Constants

[Radagast]

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.

Quoting from that link:

scientists have found that the measured G values oscillate over time like a sine wave with a period of 5.9 years. It's not G itself that is varying by this much, they propose, but more likely something else is affecting the measurements.

 

[Radagast]

the fine structure constant, and coupling constants are not constant.

Experiments looking for variation in the fine structure constant suggest that the most likely value for the rate of change is zero.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Quoting from that link:

scientists have found that the measured G values oscillate over time like a sine wave with a period of 5.9 years. It's not G itself that is varying by this much, they propose, but more likely something else is affecting the measurements.

Yes, it does say that. It's similar to the changes of the speed of light. The fundamental speed of light in a vacuum remains the same. It's just that there may be more factors that affect the speed of light than just the medium it travels through. In both cases, basic physics is not changing. It's just details.

 

[Gene2memE]

The universal constants aren't necessarily absolutely fixed - there are several that have demonstrated either change over time, or an oscillation. These include the gravitational constant, the fine-structure constant, the cosmological constant and the proton-to-electron mass ratio.

These changes are infinitesimally small though. So small that we have a REALLY hard time telling if these are actually changing, or its just variability in our measurements, experimental error, something affecting the instruments, or our ability to describe the constant accurately.

The changes that have been observed are also so small, that for all practical purposes, they're irrelevant.

For something like the proton-to-electron mass ratio, observations of ancient stars have given us an estimated change of ten to the negative 17 per year. That is a 0.00000000000000001% change per year. So, in the last billion years, the proton-to-electron mass ratio has maybe changed by as much as 0.00000001%.

For the constants that we've been able to test over time, this is about as wild a change as we've been able to observe.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There are plenty of people who have good educations but still completely forget about rigour and seemingly any sort of scientific validity. In my personal opinion, Dr. Georgia Purdom is a good example of that.

It means that we can't just take their work at face value. Which we shouldn't do for ANY person, scientist or not.

There's quite a roll-call of scientific high achievers who became famously successful, then went on to support unlikely or pseudoscientific fringe ideas or make fools of themselves, often in other domains. Just off the top of my head, I can think of David Bohm, Fred Hoyle, Eric Laithewaite, Linus Pauling, Roger Penrose... there are others.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

There's quite a roll-call of scientific high achievers who became famously successful, then went on to support unlikely or pseudoscientific fringe ideas or make fools of themselves, often in other domains. Just off the top of my head, I can think of David Bohm, Fred Hoyle, Eric Laithewaite, Linus Pauling, Roger Penrose... there are others.

Most of those I recognise. But, what did Roger Penrose do other than try and deny that AI would ever get anywhere?

EDIT: Oh, Quantum Consciousness.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Experiments looking for variation in the fine structure constant suggest that the most likely value for the rate of change is zero.

It isn't zero because the coupling constant(s) depend on energy scaling. They aren't constant, and therefore the coupling constant relationship to structure is non-constant.

Structure constants are postulated to be constant in QM, but they are not necessarily constant in QFT/QED/QCD at all.

 

[Radagast]

The universal constants aren't necessarily absolutely fixed - there are several that have demonstrated either change over time, or an oscillation. These include the gravitational constant

Most likely is that the gravitational constant is constant and there is a periodic change in the earth (given that the oscillation relates to periodic changes in the earth's spin).

the fine-structure constant

The most likely rate of change for the fine-structure constant is zero.

So small that we have a REALLY hard time telling if these are actually changing, or its just variability in our measurements, experimental error, something affecting the instruments, or our ability to describe the constant accurately.

Exactly.

For something like the proton-to-electron mass ratio, observations of ancient stars have given us an estimated change of ten to the negative 17 per year. That is a 0.00000000000000001% change per year. So, in the last billion years, the proton-to-electron mass ratio has maybe changed by as much as 0.00000001%.

The latest measured change is actually zero plus or minus 10^-7.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Most of those I recognise. But, what did Roger Penrose do other than try and deny that AI would ever get anywhere?

EDIT: Oh, Quantum Consciousness.

Yeah - Orch-OR.

 

[Radagast]

But, what did Roger Penrose do other than try and deny that AI would ever get anywhere?

Mathematics of black holes and Penrose tiling, among other things.

 

[Radagast]

It isn't zero because the coupling constant(s) depend on energy scaling.

Huh?

In fact, the rate of change of the coupling constant has been measured and it's zero plus or minus a small error margin. The most likely reason for that is that it really is constant.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Huh?

In fact, the rate of change of the coupling constant has been measured and it's zero plus or minus a small error margin. The most likely reason for that is that it really is constant.

Coupling constants are not constant.

Structure constants, therefore, are NOT constant. Even mass and charge are not constant.

 

[Ophiolite]

Coupling constants are not constant.

Structure constants, therefore, are NOT constant. Even mass and charge are not constant.

Would you provide an accesible citation to support this assertion, please.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Would you provide an accesible citation to support this assertion, please.

This is a field theory question usually on the graduate level. I suspect there won't be too many sources that talk about this that will not require a subscription. The best source would be a field theory or computational physics textbook. Unfortunately, I don't too many accessible sources that explicitly talk about structure constants not actually being constant - other than a brief explanation in terms of QM.

Here are some texts that utilize examples and/or problems to get the reader to (by computation) show that coupling constants are dependent on energy scaling (vis-a-vis renormalization.)

Modern Introduction to Quantum Field Theory - Michele Maggiore.

Quantum Field Theory - Mark Allen Srednicki

 

[Ophiolite]

Thank your for your response. I understand the limitations on providing more readily accessible material.

 

[stevevw]

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

Can you post the link to Rupert Sheldrake's 'The Science Delusion',
Thanks Steve

 

[Tom 1]

Can you post the link to Rupert Sheldrake's 'The Science Delusion',
Thanks Steve

Hi Steve, it’s in book form, on kindle or as a physical book. If you google his name he did a TED talk and a few interviews.
Btw I’m not endorsing his views, just curious about them,

Tom

 

[durangodawood]

There's quite a roll-call of scientific high achievers who became famously successful, then went on to support unlikely or pseudoscientific fringe ideas or make fools of themselves, often in other domains. Just off the top of my head, I can think of David Bohm, Fred Hoyle, Eric Laithewaite, Linus Pauling, Roger Penrose... there are others.

Like the "great one" Isaac Newton himself, putting more effort into alchemy and Bible codes than physics.

 

[David_M]

That explains something I didn’t quite understand about the relation between the focal length of camera lenses and shutter speeds. I think.

It is the most important concept when one talks about c. It is the speed of light in a vacuum. In other mediums it is slower, it can be as low as 38 miles per hour as I recall.

 

[morse86]

The speed of light? What does that even mean? What rubbish.

This speed of light was determined by making a lot of assumptions. That's not science, that's religion.

Here's how this rubbish constant was determined:

He noticed that, depending on the Earth–Sun–Jupiter geometry, there could be a difference of up to 1000 seconds between the predicted times of the eclipses of Jupiter's moons, and the actual times that these eclipses were observed. He correctly surmised that this is due to the varying length of time it takes for light to travel from Jupiter to Earth as the distance between these two planets varies. He obtained a value of c equivalent to 214,000 km/s, which was very approximate because planetary distances were not accurately known at that time.

If you run through the rain, it comes at you at an angle, and hits you on the front. Bradley measured this angle for starlight, and knowing the speed of the Earth around the Sun, he found a value for the speed of light of 301,000 km/s

You cannot use trigonometry when it's millions and millions and millions of miles away! Light itself is metaphysical and certain properties like speed cannot be measured.