Posted on 05/12/2005 5:30:04 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
Only half joking.
A small change either way in the fine spectrum alpha (~ 1/137.036) would make for an impossible universe in Mr. Einstein's theory. We'd have to rip the whole thing up and start over.
Thanks for the "clarification" :-). I still get the impression that you're bamboozling the yokels here!
Not at all. The questions are real.
RA & Physicist probably have better information on current research.
Last year I floated an alternative explanation on FR: that all of the results might be correct, if Webb's anomaly represented a change in fundamental constants not over time, but over space. (The Penn cosmologists didn't think much of my idea, FWIW.) The advantage to that hypothesis is that it makes the anthropic principle worth discussing: the only sort of Hubble volume within the larger universe that we would be permitted to see would be the ones capable of supporting life, but there would exist many other types of Hubble volumes besides.
All that said, it's almost unavoidable that the coupling constants have in fact changed over time, albeit at a much earlier epoch than is probed by quasar studies. As we probe higher and higher energies, we see that the coupling constants do in fact change. (Google the phrase "running coupling constant" for more.) At some point in the very very early universe, alpha really was different.
Thank you.
And little lambsie divey!
The energy output of certain radioactive decays is known. It is possible to measure the mass of both the starting and ending isotopes to a high degree of accuracy using mass spectrometry. Plugging both of these quantities into the equation confirms it. This has been done for many radioactive decays and forms an integral part of our understanding of nuclear processes.
Again, common sense may not be the best tool for understanding the natural world. Common sense tells us that natural processes cannot form human faces on mountains, as you point out. However, visit the Man in the Mountain in New Hampshire, and you'll find that common sense is wrong.
I see your point but mine would be that Mt. Rushmore has incredible detail whereas the Man in the Mountain isn't quite so detailed.
And please correct me if I'm wrong, but here are a couple of questions that, as far as I can't tell, evolution can't explain.
I do thank you for your time and comments. Several animal organs such as the eye. I have read several comments from committed evolutionist that "admit" (my word) that the evolutionary time line doesn't permit such a complex system. Ditto the explosion of species in the Cambrian period.
Perhaps I misunderstood the comments, perhaps they were made by those with no or little standing.
Granted I'm NOT a scientist; in fact I am a high school drop out who is self educated (actually that may be a blessing even though public schools were a bit better in my day than they are now) but my "common sense", which to me is no more than Occam's Razor and which has benefited me well in other areas, says that, at least in those two cases, the possibility exists that there were outside influences since they don't seem to fit into the evolutionary model.
Pure speculation of course, I can't prove either but I think they're interesting questions and in my world "theory" is that and open to scrutiny and question. I am distressed when I don't see that in any field and theory is presented as fact. Again, I understand that "theory" in the scientific world appears to be used differently than in any other venue.
Regarding the theory of relativity; from what I've read I would bet you a rack of my world famous (or at least world famous around my house) smoked baby back ribs that in the next 30 years it will be proved wrong. I probably won't be around to pay off, so don't get your mouth fixed for 'em.
I do thank you for your time and comments.
Quotes you've seen from evolutionists that "admit" that the evolutionary time line doesn't permit complex systems are most likely the result of quote mining by creationists. I don't know which quotes you refer to so I can't say for sure. One tactic used by creationists commonly is to quote evolutionary biologists out of context in such a way as to completely change the meaning of the text. For example, in many parts of his writings, Darwin uses the device of rhetorical questioning to anticipate the opposing arguments to his theory. He will write things like "It seems impossible for a system as complex as the human eye to have formed by an evolutionary process. How could this possibly have occurred?" The creationist will dishonestly quote this part without mentioning the several following pages in which he actually describes the mechanisms by which this system might have evolved, thereby making it seem as though Darwin actually doubted his own theory. I would suspect that you have fallen victim to this trick.
Just as plausible evolutionary mechanisms have been given for evolution of eyes and other complex systems, the Cambrian "explosion" also presents no difficulty for evolution. Nobody ever has said that evolution must proceed at a constant rate. The "explosion" also was one that occurred over a period of millions of years. It also does not represent new life forms arising where none previously existed; many precambrian fossils have now been found. The "explosion" probably just coincided with the first evolution of simple multicellular organisms, which would have had many available ecological niches, and hence many different types of organisms would have evolved to fill these niches.
As far as overturning relativity goes, I will not take your bet. Even Einstein himself recognized that general relativity could not be the final ultimate theory of the universe, and he spent the remaining years of his life in a search for a unified field theory. Relativity is not consistent with quantum mechanics, so one or both of these will be replaced in the future. My bet would also be on relativity; quantum mechanics seems to be on firmer ground, and the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces are all better understood than is gravity. Common sense, however, is no more applicable in the realm of quantum mechanics than it is in relativity. For example, it is a result of QM that if you are trying to catch a baseball, you can never really do so. You can never know both where the ball is and how it is moving precisely at the same time. The uncertainty in these quantities is very small for baseballs (and almost any macroscopic object), but is significant for small particles like electrons. Common sense doesn't tell us this.
BTW, even were relativity to be overturned, the equation E=mc^2 would still be valid. This relationship was predicted by relativity, but the theory of relativity encompasses much more than this relationship.
Something to add to the discussion.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050418204410.htm
(sorry I am so late getting to the thread) sigh.
... whose light has been stretched out or redshifted to nearly double its original wavelength by the expansion of the universe ...
I'm picturing sort of filmy rubber bands here ...
Think of a train whistle and the Doppler effect. Light exhibits the same phenomena.
That I understand. I could even do the equations, back in high school :-).
If I'm reading that right, Webb and Davies measured the dark line ("missing") wavelengths that were absorbed between there and here instead of the bright line emissions from the source.
If so, that's a pretty questionable methodology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.