A radical discovery by my colleagues and I – reported this week in Physical Review Letters – could help explain why it was possible for life (at least as we know it) to develop on Earth, but not in other parts of the universe.
It suggests one of the fundamental laws of physics, electomagnetism, is not constant throughout the universe and may change depending on where you are.
Big claims? Yes, they are. The discovery we have made is radical. Onlookers are skeptical and it may take years to show whether we are right or wrong.
And, yes, who am I to speak?
I lead a research group at the University of New South Wales focusing on one very specific question: have the laws of physics always been as we know them today on Earth, or were they different in the early universe. My work sits at the boundary between fundamental physics and astronomy.
In general terms, I investigate what the universe was like when it was very young and how it has evolved over the 14 billion years since it spontaneously appeared.
Light fantastic
When my colleagues and I looked at the spectra of gas clouds in the early universe and compare with the same elements measured in laboratories on Earth, we saw very slight but significant differences.
A simple analogy might help explain this:
Consider a barcode on an every-day item on a supermarket shelf.
The relative positions of the strips in the barcode form a unique identifier to the item in question. Similarly, in the spectra of distant gas clouds, we see distinct lines caused by various elements such as magnesium, iron, aluminium, nickel, chromium, zinc and many others.
We can visualise the spectrum of this gas just as we do with the barcode, where the relative positions of the lines uniquely identify the elements present.
These relative positions in the distant cloud of gas can be measured with impressive precision and what we have found is amazing: the unique patterns of lines for the same elements seen in laboratory measurements today are slightly different to that seen in distant galaxy halos.
In fact, when we make measurements of this sort, it turns out we are actually measuring electromagnetism, the force that binds electrons and nuclei together in atoms. This is because relative positions of the lines in the spectrum are determined by the strength of the electromagnetic force.
We only know of four forces in nature: electromagnetism, gravity, and the strong and weak forces acting within atomic nuclei themselves. And at least one of them, in other regions of the universe, now appears to be different from that on Earth.
But the story gets stranger still.
My colleagues and I have looked out into the universe all over the sky, probing physics in 300 different places. We’ve found the strength of electromagnetism changes gradually from one “side” of the universe to another – a slow spatial gradient in physics.
The implications for science are profound. All “textbook” physics rests on the assumption of constancy of the laws of physics. One example is Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which embodies this assumption in something called the “Equivalence Principle”.
If my colleagues and I are right, this may now need to be demoted to the “Equivalence Approximation”. The fundamental equations of cosmology may need altering, with important re-interpretations for a multitude of experimental data, potentially even including the seemingly mysterious “dark energy”, which is currently thought to provide 70% of the energy content of the universe, even though its nature is entirely unknown.
How we got here
Some 11 years ago, my Russian colleague Victor Flambaum and I made a breakthrough. We came up with an idea that allowed us, literally overnight, to improve the precision with which we could measure the physical laws elsewhere in the universe by a factor of 10.
We named this new method, perhaps unattractively, the “Many-Multiplet" method. It has now become the default technique used by most competing research groups in universities around the world.
We applied the new idea to astronomical observations of distant quasars.
Quasars are relatively small objects in astronomical terms, probably about the size of the solar system, or less than 1000th the size of a galaxy.
And yet they are the most energetic objects known in the universe. They emit as much as a thousand billion times the energy of our sun. This energy is generated by the efficient conversion of matter into energy according to the Einstein’s well-oiled E=mc2 equation.
That means quasars can be seen at enormous distances, and we can study them in great detail using the worlds’ biggest telescopes – the Keck telescope in Hawaii and the Very Large Telescope in Chile.
By employing such high-precision instrumentation, we can use the spectrum of the quasar to measure the detailed physical conditions in the galactic gas intersecting the sight line to the background quasar.
Fine-tuning
Another interesting consequence concerns the so-called “fine-tuning“ problem. For decades, scientists have puzzled over the fact that the laws of physics seem to be mysteriously tuned to favour our existence.
