

The nature of the universe

Ye cannae change the laws of physics

Or can you?

See article

Readers' comments



The only one of the two constants involved, that is itself not the product of other factors, is the velocity of Light. Therefore, it is the only one that "might be changing". The trouble is, if that is so, then the very age of the Universe and the process of ageing the Universe (and too many other branches of science) would be 'under review'...
Hopefully, some enlightened (!) individual, will fund proper research to determine whether the velocity of light really is constant.

At least there is one one law that is unchanging - entropy.


Someone wrote: '"nuclear reactions that synthesise carbon and oxygen atoms" isn't that what we mere mortals call combustion?'

No, combustion is combining carbon and oxygen atoms that already exist; the outer electrons get shared between the atoms (or among a carbon atom and two oxygen atoms). Nuclear reactions, on the other hand, create carbon and oxygen nuclei out of other (generally lighter) nuclei.


I think that this anisotropy is bound to have profound implications for gauge symmetries, but I am not sure. I am a bit puzzled.

Brown Dwarf

"...they found a great arc across the sky. Along this arc, the value of alpha changes smoothly, being smaller in one direction and larger in the other."

This quote from the article, sounds like the Doppler effect, in action over the immense distances to the quasars. Perhaps one of the factors in the Fine-Constant, maybe Light, is being changed on its journey from the edge of the observable universe to the Earth.

Quentin Vole

@Dominique R. Poirier
And in what units are you going to measure the height of the Great Pyramid? You'll get a different value if you measure it in metres or inches.

The fine structure constant, on the other hand, does *not* vary if you change the units of measurement. It has exactly the same value if you use metres-kilograms-seconds or feet-pounds-days, because the changes to the underlying constants from which it's constructed cancel each other out.

That's why Richard Feynmann (who may just possibly have been slightly smarter than you or me) thought it one of the profoundest mysteries in the universe.




I have not an in deep knowledge of all this. Just some amateur reading. But it wouldn't be strange for me that the next thing to be announced was serious doubts on big bang as far as it seems that that 'alpha' changing can offer an alternative explanation to the farther - faster principle hat when taken backwards lead to 'zero second' and big bang.
¿May it be possible?

Rosa Delite

I love when I see the response of the large or the small to the questioning consciousness presents. Any time we observe something we are influencing what we observe. The results in our 5 sensory physical world is the effect of consciousness' creation. We are but individualize consciousness limited by the resistance that defines our individuality and the identification that define our believes. To any postulate, when expanded, the answer is "yes". That, to me, creates the inconsistencies of a perfect universe.


I did a back of the envelope calculation that showed that the actual universe SUITABLE FOR LIFE AS WE KNOW IT may be 15,625,000 times bigger than the observable universe. The total number of stars would be 468.75 times 10 to the power of 27 (468,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). And this is only the universe suitable for life. Given this size, it is likely that every fiction novel is really a documentary somewhere in the universe.


I applaud the writer(s) for a finely written piece of scientific journalism. Simply written without sacrificing accuracy, it conveys the drama and excitement while respecting the rational foundations of science. Bravo.


However exciting and interesting these studies seem,in mathematics the use of constants and variables within constants are all games that end up in multiple solutions.The reality is we are now better able to go back to times that were as space could have been and all in incredibly distant past that is guessed using constants with variables.I think it would be more worthwhile to find ways to protect this our God made or otherwise naturally accidental planet that came out of nothing before it gets destroyed by our survival process.


This only adds to other reasons why the models we use to describe the universe need an update. This is not a dramatic event, after all, it is not the first time it happens, nor will it be the last.

A new model doesn't necessarily change everything or even the way we see things. Previous models usually remain useful within certain limits and the new ones are "only" more comprehensive and more precise in some areas. Also, they may or may not result easier to work with or open the way to innovations.

I would be surprised if no physicist is already dreaming of a model without "force" and "mass", for instance.


This is mind blowing.
It essentially says that one of the cornerstones of modern physics ie that the laws are independent from where you observe them, is not correct (to an extent). Doesn't this break a bunch of gauge symmetries? I'm not sure, find me a real physicist!

@ D. Poirier; I accidentally recommended your link, I didn't really mean to, sorry. I meant to comment and say that the technique described is a pretty common way of finding pure numbers and has firm basis in maths and physics!


Can we change the second law of thermodynamics?If scientists change that then there is no meaning the laws of physic and no meaning to life


The laws of physics change depending on certain variations in the universe. So is not that only the person who can cause those certain variations can change the laes of physics?


Would the fine structure constant remain observably constant if you did not subtract out the expansion of the universe? Could it be that we are wrong about the expanding universe? Or would the result move over to the other side of constancy?


If the universe was slowing in it's expansion, what would we see as we looked further out in distance and therefore in time?
We would see that the further back in time we went, the faster that it was expanding back then.
That is what we are seeing.


And just today (September 3rd), Stephen Hawking has announced that only the presence of gravity throughout the universe was enough to generate matter - and hence, the presence of a God creator is redundant, absolutely.

Together with that fine constant, it's nice to know that every day is indeed a new day, and finely chaotic.

Dominique R. Poirier

Maybe I’m going to be a spoilsport, but this one left me speechless…

“Slightly belying its name, the fine-structure constant is actually a compound of several other physical constants, whose values can be found in any physics textbook. You start with the square of an electron’s charge, divide it by the speed of light and Planck’s constant, then multiply the whole lot by two pi.”

How far this can be serious, or more serious than adding the exact height of the pyramid of Cheops to it?


Curiouser and curiouser...for those who would like to pursue further the latest quantum physics view...rationale of the universe (multiverse?), let me recommend Dr. Robert Lanza's latest book (with Bob Berman), BIOCENTRISM: HOW LIFE AND CONCIOUSNESS ARE THE KEYS TO UNDERSTANDING THE TRUE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE. Better than the best science fiction; absolutely facinating


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
The Economist on China: Weekly round-up
Analects 1 hrs 21 mins ago
Writing worth reading: Dark matter
Babbage March 15th, 14:43


Products & events