Posted on 08/12/2008 8:56:29 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
Public confidence in the "constants" of nature may be at an all-time low.
Recent research has found evidence that the value of certain fundamental parameters, such as the speed of light or the strength of the invisible glue that holds atomic nuclei together, may have been different in the past.
"There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant," says astronomer Michael Murphy of the University of Cambridge. "These are famous numbers in physics, but we have no real reason for why they are what they are."
The observed differences are small — roughly a few parts in a million — but the implications are huge.
The laws of physics would have to be rewritten, and we might need to make room for six or seven more dimensions than the four — the three spatial ones, plus time — that we are used to.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Translated as “we have no idea what we’re talking about, and no matter how much we massage the data, our fancy computers can’t even spit out something that makes it seem like we know what we’re talking about.” Back to the drawing board...
-PJ
I beg to differ! Cf. AK Dewdney's THE PLANIVERSE, which is "along the same lines". This affected my mind.
1. Constants aren't.
2. Help doesn't.
3. Variables don't, or at least not in the way you want them to.
I have personally conjectured this many times in the past, and routinely take a pounding from a few of the egghead wannabees around here.
In fact Newtons gravitational constant itself is measured in centimeters cubed per gram. Per second squared.
The first part is the inverse of the density. The second part, per second squared, tells us it is an acceleration.
The last couple years I have been intrigued by the idea that momentum itself is a stand alone fundamental physical measurable property. In other words, momentum can exist without there being any mass. Sounds goofy, I know, but there are some equations you can look at and the only way to make them consistent over all frames of reference is to have a stand-alone momentum quantity.
No problem. Just run it through a climate model. Then it’ll say whatever they want it to. :^P
Cheers!
"We are the change...uh, um...we have been waiting for."
Do you realize that this means -- Obama really is the Messiah! /Daily Kos>
Cheers!
The biggest problem if that happens is where do you get a spare?
Ummm. Duuude. That, like, changed, duuude.
/burnout
Science has Determined that Nature’s Fundamental Laws May Not Be Constant, but there are two Absolutes in Darwininsm that never change. One being the God of Natural Selection by Random Mutation, and the other that apes dropped out of the trees and became Man (or man is just an advanced ape).
Regards,
So much for “fine tuning.”
Now that is a really astonishing leap into absurdity! If the ‘constants’ are changing yet radioactive decay seems to be a consistent rate, don’t you see how that could actually be even more of ‘fine tuning’? Of course you can’t, you’re so nailed to your preconceived notions that there is no sliver of opening for anything different.
but this one is also very nice 
Related to anthropic principle?
If physical constants change without ripping the universe apart, then fine tuning is bogus.
The fact that the changes are in the sixth decimal place indicates that radiometric dating is valid. The error bars in dating techniques are several percent, for any single sample.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
