Physics: Not a law?

[Omceer]

Meaning of life changes across cosmos › News in Science (ABC Science)

New research suggests the laws of physics aren't the same in all parts of the Universe.
Australian scientists have detected a spatial variation in the fine structure constant, one of the fundamental forces of nature that binds electrons to the nuclei of the atom.
If correct, the discovery could mean only our part of the Universe may be capable of supporting life.
Reporting in the physics blog ArXiv.com, Professor John Webb and PHD student Julian King from the University of New South Wales, describe a change the value of the fine structure constant depending on where you look.
Webb wanted to determine if the fundamental constants of nature might alter in different parts of the universe.
"If the fine structure constant were different elsewhere in the universe, we ought to be able to see the evidence in the way distant gas clouds absorb light on its way here from even more distant quasars," says Webb.
Studies of absorption spectra carried out with the 10 metre Keck telescope in Hawaii, indicate the fine structure constant seems to get slightly smaller the further away you go
.......

This was quite astounding to me.
Most people want to jump to conclusions about this...
But I just can't comprehend this.

 

[Cabal]

"physics blog arXiv"?!?!?!

GRGRHGhfgjkhfgd

That aside, eeenteresting.

The actual preprint links are:

[1008.3907] Evidence for spatial variation of the fine structure constant
[1009.0591] Is there further evidence for spatial variation of fundamental constants?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

"Granted, then, that certain transformations do happen, it is essential that we should regard them in the philosophic manner of fairy tales, not in the unphilosophic manner of science and the 'Laws of Nature.' When we are asked why eggs turn into birds or fruits fall in autumn, we must answer exactly as the fairy godmother would answer if Cinderella asked her why mice turned into horses or her clothes fell from her at twelve o'clock. We must answer that it is MAGIC. It is not a 'law,' for we do not understand it's general formula." -- G. K. Chesterton, philosopher, Orthodoxy, Chapter IV: The Ethics of Elfland, 1909

"All the terms used in the science books, 'law,' 'necessity,' 'order,' 'tendency,' and so on, are really unintellectual .... The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, 'charm,' 'spell,' 'enchantment.' They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a MAGIC tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched." -- G.K. Chesterton, philosopher, Orthodoxy, Chapter IV: The Ethics of Elfland, 1909

"In fairy land we avoid the word 'law'; but in the land of science they are singularly fond of it." -- G. K. Chesterton, philosopher, Orthodoxy, Chapter IV: The Ethics of Elfland, 1909

"If, occasionally, historical evidence does not square with formulated laws, it should be remembered that a law is but a deduction from experience and experiment, and therefore laws must conform with historical facts, not facts with laws." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, polymath, 1950

"Many times, physicists say that certain things are impossible – like physicists said that airplanes were impossible at one point. That’s because we didn’t understand the laws of physics very well." -- Michio Kaku, physicist, February 2008

 

[lucaspa]

Meaning of life changes across cosmos › News in Science (ABC Science)

This was quite astounding to me.
Most people want to jump to conclusions about this...
But I just can't comprehend this.

To understand "laws" of physics, you need to know a bit of the history of science. Up until 1900, scientists thought they were discovering immutable truths. In fact, that was one way that was tried to distinguish between what was science and what was not science: science tried (and did) discover unchangeable "laws" on how the physical universe worked.

Thus Kepler had "laws" of planetary motion and Newton had "laws" of gravity. There were also the "laws" of thermodynamics.

Starting about 1900 with Einstein and Relativity, scientists began to realize that "laws" were really very well supported theories. You see, Einstein, with Special Relativity, showed that Newton's "laws" of gravity were not universal and unchanging. They were, instead, a special, limited case of low velocities and gravitational strength. Since the 1940s, scientists have stopped using the word "law". You will notice that there are no new "laws" being discovered. Relativity isn't a law, even tho no one knows an exception. Neither is quantum mechanics. Some theories that were previously called "law", such as the Hardy-Weinberg "law" in genetics, are now referred to as "prinicple". So we have the Hardy-Weinberg Principle in place of the Hardy-Weinberg Law. For some theories, such as thermodynamics or Boyle's Law of gasses, the term "law" is grandfathered in and hasn't been changed.

One assumption in science is that all the theories and principles are the same throughout the universe and thru time. This assumption includes those theories regarding the physical "constants", such as the charge on the electron or, in this case, the fine structure constant. This is not the first report of the possibility that the "constants" of the universe had different values in the past:
2. C Seife, Changing constants cause controversy. Science 293: 1410-1411, Aug 24, 2001. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1410a

Remember, because of light speed, when you look at objects very far away you are also looking at objects very long ago in the past.

This is the first report on the possibility that the fine constant was different in the past. I'm going to wait awhile for more observations before I accept any conclusions. I suggest you do the same. Let the physicists and cosmologists look at this in detail and examine whether the methodology was valid. Be patient. If, in a few years, this turns out to be correct, then we can worry about any implications.

 

[Cabal]

C Seife, Changing constants cause controversy. Science 293: 1410-1411, Aug 24, 2001.

Is that Charles Seife, who wrote a book about the number zero?

 

[lucaspa]

Is that Charles Seife, who wrote a book about the number zero?

Possibly. It is a news article in Science and Seife was/is one of Science's reporters.

 

[Nabobalis]

This is the first report on the possibility that the fine constant was different in the past. I'm going to wait awhile for more observations before I accept any conclusions. I suggest you do the same. Let the physicists and cosmologists look at this in detail and examine whether the methodology was valid. Be patient. If, in a few years, this turns out to be correct, then we can worry about any implications.

That is the safest option. I might badger my professors about this when I get back to university.

 

[Omceer]

That is the safest option. I might badger my professors about this when I get back to university.

I've already run this by my Philosophy instructor.

He went off into some weird tangent, that was somehow related to the lesson

 

[Chesterton]

Is that Charles Seife, who wrote a book about the number zero?

I can't wait for the movie! Hey, I could play the number zero. The part I was born to play, baby!

 

[Cabal]

I can't wait for the movie! Hey, I could play the number zero. The part I was born to play, baby!

From zero to z...nevermind.

 

[lucaspa]

That is the safest option. I might badger my professors about this when I get back to university.

Good idea. Science reporting has gotten a bit out of hand, IMO. What was new in science used to be in Scientific American, Science, or Nature. Most of the readers were scientists and thus understood that these were the first reports and not to decide they were the gospel truth until they were tested more. We understood that scientists argue everything until it is not possible to argue anymore, and sometimes the arguments take years.

But now we have universities and others handing out press releases and posting these things on the internet and those press releases do state things as tho absolutely true but without allowing time for examination and further testing by peers. Much of the public does not understand the argumentation and testing process and decides that whatever the news, it must be absolutely true. This release of scientific information by press releases is, IMO, very harmful to science.

 

[lucaspa]

I've already run this by my Philosophy instructor.

LOL! WRONG PERSON! How would a philosophy prof be able to evaluate the scientific accuracy of the work? Perhaps the authors failed to account for some other process as the light passed thru dust clouds. Or they simply failed to adequately calibrate their machinery.

The philosophy prof is not going to have any idea about this. He is going to assume it is true, and the whole point is that we wait before we conclude it is true.

 

[Cabal]

Good idea. Science reporting has gotten a bit out of hand, IMO. What was new in science used to be in Scientific American, Science, or Nature. Most of the readers were scientists and thus understood that these were the first reports and not to decide they were the gospel truth until they were tested more. We understood that scientists argue everything until it is not possible to argue anymore, and sometimes the arguments take years.

But now we have universities and others handing out press releases and posting these things on the internet and those press releases do state things as tho absolutely true but without allowing time for examination and further testing by peers. Much of the public does not understand the argumentation and testing process and decides that whatever the news, it must be absolutely true. This release of scientific information by press releases is, IMO, very harmful to science.

Yes, and as much as I like getting sneak peeks on arXiv, one should always check to make sure the work has been peer-reviewed yet or not.

 

[lemmings]

LOL! WRONG PERSON! How would a philosophy prof be able to evaluate the scientific accuracy of the work? Perhaps the authors failed to account for some other process as the light passed thru dust clouds. Or they simply failed to adequately calibrate their machinery.

The philosophy prof is not going to have any idea about this. He is going to assume it is true, and the whole point is that we wait before we conclude it is true.

My philosophy teacher loved repeating the fine tuning argument, "If the strength of the gravitational constant where off by one part in 10^40th, we would not be here are the Universe would blow up!!!" If this is right however, it would serve as a nice counter example without having to bring up mathematical simulations that Mr. Santos will not understand even if they show fusion still to be possible or hypothetical arguments relating to the nature of life and the Universe or a multiverse.

