Observations Suggest Variation in Fine Structure Constant

[bystander]

Distant gas blob threatens to shake nature's constants
New Scientist | Physics and Math | 04 June 2010

The basic constants of nature aren't called constants for nothing. Physics is supposed to work the same way across the universe and over all of time. Now measurements of the radio spectra of a distant gas cloud hint that some fundamental quantities might not be fixed after all, raising the possibility that a radical rethink of the standard model of particle physics may one day be needed.

The evidence comes from observations of a dense gas cloud some 2.9 billion light years away which has a radio source, the active supermassive black hole PKS 1413+135, right behind it. Hydroxyl radicals in the gas cloud absorb the galaxy's radio energy at certain wavelengths and emit it again at different wavelengths. This results in so-called "conjugate" features in the radio spectrum of the gas, with a dip in intensity corresponding to absorption and an accompanying spike corresponding to emission.

The dip and spike have the same shape, which shows that they arise from the same gas. But Nissim Kanekar of the National Centre for Radio Astrophysics in Pune, India, and colleagues found that the gap in frequency between the two was smaller than the properties of hydroxyl radicals would lead us to expect.

The gap depends on three fundamental constants: the ratio of the mass of the proton to the mass of the electron, the ratio that measures a proton's response to a magnetic field, and the fine-structure constant, alpha, which governs the strength of the electromagnetic force. The discrepancy in the size of the gap thus amounts to "tentative evidence" that one or more of these constants may once have been different in this region of space, Kanekar says.
...
even such a small effect would require "a new, more fundamental theory of particle physics" to explain it

Probing Fundamental Constant Evolution with Redshifted Conjugate-satellite OH Lines

• The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 716, Number 1, (2010 June 10), doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/716/1/L23

[Beyond]

bystander -- in regards to a new fundamental theory of particle physics -- is that because of odd behavior of particles based on 3, or do you think they may have encountered particles based on 2 or even 1 ?

[bystander]

Fine Structure Constant Varies with Direction in Space
Technology Review | the physics arXiv blog | 26 Aug 2010

Over the years, many physicists have wondered whether the fundamental constants of nature might have been different when the universe was younger. If so, the evidence ought to be out there in the cosmos where we can see distant things exactly as they were in the past.

One thing that ought to be obvious is whether a number known as the fine structure constant was different. The fine structure constant determines how strongly atoms hold onto their electrons and so is an important factor in the frequencies at which atoms absorb light.

If the fine structure were different earlier in the universe, we ought to be able to see the evidence in the way distant gas clouds absorb light on its way here from even more distant objects such as quasars.

As it turns out, exactly this kind of evidence has emerged in the last ten years or so from studies of absorption spectra carried out with the Keck telescope in Hawaii. These indicate that the fine structure constant must have been smaller when the universe was younger. It's fair to say, however, that this evidence is controversial--other studies have not always corroborated the result.

That debate looks set to pale into insignificance compared to new claims being made about the fine structure constant. Today, John Webb at the University of South Wales, one of the leading proponents of the varying constant idea, and a few cobbers say they have new evidence from the Very Large Telescope in Chile that the fine structure constant was different when the universe was younger.

But get this. While data from the Keck telescope indicate the fine structure constant was once smaller, the data from the Very Large Telescope indicates the opposite, that the fine structure constant was once larger. That's significant because Keck looks out into the northern hemsiphere, while the VLT looks south

This means that in one direction, the fine structure constant was once smaller and in exactly the opposite direction, it was once bigger. And here we are in the middle, where the constant as it is (about 1/137.03599...)

That's a mind blowing result. One of the biggest conundrums that cosmologists face is explaining why the fundamental constants of nature seem fine tuned for life. If the fine structure constant were very different, stars and atoms wouldn't form and the universe as we know it couldn't exist. No theory explains why it takes the value it does which leaves scientists at a loss.

