Is a 2004 Discovery About Physics Still Relevant Today?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LostInSpaceTime
  • Start date Start date
LostInSpaceTime
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
I just stumbled upon this and I was wondering of it's validity.I would have thought if this was true it would have been out in the mainstream even more. It's from 2004 but i would think still relevant. I would like to hear some more about this from u guys...like, is this for real?...this seems to be one of those changes in physics that would screw up some stuff, no? What would the repercussions be if it happened again.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092.html
 
Physics news on Phys.org
LostInSpaceTime said:
I just stumbled upon this and I was wondering of it's validity.I would have thought if this was true it would have been out in the mainstream even more. It's from 2004 but i would think still relevant. I would like to hear some more about this from u guys...like, is this for real?...this seems to be one of those changes in physics that would screw up some stuff, no? What would the repercussions be if it happened again.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092.html

these Variable Speed of Light (VSL) theories spring up periodically. then they get some attention in the popular press. then they get refuted by the likes of Michael Duff
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0208093 and http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0110060
or John Barrow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Planck_units_and_the_invariant_scaling_of_nature
point out what the problem is.

i guess what i think I've said before:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1357747&postcount=14
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1399479&postcount=32

the laws of physics doesn't give a rat's ass about what units we use to measure things. the speed of light is necessarily always 1 Planck length per Planck time and if we think that the speed of light (in units we like to use) has changed, the more salient observation iis whether the number of Planck lengths per meter has changed or if the number of Planck times per second has changed, or both (these ratios are dimensionless numbers) and, if that is the case (making us think the speed of E&M propagation has changed, we should be noting the change in one of these dimensionless values and ask why that.
 
Ok Thanks...I was just wondering. Because like you mentioned every once and a while you hear about it but i never asked until now.
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...

Similar threads

Back
Top