The Consistency of the Laws of Nature questioned?

P

paddoboy

Valued Senior Member
The following article and paper, is probably the most interesting I have had the pleasure of posting for a bloody long time......
Comments from our scientists and learned friends welcome.....

https://phys.org/news/2020-04-laws-nature-downright-weird-constant.html
New findings suggest laws of nature 'downright weird,' not as constant as previously thought:

Scientists examining the light from one of the furthermost quasars in the universe were astonished to find fluctuations in the electromagnetic force.

Not only does a universal constant seem annoyingly inconstant at the outer fringes of the cosmos, it occurs in only one direction, which is downright weird.

Those looking forward to a day when science's Grand Unifying Theory of Everything could be worn on a t-shirt may have to wait a little longer as astrophysicists continue to find hints that one of the cosmological constants is not so constant after all.

In a paper published in Science Advances, scientists from UNSW Sydney reported that four new measurements of light emitted from a quasar 13 billion light years away reaffirm past studies that found tiny variations in the fine structure constant.

UNSW Science's Professor John Webb says the fine structure constant is a measure of electromagnetism—one of the four fundamental forces in nature (the others are gravity, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force).

"The fine structure constant is the quantity that physicists use as a measure of the strength of the electromagnetic force," Professor Webb says.

"It's a dimensionless number and it involves the speed of light, something called Planck's constant and the electron charge, and it's a ratio of those things. And it's the number that physicists use to measure the strength of the electromagnetic force."

The electromagnetic force keeps electrons whizzing around a nucleus in every atom of the universe—without it, all matter would fly apart. Up until recently, it was believed to be an unchanging force throughout time and space. But over the last two decades, Professor Webb has noticed anomalies in the fine structure constant whereby electromagnetic force measured in one particular direction of the universe seems ever so slightly different.

"We found a hint that that number of the fine structure constant was different in certain regions of the universe. Not just as a function of time, but actually also in direction in the universe, which is really quite odd if it's correct ... but that's what we found."

Looking for clues

Ever the sceptic, when Professor Webb first came across these early signs of slightly weaker and stronger measurements of the electromagnetic force, he thought it could be a fault of the equipment, or of his calculations or some other error that had led to the unusual readings. It was while looking at some of the most distant quasars—massive celestial bodies emitting exceptionally high energy—at the edges of the universe that these anomalies were first observed using the world's most powerful telescopes.
further extract:
"If there is a directionality in the universe, Professor Webb argues, and if electromagnetism is shown to be very slightly different in certain regions of the cosmos, the most fundamental concepts underpinning much of modern physics will need revision.

"Our standard model of cosmology is based on an isotropic universe, one that is the same, statistically, in all directions," he says".
more at link....

the paper:
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/17/eaay9672

Four direct measurements of the fine-structure constant 13 billion years ago:

Abstract
Observations of the redshift z = 7.085 quasar J1120+0641 are used to search for variations of the fine structure constant, a, over the redshift range 5:5 to 7:1. Observations at z = 7:1 probe the physics of the universe at only 0.8 billion years old. These are the most distant direct measurements of a to date and the first measurements using a near-IR spectrograph. A new AI analysis method is employed. Four measurements from the X-SHOOTERspectrograph on the Very Large Telescope (VLT) constrain changes in a relative to the terrestrial value (α0). The weighted mean electromagnetic force in this location in the universe deviates from the terrestrial value by Δα/α = (αz − α0)/α0 = (−2:18 ± 7:27) × 10−5, consistent with no temporal change. Combining these measurements with existing data, we find a spatial variation is preferred over a no-variation model at the 3:9σ level.
 
No questions? comments?
This is pretty damning stuff for our current cosmological model, including the BB, if eventually and further validated.
The one directionality aspect may be evidence of "Steady State" or possibly Oscillating, if further validated.

Or were cosmologists in error in invoking DE, and were the S/Nova redshifts that showed them to be further away then calculations showed, and that gave rise to DE have been in error?
Afterall the DE component is still largely unexplained.
Please note, I am playing Devil's advocate here and basically believe that in time all will be well and was caused by some error or omissions in the data.

Still though more evidence of science/cosmology, always being willing and aware of errors, modifications and/or mistakes and the efforts to correct such.
 
If reproduced independently to 5 sigma significance, it will be considered solid. Current results already tentatively strengthens the case for a non-zero mass quintessence-type scalar field, of which there are many variants.
PS - title should have begun 'Constancy of the constants...." Think about it.
 
