Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,230 Year: 5,487/9,624 Month: 512/323 Week: 9/143 Day: 9/13 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   What Properties Might Light of Millennia Past Have that Today's Doesn't?
Member (Idle past 3524 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012

Message 115 of 170 (675150)
10-07-2012 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Son Goku
10-03-2012 6:48 AM

Re: The constants do change.
Son Goku
The constants of physics do change (effectively) with Energy, for example high-energy electrons basically have a larger electric charge than low energy ones.
When you say effective electron charge, what do you mean? Are you referring to the hypothesis of variance of electron fundamental charge?
Please provide a citation for your statement. Because your statement does seem to violate the fundamental characteristics of electric charge
Detailed experiments have established the following fundamental characteristics of electric charge:
Charge is never created nor destroyed - it is conserved.
Charge always comes in an integral multiple of a basic unit - it is quantized.
This basic unit of charge is conventionally denoted by e : In an atom, the charge on an electron is - e = 1.602 x 10-19 Coulombs.
Randy Kobe, University of Winnipeg
Also you are not taking into account what these constants affect. Let's say you want to speed up radioactive decay. To do this you could vary the Weinberg angle or the Electroweak coupling (both fundamental constants which control radioactive decay).
I believe alpha radiation also has to do with the strong nuclear force.
So, in essence, alpha radiation (and the gamma radiation which is a bi-product) is governed by the strong nuclear force (even though this is the force which, ironically, is meant to keep everything together). Page not found - Suite 101
To do this you could vary the Weinberg angle or the Electroweak coupling (both fundamental constants which control radioactive decay).
When is the Weinberg angle considered a fundamental constant? It may be affected by other fundamental constants but it is not fundamental, as I know it.
However if you adjust these constants to the point where radioactive decay becomes appreciably larger, organic molecules themselves would be highly unstable and the Sun would have stopped functioning. Also the Sun would not have started to work when the constants hit their present values.
It depends on which constants are affected and to what degree. That would be the difference between the decay of uranium for instance verses that of say heavy water.
Actually, the Sun’s formation itself is still not workable physics, regardless of the fundamental constants. Therefore, I deem the claim it would stop functioning as a mute. In other words first describe how it started to work then you can make claims on if it will not work.
About accelerated decay rates, here is an article suggesting two possible constants that might have changed.
Concrete, numerical approaches are considered for the possible variation of the Fermi constant and strong coupling constant over the history of the earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Son Goku, posted 10-03-2012 6:48 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by NoNukes, posted 10-07-2012 12:12 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 130 by Son Goku, posted 10-08-2012 7:42 AM zaius137 has replied

Member (Idle past 3524 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012

Message 123 of 170 (675176)
10-07-2012 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by NoNukes
10-07-2012 12:12 PM

Re: The constants do change.
NoNukes are good Nukes hard to claim these days my friend.
As your conversation has gone with another participant, you offer little in the way of scientific comment.
Heavy water is not radioactive. Deuterium is stable as is Oxygen 16. What comparison are you trying to make between water and uranium? After all, it would be extremely difficult for hydrogen to emit an alpha particle.
I guess to say that Tritium releases beta particles and can combine to form a heavy water means little to you. The point was contrasting beta decay with some of the decays unstable Uranium isotopes produce.
What would be of interest, and I believe we can find an existing on topic thread to discuss the subject in, would be the ramifications of changing those constants and whether or not the consequences would be observable and thus ruled out by evidence already at hand. Unless one of the consequences is properties of light...
My questions and reply was directed at (Son). He brought up the circumstances, I did not but I definitely wish to find out what his meaning is. As for another meaningless conversation I will pass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by NoNukes, posted 10-07-2012 12:12 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by NoNukes, posted 10-07-2012 1:58 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 125 by Percy, posted 10-07-2012 2:10 PM zaius137 has not replied

Member (Idle past 3524 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012

Message 129 of 170 (675191)
10-07-2012 11:28 PM

An argument must remain respectful.
Absolutely no condescension intended. I have the highest respect for SG.

Member (Idle past 3524 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012

Message 147 of 170 (675292)
10-10-2012 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Son Goku
10-08-2012 7:42 AM

Re: The constants do change.
There are a few ways to define the electric charge of the electron. One of them is the renormalised charge (a better name would be the Coloumb charge). This is basically where you take the electric charge to be the value of the probability that an electron's momentum isn't altered when it interacts with a photon.
From what I know about QED you can fit in a thimble. I understand when you take the electric charge to be anything other than the bare (charge in the absence of interaction) you are suggesting a scale of interaction. In the case of applying the renormalization recipe to electric charge, you are inferring a change of scale. In high-energy situations, very short scales are relevant. You again can avoid those nasty infinities by asserting renormalization. I can barely say it removing infinities by subtracting themouch!
In essence, the renormalized calculation becomes a function of the original bare values after applying a large momentum cutoff, the relationship is then inverted between the bare values and the renormalized ones. In case of electric charge, the expression parameter becomes the renormalized constant for electric charge.
None of this would matter except to say that there is a real constant of the electron charge and it becomes a fundamental parameter to renormalized charge. I thought it would be helpful to explain it in this way to promote a later point.
Situation Quantum Gravity is in the gravest of circumstances. There comes a nock at the door; who could this be, a savior of kind? Alas, it is only renormalization and all is lost.
Although this seems quite abstract
What is not in QED or QFT?
Alpha radiation is an odd one, in the sense that it doesn't really have anything to do with any of the forces. A nucleus that is unstable to alpha decays can be considered as "Alpha Particle + the rest". The strong force (or rather the pion force, an artifact of the true strong force) erects an potential energy barrier that prevents the alpha particle from escaping classically. However quantum mechanically the probability field of the alpha particle can just spread to the other side of the barrier and hence when something measures the alpha particle it has a chance to just appear on the other side.
What? Alpha radiation is uniquely dependent on the depth of that potential energy barrier (strong nuclear force). Lower that barrier and the probability of tunneling goes up. Try reading my citation, which covers the points I am defending.
Quantum mechanical calculations are presented giving the decay constant for α-decay and its variation with depth of the nuclear potential well.
Reasons will be given why the weak interaction coupling constant may also have changed, but not as much as the strong coupling constant.
By the way, I am not talking about altering the weak force to any great degree. I do not need to alter the carbon 14 process simply because that after a few thousand years it is completely inaccurate unless recalibrated by known dates. I must again refer you to the citation..
It's a fundamental parameter. See for example this page:
Maybe I am getting too picky here but you claimed it was a fundamental constant not a fundamental parameter. The definition is not equivalent in mathematics or physics. Refer to my opening argument.
There are small questions over how the area of the nebula which produced the sun collapsed, i.e. how many supernovae instigated it. However we know how the cloud collapsed, numerical simulations of our collapse model match the current orbits of the solar system, including the outer eccentric orbits.
This is simply not true about the giant gas cloud collapsing and heating to the point of nuclear fusion. Since James H. Jeans first examined the event, it has failed adequate explanation. Computer simulations can only simulate the event with parameters that are far from reality. You can suppose all kinds of shock waive scenarios from super Nova but try to claim those in the first star formations. The problem lays in the Ideal gas law.
. Nuclear fusion within giant hydrogen/helium spheres doesn't depend on how the spheres formed (really). If the Weak Force is altered enough to prevent Nuclear fusion, then Nuclear fusion cannot happen regardless of where the Sun came from.
Take anything to the extreme and you will produce extreme results. Those are not the positions of the Creationist. There obviously lay a discreet cutoff to variations of the weak force that will no longer permit fusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Son Goku, posted 10-08-2012 7:42 AM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by NoNukes, posted 10-10-2012 8:36 AM zaius137 has not replied

Member (Idle past 3524 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012

Message 148 of 170 (675293)
10-10-2012 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Son Goku
10-09-2012 11:08 AM

Re: Gibberish
Maybe not a contradiction in terms except it was not a Bang Here are some regurgitated problems Where would you start?
Horizon problem for CMB
Flatness problem
Where is all the Antimatter?
Energy polarization of Quasars
Quantized Red shifts
Type III stars are missing in early universe
Metals and heavy elements are far too abundant in early universe
Galaxy evolution does not match predictions.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not directly observable
Microwave anisotropy lacks predicted Quadrupoles
BB Inflation near or exceeding speed of light (Special Relativity objections)
The Higgs Boson does not impart mass to most of ordinary matter or black holes.
CMB fails the shadow test for background radiation
Expansion of the universe seems to have a general orientation of galaxies and implies a universe center. (Cosmological Principle is wrong).
Computational models applying Jeans length have failed to produce the more massive stars, which are more numerous than our sun.
Delayed stellar synthesis from new Vacuum energy addition (inflation on Jean’s diameter)
Just for shock effect. KABLAM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Son Goku, posted 10-09-2012 11:08 AM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by NoNukes, posted 10-10-2012 8:46 AM zaius137 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024