Time variation of fundamental constants Puns

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.5321.pdf

I known it's bit off topic, but I think you guys might like it.

I've heard this mentioned multiple times, and I've heard that experiments have put upper bounds on how much any change could have occurred, but what is this? If these numbers change with time, can they be called constant? Furthermore, if we were to find some evidence that some fundamental constant DO vary with time, would we be able to predict how they vary? What implications with this have on our current understanding of the fundamental forces and how they relate to one another?

Like, can we at least in theory tweak some of these constants in a way that at least a Universe like that could theoretically exist (at least in some sort of model where the math works out)? Are the constants and formula fundamental to some "meta-reality", or are they emergent from certain properties this Universe has/had? Or I guess how abstractly can a "meta-reality" be, onto which other "universes/realities" can be projected onto?

I’m Emily Conover, a journalist at Science News magazine. I have a PhD in physics from the University of Chicago and have been reporting on scientific research for four years. The mass of a kilogram is determined by a special hunk of metal, kept under lock and key in France. Today, scientists officially agreed to do away with that standard. Instead, beginning on May 20, 2019, a kilogram will be defined by a fundamental constant known as Planck’s constant. Three other units will also change at the same time: the kelvin (the unit of temperature), ampere (unit of electric current), and mole (unit for the amount of substance). I’ve been covering this topic since 2016, when I wrote a feature article on the upcoming change. What does this new system of measurement mean for science and for the way we make measurements? I'll be answering your questions from 11 a.m. Eastern to noon Eastern. AMA!

(For context, here's my 2016 feature: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/units-measure-are-getting-fundamental-upgrade

And here's the news from today https://www.sciencenews.org/article/official-redefining-kilogram-units-measurement)

PROOF: https://twitter.com/emcconover/status/1063453028827705345

Edit: Okay I'm signing off now. Thanks for all your questions!

Photo of Jupiter by NASA's Juno spacecraft.

One of the neatest things about physics is that it shows how many facets of our complex world are not simply random facts of life, but can rather be understood using simple back-of-the-envelope calculations. So here's one intriguing question to ponder:

Q. Jupiter (pictured above), the largest planet in the Solar system, has a radius of ~ 0.7 x 10^(5) kilometers (~ 11 times the radius of the Earth). We have discovered thousands of exoplanets by now, and the largest ones among them still falls within a factor of ~ 2 or 3 of Jupiter's size. This suggests that there should be some physical reason why the largest planets in the Universe have sizes of order ~ 10^5 kilometers. Why?

I'll make clear the system of units I will be using, and constants that will pop up often:

Unit system: Natural units wherein ħ = c = 1, so that we can ignore many factors where those constants would otherwise pop up.

Useful constants and definitions (Correction: the proton mass should be 940 MeV = 0.94 GeV instead of 940 GeV):

https://preview.redd.it/aslrom0d0ba11.png?width=480&format=png&auto=webp&s=f835f6e0855c803aaea76ae621531d11698f4848

https://preview.redd.it/291lncqj0ba11.png?width=416&format=png&auto=webp&s=9bfb66a01044bf43ec9a02a68750f4ac02512e71

https://preview.redd.it/la6dgqyn0ba11.png?width=332&format=png&auto=webp&s=228bbbdfc7152b60142d3b3cca06f610feefeccf

https://preview.redd.it/c0avuzxt0ba11.png?width=223&format=png&auto=webp&s=a4d990c586a644f18b08deeb3889cf878b3f5272

https://preview.redd.it/n57a6sw91ba11.png?width=473&format=png&auto=webp&s=e7497fab9559b64752594fa4b7f64d2b3ffc0b1e

https://preview.redd.it/er9qr6se1ba11.png?width=308&format=png&auto=webp&s=1c0bf514234b6d91eb8d1e5ca750a6aabe5ce7e9

Now let's move on with the calculation itself. Here's one way to attack the problem. Consider first a hypothetical low-mass variant of Jupiter — a "gas dwarf" (in terms of mass) if you like. Let the mass of the planet be M, its radius R, and its mean density be ρ. What is the pressure near the center of our gas dwarf? I'm only interested in quick calculations here (imagine that we are truly working on the back of a little envelope!), so we don't need to solve the hydrostatic equilibrium equation in detail.

