Hmm?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm
QuoteA team of astrophysicists based in Australia and England has uncovered evidence that the laws of physics are different in different parts of the universe.
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."
Yeah, just slightly important, figuring out whether the laws of the Universe are, you know, universal.
Oh fuck everything. Really?
No. I don't believe it.
NEAT!
"Your mileage may vary". :mrgreen:
I realized, belatedly, that there is no way I will ever understand anything true about reality.
At first this bothered me, but I'm starting to find it somewhat liberating.
Quote from: Sigmatic on September 18, 2010, 12:38:42 AM
I realized, belatedly, that there is no way I will ever understand anything true about reality.
At first this bothered me, but I'm starting to find it somewhat liberating.
There is no tyranny in the State of Confusion!
Personally, I'm going with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". For now, at least.
Yeah. I'm not going to get too excited about this until it gets a little further down the peer review chain.
Quote from: Kai on September 18, 2010, 02:29:33 AM
Personally, I'm going with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". For now, at least.
Yes it does. Thanks for mentioning that, I was too stunned to think of it.
An alternative possibility: There is an unknown somewhere that is messing with measurements of alpha. I don't know how it's done, so I can't really guess though. Point being, what sounds more likely? That the fine structure constant of the universe changes based on who knows what, or that there's something wrong with the way we're measuring it?
The wording of that is wrong, The laws do remain consistent across the universe.
However certain constants used in those equations do of course vary. Even on this planet it is possible to observe that the acceleration due to gravity is different from place to place. On average it is 9.1 but the further from the earth you get the weaker it becomes.
There is also the obvious example of time dilation and two different bodies being governed by a different progression of time depending on their speed, different time constants same laws.
It stands to reason that the electromagnetic fields constants impact across the universe could vary depending on the large scale conditions of each area it acts upon.
I did wonder that Faust, but it sounded a little obvious. Then again, maybe this study was blown out of proportion by a reporter somewhere down the chain who misunderstood that was the claim being made, and rushed a piece off before double-checking.
It doesn't seem to be that way, from the article, but it could be. Regardless, I'd like a look at the paper itself, when it's published.
Quote from: Cain on September 18, 2010, 12:52:01 PM
I did wonder that Faust, but it sounded a little obvious. Then again, maybe this study was blown out of proportion by a reporter somewhere down the chain who misunderstood that was the claim being made, and rushed a piece off before double-checking.
It doesn't seem to be that way, from the article, but it could be. Regardless, I'd like a look at the paper itself, when it's published.
It does seem to of course be the journalist blowing things out of proportion, A lot of our laws in relation to electromagnetism come from a process called Renormalisation, which was basically putting measured values into equations where the theoretical variable made the equations unsolvable.
If the "The fine structure constant" is derived in any way using these renormalised equations, then it is governed by our local conditions in space, and its entirely possible for it to be different elsewhere.
The paper is on the arXiv, here: PDF (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.3907v1.pdf)
They've used two different data sets, from two different telescopes pointed in two different directions. They stress that this removes any possible systematic errors. They do not find the same variation in alpha in both directions. In one direction it's bigger than here, the other smaller.
They say that the result is significant to 4.1 sigma. In particle physics, a 5 or 6 sigma certainty is usually used for confirming a new particle, which means that you only get a false positive once in a couple of million times.
4 sigma, I think, would mean "something may be here, but more measurements are necessary".
From their conclusions:
Quote
Qualitatively, our results suggest a violation of
the Einstein Equivalence Principle, and could infer a very
large or in finite universe, within which our `local' Hubble
volume represents a tiny fraction, with correspondingly
small variations in the physical constants.
I'm not sure how these follow, to be honest. Anything outside our Hubble volume is by definition unobservable (the light from outside it would take longer than the age of the universe to reach us) so I don't know how they're drawing conclusions about that.
Quote from: Igor on September 18, 2010, 02:37:38 PM
I'm not sure how these follow, to be honest. Anything outside our Hubble volume is by definition unobservable (the light from outside it would take longer than the age of the universe to reach us) so I don't know how they're drawing conclusions about that.
Exactly.
Quote from: Faust on September 18, 2010, 11:34:50 AM
The wording of that is wrong, The laws do remain consistent across the universe.
