Constants

[Tom 1]

[="AnotherAtheist, post: 72081738, member: 199566"]Which bit?
[/QUOTE]

The quote from Sheldrake where he quotes someone with that surname

People usually challenge the scientific method when it discredits their personal beliefs. Generally they aren't able to produce any argument or solid evidence that science is getting it wrong. E.g. audiophiles who discredit double blind listening tests. E.g. homeopaths who discredit randomised controlled medical trials.

Yes, I’m sure that’s true. Generally speaking I’m not convinced that the scientific method is the best way of arriving at understanding. But that depends on the context and question at hand.

[="AnotherAtheist, post: 72081738, member: 199566"]Returning to the 'absolute truth' of constants in physics, I think this has been covered by several posters already. What more needs to be said on that topic?[/QUOTE]

Has it? I’ll read over again but I was hoping for more than it’s true because it’s true type answers. I suppose I need to put the time in and read up on this one. Thanks for your input

 

[Tom 1]

Messed up the quotes there. Hopefully it’s still intelligible

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Messed up the quotes there. Hopefully it’s still intelligible

What I posted was a paraphrase of what Sheldrake said including a direct quote from Sheldrake.

Here we have seen posts showing that the changes in the speed of light were due to increasing accuracy of measurement, plus discussion that there are circumstances where it appears that the speed of light in a vacuum can be manipulated. What else did you want?

 

[Tom 1]

What I posted was a paraphrase of what Sheldrake said including a direct quote from Sheldrake.

Here we have seen posts showing that the changes in the speed of light were due to increasing accuracy of measurement, plus discussion that there are circumstances where it appears that the speed of light in a vacuum can be manipulated. What else did you want?

There’s a mention of Someone called Wiseman, I thought you might know who that was.

Specifically, some info about the gravitational constant and how this is arrived at. I saw there was a chart detailing measurements of LS, which didn’t load when I first looked at the answer, but I was hoping to save some time by getting a fuller explanation. I could look on the internet for charts showing different data sets but to my mind that’s not really addressing what Sheldrake is talking about. I’ll just leave that one and do some more reading.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

There’s a mention of Someone called Wiseman, I thought you might know who that was.

Specifically, some info about the gravitational constant and how this is arrived at. I saw there was a chart, which didn’t load when I first looked at the answer, but I was hoping to save some time by getting a fuller explanation. I could look on the internet for charts showing different data sets but to my mind that’s not really addressing what Sheldrake is talking about. I’ll just leave that one and do some more reading.

That's Richard Wiseman. I've met him in real life.

The gravitational constant appears to vary over time, with a known period. https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html This seems consistent in description with a page by Sheldrake, except that Sheldrake appears to try to use this to call all of physics into question.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Hello,

This isn't a 'does God exist' question, I'm just interested in what people working in the field think about variations in the measurement of 'constants', specifically the speed of light and the 'big G', and what the implications are of this within the study of physics. I haven't been able to find an argument that doesn't try to either pretend the variations don't happen, dismiss them without due consideration or just refer to what someone else said and consider that as closing the argument.
I've been reading through Rupert Sheldrake's 'The Science Delusion', so that's where the question comes from,

Thanks

Tom

No constant is constant. It is simple as that.

The speed of light in a vacuum (or any media,) the gravitational constant, cosmological constants, coupling constants, structure constants, and radioactivity (attenuation, decay rates, etc.) are not constant, but approximated to well enough precision that they can be used for calculations.

At a foundation, the fine structure constant, and coupling constants are not constant. The house of cards (mass, charge, etc.) tumble from there. Field theory sort of accounts for this, but field theory is still considered green theory in academia, and the Standard Model has little room for non-constant coupling "constants" (it took a while for the SM to include a non-trivial neutrino flavor oscillation energy/mass.)


But, constants are great approximations for determining physical phenomena within a certain accepte range of error.

 

[Tom 1]

That's Richard Wiseman. I've met him in real life.

The gravitational constant appears to vary over time, with a known period. Why do measurements of the gravitational constant vary so much? | Richard Dawkins Foundation

All right, thanks. He was my psychology prof, that’s why I was asking

 

[Tom 1]

That's Richard Wiseman. I've met him in real life.

The gravitational constant appears to vary over time, with a known period. Why do measurements of the gravitational constant vary so much? | Richard Dawkins Foundation

Thanks I’ll check that article out

 

[Tom 1]

No constant is constant. It is simple as that.

