.

Symmetry essentially says that the results of a test don't change based on where you are. If alpha (or c) vary based on location, then symmetry (which also underlies particle physics) is out.

[trotsky]

11. "Or it could be a problem with the data."

Perish the thought!

[caraher]

12. The value of alpha has a long history

For a long time there was a sentiment that it should be 1/137 because it was so close to that exact value.

Others have suggested observations imply alpha may not be the same everywhere/everywhen, but what's really interesting about this is the idea that there's a systematic variation in its value:

The team's analysis of around 300 measurements of alpha in light coming from various points in the sky suggests the variation is not random but structured, like a bar magnet. The Universe seems to have a large alpha on one side and a smaller alpha on the other.

This "dipole" alignment nearly matches that of a stream of galaxies mysteriously moving towards the edge of the Universe. It does not, however, line up with another unexplained dipole, dubbed the axis of evil, in the afterglow of the big bang.

At this stage I'm still inclined to look for explanations that would leave it a "true" constant... This "stream of galaxies" correlation is pretty interesting; maybe there's some physics in that which could explain more than one observation...

[eppur_se_muova]

23. You know what's weird? My first thought was "I wonder if it's the fine structure constant?"...

It's the first dimensionless constant I learned about ... no better reason than that, though. :shrug: