# varying speed of light

Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 2 12 Last
• 07-01-2004
DavidP
varying speed of light
• 07-01-2004
Govtcheez
Hm... It seems like they're basing this on alpha being a different value than they thought, but it looks like that could equally be because of a change in c or a change in the charge of an electron. Is it possible that they've got this backwards?

Also, they say it contradicts Einstein's Relativity Theory. What's that mean for the world of physics?
• 07-01-2004
sean
A change in C... I was just going to make a joke about ANSI opposing the movement...

Quote:

What's that mean for the world of physics?
My best guess is that it may mean travelling faster than light. I certainly agree that even the Theory of Relativity breaks down at this point. If you shine two flashlights at each other, the light from one flashlight is travelling at 2c relative to the light of the other. Doesn't that violate the laws?
• 07-01-2004
Govtcheez
So a time machine is just two flashlights. Interesting.

Doc Brown was WAY off.
• 07-01-2004
Jeremy G
Quote:

Originally Posted by Govtcheez
So a time machine is just two flashlights. Interesting.

Doc Brown was WAY off.

Not THAT far off. After all the flux capacitor was 3 flash lights in a Y shape.
• 07-01-2004
Govtcheez
Have you stolen his blueprints?

Biff, kick his ass.
• 07-01-2004
XSquared
>If you shine two flashlights at each other, the light from one flashlight is travelling at 2c relative to the light of the other.
That's when the Lorentz transformation comes into play. If you sub in u = c and v = c into this equation (the Lorentz transformation), it comes out to being a total relative velocity of c. The reason that we still use just u + v most of the time is because the denominator of the equation is so close to 1 that the effect is negligible. The Lorentz transformation is mainly used for near-light speeds.
• 07-01-2004
axon
this is a kind-of old topic....there is even quite a good book about it.

quote from one of my earlier posts
Quote:

Another very good physics book is Jao Maguejo (sp?) "Variable Speed of Light Theory" (VSL) book. the book ventures into very risky ground. It is the story, or speculation about what if Einstein was wrong, and the spped of light is actually not constant! This theory, if proven will explain a whole bunch of problems in the universe, for example bigbang! The theory itself is getting a lot of attention from the scientific community. This one is really worth reading...but it is costly, about \$30 so rent it.
• 07-01-2004
Zach L.
Yeah, Magueijo's "Faster than the Speed of Light" is a good book about his variable speed of light theory.
• 07-01-2004
sean
Very interesting XSquared, but since that doesn't make sense in our image of the physical world, and all Google's giving me about Lorentz Transformations is something about geometric construction, anyone care to shed some light on how 'Lorentz' came up with this?
• 07-01-2004
JaWiB
Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_mackrory
Very interesting XSquared, but since that doesn't make sense in our image of the physical world, and all Google's giving me about Lorentz Transformations is something about geometric construction, anyone care to shed some light on how 'Lorentz' came up with this?

You might want to check out Einstein's theories
• 07-02-2004
Felix
Something more interesting I've read in the newspaper is that scientists managed to 'teleport' an electron.
• 07-02-2004
unanimous
If I remember correctly, they didn't teleport an electron but instead made a copy of the electron in a different location.
• 07-02-2004
XSquared
Are you talking about quantum teleportation where they used the theory of entanglement to teleport electrons? At my school we had a lecture from a physicicst from the Perimeter Institute who gave us about a three-hour explanation of how quantum teleportation works.
• 07-02-2004
Perspective
meh...

Quote:

...there are some issues to be addressed. For one, the exact conditions at Oklo are not known. Nuclear reactions run at different rates depending on the temperature of the reactor, which Lamoreaux assumed was between 227 and 527°C.
Damour says the temperature could vary far more than this...
he was guessing at the initial temperature of the reactor. This alone could adjust the results in either direction. Although the concept is very interesting, it about time someone breaks traditional science ;)
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 2 12 Last