The speed of light in a vacuum (or any media,) the gravitational constant, cosmological constants, coupling constants, structure constants, and radioactivity (attenuation, decay rates, etc.) are not constant, but approximated to well enough precision that they can be used for calculations.

At a foundation, the fine structure constant, and coupling constants are not constant. The house of cards (mass, charge, etc.) tumble from there. Field theory sort of accounts for this, but field theory is still considered green theory in academia, and the Standard Model has little room for non-constant coupling "constants" (it took a while for the SM to include a non-trivial neutrino flavor oscillation energy/mass.)


But, constants are great approximations for determining physical phenomena within a certain accepte range of error.

Thanks

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Thanks I’ll check that article out

I changed the link in the article into a better source. Pretty similar content, however.

 

[Tom 1]

I changed the link in the article into a better source. Pretty similar content, however.

Appreciate you making the time

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Forgot to add: The implication of non-constant constants in physics can range from minute to catastrophically misleading.

Unfortunately, because so much science is based on the superfluous (albeit somewhat dependable) use of constants, there is a strong alignment to stick to these assumptions even if it can be shown that figures and values do not remain constant over a measurable evolution of events.

This also leads to scientific dogma, and social pressure to accept what is considered status quo.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Forgot to add: The implication of non-constant constants in physics can range from minute to catastrophically misleading.

Unfortunately, because so much science is based on the superfluous (albeit somewhat dependable) use of constants, there is a strong alignment to stick to these assumptions even if it can be shown that figures and values do not remain constant over a measurable evolution of events.

This also leads to scientific dogma, and social pressure to accept what is considered status quo.

If you look at who is measuring the variation in constants, and investigating what is happening, it's scientists. There is no dogma nor pressure to accept any sort of status quo. The scientists doing this work are publishing in journals, and others are free to repeat their work.

There is no indication that I can see in the work reported that will overturn anything in physics. Rather I only see research that can help us understand the Earth's gravitational field and the nature of light in more detail.

The speed of light was already known to not be a constant. We've just learnt more about what makes it vary. So, I can't see why Sheldrake and others paint these results as so much more important than they are.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Could you explain how those ideas can be specifically applied to Sheldrake and his published work?

It should be pretty clear. Sheldrake is a biologist, so he has no expertise in measuring the speed of light. You quoted his idea as published in a popular book, not an academic publication.

 

[Tom 1]

Forgot to add: The implication of non-constant constants in physics can range from minute to catastrophically misleading.

Unfortunately, because so much science is based on the superfluous (albeit somewhat dependable) use of constants, there is a strong alignment to stick to these assumptions even if it can be shown that figures and values do not remain constant over a measurable evolution of events.

This also leads to scientific dogma, and social pressure to accept what is considered status quo.

That’s the kind of thing my grandad used to say

 

[Ygrene Imref]

If you look at who is measuring the variation in constants, and investigating what is happening, it's scientists. There is no dogma nor pressure to accept any sort of status quo. The scientists doing this work are publishing in journals, and others are free to repeat their work.

Academia is peer reviewed.

There is no indication that I can see in the work reported that will overturn anything in physics. Rather I only see research that can help us understand the Earth's gravitational field and the nature of light in more detail.

Coupling constants are not constant. This affects "gravitation" itself on a fundamental level. The implications of mass, for example, being nonconstant is enough to cause serious ripples in physics as we know it today.

The speed of light was already known to not be a constant. We've just learnt more about what makes it vary. So, I can't see where why (and Sheldrake) paint these results as so much more important than they are.

The phase velocity of light in a medium can be approximated based on how light interacts with its surroundings, but it is not constant - even in a vacuum. Moreover, there is no accounting for bradyon or tachyon behavior - light is assumed to move uniformly in a respective medium.

 

[Tom 1]

It should be pretty clear. Sheldrake is a biologist, so he has no expertise in measuring the speed of light. You quoted his idea as published in a popular book, not an academic publication.

Yes, you might be right

 

[Ygrene Imref]

That’s the kind of thing my grandad used to say

Was your patriarch an academic, philosopher or civilian?

 

[Tom 1]

Was your patriarch an academic, philosopher or civilian?

Varied career - Chemist involved in the team developing spitfire fuel - Brigadier helping to rebuild religious buildings in Dresden and other German cities after the war - Oxford grad in Theology - Baptist minister - translator of some of the works of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Wish I’d been able to get to know him better.

 

[Tom 1]

Obituary: The Rev Edwin Robertson