arXiv blog

Fine Structure Constant Varies with Direction in Space, Says New Data

A spatial variation in the fine structure constant has profound implications for cosmology.

kfc 08/26/2010

  • 16 Comments

Over the years, many physicists have wondered whether the fundamental constants of nature might have been different when the universe was younger. If so, the evidence ought to be out there in the cosmos where we can see distant things exactly as they were in the past.

One thing that ought to be obvious is whether a number known as the fine structure constant was different. The fine structure constant determines how strongly atoms hold onto their electrons and so is an important factor in the frequencies at which atoms absorb light.

If the fine structure were different earlier in the universe, we ought to be able to see the evidence in the way distant gas clouds absorb light on its way here from even more distant objects such as quasars.

As it turns out, exactly this kind of evidence has emerged in the last ten years or so from studies of absorption spectra carried out with the Keck telescope in Hawaii. These indicate that the fine structure constant must have been smaller when the universe was younger. It's fair to say, however, that this evidence is controversial--other studies have not always corroborated the result.

That debate looks set to pale into insignificance compared to new claims being made about the fine structure constant. Today, John Webb at the University of South Wales, one of the leading proponents of the varying constant idea, and a few cobbers say they have new evidence from the Very Large Telescope in Chile that the fine structure constant was different when the universe was younger.

But get this. While data from the Keck telescope indicate the fine structure constant was once smaller, the data from the Very Large Telescope indicates the opposite, that the fine structure constant was once larger. That's significant because Keck looks out into the northern hemsiphere, while the VLT looks south

This means that in one direction, the fine structure constant was once smaller and in exactly the opposite direction, it was once bigger. And here we are in the middle, where the constant as it is (about 1/137.03599...)

That's a mind blowing result. One of the biggest conundrums that cosmologists face is explaining why the fundamental constants of nature seem fine tuned for life. If the fine structure constant were very different, stars and atoms wouldn't form and the universe as we know it couldn't exist. No theory explains why it takes the value it does which leaves scientists at a loss.

The implication from Webb and co's data is that the fine structure constant is continuously varying throughout space and is merely fine-tuned for life in this corner of the cosmos: the universe's habitable zone. Elsewhere, presumably well beyond the universe we can see, this constant is entirely different.

That's likely to put the cat among the pigeons. Webb is no stranger to controversy--he has had to fight tooth and nail to have his data and ideas accepted. But this time round, with such a radical new data on the table, the debate is likely to be fiercer still.

So sit back and enjoy the show.

Refs:

arxiv.org/abs/1008.3907: Evidence For Spatial Variation Of The fiFine Structure Constant

arxiv.org/abs/1008.3957: Manifestations Of A Spatial Variation Of Fundamental Constants On Atomic Clocks, Oklo,

Meteorites, And Cosmological Phenomena

TRSF: Read the Best New Science Fiction inspired by today’s emerging technologies.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM

175 Comments

  • 535 Days Ago
  • 08/26/2010

No conundrum

"One of the biggest conundrums that cosmologists face is explaining why the fundamental constants of nature seem fine tuned for life."

No conundrum. Vic Stenger (and others) take ratios, and they get ~ 50 % of the parameter space gives universes analogous to ours (large, atoms). No fine tuning really, the ones flogging this horse are usually religious or worrying about specific parameters outside nice theories like environmental selection in string theory.

A varying fine structure constant would likely mess up measurements in standard cosmology, I take it. A non-uniformity rejecting a large set of uniformities is an extraordinary claim and need extraordinary evidence. And this particular horse have been flogged _so_ many times before, the Oklo results is a good reference there. I wouldn't worry about the chance that there is new physics here, it's near enough nil.

But it's good that they look.

Reply

UncleAl

409 Comments

  • 535 Days Ago
  • 08/26/2010

What changed to change alpha?

Alpha is not a fundamental constant, alpha is a ratio: (in cgs) alpha = (e^2)/(h-bar)c.  However, this is not alpha either, hence exploitable loopholes,

alpha = (e^2)/4(pi)(e_0)(h-bar)c
or
alpha = (e^2)c(mu_0)/2h

The cgs statcoulomb is defined with [4(pi)(e_0)] = 1 or with a like manipulation of mu_0, the electric permittivity or magnetic permeability of free space respectively. Pi, electrons, lightspeed, and Planck's constant are robust values.

e_0 and mu_0 can be altered at will, e.g., inside a Casimir gap as the Scharnhorst effect (Rabi vacuum oscillation, electron anomalous g-factor, etc.).  Alpha may be a weak function of what, how much, and how space is filled with matter and fields.  SWAG time!  Test alpha as Casimatter - a lump of stuff that is *only* Casimir etalons.

Casimir force varies as 1/d^4, "d" being reflector spacing.  Yer gonna need a very small gap for measurable high order anomalies. 

The smallest fabricatable solid transparent Casimir gap is optical half-pathlength ~60 nm created by 70 nm-thick aluminum reflectors spaced with 37 nm of 60:40 MgF2:LiF alloy, refractive index (at 120 nm) 1.628.  The alloy matches aluminum's linear coefficient of thermal expansion, 23.1 ppm/K.  Smaller gaps (shorter wavelengths) do not have efficient reflectors (95+% reflectance for oxide-free Al at 120 nm) or transparent spacers (95+% transmission for the fluoride alloy).

Imagine a flat torus in hard vacuum spinning just above a cluster of alternate magnetron sputtering sectors of Al and 60:40 MgF2:LiF alloy.  A continuous flat spiral bifilar deposition results: Al, alloy, Al, alloy...  Cut out a section to have Casimatter, stuff that is nothing but a stack of Casimir etalons. Work the material densities to see that 37 wt-% is vacuum zero point fluctuation-depleted fluoride alloy.

Play with that (e.g., inject F-centers and look for electron anomalies).  Physics demands chemistry is derivable and therefore irrelevant.  Ask a physicist for an aspirin.  Does he derive it or open a bottle?

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 535 Days Ago
  • 08/26/2010

Re: What changed to change alpha?

To my recollection in 1990's a group of physicists at the University of Kansas reported that theoretically they could show that the speed of light was dependent upon the magnetic field through which the light (as em waves). So, even in vacuum, the speed of light is not constant. Certainly when we have conducting current in the space, the speed of light is depending upon the frequency.  To make the matter even worse, the speed of light wave in any medium without conducting current is obtained in precisely the same way as that in vacuum without conducting current. So, in a non vacuum medium without conducting current, the speed of light is independent of the frequency. This is not the case as in the glass, the speed of light is dependent upon the frequency.

So, physicists do not think at all. Their simpleminded mechanical thinking has no place in the 21st century science.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

UncleAl

409 Comments

  • 534 Days Ago
  • 08/27/2010

Re: What changed to change alpha?

"So, even in vacuum, the speed of light is not constant."

"Uachdar muc garadh."  I am intolerant of stupidity and those who are proud of it.

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 534 Days Ago
  • 08/27/2010

Re: What changed to change alpha?

The only thing which is stupid here is this kind of "response" from Mr. Uncle Al. There is no science in this post.  What Ralston and Dodland  of Kansas University presented was a totally expected thing theoretically due to what is known as Faraday effect. No error was found in their calculation.

This result was dismissed only by one failed observation by a Canadian astronomer at the University of Toronto. For average theoretical physicists it just does not occur that even if their prediction is empirically false, still it means that the em theory we have is empirically inconsistent.

Science is not chanting unsubstantiated dogma. I urge Mr. Uncle AL to think if he can  before he makes embassaing scenes like this again and again.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

mmfiore

7 Comments

  • 528 Days Ago
  • 09/02/2010

Re: What changed to change alpha?

