So what exactly does it mean when the Fine Structure Constant changes ?

Google is your friend.

n physics, the fine-structure constant (usually denoted α, the Greek letter alpha) is a fundamental physical constant, namely the coupling constant characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. Being a dimensionless quantity, it has constant numerical value in all systems of units. Arnold Sommerfeld introduced the fine-structure constant in 1916.

The current recommended value of α is 7.2973525698(24)×10−3 = 1/137.035999074(44).

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

more stuff here

It means a massive new project needs to be started in order to investigate this anomalous result... & that gives leverage when asking for funding & research grants.
oh cynical me!

It says that it's dependant on measurement.

So ,..measurements are approximations with a degree of uncertainty, ..so why all the ruffled feathers over it ?

Thread: New Physics? Fundamental Cosmic Constant Now Seems Shifty

That thread does not address uncertainty in emperical measurements.

Do you think that is why they have found the alpha constant is not universal? Because they did not adjust findings for a possible empirical uncertainty?

Maybe. If I find you the actual research paper on the findings, will you know what emperical uncertainty to look for?

They don't address a lot of things. Measured time is not a constant in it self. Neither is our reference point as the observer.


When they look out thousands of light years they are still looking at the past, not at the now... It's a good question you pose, go post it there someone will see it. I dont feal like going in to it in depth right now lol. Maybe later after more coffee!

Oh good sickscent showed up ;)

I'm out for a while peace!

Yeah, ok.

No, seriously ?

Explain your surprise that it's not constant when it's an emperical measurement and emperical measurements will always be approximations.

Says right on the wiki page why, yet you and quite a few make it out to be some big deal, when it's not.

There is a difference between measured values and calculated values in physics.

What are they SickScent ?

It's all tentative...it's been assigned Sigma 3.5, wheras Sigma 5 is necessary for balls-on truth.

That's what I thought, statistical in nature, meaningless without multiple conformations by multiple parties. I just didn't see the big deal that people here made out yesterday.

The only things I read about it were articles stating it meant the possibility that the FSC was different in other parts of the cosmos in the early years, hence allowing anisotropic vs isotropic emergence of life.

Space.com made a big deal out of it to. Why don't you email them with your concerns?

Also, you sound very much like a troll. You already have made up your mind.

Sure, everybody made a big deal out it, but unless it's corroborated many times, it really is no big deal.

So, if emperical measurements are approximations, and measurements never perfectly represent what's being measured, then the fact a measured value deviates from a calculated and predicted value is why we have statistical methods.

Where's the big problem ?

How does any of that invalidate Planck's constant, for example ? Wasn't that a claim made on your thread ?

No reason to get bent out of shape buddy, I'm just looking for an explanation of why it's such a big deal statistical measurements are " shifty ".

Everything is in flux. Remember. Long time ago. The idea there were some things fixed and never change is a ideological question. There is a lot of people who's imagination of living and philosophy depend on that idea, there were fundamentals which do not vary.

Besides, relative newly theory of resolution gets more accurateness.