Nature's laws may vary across the Universe

Oct 31, 2011
How a galaxy imprints a "barcode" of metallic absorption lines onto the spectrum of a background quasar. We read this barcode after recording the quasar spectrum with telescopes on the Earth. The barcode encodes the laws of physics in the distant, absorbing galaxy, so we can tell whether the laws of physics change throughout the universe, or really stay constant like is currently assumed. IMAGE CREDITs: Quasar spectrum: Michael Murphy, Swinburne University of Technology;  Hubble Ultra Deep Field: NASA, ESA, S. Beckwith (STScI) and the HUDF Team.

(PhysOrg.com) -- One of the laws of nature may vary across the Universe, according to a study published today in the journal Physical Review Letters.

One of the most cherished principles in science - the constancy of physics - may not be true, according to research carried out at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Swinburne University of Technology and the University of Cambridge.

The study found that one of the four known fundamental forces, - measured by the so-called fine-structure constant and denoted by the symbol ‘alpha' - seems to vary across the Universe.

The first hints that alpha might not be constant came a decade ago when Professor John Webb, Professor Victor Flambaum, and other colleagues at UNSW and elsewhere, analysed observations from the Keck Observatory, in Hawaii. Those observations were restricted to one broad area in the sky.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
This video illustrates the quasar absorption line experiment we have conducted to study the laws of nature in distant galaxies.

However, now Webb and colleagues (PhD graduate Dr Julian King, PhD student Matthew Bainbridge and Professor Victor Flambaum at UNSW; Dr Michael Murphy at Swinburne University of Technology, and Professor Bob Carswell from Cambridge University) have doubled the number of observations and measured the value of alpha in about 300 distant galaxies, all at huge distances from Earth, and over a much wider area of the sky. The new observations were obtained using the European Southern Observatory's ‘Very Large Telescope' in Chile.

"The results astonished us," said Professor Webb. "In one direction - from our location in the Universe - alpha gets gradually weaker, yet in the opposite direction it gets gradually stronger."

Illustration of the direction of the dipolar axes from our study on the sky, in equatorial coordinates. The green region corresponds to the direction of the dipole derived only from Keck telescope quasar spectra. The blue region shows the dipole direction from the VLT spectra alone. The red region shows the dipole region from the combined dataset from both telescopes. The light grey ring represents the Milky Way, as projected onto the equatorial coordinate frame, with the Galactic centre shown as a bulge. IMAGE CREDIT: Appears in published version of the paper, http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v107/i19/e191101

"The discovery, if confirmed, has profound implications for our understanding of space and time and violates one of the fundamental principles underlying Einstein's General Relativity theory," Dr King added.

"Such violations are actually expected in some more modern ‘Theories of Everything' that try to unify all the known fundamental forces," said Professor Flambaum. "The smooth continuous change in alpha may also imply the Universe is much larger than our observable part of it, possibly infinite."

"Another currently popular idea is that many universes exist, each having its own set of physical laws," Dr Murphy said. "Even a slight change in the laws of Nature means they weren't ‘set in stone' when our Universe was born. The laws of Nature you see may depend on your ‘space-time address' - when and where you happen to live in the Universe."

Professor Webb said these new findings also offer a very natural explanation for a question that puzzled scientists for decades: why do the laws of physics seem to be so finely-tuned for the existence of life?

"The answer may be that other regions of the Universe are not quite so favourable for life as we know it, and that the laws of physics we measure in our part of the are merely ‘local by-laws', in which case it is no particular surprise to find life here," he said.

Explore further: A new multi-bit 'spin' for MRAM storage

More information: A pre-print version is available at arXiv:1008.3907.

www.astronomy.swin.edu.au/~mmurphy/res.html

Provided by Swinburne University of Technology

4.8 /5 (56 votes)

Related Stories

What if there is only one universe?

Jun 04, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Lee Smolin, author of the bestselling science book The Trouble with Physics and a founding member and research physicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, ...

New data suggests the universe is clumpier than thought

Jun 17, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- After analyzing data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSK), cosmologist Shaun Thomas and colleagues from the University College of London, have concluded that the universe is "clumpier" ...

Recommended for you

A new multi-bit 'spin' for MRAM storage

16 hours ago

Interest in magnetic random access memory (MRAM) is escalating, thanks to demand for fast, low-cost, nonvolatile, low-consumption, secure memory devices. MRAM, which relies on manipulating the magnetization ...

New study refines biological evolution model

Jul 21, 2014

Models for the evolution of life are now being developed to try and clarify the long term dynamics of an evolving system of species. Specifically, a recent model proposed by Petri Kärenlampi from the University ...

User comments : 119

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

_nigmatic10
2.5 / 5 (23) Oct 31, 2011
Reality is relative.
GenesisNemesis
4.1 / 5 (50) Oct 31, 2011
"Reality is relative"- no, it isn't. By the way, the title of the article is "nature's laws may vary across the Universe", there has not yet been independent confirmation of these results and the explanations have not been narrowed down to "nature's laws vary". Second, even if nature's laws do vary, that doesn't mean that you can claim whatever you want about reality.
Pete1983
4.8 / 5 (20) Oct 31, 2011
Genesis I don't know who gave you a 1 for your response, but I felt it needed to be countered.

