I would argue that Galileo was the most famous figure of the 16th Century, Newton of the 17th, Darwin of the 19th and Einstein of the 20th.

Building on the work of Galileo and others Newton formulated what appeared to be universal laws of nature. Newton’s various laws were backed up by a mountain of observations. Every moving object from the planet Mars to a cannonball seemed to follow a trajectory dictated by the laws of Newtonian dynamics.

However by the end of the 19th Century new discoveries (Eg slight anomalies in the orbit of Mercury) suggested that Newton was not the last word. In the early 20th Century scientists learned that when looking at the very large and fast moving you need a combination of special relativity (SR) and general relativity (GR). When looking at the very small you need quantum mechanics (QM) and SR.

A mountain of observational evidence supported all three. However there is a problem. GR is not compatible with QM. It is assumed that QM is more fundamental and eventually a quantised theory of gravity will emerge.

In the 1950s John Wheeler, one of the century’s pre-eminent physicists, wondered whether these laws were universal or merely local bye laws. However, SR, GR and QM passed every observational test.

Or they did until they didn’t.

Enter John Webb of UNSW:

http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/laws-of-physics-vary/

The link is a summary of the lead article in New Scientist of 23 October 2010. Two basic assumptions of physics are:

--The constants of nature really are constant throughout time and space.

--There is no preferred direction in space.

Dr. Webb’s observations suggest that neither assumption is true. What physicists call the “fine structure constant” (alpha) may have had different values in the past and may vary from place to place in space.

It seems SR, GR and QM are also only approximations valid for specific times and places.

If these discoveries are born out Webb will certainly become the most famous Australian and maybe the most famous man of the 21st Century.

Not quite scratching my hip pocket,spiritual or political nerve Steven :)

But still very interesting..specially to a physicist like you.

Probably not the most famous Steven. He seems to have found something that might negate all of our understandings of matter, but he doesn't have an explanation. What made Einstein famous was the theory. Webb is like the man who discovered that the planets didn't quite move as Newton predicted or that light was deflected more than Newton predicted.

BTW, I don't want to sound like I only have one tune, but it's good to see how proper science is done. We have a scientific consensus that relativity and quantum theory are extremely good at predicting what will happen, but huge sums of money are being spent trying to prove them wrong.

If climate "science" proceeded on the same basis we would probably know a lot more about the climate now than we do.

I take your point Graham. John Webb has not come up with any grand theory that explains the variation in alpha.

Perhaps it’s better to compare him to Michaelson and Morely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Webb’s discovery has theological implications. There is a debate going back to the 1950s as to why the constants of nature seem to be fine-tuned to allow for the emergence of complex life forms. Not necessarily life forms like us; but any sort of complex life. Labeling this the “anthropic principle” doesn’t really answer the question.

However if the constants of nature vary through space then the mystery is solved. We exist in a “pocket” in which the constants of nature are just right.

If Webb’s results are born out, and I confess to still being a teeny bit skeptical, he at least deserves a Nobel. It’s not every day that somebody overturns a widely believed paradigm in physics.

So far as climate science goes I shall gladly contribute a piece on why, the shenanigans of certain “scientists” like Phil Jones notwithstanding, there is ENOUGH evidence to justify cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions. But I can’t do it in 350 words. I’ll need about a thousand

“Labeling this the “anthropic principle” doesn’t really answer the question.”

Why not?

“However if the constants of nature vary through space then the mystery is solved. We exist in a “pocket” in which the constants of nature are just right.”

Isn’t that the same argument as the anthropic principle? It appears circular - ‘it is because it is”. But logically it is permissible to say that certain phenomena can only appear in certain conditions. We might think it’s improbable, but that is not a fatal objection.

[OT:
“there is ENOUGH evidence to justify cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions”

The positive science is the least of it. It is necessary but not sufficient to justify any policy.

Even if the necessary rise in temperatures were conceded – and considering the downsides of policy, I think it would need to prove catastrophic man-made global warming beyond a reasonable doubt - and even if the ecological conclusions followed – none of which conceded - there is still a need to show
a) that any policy action is ethically preferable
b) that any policy action is capable of producing a better than worse outcome in its own terms, and in terms of all the people adversely affected
c) how either of those things could be 1. known and 2. proven.

What frustrates me about the debate on climate is that the natural scientists debating it seem to be oblivious to these issues outside of climate science, as if measurements of temperature by themselves dictate the policy conclusion, as if facts dictate value judgments.]

Sorry to go slightly off topic but... I have always wondered if Gallileo stood out amongst accomplished contenders of the time period much later because he was a poster boy for atheism due more to surrounding factors that had him excommunicated and imprisoned rather than his orbital theory.

If instead of just providing a copy of his thesis to the Pope in a friendly manner Copernicus had beligerently argued theology needed adjusting to his findings and inspired confidence in his scientific prowess by arguing that orbits were circular when Bellarmine (or an equivalent) from the Church had good reason to believe Kepler had shown the relationship to involve eliptical motion and had he also demonstrated the prowess by arguing that tides were due to these orbits when Bellarmine believed there was good grounds to attribute a lunar influence could Copernicus have been the one we talk about today? In other words: was Gallileo always the No.1 or was he one of a number of accomplished scientists of the era but came to the fore due to his situation - viewed as a 'martyr' for science due to his imprisonment?

Just something I've wondered but never taken the time to check.