-
-
- Our world of “ reality” relies on some “ constants in nature”:
-
-------------- c = velocity of light = 299,792,458 meters per second
-
-------------- G = Gravitational Constant = 6.673*10^-11 m^3 / kg*sec^2
-
-------------- me = mass of electron = 9.10938188 * 10^-31 kilograms
-
- There are several more of nature’s constants. We expect these “ constants’ to be the same everywhere in the Universe and always whenever in time.
-
- We only experimentally have come to learn the magnitude of these constants. No one so far has defincd why they are what they are. The only thread running between them is that if any one was only slightly different in magnitude living beings would not be here trying to figure them out.
-
- Proving that these constants are truly constant and have always been the same throughout time is a enormous task. Could there be some unifying description of all of nature? Is there such a thing as a “theory of everything”? Could these constants be merely 3-dimensional “ shadows’ of higher multidimensional space? And , we can not see past 3-dimensions. Is our known Universe be one of many unknown universes with different constants?
-
- Science likes to assume that its reference standards are “fixed”. Rulers, masses, clocks, are fixed in space and time. To avoid these measurement unit assumptions science uses ratios that have no units.
-
- An example would be the ratio of a proton mass divided by an electron mass = 1832.
-
- Another example is the “ fine structure constant” which is more complicated but never less it is unitless:
-
---------------------- alpha = e^2 / 2 * Eo * h * c
-
----------------------- e = charge of electron = 1.6*1-^-19 Coulombs
-
---------------------- Eo = permittivity of space = 8.85 *10^-12 C^2 / N * m^2
-
---------------------- h = Planck’s Constant = 6.63*10^-34 Joule * seconds
-
--------------------- c = speed of light = 2.99*10^8 meter / second
-
- The measured answer of these constants and calculated for the fine structure constant is :
-
------------------- alpha = 1 / 137.03599976
-
- Or, approximately 1/137 in the rest of this text. (0.007297)
-
- If alpha were any smaller molecular bonds would break at lower temperatures. There would be fewer different elements in the Periodic Table.
-
- If alpha were any larger atom’s nuclei could not exist. The elements would blow apart. Fusion in stars would not happen. Carbon would not be produced in the stars.
-
- Science has difficulty seeing any of these changes in constants, but, they are trying. If alpha changed only 4 parts in 10^15 over a 3 year period the atomic clocks would be able to see it. None have!
-
- Yes but, 3 years is a very short time in cosmological time. Changes have been studied in isotopic composition of uranium and measured to 1 part in 10^8 over 2 billion years. In the radioactive decay in meteorites the measurement was to 2 parts in 10^6 going back to the origin of the solar system , over 4.6 billion years.
-
- Astronomers are studying the light from Quasars that travels through interstellar gas over billions of lightyears. Do the atoms in the gas absorb light at the same frequencies which would be controlled by the fine structure constant. Calculations were made of how alpha affects observed wavelengths in all different atomic types and elements.
-
- Based on 128 Quasar absorption lines alpha was found to increase 6 parts in 10^6 over a 6 to 12 billion year time period. Could this change in alpha be a function of distance , and therefore of time? Or, could it be by a particular direction looking into space? Or, is this our measurement error?
-
- Changes in alpha could be driven by the imbalances between the electric field energy and the magnetic field energy over the evolution of the Universe? During the early evolution radiation dominated over charged particles. As matter became dominate over the Universe expansion the electric and magnetic fields could become unequal. About 6 billion years ago Dark Energy began to accelerate the expansion and alpha became nearly constant again.
-
- This scenario of cosmic evolution could explain how Redshift dependency on alpha might have changed over time. The changes are so small random or systematic measurement errors could also explain them. If alpha is susceptible to change the other constants that comprise it are subject to change as well.
-
- The study is on, but, the jury is still out. We need more evidence for cosmological evolution changing nature’s constants.
-
- There is one constant standard that is changing. The “kilogram”. The mass of the Earth is 5.97219*10^24 kilograms. The mass of the Sun is 1.98855 + or - 0.00025 *10^30 kilograms. Accuracy to within 25 ten thousands of a kilogram, but, how accurate is a kilogram?
-
- The kilogram was created in 1889. It is block of platinum and iridium kept in a vault in Paris There are also 6 official copies that are routinely cross-checked with the original. Plus 100 more that are calibrated every few decades. Discrepancies have been detected at 1 part in 60 billionths. That seems terrible accurate. But, science would like a better standard, not a block of metal in Paris.
-
- A better standard would be based on the constants of nature.
-
- A proposed new standard to come into affect in 2018 would use an equation based on the product of Planck’s Constant , “h”, and a frequency, “f”, derived from the atomic element Cesium. Energy = h * f. Divided by the speed of light we have E / c^2 = mass.
-
- To get acceptance independent standards labs around the world need to verify accuracy to within 20 parts per billion. Once accepted we would have an equation to replace that block of metal in Paris.
-
- Stay tuned, there is still more to learn. Also see Review #938 on Universal Constants. And, #1336 Mystery of the Fine Structure Constant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------- RSVP, Pass it on to whomever is interested. ----------------
--- Some reviews are at: -------------- http://jdetrick.blogspot.com -----
-- email comments, corrections, request for copies or Index of all reviews
- to: ------- jamesdetrick@comcast.net ------ “Jim Detrick” -----------
- https://plus.google.com/u/0/ -- www.facebook.com -- www.twitter.com
----- 707-536-3272 ---------------------- Monday, May 4, 2015 -----
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment