BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The laws of physics are changing!

 
 
Mystery Gypt
02:45 / 30.08.01
I'm especially into the part about the cabala, though my copy of 777 isnt at hand -- what's the gematria on 137?

N Y Times, Aug 19:
quote:
MINDS OVER MATTER
Suddenly, the Cosmos Becomes More Fickle
By GEORGE JOHNSON

(1) WHEN cosmologists try to picture how the universe came to be, they invoke
the image of a Great Creator hunched over a keyboard, engaging in a high- stakes
game that might be called Cosmic Sim City. Depending on how the player tweaks
about two dozen different variables - adjusting the speed of light, the strength
of gravity and so forth - a very different kind of universe will unfold.

(2) The most important control is marked ``Do Not Touch.'' For it governs a
number so primary it is called just ``alpha.'' Had this adjustment been set a
little higher or lower than it was, atoms would not have formed and there would
be no life.

(3) Alpha is among the most basic of the cosmological parameters revered by
physicists as the constants of nature, the mathematical bedrock that ensures the
existence of an orderly universe. Hence the uneasiness last week when an
international team of astronomers, led by John K. Webb, of the University of New
South Wales in Australia, reported that the number might not be so constant.

(4) Something, it seems, may be fiddling with the dials on the universal control
board.

(5) Peering back through time with their telescope, analyzing the ancient light
of quasars, the scientists found that alpha (which is also called the fine-
structure constant) may have been slightly smaller billions of years ago. The
tiny difference, in the fifth decimal place, isn't enough to have seriously
scrambled the cosmic rule book. But the finding carries the odd implication that
the universe may be a place where the laws of physics can change.

(6) For decades, scientists, theologians and mystics have been seduced by alpha
because it seems to capture something ineffable about life, the universe and
everything. It's telling that the new study, to be published this week in the
journal Physical Review Letters, was supported, in part, by the John Templeton
Foundation, whose mission is to reconcile science with God.

(7) There is good reason to look for ultimate answers in alpha, which is
actually an amalgam of three constants so basic they pervade physics and
cosmology: the charge of the electron; the speed of light in empty space; and
Planck's constant, the most important number in quantum mechanics, the theory
that governs subatomic behavior. If these values were substantially different,
the universe would be unrecognizable and probably barren.

(8) Combine the three numbers in just the right manner and the various units of
measurement (feet- per-second and so forth) cancel each other out, leaving what
is called a ``pure number'': one that doesn't come in degrees or pounds or
decibels or pesos. Like pi, alpha is simply alpha. Whether it is measured using
the English system, the metric system or some system invented in Andromeda, it
will be the same: about 1/137, or .007297352533.

(9) (To simplify matters, physicists often flip the fraction upside down,
expressing alpha as its inverse, 137 - or, to be precise, 137.03599976.)

(10) Why such an apparently arbitrary and rather ugly number should be inscribed
in the cosmological DNA is one of life's great mysteries. In the 1930's, when
the physicist Victor Weisskopf told the religious scholar Gershom Scholem about
alpha, his eyes popped out - 137, he said in amazement, is none other than the
number of the kabala, the occult system of Jewish numerology. Mystics of other
persuasions have tried to derive the value from the dimensions of the Great
Pyramid of Giza or of Stonehenge. Alpha, they insist, is a scrap of ancient
esoteric knowledge, a page torn from a guidebook bequeathed by alien astronauts.


THE number is also the obsession of some fundamentalist Christians. In his novel
``Roger's Version,'' John Updike tells the story of Dale Kohler, a born- again
computer programmer convinced that cosmological data reveal a universe
fine-tuned to spawn intelligent life. Plugging the numbers into his simulation
software, he seeks to prove the existence of God. He probably would have liked
the idea of a changing alpha. The wording of the Scriptures may be fundamental
but not the constants of nature. Tweak them a bit and you can coax geological
and astronomical evidence into proving that the universe really is just 8,000
years old, as the Good Book says.

When it comes to nature's mysterious numbers, scientists can also go over the
top. Sir Arthur Eddington, a physicist with a numerological bent, labored over a
grand theory (posthumously published in 1946) that painstakingly explained why
alpha had to be precisely 1/136, which was once the accepted value. When he
learned that experiments showed that alpha was more like 1/137, Eddington
tweaked his theory, causing the British humor magazine Punch to immortalize him
as Sir Arthur Adding-One.

