The gist is these guys from UNSW/Swinburne/Cambridge have now doubled the number of observations and measured the value of 'alpha' (the fine structure constant) in about 300 distant galaxies over a much wider area of sky. Their finding reinforces what they came up with earlier on …
Quote:
"The results astonished us," said Professor Webb. "In one direction - from our location in the Universe - alpha gets gradually weaker, yet in the opposite direction it gets gradually stronger."
"The discovery, if confirmed, has profound implications for our understanding of space and time and violates one of the fundamental principles underlying Einstein's General Relativity theory," Dr King added.
"Such violations are actually expected in some more modern ‘Theories of Everything' that try to unify all the known fundamental forces," said Professor Flambaum. "The smooth continuous change in alpha may also imply the Universe is much larger than our observable part of it, possibly infinite."
"Another currently popular idea is that many universes exist, each having its own set of physical laws," Dr Murphy said. "Even a slight change in the laws of Nature means they weren't ‘set in stone' when our Universe was born. The laws of Nature you see may depend on your ‘space-time address' - when and where you happen to live in the Universe."
This is serious stuff if it turns out to be so.
At the very least, it shows something is afoot, which may not be able to be simply explained.
They must be pretty confident of their findings as this article says they have now published in the 'Physical Review Letters'.
Some interesting snippets about the accuracy of these findings …
Quote:
How robust is this result?
It's always hard to tell exactly how reliable a result like this is, but, speaking strictly statistically, our data suggest the dipole signal we find only has a 0.004% chance of being a fluke. Scientists would say that the result is significant at the 99.996% confidence level. That sounds really robust! That's why why we've reported the results. But extra special care is required when such surprising results like this emerge -- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!
One encouraging aspect of this result is that, if you treat the Keck and VLT results separately, the poles from each of them point in about the same direction on the sky. We calculate that there's about a 4% chance of this being a fluke.
The pole of this "alpha dipole" is way down under. It lies in the little-known constellation of Ara (the alter), just to the south of the better-known contellation of Scorpius (the scorpion). The pole's astronomical coordinates are roughly right-ascension 17 hours, declination -61 degrees.
They are being cautious however …
Quote:
there's a famous saying in science: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Though we are claiming something quite extraordinary here, the evidence, though very strong, is not extraordinary enough. Yet. No one should really believe that constants are varying until another type of experiment confirms the results.
Possibilities for other types of experiments include making very precise measurements of the fluctuations seen on the Cosmic Microwave Background sky -- the radiation left over from the big bang. Another possibility is to measure very accurately the abundances of the elements that were produced in the big bang. But these methods have their own problems and systematic errors. But we're hoping this will improve soon!
Probably the best chance of confirming our results is to search for varying alpha in the laboratory somehow, perhaps by comparing the ticking rates of ultra-precise atomic clocks. The current best precision is not quite high enough but atomic clock technology is improving extremely rapidly, so we may know for sure sooner rather than later.
Recently, study of the light from over 500 supernova, indicated the universe was stretching more in one direction than another ... dark flow.
Prior to that a "preferred axis" had also been detected in the cosmic microwave background radiation.
Looks to me like the cosmological principle might be under threat.
Interesting as usual Craig.
I think that their sample is rather small and for me I would think we would need many more observations before any conclusions are reached.
When dealing with the universe even a sample of a billion is only a small slice.
I know the math of surveys is regarded as valid but I have never been happy with the concept that a survey of say 1000 people can reflect the views of a nation of millions... and with their survey the "nation" is of trillions.Their view that there is no fluke here hints they are already taking a view which is dangerous perhaps.
"The discovery, if confirmed, has profound implications for our understanding of space and time and violates one of the fundamental principles underlying Einstein's General Relativity theory," Dr King added. I regard as mere attention seeking.
"The smooth continuous change in alpha may also imply the Universe is much larger than our observable part of it, possibly infinite."
I thought this has been established that this was a "given" if one holds the "big bang" as the best theory available...
I often wonder about the pressure to come up with something new exciting etc and the following article says so much about such a situation as well as the possibility that peer review is not always a guard on crap getting thru...
The pressure to sensationalize ideas must be a reality many must meet... and seeking to destroy something to place new ideas should be treated with such as possible even if it be an exception.
It seems that these researchers are being cautious about it all and are not asking anyone to jump aboard with the idea of Alpha varying. There's a good chance that the value variance is probably due to some kind of experimental or systematic error in their analysis, (I reckon). When one thinks about the kind of measurement they're doing, any intervening matter and/or its movement has to be taken into consideration and compensated for across the whole dataset.
Tricky stuff, I think.
They have their critics as well, (even though Webb says he's answered them all). Perhaps they should get someone else to reproduce their results as a next step .. which would also draw some of the 'heat' away from themselves for a while. (IMO).
Actually, along the lines of Alex's last post, (although not blatently fraudulent ... as per the article he cites), I also often wonder how scientists working on something like this manage to justify their continued work on a particular topic, especially if the results of the first part turn out merely 'null' ?
