Physics Laws Flawed?
Not so fast, Mister!
Physics Laws Flawed? There is a major concern when a news report doesn’t do a COMPLETE reporting and make it appear as if this is a done deal.
One of the continuing controversy and continuing area that is still being investigated is the idea that the fine structure constant might be different during the earlier time of the universe than what it is now. Most of the evidence that seems to point to such possible variation has come from astrophysical observation, whereas most of the terrestrial-based observations have placed a more stringent upper limit on possible such variation.
This news report is presenting the “rebuttal” from the J.K. Webb camp  of a paper by Srianand et al.  that contradicted their earlier report.
Physicists have been pursuing outcomes like these for various years, yet since 1999, Murphy and his co-scientists have been in front of the pack. They’ve published a series of observations from the Keck Telescope in Hawaii as further evidence of a varying fine structure constant. In any case, a couple of years back, another exploration group asserted that information from an alternate telescope repudiated Murphy’s perceptions.
However, he’s been able to prove that the contradictory work itself was flawed. “We’ve shown that the way the data was analysed was faulty,” he said. “Their way was wrong, so their numbers are meaningless. It tells your paper. When you pursue their analysis and solve their problems, you really respond very different.”
This is fine and dandy. However, by leaving it as is, it gives a very misleading impression that this “proof” done by them is a done deal. This is false because in the same issue of PRL, Srianand et al. gave their own comment  against the analysis done by Murphy et al. In it, they made the argument on why they stand by their earlier results.
Regardless of who you believe, this issue isn’t settled, especially considering the nature of the “evidence” and the degree of certainty. This is certainly different than the impression one gets after reading this news article. It is unfortunate that they only reported on the first comment but not on the response to that comment. Someone has not been doing his/her homework on this.