New findings suggest laws of nature 'downright weird,' not as constant as previously thought

PhysOrg ^ | 4/27/20 | Lachlan Gilbert

[PeterPrinciple]

The study of systems, and then systems within systems lead to one answer and gives a headache.

So the only thing we can do is ignore the systems, build a model based on 3 or 4 factors and consider ourselves god.

[Uncle Miltie]

It’s all relative.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I always told my husband this would happen.

:o)

Right?

[eldoradude]

“the universe suddenly appears to have the equivalent of a north and a south.”

[poconopundit]

Hey V. K. Some people don’t glimpse that other reality very often. Others compute reality based on their feeeeeee-wings and their solutions for fixing reality move the world towards more chaos.

[LibWhacker]

Tiny deviations and unverified

Unfair. It does say in that very excerpt his finding reaffirms other studies that the fine structure constant isn't costant. Or how about the directionality of the inconstancy lining up exactly with the direction noted in yet another study?

[LibWhacker]

A research physicist knows nothing about nature?... Wow.

[poconopundit]

Ha! Are we a computer simulation? Scanned the story. On FR we should have more posts of stories like that.

And I — whatever “I” is — had a thought:

Why would anyone want to control such a simulated universe? How boring! It’s much more fun to wind up the toy dolls and observe the mischief they make.

We humans have this strange illusion that there’s a little person in a control room inside our heads who’s controlling everything.

Alan Watts talks about the difference between spotlight consciousness (studying something) and floodlight consciousness (driving a car). Which one is Me?

And as Watts would say, “You’re It!”.

Did you hear the story of how astronauts returned to Earth and announced they saw and had a conversation with God?

So the Reporter asked, “So tell us about God, what is God like?”

And the astronaut replied, “She’s black.”

[stremba]

Like most “game changing” observations, This one is likely to be the result of small deviations that eventually will be found to be due to errors or uncertainties in the measurement, or perhaps some known but unaccounted for factor. It’s very rare for a new observation to truly lead to novel science.

That is the reason science “clings” to theories (the term theory doesn’t mean what you likely think it does BTW). The theory is usually a very solid explanation of the phenomena it is intended to explain. Theories are generally not overturned because doing so is difficult. That’s as it should be. Science should be stable but not static. It obviously would be bad if changes could never occur, but science would be useless if every perceived anomaly caused complete abandonment of all prior work and knowledge.

The analogy I like to use is to a legal term, “burden of proof”. The new observation might well imply a new scientific paradigm, but the burden of proof is on those offering the new paradigm to demonstrate that it is superior to the old. It’s not on the rest of the scientific community to defend the old theory; the default position is that the old theory is best until proven otherwise.

Science often gets a bad rap on here (hopefully the irony of people using modern technology to claim that science doesn’t work isn’t lost on anyone). The problem is not really science, though, but a lack of understanding of what science can and cannot do. Scientists are human; they can be just as guilty as anyone of this. Science can provide explanations of measurable phenomena. Science can be used to make predictions about future measurements. Science cannot be used to make accurate predictions when either data is inaccurate or the phenomenon is not entirely understood. Science also cannot be used to make value judgements, although it does inform debate.

An example of this is the recent Covid modeling. Scientists who made these models were NOT wrong. All included a significant amount of uncertainty that was clearly stated by the model. Further, the models were refined and adjusted as more data was obtained and more information on the virus became known, preliminary models proved to be off, but the refined models have been much more accurate. That’s typical of how it should be.

Where we messed up was our treatment of these models by political leaders. They were treated not as possible outcomes but as certainties. There’s no certainty in science. Also how to react to a pandemic is not a scientific question. Science can give an idea of what may happen under various courses of action, but it cannot decide between them. It’s a value judgement as to how economic and social factors should be weighed against public health and potential deaths. Science cannot provide a correct answer as to what course should be followed.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks poconopundit.

---

· String Theory Ping List ·

---

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." -- Elim Garak

---

· Join · Bookmark · Topics · Google ·
· View or Post in 'blog · post a topic · subscribe ·

---

My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. -- J. B. S. Haldane

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together...We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter. -- Max Planck

[Swordmaker]

The Universe, especially in the Electromagnetic portion of it, is weirder than cosmologists ever thought. Now they are finding it has a DIRECTIONALITY TO IT! Do you suppose it may be cause in our local area it is because there is an unexpected flow of current they’ve never before measured? The other question must also be asked. Are quasars actually where we think they are? There are quasars which are in axial alignment of nearby galaxies which have much lower redshirts than the quasars, and often the galaxies are behind the quasar with a far higher redshift. This caused Astronomer Harlton Arp to question the entire paradigm of redshift being correlated to distance. . . or alternately, that quasars are even what Gravity Universe Cosmologists think they are: rapidly spinning blackholes with ejecta jets. Since then, the observation of a few Quasars that have inexplicably change periodicity has thrown that theory into a charged spin, challenging the laws of physics and the conservation of energy.

