/sci/ - Science & Math

If this is true, then the big bang kinda has to be wrong, doens't it?
At least as we know it, since it is calculated under the assumption that the laws we have here are the same all across the universe.

I've been suspecting this a little.

>>1752144
No. The theory that physical constants aren't entirely constant has been around forever - although getting less important since people realised they were constants. But typically it's assumed that they might only vary in areas outside the observable universe, and were essentially the same throughout our section.

None of that is really a reason why this doesn't conflict with the big bang, actually. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

Fucking constants, how do they work?

Back in my days, constants were well behaved and they actually kept the same value all the time. Bah, damn kids, can't even teach a fucking constant its place...

Isn't this evidence that supports the theory of a vacuum metastability event. In which case: WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE

>>captcha: salty genetic

my mind is full of billions and billions of constants

pumb for very interesting

specifically what constants are being jeopardized?

just because the constants as we observe them aren't constant it doesn't mean the laws of physics aren't constant

what it might well mean is that our constants have been calculated from imperfect knowledge of how shit works and/or different parts of the universe have different shit going on underneath what we can currently observe

>>1752263
yes... but makes you doubht doesn't it?

Checkmate atheists!

>>1752263
is this the fine structure constant thing?
1/137

>>1752282
no learn2read faggot

constants are based on our observations
observations can only be done from earth
if shit like membrane density is different nearer the big bang then constants there will be different
so we recalculate what the constant is
it remains a constant ratio based on local variables
math and physics win

also, this shit happens all the time.

look at the value of the charge on the electron.

milikan was miles out from what it is now - actually h was lucky to see anything at all.

>>1752331
>implying I am not a naturalist
you sound upset

the real question is, where in the universe is the most alpha as fuck galaxy?

its 1/127

>>1752192
I am convinced we're living in a false vacuum.

1. The fine structure constant is approximately 1/137
2. It's not 1/137

>My face when Physics is now a soft-science, much like Psychology.

>>1752744
silly josef

>>1752767
I wasn't planning to be silly. That's why I wasn't.

>>1752331
Well if we calculate the force of gravity on distant galaxies using f=Gm1m2/r^2, and it turns out that G a million lightyears away is not the same as our G, that kinda throws off the result, doesn't it? Not saying the big bang has to be false, but if fundamental constants are not constant after all, a lot of stuff has to be re-evaluated, re-calculated, and re-extrapolated (for example we calculate the amount of dark energy based on observed expansion of the universe compared to how much gravitational force there should be).

It's probably just evidence of the way the electromagnetic force and the weak force showed coupling in the past. Remnants of that kind of shit.

Or, it's probably just evidence of the effects of dark matter on electromagnetic radiation. (i.e., interactions that violate cp).

Or... WE'RE LIVING IN A FALSE VACUUM DARK FLOW IS GONNE FUCK US WE ALL GON DIE

what if constants are changing with the addition of something like planck time or expansion of universe - ie constantly moving?

would THAT = god (inb4trolling. Yes.)

If this turns out to be true, Hawking may as well die already...

>>1752836
I was thinking of that, too (without the God part). But sounds a bit arbitrary and retarded...

>>1752134
I just hope the scientific community can interpret this and cope with its consequences

>>1752849
sure is butthurt deistturd in here

>>1752134
>"After measuring alpha
>measuring alpha
ALPHA AS FUCK

Anthropic principle strikes!

It's super effective!

>>1752855
why arbitrary and retarded? if we go for the simplistic balloon analogy the tension in the rubber (a constant at the microscopically small, very very slow stretching level) is dependent on how far it's been stretched already. So the actual value would change if the rubber was in the very early stages of stretching.

Could be the same for the universe, easily. When everything's "bunched up" as it were then G could easily be different as more/less/different sorts of shit are in more/less/different sorts of materialisations

>>1752863
How do you figure?

>>1752878
But stuff to the north isn't necessarily older or younger than stuff to our south.

http://www.klick-game.gauss.livando.com/joke-21.html
ui8g

inb4 the universe is not a linear system and therefore we can never know anything other than direct observances.

>>1752896
good lord, but we agree that there is a defined point - a big bang where the universe was bunched up a lot more tightly than it is now?

I tried to flag up the imperfection of the analogy but kept it simplistic in the hope it wouldn't be too taxing for the usual suspects.

>>1752918
From what I understand, you're saying that space to the north is either stretched more, or less, than space to the south, and that difference in expansion is what accounts for the difference in alpha. Is that what you're saying?

