Edward
2024 Supporter
Alpha Is Just the Beginning
any theory worthy of consideration does not merely reproduce observations; it must make novel predictions. The above theory suggests that varying the fine-structure constant makes objects fall differently. Galileo predicted that bodies in a vacuum fall at the same rate no matter what they are made of—an idea known as the weak equivalence principle, famously demonstrated when Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott dropped a feather and a hammer and saw them hit the lunar dirt at the same time. But if (a) varies, that principle no longer holds exactly. The variations generate a force on all charged particles. The more protons an atom has in its nucleus, the more strongly it will feel this force. If our quasar observations are correct, then the accelerations of different materials differ by about one part in 1014—too small to see in the laboratory by a factor of about 100 but large enough to show up in planned missions such as STEP (spacebased test of the equivalence principle). There is a last twist to the story. Previous studies of (a) neglected to include one vital consideration: the lumpiness of the universe. Like all galaxies, our Milky Way is about a million times denser than the cosmic average, so it is not expanding along with the universe. In 2003 Barrow and David F. Mota of Cambridge calculated that (a) may behave differently within the galaxy than inside emptier regions of space. Once a young galaxy condenses and relaxes into gravitational equilibrium, (a) nearly stops changing inside it but keeps on changing outside. Thus, the terrestrial experiments that probe the constancy of (a)suffer from a selection bias. We need to study this effect more to see how it would affect the tests of the weak equivalence principle. No spatial variations of (a)have yet been seen. Based on the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation,
Barrow recently showed that (a) does not vary by more than one part in 108 between regions separated by 10 degrees on the sky. So where does this flurry of activity leave science as far as (a)is concerned? We await new data and new analyses to confirm or disprove that (a)varies at the level claimed. Researchers focus on (a), over the other constants of nature, simply because its effects are more readily seen. If(a) is susceptible to change, however, other constants should vary as well, making the inner workings of nature more fickle than scientists ever suspected. The constants are a tantalizing mystery. Every equation of physics is filled with them, and they seem so prosaic that people tend to forget how unaccountable their values are. Their origin is bound up with some of the grandest questions of modern science, from the unification of physics to the expansion of the universe. They may be the superficial shadow of a structure larger and more complex than the three-dimensional universe we witness around us. Determining whether constants are truly constant is only the first step on a path that leads to a deeper and wider appreciation of that ultimate vista./
Check it out and tell me what you think. I was going to add a few thoughts, but company just walked in so I can come back later and discuss...
any theory worthy of consideration does not merely reproduce observations; it must make novel predictions. The above theory suggests that varying the fine-structure constant makes objects fall differently. Galileo predicted that bodies in a vacuum fall at the same rate no matter what they are made of—an idea known as the weak equivalence principle, famously demonstrated when Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott dropped a feather and a hammer and saw them hit the lunar dirt at the same time. But if (a) varies, that principle no longer holds exactly. The variations generate a force on all charged particles. The more protons an atom has in its nucleus, the more strongly it will feel this force. If our quasar observations are correct, then the accelerations of different materials differ by about one part in 1014—too small to see in the laboratory by a factor of about 100 but large enough to show up in planned missions such as STEP (spacebased test of the equivalence principle). There is a last twist to the story. Previous studies of (a) neglected to include one vital consideration: the lumpiness of the universe. Like all galaxies, our Milky Way is about a million times denser than the cosmic average, so it is not expanding along with the universe. In 2003 Barrow and David F. Mota of Cambridge calculated that (a) may behave differently within the galaxy than inside emptier regions of space. Once a young galaxy condenses and relaxes into gravitational equilibrium, (a) nearly stops changing inside it but keeps on changing outside. Thus, the terrestrial experiments that probe the constancy of (a)suffer from a selection bias. We need to study this effect more to see how it would affect the tests of the weak equivalence principle. No spatial variations of (a)have yet been seen. Based on the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation,
Barrow recently showed that (a) does not vary by more than one part in 108 between regions separated by 10 degrees on the sky. So where does this flurry of activity leave science as far as (a)is concerned? We await new data and new analyses to confirm or disprove that (a)varies at the level claimed. Researchers focus on (a), over the other constants of nature, simply because its effects are more readily seen. If(a) is susceptible to change, however, other constants should vary as well, making the inner workings of nature more fickle than scientists ever suspected. The constants are a tantalizing mystery. Every equation of physics is filled with them, and they seem so prosaic that people tend to forget how unaccountable their values are. Their origin is bound up with some of the grandest questions of modern science, from the unification of physics to the expansion of the universe. They may be the superficial shadow of a structure larger and more complex than the three-dimensional universe we witness around us. Determining whether constants are truly constant is only the first step on a path that leads to a deeper and wider appreciation of that ultimate vista./
Check it out and tell me what you think. I was going to add a few thoughts, but company just walked in so I can come back later and discuss...
You agree? 