Also, it must be difficult to justify the cost involved in the next logical steps in researching a finding like the fine structure constant work. Perhaps it is simpler to put the results 'out there' and see how much excitement it generates ? I mean, that's exactly what the neutrino CERN/OPERA folk just did with their FTL experiments, eh ? I wonder whether this was all a deliberate ploy to obtain funding for the second, (recently announced), FTL/neutrino run ? (They clearly have a competing experiment .. proton tests ?? ... vying for a common resource ... I wonder whether this is becoming a way for research teams to prioritise their resources/projects ... and we're likely to see a lot more of this behaviour in the future ?)
Craig I am very impressed by your response (and the incite you exhibit on all occasions) but here you show wisdom that must be admired.
You are a great scientist in my book and observer of the universe offering balance in commentary pleasing and sound.
Your questions are reasonable, valid and demanding and as such should be presented. Somehow I feel you judge all things using standards that should be usual ....and still open to the possibility that there are some things yet to be discovered.
alex
Whether this observation is correct or not is immaterial. More measurements should decide the outcome not conjecture.
I wonder if string theory predicts that two branes at an 'angle' can influence each other differentially depending on their 'separation' by inducing 'gradients' to affect the value of the fine structure constant. The mechanism would be differential leakage of gravitons or influence of gravitons, as the current conjecture is that gravity is so weak as it is not bound to the brane but leaks away to affect other branes?
This is purely conjecture on my part as it came from a mental image that appeared in my brain from nowhere! Quantum computing or vivid deranged imagination?
Like Mike I am very bored with the lousy weather. I even went so far as to wipe my Vista and replace it with Win7 which meant reloading all my software. The hard bit was finding all the keys. This could explain my mental state.
Thanks for the compliments, Alex - that's almost inappropriate behaviour for this forum and could get you banned for life!
Hi Bert;
Thanks for digging up that link … (it kind of keeps the saga traceable … ie: if we link threads about the same research).
About the brane interpretation - sounds good to me .. only problem is that I don't think brane theory has developed to the point where anyone can do the maths to give some substance to such potential predictions ! (I might be wrong .. but from my travels/reading on the topic, I don't think so !).
As an aside, as far as your quantum computer brain idea … do you think consciousness is a determinable, inevitable outcome of evolution, or do you reckon it might just be specific to humans ? (Also, does your Jack Russell display emotions … are these also evolutionary determinables ?.. or is it just the way you relate to his actions ?)
I think another explanation might be that slight changes in the susceptibility and/or permittivity of free space during the early universe might also result in positive and negative fluctuations (in Alpha). This would also cause speed variations of light during those eras. (More conjecture, mind you .. I agree with more measurements over conjectures, though).
Craig we cannot even define consciousness definitively yet let alone its core mechanisms. I prefer to think of it as an inevitable property that emerges out of complexity. The ghost in the machine is the best analogy and for centuries the devil dodgers held sway with their concept of spirit.
My dog is winging as I type as he has a plate of dry dog food to eat but he wants the chicken he knows is in the fridge. His sense of smell beats any hermetically sealed door!
As far as the properties of space varying the current unknown fudges of dark energy and dark matter are implicated in this same scenario of 'graviton leakage'.
Everyone is looking for a Test of String Theory and these musings or flights of fancy may give some sort of direction to follow.
My forte at the work I did for many years was the ability to instantly discount the myriad of possible blind alleys and point out the highways that may show promise. I do not know to this day how this talent worked. A lot of the time it saved a lot of wasted work and got our lab ahead of the rest of the world. My colleagues often commented publicly on this curious ability I seemed to have.
Thanks for the compliments, Alex - that's almost inappropriate behaviour for this forum and could get you banned for life!
In my case that is a relatively short ban.
MMM or rather Hmmmm ...string theory and parallel universes etc would seem to represent conjecture in the extreme a fantasy of math and a dream without observation.
In the world (or universe..er universessss) that string theory suggest any prediction can be made but never observed leaving all things possible. Where does this get us?
Other than that comment I wont take the bait
Is it a big deal if the variation is so small? 1 in 100,000 I recall? so what! round it off and find something else to play with... and we can only observe the observable universe different readings may be available past that (if we could make them) and they may show a different picture...we see only a very small slice of the universe and can never know if observations will continue to show the variation past our current boundary of observation......
[I]
MMM or rather Hmmmm ...string theory and parallel universes etc would seem to represent conjecture in the extreme a fantasy of math and a dream without observation.
In the world (or universe..er universessss) that string theory suggest any prediction can be made but never observed leaving all things possible. Where does this get us?
Other than that comment I wont take the bait
Alex …
Take a look at my comment in this thread.
I was quite surprised to find that gravity can be interpreted as a prediction of string theory ! As I find out more about string theory, I find that the age-old criticisms of it may well be unfounded !
