• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

I have a question about laws of physics

Here's an article.

"The report describes how one of the supposed fundamental constants of Nature appears not to be constant after all. Instead, this 'magic number' known as the fine-structure constant -- 'alpha' for short -- appears to vary throughout the universe."


Apparently this paper is from 15 years ago. So I’m curious whether this has been further supported or was just some anomalous measurement. I’ll see what I can find out when I get a chance to look into it.
 
and to be taken seriously that’s papers need to present theories that explain the conversational less as well as the current cosmology.
this should read "explain the observations as well as the current cosmology". that was written on my phone and the autocorrect goes nuts with my poor phone typing skills. I usually proofread but this slipped through.
 
Here's an article.

"The report describes how one of the supposed fundamental constants of Nature appears not to be constant after all. Instead, this 'magic number' known as the fine-structure constant -- 'alpha' for short -- appears to vary throughout the universe."


Apparently this paper is from 15 years ago. So I’m curious whether this has been further supported or was just some anomalous measurement. I’ll see what I can find out when I get a chance to look into it.
Clearly it was the later, otherwise they would have been awarded Nobel already.
 
Hi,

I have read where it is theorized the laws of physics could have been different than they are in our universe today, and I have even read due to the disparity and formation of matter at different points right after the big bang the laws of physics may actually be different in some portions of the outer universe. This is something I understand nothing about. Could any of you more technically qualified tell me more about this?
Hypotheses in modern theoretical physics are a dime for a dozen.
 
Hi,

I have read where it is theorized the laws of physics could have been different than they are in our universe today, and I have even read due to the disparity and formation of matter at different points right after the big bang the laws of physics may actually be different in some portions of the outer universe. This is something I understand nothing about. Could any of you more technically qualified tell me more about this?
Hypotheses in modern theoretical physics are a dime for a dozen.
As are commentaries about science.
 
To me, the BB is just the best guess we have, at the moment, based on our observations.
That is what any theory IS. There's no "just".

What did you think a theory was?
Primarily, the CMB, based on an expanding cosmos. As Steve points out, it is not the solid based proven science (such as evolution, still questioned by religious nuts) that so many assume it is.
There is no such thing as "solid based proven" in science. Proof is for mathematics and alcoholic drinks.

What observations are there that suggest that the current consensus amongst cosmologists is wrong?

Lots of people say utterly stupid shit like "It is theory, not fact" or "It is not proven", as though these were insightful revelations that give us carte blanche to place any wild speculation we like on an equal footing, rather than being statements of the obvious that serve only to highlight the speaker's lack of understanding of science as an epistemology.

You can find someone who will say these things about almost any well publicised theory (certainly including evolution); Almost invariably this is an effort to promote religious and/or new age "woo" that cannot stand on its own merits.

An hypothesis is a guess about how reality might be. An hypothesis that has been refined and tested very thoroughly is a theory. No theory is ever "proven", only "not yet disproven". That applies equally to evolution, quantum field theory, the big bang, and general relativity. All are subject to tweaks as new data become available. Some are certain to be wrong in interesting ways (we know this because QFT and GR are not compatible, so one or both must be wrong in extreme conditions, despite being very accurate in more ordinary circumstances).

Newton's theory of universal gravitation is similarly wrong in extreme conditions; That doesn't, however, make it less insane to believe in trancendental levitation, or that rocks sometimes fall up. It remains useful, despite being "wrong", because it's not very wrong - in fact, it's barely wrong at all.

Ironically, the mistaken idea that a theory is either right (proven, invaluable, and infallible), or wrong (disproven and totally worthless) is a hangover from the C19th "clockwork universe" ideas that stem from total faith in Issac Newton's theories and laws; And from the human desire for order and certainty.

Reality is, however, under no obligation to be easy to comprehend, nor to be simple to model with perfect accuracy. And the last century and a quarter of physics have shown that it is neither.

Which is not even close to saying that "anything goes", or that some Internet crackpot has a similar standing for his wild-assed speculations and (often already disproven) nonsense, to the standing of the consensus of experts who have actually bothered to learn the state of the art before attempting to improve upon it.

Learning science is hard, because it's not about learning what current theory says, but rather is about learning what has been shown to be impossible, and how, and why. And there's a LOT of impossible stuff. And scientists are not allowed to just take other scientists word for anything* (although inevitably they do so as a shortcut, and often that comes back to bite tnem).

People prefer the lazy approach of instead just memorizing rules and laws, as they would if studying religion or law; And it is this lazy approach that is often mistaken for science, not least because up until the end of High School, that's what most people are (wrongly) told science is. But it ain't.








* Well, obviously it's "allowed", but when they do it, they're no longer practicing science, but are practicing faith - which we all know to be a very serious character flaw, but (sadly) life's not long enough for universal skepicism.
 
Last edited:
In in inital conditions in solving sets of dynamic equations is the state of the variables.

It defines where a simulation starts.

Unless you violate conservation and assume something from nothing the BB initial conditions had to have an origin. The BB extrapolates back to a theoretical hot dense soup.

So thee BB is not about ultimate origins of the Universe seen and unseen. In pop culture the BB became the groins of everything. To me a creation myth.



The initial conditions for the Big Bang are described as an extremely hot, dense state from which the universe expanded. While the Big Bang theory doesn't explain the origin of this state, a process called cosmic inflation is theorized to have rapidly expanded the early universe, resolving some of the questions about initial conditions, such as the flatness and homogeneity of the universe. These initial conditions ultimately set the stage for the formation of matter, the first stars, and galaxies that we observe today.


I watched a show on a BB simulation. Galaxy like structures emerged.
I have dealt with theists who use the BB as a creation story and a foundation for their beliefs many many times. Mainly Christians.
 
To me, the BB is just the best guess we have, at the moment, based on our observations.
That is what any theory IS. There's no "just".

What did you think a theory was?
Primarily, the CMB, based on an expanding cosmos. As Steve points out, it is not the solid based proven science (such as evolution, still questioned by religious nuts) that so many assume it is.
There is no such thing as "solid based proven" in science. Proof is for mathematics and alcoholic drinks.

What observations are there that suggest that the current consensus amongst cosmologists is wrong?

Lots of people say utterly stupid shit like "It is theory, not fact" or "It is not proven", as though these were insightful revelations that give us carte blanche to place any wild speculation we like on an equal footing, rather than being statements of the obvious that serve only to highlight the speaker's lack of understanding of science as an epistemology.

You can find someone who will say these things about almost any well publicised theory (certainly including evolution); Almost invariably this is an effort to promote religious and/or new age "woo" that cannot stand on its own merits.

An hypothesis is a guess about how reality might be. An hypothesis that has been refined and tested very thoroughly is a theory. No theory is ever "proven", only "not yet disproven". That applies equally to evolution, quantum field theory, the big bang, and general relativity. All are subject to tweaks as new data become available. Some are certain to be wrong in interesting ways (we know this because QFT and GR are not compatible, so one or both must be wrong in extreme conditions, despite being very accurate in more ordinary circumstances).

Newton's theory of universal gravitation is similarly wrong in extreme conditions; That doesn't, however, make it less insane to believe in trancendental levitation, or that rocks sometimes fall up. It remains useful, despite being "wrong", because it's not very wrong - in fact, it's barely wrong at all.

Ironically, the mistaken idea that a theory is either right (proven, invaluable, and infallible), or wrong (disproven and totally worthless) is a hangover from the C19th "clockwork universe" ideas that stem from total faith in Issac Newton's theories and laws; And from the human desire for order and certainty.

Reality is, however, under no obligation to be easy to comprehend, nor to be simple to model with perfect accuracy. And the last century and a quarter of physics have shown that it is neither.

Which is not even close to saying that "anything goes", or that some Internet crackpot has a similar standing for his wild-assed speculations and (often already disproven) nonsense, to the standing of the consensus of experts who have actually bothered to learn the state of the art before attempting to improve upon it.

Learning science is hard, because it's not about learning what current theory says, but rather is about learning what has been shown to be impossible, and how, and why. And there's a LOT of impossible stuff. And scientists are not allowed to just take other scientists word for anything* (although inevitably they do so as a shortcut, and often that comes back to bite tnem).

People prefer the lazy approach of instead just memorizing rules and laws, as they would if studying religion or law; And it is this lazy approach that is often mistaken for science, not least because up until the end of High School, that's what most people are (wrongly) told science is. But it ain't.








* Well, obviously it's "allowed", but when they do it, they're no longer practicing science, but are practicing faith - which we all know to be a very serious character flaw, but (sadly) life's not long enough for universal skepicism.
I am a layman, bliby. I accept what I believe to be the prevalent mainline theory among scientist in a given field because I know I am a layman and not qualified to offer a well educated guess better than those recognized to be experts in the field.
 
Here's an article.

"The report describes how one of the supposed fundamental constants of Nature appears not to be constant after all. Instead, this 'magic number' known as the fine-structure constant -- 'alpha' for short -- appears to vary throughout the universe."


Apparently this paper is from 15 years ago. So I’m curious whether this has been further supported or was just some anomalous measurement. I’ll see what I can find out when I get a chance to look into it.
Ok.. I dug into this a little more. The paper that seems to be referenced in that sciencedaily.com article is this one:

Indications of a Spatial Variation of the Fine Structure Constant, by Webb et al. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 2011).

They found that the fine structure constant appears to change with redshift and that change is different depending on the direction in the sky we look and postulated a dipole variation of this constant across the sky. The different directions they observed were with two different telescopes (Keck in the north and VLT in the south).

After these results were published, other astronomers attempted to repeat the observations. In particular, a group of astronomers developed the "UVES Large Program for testing fundamental physics", in which they developed a set of observations specifically to address this particular issue. See, for example, Molaro et al. 2013. This was later expanded to include observations from multiple instruments on different telescopes in Evans et al. 2014.

What was found in these later studies is that when the observations are calibrated specifically to measure changes in the fine structure constant the results tend to show values consistent with the null hypothesis and inconsistent with the dipole model proposed by Webb et al.

A few choice comments from the Molaro paper:

It has to be noted that a large-scale spatial variation of this magnitude is not expected. It cannot be obtained easily in the simplest theoretical models where varying fundamental couplings are due to dynamical scalar fields. One can nevertheless reproduce it by constructing toy models, for example, as the result of domains formed at the spontaneous breaking of a discrete symmetry for a dilaton-like scalar field coupled to electromagnetism (Olive et al. 2011). In any case, if such a result is confirmed, it will highlight the presence of currently unknown mechanisms that cause nature’s physical couplings to have different values in different regions of the universe. Observational and experimental confirmation or refutation of these results is therefore important. In addition to their intrinsic interest, these measurements (either detections or null results) can shed light on the enigma of dark energy (Amendola et al. 2012).

So, yes, there are people out there with cosmological theories that could predict an asymmetry in the laws of physics that would produce these variations in the fine structure constant. Note, specifically that Molaro et al. refer to those as "toy models".

They go on to say:

One possible weakness in the evidence for variations in α is that it derives mostly from archival Keck and VLT spectra. In particular, the majority of the spectra analysed by King et al. (2012) were obtained in service observing mode at the VLT. While spectroscopic quasar observations are generally straightforward, the service calibration plan for most VLT/UVES observations only include wavelength calibration exposures of a thorium-argon (ThAr) lamp many hours after the relevant quasar exposures. This introduces the possibility of systematic miscalibrations of the quasar wavelength scales.

This identifies the weakness of not having dedicated spectral calibrations when looking for such small variations in the fine structure constant -- they're talking about in the parts per million (ppm) range. So, the UVES study, which was expanded to three other instruments, used a much more sophisticated calibration approach, to reduce potential systematic errors. Ultimately, they got more precise results and were consistent with the null hypothesis. When trying to make such precise measurements, systematic effects, if not fully accounted for, can be major sources of error.

I'm not saying that there aren't variations, nor that there aren't potential models predicting variations, but I don't believe that these are established results yet. It's good that the original study was published and it is also good that other scientists took it seriously enough to attempt to reproduce it. This is how science on the edge of discovery works!
 
Was the genius arrogant? Or just being whimsical?

... Plötzlich unterbrach er die Besprechung des Buches, ergriff ein auf dem Fensterbrett liegendes Telegramm und reichte es mir mit den Worten: “Hier, das wird Sie vielleicht interessieren”. Es war Eddingtons Kabel mit den Messergebnissen der Sonnenfinsternis-Expedition. Als ich meiner Freude über die gute Uebereinstimmung mit seinen Berechnungen Ausdruck gab, sagte er nur gänzlich unbewegt: “Ich wusste ja, dass die Theorie stimmt.” Und, als ich sagte, wenn es nun aber keine Bestätigung seiner Vorhersage gewesen wäre, entgegnete er: “Da könnt’ mir halt der liebe Gott leidtun, die Theorie stimmt doch."
 
