Laws of Physics Vary Throughout Universe

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by Arnack, Feb 4, 2011.

  1. #1 Arnack, Feb 4, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 4, 2011
    Laws of physics vary throughout the universe, new study suggests

    surprised i didn't find this article sooner, a little bit old, i know, but i find it extremely interesting.

    now shit on a universal scale (possibly more than that?) and we have lots of lots of learning to do.
  2. #2 CoolNewThing, Feb 5, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 5, 2011
    It really wouldnt surprise me, but the implications are absolutely mind blowing. Try imagining a place where theoretical physics no longer applied at the fundamental levels? Suddenly anythings possible within our own universe haha
  3. [ame=]YouTube - The Cosmological and Fine-Structure Constants[/ame]
  4. evidence of extra terrestrial manipulation

    read the whole article, good find.
  5. amazing discovery, i love science... just when you think you know generally how things are working, BAM something like this turns up

    Looks like we are either on the frontier of something huge in physics (most likely) or someone messed up real bad

  6. not QUITE sure how a spread of 1 part in 100 000 across the whole of our observable universe is evidence for extra terrestrials though...
  7. I asked in this same forum a couple of weeks ago "How do we know that the speed of light is constant throughout the Universe."

    Because if the gravity of our sun is slowing down the maximum speed of light, then our calculations about how long it would take to get to the next star could be way over-estimated too. If the speed of light is actually 10x faster outside the influence of our Sun's gravity, then we could get to distant stars 10x as fast.

    Additionally, if the way we calculate mass of distant objects relies on the assumption that the speed of light in that objects neighborhood is the same as it is here, then our calculations of the mass of distant objects could be wrong too. Which could account for why we think that the a majority of the mass of the universe is "dark matter".

    Dark matter could just be a ghost in the equation based on a faulty assumption about the speed of light.

  8. This. I can't explain it but the theory of relativity just doesn't click with me. To me it was Einstein's way of seeing the ultimate image but it still seems to me trapped with the information of system and balances instead of observing the image as it is delving across the plains of the universe building a parallel universe. We build a parallel universe according the universe as we see it and we call the replica the universe and this is not so far from the truth because we make it so. Now it seems people are becoming more and more aware the universe we've created around us and with this new light I expect the stupidity of the past, lets call it ore because it was hard work done seeking the truth, the ore of the past will be washed away and the gold which we sought will be the actual thing and not a replica. I look forward to the new technological advances made within the quantum fields. They can explain the very fabric o0f how thoughts are made
  9. The problem with your idea is that gravity doesn't effect the SPEED of light, only it's direction. Light or the electromagnetic wave that light is has no mass so the only way gravity can affect it is by spacetime being curved around heavy mass objects like a sun.

    The only thing that can effect the speed of light is what light is traveling through (it's medium). Just like sound changes speed when in water or air or in another type of fluid, light in the vacuum of space has a constant speed (because there is nothing in it's way to slow it down, just like for an object's speed). A Bose-Einstein condensate is one fluid we know of that will slow the speed of light enough that we can actually see it traveling through the fluid (our atmosphere does also but not nearly enough for us to see without large distances)

    With spacetime being curved and light having to travel along that curve we can calculate how much "curving" the sun would cause (because of it's mass) and thus how much extra distance the light had to travel to get to us and then the speed it had to be traveling to cover that distance.
  10. How do you KNOW that?

    Have you been to deep space to test your hypothesis, or are you just repeating what all the physicists say?

    Insisting it's the case without direct experimentation is not scientific. And it's a sin that all Physicists are committing daily to assume something based on what previous Physicists have said or some 70 year old mathematical formula that has already been shown to have problems.

    Contrary to popular belief, man and man made objects, have never experienced 0 gravity.

    The apparent 0 gravity of the being in orbit is not real 0 gravity. It's a part of the constant falling nature of an orbit coupled with momentum. It's like that instant at the top of the hill on the roller coaster where it "feels" weightless and your lunch tries to escape.

    Additionally, a jet fighter cornering at 9 G's or your car at .8G or the Vomit Comet in 0G is not really modified G's at all. It's momentum feeling like modified Gs.

    Real gravity is an effect of mass and density. It's not a trick of momentum.

    Sure, maybe we KNOW that the speed of light doesn't change due the effects of momentum. Because we'd be stupid not have done tests of the speed of light in orbit by now.

    But we can't possibly KNOW that the speed of light is not effected by gravity because we have never been beyond the gravitational affects of the Sun to do direct experimentation and we've never synthesized real higher gravity on Earth.

    The only way to get real 0 gravity is to get beyond the gravity well of the Sun. And the only way to create real higher gravity than we experience on Earth is to have something more massive and dense than the Earth or Sun.

    Yes, maybe if there is a package on board one of the Voyager space craft to test the speed of light, maybe it's far enough out now that it would be able to measure a difference. But other than that, we're all just taking it as gospel that it's Universal.

    Making unquestionable assumptions about the nature of the Universe without being able to do direct experimentation flies in the face of the scientific method.

    Yet we have built a huge Physics house of cards on top of Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

    And one of the cards at the base of that house could have a serious flaw.

    Physicists (and my father and Uncle are retired nuclear physicists) insist that is MUST be the case, because if it's not, then the whole house of cards must be rebuilt.

    But there is nothing scientific about insisting and MUSTS without data from experimentation to back it up.

