New Limits on Constancy

There's a press release on EurekAlert about new measurements limiting the change in the fine structure constant from the Time and Frequency division of NIST in Boulder:

Some astronomical and geological studies suggest there might have been very small changes in the values of fundamental constants over billions of years, although the results have been inconsistent and controversial. If fundamental constants are changing, the present-day rates of change are too small to be measured using conventional methods. However, a new comparison of NIST's cesium fountain and mercury ion clocks, scheduled to appear in this week's issue of Physical Review Letters,* has narrowed the range in which one of them--the "fine-structure constant"-- possibly could be changing by a factor of 20. Widely used in physical theory and experiments, the fine-structure constant, represents the strength of the interaction between electrons and photons.

Astronomers and geologists have attempted to detect changes in natural constants by examining phenomena dating back billions of years. The NIST experiments attained the same level of precision by comparing the relative drifts in the "ticks" of an experimental mercury ion clock, which operates at optical frequencies, and NIST-F1, the national standard cesium clock, which operates at lower microwave frequencies. These data can be plugged into equations to obtain upper limits for possible rates of change of the fine structure constant in recent times.

Unfortunately this week's PRL hasn't gone live yet, and the paper wasn't posted to the Arxiv, so I can't look at the actual numbers, and won't have a chance to see them before leaving for the weekend. It's one of those technical tour de force experiments, though-- the things that group does with their mercury ion frequency standard are just amazing. And, of course, I'm a huge fan of laboratory tests of new physics, so there's no way I can let this go by without a comment, even if I can't say much.

If you want to know more about the fine structure constant, I talked about dimensionless constants a while back, and followed that up with a post on possible changes in the constant.

More like this

I'm not hugely enthusiastic about the ResearchBlogging.org project, but it's a little ridiculous that they've been active for weeks now, and there still isn't a single post in the "Physics" category. If they're going to offer the category link, something ought to come up when you click it, so let's…
Via Jennifer Ouellette on Twitter, I ran across a Discovery News story touting a recent arxiv preprint claiming to see variation in the fine-structure constant. It's a basically OK story, but garbles a few details, so I thought it would be worth giving it the ResearchBlogging treatment, in the now-…
In the previous post, I said that the fine structure constant alpha provides us with a way to measure whether the fundamental constants making it up (the electron charge, Planck's constant, and the speed of light) have changed in the last few billion years. How, exactly, does that work? The easiest…
OK, it's a paper I mentioned here before, when it went up on the arxiv, but the "Comments on Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics" article I wrote this summer is up on the Physica Scripta web site now, and for the next not-quite-thirty days it's free to read and download: Searching for new…

Fixed alpha constrains varying-c theories in that h would have to increase inversely proportional to c. Since (alpha) = (ke^2)/hc and k = 1/(4 \pi \epsilon_0), fixed alpha constrains permittivity \epsilon_0 to be constant. Therefore if c changes permeability \mu_0 is likely to change. If c ~ t^(-1/3), then \mu_0 ~ t^(2/3) and the scale of magnetic fields expands. Fascinating to think about!