No explanation at the fundamental level exists. The “hand of God” is preferred by some as the explanation for fine-tuning. Others prefer the “Anthropic Principle”: we shouldn’t be surprised to find the universe is apparently finely-tuned for our presence in it, otherwise we wouldn’t be here to discuss the matter in the first place.
Our observed values of the laws of physics are then put down to mere chance.
But if the laws of physics gradually change from one region of the universe to another, it may simply be that we happen to reside in that part of the universe where the local “by-laws” are perfect for life as we know it.
Elsewhere, that may not be the case and the universe may be radically different, with a different periodic table, different chemistry and biology, or even no biology at all.
And since we see only a very small change in the strength of electromagnetism over cosmological scales, that change may continue unabated for a spatial eternity. In other words, space is infinite. This is my preferred interpretation.
As I said at the start of this article, no-one believes us yet, and we are in for a long battle. Some days I doubt I shall be living when the proof comes in.
The work is technical, laborious, very difficult, requires a great deal of data from extremely expensive scientific facilities, and the analyses take a lot of time and effort.
But on other days I’m more optimistic and remind myself that, for now, I’m alive and kicking and working on it.
Andrew Glikson
Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University
From the sentence "could help explain why it was possible for life (at least as we know it) to develop on Earth, but not in other parts of the universe.", if I understand it correctly, the author claims the variations in the electromagnetic spectrum/field in other parts of the Universe imply different laws of physics in these regions, placing the existence of life away from Earth in question.
This excludes life on other planets of the solar system (even microbial life?) and Earth-like planets in…
Read moreJohn K. Webb
Professor of Astrophysics at University of New South Wales
Any variations in the electromagnetic couple constant (alpha) in other parts of the Universe certainly imply different laws of physics in these regions. If, at large enough distances (this will be beyond our
observable horizon) the change is sufficiently big, chemical evolution changes. H may no longer be the dominant element. Yes this does then placing the existence of life in those regions in question. I think most would say it absolutely precludes it, on the basis that the heavier elements on which life relies, may never be created in sufficient quantities.
The work I described doesn't relate to the existence of life in the solar system, not within our observable horizon (i.e. out to about 12 billion light years). I am sure Paul Davies is right about our limited understanding of the formation of planets and life, but I think most people would not agree that the Earth is unique for the development of "advanced" life. I am interested - where has he stated this?
Clayton Werner
Customer Service Manager
There do indeed seem to be some rather large leaps of "faith" in what is presented. I guess one would have to read the original data to get a feel for exactly what is in the original paper.
Certainly a non-uniform universe is what we have and the idea that the universal constants might not be so universal I think is at least as sensible a path to explore, that the universal laws aren't so constant is going to require a mountain of evidence, but the alternative - dark energy which can't be seen, detected, measured etc. - except for indirectly, seems just as much like voodoo.
John K. Webb
Professor of Astrophysics at University of New South Wales
There are really no leaps of faith at all. What we presented is merely a summary of a comprehensive analysis of the largest dataset of its sort. Sure, interpretations are just that - interpretations.
I haven't checked up when dark energy first started to be taken seriously. It's useful to remember that dark energy is also an interpretation. There are alternatives being explored. I think it's reasonable to say that the recent Nobel Prize wasn't awarded for the discovery of dark energy, it was awarded (justifiably) for the empirical discovery that the expansion is accelerating.
Phillip Ebrall
Professor of Chiropractic at Central Queensland University
John
What a wonderfully intellectual piece of writing. Thank you. I draw much from your ability to look outwards to explain the unknown, as my role requires me to look inwards, into the body, to similarly explain the unknown.
The silliness is that nobody ridicules you as an astrophysicist while you look at the big things, yet those, like me, who look at the little things such as how our nervous system may function, are attacked by skeptics.
I wonder why this is the case.
Phillip
John K. Webb
Professor of Astrophysics at University of New South Wales
Thank you. I wish you were right about astrophysicists not being ridiculed. Believe me, the skeptics knives are out. We can line up our skeptics comments one day and compare. I'd take a punt that mine are every bit as acerbic as yours.
Sean Lamb
Science Denier
I am sorry to hear astrophysicists have joined climate change scientists to be under the pump - although last I heard Alan Jones wasn't trying to organise a rally yet (although if you try and promote an EM tax that might change). At worse you will have to fall back on the consolations of philosophy:
"And if they were in the habit of conferring honours among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honours and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,
'Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?'"
That should help you put the baubles of academia in sufficient perspective
Bob Constable
logged in via Facebook
Just thank be thankfull that we don't react in the same way as previously. At least you are not being burned for heresy. LOL
Rob Riel
Publisher
Very interesting results. I'm not sure your work will explain 'life as we know it' -- the simpler hypothesis is obviously that humans are adapted to, and optimised for, the local physical milieu, not the other way around. What I find most interesting is how the assumption of absolute consistency in physics throughout the universe is holding up less and less well as we develop the capacity to make finer and finer measurements. We've reports of the rate of cosmic expansion increasing with distance from the site of the Big Bang, subatomic particles travelling a teensy bit faster than the speed of light... It's probably too early to ask if your spectra vary with time, or with distance. And how will you find out? One thing's sure: science is NEVER settled. Congratulations on a wonderfully unsettling set of observations!
John K. Webb
Professor of Astrophysics at University of New South Wales
Thank you. I agree that our results cannot explain life as we know it. But they can remove the fine tuning problem (see my response to Chris Smith's posting).
Actually we can already say that any time variation is considerably smaller than the spatial variation (because we measure no change at all in the plane perpendicular to the apparent dipole we see.
Chris Smith
An inquiring mind
I'm curious on what they base their claim of life, as we know it, not being possible in other parts of the universe. So far, we've only scratched the surface (quite literally) of 2 other bodies in our own solar system - the Moon and Mars (3 if you want to count the Russian Venera probes that landed on Venus, none of which survived for more than 2 hours).
As for elsewhere in the universe at large, the distances are so great that we have no ability to even entertain making a conclusion on the presence…
Read moreJohn K. Webb
Professor of Astrophysics at University of New South Wales
The comment I made was directed at the apparent fine tuning problem, i.e. why do the laws of physics seem to be so well-suited for life, when there is no fundamental reason why that should be so (that we are currently aware of at least). If different regions of the universe, albeit only at cosmological distances, have different combinations of fundamental constants, then our "local" fine tuning coincidence is no longer unique. Spatial variation of the laws of Nature solve the fine tuning problem.
The work we have done has nothing to say about the existence of life within our observable horizon, since the change in alpha across that region is small.
Andrew Glikson
Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University
It will be appreciated if the author - John Webb - would respond to some of the questions posed in this thread.
John K. Webb
Professor of Astrophysics at University of New South Wales
Hey, give me a chance, I've been working hard all morning! :)
Mike Cowley
logged in via Facebook
Phillip Ebrall, it might well be because the author is not starting from an unscientific concept (like, to pick a random example, "innate intelligence") and then fitting cherry-picked evidence around it. Rather, he is talking about a finding of an investigation into real physical evidence, explicitly acknowledging the problems and doubt, and inviting others to investigate and perhaps (even probably) prove him wrong. It's called science.
John K. Webb
Professor of Astrophysics at University of New South Wales
In case anyone would like to read more about this, there is a special issue of Scientific American coming out in the US on December 6th (and I presume on the same date or very shortly afterwards in Australia) containing an article called "Inconstant Constants" by John Barrow and myself.
John K. Webb
Professor of Astrophysics at University of New South Wales
and I should have added in my previous posting, some more info is here:
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jkw/alphadipole_media/alphadipole_media/Welcome.html
Rick Ryals
logged in via Facebook
John K. Webb wrote:
"We’ve found the strength of electromagnetism changes gradually from one “side” of the universe to another – a slow spatial gradient in physics."
And then later, re: Fine Tuning
"But if the laws of physics gradually change from one region of the universe to another, it may simply be that we happen to reside in that part of the universe where the local “by-laws” are perfect for life as we know it."