>>1752764

inb4 shitstorm

We live on an event horizon of a rotating black hole. Different places on the surface experience different centrifugal forces. This affects the value of alpha in our universe.

>>1752936
no no no sorry

i mean ignore north and south and think time when you blow a balloon at first it's easy because there's no tension in the rubber, and the more it inflates the more stretched it gets so the more difficult it gets to stretch it more. And if we're at a point half way through the inflation, then we'll see the "stretchiness" of the rubber as a constant when in fact the very stretchiness depends on how much it has already been stretched. Um. Is that any less fucked up?

Or say something is gaining mass slightly all the time you're trying to measure its mass, and every time you think you've got it right there's another nanogram added?

>>1752956
I get what you're saying about the rubber, but in the article it states that the alpha is currently different in two regions at once. . if it were a property of spacetime, it'd be the same everywhere, right?

>>1752967
analogy i was just trying to show how constants can change in ways our imperfect knowledge means we might not be able to predict yet

yeah in the balloon analogy then the stretchiness should be the same everywhere

but maybe the causes of "alpha" constant have some asymmetry in distribution that we haven't understood yet.

all it means is we refine what we know about the constants better and better and refiner and refiner - to learn something first you gotta not know it

>>1753008
Oh ok, my bad

the constants are evolving, have evolved to their current state and will continue to do so with changing conditions in the universe...or are the constants THE changing conditions? hm...

changing constants would be a better argument against god so let's just stop that right now.

I tried measuring alpha in this board, but my meter doesn't even budge:(

>>1753033
nah, my sorry for bad analogy lol

>>1753047
like that /brofist

>Wales

lolwhat.gif

How many theories of the universe rely on electromagnetism having a constant strength throughout? I mean, if the constant for electromagnetism is not actually a constant in the sense we thought, how much does that really matter?

It might still be a constant, just of a different kind - I mean, it does follow a "preferred axis through the universe" getting stronger and then weaker along that axis, and there will be some factor that causes and affects this which we don't yet know about

So, atheists, why do you still trust science?

Face, Christianity has never been wrong.

>>1755306
There are a bunch of constants relating to electromagnetism. I guess the main three would be the quanta of charge - i.e. how negative an electron is - and permittivity & permeability of free space. I don't really want to guess at how changing them would alter the universe, but just saying there's not just 'one' electromagnetic strength as such.

Admittedly the last two are kind of related to alpha.

>>1755306
Changing the fine stucrure constant, basically changes QED and in turn changes the engery levels of bound electroncs.

All elements will behave very differently. Esentially, all of chemistry is changed drastically.

>>1755318
>>1755322

Oh. So it really is a pretty fucked up revelation, huh.

>>1755322


QED is never used to calculate the energies of bound electrons.


at the very maximum level of useful theory, relativistic and correlative perturbations are used to more accurately calculate ground and excited state energy levels of heavy elements (such perturbations contribute almost nothing to the calculation of light elements)

>>1755322

>>1755347

QED in the fullest sense of the term, encompassses anything having to do with electric charge or the weak charge. Classical EM arises from QED, so do basic QM (with electric charges).

Energy levels can be determeined from QM (with electric charges). Hence, since QED changed, QM (with electric charges) changes, which changes the energy levels of the electrons, which in turn changes all of chemistry.

Do you get it now?

The only thing that doenst really change is anything dervided from QCD.


All physics (excpet GR) can either be catagorized into QED or QCD. You have heard of the standard model right?

>>1755347

Bullshit, we calculate the SR effect of the Hydrogen atom all the time. It is a basic problem given in Grad physics. It does make a fucking difference.

Earth is simulated in full detail. Places farther from earth are simulated in broad detail to save memory and processing speed. Just like in FPS games where objects in active play area are composed of polygons, but skyline or things far are actually bitmap.

>>1752331
>nearer the big bang

>implying the big bang happened at specific point in space

lolwat?

>>1752303
Actually this just disproves the idea that god set up the universe's laws perfectly for people. If they are different everywhere then we just happen to live in a part of the universe where life is possible (surprise surprise). Also it may explain some of the really distant objects that shouldn't be able to exist with our current understanding of physics. Its unfortunate we will never be able to explore the vastly different areas of the universe because there might be some seriously weird shit that makes naked singularities look mundane.

lol my electro-mag professor once explained the immutability of physical constants like this:

"They're the same today as when you wake up tomorrow. It's nice that nature always wears the same dress. Now, Physics is an attempt to peek up that dress."

1 girl in the class, instantly made angry face rofl