Are the Constants of Physics Constant?

Scientific American ^ | 7 Mar, 2016 | Venkat Srinivasan

[MtnClimber]

When Max Born addressed the South Indian Science Association in November 1935, it was a time of great uncertainty in his life. The Nazi Party had already suspended the renowned quantum mechanics physicist's position at the University of Gottingen in 1933. He had been invited to teach at Cambridge, but it was temporary. Then, the Party terminated his tenure at Gottingen in the summer of 1935. Born took up an offer to work with C. V. Raman and his students for six months at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore. While there, he found that his family had lost its German citizenship rights. He was stateless and without a permanent home. And then, there was this uncertainty about two numbers. The scientific world had been coming to terms with two numbers that had emerged after a series of discoveries and theories in the previous four decades. They were unchanging and they had no units. One, the fine structure constant, defined the strength of interactions between fundamental particles and light. It is expressed as 1/137. The other, mu, related the mass of a proton to an electron. Born was after a unifying theory to relate all the fundamental forces of nature. He also wanted a theory that would explain where these constants came from. Something, he said, to “explain the existence of the heavy, and light elementary particles and their definite mass quotient 1840." It might seem a little bizarre that Born worried about a couple of constants. The sciences are full of constants—one defines the speed of light, another quantifies the pull of gravity, and so on......... But the weird thing about such constants is that there is no theory to explain their existence.

[MtnClimber]

An interesting article.

[Organic Panic]

The science is settled. Once “scientists” form a consensus that’s the end of debate.

[lee martell]

I would venture to say no, the constants of physics do not remain ‘constant’ or unchanging.The physical conditions of measuring or defining any particular condition are subjective, even when performed by computers. We have to agree with certain generalities in most cases.

[ifinnegan]

“The science is settled. Once “scientists” form a consensus that’s the end of debate.”

:)

[frithguild]

Have they checked Fidel Castro’s brain (Who may not still be dead)

[ClearCase_guy]

As a mere point of interest --

One of the traditional hallmarks of western science is its basis in Christian faith. God is good, and rational and unchanging. Therefore, we can study God's creation and use consistent methods to achieve consistent results.
Whether constants are truly constant may be a fair question, but the belief that nature is inherently consistent has helped us built the modern world.

Islam, on the other hand, believes that Allah is unbound by such petty concerns. If a human expects water to boil at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level, then this is "shackling Allah" and is not a good idea. Allah does what Allah wants to do. Of course the Arab world has done some work in science (but most of "their work" was actually taken from the Greeks or from Indians (or Chaldeans). But this notion that the world of Allah is unpredictable has not helped the Muslims.

[BigEdLB]

Believe it or not. Grandfather of singer Olivia Newton-John

[kosciusko51]

From a Fortran manual:

The primary purpose of the DATA statement is to give names to constants; instead of referring to pi as 3.141592653589793 at every appearance, the variable PI can be given that value with a DATA statement and used instead of the longer form of the constant. This also simplifies modifying the program, should the value of pi change.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Wow! That is amazing!

I would have guessed her to be the granddaughter of Sir Isaac Newton-John!

[Chode]

and simultaneously they end being scientists

[BigEdLB]

She said she only met him one time, but her family moved to Australia when she was 7, because her father accepted a professor job on Melbourne.

[smokingfrog]

You’ll only know if you can measure it.

[11th_VA]

Assumes we live in a ‘time invariant’ universe. If time is not a constant, nothing else is ... Just sayin ...

[Mr Apple]

What Born and so many others were after was a unifying theory that would demonstrate that there could only be one unchanging value for a constant. Without this theory, scientists resort to testing limits of a constant. Measuring the constant is a good way to verify that theories using them make sense, that science stands on firm ground. Error from the measurements can be a huge concern. So, instead of validating the masses of protons and electrons, it's useful to measure the ratio of their masses, a number that is free of the burden of units.

The search for a unifying theory continued..........

***

I was able to keep up until right here....but I could have followed along better if there was something --like a trail of zircons to follow which could lead to some kind of a corresponding result.

Lee, I think you're conclusion is far closer then what I surmised:

"The physical conditions of measuring or defining any particular condition are subjective, even when performed by computers. We have to agree with certain generalities in most cases."

[IronJack]

The constants probably are, but the human capacity for determining them is not. Therefore, the VALUES associated with those constants change, not because they themselves are changing but because we, the observers, are.

Which I realize is a bit Zen ...

[beethovenfan]

I’ve often wondered about the implications of the speed of light slowing over many millions of years. The distance scale of the universe would be profoundly affected.

[grey_whiskers]

Increasing precision, that's all.

Now, if the constants ever *do* vary, there goes the weak anthropic principle and the need for the "many universes" (which is not the Everett "many worlds" hypothesis, btw). I read an article by the atheist Larry Krause where he admitted to another atheist that the "many universes" idea was attractive mainly because it eliminated the embarrassment of the weak anthropic principle.

[Mr Apple]

As an aside, I've always, always wondered that if, for example, one could shoot an arrow -and it could keep going out of our solar system, and continue on traveling, on and on -- -- where would it Stop? What would it eventually hit???

Can anyone answer this???

[Mr Apple]

Anyone?