Ye cannae change the laws of physics (or can you?)

The Economist ^ | September 2, 2010 | The Economist

[mmercier]

as far as i have understood the universe or multiverse is so vast that every possible variation of every possible combination of variables and possibilities squares from each result ad infinitum.

sounds like a load of crap, but we see a hundred billion times a hundred billion stars out there with our current state of the art crappy optics.

some figure that from any of those hundred billion periphery points the numbers will exponentially increase. in practical application this means that this planet exists in exact form in millions of places at millions of times; as does everything ever observed by us, or others, or none. it is that vast... and expanding @100,000 miles a second. sux, hu.

[Greysard]

I was thinking of an area of space where if you measured a circle you’d get 3.00000.

A Flatlander would be surprised to find that - and it would be possible if his circle is curved in our 3rd dimension, normal to his flat world, like when you hit a tambourine. This is because the Flatlander can measure the diameter only by crawling over the stretched area, without noticing that it is stretched.

[Walkingfeather]

hmmm is the reference point for it earth?

[TChad]

Fascinating.

[ALPAPilot]

No wonder we have climate change. It’s not greenhouse gases it’s the fine structure constant. If I was a climate nazi this would be worth at least a million dollar grant.

[r9etb]

Actually, pi is an abstract ratio.

Huh?!? It's a physically measurable value.

[exDemMom]

I remember having an argument with someone because I stated that we have no basis on which to believe the physical constants as we measure them here on Earth would have exactly the same values if measured elsewhere. I was of the opinion, however, that, no matter their origin, light and particles would be distorted as they enter our section of space, in such a way as to mask the fact that they originated where physical constants are subtly different. The person I was arguing with insisted that physical constants would be the same everywhere.

If what these physicists measured was accurate, then the change of physical constants across space (which I had hypothesized) may not be as resistant to measurement as I had thought.

[MHGinTN]

Um, you could measure the radius and the diameter of a circle, but it is the ratio of those two values which nets 'pi' and you cannot write the last digit of pi, unless you've discovered something i'mnot aware of.

Now, using pi in the equation for finding volume of a sperical object, how do you reconcile the fact that as a real gravitation field gets larger, the ratio no longer meets the real volume to surface ratio as calculated with a pi as constant?

[MHGinTN]

BTW, this entire argument for a variable pi based upon changing gravitational field is straight out of the Feynman lectures at CalTech.

[Kevmo]

pinging some of my favorite cosmologists.

I’ve been pointing out for years now that the fine structure constant is not a constant.

[2001convSVT]

Yep, the more we understand the nature of the universe the more a conscience though is needed from God to make it happen. The Universe is no accident, God though it into existence.

[The Comedian]

Constant-gardener ping.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[decimon]

Thanks.

I’m fine with breaking the laws of physics but sneaking in terms like ‘everywhen’ should be taboo.

[r9etb]

Um, you could measure the radius and the diameter of a circle, but it is the ratio of those two values which nets 'pi' and you cannot write the last digit of pi, unless you've discovered something i'mnot aware of.

It is nevertheless physically measurable (within the limits of the measuring device), which means that it's not an "abstract" quantity in the normal sense of that word.

[FourPeas]

This thread typifies why I like FreeRepublic so much.

[MHGinTN]

I meant to write ‘radius and circumference of a circle’ ... doing too many threads simultaneously.

[Don W]

While most of this thread is well above my pay-grade, your term “everywhen” elicited a genuine belly-laugh-out-loud from me. thanks.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Perdogg and Kevmo!

Why alpha takes on the precise value it does, so delicately fine-tuned for life, is a deep scientific mystery... In a paper just submitted to Physical Review Letters, a team led by John Webb and Julian King from the University of New South Wales in Australia presents evidence that the fine-structure constant may not actually be constant after all. Rather, it seems to vary from place to place within the universe... they suggest that the universe stretches far beyond what telescopes can observe, and that the laws of physics vary within it. Instead of the whole universe being fine-tuned for life, then, humanity finds itself in a corner of space where, Goldilocks-like, the values of the fundamental constants happen to be just right for it.

Heh... it will mean that the carbon-based life resulted from and conforms to (or was built according to) the local laws, not because the constants happen to be just right.

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[onedoug]

Indeed.

Thanks for posting, TSR.