Scientists Question Laws of Nature 314
mknewman writes "MSNBC is reporting that scientists are finding differences in many of the current scientific 'constants' including the speed of light, alpha (the fine structure constant of the magnetic force), the ratio of proton to electron mass and several others. These findings were made by observing quasars and comparing the results to tests here on the earth." From the article: "Time-varying constants of nature violate Einstein's equivalence principle, which says that any experiment testing nuclear or electromagnetic forces should give the same result no matter where or when it is performed. If this principle is broken, then two objects dropped in a gravitational field should fall at slightly different rates. Moreover, Einstein's gravitational theory -- general relativity -- would no longer be completely correct, Martins says."
12 Billion Year Old Light & the Expanding Univ (Score:5, Insightful)
I recall reading that as a universe expands or contracts, the constants would theoretically change to adjust to the expansion or contraction of the basic building blocks of matter.
Is it possible that the measuring instruments failed here? I thought that was always a possibility in observations. Is it also possible that the quasars we are observing are differing light years away and thus we are making observations based on data from several billion years ago (as the article states)?
Yes, I think that there is call for speculation on the constants varying over billions of years since the light we are observing is roughly 12 billion years old and all our observations here on earth remain static.
Title is pretty circular (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't "questioning laws of nature" by definition what scientists do? Question, hypothesis, experiment, theory, law, lather, rinse, repeat - right?
scientific method (Score:3, Insightful)
Err.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Look out at the stars. You're seeing them as they appeared several million or billion years ago. The light that you now see from the sun is 8 minutes old, for comparison. All the data we collect from outer space is historical information--how the universe was in the past.
Re:This is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Chaos Theory (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an incorrect interpretation. Some things are chaotic, and some are not. Things that are chaotic have regimes where they behave chaotically and regimes where they do not.
Also, you don't need a fart or butterfly wing to make a coupled pendulum sensitive to initial conditions, the simple fact that it's impossible to exactly replicate the position is enough. any difference, even a single atom's width, will lead to paths in phase space which eventually diverge.
What a load of bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they won't be shot. Stephen Hawking has challenged Einstein's theories and been wrong about nearly everything he's ever proposed, and he's still considered a good physicist. It's okay to challenge the dominant theory, just as long as you have good evidence to back it up, and your theory explains something that nothing else does. Bad science is done with poor or no evidence, explains even less than the current theory, and is usually presented to the general public without peer review. When confronted with evidence that proves their theory false, good scientists concede, while bad scientists wail on about scientific orthodoxy and appeal to popular opinion.
Re:Interesting Things Happen At Excessive Scales (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:12 Billion Year Old Light & the Expanding U (Score:5, Insightful)
This is really the crux of a measurement. How many assumptions from the model are used to make the measurement? In an ideal experiment, the measurement itself is what verifies or falsifies the model, but in reality there are usually other parameters that are needed as inputs to the experiment that are computed using the model, thus the model dependence. I'm in experimental high energy particle physics and we worry about this every day, and try to reduce the number of theoretical inputs needed to make sense of our data. I'm sure the astronomers do likewise, but sometimes inputs are unavoidable. This doesn't make the measurement invalid because a model should be self consistent as well. So if you correctly compute the inputs using the model, and your results still differ from the model then some double checking of everything needs to be done because the model is showing a flaw. The true size of the flaw is the really hard thing to quantify because all of the quatities are model-dependent. In the end this could turn out to be nothing or the start of something.
I welcome all chinks in scientific theories because it generally leads to new scientific understanding and a new round of theories and models. Really that's what science is all about. In my field, we all hope that the LHC finds the Higgs, that will solidify the Standard Model, but we also hope that it finds lots of things that don't fit the Standard Model, that would point the direction for future discovery. If we didn't find anything unusual at the LHC it might put a huge damper on particle physics, and I'd have to switch areas of research.
Re:two objects dropped in a gravitational field (Score:3, Insightful)
The Jupiter ball will indeed 'exert more gravity force', however, the extra masses involve require extra energy to accelerate. Drop a 1kg ball, 9.8m/s/s. drop a 2 kg ball, 9.8m/s/s. Twice the mass in the 2kg, but twice the force required to create the same acceleration.
You are wrong, have a nice day
Remember: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Physical laws are not "wrong" (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying science is arbitrary, far from it. I think with each revolution and paradigm change we sprial in closer to the point of parity with actual physical fact (though I doubt our knowledge will ever be completely certain, or complete). I don't think there will ever be a point where there is nothing new, or no new fact to through the whole scientific mess into disarry again.
It seems to be a thing of great confusion with many physicists, and scientists, that the models that they create are nothing but that, models. E=mc^2 does not exist in reality, it exists as an abstraction in the mind of Man, it is a model of observed process (or deduced, in this case).
That said, needlessly, I do like your pragmatic statement. Newton is valid here, Einstein becomes more valid (in terms of application) under the incluence of strong gravitation or high acceleration (and relativistic speeds), Quantum physics become valid when we shrink down below the point where gravitation plays an important role.
Re:two objects dropped in a gravitational field (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Difference between "ARE" and "MAY" (Score:3, Insightful)
See -- it's perfectly simple! : )
Re:Offtopic? Maybe.... SM not working. (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe the problem you point out is in the popular press. They have a habit of making science stories seem absolute, and then take great delight in reporting when these absolutes no longer seem to be valid. But that problem doesn't just apply to SM.
And offtoptic, but I have to mention it. Why, since a month or so ago, do I have to use <P><P> for my first paragraph break but just a single <P> thereafter. It's very annoying!