So, say the Fine Structure Constant is not a Constant

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of the Fine Structure Constant potentially not being a constant, particularly in relation to the Big Bang theory and fundamental physical constants such as the unit charge, Planck's constant, and the speed of light. Participants explore theoretical interpretations, observational evidence, and the robustness of existing cosmological models.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the Big Bang still occurred if the Fine Structure Constant is not constant, suggesting that this could lead to alternative interpretations of redshift data.
  • One participant proposes that variations in electromagnetic strength over time could explain redshift without invoking cosmic expansion.
  • Concerns are raised about how such a theory would account for the successes of the Big Bang theory, including the relative abundance of elements and the cosmic microwave background radiation.
  • Another participant notes that while many exotic theories emerge, they often lack longevity and that the foundational aspects of current paradigms are well-established.
  • Some participants assert that the Big Bang theory is still supported by a significant amount of observational evidence, despite potential biases in interpretation.
  • There is a discussion about the potential consequences of varying fundamental constants, such as the unit charge, Planck's constant, and the speed of light, on the formation of atoms and the conditions necessary for life on Earth.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the Big Bang theory in light of the possibility that fundamental constants may not be constant. There is no consensus on the implications of this idea, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions and interpretations regarding the nature of the universe and the implications of changing fundamental constants, but these remain unresolved within the discussion.

prj45
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Did we still have a big bang?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Would this be because the unit charge, Planck's constant or the speed of light is not constant or some combination of them would not be constant?
 
Last edited:
prj45 said:
Did we still have a big bang?
What do you mean by "not a constant" ?
 
My guess (because your question is far from having only one interpretation) is that you propose that the Big Bang theory could result from erroneous interpretation of data due to the failure to consider the possibility that the EM strength has evolved with time. If my assumption is correct, I understand that you refer to the red-shift, that could thus be explained without expansion.

Let us assume your theory does explain the redshift. What do you do with the other major achievements of the Bigf Bang theory ? How do you explain the relative abundance of elements ? Where does the cosmological background come from ?

Plus the fact that, the farther one looks, the jounger observed structures are. There are several unanswered questions about the Big Bang theory, but it occurs to be very robust an hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
This is far from being the most exotic or revolutionnary ever. Actually, every month one can contemplate this kind of exotic proposal. Strangely enough, most of them disappear as fast as they poped up :rolleyes: It is very healthy that the community constantly questions the very fundations of our paradigms. Maybe unfortunately for people who like changes, but fortunately for student who aim at learning something worth, those fundations are very well grounded.

The guardian is not a very authoritative scientific reference.
 
I think yes, we still have big bang.
 
Assuming the universe looks the same in all directions, and that there is just as much matter here as over there, it is possible to narrow the possible number of universe histories (and futures) to three. And they all predict a big bang.
 
  • #10
if the unit charge were larger or smaller by only a small amount then atoms molecules could not form.

if Planck's constant, h, or the speed of light were varied by only a small amount then the conversion of mass to energy in our star the sun would result in the Earth being to cold or hot to support life.

peace and love,
and,
love and peace,
(kirk) kirk gregory czuhai
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Fine Structure Constant - 10 steps
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Can we now explain the Fine Structure Constant?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Undergrad Role of Fine Structure Constant in Q.E.D.?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Graduate Feynman loop diagrams and Dyson series for anomalous magnetic moment
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
6K
Undergrad Planck's Constant times the speed of light
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
Undergrad Calculating the fine structure constant in Feynman diagrams
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Is the fine structure constant the biggest myth ever?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Undergrad Chunks of action smaller than Planck's constant
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
High School Alpha is 1/137th of what? (Fine Structure Constant)
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Undergrad Dimensionless vs. dimensional "constants"
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K