He was in good company. Scientists as illustrious as John von Neumann, Edward
Teller, Werner Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli fell on their pens trying to derive
alpha from first principles. Legend has it that Pauli died in hospital room 137.
And physicists still tell a story about his entering the Pearly Gates. His first
question: ``Why 137?''

``Here, I'll show you,'' the Creator replies and starts scribbling equations on
a blackboard. Pauli, known in life for his intellectual combativeness, slaps his
head in exasperation: ``No, no, no.'' He grabs the chalk and corrects the
Almighty's error.

Whether alpha is fixed or varies across a tiny span, the overriding question is
whether its value was inevitable - determined somehow by an inviolable law - or
just a matter of happenstance. As Albert Einstein famously put it, Did God have
a choice in creating the universe?

Devotees of the Anthropic Principle consider this all moot: if alpha wasn't
hospitable to life then no one would be around to call it alpha. As a variation
on this theme, some cosmologists propose that the Big Bang gave rise to a
multitude of universes, each obeying different laws. Naturally, people find
themselves in one where alpha allows atoms to form.

If the idea of a changing alpha holds up, scientists will find some way to
accommodate it. Who knows? Perhaps there is a constant that governs alpha's
inconstancy - a number describing the rate at which the Great Tweaker
mischievously advances the dial. But maybe that number changes, too.

These mysteries would be all the more compelling if alpha were exactly 1/137
instead of a smidgen less. If alpha still is growing, perhaps it will eventually
catch up to the desired value, bringing on some kind of new millennium.

But there may not be time for a great convergence. Just as there is an alpha, so
is there an omega - a number that, depending on how it was set in the beginning,
determines whether the universe will expand forever or collapse in on itself.

Between the alpha and the omega, astronomers have a lot to figure out.

##

 
 
Yagg
03:29 / 30.08.01
Well, there's some good food for the mind to feed on for awhile. Going to take quite a lot of chewing, though...

I've only a passing familiarity with this sort of physics and such. One of those "I've been meaning to read up on this" sort of things. Anyone have suggested reading? Websites? Thanks.
 
 
satax
04:42 / 30.08.01
Maybe this will be of any help:
http://www.new-universe.com/pythagoras/initiation.html

Some 'visual' geometry explanation.
 
 
Lionheart
17:02 / 30.08.01
quote3) Alpha is among the most basic of the cosmological parameters revered by
physicists as the constants of nature, the mathematical bedrock that ensures the
existence of an orderly universe. Hence the uneasiness last week when an
international team of astronomers, led by John K. Webb, of the University of New
South Wales in Australia, reported that the number might not be so constant.

(4) Something, it seems, may be fiddling with the dials on the universal control
board.


Uhm... no. Why? Well, basically according to our current view of the universe we can predict that the speed of light is constant. If the speed of light is not constant then our view of the universe is wrong. It's stupid to say that our view of the universe is right, and it's just some supreme being "messing with the dials." Scientists need to just admit that most of modern physics could be false. We might be totally completely wrong about the universe. And why? Because our orginial view is based on incomplete information.

Question: How did Planck come up with Planck's constant?

Answer: (which i'll complete later. i'm in school at the moment.) He chose random numbers and put them into some equation. Yes. That's right. Planck's constant is a random number which was put into an equation as an explanation of the results of an experiment.

Doesn't mean it's wrong though, but we should look at the foundations of our understanding of the universe to check if we absolutly 100% know that they're correct.

And by the way, if the speed of light (c) is not a constant then what does that mean for [e=mc^2]?

Nobody's saying what this means for physics. What it means for relativity, quantum mechanics and everything else. nobody's putting the old and new number into equations and checking the difference between results. at least I don't think anybody's doing it. That's-a my view.
 
 
Enamon
22:04 / 30.08.01
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Gypt:
I'm especially into the part about the cabala, though my copy of 777 isnt at hand -- what's the gematria on 137?