However certain constants used in those equations do of course vary. Even on this planet it is possible to observe that the acceleration due to gravity is different from place to place. On average it is 9.1 but the further from the earth you get the weaker it becomes.
There is also the obvious example of time dilation and two different bodies being governed by a different progression of time depending on their speed, different time constants same laws.
It stands to reason that the electromagnetic fields constants impact across the universe could vary depending on the large scale conditions of each area it acts upon.
Not to mention that amplitude configurations and quantum physics are inherently local.
Quote from: Kai on September 18, 2010, 03:30:37 PM
Quote from: Igor on September 18, 2010, 02:37:38 PM
I'm not sure how these follow, to be honest. Anything outside our Hubble volume is by definition unobservable (the light from outside it would take longer than the age of the universe to reach us) so I don't know how they're drawing conclusions about that.
Exactly.
Quote from: Faust on September 18, 2010, 11:34:50 AM
The wording of that is wrong, The laws do remain consistent across the universe.
However certain constants used in those equations do of course vary. Even on this planet it is possible to observe that the acceleration due to gravity is different from place to place. On average it is 9.1 but the further from the earth you get the weaker it becomes.
There is also the obvious example of time dilation and two different bodies being governed by a different progression of time depending on their speed, different time constants same laws.
It stands to reason that the electromagnetic fields constants impact across the universe could vary depending on the large scale conditions of each area it acts upon.
Not to mention that amplitude configurations and quantum physics are inherently local.
Which amplitude configurations, or is that a classification that I haven't come across?
Quote from: Faust on September 18, 2010, 07:31:41 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 18, 2010, 03:30:37 PM
Quote from: Igor on September 18, 2010, 02:37:38 PM
I'm not sure how these follow, to be honest. Anything outside our Hubble volume is by definition unobservable (the light from outside it would take longer than the age of the universe to reach us) so I don't know how they're drawing conclusions about that.
Exactly.
Quote from: Faust on September 18, 2010, 11:34:50 AM
The wording of that is wrong, The laws do remain consistent across the universe.
However certain constants used in those equations do of course vary. Even on this planet it is possible to observe that the acceleration due to gravity is different from place to place. On average it is 9.1 but the further from the earth you get the weaker it becomes.
There is also the obvious example of time dilation and two different bodies being governed by a different progression of time depending on their speed, different time constants same laws.
It stands to reason that the electromagnetic fields constants impact across the universe could vary depending on the large scale conditions of each area it acts upon.
Not to mention that amplitude configurations and quantum physics are inherently local.
Which amplitude configurations, or is that a classification that I haven't come across?
Amplitude configurations in general. For example, the amplitude configuration of earth has little or no interaction with anything outside of the stratosphere in a cohered quantum manner. Sure, we receive ion and photon flow from the sun but those amplitudes are decohered from the source by great distance.
Ok, for me amplitude doesn't mean an awful lot without units on it, Amplitude is just one small part of wave characteristics (peak to peak).
I have no idea what the amplitude configuration of the earth is.
Quote from: Faust on September 21, 2010, 12:22:22 AM
Ok, for me amplitude doesn't mean an awful lot without units on it, Amplitude is just one small part of wave characteristics (peak to peak).
I have no idea what the amplitude configuration of the earth is.
I don't use words like wave/particle characteristics to describe quanta. It's entirely misleading. So I use amplitude because it holds no stupid connotations for me, because if I use the word particles I'm going to imagine little billiard balls bouncing around, and if I think about waves I'm going to imagine something that it is not as well. Amplitude works fine for a blob distributed in space that smears and flows and forms checkerboard patterns with other amplitudes in configuration. Not this "virtual photon" crap that I got taught back in undergrad. Not "/this/ electron here, /that/ electron there". Not "Schrodinger's cat is dead and alive."
tl;dr: quantum mechanics education is teh stupid. Sorry about that, spending too much time on Less Wrong.
Quote from: Kai on September 21, 2010, 12:32:25 AM
Quote from: Faust on September 21, 2010, 12:22:22 AM
Ok, for me amplitude doesn't mean an awful lot without units on it, Amplitude is just one small part of wave characteristics (peak to peak).
