Researchers: Maybe fundamental constants are not constant

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 25, 2019

Fine tuning, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Maybe they are “kind of shifty after all,” some suggest:

Is it possible for light to travel faster or slower in the distant corners of our universe? The speed of light, like dozens of other so-called fundamental constants, is essential to how physicists understand the cosmos. These numbers even help define our units of measure, such as the meter, the second and, as of this Monday, the kilogram. However, there is no scientific consensus as for why the constants must be constant, or fundamental.
A new paper in the journal Physical Review Letters proposes experiments to investigate whether these unwavering pillars of physics are, in fact, fluctuating over space-time. If so, scientists will need to reevaluate the current models of our universe — or at least give these numbers a different name.Yuen Yiu, “Could Fundamental Constants Be Neither Fundamental nor Constant?” at Inside Science

Well, if they find anything at all, they could call fine-tuning “not-so-fine-tuning” and make a big point of it. If they don’t find anything, they can say they are still looking.

See also: Exact values of constants said to drive physicists crazy

and

What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

Comments

vmahuna, You used them to write that message. whether you are aware of them or you care about them, it doesn’t matter you are composed of them. You use them every day just to exist. If they started to fluctuate or stop working you also would start to fluctuate and stop working depending on which set of Constants changed.AaronS1978_{May 26, 2019
May
05
May
26
26
2019
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

When I was taking Physics in college, one of the lab assistants pointed out that we launch satellites into orbit using Newtonian physics, with no Einsteinian adjustments. If the "constant" you're worried about is only used by 10 people on the planet, nobody really cares how constant it isvmahuna_{May 26, 2019
May
05
May
26
26
2019
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

Seversky @4: You’re wrong. We do know that. The only empirically known source of complex functional specified information is the mind. Researchers are confirming that the biological systems contain complex functional specified information.PeterA_{May 25, 2019
May
05
May
25
25
2019
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

I doubt there would be any adjusting, people would have to adjust to different results, the science that they would use would always have the possibility of yielding something different, that’s actually a nightmare you wouldn’t be able to depend on anything Right now, if this is true, which I don’t believe it is it is simply a hypothetical conjecture, But on the off chance that it is correct, our little planet floats into an area of space where the physics are completely different science won’t be doing anything, there’s a high probability we won’t be doing anything And I do not see how you can adjust to anything when every time you test something there’s always the possibility that you will get a different result People will start taking things a little bit less seriously if we have to say “Well our science is telling us right now that this is how it works currently” I don’t see how things can adjust for that Fortunately so far we have had incredible amounts of success with science because things are stable and our physics allows for so I’m not too worried about this it’s more of a mental exercise. And if this is actually true for any reason, then we have been painfully lucky for billions of years, 4 to be precise It’s why I don’t prescribe to the multi-verse theory there’s too much chance for a disastrous event to occur that would wipe our universe out of existence You have infinite probability can equal infinite stupidity, And if we can pop into existence we can simply pop out of it as well and the moment you start adding rules and constants to prevent this from happening then it’s no longer probability, it’s something else entirely different. Now add fluctuating physics to the equation and you have an entirely greater mess to deal with So I’m Really happy science works, Because the only reason why it does is we have very kind and nicely ordered physics with a few weirdness here in there but things are pretty consistent, And many we don’t truly understand but we’re getting thereAaronS1978_{May 25, 2019
May
05
May
25
25
2019
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

AaronS1978 @ 2
Naturalistic arguments would be entirely shattered if the fundamental constants of the universe fluctuate. Science would have a very hard time trying to maintain results if in one area of the universe you get different results as you do in another area
It would certainly make things a whole lot more confusing. But I suppose if it turns out to be the case then science would just have to adjust its models to accommodate the new data just like it always hasSeversky_{May 25, 2019
May
05
May
25
25
2019
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

PeterA @ 1
Regardless of what those parameters are -constant, variable- the origin of the prokaryotes and eukaryotes are not explained by naturalistic arguments
We don't know that. The fact we don't have a naturalistic explanation of origins does not mean there isn't one. Human science is a work in progress not The Last Word inscribed on tablets of stone.Seversky_{May 25, 2019
May
05
May
25
25
2019
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

A new paper in the journal Physical Review Letters proposes experiments to investigate whether these unwavering pillars of physics are, in fact, fluctuating over space-time. If so, scientists will need to reevaluate the current models of our universe
Who knows, they might even lend credence to multiverse theories?Seversky_{May 25, 2019
May
05
May
25
25
2019
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Naturalistic arguments would be entirely shattered if the fundamental constants of the universe fluctuate. Science would have a very hard time trying to maintain results if in one area of the universe you get different results as you do in another area Life might only be possible in one area of the universe, if so that would forever make it impossible to produce life in a lab or anywhere else unless we are in that part of the universe. For everyone’s sake’s including atheist and people that believe in God let us hope that there are no fluctuating universal constant. That statement is an oxymoron universal fluctuating constant ughAaronS1978_{May 25, 2019
May
05
May
25
25
2019
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

Regardless of what those parameters are -constant, variable- the origin of the prokaryotes and eukaryotes are not explained by naturalistic arguments.PeterA_{May 25, 2019
May
05
May
25
25
2019
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply