Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

So, say the Fine Structure Constant is not a Constant

  1. Apr 11, 2005 #1
    Did we still have a big bang?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 11, 2005 #2
    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: Apr 11, 2005
  4. Apr 11, 2005 #3

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What do you mean by "not a constant" ?
     
  5. Apr 11, 2005 #4
    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: Apr 11, 2005
  6. Apr 11, 2005 #5
    I was prompted by this story : -

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1456747,00.html

    I understand that theories that suggest that the big bang happened are strongly backed up by observations, but are there many of these observations that could be scientists seeing what they want to see?
     
  7. Apr 11, 2005 #6
    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.
     
  8. Apr 11, 2005 #7

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think yes, we still have big bang.
     
  9. Apr 11, 2005 #8
    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 univers histories (and futures) to three. And they all predict a big bang.
     
  10. Apr 12, 2005 #9

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  11. Apr 12, 2005 #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
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: So, say the Fine Structure Constant is not a Constant
Loading...