 

[lucaspa]

My philosophy teacher loved repeating the fine tuning argument, "If the strength of the gravitational constant where off by one part in 10^40th, we would not be here are the Universe would blow up!!!" If this is right however, it would serve as a nice counter example without having to bring up mathematical simulations that Mr. Santos will not understand even if they show fusion still to be possible or hypothetical arguments relating to the nature of life and the Universe or a multiverse.

It sounds like your professor is using the Strong Anthropic Principle. The counter to that is not in changes in the fine tuning, but in elementary logic. I'll let Daniel Dennett explain the logical flaw in the SAP. If you have any questions, just ask.

"According to the Anthropic Principle, we are entitled to infer facts about the universe and its laws from the undisputed fact that we (we anthropoi, human beings) are here to do the inferring and observing. The Anthropic Principle comes in several flavors.
In the "weak form" it is a sound, harmless, and on occasion useful application of elementary logic: if x is a necessary condition for the existence of y, and y exists, then x exists. If consciousness depends on complex physical structures, and complex physical structures depend on large molecules composed of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, then, since we are conscious, the world must contain such elements.
"But notice that there is a loose cannon on the deck in the previous sentence: the wandering "must". I have followed the common practice in English of couching a claim of necessity in a technically incorrect way. As any student in logic class soon learns, what I really should have written is: *It must be the case that*: if consciousness depends ... then, since we are conscious, the world *contains* such elements.

The conclusion that can be validly drawn is only that the world *does* contain such elements, not that it *had* to contain such elements. It *has* to contain such elements *for us to exist*, we may grant, but it might not have contained such elements, and if that had been the case, we wouldn't be here to be dismayed. It's as simple as that. Take a simpler example. Suppose John is a bachelor. Then he *must* be single, right? (That's a truth of logic.) Poor John -- he can never get married! The fallacy is obvious in this example, and it is worth keeping it in the back of your mind as a template to compare other arguments with."
Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Ideas, pp. 165-166.

 

[lucaspa]

Yes, and as much as I like getting sneak peeks on arXiv, one should always check to make sure the work has been peer-reviewed yet or not.

Right. But even if the work has been peer-reviewed, it's usually best to wait to see if there is follow-up. Fully 33% of all papers in the scientific literature are never cited again, even by the authors! The work simply does not pan out in the long run.

So sneak peaks are fine, as long as you understand just how tentative the information is.

 

[Nabobalis]

Right. But even if the work has been peer-reviewed, it's usually best to wait to see if there is follow-up. Fully 33% of all papers in the scientific literature are never cited again, even by the authors! The work simply does not pan out in the long run.

So sneak peaks are fine, as long as you understand just how tentative the information is.

Yeah I wish people realised this. Would make life alot easier.

 

[Naraoia]

I've already run this by my Philosophy instructor.

He went off into some weird tangent, that was somehow related to the lesson

You've just confirmed all my prejudices about philosophers

But now we have universities and others handing out press releases and posting these things on the internet and those press releases do state things as tho absolutely true but without allowing time for examination and further testing by peers. Much of the public does not understand the argumentation and testing process and decides that whatever the news, it must be absolutely true. This release of scientific information by press releases is, IMO, very harmful to science.

I don't know that it's the press releases themselves, as opposed to the quality of the releases, that's harmful. I think getting science, even cutting-edge science, out to a wider audience, is fundamentally a good thing (then again, I kind of want everyone to be as excited about science as I am ). It's just how they do it. An alarming number of the press releases I've read are full of confusing, inaccurate or misleading information besides the too much certainty that you mention. (Incidentally, I'm not sure how many press releases really sound too certain about their news. A fair number of them do seem to couch things in mights; at least enough for me to note.)

 

[Naraoia]

Yeah I wish people realised this. Would make life alot easier.

I'm pretty sure I didn't realise just how much uncertainty science involves until I actually started doing it. Even if your courses teach you about controversies and how some questions are difficult to answer, I don't think the point really comes through until you find yourself staring at a pile of results that confuses the wits out of you.

 

[Nabobalis]

I'm pretty sure I didn't realise just how much uncertainty science involves until I actually started doing it. Even if your courses teach you about controversies and how some questions are difficult to answer, I don't think the point really comes through until you find yourself staring at a pile of results that confuses the wits out of you.

I know. People like to think that science is certain but as you go up(year after year) in your degree you found out that things are just all over the place.