Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site talcott.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!vecpyr!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!tmb From: tmb@talcott.UUCP (Thomas M. Breuel) Newsgroups: net.physics Subject: Re: Questions about fundamental constants, gravity, electrons Message-ID: <491@talcott.UUCP> Date: Sat, 17-Aug-85 18:12:09 EDT Article-I.D.: talcott.491 Posted: Sat Aug 17 18:12:09 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 07:33:56 EDT References: <495@sri-arpa.ARPA> Organization: Harvard University Lines: 70 In article <495@sri-arpa.ARPA>, pduff%ti-eg.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa writes: > From time to time I hear or read about speculations that the values of > the fundamental constants *could* be different now than they were 10**n > years ago (given a suitably large value of n, as long as it is after the > big bang plus one minute). Is this complete idiocy, or do some physicists > take the possibility seriously? Yes, some physicists do. Several 'fundamental constants' may be tied to the size of the universe as a whole, most notably the gravitational constant. > What about speculations that the values of the fundamental constants > *could* be different in another part of the universe? There seem to be It is possible that certain fundamental constants are tied to quantities like space curvature or (to name something far-fetched) neutrino density in some not yet understood manner. Of course, the term 'fundamental constant' would be a rather dubious description of those quantities if either spatial or temporal variation occurred, and a theory describin their behaviour would probably suggest suitable re-placement constants. > Accepting for the moment that the value of one of the fundamental > constants (pick one!) could be changed, would it vary independently of the > others or would some of the other constants change too? What are the Who knows. Since we don't know where fundamental constants come from, since there is no theory predicting them, there is no way of answering that question (and indeed the question is wrong if fundamental constants are really constants). I am sure, though, that if you ask ten different professors of physics they will give you ten different answers about possible relationships among fundamental constants. > Has anyone heard more concerning the formulation of gravity as a push > from infinity (analogous to the pressure inside a balloon) which is > attenuated by mass instead of its more common formulation as a pull between > masses? Last I heard there wasn't a way to distinguish between the two If there is no way of distinguishing between the two theories, then they are really one and the same theory. What the effect of adding or removing mass from the universe is on the gravitational constant in either theory is open to speculation (and definitely not open to experiment). > I've heard that there may only be one electron in the whole universe, > which explains why all of the electrons we observe have exactly the same > charge and mass. Does anyone understand how one gets the observed universe > which appears to have *lots* of electrons from just one particle? What That is only a question of definition. Except for spin, all electrons seem to be identical. Therefore, if you detect an interaction with an electron at some point in space, you cannot tell which electron it is. Therefore, you might as well take all the 'electron clouds' in the universe together, and call the resulting probability distribution of interaction with an electron 'the' electron. For practical (or rather theoretical) purposes this makes absolutely no difference, since when you work out the behaviour of a system, you assume it to be in complete isolation anyhow, i.e. you take into consideration only those parts of the system that are really necessary to give you a reasonable answer. > Or is the one-electron theory full of holes > (sorry about that--I couldn't resist!)? It is not a theory, it is merely a matter of definition. It seems to be just the kind of thing that many people like to quibble about fruitlessly for long times, without, of course, coming to a solution. It falls into the same category as the multiple worlds interpretation of QM. Thomas.