Taking a second look at evidence for the 'varying' fine-structure constant

Oct 21, 2010 by Lisa Zyga report
In this full-sky illustration of the quasar measurements, squares represent quasars observed by the Very Large Telescope, circles represent observations by the Keck telescope, and triangles represent observations by both telescopes. The data suggest that the fine-structure constant seems to be larger in the southern direction. Image credit: Webb, et al.

(PhysOrg.com) -- A few weeks ago, a group of scientists from Australia posted a study at arXiv.org that showed evidence that the fine-structure constant may not actually be a constant. If the fine-structure constant does vary throughout the universe as their data seems to show, it would mean that the laws of physics also vary throughout the universe, with huge implications. But over the past few weeks, a few blogs by physicists not involved in the study have offered some early criticism of the authors' results.

In their study, which has been submitted to , John Webb from the University of New South Wales in Sydney and coauthors used data from two telescopes facing different directions to show that the fine-structure constant seems to be slightly different in the than the . Peering at the light emitted by distant quasars 10 billion years ago, and analyzing how the light was absorbed by old gas clouds during its travels, the seemed to be detecting a shift in the fine-structure constant across the universe.

In their blogs, physicists Chad Orzel of Union College and Sean Carroll of the California Institute of Technology scrutinized this claim from different perspectives. Orzel looked at Webb, et al.'s plot of the quasar sources in the sky (shown above). In the figure, the symbols' colors indicate the sign of the constant's shift and their sizes indicate the strength of the constant's shift. Also, the shapes of the symbols indicate the telescope used: circles refer to the Keck telescope in Hawaii and squares indicate the Very Large Telescope in Chile. Triangles indicate that both telescopes made observations, and so the triangles are mainly in the middle regions.

Orzel noticed that nearly all the triangles are black, indicating no shift for those regions. Although the regions with the triangles do make up the boundary region, Orzel finds it suspicious that they align so well with the locations of the specific telescopes. The idea is that the shift may be due to subtle differences in the two telescopes, in which one telescope's data set was slightly high and the other telescope's data set was slightly low, so that they canceled each other out when they overlapped.

Carroll takes an entirely different approach to the study. He looks at the fine-structure constant as a scalar field. He explains that, if the telescopes' observations are correct, and the fine-structure constant varies smoothly over the universe, then the scalar field must have a very small mass. However, previous research has shown that the mass is not likely to be extremely small.

Both of these scientists' early criticisms point to the fact that different techniques are needed to confirm or contradict the results, as Webb, et al., also concluded in their study.

Explore further: Tiny magnetic sensor deemed attractive

Related Stories

Massive galaxy cluster found 10 billion light years away

Jun 06, 2006

A University of Sussex astronomer is the lead researcher for a project that has led to the discovery of the most distant cluster of galaxies observed to date. The cluster, which is 10 billion light years from Earth, is also ...

Recommended for you

Tiny magnetic sensor deemed attractive

6 hours ago

Ultra-sensitive magnetic sensor technology pioneered at PML may soon be commercialized for a host of applications from detection of unexploded bombs and underground pipes to geophysical surveying and perhaps ...

Beams come knocking on the LHC's door

7 hours ago

Over the weekend, proton beams came knocking on the Large Hadron Collider's (LHC) door. Shooting from the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) and into the two LHC injection lines, the proton beams were stopped ...

Climate control in termite mounds

9 hours ago

When they make their way into homes, some species of termites can be destructive pests. Their fungus-harvesting relatives in Africa and Asia, however, are known for their construction prowess, collectively ...

The secret of dragonflies' flight

9 hours ago

Dragonflies can easily right themselves and maneuver tight turns while flying. Each of their four wings is controlled by separate muscles, giving them exquisite control over their flight.

User comments : 48

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Husky
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2010
maybe a space telescope, with a polar orbit, or two purposely highly identical build telescopes on the surface could bring more clearity, i find the suggestion of varying constant intriguiging enough to warrant further investigation
beelize54
1.9 / 5 (27) Oct 21, 2010
When some random blogs can criticize the experimental variations of fine-structure constant (i.e. the thing, which doesn't play well with established theories) - why the blogs, which are criticizing established theories aren't publicized in the same way?

Actually we are facing an apparent bias here - the proponents of mainstream theories are allowed to speak loudly without formal rigor and evidence, whereas their opponents are expected to bring rigor and thorough experimental evidence. The apparent tendency of mainstream physics to promote established status quo can be perceived here.

If nothing else, then the rules of presentation should be the same for everyone. Actually the evidence of varying fine-structure constant plays well with another asymmetries of Universe at large scales, like the dark flow recently observed and or Doppler shift of cosmic microwave background.

The more thorough analysis should consider first, whether all these phenomena aren't somehow related each other.
genastropsychicallst
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 21, 2010
... image fermion annulus ∆ karyo arma fusion annulus image pion ...
mogmich
5 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
Should be Sean Carroll - not John Carroll.
hockart
1.3 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2010
i think beelize54 makes an excellent point. i personally wish more aspects of society (governments, for one) employed that logic. the world might actually run more smoothly! :)
fully acknowledging up front that i'm no physicist (thus likely to be totally off base with this line of thought), but i didn't see any mention of these instruments being synchronized or calibrated to each other - making me wonder if this could be an issue with earth's geometry as opposed to something being inherently flawed in THE Fine Structure Constant.
Resonance
5 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
@ Husky:
A large survey in both hemispheres could do this too.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2010
When some random blogs can criticize the experimental variations of fine-structure constant (i.e. the thing, which doesn't play well with established theories) - why the blogs, which are criticizing established theories aren't publicized in the same way?
Zephir, aren't you a blogger who's critical of physical theories?
Gawad
5 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2010
When some random blogs can criticize the experimental variations of fine-structure constant (i.e. the thing, which doesn't play well with established theories) - why the blogs, which are criticizing established theories aren't publicized in the same way?
First off, these aren't just "random blogs" and you fall flat on your face right there. Orzel and Carroll are both established physicists and professors offering a critique of a study that is well within their field. (IMO Orzel is being rather kind. That big pink square in the top right quadrant of their chart isn't just suspicious, it's a huge red flag more than a pink square.) The point is that *extraordinary claims* always require extraordinary *evidence*, not just crackpot pigheadedness.
Actually we are facing an apparent bias here
We most certainly are, and a healthy one at that, without which every cooky idea pulled out of a hat (to be kind) would get equal time. All the useless noise would make the signal disappear.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2010
When some random blogs can criticize the experimental variations of fine-structure constant (i.e. the thing, which doesn't play well with established theories) - why the blogs, which are criticizing established theories aren't publicized in the same way?
Zephir, aren't you a blogger who's critical of physical theories?

Ah hell, he's back. Hadn't recognized him. Should have.
CTD1
1 / 5 (16) Oct 21, 2010
aren't you a blogger who's critical of physical theories
Yep and I'm even proud of it - I'm just following Popper's methodology, in which every theory is a priory suspicious and wrong. Actually this approach is quite symmetric, because the assumption of varying structure constant is sort of theory as well. So our stances regarding new ideas and observations should be symmetrical and unbiased, too.
CTD1
1 / 5 (16) Oct 21, 2010
..first off, these aren't just "random blogs" and you fall flat on your face right there. Orzel and Carroll are both established physicists and professors offering a critique of a study that is well within their field...
This is just what a meritocracy is called. With full respect to Mr. Orzel or Carroll, these two guys have no article about cosmological constant or even astronomical survey published so far - so I don't know, why you're considering them more competent, then every other average physicist. The first guy is an expert to boson condensates, the second one deals with thermodynamical time arrow (as far I know). Their credit perceived by You is solely based on their blogging activities.

http://www1.union.../CV.html

But my original point was quite different and irrelevant to competence issues: if these guys have something to say about it, no one prohibits them to publish standard review about it. The building of personality cults in science leads nowhere.
CTD1
1.2 / 5 (17) Oct 21, 2010
What I'm still missing by now is the correlation of the asymmetry in fine structure constant distribution with at least:

1) Doppler anisotropy of CMB radiation
2) Location of the CMB cold spot (my favorite one)
3) Axis of dark flow observed
4) Axis of CMB polarization

Until all these coincidences will not be excluded safely with rigorous statistic model, we simply cannot say, the anisotropy presented is just a random noise at all.