Anyway, there seems to have been a few studies on distant alpha values now, and it's looking more and more like it is actually slightly variable over spacetime. I'm surprised that they single out relativity in the article though. A varying alpha throws out a basic assumption of modern physics, which includes quantum mechanics.

Not that any of this is really an issue, I don't think there is a physicist on the planet that would say either relativity or QM are 100% right.
unknownorgin
1.4 / 5 (19) Oct 31, 2011
There is no link or connection to keep one part of the universe syncronized with another area so many constants such as the speed of light may be different and may explain so called dark matter and other strange observations.
Grizzled
3.6 / 5 (13) Oct 31, 2011
If I remember right, there were always suspicions that the fine structure constant isn't so constant after all. Theories as well. What makes this work interesting is that they appear to have found some tangible evidence. As usual - subject to confirmation and all that but, if it checks, that will be really something.
hush1
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2011
The fine structure constant.
With researchers now suggesting that data will strip the status of that part of the ratio that makes a ratio a ratio.

Which further suggests that there is a fundamental able to change what we have come to so dearly to label: Nature's laws.

We will still be able to work with what we have: It works.
When we answer why we go to the next step.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (12) Oct 31, 2011
Unconvincing

http://arxiv.org/...07v1.pdf

The last graphic tells it all.
rawa1
1.3 / 5 (15) Oct 31, 2011
It depends on the way, in which "natural laws" are defined. For example, in its own sense the natural laws differs in water and acetone - if you understand, what I mean. At the very general level of dense aether model the human observers are just giant random blobs which are interacting with random background of Universe. We cannot see Universe differently, or we would contact with it. It means, at this very general revel the appearance and behaviour of Universe is rather defined with its observer, which is sampling the observable reality.

In addition, many seemingly solid physical constants are actually running constants, which change with energy density scale. See for example the NIST web, where you can read:

http://physics.ni...pha.html
rawa1
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 31, 2011
"Thus a 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), a(mW) 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"

Note that varying with energy also infers varying with gravitational potential due to the spatial self-energy of a gravitational field, see for example:

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

The change in value of physical constant implies the scope of another concepts, for example the multiverse. If we admit, that some constant can change in our Universe, then the definition of another Universe becomes blurred. How we could distinguish it from our Universe, after then?
rawa1
1.5 / 5 (12) Oct 31, 2011
Errata: ..."or we would contact with it" should be "or we would lost contact with it", sorry.
dogbert
3.1 / 5 (17) Oct 31, 2011
If a physical property of the universe, alpha, can vary with distance and direction, how can the concept of relativity be maintained? If the change in alpha is not an artifact, then the change essentially establishes an absolute position and direction (relative to the changing alpha).

I suspect that there is some explanation which does not establish an absolute position and direction.
hush1
1.8 / 5 (14) Oct 31, 2011
lol

Thks orac. A heads up. The rating 'one' in the system my country uses is the highest mark rating. Please don't be so spendable with highest mark ratings. This conflates anyone's ego. And dispense with being so sparse on words. No one understands you.
ArtVandelay
1 / 5 (8) Oct 31, 2011
If it turns out that it varies, then theoretically this variation could be incorporated into a new theory that predicts its value rather than relies on experimental input like the standard model, if which case, would it then sense to say that the laws of the universe vary in spacetime.
hush1
1.7 / 5 (9) Oct 31, 2011
"Quasars observed at both Keck and VLT?"

http://arxiv.org/...07v1.pdf

The 'tell all' as in insufficient data points from shared observations?
ArtVandelay
1.6 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2011
"Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!" - Feynman

Ultimately, this notion of 'constants of nature' will have to be obsoleted if physics purports to established a GUT. Why is there even an electron of it's specific size and all exactly the same? Philosophically, the idea that ALL of reality can be modeled in a one-to-one correspondence seems absurd to me. Some things will have to be a matter of measurement,.. but it "varying laws" doesn't make sense.
hush1
1.7 / 5 (9) Oct 31, 2011
Or just plain lack of shared observations?
rawa1
1.2 / 5 (17) Oct 31, 2011
Why is there even an electron of it's specific size and all exactly the same?
I explained here, there are actually many types of electrons, which differ in their mass depending on relative speed with respect to their observer. Even the spin and another attributes of electron depends on it. What all these particles have in common are rather the abstract aspects, which we are attributing to them.

But it cannot change the fact, some attributes of electrons are invariant to any conditions of their observation and we should simply explain it. The dense aether model provides the clue for it. The objects which are similar in their rest mass or energy aren't typical for all sizes and energy/density scales, but only for certain areas of visible universe, which aren't too close or too distant from human observer scale (~ 2cm). Most of stars appear to have the very same rest energy and they're as similar, as the most of electrons appear under the microscopic observations.
rawa1
1 / 5 (12) Oct 31, 2011
The similarity of objects is simply constrained to volume area of Universe, which exists somewhere in the middle of observational scale. The same applies to reproducibility of physical laws. One of reasons, why quantum mechanics or general relativity aren't applied to common life scale or extreme distances is, they become heavily violated there. Both these theories are valid only when the size and/or energy density of objects, which they're describing aren't very large or very small or too close to human observer scale. It's evident, we are facing sort of geometric effect here.

