Physical constants, changing?

[T'ai Chi]

http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/constants/

 

[Skeptoid]

Sheldrake is a crackpot book peddler. Not much of a scientist, imho.

 

[geni]

Most constants have been measured only in this small region of the universe for a few decades

This statement is just flat out wrong. See the natural reactors for time. And astrophysics for distance.

 

[Walter Wayne]

And if they were changing, they wouldn't be constants.

 

[BillyJoe]

And if they were changing, they wouldn't be constants.

Walt.....pssst.....That is what he is saying!!!



BillyJoe
[color=f7f7f7](Just in case.....I do realize you were joking)[/color]

 

[Zep]

Sheldrake: In the early 1980s, Frank Stacey and his colleagues measured G in deep mines and boreholes in Australia. Their value was about 1 percent higher than currently accepted. For example, in one set of measurements in the Hilton mine in Queensland the value of G was found to be 6.734 ± 0.002, as opposed to the currently accepted value of 6.672 ± 0.003. The Australian results were repeatable and consistent, but no one took much notice until 1986. In that year Ephrain Fischbach, at the University of Washington, Seattle, sent shock waves around the world of science by claiming that laboratory tests also showed a slight deviation from Newton's law of gravity, consistent with the Australian results. Fischbach proposed the existence of a hitherto unknown repulsive force, the so-called fifth force (the four known forces being the strong and weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force)

Pity he didn't think to do more research on the subject, particularly by asking at the University of Queensland Physics Department, where Stacey worked:

By 1981 two other areas of geophysics had achieved prominence: thermodynamics of the earth's core and Newton's law of gravity. The latter work generated significant worldwide interest for the following decade. Following a suggestion by Stacey in 1978 that an improved value of the Newtonian gravitational constant, G, relative to the laboratory result, was possible from measurements in the deep ocean, experiments commenced in mines, a hydroelectric lake and the laboratory. Initial results indicated a breakdown of Newton's law of gravity at geophysics scales and this work stimulated world-wide interest in over 40 laboratories which continued until the early nineties when the question was answered in the negative.

 

[BobK]

Oops! Sorry. I thought this was a thread about waistline size.

 

[Yahweh]

What non-supernatural explanation would account for the physical constants changing?

 

[geni]

What non-supernatural explanation would account for the physical constants changing?

Since we don't know where the constants come from in the first place. I don't think we have much chance of answering that question.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

The speed of light.

The speed of sound.

These are physical constants hey? Something makes up light, something makes up sound.

They never change.

When one says "the only constant is change", that doesn't mean the constant can change to no change.

 

[BillyJoe]

When one says "the only constant is change", that doesn't mean the constant can change to no change.

Sorry, Eos, I've been trying but I just can't seem to make sense out of this sentence.

BillyJoe

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Sorry, Eos, I've been trying but I just can't seem to make sense out of this sentence.

BillyJoe

Well, gee, I can't say it any clearer


Lessee. The only constant is change. Things are constantly changing.

So change is a constant.

Constants can't change...

So change will always be a constant.

With the thread title, physical constant in this case (change) can't change to what it can only change to (no change).

Ha ha.

I know, it only makes sense to me most of the time.

If the only constant is change, that doesn't mean constants change.

Know what I mean?

 

[Yahweh]

Well, gee, I can't say it any clearer


Lessee. The only constant is change. Things are constantly changing.

So change is a constant.

Constants can't change...

So change will always be a constant.

With the thread title, physical constant in this case (change) can't change to what it can only change to (no change).

Ha ha.

I know, it only makes sense to me most of the time.

If the only constant is change, that doesn't mean constants change.

Know what I mean?

So the Physical Constants do change, but they change at constant rate, do I understand?

(If in that case, I would posit the rate of change for each constant is exactly 0% change per any given unit of time.)

 

[Eos of the Eons]

So the Physical Constants do change, but they change at constant rate, do I understand?

(If in that case, I would posit the rate of change for each constant is exactly 0% change per any given unit of time.)

No no no. Constants don't change, but change is still the only constant.

Yeah yeah, I make no sense


It's just that when you say the only constant is change, that doesn't change the fact that constants don't change.

 

[BillyJoe]

Eos,

The only constant is change. Things are constantly changing.

So change is a constant.

