First off I should mention physics is not my expertise and the class I am presenting this argument to knows not much more of physics than Newton's laws. Anyway, for this English class, we were supposed to pick a topic and write a well-constructed research paper, and of course I picked something I knew the instructor would be less likely to criticise being the humanities person that he is. The paper is due in a week or so and I have to give an oral summary of the paper, but as I've not finished the paper I would like to get some opinions on this (moot) discussion: What ramifications on physics might there be should the fine structure constant be found to vary slightly with time, as suggested by some experiments of absorption lines of far-away quasars? (see information presented by Webb et al here http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0210/0210531.pdf [Broken] ) Here are some of the conclusions I have personally made, and some I used in my research discussed by Rich here http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=AJPIAS000071000010001043000001&idtype=cvips [Broken] ) Please tell me if the links don't work because my University subscribes to several services that I get automatically logged into. I tried to choose the most direct link possible. I would like criticisms on any conclusions you think I am unfounded in making: If alpha varies with respect to time 1. Since alpha is a dimensionless quantity in all known dimensions, it must be affected by an unreferenced dimension, and that the time variation is just an indirect result of the variance in this unseen dimension (I'm told string theory allows for this sort of conclusion but I don't plan on mentioning that in the paper since I don't understand it at all) 2. Since many fundamental constants with dimensions to them (G, c, etc) may be written in partial terms of alpha, these values would then be predicted to change with time. 3. Going off of 2 and 1, relativistic equations, which make liberal use of planck's constant as well as c, are only approximations that fail to take into account the dimensions referred to in 1. An important consequence (that I take out of context a little) would be the violation of the Einstein Energy Principle without appropriate reform to the equation (the first part of which ZapperZ and Crosson pointed out in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=64313&highlight=light+variable ) I think those three are the crux of what I had to say. The rest of the paper discusses a variation in standards used to measure alpha to explain a perceived change in alpha over time, such as a very slight deviation of the second or the meter, as well as the possibility of scientists jumping on bandwagons to confirm crazy theories and fudging results in order to agree with the temper of the times. Any criticisms would be greatly appreciated, even if they include "This is the most incorrect set of sentences I have ever laid eyes on". I understand most of what I'm trying to understand is way out of my league, but it's a learning process and I wouldn't want to pass on my misunderstandings to others.