According to http://wwnet.fi/users/pete/moshe.htm
quote:Using the common way to calculate the numeric value of the word
QBLH, Qabbalah is 137
 
 
Enamon
22:12 / 30.08.01
Note: 137 is a prime number.
 
 
SMS
22:14 / 30.08.01
quote:Originally posted by Lionheart:


Uhm... no. Why? Well, basically according to our current view of the universe we can predict that the speed of light is constant. If the speed of light is not constant then our view of the universe is wrong. It's stupid to say that our view of the universe is right, and it's just some supreme being "messing with the dials."

It's just a figure of speech, Lionheart. In the same way that most of my physics professors talk would say "this guy wants to do this" when they're talking about an electron.


quote:Scientists need to just admit that most of modern physics could be false. We might be totally completely wrong about the universe. And why? Because our orginial view is based on incomplete information.

Question: How did Planck come up with Planck's constant?

Answer: (which i'll complete later. i'm in school at the moment.) He chose random numbers and put them into some equation. Yes. That's right. Planck's constant is a random number which was put into an equation as an explanation of the results of an experiment.

Doesn't mean it's wrong though, but we should look at the foundations of our understanding of the universe to check if we absolutly 100% know that they're correct.

And by the way, if the speed of light (c) is not a constant then what does that mean for [e=mc^2]?


It probably doesn't mean too much. I mean, your results would be different, but the overall theory would probably be the same.

I don't think you're giving scientists enough credit, here. Most would freely admit that the newest theories used today will probably be vastly different in twenty years.

[ 31-08-2001: Message edited by: SMatthewStolte ]
 
 
Mystery Gypt
06:42 / 31.08.01
quote:Originally posted by Lionheart:
And by the way, if the speed of light (c) is not a constant then what does that mean for [e=mc^2]?


well what is means when c is constant is that Matter IS Energy. So maybe if c slips, that means matter is energy but there's something left over... theologians, get out your pencils. Time to go back the 19th C. experiments of weighing the human soul...
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
06:49 / 31.08.01
quote:Originally posted by Enamon:
Note: 137 is a prime number.


[Cube] That mean's the room's safe... [/Cube]
 
 
Wombat
06:56 / 31.08.01
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Gypt:


well what is means when c is constant is that Matter IS Energy. So maybe if c slips, that means matter is energy but there's something left over... theologians, get out your pencils. Time to go back the 19th C. experiments of weighing the human soul...


Or it could mean that matter is converted into less energy. (not sure about the entire "matter IS energy thing". How about matter is a form of energy or matter sometimes acts like energy.)

Isn`t variation in universal constants predicted by pretty much all models except the standard?
 
 
netbanshee
15:23 / 31.08.01
Keep in mind that all things are relational and since the methods of measurement don't sit in a vacuum, the relationship in equations is still intact. Science brushes off a good amount of excess numbers to arrive at results that meet at a certain range that comfortable to work with. Otherwise, for instance, it'd be more difficult to arrive at good answers when having to sift through a whole mess of extra computations.

So when thinking about equations, I'd say think about the meaning of the relationship between it's parts. There is no real meaning to it all when it's broken apart. The speed of light isn't important to me or anyone unless it relates to something we find crucial or important.

Beyond this though...does anyone have any good links to Jewish Mysticism and Numerology? Really feels like there's something very important in there.
 
 
netbanshee
15:26 / 31.08.01
Also curious...the movie Pi talked about a 216 number. Besides being 6 cubed (666), was it fictious in its use, a randomly chosen number? Or does it relate to an actual mulled over concept?
 
 
Lionheart
16:46 / 31.08.01
quote:It probably doesn't mean too much. I mean, your results would be different, but the overall theory would probably be the same.

Not really. Why? Because the over-all theory depends on the speed of light being constant. Since it's not, as we now believe, then the same experiment will come up with different results in different parts of space. so basically, if we stay with our current overall theory then we have to say that the laws of physics are not homogeneous, i.e. they are different in each part of space.

Oh and the "e=mc^2" is a trick question until somebody here defines what the hell is energy or "e".
 