Wow! that is an interesting piece of information you stated about the Kansas Scientists. It agrees with what is predicted by the Theory of Super Relativity. This theory predicts that the Constants of nature are not constant at all. They are dependent on the physical state of space. In particular when a magnetic field is applied to a region of space that will cause an increase in the speed of light. The reason being that a magnetic field causes the spatial tension to increase and therefore causing an increase to the speed of light in that region of space. The theory is at www.superrelativity.org. If you have anymore information about this experiment let me know.

Reply

diggers

4 Comments

  • 535 Days Ago
  • 08/26/2010

Magnetic Field

Too busy to read paper, but corroborations with the Earth's B field?

Reply

Advertisement

rsanchez1

213 Comments

  • 535 Days Ago
  • 08/26/2010

Interesting Result

This is an interesting result. If it turns out to be an actual phenomenon being observed, it will shatter assumptions about constants actually being constant. If this constant turns out to vary in space, who's to say the other "constants" of nature don't vary as well?

I think to get very good data, they should have a satellite examine the regions of space the scientists in Chile and Hawaii examined, and see if the satellite gives different results for the constant depending on where it looks. Ideally this satellite should be pretty far from Earth to eliminate the possibly that some geographic phenomenon was interfering with the instruments used.

Reply

Monsterboy

92 Comments

  • 532 Days Ago
  • 08/29/2010

Turns out it's just mostly constant.

Reply

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 531 Days Ago
  • 08/30/2010

why the fundamental constants of nature seem fine tuned for life

This question is analogous to question of shark, which has no swim bladder and the density of water appears finelly tuned to the density of his body for him. If it would just a little more or less dense, shark couldn't swim in it at all... It's evident, Universe is quite flexible regarding values of constants: we just evolved in the part of Universe, which suits our needs, not vice-versa.

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/12/anthropic-principle-and-universe.html

In AWT the shape of Universe should have hyperbolical density profile, in similar way, like the single average density fluctuation inside of gas - so that the directional change of FSC is not so surprising. At the very global scale the Universe should appear like random noise for us, though.

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 530 Days Ago
  • 08/31/2010

Corrupted thinking if it is thinkinng at all

> The only thing which is stupid here is this kind of "response" from Mr. Uncle Al. There is no science in this post.  What Ralston and Dodland  of Kansas University presented was a totally expected thing theoretically due to what is known as Faraday effect. No error was found in their calculation.

> This result was dismissed only by one failed observation by a Canadian astronomer at the University of Toronto. For average theoretical physicists it just does not occur that even if their prediction is empirically false, still it means that the em theory we have is empirically inconsistent.

This Canadian astronomer was Prof. Kronberg of University of Toronto.

What is astounding about all of this is that there is nothing more than just Prof. Kronberg failed in detecting the effect of magnetic field on the speed of light in vacuum. One experimental failure to detect such effect does not imply that such effect does not exist. This is what even elementary school student will understand. After all theoretical physicists decided to dismiss Ralston-Dodland theoretical prediction based upon electromagnetic theory. To my knowledge, no mathematical error was discovered in their prediction.

There are two issues to be concerned with.

1. First, if the claimed effect does not exits, then it appears that the current electromagnetic theory is empirically inconsistent. The problem does not remain only within the work of Ralston-Dodland.

2. Physicists react swiftly to dismiss a theoretical result just upon one failed experiment. However, this group of individuals do not even give dumb to mathematical and logical inconsistency of their basic theories such as relativity theory and QM. These fools do anything to defend their fundamentally flawed theories.

For example,

F = dp/dt
= dmv/dt
= mdv/dt + vdm/vt

is physically false as v in m is time invariant constant. v is the speed between two inertial frames and it must be constant. This restriction of intertial frames was needed to make sure that the laws of physics is the same in all frames. If we violates this condition then F=dp/dt may not hold. There is no reason to believe that it is the case.

