4

I am reviewing articles that address whether fundamental laws of nature (physics) are changing. The following letter sums up my research literature and conclusions. "Book Review: The Constants of Nature and Just Six Numbers, Reviewed by Brian E. Blank" www.ams.org/notices/200410/rev-blank.pdf

In other articles, I find that fine structure constant alpha is probably not changing (even after some observations that suggest otherwise). Overall, laws of nature are not changing.

However, I wonder if there is any other approach to this topic, perhaps one that examines whether particles of matter, early cosmos, etc. represent a feedback system that is adapting or evolving into currently observed "state" where "state" refers to laws of nature?

GianniTee
  • 141
  • 1
    See this: ASHER PERES, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 12, 1751 (2003). VARIABILITY OF FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS . And here is the abstract: Are universal fundamental constants really constant over cosmological times? Recent observations of the fine structure of spectral lines in the early universe have been interpreted as due to a variation of the fine structure constant e2/4πε0ℏc. From the assumed validity of Maxwell equations in general relativity and well known experimental facts, it is proved that e and ℏ are absolute constants. On the other hand, the speed of light need not be constant. – Sofia Dec 05 '14 at 08:53
  • 1
    Some debates were done about fine structure constant and measurements show a variation in it dependent on spatial direction. I think the last report refers to a paper by "Webb et al" in 2011. You can check this arXiv:1008.3907 – MEDVIS Dec 05 '14 at 09:54
  • @Sofia I can see the article you mentioned here http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Peres_A/0/1/0/all/0/1 – GianniTee Dec 05 '14 at 17:59
  • @MEDVIS They used convincing wording in their article on alpha! But, universe has exotic states of matter. Perhaps we don't understand quasars or interstellar medium... Both c and alpha depend from material, roughly, just to link to further discussion. – GianniTee Dec 05 '14 at 22:58
  • @GianniTee: Congratulations! I looked for this article a lot, but it didn't come into my mind to seek it there. – Sofia Dec 06 '14 at 00:10
  • @MEDVIS I realized now that alpha is somewhat different depending from the equatorial half that we are looking, which is quite interesting. You would expect something local to produce that view. – GianniTee Dec 06 '14 at 01:43

1 Answers1

3

The number of fundamental constants depend on the theory, but the most basics most theories agree on, are seven: the velocity of light, the reduced Planck constant, the Newton constant, the masses of the electron, proton and neutron, and the charge of the electron. A great review on the subject shows that at least until 2003, these were found to be constant up to experimental error. For details see here. Then you could search for each individual constant itself for a more updated answer, as most studies are about specific constants , not all of them. As far as I am aware, as today, no conclusive experiment has shown that any of these are not constant.

  • Yes. Did you notice how they say if c changed, we wouldn't notice? But alpha is real, not a mere construct of human mind. – GianniTee Dec 05 '14 at 23:17
  • I disagree, we would notice it becaue the time dilation and length contraction would change. For instance, the lifetime of muons reaching the surface of earth will change –  Dec 05 '14 at 23:26
  • I disagree, we would notice it becaue the time dilation and length contraction would change. For instance, the lifetime of relativistic muons created in the upper athosphere reaching the surface of earth will change –  Dec 05 '14 at 23:27
  • I see, as if we stretch the curves that climb steeply towards the ultimate speed limit. E.g. rise of relativistic mass depends only from v^2 / c^2. But then, if c is higher, it takes more time to get to the steep end of curve. Except that it is still the same curve (function; just guessing). – GianniTee Dec 06 '14 at 01:47