Last edited:
Q-reeus said:
If reproduced independently to 5 sigma significance, it will be considered solid. Current results already tentatively strengthens the case for a non-zero mass quintessence-type scalar field, of which there are many variants.
Click to expand...
As usual, time, and further science will tell. My mind recalls the premature announcements of the discovery of a polarization pattern in the CMBR....and earlier we had premature claims of FTL in what from memory was known as OPERA experiment?
I believe some similar anomaly will eventually surface.
Q-reeus said:
PS - title should have begun 'Constancy of the constants...." Think about it.
Click to expand...
I was mainly bemused about the possible invalidation of the cosmological principal of the isotropic nature of the universe over sufficiently large scales.
 
paddoboy said:
As usual, time, and further science will tell. My mind recalls the premature announcements of the discovery of a polarization pattern in the CMBR....and earlier we had premature claims of FTL in what from memory was known as OPERA experiment?
I believe some similar anomaly will eventually surface....
Click to expand...
At the bottom of Phys.org article is a reference and link to independent results based on a quite different analysis:
K. Migkas et al. Probing cosmic isotropy with a new X-ray galaxy cluster sample through the LX–T scaling relation, Astronomy & Astrophysics (2020).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201936602
They are essentially claiming 5 sigma confidence level, and combined with the Webb et. al. results it's looking very strong. What will probably never be known is how much variation over the entire universe there is. Only if it were huge could one or two fine tuning issues (out of many) be dismissed on that basis.
I was mainly bemused about the possible invalidation of the cosmological principal of the isotropic nature of the universe over sufficiently large scales.
Click to expand...
Which has nothing to do with 'inconsistency of physical laws'. The Phys.org article writer has a poor grasp of the distinction between varying 'fundamental' laws of nature, and mere variation of the 'natural' coupling constants. It's the latter that is in question. Hence my PS last post. Even if the laws were to vary, that is very different from asserting inconsistency - which implies paradox or chaos.

That Phys.org article writer also freely refers to a varying electromagnetic force, which is nonsense since the force between charges is obviously subject to the inverse square law wrt separation distance. Only possible variation in coupling constants matters - more particularly the ratio between different coupling constants. Showman Max Tegmark at least clearly understands the distinction between varying 'constants' and varying 'laws':
https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html
Excerpt:
"The Four Multiverse Levels
The figure above is explained in my above-mentioned Scientific American review article. There I survey physics theories involving parallel universes, and the bottom line is that they form a natural four-level hierarchy of multiverses allowing progressively greater diversity.

Level I: A generic prediction of cosmological inflation is an infinite ergodic universe, which contains Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions - including an identical copy of you about 101029 meters away.
Level II: In many models, inflation can produce multiple Level I multiverses that have different effective physical constants, dimensionality and particle content.
Level III: In unitary quantum mechanics, other branches of the wavefunction add nothing qualitatively new, which is ironic given that this quantum parallel universes have historically been the most controversial.
Level IV: Other mathematical structures give different fundamental equations of physics."

Level II vs Level IV. Level II is what Webb et. al. are essentially claiming has been observed and are just short of claiming verified. Doesn't touch on Level IV.

PS - Only constancy of the asymptotic low-energy value of fine structure constant is being challenged. It's well known that value is a running constant that increases at high energies as in particle colliders or very early universe.
 
Last edited:
Q-reeus said:
At the bottom of Phys.org article is a reference and link to independent results based on a quite different analysis:
K. Migkas et al. Probing cosmic isotropy with a new X-ray galaxy cluster sample through the LX–T scaling relation, Astronomy & Astrophysics (2020).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201936602
Click to expand...
Yep am aware of that paper, but as usual, I generally only post the article and first paper listed.
Worth noting in that abstract two extracts...
"a definitive conclusion has yet to be made. New, effective and independent methods to robustly test the cosmic isotropy are of crucial importance"
"The identification of the exact nature of these anisotropies is therefore crucial for any statistical cluster physics or cosmology study"
When that firm conclusion is reached and the nature of the anomalies explained, a firm/er conclusion may be possible.
Q-reeus said:
Which has nothing to do with 'inconsistency of physical laws'. The Phys.org article writer has a poor grasp of the distinction between varying 'fundamental' laws of nature, and mere variation of the 'natural' coupling constants.
Click to expand...
The homogeneous and isotropic nature are referred to as cosmological principals.
The "main" universal constants are G, "c" "h" and others I'm not that knowledgable about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant#Number_of_fundamental_constants
The number of fundamental physical constants depends on the physical theory accepted as "fundamental". Currently, this is the theory of general relativity for gravitation and the Standard Model for electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear interactions and the matter fields. Between them, these theories account for a total of 19 independent fundamental constants. There is, however, no single "correct" way of enumerating them, as it is a matter of arbitrary choice which quantities are considered "fundamental" and which as "derived". Uzan (2011) lists 22 "unknown constants" in the fundamental theories, which give rise to 19 "unknown dimensionless parameters", as follows:

The number of 19 independent fundamental physical constants is subject to change under possible extensions of the Standard Model, notably by the introduction of neutrino mass (equivalent to seven additional constants, i.e. 3 Yukawa couplings and 4 lepton mixing parameters).[11]

The discovery of variability in any of these constants would be equivalent to the discovery of "new physics"
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
If and when, any variation is found and explained, which castes any doubt on the fine structure constant, or any other aspect of the cosmological model for that matter, it will be ground breaking news, up there with the GP-B findings and aLIGO/VIRGO detection of gravitational radiation.

Thanks for the input though, and I'm rather surprised that considering the potential for these findings, that no one else has commented, either way.
 
paddoboy said:
Yep am aware of that paper, but as usual, I generally only post the article and first paper listed.
Worth noting in that abstract two extracts...
"a definitive conclusion has yet to be made. New, effective and independent methods to robustly test the cosmic isotropy are of crucial importance"
"The identification of the exact nature of these anisotropies is therefore crucial for any statistical cluster physics or cosmology study"
When that firm conclusion is reached and the nature of the anomalies explained, a firm/er conclusion may be possible.

The homogeneous and isotropic nature are referred to as cosmological principals.
The "main" universal constants are G, "c" "h" and others I'm not that knowledgable about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant#Number_of_fundamental_constants
The number of fundamental physical constants depends on the physical theory accepted as "fundamental". Currently, this is the theory of general relativity for gravitation and the Standard Model for electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear interactions and the matter fields. Between them, these theories account for a total of 19 independent fundamental constants. There is, however, no single "correct" way of enumerating them, as it is a matter of arbitrary choice which quantities are considered "fundamental" and which as "derived". Uzan (2011) lists 22 "unknown constants" in the fundamental theories, which give rise to 19 "unknown dimensionless parameters", as follows:

The number of 19 independent fundamental physical constants is subject to change under possible extensions of the Standard Model, notably by the introduction of neutrino mass (equivalent to seven additional constants, i.e. 3 Yukawa couplings and 4 lepton mixing parameters).[11]

The discovery of variability in any of these constants would be equivalent to the discovery of "new physics"
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
If and when, any variation is found and explained, which castes any doubt on the fine structure constant, or any other aspect of the cosmological model for that matter, it will be ground breaking news, up there with the GP-B findings and aLIGO/VIRGO detection of gravitational radiation.

Thanks for the input though, and I'm rather surprised that considering the potential for these findings, that no one else has commented, either way.
Click to expand...
Fine. What you write above re coupling constants is completely consistent with my earlier posts, except as modified below, but I doubt you realize that.
Nevertheless I partially withdraw that referencing in #5 to Max Tegmark's 'Four levels of Multiverse'. On re-reading, his Level II and Level IV categorizations only cover the case in those brief summaries, of variations between different 'universes', not variations with any given 'universe'. Ask him and the chances are he would bundle the latter as slight variations on his 'magnificent overarching scheme'. Or maybe it's already included in expanded version. What for sure stands intact is his distinguishing between varying laws vs varying constants.

One simple example: If the force between two charges at fixed separation varies from place to place and/or time to time, that's a varying coupling constant.
If those same two charges fail to follow, at low energies, the inverse square relation wrt separation, from place to place and/or time to time, that implies photons acquiring non-zero rest mass, which means variation in underlying law.
 
Q-reeus said:
Fine. What you write above re coupling constants is completely consistent with my earlier posts, except as modified below, but I doubt you realize that.
Click to expand...
Not a great fan of Max, and anyway again all I'm saying is that when that firm conclusion is reached and the nature of the anomalies explained, a firm/er conclusion may be possible.
That hasn't yet been reached, and possibly still could fall as pro or con. Either way, big news.

I intend e mailing an astronomer I once crossed swords with on another forum [now defunct]re his opinion on this. When I get a reply, I'll certainly post here for all interested parties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top