If we take some random blob of nested density fluctuations and we would start their interactions with the random background, we would reveal, the interaction of two random objects becomes most deterministic just at the middle of the scope of their interaction. In AWT the existence of categories of physical objects is a sort of moire effect, which produces the interference fringes, when two random canvas overlap
rawa1
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 31, 2011
One of reasons, why contemporary physics adheres to formal description of phenomena with rigid set of natural laws so much is the fact, with increasing distance from human observer scale the Universe becomes gradually more and more deterministic. As the human observations expanded into these areas, the physicists simply got the impression, the Universe as a whole is beautifully deterministic and easy to describe with fixed set of physical laws.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646

But we already crossed the area of observable Universe, where its determinism increases. With increasing distance the Universe becomes as complex, as the neighbouring reality and what worse: it becomes fuzzy. It must be described with various complex combinations of quantum mechanics and general relativity, which are poorly conditioned and difficult to validate. So I do believe, the Universe as such is actually random and its determinism is just a matter of relatively narrow scope of its observation.
Wexler
not rated yet Oct 31, 2011
@ ArtVandelay - sounds like scaling laws & fractalization.
riki
5 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2011
Why do we think this?

"the laws of physics seem to be so finely-tuned for the existence of life"

Baring in mind that the vast majority of the Universe is actually quite a violent and hostile place.
SoylentGrin
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 31, 2011
You know where this is going. The end goal here is to question c.
If the speed of light is not constant, it doesn't matter what that implies, or what new answers we can gain. All we'll ever get from that point on is: 1) People yelling about how that means (whether it does or not) that the universe could be 6,000 years old and... 2) Science can't be trusted.
dogbert
3.3 / 5 (16) Oct 31, 2011
SoylentGrin,

How do you bring religion into an article about changes in alpha? And why do you want to?
SoylentGrin
2.8 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2011
"Professor Webb said these new findings also offer a very natural explanation for a question that puzzled scientists for decades: why do the laws of physics seem to be so finely-tuned for the existence of life?"

...Webb opened the door. I'm predicting who walks through it and which directions they go.

Nerdyguy
2.5 / 5 (12) Oct 31, 2011
SoylentGrin,

How do you bring religion into an article about changes in alpha? And why do you want to?


I took his comments to be generally skeptical in nature, and untrusting of the motives of the authors. He's correct to think that there are those who would (and already do) pervert even the smallest challenge to a well-known scientific principle and use it to destabilize existing foundations of knowledge. He deserves a "1" for having this "audacity"?
omatranter
2.6 / 5 (16) Oct 31, 2011
Thank-you of gods of physorg for this stupendous article that while it has no bearing on anything I will now say I will use it to promulgate the bull that I shite so well.

Proof at last! Proof at last!
Thank Otmat.. Almighty, we have Proof at last!

I have a dream that one day my notion will rise up and live out the true meaning of its crud: "We hold these untruths to be self-evident: that all Neutrons are created Repellent."

I have a dream that my little Neutrons will one day live in Harmony where they will not be Repelled by the farce that I made up but by the contents of my man-diaper.

With thanks to Martin Luther king Jr who while being an Illuminati was also assassinated by them for not be a member.

"This momentous decree came as a great beacon light" see Illuminati
DavidMcC
4.5 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2011
If a physical property of the universe, alpha, can vary with distance and direction, how can the concept of relativity be maintained? If the change in alpha is not an artifact, then the change essentially establishes an absolute position and direction (relative to the changing alpha).

I suspect that there is some explanation which does not establish an absolute position and direction.

Good point, dogbert!

EDIT: It can vary with distance in a non-directional manner, because that would imply that it was time-dependent at root. However, the claim is that it is also directionally dependent, so it does contradict relativity, unless there is a large directional asymmetry in the average density of gravitational fields in the universe.
rawa1
3.3 / 5 (13) Oct 31, 2011
that the universe could be 6,000 years old
We would see only few thousands of stars on the sky after then. The light of most distant stars would remain inaccessible for us. We couldn't see any galaxy.
SoylentGrin
3 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2011
Exactly the problem for YEC's, rawa... unless somehow, it could be shown that the speed of light is variable. A sliding scale for c is what is needed. That way, people could start out with a number in mind already, then speed up or slow down c to match whatever age they want it to be.
droid001
1 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2011
Is that somehow connected to superluminal neutrinos?
Cynical1
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2011
Must be the reason why it's call GENERAL relativity, not EXACT relativity...

Feste
2 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2011
I'm telling you...its the ether
thewhitebear
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 31, 2011
we are not surprised when one group of gorillas exhibit culturally distinct observed patterns of behavior from another group living some miles away. Why are we surprised when observed patterns are different from one place to another in the universe? Why does one set of expectations (constant evolution) apply to ecological and behavioral science and another (fixed state) to the "physical" sciences?
Nerdyguy
2.4 / 5 (9) Oct 31, 2011
I'm telling you...its the ether


Actually, I'm surprised Callipo has yet to chime in with that precise statement, though he'd say "aether".
mpc755
1 / 5 (8) Oct 31, 2011
The Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet; analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.

Dark flow is the aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.

Dark energy is the change in state of the aether emitted into the Universal jet.

The following quote from this article is more evidence of the directionality of the Universe.

"In one direction - from our location in the Universe - alpha gets
gradually weaker, yet in the opposite direction it gets gradually
stronger."
rah
1 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2011
Unconvincing

http://arxiv.org/...07v1.pdf
When I looked at that graphic, I immediately realized that there were no rectangles being represented, yet there were several dots and squares. The lack of yellow was also easy to notice. I have to agree with you. So gravity/dots equals what then? Thank you.
The last graphic tells it all.

SemiNerd
5 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2011
Why do we think this?

"the laws of physics seem to be so finely-tuned for the existence of life"

Baring in mind that the vast majority of the Universe is actually quite a violent and hostile place.

Because if the value of alpha varies by much at all, stars could not form, elemental interactions would be quite different, etc.
Cynical1
2.6 / 5 (11) Oct 31, 2011
"the laws of physics seem to be so finely-tuned for the existence of life"
As a life-form that is a pretty egotistical comment.
Why isn't your statement that life finely tunes itself to conform to the current existing laws of physics?
Graeme
5 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2011
Last time I commented on this topic, the uncertainty in isotopic composition of the dark gas clouds meant that the result could be due to variations in isotope proportions. Of course this is interesting too, but not as farfetched as the fine structure constant or speed of light varying.
Callippo
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 31, 2011
the laws of physics seem to be so finely-tuned for the existence of life
For example, the sharks evolved a long time at the bottom of ocean in quiet, so they lack bladder and they can get an impression, the water of oceans is finely tuned for the density, which is required for their swimming.

Actually it's the sharks, who are adjusted to properties of marine water, not vice-versa. And we can live only in very small habitable zone of observable Universe.
Cynical1
1.6 / 5 (9) Oct 31, 2011
SO what I'm sayin is - life will adapt to the "varied natural law" state cause thats what "life" does.
I mean, have you ever taken a closer look at the melecular structure and interaction within a cell?!? It's like tying a million quadcore processors together. Imagine just a FEW of the variations it can perform!
Of course - thats just my opinion. And you know what they say about opinions...
grimotr
1 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2011
humans learn by recognising patterns - compared to the other animals on this planet thats what we are good at...i can see a massive problem with science wanting to create ONE law for physics. Because we cant see the other dimensions, we therefore cant recognise their patterns, hence are totally clueless (until computers detect the patterns we cant see). there is no ONE rule for physics and to me its likely a magnitude change in energy or scale or wotever creates a whole new set of rules. We need to stop worrying about ONE LAW TO RULE THEM ALL *hobbit music* and just get on with cause and effect science. i wish there was one elegant mathematical solution but im getting the feeling the universe is tribal and each zone has its own set of rules...complexity is just as elegant as a single solution. Every dimension likely has its own set of rules.
hush1
1 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2011
Except for three comments you are all philosophizing. Why?
Because the article is philosophizing. You all followed lock step.
Cynical1
1.6 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2011
Because the article is philosophizing. You all followed lock step.

Wait, Hush. Isn't that a sort of philosophical assumption?
;-)
Ricochet
1 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2011
Are we sure these observations aren't skewed by our own movement in the universe? Maybe there is what would be analogous to the Doppler Effect in play here. We need to find an alien species that we can communicate with on friendly terms to conduct the same tests from a different position in the universe to verify our findings.
hush1
2.1 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2011
Cynical1
You are fractalizing again. And your consumption of DH and Rawa are borderline lethal doses. Grimaces like look smiles when you borderline. lol
You are tapfer. (Look it up)
Cynical1
2 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2011
LOL, Hush...:-)
I DID look it up and - thanks fer the compliment!(I am also German!)
At least you didn't add "foolhardily so" to tapfer...:-)
Manhar
1 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2011
What is nature? If defined, is it same all over our galaxy and beyond? We humans are part of nature. Are all humans same on our planet?
Ricochet
2 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2011
1 rating? Really? So, are you arguing the fact that the only way for us to objectively verify those measurements is to perform them again from a different vantage point?
So, what if I'm right, that our "view" of the electromagnetic spectrum is distorted because of both our OWN movement and the target's movement through the universe?
Cynical1
1 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2011
Do you really think such an obvious variable would not have occurred to a trained astrophysicist? It's basic physics.
Remember,those people are WAY better informed and a lot smarter than you are giving them credit for...
To paraphrase Khan, " I bow to their superior intellect."
jumadaru
1 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2011
Bye bye Einstein...
Ricochet
1.3 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2011
To the astrophysicists, yes, I would expect them to. Not so much to the journalist that wrote this. Also, there are enough scientists out there chasing beliefs- that's right, beliefs- that no amount of training can quell, and they're subject to the same fanciful assumptions that everyone else experiences when it comes to passion and belief.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2011
Hmmm. Careful... you know what that sounds dangerously close to...:-)
AstrophysicsKid
not rated yet Nov 01, 2011
Has anyone else noticed? Where the heck is lbcrowell? I kind of look to him for some enlightened perspective in this forum, but he's nowhere to be seen on such an interesting article.
Pirouette
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2011
Well, I wouldn't toss out Einstein's Theories yet. It MIGHT turn back the other way, although I was told in one other thread that in a flat Universe, it cannot keep going in the same direction infinitely, even though the galaxies are carried along with the expansion of the Universe. I thought that was a contradiction, but who am I to say? ;)
Ricochet
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2011
If our universe literally exploded from a singularity like our current hypotheses suggest, then I doubt it would do so linearly... It would explode in a spherical pattern that may, over time, flatten out a bit if the whole thing is/was spinning.
If that's the case, then in the very center of the universe is a point of 0 movement, which may be home to the most massive black hole in existence.
Nerdyguy
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2011
Thank-you of gods of physorg for this stupendous article that while it has no bearing on anything I will now say I will use it to promulgate the bull that I shite so well.

