Investigation of the Gravitational Potential Dependence of the Fine-Structure Constant Using Atomic Dysprosium

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...708.0569v2.pdf

S.J. Ferrell, A. Cing¨oz, A. Lapierre, A.-T. Nguyen, N. Leefer, D. Budker,
V.V. Flambaum, S.K. Lamoreaux, and J.R. Torgerson

For those of us expecting broader effects from gravity from those predicted by Newton and Einstein, this work is very important. What the investigators are looking for is a correlation between the energy potential of atomic states, and the distance of the sun from the earth. If the equivalence principle is incorrect, this energy potential may be a function of the distance of the Earth from the sun.

What does this mean? Almost nothing at the moment...but not quite. First, it limits the amount of possible variation in the fine structure constant as a function of gravity. Second, if you look at the actual graphs in the paper, the energy levels appears to rise and fall with the variation in the distance of the Earth from the Sun. That's right: The fine structure variation observed is consistent with a discrepancy from the equivalence principle that is of the same magnitude as the limits of the lunar laser ranging experiments. According to the Authors:

Why does this mean almost nothing? All of the data points fall within 1 sigma of expected values: The variations may be entirely random, coincidental. However as this and duplicate experiments progress, if a 'sine wave' pattern emerges that is a function of the Earth's elliptical path about the sun, this will be revolutionary.

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time fine structure constants have been measured to this accuracy; and the first attempt to study fine structure frequency with respect to the orbital distance of the Earth from the Sun. It would behoove the Gravity-B probe investigators to look at the dampening of the Polhode moments with respect to the Earth's position relative to the sun during the duration of experiment, as these researchers have.

This paper should raise some eyebrows, and for those of us who are convinced that the surface of Titan is sandy, (that is, truly terrestrial in defiance of Newtonian constraints), this is and exciting new development.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Cool, Jerry! I'm printing it now and will spend some time on it. If there really is a fine structure 'variability' with distance from our home star, Sun, then it may have an effect on the Equivalence Principle, whereby different gravitational G means different other things, like electromagnetic potentials in atoms, or inertial mass. Could this be what the Pioneers are telling us as they travel out of the solar system, by extrapolation, so that farther out they have higher 'fine structure' related factors and higher inertial mass? Or are those anomalous Polhodes in the GP-B, as the probe cycles distance from the Sun while in Earth's orbit, from a real cause? Interesting, but must read this new paper, since we had not seen anything like it before. It's dated 3 August, 2007, so assume this is all new stuff. Back later.

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

What excites me most, is that researchers are actively looking for equivalance principle violations in the earth's elliptic.

If you look at what we have proposed: The absolute pathlength about the sun is a function of the distance from the sun, this would not necessarily lead to a difference in the energy potential between an electron and a proton...but it could. We already know these differences would have to be very small (or many of the physical processes we observe at greater distances would be radically altered).

The best current test of the equivalance principle in the solar system is yet another mission to Mars. This time, the probe is instrumented in a way that should reveal discrepancies during the entry and descent that are even more difficult to address than they were on prior Mars missions.

Yes, I know I said the same thing the Titan landing of Huygens, but since half the data was lost, and the investigators have thrown-out the data from the radial accelerometers, the altimeters and the VLA triangulation, about the only remaining evidence worth harping about is the Titan sand.

Edited to add: Yes, this is new information; and IMO warrents reopening the broader topical discussion.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Jerry, if they find such discrepancy within the shallow eccentricity of Earth's orbit around the Sun, they should find it more pronounced if tested at Mars, which would be eye-opening indeed. The fine structure relationship they uncovered thus far is still within parameters of error, but they expect their next set of experiments to be three orders of magnitude better, which would nail it. However, the above referenced paper is still to inconclusive to be useful in calling for a gravitational relationship to atomic energy and fine structure constant, though they obviously are looking into this. Remember our talks on Titan's atmosphere, how could it be such a thick soup ten times taller than Earth's atmosphere, givent the moon's gravitational mass is so much smaller than ours? This is one more small step towards resolution of why Titan is the higher mass body it appears to be, if the fine structure constant is related to gravitational variability. The paper carefully avoids making that relationship, at this time, given the still inconclusive nature of results, but that may be forthcoming in their future study. At that time, I'd expect an exposition of how the gravitational effect is caused by linkage to the atomic energy and fine structure measurements. And then, next step, is how does this fit into Titan's weird sandy surface and big atmosphere, and ultimately bring in the 'new physics' for the Pioneer Anomaly explanation. That's why this is potentially so 'cool'!