 
Mystery Gypt
18:32 / 31.08.01
quote:Originally posted by Wombat:
Or it could mean that matter is converted into less energy. (not sure about the entire "matter IS energy thing". How about matter is a form of energy or matter sometimes acts like energy.)


well, first of all, in practical and experiential terms, matter is converted into much, much more energy. that's why the energy equals matter times the speed of light squared, which is a huge goddamn number. We can see this reaction in clear examples as the atom bomb, which releases a ridiculous amount of energy given its mass.

Secondly, the way in which matter and energy are one via c is in the proven and applicable fact that EVERYHING IN THE UNIVERSE is moving at the speed of light. Those things, like us, which move through space at a slower rate are doing so simply because the majority of our constant speed is directed through the dimension of time.

this is proven in the fact that clocks flying in supersonic jets land showing less elapsed time than synchonized clocks on the ground. There is only one single amount of speed that anything goes, and that is divided up between three dimensions and time. This is why light does not age.

this, then is why c is the glue between energy and matter, two sides of the same universal coin.

[ 31-08-2001: Message edited by: Mystery Gypt ]
 
 
Rex City-zen
17:55 / 04.09.01
Brain...hurts.
 
 
Lost Nauth
17:54 / 16.09.01
i read a theory awhile ago (i'm going to take another look at it btw if anyone wants to know more, ask) which said that a change in the laws of physics pointed to the end of the universe (big crunch or what-have-you), some signs would be easily identifiable, such as water taking longer to boil or at different temperatures, (the rest i can't really remember), we'd also notice changes in the speed of light, (but i'm not sure if we'd be able to tell or not b/c we might be changing with the same scale so we might not be able to tell any difference) anyway, if you can make sense of my rambling and are intrigued, i'll post more.
 
 
Naked Flame
18:54 / 16.09.01
but... ye cannae change the laws o' physics!

I like this concept. It's paradox-friendly.

'Contradiction is the foundation of adequate thinking'
 
 
Mister Snee
19:23 / 16.09.01
[CONTENT-FREE]
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Gypt:
These mysteries would be all the more compelling if alpha were exactly 1/137 instead of a smidgen less. If alpha still is growing, perhaps it will eventually catch up to the desired value, bringing on some kind of new millennium.


I can't believe everyone else has been so good as to resist the obvious 2012 reference here.
[/CONTENT-FREE]
 
 
Chuckling Duck
16:20 / 18.09.01
Okay, I did a bit of homework on the matter.

alpha = e^2/hc (alpha is the ratio of the charge of the electron squared to the product of the Planck constant and the speed of light).

A theoretical physicist called Murphy and his team of researchers have analyzed the light from very distant quasars, and compared the resulting spectral lines from different elements. The energies of the basic spectral lines depend linearly on alpha, but some fine details are proportional to alpha squared. Comparing the details with the main pattern allows them to extract a value for alpha many billion light years from here (and thus many billions of years ago).

Other groups have done similar experiments, but so far Murphy et al are the only ones to claim an actual change, rather than an upper limit to change. So as long as it has not been replicated, the Murphy result should be treated with some caution.

In the here-and-now, the change is way too small to have any practical importance. However, it has a bearing on events in the very early universe, surrounding the origin of the Big Bang. General relativity reaches the limits of its applicability in the vicinity of the Big Bang (within 10^-43 seconds from it or so). Physicists have several hypotheses concerning what goes on before then, and some of those hypotheses predict this kind of tiny changes in various "constants".

Unfortunately, I don't understand the math for those hypotheses. But it sounds like a verified change in the value of alpha wouldn’t change anything we already know about the universe, but may tell us things we didn’t know. We’re looking at a refinement of physics, not a replacement of it.

By the way, nothing I’ve read suggests that it’s the speed of light that changed, necessarily. It could just as easily been the charge of the electron or the Planck constant, or perhaps some permutation of the three.
 
 
LaughingOtter
17:30 / 20.09.01
quote:Originally posted by nEtbanshEE:
Also curious...the movie Pi talked about a 216 number. Besides being 6 cubed (666), was it fictious in its use, a randomly chosen number? Or does it relate to an actual mulled over concept?


216 is the smallest cube that is also the sum of three cubes:
(3^3)+(4^3)+(5^3)
so there's a Pythagorean link in there, eh?
 
  
Add Your Reply