I don't know how you work these things out given relativity, but it is exceedingly likely that they are large in time relative to each other as well which, in several individual instances, is capable of "good enough proof for this discussion" no doubt, such as being in radically different directions from us. Yet, the astrophysicists who examine all of this stuff tell us the same laws of physics applies everywhere and therefore every when they look.
So, that's why we don't have to worry about it all changing. Observation and ordinary logic tells us that there is no variability. So, while we might enjoy speculating about it, if it actually happened, we would be seeing the variability, because some of these effects that we can, in fact, see, would not be behaving according to today's laws either thousands or even millions of years ago, depending on what the scientists are looking at.
Originally posted by ZeroZanzibar: What if the change itself also propagates at the speed of light? The change could be trailing or preceding our ability to detect it in every case, due to the very same reason we are able to "look into the past" in the first place. The answer simply, the answer is "No and yes". You see, if you mess with the weak force, you automatically then have to mess with the electromagnetic force, since they're interrelated electroweak unification. Just altering the weak force by a tiny amount throws out everything.
Which means you get no protons, no neutrons, no electrons, no atoms. We see a relic of a tremendously hot surface, the Cosmic Microwave Background. Not only that, but the CMB is everywhere, so everywhere was once emitting the CMB at a phenomenal temperature a very long time ago.
The CMB is normal photons, which means neither the weak force nor the electromagnetic force were any different in magnitude or sign that far back all across the universe. If they were, we wouldn't have had photons. We do have photons, hence they were not.
The weak force has not changed during the history of the solar system. Actually, the first answer is also "yes" - until "effected" becomes "affected" quote: More precisely, we can put limits on how much it could have changed - and it's pretty damn small. Sadly not, or at the very least, facing an utter lack of supporting evidence. Electron capture is a much more viable hypothesis than fudging around with a fundamental force. Originally posted by bantha: This surface is what we see in the cosmic microwave background Hat mentioned earlier, and reconciles quite well with current particle theory without altering the electroweak force.
The change could be trailing or preceding our ability to detect it in every case, due to the very same reason we are able to "look into the past" in the first place I don't think this works. We would have opportunities to detect it in various ways. For one thing, there are a very small number of blue shifted entities entities that are coming toward us instead of going away that should be a problem for such a hypothesis.
Relativity probably also creates problems for it in a similar fashion. As it stands, the thesis is vulnerable to being shown, in some fashion of this sort, to be a privileged frame of reference argument. That is, treating our location as having magical properties. As you state it, not quite so, but I think there's enough going on and we can observe enough directionality in the universe that we'd see some pretty strong hints if constants varied in that fashion.
Additionally, not every particle existed at the big bang. They can be created and destroyed yet preserving the conservation laws. How do they know, then, what time it is and how to be properly elongated? In what frame of reference are they to be elongated? Towards us only privileged frame problems or toward some other body with a different relativistic velocity in another direction?
How can it have different elongations of the constants towards different bodies?
If only there were such an easy fix for climate change
Physics major, but in the end, I don't think this works. Or, if it does, it will take the next Einstein to explain it. I suppose this is only tangentially related, but it's a question I've been thinking about for a while now, and I don't think it's worth its own thread. I think the place to look for evidence for that the cosmic background radiation is differentiated in some way.
- How far back can radiocarbon dating go - Ücretsiz Video Sohbeti?
- History of Radiocarbon-14 Dating?
- what to do when dating in middle school.
- queen of hearts dating agency cape town.
- soldier dating websites.
But, while space is largely empty, not all of it is. There's patches where it isn't so empty, just by sheer chance and volume of the universe. I think you also need to play Einstein and create some equations. While they are hard to detect precisely because they are so energetic, cosmic rays that come through the sun versus from outside the solar system that is, a place where no planets are, especially Jupiter should show, on whatever equations you posit, some sort of difference.
Or, if that creates problems due to the known issues around photons and gravity, some other near-solar incident angle that's far enough away to create the problem in an easily measured way. Versus, of course, nowhere near the sun. Maybe X Rays or other wavelengths would work as well.
Radiocarbon dating
Gravitational lenses may be useful here although in this case, it would be measuring only "half" of the lensing versus something a bit "farther to the left". I suspect we'd know about it if that sort of thing was true. Astronomers do look in pretty much every direction and pretty much every wavelength we can even occasionally detect.
