The fine-structure constant and the nature of the universe

Ye cannae change the laws of physics

Or can you?

See article

Readers' comments


Easily Confused

I'm not certain why the article states that this may imply that the universe may be vastly larger than currently thought. I think the logic presented is that the rate of change for the fine constant seems to be so small that to reach a 4% change implies a vastly larger universe, but I don't see anywhere in here that states why we should expect to find a 4% change (as opposed to any other percentage).

Was anyone else able to tease this reasoning out?

D. Sherman

This is a remarkable example of teasing a signal out of the noise. The validity of the conclusion will depend entirely on a very careful error analysis. The paper must necessarily be more about metrology than physics. The effect being measured, at 6 parts per million, is easily swamped by any number of observational, systemic, and instrumentation errors, all of which must be accurately quantified within provable error bounds, and run through the equations to the conclusion.

Assuming the error analysis holds up under peer review, the result is indeed revolutionary. It seems to this armchair physicist that the next question is whether the variation of physical constants is a property of matter or of space. The obvious experiment would be to take a piece of matter with carefully-measured physical constants, transport it to a place where the constants have been observed to be different, and then see whether our experimental reference mass has changed its constants to match its new environment, or has retained its original ones. This experiment would only be possible if one could transport the test mass from one place to another before the constants in the other place changed again. There may be relativistic limitations here.

The next obvious step, if it was shown that matter of differing physical constants could somehow be placed in close proximity, would be to look at the thermodynamic implications. Presumably a difference in physical constants could result in some sort of energy flow or pressure, analogous to a difference in temperature. Fine-structure engine, anyone? Fine-structure bomb? Perhaps it's well that no imaginable technology would allow either of these experiments to be carried out.


I'd never thought an essay about science could draw so many comments, some of which are quite thoughtful. Glad to know there are still people who value knowledge and intelligence.


Any measurements resulting in Earth seemingly being in the middle of the Universe is suspect. And I don't think that the position of physics is clear in this. These fluctuations in background radiation can't be from the Big Bang, since that background seems to be shaped spherically, with Earth in the middle. Meaning the Big Bang originated where the Earth is now, which obviously can't be. So who knows what it is we are observing out there!


Seriously? That's your counterargument? That all children's suffering is preventable by human action/inaction? I really didn't want to get dragged into the theological side of this but that is just flat out ridiculous.
Tell me, who's fault exactly was the earthquake in Haiti? The floods in Pakistan?
Man you've got to have some pretty thick shades on.


@ Harmsworth - Your assumption is that suffering children are God’s responsibility?

Who is the cause for the majority of the suffering, and who can relieve that suffering but chooses to do the least to alleviate it? You!!!

God has given humans the freedom to do as they please, but we have sure made a mess of it. That is why the blameless children suffer. It is not God’s fault humans have abused the freedom He has given us.


@ rewt66

"It is very much not "assume nothing"."

Well to me "assuming no designer" does look very much like "assume nothing". Assuming a designer on the other hand is a rather grand assumption: to propose that there is an entity so wonder- and powerful to be able to design the whole universe needs a lot of imagination. So say: it's there but we don't know (yet?) why it's there looks a bit more convincing to me.

"On the other hand, it feels like an artful way of not taking the disturbing probability numbers seriously - of hiding one's head in the sand."

Well, we don't know the probability. We have only this universe to observe. We have no idea whether there are other universes or whether there has been a myriad of universes before this one. Even an infinitesimally small probability will definitely lead to success if you have an infinite number of trials at your hand.


The non-ID stance IS, contrary to how you are interpreting it, "Assume nothing." A qualifier may be required to make it more solid e.g. "Assume nothing that, in retrospect, proves to be a superfluous assumption." But in essence YankeeLiberty's argument is sound.

The anthropic principle is a statement in logic, not one made within the framework of any particular physical theory. So, the odds against us existing might be astronomical, but I doubt if there is anything to be gained in insight (knowledge about the conditions necessary for life might be gained, but insight?) by appreciating or even debating the principle.


The more things change...

The physics of today is almost unrecognizable from what I studied just 40 years ago. The basics are remarkably unchanged, but progress in quantum electrodynamics and the standard model have explained much of the then unknown, and extended knowledge into areas we weren't even aware existed.

That physics was equally different from a century ago. General relativity, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and quantum theory were still two decades away.

50-150 years before that, all was well. Newton had pretty much sewn things up. Gibbs Paradox, black body radiation, and the photo electric effect had yet to upset the apple cart.

I fully expect the physics of 2050 to be as different from today as the past cycles. And just as strange.

Godspeed science. And a pox on those trying to cut off funding of such basic investigation because it isn't "useful".


Completely agree.

