View Full Version : Discussion: Fundamental Force of Nature Has ...

2003-Nov-25, 07:37 PM
SUMMARY: Physicists from Northeastern University believe that a fundamental force of nature, the bond between electrons and protons, has been strengthening since the Big Bang. In fact, they believe it might have been 200,000 times weaker ten billion years ago - and this could mirror the discovery that the Universe seems to be accelerating apart. They've based their research on the light from quasars ten billion light-years away. This theory is very controversial; however, as another experiment has demonstrated that the strength of the bond hasn't changed in at least two billion years.

View full article (http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/constants_nature_changing)

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.

2003-Nov-25, 07:45 PM
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it was determined that the values of various 'constants' have changed/are changing over time. All the various forces, speed of light ... though if they were changing, there would definitely have to be some relation between their changes as to not completely unbalance things. I'm not a theoretical physicist though, so this could be way off...

Jay Cross
2003-Nov-25, 07:56 PM
This is an interesting story. I am intrigued by the changing fine structure constant as a measure of the state of physics in the early universe. I think there's a chance that the measured fine structure constant might seem different because of simpler factors having to do with an increased density of matter in the universe at the time of the measurement. Still, it will be worth trying to measure this more accurately for higher Z values.

Paragraph one should probably say that the fine structure constant was "one part in 200,000 times weaker", not "200,000" times weaker.

2003-Nov-25, 08:58 PM
It's interesting, the fantasies dreamed up by cyclic beings, that go around in orbits, year after year.

There was never a Big-Bang, to uncyclic beings, that exist in free space, with no yearly cycles, or concept of time, to give these false concepts.

Cyclic beings can't imagine anything without a beginning or end, so they are stuck in their endless quest for answers, based on their anthill view of their cyclic Universe.

The fine structure constant, or alpha, as it is called, comes out as 137, after all the math,( the square of the charge of the electron, divided by the speed of light, times Planck's constant)

This one little number contains in itself the guts of electromagnetism,(the electron charge), relativity,(the speed of light), and quantum mechanics(Planck's constant)

Physicists would like to belive that these phenomena fit together in accordance with one big plan.

The uncyclic way to arrive at Alpha is to take the the square root of the speed of light(an equal and opposite reaction) and divide it by Pi.(the pure ratio of 1 to 2 dimensions) and arrive at 137.

As you can tell, this way is simple, compared to the cyclic way, and the end result is the same, so to speak, minus some earthian physics.


2003-Nov-26, 02:57 AM

"studies of a natural nuclear fission reactor which operated in Gabon two billion years ago"

Personally, I'd like to know more about that 2 billion year old nuclear reactor in Gabon :blink:

2003-Nov-26, 03:56 AM
Originally posted by rule419@Nov 26 2003, 02:57 AM

"studies of a natural nuclear fission reactor which operated in Gabon two billion years ago"

Personally, I'd like to know more about that 2 billion year old nuclear reactor in Gabon :blink:
Paul Kazuo Kuroda predicted the occurrence of natural reactors occurring in old hydrothermal deposits of uranium, long ago when the U-235/U-238 ratio was much higher [ J. Chem. Phys., vol, 25, p. 781 (1956)] :o .

On September 25, 1972, the French Atomic Commission announced that a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction had occurred about 2 billion years ago :blink: in the uranium deposit at Oklo. See C.R. Acad. Sc. Paris, vol. 275 D:1731 (1972), Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sci., vol. 26, p. 319 (1976) etc.

The best description is in Kuroda's book, "The Origin of the Chemical Elements and the Oklo Phenomenon" B) .

With kind regards,

Oliver :D

2003-Nov-26, 11:53 AM
The simplest answer (and probably correct) that can be formed from the notion that constants can change over time, is that these constants are based on false assumptions.

Gerald Lukaniuk
2003-Nov-26, 09:15 PM
If an accountant said his bookkeeping was nearly perfect yet he could not produce 70% of the money he'd likely find himself in jail. Yet cosmologists religiously adhere to the Big Bang as the only explanation of red shift and CBR with an equally ludicrous accounting shortfall. And indeed if dark matter and or negative energy out numbers the stuff we are familiar with why are we in such a privileged position in the universe that after trillions of measurements of time and space in our domain not a single smidgeon has been observe.
Clearly the Big Bang has reached a "reducio ad absurdum" and it would yield valuable corollaries to explore logical antitheses as whole or partial explanations.
Some that come to mind are;
"A shrinking yardstick": The energy in a quantum package of electro-magnetic energy and hence the frequency of light emitted during orbital jumps in our reference atoms on earth may be slowly shrinking over time compared to spectra from space. While there is abundant collaboration in the quantum theory that electromagnetic energy can only be exchanged in discrete packages perhaps there is a mechanism by which subatomic momentum can be bled away in infinitival amount (perhaps gravitationally) resulting in miniscule shrinkage of average orbital diameters and corresponding quanta at such a slow rate as to not disrupt the quantum leap effect. Perhaps some evidence as to the existence of the neutrino may arise from this effect. It's the "cock robin” argument: space is not (just) expanding-atoms are shrinking.
"Degradation or loss of energy by light travelling across space” has been apparently theoretically explored and ruled out but perhaps it has not been tested as a contributing factor. It has been well demonstrated that the THEORY OF relativity is accurate in asserting that light can not be de-accelerated by gravity, only bent. Perhaps the newly discovered rotational effects by magnetic fields should be explored.
“Multi-universes”: Perhaps we are not direct observing “The” universe through our telescopes but rather indirectly looking through "windows” to multi-universes as explored by various mathematicians. What would define something as an element of a separate universe is that it exists but we could not communicate with it. However perhaps there are multi-universe where there is just the impossibility of two way communication. Just as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (concerning our inability of the exact position of a moving particle in this type of universe resulted in bizarre irrational predictions that established quantum physics and are not just proven to occur but are being utilized in technology. Perhaps The theory of Relativity’s premise that the universe has no permanent stationary frame of reference as well as no synchronous “now” could also yield a condition that there could be a multitude of asynchronous and stationary(and thus “centrifugally neutral universes”). If they could only communicate one way, they could not in effect “synch up” with us and become by definition part of our universe. The observations of excessive rotation of galaxies has led to dark matter theories but perhaps we are observing an artefact of a spinning object that does not or no longer exists in this universe. From its own perspective is standing still with respect to the universe and its components experiencing no centrifugal force.
“Bent Mirror” We may be in a somewhat unique or rare position where our observations are being influenced by objects or forces that are not generally at work in the universe at large. Apparent slowing down of projectiles leaving the solar system is implied by radio transmissions. It may in fact be the transmissions that are affected not the projectile or perhaps both.

2004-Jun-30, 11:57 PM
There is an article in New Scientist about a re-assesment of the data from the Oklo natural reactor that shows that alpha [and the speed of light] were different 2 billion years ago. According to the researcher, Alpha was different by 45 parts per billion from its current value. His study is based on isotope abundances.

Speed of light may have changed recently (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996092)

Note that toward the end of the article are some factors that might allow alpha to have not changed.