Unless everyone was asleep possible, I suppose -- we don't always look for what we don't expect , then there'd already be people talking about the problem, perhaps trying to attribute it to gravity which is an issue, even for photons or something of the sort. Originally posted by Control Group: If that were the case, we'd see lensing effects dramatically different than what we do see.
Observable gravitational lensing pretty much agrees with relativity. You would need to give mass some kind of property that changes c. Let's say we do. Gravitational lensing is nothing like how we observe it. If c is faster away from the immediate vicinity of mass, we see less lensing. If c is slower away from the immediate vicinity of mass, we see more lensing. Objects do not follow the laws of motion anymore. We see objects either ahead if faster c or behind if slower c where they should be after accounting for the constant speed of light.
General Relativity doesn't work, ever, for anything. GR is based entirely around the immutable assertion of c being constant in all frames of reference. If that's not true, GR doesn't work. Doppler shifting goes crazy. If light slows down it shifts slightly to a higher frequency shorter wavelength to maintain the amount of energy it has. This is mandated by thermodynamics.
If light speeds up, it shifts to a longer wavelength. The energy in the velocity as light has momentum has to come from somewhere or go to somewhere. That somewhere is in the electromagnetic field of the photon. We don't see any of that. Black holes would behave VERY differently. When slowed or accelerated, the lines added would be shifted. Light magically doubles in speed away from any mass. We detect light from a distant galaxy cluster carrying the absorption line at We detect the hydrogen line shifted far into UV, yet the rest of the spectrum is redshifted from the galaxy cluster.
To date older objects, you need to use different radioisotopes. For dating stuff that's millions of years old, you use K and Ar. As Hat and the others have explained far better than I ever could, decay rates can't have changed appreciably over the history of the universe, otherwise the very nature of matter would have changed in that time, which would be noticeable as we look farther out.
- pakistani lounge dating site.
- whats the best free uk dating website.
- Carbon dating, rate of decay, how far can we go?.
- dating cufflinks.
Electron capture can affect the decay rates of certain isotopes appreciably IINM, but that's not a change in the "constant" behind radioactive decay. They've just announced a big improvement in the precision of argon-argon dating. A physicist acquaintance corrected me on this about 35 years ago, as will be evident shortly , saying it's true for Special Relativity, but not GR. The two principles of GR are equivalence and relativity. Relativity is that the laws of physics are immutable over space and time. Archaeology was one of the first, and remains the major, disciplines to use radiocarbon dating and this is why many enter into the lab through combining chemistry and archaeological studies.
How Does Radiocarbon Dating Work? | f.e-safety.com.ua
It has a greater impact on our understanding of the human past than in any other field. Radiocarbon dating is profoundly useful in archaeology, especially since the dawn of the even more accurate AMS method when more accurate dates could be obtained for smaller sample sizes. One good example is a critical piece of research into the diet of the fragile Viking colonies of Greenland 13 for example; the study examined not just the 14 C dates of the people in the graves, but was also in examining their diet through examining the carbon isotopes themselves.
The study concluded dates that were already suspected but not confirmed: There has been much debate about the age of The Shroud of Turin. It has become an important relic for many Catholics. The debate raged on for the decades after its discovery. Experts pointed to its medieval design, depiction of Christ and several other key factors marking it as in the region of years old. It wasn't until , and several subsequent tests since then, that this was confirmed 14 ; it is now the best-known example of the success of the AMS method as countless tests have been carried out and confirmed the dates.
A significant portion of the Shroud would have been destroyed using the older method. The paper for the study is available online Each subsequent test has come back with dates of the mid 14 th century.
Landscape Archaeology is a bridge between archaeology and environmental sciences though many consider it an environmental science in its own right. It is the study of how people in the past exploited and changed the environment around them. Typically, this will involve examining spores and pollen to examine when land was cleared of scrub and trees in the Neolithic Revolution to make way for crops.
It also makes use of phytoliths, entomological remains, GIS digital mapping , soil sampling, bone analyses, ground penetrating radar, and map studies and other documentary data. It has been fundamental, especially in Europe, to demonstrating how landscapes are relics and monuments in themselves and are worthy of study as such. Returning to the example of the Vikings in Greenland above, the extended study and dating of the faunal remains shows distinct changes that were made by the Vikings. The studies show the approximate date of arrival of European livestock and crops 13 and when these finally disappeared from the record Studies such as this are fundamental to determining not just how the environment has changed thanks to human manipulation, but also to natural changes due to fluctuations in the environment and climate.