The problem with ID is not only that the existence of the designer is presupposed, but other very human characteristics are assigned to he/she/it(indeed, gender too). By humans who somehow self-appoint themselves to have the authority to proclaim access to such knowledge by non-rational means that they have been uniquely gifted with.
This kind of criminal subversion of logic was perhaps pardonable during, and only during, the dark ages of human history. Now it ought to be an object of unanimous universal ridicule - in view of the the unequivocal superiority of the scientific method, and that too due to one overarching reason: It is a non-presumptous endeavour.

Apologies, this seems to take the discussion away from the topic I know, but the issue is in need of consideration by physicists. The astronomical obstruction to clarity of thinking that ID presents to scientific culture has to be recognised. This duty is all the more pressing because ID proponents never shy away from perverting theory and invoking the designer during every physics-related breakthrough. It ought to be as much a physicist's prerogative to clear unpardonable misunderstandings regarding the nature of the study of the universe among fellow human-beings, as it is to study the universe itself.



They used quasars because they are the brightest things that far away. The brighter the light, the further away you can use it for the experiment. So, quasars give them more distance than anything else.


Yankee Liberty:

No, the "it happened" school is saying "It happened, therefore no designer is needed. No matter how high the odds are, clearly it happened, and we're the proof."

That is, it is assuming no designer, and using our existence as proof that it was possible to beat the high odds against us existing without a designer. It is very much not "assume nothing".

The anthropogenic principle bothers me. On the one hand, it's perfectly true - if we weren't here, there would be nobody to observe that we weren't here. On the other hand, it feels like an artful way of not taking the disturbing probability numbers seriously - of hiding one's head in the sand.

Back to the main topic: I expect (with better than 50-50 odds) that this will eventually be explained within currently-known physics - something like a large-scale movement of intergalactic gas, or some such.


Whatever variations in the fine structure constant (alpha) that may be taking place (if true), one thing that seems fairly clear is that scientists are still observing the same absorption and emission spectra of the basic elements like hydrogen and helium from all sorts of stellar objects millions and billions of years ago/away. That shows that the energy levels of these elements has stayed pretty much the same the whole time -- and in all spatial directions. Otherwise we would not be able to identify these elements.

I was curious to read that the variations they observed had to do particularly with quasars -- in certain directions. If a sort of universal change in alpha is suspected, why would it not be observable from other stellar objects just as distant as these quasars, and in the same general direction?

It might be useful to know that research into the idea of a changing alpha has been around for a while. The following paper back in 1999 in the Physical Review Letters is an example:

Search for Time Variation of the Fine Structure Constant, John K. Webb, Victor V. Flambaum, Christopher W. Churchill, Michael J. Drinkwater, and John D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999), 884–887.

However, a more accessible article on the subject can be found in the June 2005 issue of the Scientific American: Inconstant Constants: Do the inner workings of nature change with time?, John D. Barrow and John K. Webb.


I think we are like a newborn looking up from our crib with expectant eyes, fuzzily beginning to make out the line of a toy hanging above placed there by our father.

Yet we think we're geniuses by what we have accomplished. And, we SHOULD be proud of what we have accomplished. At the same time, we should be humbled by how little we know and the path that still lies ahead if we wish to continue to learn.


@inquisitor: "The difference between the "it happened" school of thought and the ID school of thought is that one assumes that a designer created a universe and the other assumes that a designer did not."

The beginning of inquiry, and therefore of knowledge, is saying "I don't know".

The "it happened" school of thought is NOT assuming that a designer did NOT create the universe. They are saying "I don't know".

Those who assume a designer are forgoing the power of "I don't know".

Better to profess nothing.


@No Mist
I think you missed the point of the article (don't worry, you're not alone). The constant was found NOT to be changing with time, but with spatial distance from an observation point (Earth). The implications are not of doom and gloom here, merely a slightly more nuanced understanding of our universe than we had before (assuming these findings stand up to peer review this time around).


I completely disagree with this statement:

"Why alpha takes on the precise value it has, so delicately fine-tuned for life, is a deep scientific mystery."

Well, life DOES exist. This means the universe (or at least the part we are living in) MUST be fine-tuned for life because otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing the topic. Indeed it would be a "deep scientific mystery" if we'd find out that the universe was NOT fine-tuned for life. Why would we still be here under such circumstances? So it doesn't matter whether the chance for a life-supporting universe is 1:1 or 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. However small or big the chance life HAS manifested in this universe.


This is important stuff. We need to get kids excited about this again and have them wonder about the universe we live in.

For me, it's too late - but for the next generation, it appears that there are great puzzles that are yet to be solved.

Maybe Hyperdrives and Ludicrous speed ARE possible. Imagine that!



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

