TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The first nuclear clock will test if fundamental constants change

288 点作者 beefman9 个月前

17 条评论

mikewarot9 个月前
Let&#x27;s assume they manage to make a nuclear clock out of this, with an Allan drift that&#x27;s low enough to be useful. Once that&#x27;s done, it&#x27;ll take years of observation to measure any meaningful differences and gather enough data to notice something.<p>Meanwhile, moving the height of anything a centimeter, the position of the moon, and a whole other host of noise sources have to be canceled out.<p>I have no doubt this will be done... and it will be awe inspiring to hear it all told after the fact.<p>While you&#x27;re waiting... I found this really cool meeting documented on YouTube[1] that has the clearest explanation of how Chip Scale Atomic clocks work I&#x27;ve ever seen.<p>I look forward to Chip Scale Optical Lattice clocks<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=wHYvS7MtBok" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=wHYvS7MtBok</a>
评论 #41455157 未加载
评论 #41453291 未加载
elihu9 个月前
&gt; Lots of nuclei have similar spin transitions, but only in thorium-229 is this cancellation so nearly perfect. &gt; &gt; “It’s accidental,” said Victor Flambaum(opens a new tab), a theoretical physicist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. “A priori, there is no special reason for thorium. It’s just experimental fact.” But this accident of forces and energy has big consequences.<p>...<p>&gt; Physicists have developed equations to characterize the forces that bind the universe, and these equations are fitted with some 26 numbers called fundamental constants. These numbers, such as the speed of light or the gravitational constant, define how everything works in our universe. But lots of physicists think the numbers might not actually be constant.<p>Putting these things together, if the physical constants do change over time, then perhaps there really isn&#x27;t anything special about thorium-229, it&#x27;s just that it&#x27;s the one where the electrical repulsion and strong nuclear forces balance out right now. In a billion years maybe it would be some other element. Maybe we&#x27;re just lucky to be alive at a time when one of the isotopes of an existing element just happens to line up like this.<p>Perhaps too there&#x27;s an optimal alignment that will happen or has already happened when those forces exactly balance out, and maybe that would be an ideal time (or place, if these constants vary by location) to make precise measurements in the changes to these constants, much like a solar eclipse was an ideal opportunity for verifying that light is bent by gravity.
评论 #41452402 未加载
评论 #41452527 未加载
评论 #41452393 未加载
thomassmith659 个月前
<p><pre><code> These numbers, such as the speed of light or the gravitational constant, define how everything works in our universe. But lots of physicists think the numbers might not actually be constant. </code></pre> In my ignorant, non-physicist head, gravity always struck me as a force that would make sense as variable.<p>Maybe that would explain all the missing &#x27;dark matter&#x27;, or even provide an alternate explanation as to why so many species on our planet were larger millions of years ago (assuming an explanation for these two phenomena isn&#x27;t self-contradictory, which, given my lack of physics background, it might well be!)
nyc1119 个月前
The article mentions 26 constants but it seems there is more than that <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;List_of_physical_constants" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;List_of_physical_constants</a><p>And I think if the constant is a ratio, like the fine structure constant, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Fine-structure_constant" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Fine-structure_constant</a> no change can be detected, even if there were a change because the ratio will stay the same. Likewise a constant like pi will stay the same because it is a ratio.
评论 #41457354 未加载
FollowingTheDao9 个月前
This always seems like a logical error to me and perhaps someone can explain:<p>To measure a constant, you need something constant, but you do not know if something is constant if you do not have something constant to measure it against. (False premise?)<p>I believe we can only assume things are constant, but they only appear constant.<p>I you read the work of the physicist Julian Barbour regarding time I think you will be in for some remarkable insights. &quot;Time arises out of change&quot;.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=GoTeGW2csPk" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=GoTeGW2csPk</a>
评论 #41457541 未加载
评论 #41455873 未加载
1970-01-019 个月前
Matter in other galaxies would behave differently from matter in the Milky Way if fundamental constants are not always true. I argue about this sometimes. Others keep stating that the wavelengths are equal, so everything else must be.
评论 #41449484 未加载
评论 #41450471 未加载
评论 #41449924 未加载
评论 #41449527 未加载
评论 #41452548 未加载
评论 #41450098 未加载
qsdf381009 个月前
If fundamental constants could change, this would violate energy conservation, and the second law of thermodynamics. Someone once said, if your pet theory violates the second law, there is no hope. Or am I missing something?
评论 #41451925 未加载
评论 #41455519 未加载
评论 #41457610 未加载
评论 #41454747 未加载
User239 个月前
It’s still something of an open question whether or not G is actually constant.<p>Not only that, but the results differ depending on whether atomic or dynamical time is used! In the latter case no change is measured using lunar reflectors.
评论 #41454720 未加载
MoSattler9 个月前
Possibly a dumb question: How do you determine the accuracy of the most precise clock? You don’t have anything more accurate to measure it against, right?
heisenzombie9 个月前
I think you might mean the one _electron_ conjecture. It’s fun because you have anti-electrons whose Feynman diagrams look like electrons going backwards in time. So you could conceivably be observing the tangled world line of a single electron bouncing back and forward in time — sometimes observing it as an antielectron.<p>Doesn’t work with photons because there’s not an anti-photon.<p>Anyway it’s sort of a fun “woah!” moment that Feynman was so good at producing, but I don’t think it’s taken particularly seriously as a theory.
评论 #41456705 未加载
评论 #41455739 未加载
BurningFrog9 个月前
If the laws of physics can drift over time, might that explain the Big Bang?
评论 #41451196 未加载
klasko9 个月前
Maybe Boards of Canada was right, and constants are changing.
lo_fye9 个月前
Seems like a case of premature naming to me! If we have to test whether or not they change, they shouldn&#x27;t already be called &quot;constants&quot;.
评论 #41456256 未加载
chadrustdevelo9 个月前
If it does change, for what ever reason, like, what does it actually mean?<p>Someone big brain explain to me why this is a big deal.
评论 #41453385 未加载
jnewbert9 个月前
this is mind blowing to see
Bluestein9 个月前
&quot;When you absolutely, totally, <i>fundamentally</i>, have to, fundamentally be sure&quot; :)
mseepgood9 个月前
They probably do change, but extremely slowly. It would feel strange if there were something fixed in the universe.
评论 #41449437 未加载
评论 #41449158 未加载
评论 #41451244 未加载
评论 #41449299 未加载
评论 #41449142 未加载
评论 #41449154 未加载
评论 #41449809 未加载