I have no idea what the amplitude configuration of the earth is.
I don't use words like wave/particle characteristics to describe quanta. It's entirely misleading. So I use amplitude because it holds no stupid connotations for me, because if I use the word particles I'm going to imagine little billiard balls bouncing around, and if I think about waves I'm going to imagine something that it is not as well. Amplitude works fine for a blob distributed in space that smears and flows and forms checkerboard patterns with other amplitudes in configuration. Not this "virtual photon" crap that I got taught back in undergrad. Not "/this/ electron here, /that/ electron there". Not "Schrodinger's cat is dead and alive."
tl;dr: quantum mechanics education is teh stupid. Sorry about that, spending too much time on Less Wrong.
Ehm, while I agree the ways of looking at stuff through qm are very much in a cumbersome infancy, the word amplitude does have a strong definition and it doesn't suit what you are describing. Amplitude is merely one characteristic of what's going on.
Its just not a good word for it, its saying a painting is nothing more then its dominant colour, if you catch my drift.
This is fucking BULLSHIT.
God is cheating again, like with that tunneling bullshit. :argh!:
Quote from: Faust on September 21, 2010, 01:27:06 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 21, 2010, 12:32:25 AM
Quote from: Faust on September 21, 2010, 12:22:22 AM
Ok, for me amplitude doesn't mean an awful lot without units on it, Amplitude is just one small part of wave characteristics (peak to peak).
I have no idea what the amplitude configuration of the earth is.
I don't use words like wave/particle characteristics to describe quanta. It's entirely misleading. So I use amplitude because it holds no stupid connotations for me, because if I use the word particles I'm going to imagine little billiard balls bouncing around, and if I think about waves I'm going to imagine something that it is not as well. Amplitude works fine for a blob distributed in space that smears and flows and forms checkerboard patterns with other amplitudes in configuration. Not this "virtual photon" crap that I got taught back in undergrad. Not "/this/ electron here, /that/ electron there". Not "Schrodinger's cat is dead and alive."
tl;dr: quantum mechanics education is teh stupid. Sorry about that, spending too much time on Less Wrong.
Ehm, while I agree the ways of looking at stuff through qm are very much in a cumbersome infancy, the word amplitude does have a strong definition and it doesn't suit what you are describing. Amplitude is merely one characteristic of what's going on.
Its just not a good word for it, its saying a painting is nothing more then its dominant colour, if you catch my drift.
I'd like it if you please told Eliezer Yudowsky he is full of shit, then.
ETA: ITT, I admit my idiocy of Guessing the Teacher's Password this whole time, and that I don't have a clue what I am really talking about.
If he uses an alternative method of looking at QM I'd love to have a look at his stuff but I strongly doubt he would use amplitude configurations as an overall descriptor for what's going on.
Quote from: Faust on September 21, 2010, 11:35:20 AM
If he uses an alternative method of looking at QM I'd love to have a look at his stuff but I strongly doubt he would use amplitude configurations as an overall descriptor for what's going on.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/
It's worth noting Yudowsky is an autodictat, so he may be using words without realizing their connotations within academic circles.
Quote from: Kai on September 21, 2010, 12:26:24 PM
Quote from: Faust on September 21, 2010, 11:35:20 AM
If he uses an alternative method of looking at QM I'd love to have a look at his stuff but I strongly doubt he would use amplitude configurations as an overall descriptor for what's going on.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/
Ah, that's what I thought, Its not an overall descriptor, I'd say you were just confused with his terminology (no offence). Its not amplitude configurations, its a mathematical descriptor model of what's going on.
Amplitude is only a part of that, and in this case he IS still using the virtual photon model, that maths is the exact same. The difference comes in to what he is classing as the amplitude is to describe if the photon is complex (square of minus one) or regular, this is the classic amplitude format peak to peak.
He's got a really cool way of looking at it. I'm going to have to poke around some more of his articles.
Most interesting to me is that Yudowsky is a proponent of the Everett-Wheeler Many Worlds hypothesis. I'd like to see how he establishes his belief in that.
What this suggests is pretty cool, IMO.
in psych, the Fundamental Attribution Error is where you form an impression of somebody based on a very limited interaction with them. If you meet somebody, and he's being a jerk that day, you're going to think of that person as a jerk, even if he's nice on the other 6 days of the week. In short, we tend to overstate the importance of the knowledge we have.
