Regarding the possibility of a theory deriving the fine structure constant,
Dirac indicated that in such a theory it would be Planck's constant that
would be the derived quantity and not the electric charge nor the speed of
light. Moorad
----- Original Message -----
From: "george murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "ASA List" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 7:54 AM
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a
Study Finds]
> An update on the itme below from this list about month ago,
> since I finally got time to get down to the library & look at the actual
> paper in Phys. Rev. Lett. of 27 August 2001, 091301-4, by J.K. Webb et
> al., "Further Evidence for Cosmological Evolution of the Fine Structure
> Constant". It presents evidence from quasar absorption spectra for a
> variantion in alpha = (e^2)/(h-bar)c . As I noted originally, the
> simplest way to understand this is as a variation of e, not c (or h).
> The paper does mention briefly near the end the possibility of a
> variation in c but primarily because they think (with reference to
> papers by other authors) that it could help to explain some other
> cosmological data.
> Highlighting the possibility of a change in the speed of light
> seems to have been the decision of science writers rather that the
> scientists involved in the work themselves. I don't know whether this
> is because a change in c (with the possibility in the change of
> Einstein's iconic status) is more jazzy than a variation in e or because
> the writers just thought it was easier for the publisc to understand,
> but it does seem to be an interesting commentary on the popular
> presentation of science today.
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a
> Study Finds
> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:55:15 -0400
> From: george murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
> To: "Moorad Alexanian<alexanian@uncwil.edu>"
> <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
> CC: asa <asa@calvin.edu>
> References: <3B7B13F7@webmail1>
>
> "Moorad Alexanian" wrote:
>
> > AUG 15, 2001
> > Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds
> > By JAMES GLANZ and DENNIS OVERBYE
>
> Without prejudice to the potential importance of this discovery (if
> it holds up), the suggestion that c might be changing is an unwarranted
> extrapolation. The fine structure constant determines the strength of
> the EM interaction, & while it would indeed be surprising to find that
> that it's changed in the way described here, there are ways of making
> sense of that. In relativity, OTOH, c is a conversion factor between
> different units for space-time intervals: 1 sec = 300,000 km. Thus a
> change in c would be like a change in the conversion factor between
> Celsius & Fahrenheit.
> Of course a changing c isn't impossible. But it would mean that
> we'd have to abandon not just a theory of a particular interaction but
> special relativity, which defines the framework within which all local
> physics has been understood for a century. (& this wouldn't mean "Back
> to Newton" since all of the phenomena that SRT explains better than
> classical physics would remain.)
>
> Shalom,
>
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> "The Science-Theology Interface"
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 15 2001 - 09:48:00 EDT