Proof at last! Proof at last!
Thank Otmat.. Almighty, we have Proof at last!

I have a dream that one day my notion will rise up and live out the true meaning of its crud: "We hold these untruths to be self-evident: that all Neutrons are created Repellent."

I have a dream that my little Neutrons will one day live in Harmony where they will not be Repelled by the farce that I made up but by the contents of my man-diaper.

With thanks to Martin Luther king Jr who while being an Illuminati was also assassinated by them for not be a member.

"This momentous decree came as a great beacon light" see Illuminati


Unfortunately, it looks like a lot of people didn't get the irony or humor in this.
Ricochet
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2011
Orca, if you're going to summarily strike my opinions down through the star ratings, you could at least have the decency to provide a counter-argument. Otherwise, keep your clicks to yourself.
Cave_Man
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2011
"Reality is relative"- no, it isn't. By the way, the title of the article is "nature's laws may vary across the Universe", there has not yet been independent confirmation of these results and the explanations have not been narrowed down to "nature's laws vary". Second, even if nature's laws do vary, that doesn't mean that you can claim whatever you want about reality.


Yeah, well, BLACK HOLES. BEZINGA!
Cave_Man
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2011

Here's the equation of the universe:

0=0|1=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.........

see because you have 0 (zero) but to conceptualize zero it has to be a thing, y'know like the character "0" is one character.
Which is where 1 comes from, but then once you have 1 in the playing field we tend to start listing what we know which is: 0,1

Those characters are two separate things so we intrinsically derive the character and concept of 2 things (or two 1's)
and of course you continue forever because any number plus a baseline or reference of zero is the next number:

0,1,2 is 3 characters etc etc etc

It seems simplistic but I have a feeling it ties into simplex theory as well as the whole meaning of the universe as understood by human consciousness.

So in our universe of quantifiable matter
0=1,2,3,4,5........etc
Cave_Man
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2011
"Reality is relative"- no, it isn't. By the way, the title of the article is "nature's laws may vary across the Universe", there has not yet been independent confirmation of these results and the explanations have not been narrowed down to "nature's laws vary". Second, even if nature's laws do vary, that doesn't mean that you can claim whatever you want about reality.


Sorry dude but the definition of reality is unverifiable. How can you have independent verification of reality. He was just being cute and you have to spaz out on him because you prefer a narrow view of strict definitive rules governing how you perceive things.

And I bet your sock drawer is organized by color.

Seriously loosen up, you make religion more appealing by being such an uptightwad.

To anyone who's ever experimented with hallucinogenics the whole scientific inquiry seems like a TINY facet of the nature of reality. Go experience something that can't be defined or risk losing all beauty from your life.
Cynical1
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2011
Stop bogartin that joint, m'friend...:-)
hush1
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2011
lol
Experiencing something that can't be defined is the birth place of all science. The only source of beauty is your surprise that something exists without explanation.
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (9) Nov 07, 2011
Hey Cave Man like wow that wuus deeep. Nozing cin be reeel cuase iiimm on sshhrooms look at a prity colooars man wow aannd the funni lil animaals thaa Doon Chuan proomized to prootext me from. hheeey Don thars aa
big scari one comin out a wall yu gon st0p at rayt Ok tthen il kip talkin to de cav guy.

And I bet your sock drawer is organized by color.
Cooool duude can he do at fur me. I needs mi soks buyy culorz tooo, whoo tha big uns still com out wall Don Is got look not lik bunny waht yo promis oohh so OK is spose to has tentcles Ok then I taLk smer to Cav dude

you make religion more appealing by being such an uptightwad.
oh man y got try Don juans ligion its cool don wory bougt real sheet just dus Shrooomz ohh Don sez not shroooms is payout-E hheee some kin noo stuf wi drug n computors HEEY DON ZAT THING IN WALL COM OUT O WALL TENTCLES GOT MU ARM UGH BEAK HIT MU SKULL

AH THEENK ITTSS EATN MU BRAAAIN
Cynical1
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2011
What the hell was all that, Red?
Ricochet
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 07, 2011
What the hell was all that, Red?

