Constraining Coupling Constants’ Variation with Supernovae, Quasars, and GRBs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dirac, in 1937, proposed the potential variation of coupling constants derived from his large numbers hypothesis. Efforts have continued since then to constrain their variation by various methods, including astrophysical and cosmological observations. We briefly discuss several methods used for the purpose while focusing primarily on the use of supernovae type 1a, quasars, and gamma-ray bursts as cosmological probes for determining cosmological distances. Supernovae type Ia (SNeIa) are considered the best standard candles since their intrinsic luminosity can be determined precisely from their light curves. However, they have only been observed up to about redshift z=2.3, mostly at z≤1.5. Quasars are the brightest non-transient cosmic sources in the Universe. They have been observed up to z=7.5. Certain types of quasars can be calibrated well enough for their use as standard candles but with a higher degree of uncertainty in their intrinsic luminosity than SNeIa. Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are even brighter than quasars, and they have been observed up to z=9.4. They are sources of highly transient radiation lasting from tens of milliseconds to several minutes and, in rare cases, a few hours. However, they are even more challenging to calibrate as standard candles than quasars. Both quasars and GRBs use SNeIa for distance calibration. What if the standard candles’ intrinsic luminosities are affected when the coupling constants become dynamic and depend on measured distances? Assuming it to be constant at all cosmic distances leads to the wrong constraint on the data-fitted model parameters. This paper uses our earlier finding that the speed of light c, the gravitational constant G, the Planck constant h, and the Boltzmann constant k vary in such a way that their variation is interrelated as G~c3~h3~k3/2 with G˙/G=3c˙/c=3h˙/h=1.5k˙/k =3.90±0.04×10−10 yr−1 and corroborates it with SNeIa, quasars, and GRBs observational data. Additionally, we show that this covarying coupling constant model may be better than the standard ΛCDM model for using quasars and GRBs as standard candles and predict that the mass of the GRBs scales with z as 1+z1/3−1. Noether’s symmetry on the coupling constants is now transferred effectively to the constant in the function relating to their variation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".