Evolution of the Rules of the Universe

[JohnSSM]

 

Absolutely not. The fact that we can use mathematics to derive testable (and tested) results such as Bell's theorem pretty much proves that the universe is dictated by rules. Sounds like "this guy" doesn't know what he is talking about.

Thats how I see it...

 

Can I ask an off topic question really fast? Ill try...

 

Ive looked for but cannot find any info about "the evolution of the rules of the universe" at any point, were they any different? did any of the forces change from farthest past up until now? I found some info about different forces being "switched on" at certain points, but didnt understand why...

[imatfaal]

I have read an article by a group of Australian researchers who claimed to have evidence that the fine structure constant varies in both space and time. The fine structure constant

 

[latex]

\alpha = \frac{e^2}{4 \pi \hbar \epsilon_0 c}

[/latex]

 

is one of the dimensionless constants that govern almost everything . We have no good theory on why it is what it is - so if it changes then that would offer great insight . I will see if I can dig out the paper.

 

For my level of knowledge - ie not very good - the book Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees is brilliant on this

Edited April 21, 2015 by imatfaal
brainfart

[swansont]

One of the topics that always comes up at the conference I just went to is that building better atomic frequency standards allows better tests of the fractional rate of change in the fine structure constant (and also possibly m_e/m_p). Current tests are consistent with zero, with rates about 10^-17 per year. There are also astronomical observation tests and nuclear decay results, one of which suggest a small directional variation over long time scales (see the Australian dipole section of the link), but this has not been independently confirmed, so it may simply be a systematic effect of one group's technique.

[imatfaal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Past_rate_of_change

 

Lots of links in references

 

xposted with SwansonT - great info thanks

[JohnSSM]

Another can of worms...wow...

So it seems that this fine structure constant relates mostly to the attractive force of EM and operations of QED. But what of the other forces? Would this FIne Structure Constant also effect the weak and strong nuclear forces? How about gravity?

My question about the evolution of the forces meant to imply questions like

"Were all four forces theorized to be present at the moment of bigbang? 1 hour after the big bang?" and so on...

 

I seem to recall something about a point in time where the weak force and EM are actually developed as one force, and then split as the universe becomes more complex...it may all be bad memory recall...afterall, it is totally hazey...

The wiki link talks about what may happen to this FSC when we enter the "dark matter influenced" phase of universal development...and it just makes me wonder, in a broader sense, if the conditions of the universe itself are what create and define the forces that rule it...Im asking if there has been any "evolution" in the way that the forces exist, interact with energy/matter, or interact with each other at all during the entire course of the universe? Have the same forces that exist now always existed in this same state?

[swansont]

The fine structure constant link says "at interaction energies above 80 GeV the fine-structure constant is known to approach 1/128" (vs ~ 1/137), so the interactions were different in the early universe, but 80 GeV is massively above energies where atoms or even nuclei would be forming. You'd have to check, but 80 GeV is around 10^14 K (using E = kT) and from what I can reconstruct that takes you to somewhere less than 100 microseconds after the big bang.

 

"Universe grows and cools until 0.0001 seconds after the Big Bang with temperature about T=10¹³ K"

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html

 

So the rules were different, somewhat, but how that affects anything I can't say.

[JohnSSM]

The fine structure constant link says "at interaction energies above 80 GeV the fine-structure constant is known to approach 1/128" (vs ~ 1/137), so the interactions were different in the early universe, but 80 GeV is massively above energies where atoms or even nuclei would be forming. You'd have to check, but 80 GeV is around 10^14 K (using E = kT) and from what I can reconstruct that takes you to somewhere less than 100 microseconds after the big bang.

 

"Universe grows and cools until 0.0001 seconds after the Big Bang with temperature about T=10¹³ K"

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html

 

So the rules were different, somewhat, but how that affects anything I can't say.

From looking at that timeline, it seems to infer that the forces and fields were created in the very first line as gravity takes effect...

Edited April 22, 2015 by JohnSSM

[ajb]

I am not sure if your opening question is phrased quite right, but we know that physics depends on the energy scale involved. That is the couplings can run and we have various phase changes. In this sense the rules 'evolve' with the typical energy scale of the Universe at a given time.

[JohnSSM]

I am not sure if your opening question is phrased quite right, but we know that physics depends on the energy scale involved. That is the couplings can run and we have various phase changes. In this sense the rules 'evolve' with the typical energy scale of the Universe at a given time.

What are you referring to with "energy scale"? IS that gravitational energy?

[Mordred]

Here is what he is referring to, look at this link and the relations between the coupling constants and the fine structure constant

 

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_constant

Now here is the trick what happens to the fine structure constant during the electroweak phase?

 

Wiki has a decent short hand answer.

 

"In the electroweak theory unifying the weak interaction with electromagnetism, α is absorbed into two other coupling constants associated with the electroweak gauge fields. In this theory, the electromagnetic interaction is treated as a mixture of interactions associated with the electroweak fields. The strength of the electromagnetic interaction varies with the strength of the energy field."

 

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

[MWresearch]

What is it about the number e? Why does e come up in so many core aspects of nature?

[JohnSSM]

Here is what he is referring to, look at this link and the relations between the coupling constants and the fine structure constant

 

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_constant

Now here is the trick what happens to the fine structure constant during the electroweak phase?

 

Wiki has a decent short hand answer.

 

"In the electroweak theory unifying the weak interaction with electromagnetism, α is absorbed into two other coupling constants associated with the electroweak gauge fields. In this theory, the electromagnetic interaction is treated as a mixture of interactions associated with the electroweak fields. The strength of the electromagnetic interaction varies with the strength of the energy field."

 

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

When was the electro weak phase? I do believe that is what I was referring to...do they recognize any other phases?

What is it about the number e? Why does e come up in so many core aspects of nature?

Yknow what's more puzzling to me? What's with all the squared and sqaure root values?

[imatfaal]

What is it about the number e? Why does e come up in so many core aspects of nature?

e in the fine structure constant and the coupling constant is the charge on an electron , the elementary charge, not the base of natural logs

 

to elaborate

 

[latex]\alpha = \frac{e^2}{4 \pi \hbar \epsilon_0 c}[/latex]

 

alpha is the fine structure constant

e is the electron charge

pi is the ratio of circumference to radius

hbar is plancks constant (reduced)

epsilon_zero is the permitivity of free space

 

If you do a dimensional analysis you will note that the fine structure constant has no units - it is dimensionless.

[MigL]

The electroweak phase transition would be the ( thermodynamic ) energy level where the SU(2)xU(1) symmetry of the standard model is broken.

There should have been previous ( at much higher energy levels ) symmetry breaks to account for the separate colour ( strong or QCD ) force, and possibly even the gravitational force.

[Bernd Ganter]

May I just give a hint to the background/derivation of the fine structure constant which gives the exact value (=prognosis: 137.035999100) and which gives a reason why there is no change in the value: because its basis is pure mathematics/tetration/geometry and information.

 

<link deleted by mod>

 

!

Moderator Note

No you may not give a hint here - this forum is for discussing mainstream physics; new untested hypotheses go in Speculations.

 

Please note that your duplicate posts elsewhere have been removed. Please don't spam the forums with identical posts

 

[puppypower]

In the physical chemical world, material properties are dependent on temperature and pressure. This dependency is plotted out as phase diagrams. For example, water at high temperature and pressure become a metal. This cannot occur at high temperature, alone. This observed trend in physical chemical data; pressure and temperature, extrapolates to the materials of the BB, and thereafter, going through phases changes as it cooled and expanded; lower T and P.

 

In particle accelerators, we generate high energy; temperature equivalent, but do this at earth surface pressure. This data may not apply at extreme pressure even though we extrapolate this low isobaric data to all pressures.

[swansont]

In the physical chemical world, material properties are dependent on temperature and pressure. This dependency is plotted out as phase diagrams. For example, water at high temperature and pressure become a metal. This cannot occur at high temperature, alone. This observed trend in physical chemical data; pressure and temperature, extrapolates to the materials of the BB, and thereafter, going through phases changes as it cooled and expanded; lower T and P.

 

In particle accelerators, we generate high energy; temperature equivalent, but do this at earth surface pressure. This data may not apply at extreme pressure even though we extrapolate this low isobaric data to all pressures.

 

What does this have to do with the topic under discussion?

 

Also accelerator experiments are carried out under pretty decent vacuum. If you ran them at atmospheric pressure the mean free path for interacting with background atoms would be a lot smaller, and the experiments likely couldn't be carried out.