It sounded to me like Fat Bastard...
hush1
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2011
Ethelred is experimenting with your fractals, Cynical1.
No one reads the warning labels anymore. All caution to the wind.
Skultch
5 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2011
To anyone who's ever experimented with hallucinogenics the whole scientific inquiry *SEEMS* like a TINY facet of the nature of reality


I have. Key part in *caps* above. What makes you think that altered chemistry in your brain has /anything/ to do with /anything/ other than your brain? It unlocked some kind of superior knowledge or logic that was hidden inside you? Where did it go?
bluehigh
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 07, 2011
When we answer why we go to the next step.
- Hush1

There are philosophical arguments that suggest this maybe a step to far for us and outside the ability of the scientific method to resolve. Resolutions to questions of why, may be impractical to test and be unsatisfactory as facts to those that rely on consensual empiricism as a foundation of reality.
Cynical1
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2011
"Ethelred is experimenting with your fractals, Cynical1."
More with my Hausdorph subsets... (Which ARE fractal, by the way. Or is the correct term ergodic?)
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2011
Ieet wnt inna de moonstra foom de id maan eet ate muh brai bub howad fram de laundri waaned me bout elder gosd buu daat was fom ID no elda gowd.

Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2011
This stuff is frying my brain. I couldn't read after the first post and had to go to sleep. So I kept the second one short.

http://www.antipo...comments

bub uhh Bob is the guy in the foreground.

The post is a mix of stream of semi-consciousness, Don Juan a Yaqui way to get a utterly bogus Phd and make money in money in process by Carlos Castaneda, and the wino in the alley in the beginning of The Terminator.

Ethelred
hush1
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2011
lol Ethelred.
You are right Cynical1. By the way, we can fractalize photos/images. Can we fractalize sound? Who will have the first sound recording?
Cynical1
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2011
Actually we do fractalize sound. By the act of recording it. And made even more so by the act of digitizing it. And - aren't harmonics a sort of sound fractal? and what are the wavews that ride on carrier waves (no, not the Navy kind)?
DarkHorse66
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 07, 2011
@Ricochet:
Orca, if you're going to summarily strike my opinions down through the star ratings, you could at least have the decency to provide a counter-argument. Otherwise, keep your clicks to yourself.

I agree. This guy hasn't actually contributed to ANY conversation in a VERY long time, if ever. I certainly can't remember one. The only evidence of his existence is his habit of ranking up a few and downranking most others. And there has been an explosion of down-ranking by him lately, as by a few other, silent types. Considering how long "Orac" (not 'orca' :) )has been at this, I would wager that he is merely a trolling sock-puppet. If this post gets down-ranked by him, or any of the multiple 'johnnyb71,72,73,74,75,etc (or others) that I have already drawn attention to, in another post, I will know for a fact that this is the case. Someone who doesn't have the decency to contribute with words once in a while, has NOT earned the right to judge the rest. Best regards, DH66
Cynical1
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2011
Wait - you can tell who "anonymously" star rates you?!?!?
DarkHorse66
2 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2011
@Cynical1:
Wait - you can tell who "anonymously" star rates you?!?!?

Yes. Whenever you post a comment, your 'handle' (btw, old truckers term for the nicknames that they use on their CB radios) appears next to it. You'll note that it is underlined. That indicates a hyperlink. Click on it and go to 'activity' and see what happens. You can do this with other peoples' name as well as your own, and you wil also be able to what your/their average rank is too. You will also be able to see what other posts they have contributed to and this can lead to some interesting finds. Have fun ;], Cheers DH66
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2011
It isn't anonymous so yes you can the handle of the person that was logged in. Orac has not made a single post. So it either a person that simply has nothing to say or its a sockpuppet. My bet is sockpuppet. Johnnyb## is definitely a sockpupput, allegedly belonging to Frank Herbert who did say he wrote software for doing that sort of thing. However based on ranking analysis Orac is not a Johnnyb##.

You really need to explore how Physorg works if you haven't figured out how to see who is ranking you. If you want I will tell you but you really should be able to figure it out with a few clicks.

Ethelred
hush1
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2011
Yes.
"The Hausdorff dimension of a point is zero"

"A curve which is almost space filling can still have topological dimension zero, even if it fills up most of the area of a region."

You can easily bring infinite density and temperature under a dimension zero. The "singularity" all physicists hate.
Such beauty deserves love, not hate. lol

Fractals are the future for GUT and TOE. Conjecturing an appropriate functional for a point of fractional dimension will take care of any pesky singularity physicists have come to hate. Of course, you and I will have to wait for others to have their same flash of brilliance. Of course, we will enjoy their fame, all the while knowing we were the first. lol
DarkHorse66
2 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2011
@cynical1: Ethelred just gave you a big hint with his post. Yes, you do need to explore more. Here are some more. To find out the activity levels of someone who never posts, click on their handle in the activity page. There are also a bunch of hyperlinks hidden in your private pages of your physorg account. They are even embedded in headings in there. I use the "off" button in the ranking filter at the top of every thread to "hurry" the adding of my own comments to the thread, when the process is dragging its 'feet'. Just remember to 'select all', then 'copy' with your mouse, so that you can paste back in if the message has been lost. It's also a way of getting other peoples' comments to add into the system without having to refresh the entire page (threads don't automatically up-date). So, go nuts with your mouse clicks. Click on everything that you can think of. Explore. Fun; recommended.
Cheers :):), DH66
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 07, 2011
You can get rid of singularities if the Plank length-Plank interval is the smallest possible space-time dimension.

Ethelred
hush1
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2011
Before space and time existed density and temperature were infinite accompanied by curvature flow. Infinite density and temperature actually converge under curvature flow and what's left? Curvature.

"The fractal dimension of a curve can be explained intuitively thinking of a fractal line as an object too big to be a ZERO-dimensional object, but too thin to be a ONE-dimensional object. Therefore its dimension might best be described in a sense by the fractal dimension, which is a number between ZERO and ONE."
The capitalization are the corrections to the Wikipedia entry. Since we have it all figured out, we will have to wait for the rest of the world to catch up.
hush1
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2011
lol DH and Ethelred.
Don't distract Cynical1 and I. Our Inquisition is to bring fractals to an undeserving, yet redemption salvageable world.
DarkHorse66
1.8 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2011
Nothing wrong with teaching him practical stuff, with immediate, real world applications. And ones that are applicable close to home too...lol. Cheers, DH66
hush1
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2011
lol
By the way I only rate humor:
No matter how serious you are, I will always take it with a smile. :)
hush1
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2011
There are philosophical arguments that suggest this maybe a step to far for us and outside the ability of the scientific method to resolve. Resolutions to questions of why, may be impractical to test and be unsatisfactory as facts to those that rely on consensual empiricism as a foundation of reality. - Bluehigh

You are correct. The philosophical 'why' is the psychological 'comfort or need', hardly factual, practical or test worthy. When the foundations of reality extends beyond consensual empiricism, the senses will still have purpose.
Cynical1
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
DH & Red - thanks for the instruction, appreciate it. However, ranking someone would seem rather, I dunno, subjective. And I've never even looked at mine (I suppose I'll have to NOW...:-)

Hush - Therefore its dimension might best be described in a sense by the fractal dimension, which is a number between ZERO and ONE."

How would .618... fall into that proposed matrix?
Cynical1
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
Hush - "accompanied by curvature flow"

bouncing that around in my head (sort of a Mental Brownian motion thing). But not quite sure what you mean by curvature. Curvature of what, exactly? Space time? Are you saying spacetime existed prior to(and during) the infinite density/temp points? And in that case, that space time is responsible for the convergence of the 2?
Cynical1
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2011
Fractals are the future for GUT and TOE

What are those, exactly?
Cynical1
2 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2011
And lastly - I DID check. 2.6 avg?!?
I thought I was WAY funnier than that...:-)
Cynical1
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
Never mind previous post. Figured it out after I already posted the poser.
hush1
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
lol Cynical1
Pokin' Fun. Was a fun thread. You learned a lot.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2011
Regarding the sockpuppet known as Orac I don't think he is this Orac:

http://oracknows.blogspot.com/

As a person that runs an anti-crank site has the juevos to post and not just rank.

Ethelred
Cynical1
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2011
Checked a little further and it has been orac weighting my curve...
hush1
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2011
Pesky pest. Our curves match! Thanks to orac. As if it makes no different who comments. A fair and balanced pesky pest. 1's all the way. lol
Ricochet
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2011
You can easily bring infinite density and temperature under a dimension zero. The "singularity" all physicists hate.
Such beauty deserves love, not hate. lol

New age-type people, I think, refer to this as the "zero-point field". Some pseudo-scientists have also referred to it as the same.
Ricochet
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2011
lol
By the way I only rate humor:
No matter how serious you are, I will always take it with a smile. :)

Here's one, then...
What's most scientists' worst fear?

That God actually IS responsible for most of this stuff.
Cynical1
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2011
A fair and balanced pesky pest. 1's all the way - Hush

Must be that Homogenist Capilla...:-)
And - if you care sven care about "ranking" - it's better than a zero.
And - it creates something new to talk about so analogous to Brownian motion in it's nature.
Hush - what were those spheres, again?
Cynical1
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
Ric - it's all really just a matter of name/definition for - the unknown. Then it gets down to who gets to claim the most correct "Name/Definition"(a human ego frailty) - which is all related to Network Theory. And so on and so on...
That said - to be a truly scientifically minded person(objectively observational), one has to accept the POSSIBILITY of it, if not the probability...
Ricochet
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2011
I believe the notion of a "God" was attempt by early man, to describe and come to terms with the unknown. Religion was built upon the need for someone to blame for all the bad crap that happens in our lives, and to thank for all the good crap that happens.
DarkHorse66
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 09, 2011
Orac has just been 'ranking around' in this thread. I noticed a sudden change in a number of rankings when I was hitting the 'off' button to update the thread. Might I suggest (as a temporary countermeasure) that we begin routinely up-ranking each other whenever 'it' has done a pass-over within a thread. At least until Physorg actually removes 'it' and 'its' johnnb## buddies, et al. I have noticed that Physorg is pretty good at prompty removing spam, and equally prompt at pruning threads. But despite the recent, open and direct conversations that we have been having about the ongoing sockpuppetry, they are doing a rather convincing show of being good at ignoring it. Go figure. Regards to All. DH66
bluehigh
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2011
DarkHorse, I agree with your comment but expect the editors would be quick to jump on us for abuse if we started banging away and up ranking the comments. Besides, personally I don't understand why people are concerned with the rankings, they mean little to me compared with the content of the comments. Anyway, I have a new personal policy based on the idea of the 'like' button. I will up-rank contributions I find interesting and I will refrain from down-ranking anyone. Perhaps if adopted system wide, then it would be the number of 'likes' that indicate the quality of a comment and avoid the hard feelings for some contributors.

omatumr
1 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2011
Thanks for the interesting report and the reminder of how little we actually know about the great reality that surrounds and sustains us.

