See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Physics laws flawed (Dr Michael Murphy is part of a team that has, over recent years, uncovered surprising and controversial evidence suggesting the laws of physics may have been changing through cosmic time. )
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20071012-16699-2.html
Published: Dec 13, 2007
Author: n
Post Date: 2007-12-13 11:26:08 by gengis gandhi
Keywords: None
Views: 2354
Comments: 89
Physics laws flawed E-mail to a Friend Monday, 10 December 2007 Swinburne University A Swinburne astrophysicist has leapt another hurdle in the path to proving that our fundamental theories of physics are not what they seem. Dr Michael Murphy is part of a team that has, over recent years, uncovered surprising and controversial evidence suggesting the laws of physics may have been changing through cosmic time. In this latest move, Murphy has debunked a study which claimed to disprove his findings. Murphy’s research into the laws of Nature goes back eight years, and concerns our understanding of electromagnetism, the force of nature that determines the sounds we hear, the light we see, and how atoms are held together to form solids. Through the study of electromagnetism in galaxies ten billion light years away, he has challenged the fundamental assumption that the strength of electromagnetism has been constant through time. “Back in 2001 we published evidence showing a small change in the fine structure constant, the number that physicists use to characterise the strength of electromagnetism,” Murphy said. “Even though the change that we think we see in the data is quite small, about five parts in a million, it would be enough to demonstrate that our current understanding must in fact be wrong. It’s an important discovery if correct. It suggests to physicists that there’s an underlying set of theories we’re yet to broach and understand.” Physicists have been chasing results like these for a number of years, but since 1999, Murphy and his co-researchers have been ahead of the pack. They’ve published a series of observations from the Keck Telescope in Hawaii as further evidence of a varying fine structure constant. But, a few years ago, another research team claimed that data from a different telescope contradicted Murphy’s observations. However, he’s been able to prove that the contradictory work itself was flawed. “We’ve shown that the way the data was analysed was faulty,” he said. “Their procedures were faulty so the numbers that came out are meaningless. Our paper points this out. When you replicate their analysis and fix their problems, you get a very very different answer indeed.” Murphy has a ‘comment’ about this latest work in this week's issue of the journal Physical Review Letters. It’s the most difficult journal for physicists to get published in, and is the one they turn to for important results in their field. This latest step is not the end of the road though in convincing scientists across the world that they need to rethink their ideas about electromagnetism. Even though this study also produced results that agree with his initial Keck findings, Murphy said there’s still work to be done. “There are some problems that need addressing,” he said. “It’s quite a surprising result and one that probably many people need a lot more convincing on. It will take some time, but we’re doing that job.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 36.
#4. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
Either electromagnetism is stronger in the past (and farther away) or the recession-dominated red-shift assumption is wrong, if I understand this correctly. So, it's a pretty dull dilemma to me.
If you use nonlinear gravity, such as the inverse-square law multiplied by a sinusoidal factor, or some such thing, I suppose the spatial energy distribution of the universe can evolve into increased complexity or, preferably, cycle within a similar periodically self-organizing path. A crudely similar process can be produced with cellular automata rules. I guess the spatial sinusoidal frequency or frequencies of quantum gravity would be most simply governed by a light-like gravity quanta mode of infinitesimal mass, and thus ultra-long wavelength, combined directly with the inverse-square rule, which of course naturally arises from the space-filling fall-off of quanta flux density with distance from the source.
Here's Hoag's galaxy:
beautiful
I've decided it's impossible to add anything more to that post, as the site- server software is apparently automatically multiplying all the paragraph breaks with each edit. Anyway, I might be the first nobody to come up with this oddball quantum gravity interpretation of the galaxy shapes seen here. I am going to name the zero-crossover region "the nobody zone." Can't wait for those internet nobody residuals to start pouring in.
Thank you for posting those. I don't see how anyone could believe it's all just from chaos.
#37. To: robin (#36)
Yes. It's not just from chaos if its matter and energy once went through a cooling phase where quantum gravity re-organized it before it was re-heated.
Haog's object apparently presents the first identified example of an achromatic-type doublet (1 concave + 1 convex) gravity lensing system. I guess one could say it is an air-spaced doublet, since the two lensing galaxies involved are far apart. Seems I am the first nobody to identify this.
www.physorg.com/news98450367.htm l "It's like looking at the pebbles on the bottom of a pond with ripples on the surface. The pebbles' shapes appear to change as the ripples pass over them. So, too, the background galaxies behind the ring show coherent changes in their shapes due to the presence of the dense ring." Another ring that apparently lenses, but different and differently, it seems. Dark matter is supposed to be involved. People say most of the universe is dark matter, but I don't think that is necessarily the case.
Interesting note on wikipedia about "Hoag's Object" (Hoag's Galaxy): "In the initial announcement of his discovery, Art Hoag proposed the hypothesis that the visible ring was a product of gravitational lensing. This idea was later discarded because the nucleus and the ring have the same redshift, and because more advanced telescopes revealed the knotty structure of the ring, something that would not be visible if the ring were the product of gravitational lensing." Wikipedia also calls the smaller galaxy a ring galaxy, rather than a galaxy with an Einstein ring. Maybe wikipedia missed out on identifying the Einstein ring, and Hoag was right about lensing if the "visible ring" mentioned above refers to the Einstein ring (or "ring galaxy" if Wikipedia's term is preferred) seen through Hoag's ring. I see Hoag's Galaxy as a gravity lens operating much like a glass toroid (donut- shaped piece of glass) optical lens where the galaxy is dark, possibly a concave version of a toroid (grooved donut shape). I guessed earlier it was concave, so I guess I'll stick to that for now. Makes sense as it is so distant and the eye focuses directly on the front of it. Reminds me of a concave-eye- side long eye-relief eyepiece lens. The typical Einstein ring is supposed to be formed by converging divergent light, which makes it like a typical (convex) toroid optical lens, or just a convex lens with the middle cored out, it seems.
The quantum gravity phases of Hoag's ring apparently reinforce those of Hoag's center by the distance between the two, seems to me. I can imagine glusters and intercluster space evolving to be filled with similar ripples despite no mass around to experience them. Yet if it's possible to build a Cherenkov microwave amplifier, then it seems it's possible to oscillate light using gravity, splitting it up into microwaves and thus reddening the light in the process.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: nobody (#4)
#20. To: ghostdogtxn (#6)
(Edited)
#24. To: nobody (#20)
#27. To: ghostdogtxn (#24)
#28. To: nobody (#27)
#32. To: robin (#28)
(Edited)
#36. To: nobody (#32)
Replies to Comment # 36. I don't see how anyone could believe it's all just from chaos.
#38. To: robin (#36)
(Edited)
#53. To: robin (#36)
#54. To: robin (#36)
(Edited)
#55. To: robin (#36)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 36.