Confirmation of varying fine-structure constant

  • Thread starter Thread starter TrickyDicky
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Constant
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the implications of a potentially varying fine-structure constant, as suggested by recent findings. The discussion references the work of Webb, who posits that this variation could indicate an infinite universe, particularly in relation to FRW models with flat and hyperbolic spatial curvature. Participants express skepticism regarding the validity of the findings, emphasizing the need for independent measurements and a broader observational base, particularly concerning quasars near the poles of the proposed dipole. The variation is quantified as potentially being up to 50 parts per million, raising questions about the stability of fundamental constants such as e, Eo, hbar, or c over cosmic time.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the fine-structure constant and its significance in physics.
  • Familiarity with the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric and cosmological models.
  • Knowledge of the Einstein equivalence principle and its implications.
  • Basic concepts of quasar observation and their relevance in astrophysics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of varying fundamental constants in cosmology.
  • Study the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) models in detail.
  • Investigate independent measurements of the fine-structure constant across different cosmic epochs.
  • Explore the observational techniques used in quasar studies, particularly in relation to dipole anisotropies.
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, physicists, and cosmologists interested in the implications of fundamental constants, as well as researchers examining the stability of physical laws across the universe.

TrickyDicky
Messages
3,507
Reaction score
28
http://theconversation.edu.au/is-life-on-earth-due-to-a-quirk-in-the-laws-of-physics-4153

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.3907v2.pdf

Also discussed here:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/

Certainly this has a lot of far reaching implications (perhaps even more than FTL neutrinos): but I have some questions: Webb says one consequence/explanation of this could be that our universe is infinite, I fail to see how this is a surprise, actually the FRW universes with flat and hyperbolic spatial curvature (open universes) are infinite, right?
Also when it says that this finding breaks the Equivalence principle I guess he is referring to the "Einstein equivalence principle" (see wikipedia) version that I think is basically WEP+Lorent invariance?

ADDED: I have just seen a similar thread has been opened in the astrophysics subforum, I leave it to the Mentors to decide whether to merge my post or not.
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
The fine structure constant could have varied by up to 50 parts per million.
So one or more of e, Eo, hbar, or c have changed over the history of the universe?

A new breed of Astro Physicst?
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/
 
I'm still exceedingly suspicious of this result. It looks like the result comes out of just a handful of the total quasars observed (most of the quasars observed lie along the equatorial plane, with just a few in the direction where the dipole is claimed to be).

I probably won't be convinced without some independent measure of the fine structure constant. And I'd also like to see far more quasars observed near the poles of this estimated dipole.
 
Chalnoth said:
I'm still exceedingly suspicious of this result. It looks like the result comes out of just a handful of the total quasars observed (most of the quasars observed lie along the equatorial plane, with just a few in the direction where the dipole is claimed to be).

I probably won't be convinced without some independent measure of the fine structure constant. And I'd also like to see far more quasars observed near the poles of this estimated dipole.
Of course it is a suspicious finding, and I agree the fact that it has a dipole form makes it even more so (it would seem that such a departure from isotropy would have been observed in other ways), they probably jump to quickly to the conclusion that "the strength of electromagnetism changes gradually from one “side” of the universe to another".
There's also something odd about the dipole equator in that it seems to follow the ecliptic.
 
I always thought it was odd that we know dark energy expands our universe, and that we know it has been increasing over time, yet no one ever expressed a "true" size of the universe (not "observable" universe, the ENTIRE universe) by just reversing the process of expansion based on our understanding of its rate through history, to the point where everything would've been in an extremely small region. The more I've looked into it recently, I've come to find that it is due to that "inflation"...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
124
Views
23K
Replies
74
Views
14K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 163 ·
6
Replies
163
Views
27K
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K