The implication from Webb and co's data is that the fine structure constant is continuously varying throughout space and is merely fine-tuned for life in this corner of the cosmos: the universe's habitable zone. Elsewhere, presumably well beyond the universe we can see, this constant is entirely different.

That's likely to put the cat among the pigeons. Webb is no stranger to controversy--he has had to fight tooth and nail to have his data and ideas accepted. But this time round, with such a radical new data on the table, the debate is likely to be fiercer still.

So sit back and enjoy the show.

Variations in fine-structure constant suggest laws of physics not the same everywhere
PhysOrg | General Physics | 05 Sept 2010

One of the most controversial questions in cosmology is why the fundamental constants of nature seem fine-tuned for life. One of these fundamental constants is the fine-structure constant, or alpha, which is the coupling constant for the electromagnetic force and equal to about 1/137.0359. If alpha were just 4% bigger or smaller than it is, stars wouldn't be able to make carbon and oxygen, which would have made it impossible for life as we know it to exist. Now, results from a new study show that alpha seems to have varied a tiny bit in different directions of the universe billions of years ago, being slightly smaller in the northern hemisphere and slightly larger in the southern hemisphere. One intriguing possible implication is that the fine-structure constant is continuously varying in space, and seems fine-tuned for life in our neighborhood of the universe.

Evidence For Spatial Variation Of The fiFine Structure Constant - JK Webb et al

• arXiv.org > astro-ph > arXiv:1008.3907 > 23 Aug 2010

Manifestations of a spatial variation of fundamental constants on atomic clocks,
Oklo, meteorites, and cosmological phenomena - JC Berengut, VV Flambaum

• arXiv.org > physics > arXiv:1008.3957 > 24 Aug 2010

[Beyond]

Carl Sagan once said that it looked like the Universe was "tuned" for human life. If it was off just a little - here or there, it would not support human life.
Looks like he discovered that the Universe is "smart" or "alive" OR maybe "BOTH?" Rocks aren't as "dumb" as they appear to be, but like us, they can't do much about it. Neither can big fat Bumble Bees, but they still manage to fly, no matter how much lack of lift they have.

[rstevenson]

... Neither can big fat Bumble Bees, but they still manage to fly, no matter how much lack of lift they have.

That's a remarkably unscientific way to look at it, implying a belief in magic. A scientist would say that bees do fly, therefore they do have all the lift they need. Now let's study them to find out where that lift is coming from. And indeed they did study them, and they did find out how bumble bees manage to fly. No magic required. Similarly, there's no need to believe in a "smart" universe, whatever that means. The weak anthropic principle seems sufficient, though not without considerable ongoing discussion.

Rob

[neufer]

The Universe is flat (thanks to inflation) but it can still (topologically) be a "cylinder."

What if the Universe is a long cylinder with the fine structure constant slowly varying along the length of the cylinder.

Life only exists within the narrow band of that cylinder where the fine structure constant ~ 1/137.036

[Beyond]

... Neither can big fat Bumble Bees, but they still manage to fly, no matter how much lack of lift they have.

That's a remarkably unscientific way to look at it, implying a belief in magic. A scientist would say that bees do fly, therefore they do have all the lift they need. Now let's study them to find out where that lift is coming from. And indeed they did study them, and they did find out how bumble bees manage to fly. No magic required. Similarly, there's no need to believe in a "smart" universe, whatever that means. The weak anthropic principle seems sufficient, though not without considerable ongoing discussion.

Rob

Hey Rob, did you actually get to read about how bees fly? No matter how i arrive at the page, i only get to see it for a second or two before it disappears. Bummer!!
Also, there's no such thing as magic.

[geckzilla]

Why, oh why, did I read the comments on that bee flight article... some guy is there saying bees fly by displacing gravity. What does that even mean?!

[rstevenson]

Why, oh why, did I read the comments on that bee flight article... some guy is there saying bees fly by displacing gravity. What does that even mean?!

I make it a point never to read the comments in blogs. It's just too depressing.

Rob

[bystander]

When fundamental constants change over space — rethinking physics as we know it
Joint European and National Astronomy Meeting | 06 Sept 2010

[b]Quasars Spectra shifts imply variation of fine-structure constant:[/b] [b][i](Credit: Dr. Julian Berengut, UNSW, 2010)[/i][/b]

---

New research suggests that the supposedly invariant fine-structure constant, which characterizes the strength of the electromagnetic force, varies from place to place throughout the Universe. The finding could mean rethinking the fundaments of our current knowledge of physics. These results will be presented tomorrow during the Joint European and National Astronomy Meeting in Lisbon, Portugal, and the scientific article has been submitted to the Physical Review Letters Journal.

A team of astronomers led by John Webb from the University of New South Wales, Australia, have obtained new data by studying quasars, which are very distant galaxies hosting an active black hole in their center. As the light emitted by quasars travels throughout the cosmos, part of it is absorbed by a variety of atoms present in interstellar clouds, providing astronomers with a natural laboratory to test the laws of physics billions of light-years away from the Earth.

Webb’s results imply that the fine-structure constant, which characterizes the strength of the electromagnetic force, might have different values depending on which direction we are looking in the sky, thus being not so ‘constant’ after all.

[Henning Makholm]

The Universe is flat (thanks to inflation) but it can still (topologically) be a "cylinder."

What if the Universe is a long cylinder with the fine structure constant slowly varying along the length of the cylinder.

I don't see how inflation could change the global topology of the universe -- if it is cylindrical now, it must have been cylindrical even before inflation.

However, cylindricity does not appear to be necessary for the picture you're painting. Simply posit that the fundamental constants vary randomly throughout the entire universe, but on scales much larger than the currently visible part of it. Then what we can observe will still have a nice gradient, that is, a more-or-less well-defined preferred direction in which the fine structure constant increases.

This is all well and good as long as there's only the fine-structure constant to vary. But if there are too many adjustable parameters that need to be "just right" for life, and we suppose that they can all vary independently, then it becomes increasingly unlikely that there's anywhere in a 3D multiverse where all of the parameters are within the "sweet spot" for life. Then the anthropic principle cannot easily save us anymore.

Apart from the fine-structure constant, the masses of the electron, the proton, and the neutron might reasonably be expected to have to be "just right" before we can exist. That's four constants, and then we're in trouble. But perhaps it would be alright if they were all heavier or lighter than ours by the same factor. That would just correspond to a change in the constant of gravity; as long as there is some gravity around to make stars, the precise amount of it does not immediately appear to be important.

[neufer]

The Universe is flat (thanks to inflation) but it can still (topologically) be a "cylinder."

What if the Universe is a long cylinder with the fine structure constant slowly varying along the length of the cylinder.

I don't see how inflation could change the global topology of the universe -- if it is cylindrical now, it must have been cylindrical even before inflation.

Forget about the inflation comment if that is what is confusing you.

I am simply arguing that the Universe
which we know to be flat (i.e., with zero curvature)
is topologically a "cylinder" which has measurable consequences.

However, cylindricity does not appear to be necessary for the picture you're painting. Simply posit that the fundamental constants vary randomly throughout the entire universe, but on scales much larger than the currently visible part of it. Then what we can observe will still have a nice gradient, that is, a more-or-less well-defined preferred direction in which the fine structure constant increases.

That is fine... but it is your model not mine.

When I was a kid I enjoyed the Gamow book _One Two Three...Infinity_;
especially, it's diagram of a flat but topologically toroidal (quasi-cylindrical) universe.
The problem, however, is that such a universe anisotropic.
Fortunately, that particular feature NOW seems to be an advantage.

This is all well and good as long as there's only the fine-structure constant to vary. But if there are too many adjustable parameters that need to be "just right" for life, and we suppose that they can all vary independently, then it becomes increasingly unlikely that there's anywhere in a 3D multiverse where all of the parameters are within the "sweet spot" for life. Then the anthropic principle cannot easily save us anymore.

Apart from the fine-structure constant, the masses of the electron, the proton, and the neutron might reasonably be expected to have to be "just right" before we can exist. That's four constants, and then we're in trouble. But perhaps it would be alright if they were all heavier or lighter than ours by the same factor. That would just correspond to a change in the constant of gravity; as long as there is some gravity around to make stars, the precise amount of it does not immediately appear to be important.

I'll deal with one issue at a time; especially if it is somewhat testable.

We happen to live of the sweet spot of universal pencil:

• “ There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to 0.08542455. (My physicist friends won't recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly! ”
  
  —Richard P. Feynman (1985). QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.

[neufer]

[b]Quasars Spectra shifts imply variation of fine-structure constant:[/b] [b][i](Credit: Dr. Julian Berengut, UNSW, 2010)[/i][/b]

---

It is hard to believe that a relativistic cosmic ray passing

from the (smaller α) northern hemispheric sky
to the (larger α) southern hemispheric sky

will either:

• 1) gain electrical charge (i.e., an increase in "e") or
  2) become more relativistic (i.e., a decrease in "c").

However, there is no reason to question whether or not that
cosmic ray will become more classical (i.e., a decrease in "h").

The classical world (h => 0) lies "down under" (where harry lives).

[Chris Peterson]

There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to 0.08542455. (My physicist friends won't recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!

—Richard P. Feynman (1985). QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.

It's a nice quote- very Feynman. He got very excited and eloquent about topics like this (which I remember from when he taught my first year college physics course). But I think this takes things a little far. Universal constants don't have a reason for their value. They just are what they are. I don't see any difference with this one.

The idea that it isn't really a constant is interesting, and I'll certainly follow this work as it proceeds. But for now, I think it's a lot more likely that the results stem from instrumental or systematic errors, or even from a misinterpretation of the data. I think we'd see more profound effects if this constant (or any other) changed with location.

But, we'll see.

[neufer]

It's a nice quote- very Feynman.
He got very excited and eloquent about topics like this
(which I remember from when he taught my first year college physics course).

You were a freshman at Caltech in 1961? I thought you were younger than that.

Universal constants don't have a reason for their value.
They just are what they are.

I don't see any difference with this one.

<<In 1958, Pauli was awarded the Max Planck medal. In that same year, he fell ill with pancreatic cancer. When his last assistant, Charles Enz, visited him at the Rotkreuz hospital in Zürich, Pauli asked him: “Did you see the room number?” It was number 137. Throughout his life, Pauli had been preoccupied with the question of why the fine structure constant, a dimensionless fundamental constant, has a value nearly equal to 1/137. Pauli died in that room on 15 December 1958.>>

The idea that it isn't really a constant is interesting, and I'll certainly follow this work as it proceeds. But for now, I think it's a lot more likely that the results stem from instrumental or systematic errors, or even from a misinterpretation of the data. I think we'd see more profound effects if this constant (or any other) changed with location.

But, we'll see.

[Chris Peterson]

You were a freshman at Caltech in 1961?

You're about 15 years too early. There was a rotation of professors for first year physics. Feynman, Goodstein, Neugebauer. A nice guest lecture by Kip Thorne, as well.

[neufer]

You were a freshman at Caltech in 1961?

You're about 15 years too early. There was a rotation of professors for first year physics.
Feynman, Goodstein, Neugebauer. A nice guest lecture by Kip Thorne, as well.

Feynman was (tag team) teaching freshman physics at Caltech in 1976?

Did he stick to his red book lectures? (If so which lectures did he give to you?)

Did you get your bachelors from Caltech? (If so what did you do for a thesis?)

[rriverstone]

How kewl is THIS?!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 004112.htm

"While a 'varying constant' would shake our understanding of the world around us extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What we're finding is extraordinary, no doubt about that."

"It's one of the biggest questions of modern science -- are the laws of physics the same everywhere in the universe and throughout its entire history? We're determined to answer this burning question one way or the other."