Laws of Physics Vary Throughout the Universe...

Discussion in 'Quackenbush's' started by wewokahorn, Sep 9, 2010.

  1. wewokahorn

    wewokahorn 250+ Posts

    New Study Suggests

     
  2. Longhorny630

    Longhorny630 1,000+ Posts


     
  3. DoobieWah

    DoobieWah 500+ Posts

    Interesting theory.

    However, since they used different instruments to determine the minute differences, (the VLT in Chile to measure the sky in the Southern Hemisphere and the Keck at Mauna Loa for the Northern), my guess is that ultimately it will prove to be a measurement error.






    [​IMG]
     
  4. general35

    general35 5,000+ Posts

    i heard an interesting discussion on coast to coast the other night about this issue and i'll leave it at that.
     
  5. accuratehorn

    accuratehorn 10,000+ Posts

    That would almost, but not quite, explain Texas A&M.
    Really, I just can't believe this theory. There's no way the laws of physics could be different in other places. Maybe in other universes or something. It doesn't make any sense. There would have to be a logical explanation for this.
     
  6. general35

    general35 5,000+ Posts

    There's no way the laws of physics could be different in other places.
    __________________________________________________

    what if the laws of physics are not actually laws. What if they can be changed or bent or altered.
     
  7. Dionysus

    Dionysus Idoit Admin

    Einstein says no. The law is the law, unless we're talking quantum mechanics and then it's like: whatever, Heisenberg.
     
  8. RayDog

    RayDog 500+ Posts

    It could indicate that special relativity is wrong and Lorentzian relativity correct in that there is a standard reference frame, and constants in different reference frames could be slightly different.

    The other thing is that the fine structure constant is a function of e, h, and c and it has long been thought that at least one of those is a derived constant. Unlike most physicists I think it is c. It may be possible that the permittivity of space could change within the scope of a Lorentzian model.

    On the other hand there is nothing to guarantee that the Lorentzian model is strictly correct either as it has issues as well.
     
  9. Math Mudrat

    Math Mudrat 250+ Posts

    The paper:The Link


    If verified, would be a very, very big deal.
     
  10. Perham1

    Perham1 2,500+ Posts

    There's no way the laws of physics could be different in other places.


    Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows what happens in the other, infinite number of multiverses, if they exist?

    You simply don't have the information to make that statement, general. Being certain about it doesn't make it so.
     
  11. general35

    general35 5,000+ Posts

    Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows what happens in the other, infinite number of multiverses, if they exist?

    You simply don't have the information to make that statement, general.
    __________________________________________________

    I didn't. i agree with you. but why do you need to go to other alternate universes? we could find differences in our own. we know the laws as they exist here, on our planet and nearby but like i said in the other thread on hitchens, if we truly understood the universe, our heads would explode.
     
  12. RayDog

    RayDog 500+ Posts

    In the conclusion it says the data has only a 4.1 sigma certainty, so if they missed even a single small source of error their analysis would be garbage.

    It could be analogous to Eddington's 1919 observation reporting the bending of light around the sun being 1.61 +/- 0.30 arc seconds, when the telescope he was using (4") had inherent aberration (Airy disc) of 1.25 arc seconds. Eddington was measuring the error of his telescope rather than a physical phenomena.
     
  13. MaduroUTMB

    MaduroUTMB 2,500+ Posts


     
  14. RayDog

    RayDog 500+ Posts

    The data is based on quasar light, and quasar theory by itself is problematic on almost every level you can think of especially light intensity versus redshift versus distance versus 1/r^2 distribution of light. And some appear to be twice as far away based on the Hubble law (28 billion light years) than the universe is believed to be old based on Big Bang theory (10-12 billion years). They don't make much sense physically within the scope of the standard model, so it is hard to know where to begin looking for sources of error.

    Our best guess for a description of quasars requires a large black hole in the middle, so my guess is this could be a measure of aberration due to local gravity in the quasar and not space in general. That is assuming its real, and my first guess is that it is not.
     
  15. Bluepies

    Bluepies Guest


     
  16. wewokahorn

    wewokahorn 250+ Posts

    So, the gist of the theory is this: Alpha is smaller in one direction and bigger in the opposite direction; therefore, the universe is much larger than previously thought?
     
  17. RayDog

    RayDog 500+ Posts

    Glancing at the universe chart the positive and negative alpha data appears to be mostly random. I did not read the paper carefully enough to see if it correlates to anything.

    The paper says nothing about the size of the universe. I only mentioned that as an example of the general problems with quasars.

    I thought I would take a minute to clarify things further. One of the key problems with quasars is that the brightness of the distant quasars is much brighter than expected if the distance is based on Hubble's law. Effectively the light diminishes as a factor of 1/r instead of 1/r2, which is not in keeping with physics. An alternative theory arose that these primordial quasars are much brighter, by a factor of ten or so due to some effect we don't know about. This would also be a huge strain on physics theory as we generally treat similar astronomical objects as having standardized intensities. Some make better standard candles than others.

    The problem can be solved by saying that the redshift is not all due to Doppler redshift, but also gravitational redshift. The gravitational redshift equivalent to near light speed Doppler redshift means the light must be emitted near the event horizon of a black hole. If you take this approach then the objects could be much closer, say 14 Billion light years or less for the most distant. This also solves the age issue relative to Big Bang theory.

    There are a couple well known cases where it appears that quasars are associated with galaxies that are far less redshifted, so the quasar would be closer than the quasar is thought to be due to Doppler redshift alone. If true this would imply that indeed there are two redshift mechanisms occurring with quasar light, with one not due to velocity. Unfortunately the person best known for cataloging these associations, Halton Arp, uses very lose criteria and the vast majority of them are dismissed (rightly in my opinion) and he is considered a crank by the mainstream. Unfortunately the mainstream tends to dismiss the few that may be valid, due to the association with cranks.

    I think that quasars are much closer and do obey the 1/r2 law, and primordial quasars are not brighter due to some mechanism not known to science. Be careful about people that claim that quasars are only a primordial phenomena as the closest to us could have been formed 90+% into the life of the universe based on Big Bang time. That argument is specious.

    Add all that up and you can see where I came up with the alpha measurements being gravitational aberration since at least half of the shifting and compression of the light is likely due to gravity, not velocity.

    There are still old tired light red-shift theories floating around as well. Most people who support them do so opposing Doppler redshift (wrongly in my opinion), but if you consider it as a third redshift phenomenon it may also be of interest. Most of the mechanisms, Compton scatter off dust for example, are minor and irregular. Those irregularities, including non-proportionality with wavelength, could be the cause of irregularities in the spectra. Those irregularities could be mistaken for changes in alpha.
     
  18. MaduroUTMB

    MaduroUTMB 2,500+ Posts

    Wow. I saw a television program years ago that explained the intensity of quasar light as being nearly unidirectional pulses of light. I am not sure how much traction that theory had (it was on TV, after all), but it seemed like an interesting idea.
     
  19. RayDog

    RayDog 500+ Posts

    I tend to get upset watching TV physics and cosmology programs. They are generally filled with more science fiction than the SyFy channel.
     
  20. TigerPride

    TigerPride 1,000+ Posts


     
  21. Bevo5

    Bevo5 1,000+ Posts

    ^^^^ Ah, you're forgetting about the one true law of physics that is found in every galaxy, universe, dimension, etc. etc. etc.

    OU Sucks.
     
  22. TigerPride

    TigerPride 1,000+ Posts


     

Share This Page