Gravity cosmologists can blithely toss off lines such as “This pulsar was created inside of a supernova and is speeding away from it with a 37 light year long tail of dust and gas.”, without bothering to explain a gravity mechanism that accounts for how such a plume of “gas and dust” stays cohesive over such a distance. Electric Universe cosmologists can easily explain it, and fine structures within the “Herbig Haro” structure, which can be found everywhere within the Universe are ubiquitous, because they are not mere “gas and dust, but charged electromagnetic plasmas, powered by electric currents flowing through the Universe. —Electric/Plasma Universe PING!

Clear Example of a Birkeland Current
"Z" Pinch with Symmetrical Plasmids
seen in Hubble Telescope View of
The Twin Jet Nebula
ELECTRIC/PLASMA UNIVERSE PING!

If you want on or off the Electric Universe/Plasma Ping List, Freepmail me.

[Swordmaker]

Next we’ll find that Pi really isn’t.

Pi isn’t just odd, it’s irrational. . .

[MHGinTN]

IF you believe there is a zero point field of energy underlying the expanding Universe, the following from Barry Setterfield might interest you. I paraphrase:

The zero point field is gaining energy due to the latent effect of expansion. As the field gains energy more and more virtual particles are zapped in and out of existence. A photon packet of energy moving through the zero point field in the early Universe would not encounter many virtual particles, but that same packet moving through our Universe of now (in our region for the now perspective) encounters many more virtual particles popping in and out of existence due to the greater field energy. This translates to the speed of light slowing down as simultaneously the Universe is expanding and increasing in expansion. Consider what that slowing of the constant means to the electromagnetic reality of everything.

[zeugma]

It does say in that very excerpt his finding reaffirms other studies that the fine structure constant isn't costant.

Constants aren't.

Variables don't.

[Swordmaker]

Constants aren't.

Variables don't.

We assume that our local ordinances are the same universally. We cannot do that. We have to recognize that beyond what we can measure locally, essentially beyond the reach of our arms, eyes, ears, it may be completely different. Until we actually go there and measure again, we cannot know. . . And we have to realize we may take our reality with us. It may not remain the same where we were, after we’ve left. The observer MAY impinge his presence in someway on the environment merely by the observer’s presence.

We know, for a fact, that the mass of our bodies WILL have an effect on the other masses near us. So, too, will the electrical fields our nervous systems will impact the nearby electromagnetic fields of anything that can be so affected. What can it change? Who knows. The observer changes what is observed and becomes part of the event of observing. THAT is inescapable. Heisenberg’s uncertainty. The Schrödinger’s cat in the box. Dead or alive, or some indeterminate state? Until the one asking the question opens the box and looks, or otherwise interacts with the box, unknown.

We know nothing that happens in real time. Everything we see or hear is a fraction of a microsecond after it really happens, the time it takes for the sound or light to reach or senses, then for our nerves to transmit to our brains, then for us to process the event. Always fractionally in the past, trailing the present. Close enough for our purposes. Close enough for horse races, etc.

[roadcat]

So the only thing we can do is ignore the systems, build a model based on 3 or 4 factors and consider ourselves god.

Now you're talking politics, explaining the thought processes of Democrats!

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

It seems to be more of a spatial directionality. You look billions of years into the past in one direction, and the electromagnetic force is weaker; you look in the physically opposite direction, also billions of years into the past, and it is physically stronger.

It’s as though God looked at the early universe that He created, and decided to throw a sort of bar magnet into it.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Your tagline:

Nowadays, I can’t just fine-tune my shopping to look for the Made In Panda Poop label, since by doing so and putting it back while possibly breathing on it, I could potentially contaminate it — assuming I’m packin’ Panda Poop virus — right before a vulnerable person picks it up right before scratching his/her face.

However, when things are more back to normal, you bet I will be boycotting Panda Poop items wherever I can! Fortunately, there are places where I can start that right now (AMC theaters, Tik-Tok, Lenovo, other readily visible brand names which I remember are at least part-Chicomm owned, etc.).

[minnesota_bound]

This explains.

Penny Explains Leonard’s Experiment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gA-ZzVgmRc

[minnesota_bound]

Penny Makes Herself Look Smart
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1OVwLTAzJc