Since E = mc2, I suspect nuclear rest mass data are an important to understanding the cosmos. They helped us decipher puzzling experimental observations on the Sun's origin, composition and source of energy.

"Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press(2011)

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 11, 2011
Oliver, your theory has problems. Spam will not fix it

You insist there is such a thing as neutron repulsion. You insist it is strong enough to stop the formation of black holes, not just stellar black holes but ALL black holes no matter what the size. Also it you claim it is long ranged enough to sunder galaxies. Though you refuse to answer any question about its actual strength or range those claims make it clear that it MUST be more powerful than gravity per unit of mass even if the mass is mostly hydrogen atoms as we can see makes up most the mass in the in the Universe, based on your denial of Dark Matter that is.

It really doesn't require a great deal of effort to notice that there is a severe problem with that set of claims. They make galaxies, stars, even neutron stars, planets and pretty much everything held together by gravity impossible.>>

Please explain this contradiction of reality that is an inevitable conclusion based on your own claims for Neutron Repulsion

Ethelred
hush1
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2011
If laws across the Universe vary, then "Neutron Repulsion" can not exist everywhere.

Thanks for this interesting perspective.
Cynical1
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 11, 2011
Who the heck IS this orac guy. I'm feeling "stalked" in that it seems he has seen fit to down rank 90% of my comments (curse you Ethel and DH, for telling me how to look at such things). Rather than adjusting our modus operandi for commenting, might I suggest that we report this pestilence to Physorg?
hush1
1 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2011
Has been suggested long ago:

"If you didnt find an answer to your question, please contact us at e-mail. or via http://www.physor...edback/.
Please be aware that we receive a great volume of emails so cannot reply to everyone individually. We do however, read and pay attention to every email we receive."

Ricochet
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2011

Letter to Physorg:
Orac is an idiot who won't post comments explaining his down-ranking of others' comments.

Response:
Thank you for the feedback. We agree with you, and we have permanently redirected connections from Orac to http://www.wikipedia.org. Hopefully something good will come of it.
hush1
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2011
Rico
Kudos on everyone behalf. Well done
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2011
Hush1 I suspect Ricochet post was wishful thinking. Orac is still active.

Richochet's post:
Nature's laws may vary across the Universe November 14, 2011, 3:17 pm

My post:
Hubble uncovers tiny galaxies bursting with starbirth in early Universe November 14, 2011, 9:22 pm 2 orac

That was posted AFTER Ricochet's post.

And yes it is the same orac:
Username: orac

Member since: October 11, 2011, 11:03 pm

So apparently nothing has been done.

Ethelred
Ricochet
3 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2011
Yes, I was being humorous. Physorg wouldn't give that kind of response. I would think that obvious.

Ironically, Orac rated that comment a 1... surprise surprise...

Hey! TROLL! Yes, you, Orac! Grow a pair and face me!
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2011
Trolls reproduce by fission as they can't get laid.

So they can't actually grow a pair.

Not even if you meant a pair of breasts.

Trolls,
They ain't got juevos
They ain't got boobies
They's tired of livin'
They just love hatin'
They love stupid
They eat brains

Sorry that last was zombies.

OK I got stuck and if Monty Python can cheat a stuck sketch so can I.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2011
Tolls also have no sense of humor as this particular Troll just proved.

Ethelred
Seeker2
1 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2011
Sorry, I got here late.

DavidMcC:
...EDIT: It can vary with distance in a non-directional manner, because that would imply that it was time-dependent at root. However, the claim is that it is also directionally dependent,

I've been wondering: Is there a possible dependence of direction on time? That is, if I want to view the oldest part of the U should I be looking in a particular direction?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2011
In the direction of the Hubble Space or other scope capable of seeing very dim very distant objects.

Other than that, it seems any direction there isn't anything close should do. You can't, for instance, see far is you look towards the core of the Milky Way.

Frankly I think this could easily be a simple matter of the direction our galaxy is going. Last I heard we headed in the direction of the Virgo Cluster. If we are moving fast enough in comparison to the general background then we will see things slightly different in direction than the other. Blue shift one red shift the other and there was article on that recently here.

Ethelred
Seeker2
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2011
So what they think is a dependence on direction could actually be a dependencey on time.
Ricochet
1 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2011
They've proven that time is distorted by motion, as clocks have slowed down when in orbit around our planet. Whether it be an interaction with our magnetic field or not remains to be debated, but it could just be that as space perception is compressed or expanded in any particular direction, so is time perception.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2011
Anyway I think you can expect a time dependence as the DE drives expansion. Unless the DE keeps reappearing like black magic.
David_Wishengrad
not rated yet Dec 05, 2011
It would seem if there is anything to this, then similiar life to us would be relatively close by. Wouldn't be surprised.