Clearly a kind of independence is necessary, for one thing: if a constant can be expressed as elementary function of, or even of really quite compound function of, or as convergent series in terms of, other constants, then we tend not to regard it as fundamental. I do not recall, for instance ever seeing an expression for e or π or γ in terms of any of the others; and these three are probably for all practical purposes the chief three fundamental constants. But then there is Catalan's constant: the alternating sum of the squared odd reciprocals. The non-alternating sum of the squares of the reciprocals is π^(2)/6; the non-alternating sum of the squares of the odd reciprocals is π^(2)/8; & the alternating sum of the squares of the reciprocals is π^(2)/12 ... but the alternating sum of the squared odd reciprocals is a constant that seems to partake deeply of this property of independence , whatever precisely this independence is. It's certainly something: I don't think it can be reasonably argued the first three mentioned lack it. And the fourth-mentioned - Catalan's - it's rather curiferous that that one corner of the alternating/direct//all/odd-only 'square' yields a constant that is 'independant' whereas as the other three yield sums that are scalings of the square of a constant (π) that is thoroughly ubiquitous in other matters & not generally held to be atall defined by any of these sums. But do we regard ln2 as a fundamental constant? ... that is the sum of the alternating (not squared) reciprocals (whereas π/4 is the sum of the alternating odd reciprocals ... and the non-alternating sums both diverge); but it tends not to be regarded as one, probably (and justifièdly, to my mind) because it is too readily a straightforward issue of the inverse of the function associated with one of the 'great three' (ie e) acting upon a simple integer. But then π/4 is also a the issue of a simple function acting on an integer (ie arctan acting on 1 - which is indeed the provenance of the justmentioned alternating sum of odd reciprocals), but it doesn't seem that π is any less fundamental a constant by reason of this, as the very provenance of arctan & π are so very-much 'of-piece' with each other, whereas ln2 has a certain subordination to e. I would actually love to have ln2 a fundamental constant ... but I cannot feel quite steady in decla

I'm stuck trying to solve a differential equation using the variation of constants method.
The problem:
x^(2)y' + 2xy = ln(x)
y(1) = 2.
After solving the homogenous equation and plugging it back into the non-homogenous equation, I get to:
-2A'(x) * 1/A^(3)(x) = ln(x), (where A is the constant I vary).
Usually, it should be relatively easy to solve at this point, but the A^(3)(x) is getting in the way.
How do I proceed from here?

Hi! I’m here to get some opinions on something and I genuinely don’t mean to start any arguments. It’s something I want to gain more prospective on.

Everyone knows LGBT (or LGBT+) to be the most used/known acronym. Among the variations it comes in is GLBT. I especially see it used in content & situations that are specifically targeted or relevant to gay men. This is fine. However, I’m friends with this one gay guy who exclusively uses the term GLBT in text/conversation about anything relevant to LGBT things. For him, it’s GLBT rights, GLBT flag, GLBT art, etc..

I find myself getting very frustrated when I hear this because it feels like he is giving more importance to the G in LGBT, than anyone else (and my friend could be viewed as a stereotypical white cis gay man). GLBT also doesn’t roll off the tongue as easily as LGBT does, so it feels like he is actively trying to reinforce the presence of the G in there.

I totally understand the use of the GLBT acronym, because I (as someone who organizes Queer content for a platform) use it to label things like a certain even that is predominantly catering to gay men as such. And I understand that maybe my friend may just like to use this variation because he is a gay man and therefore feels closer to it than LGBT. But I also feel like by constantly using this order of letters, it is enforcing some variation of erasure? Or relevant hierarchy?

What I’m trying to figure out is whether this is something that a lot of people do? And if yes, does anyone else use other variations that start off with their letter of their acronym? (If it matters, I am a bi woman.) I haven’t seen it being used, and to me, right now, it doesn’t feel entirely just. So I’m reaching out to the internet to gain some more perspective on the importance of language usage in terms of acronyms.

TL;DR: Gay friend exclusively uses GLBT when talking about anything LGBT related. Is the constant use of the GLBT acronym linguistically just, or is it some variation of erasure...

The dials would respectively control the speed of light 'c', the gravitational constant 'G', Planck's constant 'h', the fundamental charge 'e', and the coupling constants for the weak and strong interactions within the room.

After reading the article for SCP-536, I was curious if the results of the testing logs are plausible. http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-536

I cant imagine any instrument being precise enough to measure stuff like 1.67 x 10^-24 or 6.67 x 10^-11

Propel always tell me alpha is the most likely constant to be variable, but what would actually happen were it to jump to 138 or drop to 136? How big of a change in the number would one need to actually change anything and what exactly would change?

Edit:- I mean on a macro scale, like in our day to day lives.