Craig we cannot even define consciousness definitively yet let alone its core mechanisms. I prefer to think of it as an inevitable property that emerges out of complexity. The ghost in the machine is the best analogy and for centuries the devil dodgers held sway with their concept of spirit.
My dog is winging as I type as he has a plate of dry dog food to eat but he wants the chicken he knows is in the fridge. His sense of smell beats any hermetically sealed door!
Hmm … yep .. I like this definition …. complexity isn't necessarily the product of Evolution and Evolutionary time scales … and its not necessarily exclusive from either. Cool.
I've noticed recently that there's something called the mirror test. I'm wondering whether the mighty Jack Russell would pass it as a measure of self-awareness ? (I'd reckon so).
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk
My forte at the work I did for many years was the ability to instantly discount the myriad of possible blind alleys and point out the highways that may show promise. I do not know to this day how this talent worked. A lot of the time it saved a lot of wasted work and got our lab ahead of the rest of the world. My colleagues often commented publicly on this curious ability I seemed to have.
Bert
I could have used some of this recently, myself .. sometimes I'm my own worst enemy when it comes to ignoring such strong instincts .. it seems life is more a quest of balancing instinct with learned skill, eh ?
Whether this observation is correct or not is immaterial. More measurements should decide the outcome not conjecture.
I wonder if string theory predicts that two branes at an 'angle' can influence each other differentially depending on their 'separation' by inducing 'gradients' to affect the value of the fine structure constant. The mechanism would be differential leakage of gravitons or influence of gravitons, as the current conjecture is that gravity is so weak as it is not bound to the brane but leaks away to affect other branes?
This is purely conjecture on my part as it came from a mental image that appeared in my brain from nowhere! Quantum computing or vivid deranged imagination?
I don't believe in Alice Universes. While String theory is a wonderful example of mathematics, so is the topological description of a Klein bottle. Yet Klein bottles don't exist in our Universe.
Frankly String Theory has generated a lot of "predictions" that are not falsifiable.
We talk about branes that are stretched strings in Ed Witten's extra dimension of M-theory , yet strings cannot be observed as it would violate the uncertainty principle.
I believe QFT is still our best avenue to understand gravity.
While String theory is portrayed as the only theory of "everything" under development, QFT is still the main line of enquiry.
Take a look at my comment in this thread.
I was quite surprised to find that gravity can be interpreted as a prediction of string theory ! As I find out more about string theory, I find that the age-old criticisms of it may well be unfounded !
Cheers
I suspect you like string theory Craig ...I dont which is harsh given I dont understand it in the first place...however it will deliver or it wont and in time it will be useful or useless ..I wait and will be happy with either outcome.
I did follow the link you provided but was determined not to say anything and go against the flow... I never liked the movie ...too wishy washy... mere opinion but that is the one I hold.
alex
I don't believe in Alice Universes. While String theory is a wonderful example of mathematics, so is the topological description of a Klein bottle. Yet Klein bottles don't exist in our Universe.
Frankly String Theory has generated a lot of "predictions" that are not falsifiable.
We talk about branes that are stretched strings in Ed Witten's extra dimension of M-theory , yet strings cannot be observed as it would violate the uncertainty principle.
I believe QFT is still our best avenue to understand gravity.
While String theory is portrayed as the only theory of "everything" under development, QFT is still the main line of enquiry.
Refer to the attachment.
Regards
Steven
Yep .. nice diagram .. I think I can see where you're coming form … QFT has its basis in empirical experimentation (phenomenological) …. certainly has firmer ground than that of a string too small to observe and violating the UP.
Cheers
Steven said....I believe QFT is still our best avenue to understand gravity.
AND it seems those who address the matter agree from the little reading I have done Steven....
String theory and the folk running with it make claims that I doubt will come to anything in the passage of time.
String theory seems to contradict the principles I associate with "science" it can describe whatever it likes it whatever way it likes and so far I dont know that there is any observation made which offers support nor does it offer anything that can be disproved (tested)... as I said I really dont know.
...But for folk to think because they have seen "the movie" and then conclude the movie gives the "theory" legs is rather silly...its a movie offering little other than entertainment...not that good unless you wish to enjoy mystery and magic..
Does string theory not call heavily upon susy which is now up for a rethink??? she is now not that popular at CERN
I am a victim of scientific journalism Craig but unlike others I admit I really have no idea about anything and if I did take a position the probability is it would be wrong...
IF a car can happily run on three cylinders then anything must be possible...
I just wish/hope CERN gets more money (which I presume is probably lacking at the moment) and get on with something...anything... AND absolutely confirm something or absolutely disprove something and regain the momentum I perceive as having slowed. Not only do I want progress but I want it fast...Also its been a couple of weeks in the "life" department and nothing sensational..not good enough.
.
.
...string theory and parallel universes etc would seem to represent conjecture in the extreme a fantasy of math and a dream without observation. 
. Where does this get us?
.
