Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws

[Fox Mulder]

By Michael Schirber
Special to SPACE.com
posted: 11 July 2006
06:05 am ET

Public confidence in the "constants" of nature may be at an all time low. Recent research has found evidence that the value of certain fundamental parameters, such as the speed of light or the invisible glue that holds nuclei together, may have been different in the past.

"There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant," says astronomer Michael Murphy of the University of Cambridge. "These are famous numbers in physics, but we have no real reason for why they are what they are."

The observed differences are small—roughly a few parts in a million—but the implications are huge: The laws of physics would have to be rewritten, not to mention we might need to make room for six more spatial dimensions than the three that we are used to.

<snip>

More here.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Finally, programmers can contribute to the debate

The two fundamental laws of software engineering:

1).- Variables don't.

2).- Constants aren't.

:evilgrin:

[On the Road]

2. Wow -- Rupert Sheldrake Was Right!

He is a lot of fun to read, and makes you rethink everything you thought you knew, but his beliefs are really out there. I guess if you keep quesioning the foundations of scientific knowledge you'll eventually hit the jackpot.

http://www.sheldrake.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

[soothsayer]

3. Physics will eventually circle fully around to become metaphysics

They're getting closer!

[YankeyMCC]

4. Isn't this the theory put forth by Lee Smolin ?

[bananas]

6. No, his theory is that we're all smooshed onto an event horizon

of one black hole or another, eventually.

[eppur_se_muova]

5. Six MORE spatial dimensions? Wouldn't you know it would happen ...

right when I was in the middle of major remodeling work.

[unpossibles]

7. is this the unification of quantum and "traditional" physics?

in that in the quantum realm there are no constants (if I understand it, which I don't.. ;) )

not to mention that this would not be the first time that we made use of things which "have no real reason for why they are what they are."