This is what the constructive approach in science is called - not the loud noisy blogging and the parroting of randomly picked opinions in mainstream press.
Gawad
5 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2010
[they] are both established physicists...well within their field...
This is just what a meritocracy is called.
So? If it's based on MERIT, what's the problem?
...these two guys have no article about cosmological constant or even astronomical survey published so far - so I don't know, why you're considering them more competent, then every other average physicist.
Fallacy. You don't need to be an uberspecialist to produce a valid critique for a given claim. And stop moving the goalposts: you said "random blog".
Their credit perceived by You is solely based on their blogging activities.
False in Carroll's case, but I'll grant this is more his bag than Orzel's.
my original point was...irrelevant to competence issues: if [they] have something to say [they should] publish standard review about it. The building of personality cults in science leads nowhere
But trying to elevate blogging to attempted personality cult creation is ridiculous and goes nowhere either.
mattytheory
5 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
I am by no means an expert in the field but I do have a question: Does temperature affect light absorption statistics? If so, what effect would that have on this study?
TDK
1 / 5 (15) Oct 21, 2010
..false in Carroll's case, but I'll grant this is more his bag than Orzel's.

..after all, Carroll is an aetherist, it seems..;-) I hope, it makes his opinion more relevant in the eyes of PO readers...

http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0521
Husky
3 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
Ever since watching pictures of jets shooting at relativistic speed from black holes nortern and southern hemisphere, sometimes stretching millions of lightyears, gradually condensing into large clouds, i am entertaining the crackpottish idea of seeing the big bang not as a symmetrical/spherical hyperinflation event, but perhaps as quark jets shooting from the singularity north/south pole and our universe condensing out of one of these jets, CP violation and Where is all the antimatter if our big bang was symmetrical ? then could be explained of explained as, the jet out of wich our universe could have condensed conserved the spin of the singularity and thus a preferred left or right handed nice for spacetime to curl into, this implies that another, opposing jet shot (just like we see with black holes) from the other hemisphere of the singularity has an opposite spin/handedness, dare i say another, antimatter dominated universe?
Husky
not rated yet Oct 21, 2010
In this Jet Bang model, Dark energy/expanding of the universe be explained by the beam widening, loosing magnetic coherence (plasma cosmologists would love this) The Dark Flow and (if verified) varying constants, might be a sign we are observing into the beam origin (denser) or away from it, interesting would be to observe if not only constants vary from north/southern hemisphere, observations, but observing millions of stars/galaxies, and see in the statistics or they have a random or tendency for a preffered spin axis orientation(wich would be the case in a spin conserved Jet Beam). I leave it to Oliver K. Manuel to throw some neutron repulsion in the mix to make a Grand Unifying Theory of it.
TDK
1 / 5 (12) Oct 21, 2010
Well, now I read the Orzel's objection and it's all actually based on this single sentence
...It just seems awfully convenient that the difference they see is so well correlated with the specific telescope they used. There's no particular reason why the changing constant should align with the location of observatories on our fairly insignificant little planet.
Actually, such reason may exist quite easily if we realize, the center of anisotropy is located at the north hemisphere, which isn't observable with telescopes at southern hemisphere - and vice versa. So that it's nothing strange, when telescopes at the north hemisphere would observe positive shift, whereas the telescopes at southern hemisphere would observe negative shift. Mystery explained..

It's evident, the whole problem is in the point, Mr. Orzel has no idea about experimental background of astronomical surveys - or maybe he considers Earth flat or whatever else.
TDK
1 / 5 (14) Oct 21, 2010
Carroll ...looks at the fine-structure constant as a scalar field. He explains .. the scalar field must have a very small mass. However, previous research has shown that the mass is not likely to be extremely small

This sounds like complete BS for me. Scalar field is simply abstract field of values distributed across space - actually the distribution of hydrostatic pressure is such a scalar field, too. I can see absolutely no reason, why such field should have some intrinsic mass, large or small the less.

The rest of Carroll's objection sounds even more nonsensical, because at the case, when such scalar field represents for example potential energy, then the high mass of field actually means, the potential energy is changing rapidly (compare the stress energy tensor in general relativity, for example).

So if Mr. Carroll says, some scalar field has a large mass assigned, then it actually means, it changes in gigantic way. I don't know from where he got is opinions, though.
TDK
1 / 5 (14) Oct 21, 2010
The controversy of FSC is not so difficult to understand if we realize, the FSC can be measured like the optical transmittance of graphene sheet. FSC simply says, how much the visible matter is opaque to light. If we place matter into more dense vacuum, then it would appear more transparent and vice versa. Therefore the fine structure constant is a running constant, and thus isn't actually constant, see NIST where you can read:

"Thus alpha depends upon the energy at which it is measured, increasing with increasing energy, and is considered an effective or running coupling constant. Indeed, due to e+e- and other vacuum polarization processes, at an energy corresponding to the mass of the W boson (approximately 81 GeV, equivalent to a distance of approximately 2 x 10^-18 m), alpha is approximately 1/128 compared with its zero-energy value of approximately 1/137. Thus the famous number 1/137 is not unique or especially fundamental."

http://physics.ni...s/alpha.
TDK
1 / 5 (14) Oct 21, 2010
Briefly speaking, because inside of atom nuclei the vacuum density is higher, the FSC is lower there and we can expect, at the GUT energy density scale it will be actually zero. So, if we have look at the distant parts of Universe we should see the matter at the process of Universe formation, i.e. at the higher energy density (because the initial singularity was there) - so that the FSC should decrease rapidly with distance from Earth.

If we don't see it, it just means, the Universe wasn't formed with Big Bang event and its red shift is of different origin. The small deviation observed is actually quite expectable in this context.
TDK
1 / 5 (14) Oct 21, 2010
In popular press the fine structure constant denotes the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. At the grand unification energy density during Big Bang all forces should be equal. From this simple connection everyone can see, Big Bang theory actually REQUIRES FSC changing pretty very much.

Note that varying with energy also infers varying with gravitational potential due to the spatial self-energy of a gravitational field. People have been talking about measuring alpha near the sun in solar-probe experiments for at least ten years now. See for example:

http://www.spring...2n94r17/

When you spot a variation in alpha out in space, what you're actually seeing is a variation in spatial energy density. This inhomogeneity causes gravity, and of course energy has a mass equivalence. Gravitationally speaking, it acts just like matter. But it's a density of vacuum which can be attributed to this matter, not the distribution of fine structure constant itself.
chandram
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
1. The experimental needs careful repetition, before conclusions are drawn.
2. As the Physics closure to Big Bang may not conform to the Physics evolved during the recent times, it is quite possible for the Physical Constants to have varied during the first billion years of the Universe. There is no requirement that compels so-called constants now, to have varied long back!
3.There has been reports on measurement of c, the velocity of light from far far galaxies that indicated higher value, using large aperture radio telescopes in Australia.
The subject needs serious attention and precise repetitions. i for one believe in non-constancy of the physical constants!
DamienS
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2010
i for one believe in non-constancy of the physical constants!

Why? Your belief is puzzling in light of your first point:
1. The experimental needs careful repetition, before conclusions are drawn.
Graeme
5 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2010
After looking at two of the papers, these effects are really buried deep in the noise or errors. One of the papers discusses that the variations in magnesium isotope ratios could cause the differences. (http://arxiv.org/...0310318) and the Australian's data and analysis is not actually published in the paper. So there is still plenty of scope for verification.
beelize54
1.3 / 5 (16) Oct 22, 2010
Well, if fine structure constant is characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction, then my question is, whether it should change at GUT scale, when all interactions converge together.

If yes, then the question is, why it shouldn't change at the remote areas of Universe, when the Universe was close to GUT scale. I hope, the question defined in such way is sufficiently clear for everyone.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2010
Well, if fine structure constant is characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction,
It isn't.
then my question is, whether it should change at GUT scale, when all interactions converge together.
You read too many Stephen Baxter books.
TDK
1 / 5 (12) Oct 23, 2010
..It isn't...
Says who? Anonymous negativistic troll from PO forum who downvotes all posts at personal basis mechanically?

http://www.google...eraction

you read too many Stephen Baxter books.
Nope, this is what the conceptual thinking is called. For example, the fine structure constant can be measured as light absorbtion of thin graphene leafs directly.

http://www.scienc...156965v1

Now we can put a question - under high energy density would these graphene layers remain less or more transparent?
TDK
1 / 5 (11) Oct 23, 2010
Your belief is puzzling in light of your first point:
The assumption of FSC variations doesn't contradict the need to repeat all experiments carefully.

This is what the critical scientific thinking is called, instead: all findings are considered a subject of doubts only: both the experiments who found some constants invariant, both the experiments, who found these constants variant.

Sounds too puzzling for you? Then you're not scientist - only a theorist. Just the schematically thinking theorists are requiring constants constant, because they're handling so in their theories.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2010
You need to stop using wikipedia as an authority on physics.

The FSC doesn't characterize the strength of electromagnetic interaction unless you're going directly by the Sommerfield equations. It works for classical physics as a stand in however, under QCD and QED you'll find that the FSC or alpha, for all values greater than 1 is irrelevant to the result. With irrelevance comes non-characterization.
TDK
1 / 5 (12) Oct 23, 2010
You need to stop using wikipedia as an authority on physics.
But I didn't linked the wiki, I linked the results of Google search, which are repeating the sentence you're trying to negate at many places. And which authority you're providing instead of Wikipedia? I'm sure, if I would say, that the FSC doesn't characterize the strength of electromagnetic interaction, you would oppose me as well. You're just such a little our negativist, aren't you?
TDK
1 / 5 (12) Oct 23, 2010
Wikipedia clearly states, as the energy scale increases, the strength of the electromagnetic interaction approaches that of the other two fundamental interactions, a fact important for grand unification theories. Now we have a problem, because Big Bang theory is assuming, at the beginning of Universe formation the energy scale corresponded the the Planck energy. So we should observe the monotonous change in FSC value with distance.

If quantum electrodynamics were an exact theory, the fine structure constant would actually diverge at an energy known as the Landau pole. This fact makes quantum electrodynamics inconsistent beyond the perturbative expansions. So that this "most exact physical theory" actually violates Bing Bang model too...

Any ideas instead of plain downvoting of my posts (or at least in addition to)?
Parsec
5 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2010
When some random blogs can criticize the experimental variations of fine-structure constant (i.e. the thing, which doesn't play well with established theories) - why the blogs, which are criticizing established theories aren't publicized in the same way?

Actually we are facing an apparent bias here - the proponents of mainstream theories are allowed to speak loudly without formal rigor and evidence, whereas their opponents are expected to bring rigor and thorough experimental evidence. The apparent tendency of mainstream physics to promote established status quo can be perceived here.

The more thorough analysis should consider first, whether all these phenomena aren't somehow related each other.

Exactly true. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. So what?
TDK
1 / 5 (12) Oct 24, 2010
Try to define first, what the "extraordinary claim" is.

Is the extraordinary claim the change of some constant in 10-5 range under the situation, when such constant should actually change in much more pronounced way?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2010
I once read a cool science fiction story where it turned out the earth had long been in a suppression field in space. When it eventually moved out, synapses sped up and everyone became super intelligent (godlike). They left the earth, but left behind an intellectually challenged guy (but now genius) to help out the now sentient animals!

I tried finding a reference for it, but it was too long ago and my memory grows dim (must be the result of the aforementioned suppression field! :D)
beelize54
1 / 5 (15) Oct 25, 2010
The whole problem is quite simple and no savant is required for its solution: during BigBang our Universe supposedly was at the state corresponding the GUT energy scale, when coupling constants of all interactions (including the fine structure constant) were EQUAL and UNITARY.

So, if we are observing something different at the Hubble Deep Field, it simply means, the theory of Big Bang or the GUT theory are wrong.

Because the fine structure constant appears surprisingly homogeneous across visible Universe, it means, Big Bang never occurred there, because we know from independent observations, value of fine structure constant increases slightly, when measured at the atom nuclei energy density (which is still far bellow the GUT scale). Which means, GUT theory is probably correct, but Big Bang theory probably not.

http://physics.ni...pha.html
beelize54
Oct 25, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2010
So, if we are observing something different at the Hubble Deep Field, it simply means, the theory of Big Bang or the GUT theory are wrong.
If you order a slice of apple pie, and the waitress tells you that they've run out of apple pie and the stove isn't hot enough to make another, does that mean that the apple pie never existed?

First, the Hubbvle deep field isn't producing observations contrary to GUT or Inflation cosmology. These two scientists stated they found variance in the FST. If you continued to reference their work, and the various critiques of it, you'll find they didn't account for all potential errors within their observation. Error is the most likely potential in this study. Hubble was never mentioned. You're making rather grandiose statements with no substantiating evidence.
CTD1
1 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2010
You're making rather grandiose statements with no substantiating evidence.
Big Bang predicts the Universe at the GUT state at its very beginning and QED predicts predict unitary value for FSC at the GUT state.

Can you accept it as a fact or do you have some relevant objections against it? I didn't ask you, if it's a substantial evidence for anything.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2010
Big Bang predicts the Universe at the GUT state at its very beginning and QED predicts unitary value for FSC at the GUT state.
Not sure I really grasp what you're saying here so I'll reconstruct it and you'll need to clarify if I'm correct or not. You're saying that Inflation cosmology postulates that at the moment of initial expansion, the 4 fundamental forces were a single force and under that single force the Fine Structure constant was singly valued and unchanging.

Can you accept it as a fact or do you have some relevant objections against it?
Depends on if I'm correct in restating what you wrote.
I didn't ask you, if it's a substantial evidence for anything.
No one asked you if it's a substantial evidence for anything. As written, it wouldn't be considered evidence, it is a statement of rammifications if the the evidenced theory is correct.

What you do is make a statement with no evidence and expect us to just accept it. We won't.
TDK
1 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2010
..You're saying that Inflation cosmology postulates that at the moment of initial expansion, the 4 fundamental forces were a single force and under that single force the Fine Structure constant was singly valued and unchanging...
It was unitary (i.e. equal one) and indeed changing, or it would remain unitary to the present time.

So, during Big Bang fine structure constant was presumably one by contemporary theories and now it's ~ 1/127... Can you confirm it: yes - or not?

Again, I didn't asked you, if it can serve as an evidence for anything, because you're apparently unqualified to judge it (because you cannot take a clear stand to it). I'm just curious, whether you're able to take a clear stand to some claim - that's all.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2010
It was unitary (i.e. equal one) and indeed changing, or it would remain unitary to the present time.
alpha doesn't have a value of 1. alpha is the square of the ratio of the elementary charge to the Planck charge. It is a relational constant, not a fixed value. In QED the interpretation is the coupling constant which determines the charge interaction between protons and electrons. If you rewind back to the initial moment you'll find the strength of the electromagnetic interaction varies with the strength of the energy field determining alpha.

So your simplistic interpretation doesn't give me a clear answer to agree or disagree with.

You've effectively run into the room waving your hands yelling, "I like red, choose meat or juice!"
(because you cannot take a clear stand to it)
Clarity of query will bring clarity of result.
TDK
1 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2010
Yep, I expected it. It's evident, why you can hardly find something new, because your fuzzy way of thinking prohibits you to see the paradoxes... The awareness of problem is the first step of every creative mind - if you cannot see the problem, then you cannot see its solution.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2010
Yep, I expected it. It's evident, why you can hardly find something new, because your fuzzy way of thinking prohibits you to see the paradoxes... The awareness of problem is the first step of every creative mind - if you cannot see the problem, then you cannot see its solution.
You're asking a question and expecting a yes ro no response, when the question doesn't provide enough information for a yes ro no response.

Are you really this stupid or do you just think physicists are stupid enough to blankly blurt out things without any information?

Why do you post on a science site when you loathe the scientific method and all it brings?
TDK
1 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2010
when the question doesn't provide enough information for a yes ro no response
Why do you think, my question doesn't provide enough information? In my opinion the combination of Big Bang theory and QED provides sufficient information for prediction of unitary value of FSC at the beginning of Universe. If you think it doesn't, then try to derive alternative value for it with using of the above theories.

The evidence of vagueness is not so vague, as you may believe. I don't loathe scientific method - I'm using it, instead.

Anyway, your attitude demonstrates clearly, how physicists can babble whole years about theories like the LCDM, GUT and QED without realizing, they're contradicting mutually. I'm using You for demonstration of stereotypic, ignorant thinking - if you didn't realize it.
TDK
1 / 5 (14) Oct 25, 2010
BTW my comments are downvoted by these logins by now:

yyz, thermodynamics, frajo, Thrasymachus, Skeptic_Heretic, DamienS , TheGhostofJigga, TheGhostofZephir, TheGhostofAlizee, TheGhostofXaero...
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2010
Anyway, your attitude demonstrates clearly, how physicists can babble whole years about theories like the LCDM, GUT and QED without realizing, they're contradicting mutually. I'm using You for demonstration of stereotypic, ignorant thinking - if you didn't realize it.
You mean like a preacher attempts to use an unbeliever to exemplify a lack of common sense? Seriously, if you want to attempt to define values for a time which we cannot mathematically describe appropriately without setting boundary conditions, then I can't do the work for you. The value would be infinite so the answer would be both 1 and not 1. Do you want me to say yes to it? Ok, Yes. Now go ahead and tell me I'm wrong and I'm an idiot because you didn't properly define the referential frame in your question, dickhead.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2010
TheGhostofJigga, TheGhostofZephir, TheGhostofAlizee, TheGhostofXaero

Perhaps, if you only used one account there wouldn't be so many skeletons in your closet.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2010
TheGhostofJigga, TheGhostofZephir, TheGhostofAlizee, TheGhostofXaero

Perhaps, if you only used one account there wouldn't be so many skeletons in your closet.


I'm sorry, but that is just uproariously funny! Especially with Halloween just around the corner.

And thank goodness, because as far as Whomever and his post flood , it's just depressing to read how hopelessly far from any kind of understanding of even how basic science is done and how the scientific method is applied that...I can't even hit the one star anymore. Talk about babbling whole years about theories. Ouch.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.