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

Why does the index say that this thread was updated yesterday, but the thread itself says the last post was in March 2005? Weird!

Are you aware of the various articles in Apeiron journal by Mario Nanni who repeatedly finds variations in relative weight of different chemicals with altitude? This difference must surely also manifest in some way in "constants".

No. If you could provide a specific reference, it would be appreciated. I haven't looked closely at gravity/altitude quirks simply because the gravitational anomalies near the surface and/or tidal effects dwarf the the expected magnitudes, given current constraints.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Mar...dshift.vif.com
This brings up four papers. He did it alone for years and finally another guy took pity on him and helped in a replication. Although he has been substantially ignored, he seems to have been very thorough and I think he is on to something.

Incidentally this would explain the missing neutrinos (yes I know they are explained, but I mean in a sensible way)

Fine structure alfa=e^2 / h c epsilon
e=charge, h=Planck const. c=speed of light, epsilon=permittivity of vacuum.

Speed of light c=(epsilon u)^-1/2 where u=permeability of vacuum

There is a different vacuum density close to Sun and close to Earth because a gravitational field. That way there is a different permittivity and permeability of the Vacuum.

In the equation alfa=e^2 / h c epsilon the effect has cancel if permittivity is proportional to permeability. If it isn't the case a difference may occur.

Mario's nonquantitative assessment of other variables invalidates any conclusions drawn from his study. Specifically, the number of grains of moisture on the sample (surface adsorption) will vary with chemical composition, humidity, fine grain structure (annealing), porosity and temperature.

Accuracy is also tempered by limitations in the determination of the bulk density of the items weighed: There are major differences in bouyancy at elevation and sea level. And don't expect weighing in a vacuum to necessarily improve the accuracy: out-gassing from micropores can take days or weeks to reach equilibrum.

Some of the materials will also oxidize over time while others will not.

The amount of care that must be taken when looking for microgram changes is mind boggling: you cannot touch the samples with oily skin, or scrape them with a pair of tongs. There are variations with altitude and location in terms of static charges and magnetic fields, which might effect paramagnetic aluminum, but not lead.

I would be more surprised (and suspicious) of very close agreement between the weighings of different materials in different locations than the level of deviations measured here.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Dear Jerry,

This is an interesting paper.

For a while an annual variation of G was looked for, to support a theory that earths G varied according
to G(effective) = c^2/(c^2/G +m/r) , where m is the mass of the sun, and r the distance to the sun. www.gravity.uk.com

In that case changes in the moon orbit, by Lunar Laser Ranging, were the best hope of finding such an annual variation in G.....it was found, and of the magnitude expected, but General Relativity boffins claimed it due to a known time dilation effect.

From this experience, two recommendations.

i) bear in mind time dilation effects, which might alter the measurements somehow.

ii) consider, also, a variation in Plancks constant with distance to the sun. It may be that it depends on the proximity of other matter, like it is conjectured that G does. Some (rather wild!) speculation on this kind of thing at Electric force caused by gravity especially posts 5 and 8. But if h does depend on distance to the sun, that might account for the measured variation of alpha.

All the best,

John Hunter.

He went to quite a lot of trouble to make spheres with different sized holes inside to give the same mass and volume for different substances so that there was no issue of bouyancy. I believe that he also checked for the other matters that you raise. His results are too consistent to be due to random weather related effects.