Friday, September 10, 2010

Laws of physics may change across the universe

Do the laws of physics change from one region of space to another? (Image: NASA/ESA/R. Thompson/U of Arizona)New evidence supports the idea that we live in an area of the universe that is "just right" for our existence. The controversial finding comes from an observation that one of the constants of nature appears to be different in different parts of the cosmos.

If correct, this result stands against Einstein's equivalence principle, which states that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. "This finding was a real surprise to everyone," says John Webb of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Webb is lead author on the new paper, which has been submitted to Physical Review Letters.

Even more surprising is the fact that the change in the constant appears to have an orientation, creating a "preferred direction", or axis, across the cosmos. That idea was dismissed more than 100 years ago with the creation of Einstein's special theory of relativity.

At the centre of the new study is the fine structure constant, also known as alpha. This number determines the strength of interactions between light and matter.

A decade ago, Webb used observations from the Keck telescope in Hawaii to analyse the light from distant galaxies called quasars. The data suggested that the value of alpha was very slightly smaller when the quasar light was emitted 12 billion years ago than it appears in laboratories on Earth today.

Now Webb's colleague Julian King, also of the University of New South Wales, has analysed data from the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile, which looks at a different region of the sky. The VLT data suggests that the value of alpha elsewhere in the universe is very slightly bigger than on Earth.

The difference in both cases is around a millionth of the value alpha has in our region of space, and suggests that alpha varies in space rather than time. "I'd quietly hoped we'd simply find the same thing that Keck found," King says. "This was a real shock."

Moreover, the team's analysis of around 300 measurements of alpha in light coming from various points in the sky suggests the variation is not random but structured, like a bar magnet. The universe seems to have a large alpha on one side and a smaller alpha on the other.


This "dipole" alignment nearly matches that of a stream of galaxies mysteriously moving towards the edge of the universe. It does not, however, line up with another unexplained dipole, dubbed the axis of evil, in the afterglow of the big bang.


Earth sits somewhere in the middle of the extremes for alpha. If correct, the result would explain why alpha seems to have the finely tuned value that allows chemistry – and thus life – to occur. Grow alpha by 4 per cent, for instance, and the stars would be unable to produce carbon, making our biochemistry impossible. ...


via Laws of physics may change across the universe - space - 08 September 2010 - New Scientist.

15 comments:

oliver stieber said...

now all you have to do is travel a few million light years and look back at earth to see if this is relative or absolute.

Robert Myrland said...

Science all from the start has been very dumb. U cant count on one hand how much bs they have told the public the last years.

Cheng said...

Yeah! Dumb scientists. Where do they get off, looking in to space and stuff?

Xeno said...

Really? Science has given us so many things. Internet; computers; bicycles, cars, trains, busses, jets, and planes; many of the materials in your house; the farming, processing, transport and storage processes which give you food and water; electricity; artificial light; tv; radio; drugs to kill pain during tooth repair; heart transplants; artificial satellites; roads;

Cheng said...

To be fair, he didn't call scientists dumb, just science. T'was I being facetious, that called them dumb.

Ann said...

Most of those inventions you listed, Xeno, were the result of work done in the 19th century and very early 20th century "science." (Yes, even TV. Although, I doubt satellites were thought of much outside the world of sci fi, which was around in places like London and Paris in the 19th century.) Actually, it wasn't so much "science" as we know it today, but more like Edison's trial and error. They were the result of individual men tinkering in their personal labs or whatever. It wasn't the result of what is called and what we have today, "big science."

The hugely funded science ventures of today may be an improvement on previous discoveries. But, they may not, as in the too obvious case of the pharmaceutical industry. And, I doubt, seriously, the food industry's chemical additions to food are really worth it. And, pesticides? Fertilizers? Hormone additives in meat and milk (via the cow)? You know, the automobile is wonderful, but it still it has major drawbacks also. (I mean besides keeping us from walking, a detriment to our health, or riding a trolley - a far better "invention," I think.)

No, scientists aren't "dumb," but they do often follow the herd, unfortunately. Perhaps this is why scientists do treasure creativity, but it appears it is in short supply.

Xeno said...

Science, it seems to me, is educated trial and error. I used examples i thought people could relate to, and while you are correct about the first one, improvements in our TV experience have continued to evolve with new discoveries in materials science, electrical engineering, digital signal processing, fiber optics, wireless, etc. I think the same is true in other areas.

Without some pesticides and preservatives, and factory farms, I don't think we could live in cities in the numbers we do since there would not be enough food.

Of course, I'm hoping we will get to the point soon where we can cut our individual needs for food and water by 75% by genetically adding photosynthesis and moisture extraction from the air to the things our skin does for us.

Cheng said...

Jeez Xeno, what's next on your list? Hibernation? Perhaps we could invite the birds and the bees into our pro-creative activities?

Xeno said...

There will be protests and lawsuits as with stem cell research, but we are on the path where we will modify ourselves directly by borrowing traits from other peoples DNA and then, yes, from other animals and even plants, fungi, and artificial DNA. GM people.

Xeno said...

In many cases we are shortsighted, and our technology is still primitive in that it does not harmonize with our environment, but some awkwardness is a natural part of the process of evolution of ideas.

We've never had this many people to feed at one time on the planet. I don't thing organic farming has the ability to scale up to feed this many people. Remember how many people are starving every day? Why is organic more expensive? Pesticides make more food by giving less to pests. More cancer for us long term, but more people don't die of starvation.

Am i wrong?

Cheng said...

I know this topic, bizarrely, came up in the Abi and Brittany Hensel postings, but don't you think there may be a danger of creating new species of human by GMing them. Sounds like the end for poor ol' homosapien.

Xeno said...

What will we look like in 5,000 years? Perhaps like aliens...

Xeno said...

When people don't care, it seems to be because they are not convinced that things must change, or they don't even see change as possible. There are differences in views regarding acceptable risks. There are different levels of learned helplessness. Imagine if our world, our species, had a 1000 year plan. What would that look like, if we all cooperated to build a new reality?

Cheng said...

I don't know about you, but I intend to look as young and dapper as I do today. Maybe a slight greying at the temples though.

Ann said...

You know, Xeno, I have much respect for scientific endeavors, truly. But, it seems we must continue to endure the same old stuff, again and again.

Environmental problems we face today are the same problems talked about in the 1960s, 50 years ago! Really! The only difference is that they have gotten worse (Oh some chemicals have been banned, and some rivers have been cleaned, but the problems of chemicals and pollution persist.) But, "no one seems to notice, no one seems to care."

I think a big part of the problem is that scientists and people in general can't, or better, don't want to think "outside the box," or, if you will, outside their narrow interests. You know, the internet is wonderful, because through it we have access to ungodly amounts of information, knowledge on just about anything. But, I read recently that people usually focus on what they "like." And, seldom stray beyond their (narrow) range of range of interests.

The trends in science in the last 20 years or so have presumably been toward interdisciplinary studies, combining entirely different fields to find solutions and answers. In medicine there is supposed to be a similar trend toward "holistic" studies, which is like, say, combining social studies and physiology. But, sadly, these trends are more advocated than actually practiced.

Alyssa McDonald recently asked Noam Chomsky, "Are we all doomed?"

And his reply was, "If there was an observer on Mars, they would probably be amazed that we have survived this long. There are two problems for our species' survival - nuclear war and environmental catastrophe - and we're hurtling towards them. Knowingly. This hypothetical Martian would probably conclude that human beings were an evolutionary error." (New Statesman, 13 September 2010)

Ha!