Assuming that everything that you claim is correct, it seems to me that this is just another example of the Goldilocks "Enigma" at work. Not too strong, not too weak, just right, which, when combined with all of the other precariously balanced conditions that the enigma entails, actually suggests that the universe is finite, not infinite.
John K. Webb
Professor of Astrophysics at University of New South Wales
The possible spatial variation we have seen increases linearly along one particular direction. The universe is estimated to be 13.7 billion years old. Our look-back time is thus limited to 13.7 billion light years. The data we have used reaches approximately 12 billion light years.
This naturally raises the question as to what we would see if we were able to look further, to say 20 billion light years, or 50, or further. The data indicate no turn-down, just a constant rate of change in alpha…
Read moreRick Ryals
logged in via Facebook
Okay, but I would call that a falsification of the Goldilocks prediction, rather than an expectation, without a theory that makes a clear prediction.
Peter Kinnon
Writer
The apparent fine tuning of our universe, or even of our locality within it can be usefully addressed without recourse to speculations regarding a multiverse or from notions derived purely from mythology.
Read moreThe effect is, of course, certainly not limited to the physical constants. Indeed, the most abundant and convincing evidence for it lies much further "downstream", particularly within the domain of chemistry.
Pervasive and persistent examples of prevailing conditions being "just right…
Rick Ryals
logged in via Facebook
Peter Kinnon, I've been on the same page with you on this for over a decade, and have noted many of the same points that you've just made many times.
This is my knol:
http://knol.google.com/k/the-anthropic-principle#
Peter Kinnon
Writer
Rick, I have checked out your "knol" but, while we may share the same opinion that the apparent fine tuning of the universe in which we find ourselves is worthy of serious consideration, the reasoning that leads me to this view is actually quite different. As is the evidential basis which is drawn from less tenuous fields of of science than cosmology and theoretical physics.
Furthermore, from what I see, you do not provide an empirically based interpretive construct comparable to the broad evolutionary…
Read moreRick Ryals
logged in via Facebook
I should have been more clear to say that the linked page isn't my complete understanding, rather it is a treatment of the facts that support fine-tuning.
Briefly, as we are now hijacking John's post:
My own understanding is that the observed anthropic cosmological constraint on the forces of the universe is defining an inherent energy conservation law that enables the universe to periodically “leap/bang” to higher orders of the same basic configuration in order to preserve causality, the arrow…
Read morePeter Kinnon
Writer
Sorry, Rick, I do not subscribe to your belief system. We must agree to disagree.
Rick Ryals
logged in via Facebook
My "belief system"??? What a strange way to describe empirically supported theoretical research. Peter, either the physics is correct, or it is not, but religion has nothing to do with it and only time will tell.
In the mean time, it's a matter for gentlemen... ;)
http://longbets.org/476/
Oksanna Zoschenko
logged in via Twitter
Dear Dr. Webb: Read your paper. You chaps are rocking the boat, so people get annoyed. How does your work tie in with the earlier work on redshift quantization and (even) plasma cosmology? Please do not recoil from fear of being associated by implication with the neo-Velikovskian 'Electric Universe' folks. But then again, with your 'dipole' confirmation (loved the Chart at the end, btw) you have put your little toe in their quaintly von Daniken-esque court, haven't you? Was actually thinking more of the earlier researchers, like Hannes Alfven. Seems you have incidentally taken a little chink out of the armor of a dominant orthodoxy - our Newtonian-Einsteinian emphasis on mass and gravity, with your findings. So, any connections between your findings and other people's work in non-standard cosmologies? Also, any possible tie-ins with Tifft's, Burbridge's and Arp's work on redshift ... i.e. implications for the Big Bang?
John K. Webb
Professor of Astrophysics at University of New South Wales
The claims involved in the various fringe-science and fictional writings you mention are completely unrelated to research on varying constants. If spatially varying laws of physics are confirmed, the standard cosmological model (derived from general relativity + the Cosmological Principle) will need modifying. A great deal of theoretical work has already been done on axially symmetric cosmologies.
roger stein
e.g. Brain Surgeon, Professor of Literature
John,
I don't think you do justice to the significance of your findings, if corroborated. In your brief discussion of the anthropic principle, you focused on what is generally referred to as the "weak anthropic principle". Of much greater relevance to your discovery is the "strong anthropic principle", properly presented.