I've always wondered if we make the same kind of mistakes in physics. We're only observing a very small sliver of the universe, and it's possible a lot of the conclusions we've drawn are based on relatively localized phenomena.
just goes to show... the more you know ... the more you know you don't know. :p
Quote from: Cain on September 21, 2010, 01:48:16 PM
Most interesting to me is that Yudowsky is a proponent of the Everett-Wheeler Many Worlds hypothesis. I'd like to see how he establishes his belief in that.
He establishes it by default, as the collapse postulate violates nearly every level of physics out there, and many worlds is implicit in decoherence.
But then, I'm probably just spitting out teacher's passwords again.
Quote from: Faust on September 21, 2010, 01:42:52 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 21, 2010, 12:26:24 PM
Quote from: Faust on September 21, 2010, 11:35:20 AM
If he uses an alternative method of looking at QM I'd love to have a look at his stuff but I strongly doubt he would use amplitude configurations as an overall descriptor for what's going on.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/
Ah, that's what I thought, Its not an overall descriptor, I'd say you were just confused with his terminology (no offence). Its not amplitude configurations, its a mathematical descriptor model of what's going on.
Amplitude is only a part of that, and in this case he IS still using the virtual photon model, that maths is the exact same. The difference comes in to what he is classing as the amplitude is to describe if the photon is complex (square of minus one) or regular, this is the classic amplitude format peak to peak.
He's got a really cool way of looking at it. I'm going to have to poke around some more of his articles.
Since I'm not a physicist and it would take me years to learn and understand the math, I tried to take from it the consequences, and to visualize what's going on. Because even if I don't know the math I can still visualize a conceptual explanation. If it makes the universe less mysterious than the "billiard balls" I'd been taught previously, then I like it. But I guess I don't really understand it.
Well I need to read the rest of his sequence first, and re-read Beneath Reality and a couple of other books on Quantum Mechanics as well, because my current understand is hovering somewhere above the average person in the street, but well below anyone with advanced mathematical skills.
I like Kai's use of "Amplitude" because it implies a measurement, and not the thing being measured. Since all we can really know about quantum events are the measurements we make, it's better to say that than make a declaration about what it is we're measuring.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 21, 2010, 03:15:32 PM
What this suggests is pretty cool, IMO.
in psych, the Fundamental Attribution Error is where you form an impression of somebody based on a very limited interaction with them. If you meet somebody, and he's being a jerk that day, you're going to think of that person as a jerk, even if he's nice on the other 6 days of the week. In short, we tend to overstate the importance of the knowledge we have.
I've always wondered if we make the same kind of mistakes in physics. We're only observing a very small sliver of the universe, and it's possible a lot of the conclusions we've drawn are based on relatively localized phenomena.
just goes to show... the more you know ... the more you know you don't know. :p
My thought as well... Science is about describing what we observe. We observe a tiny fraction of the Universe, so it wouldn't be surprising to find wild inaccuracies in our current descriptions as we observe more data. Yay, more data! Of course, these guys are welsh, so....
I'm telling you bozos, God is fucking with you.
Understanding is useless, we are or we are not but, if we are not then there is no awareness so, we are until we are not......
Quote from: Armond on September 22, 2010, 01:28:11 AM
Understanding is useless, we are or we are not but, if we are not then there is no awareness so, we are until we are not......
Splurgion! My cabbages are frosted!
Quote from: Kai on September 22, 2010, 01:30:36 AM
Quote from: Armond on September 22, 2010, 01:28:11 AM
Understanding is useless, we are or we are not but, if we are not then there is no awareness so, we are until we are not......
Splurgion! My cabbages are frosted!
:lulz:
Quote from: Kai on September 22, 2010, 01:30:36 AM
Quote from: Armond on September 22, 2010, 01:28:11 AM
Understanding is useless, we are or we are not but, if we are not then there is no awareness so, we are until we are not......
Splurgion! My cabbages are frosted!
:potd:
Oh nee! Mijn radijsjes zijn verdord!
(really what Kai said comes very close to Fred's profile title thingy)