Constants can't change...

So change will always be a constant.

I'm still with you.

With the thread title, physical constant in this case (change) can't change to what it can only change to (no change).

Completely bloody well lost me!

"With the thread title, physical constant in this case..."
Translation: Getting back to the thread title, the (physical) constant.....
"in this case (change)"
Translation: (in this case change)
Comment: Well, the (physical) constant is the *fact* that everything changes.

If the only constant is change, that doesn't mean constants change.

"the only constant is change" means "the only constant (the only thing you can rely on to stay the same) is the *fact* that everything changes"
This *fact* (that everything changes) is the one and only constant.
So, while everything else changes, the *fact* (that everything changes) is the one thing that remains constant.

So, when you say "that doesn't mean constants change", in fact, what you mean is that there is only one constant (the *fact* that everything changes) and this one and only constant does not change.

BillyJoe
(But then, I'm probably the only one who knows what I mean)

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Eos,


"With the thread title, physical constant in this case..."
Translation: Getting back to the thread title, the (physical) constant.....
"in this case (change)"
Translation: (in this case change)
Well, the (physical) constant is the *fact* that everything changes

"the only constant is change" means "the only constant (the only thing you can rely on to stay the same) is the *fact* that everything changes"
This *fact* (that everything changes) is the one and only constant.
So, while everything else changes, the *fact* (that everything changes) is the one thing that remains constant.


BillyJoe
(But then, I'm probably the only one who knows what I mean)

Yeah. You know, it's like a fundy argument.

All things must be created, but the creator isn't 'created'....LOL!

So, when you say "that doesn't mean constants change", in fact, what you mean is that there is only one constant (the *fact* that everything changes) and this one and only constant does not change.

Basically, you got it!

But I don't know if that's true. It's seems there are other constants other than change (speed of light).

 

[BillyJoe]

Eos,

Yeah. You know, it's like a fundy argument.

All things must be created, but the creator isn't 'created'....LOL!

Yeah, the creator is constant - always was and alway will be. But somehow that doesn't need any explanation

Basically, you got it!

But I don't know if that's true. It's seems there are other constants other than change (speed of light).

Well, yeah, but remember I was trying to follow the logic of your paragraph not giving my opinion as to the correctness of the underlying assumption.

BillyJoe

 

[T'ai Chi]

What non-supernatural explanation would account for the physical constants changing?

Here are some I pulled from the paper:

The gravitational force might be weaking as the universe expands

the velocity of light might change with time, or

have a directional dependence in space

be affected by the motion of the Earth about the Sun

or motion within our galaxy or some other reference frame.

 

[The Don]

Here are some I pulled from the paper:

The gravitational force might be weaking as the universe expands

the velocity of light might change with time, or

have a directional dependence in space

be affected by the motion of the Earth about the Sun

or motion within our galaxy or some other reference frame.

The gravitational FORCE on a body may reduce (after all, the other massive (that is having mass) bodies are further away) but the gravitational constant G does not need to in order for this to happen.

Is there any evidence of the decay of G ? According to Zep's article not

The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant which has so far been demonstrated to be independent of frame of reference or motion. If this chap has any evidence then it would be tremendously interesting for the scientific community.

"Changes" in constants are not unprecedented. As more accurate ways of measuring are found then the values of the constants are revised. They tend to move incrementally because there is often a reluctance to amend the accepted value too much.

 

[wollery]

Here are some I pulled from the paper:

The gravitational force might be weaking as the universe expands

Possible, but unlikely, although there is a theory that it is variable in very low acceleration cases (ie at very large distances from gravitating masses).

the velocity of light might change with time, or

Another distinct possibility, and this would affect all our distance measurements to high redshift galaxies. This would, however, lead to predictable effects that could be observed, so this theory can be tested.

have a directional dependence in space

No it doesn't - Michelson-Morley experiment, there is no preferred direction, no "Aether"

be affected by the motion of the Earth about the Sun

Errr... How? Gravitational waves maybe? Although I don't see how that changes the constant, merely the observers' reference!

or motion within our galaxy or some other reference frame.

Again, doesn't change the constant only the reference!

There's no reason why any of the constants shouldn't change, except that if too many of them changed by too much then it's probable that we wouldn't be around to ask if they had.