The argument involving the strong anthropic principle originally ran roughly as follows when it was presented in the 1970's (note the date--it will prove germane): a) The typical…
Read moreJohn K. Webb
Professor of Astrophysics at University of New South Wales
Very interesting discussion indeed Roger. Just wanted to acknowledge
I have read it.
Udo
logged in via Twitter
This is stupid. They make two core assumptions that are most likely false given what we currently know about the universe: first that the fundamental laws of physics are not uniform throughout our corner of the universe, and the second one is that life has been demonstrated to exist exclusively on earth and nowhere else. Both of these are cordially presented as facts, when our current understanding of physics and chemistry suggests these are not true. Indeed, this whole thing is little more than an attempt to declare a geocentric model of the universe as scientific. I smell a creationist plot.
Rick Ryals
logged in via Facebook
Wow, um, this is certainly none of my business, but you need to learn to be a little more sensitive about who you are calling stupid.
1. The conclusion that electomagnetism, is not constant throughout the universe is not an assumption, it is a measured observation that the author admits needs to be verified. Did you bother to read before babbling?
2. While the goldilocks enigma, (which defines the precariously balanced conditions that are necessary to carbon based life as we know it), are not unique to Earth, they do extend to the rest of the universe to make very specifically limiting and falsifiable predictions about exactly where life will and will not be found in the habitable zones of the observable universe, so John's observation would make for a good falsification of this prediction if proven to be true.
And 3) Your statement about John and company being creationism motivated, is a full blown insult that you should apologize for, freak.
Bob Constable
logged in via Facebook
Certainly none of my business either but Udo didn't call anyone stupid he said the subject of discussion was stupid.
and
it is ironic that Rick brought this up then called Udo a freak.
Rick Ryals
logged in via Facebook
Calling someone's hard work "stupid" is the same as calling them stupid, stoopid, and calling their observation an "assumption" is pretty freaky, although you're right, his loose attention to science is all too common these days to make him a freak, but hey thanks for attempting to do what he wasn't stupid enough to try... ;)
Axel Cateland
logged in via Facebook
Hello, can the change in your measurement be linked to the fact that when you observe the universe, you are just observing the past of it, and that the law rulling our universe just alter in time?
Phillip Ebrall
Professor of Chiropractic at Central Queensland University
Axel
Everything we observe is in the past, whether it be milliseconds or millenniums.
Dov Henis
logged in via Facebook
Physics Constants Vary Between Galaxies Clusters
A. Fundamental Constant May Depend on Where in the Universe You Are
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/11/fundamental-constant-may-depend-.html?ref=em&elq=ba9c572845b2462783b9fb487dfe7a08
B. From: EOTOE, Some Implications (I)
http://universe-life.com/2011/10/07/eotoe-some-implications-i/
PS1: (notes since 2005-6)
- Definitely: Dark energy and dark matter YOK! Universe's m reconverts to E at a constant rate…
- Universe accelerated expansion is per Newton's motion laws, obviously…
- Also, universe physics constants should vary, probably slightly, between galaxies clusters due to different clusters sizes...
- Also, the clusters formed by dispersion at inflation…
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
Bob Constable
logged in via Facebook
I browsed
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
I Don't think you up to date the universe expansion is speeding up not slowing down
Dov Henis
retired industrial consultant, PhD UPgh, PA USA
Dear Bob,
Where have I written that the universe expansion is slowing down?
Rgrds,
Dov
Dov Henis
retired industrial consultant, PhD UPgh, PA USA
An Embarrassingly Obvious Theory Of Everything
EOTOE, Some Implications (I)
A.
EOTOE is an Embarrassingly Obvious Theory Of Everything.
In essence it states that all things in the universe, nouns and verbs objects and processes, originate and derive from the energy-mass dualism.