Naturally this violation leads to contradictions. First the direction of acceleration and that of the force applied do not agree in relativistic mechanics anymore. Second,

E =mc^2 = sqrt(m0^2c^4+(pc)^2)

and  E^2/c^2 -p^2 is relativistic invariant. By eliminating p in E, we end up with that5 E is relativistic invariant which contradicts to
E =mc^2.

For theoretical physicists, this does not constitute a ground to dismiss relativistic mechanics. This theory was used to frame QFT and the standard model.

Either theoretical physicist are political animals who will do anything to cover up their fatal errors for their occupational interest or just pure fools whose intelligence is seriously questionable.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

ZephirX

246 Comments

  • 478 Days Ago
  • 10/22/2010

More fundamental question is...

Well, if fine structure constant is characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction, then my question is, whether it should change at GUT scale, when all interactions converge together.

If yes, then the question is, why it shouldn't change at the remote areas of Universe, when the Universe was close to GUT scale. I hope, the question defined in such way is sufficiently clear for everyone.

Reply

e1saman1

8 Comments

  • 474 Days Ago
  • 10/26/2010

developments?

Hi, I will try to keep up here
http://emergent-hive.com/2010/10/fine-structure-constant/

Reply

Rainer W. Kühne

1 Comment

  • 470 Days Ago
  • 10/30/2010

Spatial variation of the fine-structure constant?

J. K. Webb et al., arXiv: 1008.3907v1 presented possible evidence of a spatial variation of the fine-structure constant, where the axis of the dipole points to R. A. = 17.3h, dec. = -61°.

Such a spatial variation, if confirmed, might indicate an anisotropic universe. I would like to point out two earlier works which reported possible evidence of an anisotropic universe.

P. Birch, Nature 298 (1982) 451-454 presented possible evidence of a vorticity of the universe, where the axis of the dipole points to R. A. = 14h 55min, dec. = -35°.

Only a small part of the 3K dipole can be explained by the motion of the Sun around the Galactic centre and the gravitational infall of the Milky Way into the Virgo cluster of galaxies. A. Dressler, Nature 350 (1991) 391-397 suggested a motion of the Local Supercluster towards Galactic longitude l = 307° and Galactic latitude b = 9° (approximately R. A. = 13.5h, dec. = -45°). His claimed Great Attractor has never been detected. So it is possible that this so far unexplained part of the 3K dipole results not from Local Supercluster motion, but from an anisotropic universe.

The three directions listed above differ from one another. However, the error bars are large. Possibly the works of Birch, Dressler, and Webb et al. support an anisotropic universe.

Anyone who is interested in my early work on an anisotropic universe is invited to read my paper R. W. Kühne, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12 (1997) 2473-2474 = arXiv: astro-ph/9708109. In it I argued that the alignment of the rotation axes of the galaxies of the Perseus-Pisces supercluster results from universal vorticity (Gödel cosmology).

Anyone who is interested in my early work on a time-variation of the fine-structure constant is invited to read my paper R. W. Kühne, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 14 (1999) 1917-1922 = arXiv: astro-ph/9908356.

Reply

Advertisement

Strongruler

2 Comments

  • 463 Days Ago
  • 11/06/2010

Re: Spatial variation of the fine-structure constant?

I am loathe on principle to abandon the concept of 'Lorentz symmetry', as it's called, and would need an exceptional amount of evidence to be convinced.
Richard Feynman half-jokingly argued that a good theory would relate alpha to the value of pi.  Well, it so happens that e/12pi^3.alpha.mu-sub-e, (e being the base of natural logarithms, mu-sub-e the electron's magnetic moment in Bohr magnetons) equals 0.9999883751167, a tantalisingly close approximation to unity.
e and pi are universal by definition, but it is, of course, possible that the electron's magnetic moment could vary across space! 

Reply

Bio

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Follow The Physics arXiv Blog on Twitter

Subscribe to the arXiv blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement