Laws of physics may be different depending on where you are in the universe

[Fritzo]

Well this throws a monkey wrench into things:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm

Laws of Physics Vary Throughout the Universe, New Study Suggests

ScienceDaily (Sep. 9, 2010) — A team of astrophysicists based in Australia and England has uncovered evidence that the laws of physics are different in different parts of the universe.
http://forums.anandtech.com/articles/h/hubble_deep_field.htm


The team -- from the University of New South Wales, Swinburne University of Technology and the University of Cambridge -- has submitted a report of the discovery for publication in the journal Physical Review Letters. A preliminary version of the paper is currently under peer review.
The report describes how one of the supposed fundamental constants of Nature appears not to be constant after all. Instead, this 'magic number' known as the fine-structure constant -- 'alpha' for short -- appears to vary throughout the universe.

"After measuring alpha in around 300 distant galaxies, a consistency emerged: this magic number, which tells us the strength of electromagnetism, is not the same everywhere as it is here on Earth, and seems to vary continuously along a preferred axis through the universe," Professor John Webb from the University of New South Wales said.

"The implications for our current understanding of science are profound. If the laws of physics turn out to be merely 'local by-laws', it might be that whilst our observable part of the universe favours the existence of life and human beings, other far more distant regions may exist where different laws preclude the formation of life, at least as we know it."
"If our results are correct, clearly we shall need new physical theories to satisfactorily describe them."

The researchers' conclusions are based on new measurements taken with the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile, along with their previous measurements from the world's largest optical telescopes at the Keck Observatory in Hawaii.

Mr Julian King from the University of New South Wales explained how, after combining the two sets of measurements, the new result 'struck' them. "The Keck telescopes and the VLT are in different hemispheres -- they look in different directions through the universe. Looking to the north with Keck we see, on average, a smaller alpha in distant galaxies, but when looking south with the VLT we see a larger alpha."

"It varies by only a tiny amount -- about one part in 100,000 -- over most of the observable universe, but it's possible that much larger variations could occur beyond our observable horizon," Mr King said.

The discovery will force scientists to rethink their understanding of Nature's laws. "The fine structure constant, and other fundamental constants, are absolutely central to our current theory of physics. If they really do vary, we'll need a better, deeper theory," Dr Michael Murphy from Swinburne University said.

"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."

Other researchers involved in the research are Professor Victor Flambaum and PhD student Matthew Bainbridge from the University of New South Wales, and Professor Bob Carswell at the University of Cambridge (UK).

 

[chusteczka]

Nice article, thanks for providing it.

The find of varying constants in physical equations does not surprise me. What surprises me is that they were able to notice and measure it. That is fantastic.

The possibility this may preclude life in other areas of the universe is thought provoking.

The fact they use an acronym for Very Large Telescope (VLT) is funny.

 

[DesiPower]

tldr for ATOT, cliff needed

 

[Anubis]

tldr for ATOT, cliff needed

crazy shit happens in space

 

[rcpratt]

Not only where, but apparently when (depending on solar rotation/flares), too.

Yes, shameless plug for Jere Jenkins, my favorite ex-prof

Radioactive elements on Earth are like geological watches. A radioactive isotope of carbon is used to date human civilizations, among other things, because we know that its half-life is precisely 5,730 years; count how much of the carbon 14 has decayed and you can get a pretty accurate measure of how old something is. (If half of the expected amount is left, you'd say, "This thing is likely 5,730 years old.")

But what if the rate of radioactive decay -- the watch -- was not constant? One minute, the second hand is moving at one speed, and the next it has sped up or slowed down. And what if what changed that rate of decay was solar activity on the sun, 93 million miles away?

That's what recent research at Purdue University suggests. In a slate of recent papers, physicists Ephraim Fischbach and Jere Jenkins argue that measured differences in the decay rates of radioactive isotopes cannot be explained by experimental errors. Instead, they seem to vary with the earth's distance from the sun and periodic changes in solar activity.

"We are led to suggest that nuclear decays may be intrinsically influenced by the Sun through some as-yet unexplained mechanism, possibly involving neutrinos," they wrote earlier this summer. The researchers got interested in the problem when a solar flare on December 13, 2006 (seen above) decreased the decay rate of a radioactive sample they were studying.

 

[CycloWizard]

According to experts in P&N, the same is true of the laws of economics, even on a much more localized scale (e.g. between the US and Greece). It should hardly be surprising that the much more complex laws of physics vary over billions of light years.

 

[Acanthus]

According to experts in P&N, the same is true of the laws of economics, even on a much more localized scale (e.g. between the US and Greece). It should hardly be surprising that the much more complex laws of physics vary over billions of light years.

You think i don't venture out of P&N?

Rofl.

Keep going weirdo.

 

[Malak]

Science disproves science. More at 11.

 

[darkswordsman17]

According to experts in P&N, the same is true of the laws of economics, even on a much more localized scale (e.g. between the US and Greece). It should hardly be surprising that the much more complex laws of physics vary over billions of light years.

Why the fuck would you interject stupid P&N bullshit? Go troll in there if you need your fix of being a jackass.

Science disproves science. More at 11.

Of course you had to come in a prove your complete idiocy concerning basically anything at all to do with science.

 

[Malak]

Of course you had to come in a prove your complete idiocy concerning basically anything at all to do with science.

I'm sorry I offended your religion.

 

[lxskllr]

Very Large Telescope? ROFL! Did they do comps on the Very Fast Computer, and write notes on the Ordinary Legal Pad, with their Small Mechanical Pencil :^D

 

[darkswordsman17]

I'm sorry I offended your religion.

The only offense you made is against intelligence.

 

[bfdd]

very cool

 

[Train]

I only skimmed it, but didnt we already know this?

Wasn't the speed of light, thought the be constant, shown to be changing speed over time?

So now they are saying the (same?) thing about electromagnetism? Perhaps the galaxy (or universe as a whole) has a magenetic field of it's own that has an effect on each solar systems and planets local magenetic field. Given the fact that they saw an "axis" emerge made me think of the "axis" of the earth's magenetic poles.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Its not terribly surprising to find something like this. We're still trying to understand all the factors that apply (gravity for instance), so there will obviously be changes in how they impact everything.

I'm curious, since it is the strength of electromagnetism, is this something that could be explained just by different composition of things in the different parts of the universe?

 

[darkxshade]

If true this is good isn't it? It means that you might be able to travel faster than light after a certain distance?

 

[Malak]

The only offense you made is against intelligence.

Keep it coming, you only prove my point. And I didn't even need to make it.

 

[Gibsons]

Science disproves science. More at 11.

lolwut? I can't decide if you just find science boring or you don't understand the first thing about it.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Keep it coming, you only prove my point. And I didn't even need to make it.

Haha, what?

I proved a point that you didn't even make? Do you even listen to yourself?

Are you and whatshisface trying to outdo each other for most ridiculous logic and lack of scientific understanding?

 

[SlitheryDee]

Science disproves science. More at 11.

"Science has adjusted itself to more accurately describe the universe. More at 11".

Yeah, that works pretty good.

 

[Malak]

lolwut? I can't decide if you just find science boring or you don't understand the first thing about it.

I find science fascinating and read articles on it all the time. I subscribe to Popular Science. I find some of the things that others call science to be hilarious. Building conclusions on stacks of assumptions and when someone knocks it over with their conclusion, it's an amazing discovery. Until someone knocks that stack over too. It's been going on for hundreds, thousands of years. This is the way it is. No actually that was wrong, this is the way it is. Well actually that isn't correct either.

Some subjects, science is great. When it comes to measuring things outside our grasp, like time and space, science is wonky. And people like yourself add to the comedic factor in it. Although science fiction tends to be much more entertaining and leads to actual advances in technology.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm sorry I offended your religion.

which religion is that?


literacy?

:hmm:

 

[zinfamous]

I find science fascinating and read articles on it all the time. I subscribe to Popular Science. I find some of the things that others call science to be hilarious. Building conclusions on stacks of assumptions and when someone knocks it over with their conclusion, it's an amazing discovery. Until someone knocks that stack over too. It's been going on for hundreds, thousands of years. This is the way it is. No actually that was wrong, this is the way it is. Well actually that isn't correct either.

Some subjects, science is great. When it comes to measuring things outside our grasp, like time and space, science is wonky. And people like yourself add to the comedic factor in it. Although science fiction tends to be much more entertaining and leads to actual advances in technology.

popular science.

roflskates.

 

[Gibsons]

I find science fascinating and read articles on it all the time. I subscribe to Popular Science. I find some of the things that others call science to be hilarious. Building conclusions on stacks of assumptions and when someone knocks it over with their conclusion, it's an amazing discovery. Until someone knocks that stack over too. It's been going on for hundreds, thousands of years. This is the way it is. No actually that was wrong, this is the way it is. Well actually that isn't correct either.

Some subjects, science is great. When it comes to measuring things outside our grasp, like time and space, science is wonky. And people like yourself add to the comedic factor in it. Although science fiction tends to be much more entertaining and leads to actual advances in technology.

And how do you decide which subjects are "outside our grasp?"

 

[Malak]

And how do you decide which subjects are "outside our grasp?"

That is a fantastic question. As long as you can ask questions like this, hope is not lost.