I am doing a modeling assignment for a systems biology course. The assignment is to create a model of different forms of gene regulation and see how they react to the introduction of noise into their systems. I have managed this, but there is a further requirement that we must plot the coefficient of variation of that model in relation to constants within the model.

Here is my current work:

ß = 1;
α = .1;
n = 1;
k = .1;
sol1 = NDSolve[{X'[t] == ß (k^n/(k^n + X[t])) - α*X[t], X[0] == 0}, X[t], {t, 0, 100}]
Plot[X[t] /. sol1, {t, 0, 100}, PlotRange -> {{0, 100}, {0, 1.1}}]
Plot[PDF[NormalDistribution[1, 0.1], x], {x, 0, 2}, 
PlotRange -> {{0, 2}, {0, 5}}]
noise = RandomVariate[NormalDistribution[1, 0.1], 201]
Xnnar = Table[
NDSolve[{X'[t] == (ß + noise[[i]]) (k^n/(k^n + X[t])) - α*X[t], X[0] == 0}, X[t], {t, 0, 100}], {i, 1, 100}];
plots =
Table[Plot[X[t] /. Xnnar[[i]], {t, 0, 100}, PlotRange -> {{0, 100}, {0, 2}}], {i, 1, 100}];
Show[plots]

If I posted this code correctly it should run like this for the final operation.

I need to plot the coefficient of variation of the distribution represented by 'sol1' in three plots: one that compares the Coeff. of Var. to k (from Sol1), one in relation to beta, and one in relation to n.

I barely have any idea what I'm doing, and from what I can tell the Coefficient of Variation is an output you get from doing a regression analysis of some sort? I'm not sure. Does anyone have an idea of what I should be doing?

Thanks to anyone willing to help.

Edit: So I'm making more sense of what the coefficient of variation is--namely, the ratio of the standard deviation of a distribution to it's mean. Still, I'm not sure how one extracts the statistics from a stochastic model like the one I've made using Mathematica.

EDIT: Figured out a solution:

Xnnar2 = Table[
NDSolve[{X'[t] == (ß + noise[[i]]) (k^n/(k^n + X[t])) - α*X[t], X[0] == 0}, X[t], {t, 0, 100}], {i, 1, 100}, {ß,1, 100}];
BetaTable = Table[X[t] /. Xnnar2[[i]] /. t -> 100, {i, 1, 100}];
MatrixForm[%];
BetaPlot = StandardDeviation[BetaTable]/Mean[BetaTable];
MatrixForm[%];
ListPlot[Transpose[BetaPlot]]

So it turned out that what I needed to do was make a function that would produce a distribution of 100 stochastically generated values of my model when t=100 in a 1X100 matrix, than make each of those a row in another matrix and then plot the

Rubert Sheldrake - TED Talk

I just watched this again today. If you have not seen this, it is a not-to-be-missed 18 minute video, in my humble opinion.

Pay special attention to morphic resonance, from 8:00 to 10:00.

If, as he says, even the laws of nature are not constant, the fact that airplane engines have moved to a different place on the wing is explicable. And the fact that insects have changed overnight is completely explicable without genetic evolution: crickets now chirping with their wings instead of their legs comes to mind....

(If you don't experience these two effects, try to apply this principle to one of your own effects).

In second (and higher) order differential equations there are 2 methods named variation of constants, and undetermined coefficients to solve those differential equations. My question: when do you use each method?

Heyas

so nuclei masses are mostly 2 times the proton number this is the most stable configuration. please disregard isotopes for now.

when we ionise these nuclei for mass spectrometry they have a positive charge equal to the proton number.

that makes most the ions have a constant mass to charge ratio of 2!

What do you all do when you're trying your best, but it just doesn't feel like it is enough? Especially if all you can hear is that voice in your head that keeps thinking about how amazing other peoples grades and ECs must be, how put together everyone else's life is, and it feels like not everyone is struggling this much?

No matter how much I feel like my gpa is decent, how much I enjoy my EC's, there's just always a nagging feeling in my head telling me its not enough that someone else out there is probably much much better who med schools would want over me. I know these are irrational thoughts but I cant seem to get them out of my head.

Maybe I'm just in my feels before my first Orgo 1 midterm, or after reading 150 pages for my genetics midterm, doing all the assigned practice questions (twice over), and yet still getting only a 70% LOL...

How do you guys stay sane, persevere, and deal with these kind of thoughts?

Hello, as the title suggests: Is the speed of light being an invariant a result from the fact that it is derived from fundamental constants (more specifically, from the SR axiom that laws of physics(and thus constants too, I suppose) are the same in all reference frames) or is there some deeper reason behind it?