Signed Up:
Jan 18, 2005Comments: 0 · Posts: 13612 · Topics: 756
A Swinburne astrophysicist has leapt another hurdle in the path to proving that our fundamental theories of physics are not what they seem.
Dr Michael Murphy is part of a team that has, over recent years, uncovered surprising and controversial evidence suggesting the laws of physics may have been changing through cosmic time. In this latest move, Murphy has debunked a study which claimed to disprove his findings.
Murphy's research into the laws of Nature goes back eight years, and concerns our understanding of electromagnetism, the force of nature that determines the sounds we hear, the light we see, and how atoms are held together to form solids. Through the study of electromagnetism in galaxies ten billion light years away, he has challenged the fundamental assumption that the strength of electromagnetism has been constant through time.
?Back in 2001 we published evidence showing a small change in the fine structure constant, the number that physicists use to characterise the strength of electromagnetism,? Murphy said.
?Even though the change that we think we see in the data is quite small, about five parts in a million, it would be enough to demonstrate that our current understanding must in fact be wrong. It's an important discovery if correct. It suggests to physicists that there's an underlying set of theories we're yet to broach and understand.?
Physicists have been chasing results like these for a number of years, but since 1999, Murphy and his co-researchers have been ahead of the pack. They've published a series of observations from the Keck Telescope in Hawaii as further evidence of a varying fine structure constant. But, a few years ago, another research team claimed that data from a different telescope contradicted Murphy's observations.
However, he's been able to prove that the contradictory work itself was flawed. ?We've shown that the way the data was analysed was faulty,? he said. ?Their procedures were faulty so the numbers that came out are meaningless. Our paper points this out. When you replicate their analysis and fix their problems, you get a very very different answer indeed.?
Signed Up:
Jan 18, 2005Comments: 0 · Posts: 13612 · Topics: 756
This might explain miracles
Many religious traditions have a concept of a Golden Age, when matter had not completely coalesced, and humanity lived between heaven and earth. According to the Greeks, there are three more ages after the "fall" (another common religious and mythological motif), each less perfect and more "material" than the last: the Silver age, the Bronze age, and our present Iron age. These correspond to the Hindu Yugas: Satya, Treta, Dwapara, and the present Kali Yuga.
Perhaps things that would be considered miraculous today would have been considered commonplace if you go far enough back.
Signed Up:
Jan 18, 2005Comments: 0 · Posts: 13612 · Topics: 756
If water changes into wine, we don't know that could happen unless the laws of physics were not as absolute as we believe.
Signed Up:
Jan 18, 2005Comments: 3 · Posts: 15387 · Topics: 830
I am just putting this in so you are not alone.
Signed Up:
Jan 18, 2005Comments: 0 · Posts: 13612 · Topics: 756
What a relief?. Thanks old mate..!
Signed Up:
Aug 16, 2006Comments: 0 · Posts: 553 · Topics: 17
Physics is not flawed...just misunderstood actually. Misapplied as well. Once they said that Einsteins theory was flawed, but now support it.
Though i do not beleive in many constants, due to the vast array of variables and rates of accelerated life one way or another due to another variable, I do beleieve that modern physics is a solid beginning to the metaphysical as well as physical.
Signed Up:
Jul 15, 2010Comments: 1 · Posts: 378 · Topics: 11
The metaphysics that informs the understanding of modern-day physics is certainly flawed. Any so-called "law" is nothing more than either a statistical or logical statement or proposition, which is timelessly true. In light of this, thus, if a statistical or logical statement or proposition of physics (i.e., "law of physics") changes, then this same statistical or logical statement or proposition of physics is not a "law."
Signed Up:
Mar 27, 2010Comments: 2 · Posts: 2394 · Topics: 102
Beyond metaphysics is theoretical physics...
Signed Up:
Mar 27, 2010Comments: 2 · Posts: 2394 · Topics: 102
Beyond metaphysics is theoretical physics...
Here is an example of a simple theory:
The world was considered to be flat but was proven to be round; The theory of the universe says that the universe can be flat, but the universe can be round.
What might you think it may be?
One of many questions theorist have...
Signed Up:
Jan 18, 2005Comments: 3 · Posts: 15387 · Topics: 830
Physicis you have the laws of the very big and the laws of the very small. At this point in time they do not seem to mesh
we can only account for three dimensions that is wrong we can only see and study three.
I believe there are 10 or 11 dimensions.
right now this only gives us four coordinates to determin a position in space and time.
we need to determine uniquely each element of the system
mathematical entities as an aggregate of points in realor abstract space.
the number of elements in a basis of vector space
the quality of spatial extension
elements or factors making up a complete entity
and so forth and so on.
Dark matter or engery is 75% of what is there
I feel if all is ever known before we distory ourself we will relize that at this point in time we were like childern trying to solve a simple math problem.
ether that or its the whisky talking.
Signed Up:
Mar 27, 2010Comments: 2 · Posts: 2394 · Topics: 102
Oh yeah, I meant physics not metaphysics hahaha.
Twingoat, theoretical physics isn\'t called theoretical for nothing hahaha.
Signed Up:
Jan 18, 2005Comments: 3 · Posts: 15387 · Topics: 830
SFP can you lay the theory out here?