The BB is an extreme extrapolation back in time based on a century or so of observation.

To me it is theory not fact, it is not demonstrable.

The BB does not start at time zero of the universe, it does not define how the assumed initial conditions came to be.

That some may dispute time in what we today call seconds is not really unexpected.

To me cosmology lie the BB is mathematical speculation,.
Danger Will Robinson; you are using the word theory there in the common sense, not the scientific one. Bilby gave a more detailed answer in post 26. Facts are simply observations, theories are created to explain those facts. The BB does not attempt to describe origin of the initial conditions; it explains how the universe expanded from those initial conditions, like the relationship between evolution and abiogenesis.
That expansion is quite observable, and the BB fits with observations such as that expansion and the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB).
 
Laws, hypothesis, and theory have no specific defined meaning. I preferred model, a set of equations with inputs and outputs. A model trumps philosophical disputes over meaning.

A working model has stated bounds of application accuracies. Accuracy meaning how close predictions come to experiments.

There are multiple model for transistors used in circuit simulations. All based in QM.

We say Newton's Laws knowing it is does not work at quantum and relativistic scales.


There is the Theory Of Electromagnetics comprised in part o of Faraday's Law, Gauss's Law, and Ampere's Law.

One can see the word law in science and infer ab absolute rule, which is incorrect. Laws and theories are predictive models of reality as we observe and detect, the universe does not 'obey' laws of science even though when we are talking about science it can seem that way.

The BB theory is an unprovable model, it can not be experimentally demonstrated. It is called a theory. But then electromagnets is called a theory when all of it is well tested and used. Inn that case theory refers to a collection of models/laws.

I can create a differential equation for a parallel inductor capacitor circuit with no resistance, no losses. I can put energy in the circuit with initial conditions and simulate. It will oscillate forever. It can never be physically constructed.

So when I look at the BB it is a good theory, but I do not take it as fact as some have argued on the forum. It is commonly presented as fact in since shows,

As an analogy I look at the BB as fitting a curve to data extrapolating beyond the end points of the data. The BB is not just about observing what we call expansion, it extrapolates back in time billions of years to a theoretical initial condition.

As with my circuit example, that some observations today fit the del doe not make it true.

The BB theory is based on the limits of our ability to detect photons. The observational limit becomes the' edge' of the universe. We have no idea what we would see if we are at the limits of observation.

Expansion is crafted to make the theory work based on available data. It does not make expansion true.

Ancient Zog looked at the sky and was absolutely sure the universe revolved around the Earth.

In the 19th century time was thought to be immutable. Some thought science was at an end.

No science is absolute. The history of science shows that.


So this is what philosophers do to earn a living.
 
Last edited:
Laws, hypothesis, and theory have no specific defined meaning.
Where the fuck do you get that crazy idea from? Of course all three have specific and clearly defined meanings.

A law is:
a statement, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describes or predicts a range of natural phenomena.
(wikipedia)
P.2.f.ii. A principle or relationship that describes a wide range of observations, generally expressible by the statement that a particular outcome always occurs, so far as is known, if certain conditions are present.
(OED)


An hypothesis is:
a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. A scientific hypothesis must be based on observations and make a testable and reproducible prediction about reality, in a process beginning with an educated guess or thought.
(wikipedia)
an idea which is suggested as a possible explanation for a particular situation or condition, but which has not yet been proved to be correct.
(Collins Dictionary)

And a theory is:
an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be or that has been repeatedly tested and has corroborating evidence in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
{wikipedia)
a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.
(Merriam-Webster)
 
Observation: As has been noted, the issue with the fine structure constant does not appear to be good data.

However, the BB model assumes that at a sufficiently high energy density (way above what we can do even with the LHC) the laws were different.
 
the BB model assumes that at a sufficiently high energy density (way above what we can do even with the LHC) the laws were different.
Why you imagine anyone would take your unsupported word for this eludes me.

Do you have a citation for this claim?
 
Observation: As has been noted, the issue with the fine structure constant does not appear to be good data.

However, the BB model assumes that at a sufficiently high energy density (way above what we can do even with the LHC) the laws were different.
Can you state Explicitly which part of the model assumes that?
 
Back
Top Bottom