    And all of our data on the speed of light has been collected in a potentially biased environment.

    It's like assuming that the speed of sound through air is the same everywhere in the Universe, without ever having experimented anywhere higher or lower than sea level.

    100 years ago, it was probably assumed that the speed of sound through air was the same everywhere. It is not. Indeed, it is much slower at 30,000 feet than it is at sea level.
  11. In trying to understand this better, I've been reading up on time dialation.

    Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So according to that, a clock on a spaceship and a clock inside a gravity well will advance at different rates.

    Velocity is just distance/time.

    And it states right there that time is indeed affected by gravity.

    So if time slows down in a gravity well, then indeed velocity of an object inside a gravity well slows as well.

    It semantics.

    The speed of light IS constant. It's still 300,000,000m/s. It's the value of a second that's changing.
  12. I really hope we're not wrong about the speed of light. The meter is defined as the distance light travels in 299,792,458^(-1) seconds. If we found out that wasn't true, it'd be like facepalm of the milennium.
  13. We KNOW it because we don't need to get outside the sun's influance to test it. Even near the sun we can make our own "gravity well" and shoot light past it and see it's effects. Nevermind that we can see the influence of gravity on light via light coming from a galaxy that is behind another one. The light is curved around it and we get optical effects that we also see in the bottom of a glass here on earth. (it's called the lensing effect)

    Think of it like this, you can test the speed of the wind while standing in it. Just put your back to the wind and then do a test near your chest. Our physics says there will be some wind near your test but it's a predictable amount and then you can omit that from your measurements. Then you can test the wind again to your side and get a measurement directly from the wind.

    The problems your talking about have nothing to do with the equations for figuring out the speed of light. The problem is at the very beginning of the universe when it is still hundreds of millions of degrees and some of the laws are combined into one. In that time things like the optics laws don't apply because the "rules" governing them have combined with other laws.

    Lagrange points? But i suppose you'll also say that even though the net effect of pull from all bodies in space is 0 that still doesn't count hu?

    I just want to point out that feeling of weightlessness of a roller coaster is actually 0 gravity. your upward momentum cancels out the pull of gravity so the net effect is 0. Yes all these things are the result of momentum but so is gravity. Gravity is just a constant acceleration in a particular direction. If you are always moving in the opposite direction of gravity at the same rate then it's the same as if there was no gravity at all.

    you do realize that we have instruments now that can measure in fine enough detail that we don't have to go outside the effects of the sun or any other body to be able to detect what effect a body has right?

    I don't think Voyager has anything to measure gravity on it, but I could be wrong. But simply the fact that we CAN talk to it proves we know all we need to about the speed of light because the signal we use to talk with it is effected in the same way as the speed of light is.

    I hate to break it to ya but you'll never be outside any gravitational effects. If you get far enough away from the sun then the pull of nearby star's would do the same, then the pull from nearby clusters and galaxies and nebula...see we can just keep going and going because you can't ever get far enough away from everything that nothing has an effect on you. The way we deal with that is by canceling out the effect rather than trying to send something to a place that doesn't exist.

    and you can test it while under the water, if you put a sensor in a box filled with another fluid and put that box under water you can measure the change in the speed of sound through the two different mediums. You can still measure something while being under the influence of it as long as you know it's there, and the evidence would show that there is something that needs to be accounted for.

    The problem is you are misunderstanding what we don't yet know about the early universe. The problem is from when we try and combine all the laws we know of at extremely high temp's. The laws we are trying to combine are not the laws of gravity and optics we use to find out the speed of light but the next set up. The one's that we've found via experiments that you can derive the laws we know about from.

    theory of everything -> gravity and electromagnetic force -> gravity, strong, weak, electromagnetic forces

    The problem is in combining gravity with the electromagnetic force at the time when only quantum effects matter. That has nothing to do with the force of gravity of a body on another object, completely different equation that has been known for a very long time and tested in just about every way possible, all with the same results.

    Just saying that there could be some other thing we have yet to even see evidence of is for the philo. section. Saying we would have to be outside of any influence to measure something ignores the fact that nature won't allow us that liberty. If you can't make an experiment that is able to omit all the known and unwanted effects out then there isn't much use in saying it because it's effectively untestable.
  14. Good post Thunderstruck. we really don't need to go beyond earth to see the effects of gravitational lensing, we've found endless examples.

    2010 June 20
    Abell 2218: A Galaxy Cluster Lens
    Credit: Andrew Fruchter (STScI) et al., WFPC2, HST, NASA Digitally reprocessed: Al Kelly Explanation: What are those strange filaments? Background galaxies. Gravity can bend light, allowing huge clusters of galaxies to act as telescopes, and distorting images of background galaxies into elongated strands. Almost all of the bright objects in this Hubble Space Telescope image are galaxies in the cluster known as Abell 2218. The cluster is so massive and so compact that its gravity bends and focuses the light from [ame=""]galaxies that lie[/ame] behind it. As a result, multiple images of these background galaxies are distorted into long faint arcs -- a simple lensing effect analogous to viewing distant street lamps through a glass of wine. The cluster of galaxies Abell 2218 is itself about three billion light-years away in the northern constellation of the Dragon (Draco). The power of this massive cluster telescope has allowed astronomers to detect a galaxy at the distant redshift of 5.58.


Share This Page