Origin and essence of this derivation are expressed mathematically by
E=Total[m(1+ D)] (D = distance travelled by mass since singularity)
Which suggests that the universe cycles between two poles: singularity/all-mass…
Read moreDov Henis
retired industrial consultant, PhD UPgh, PA USA
EarthLife Genesis@Aromaticity.H-Bonding
A.
Purines and pyrimidines are two of the building blocks of nucleic acids. Only two purines and three pyrimidines occur widely in nucleic acids.
B.
Pyrimidine is a heterocyclic aromatic organic compound similar to benzene and pyridine, containing two nitrogen atoms at positions 1 and 3 of the six-member ring.
A purine is a heterocyclic aromatic organic compound, consisting of a pyrimidine ring fused to an imidazole ring. Purines, including substituted…
Read moreMitch Mitchell
Writer
Great article John!
Me:BS Physics, microwave electronics engineer, commercial pilot, ham radio guy - 61 yr old geek.
I've thought that there has been a misintrepertation of Red Shift data for some time now. Rather than a slowly changing "constant" over increasing distances, I suspect a relative build up of permittivity over distance. In essence, the dielectric constant is not changing, but it's thickness is. This would explain why all spectra are shifted, as well.
Read moreWhat's puzzling is why…
John K. Webb
Professor of Astrophysics at University of New South Wales
Many thanks Mitch. We're not suggesting a misinterpretation of redshift. The effect we are seeing is not degenerate with redshift. The expansion of the universe shifts all lines by the same amount. And the cosmological redshift data aren't quantized. (There were claims many years ago for quantization but to my knowledge they were never taken seriously). The evidence in favour or a cosmological interpretation of redshift is, in my view, overwhelming. Effects like "tired light" or permittivity were ruled out long ago. Sorry I don't recall any suitable articles to point you at but I would imagine a quick google would turn up some appropriate ones.
So we fit redshift as a free parameter, simultaneously with solving for the value of the fine structure constant.
Mitch Mitchell
Writer
Thanks for your reply!
Well, if we assume the Universe IS stationery for a second, how would we resolve Red Shift observations then?
In Doppler, the higher the transmit frequency, the greater the baseband Doppler frequency will be. The BASIC assumption used by Doppler was that the medium is consistent throughout the transmission path. If sound propagated more slowly, there would be a smaller Doppler shift. Or, if the Doppler object is moving away, it would cause a similar shift, given a consistent medium. We wouldn't be able to tell, which was which... We assume a constant medium, so we say it had to be the movement of the object. Same argument for Red Shift.
Either we believe in a crazy explanation for Red Shift, Expanding-Excellerating Galaxies, Big Bang, accept the numbers for the age of everything based on this - Or - We keep looking for better answers to our observations.
Thanks for looking! This stuff is kinda interesting.
Kind regards,
Mitch in Maryland
John K. Webb
Professor of Astrophysics at University of New South Wales
Hi Mitch, And thanks for your interest too.
Why would we assume the universe is stationary when no observations suggest it?
Regarding the medium light propagates through, en route from quasar to us, we don't merely assume, we actually know a lot about it. We can measure several basic parameters, such as density and temperature, with reasonable precision.
Our understanding of the expansion are based on a plethora of observations made using the world's best astronomical facilities, and on a solid theoretical framework, based on general relativity, which has so far passed all observational tests. The explanation of redshift isn't crazy at all. It's the best we can do. One can't ignore what the data and our best theories say, just on a whim.
Dov Henis
logged in via Twitter
2012: Restructure Science Plans, Policies, Budgets
A. Higgs Particle YOK
Eppur Si Muove, Higgs Particle YOK
Regardless Of Whatever Whoever
Regardless Of Whatever Is Said By Whoever Says It -
Higgs Particle YOK.
S Hawking is simply wrong in accepting it. Obviously wrong.
Read moreEveryone who accepts the story of the Higgs particle is simply wrong.
Plain commonsense.
Singularity and the Big Bang MUST have happened with the smallest base universe particles, the gravitons, that MUST be both…