To my mind, anything that has been theorised, researched, examined, tested and/or debated by fully schooled, practising, and specialised physicists and we are still left with two (or more) schools of thought on the matter means we currently to not have the technology and understanding necessary to know that thing.
Well, here's another problem with changing constants. Lets say the speed of light were to suddenly decrease by 10%...now (forgetting all other objections previously given)what mechanism would allow the speed to change across the entire universe simultaneously? If there was such a mechanism, our understanding of the universe would be so far off we'd have to start from scratch. If there was no such mechnism but the speed of light was changing at different rates across the universe it would also mean our understanding of the universe would be so far off we'd have to start from scratch. Until we have hard evidence that it is/has occured to assume that it did would require us to rewrite all of physics based solely on assumptions and that's just foolish. So far the only so-called proof that the speed of light has changed is that it could answer some questions about how the universe works but it ends up creating even more questions.
------------------------------------ There's a thin line between Genius and Insanity. That's where I live, baby!
> Hello, just wondering what you have against string theory? Not trying to start
> a flame war, just interested in other peoples ideas.
That's a really good question. I suppose the best way to answer it in terms of string theory is to not answer and tell you that not answering is the only way to not affect it. Sounds bonkers? It is.
First off, to understand string theory you have to have a deep understanding of Quantum Physics. Niels Bohr, the father of the orthodox 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of quantum physics once said, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it". In order to get your head around it, you have to believe at least one of the following:
Your consciousness affects the behaviour of subatomic particles.
Particles move backwards as well as forwards in time and appear in all possible places at once.
The universe is splitting, every Planck-time (10 E-43 seconds) into billions of parallel universes.
The universe is interconnected with faster-than-light transfers of information.
Once you get past this and embark on string theory, you're off into a through the looking glass world of multi-dimensions, of which there may be 26 or 11 or 10 but perhaps 4 depending on who's in vouge with The String Theory Du Jour. But that's ok because the multiverse has always been and always will be, except where it's not. If it sounds like I'm not a string theorist, it's because I don't do drugs and have trouble with theories that are best understood by non-thought.
Secondly, String Theorists are an evangelical group in my experience. Either you beleive it or you're wrong. There is no competing theory, according to them. If you happen to believe in Loop Quantum Gravity, you're going to get treated like a red-neck hick that hsn't mastered elementary school. For example, Wikipedia has more than a few pages (like this page on Quantum Gravity which got attcked by string theorists. This page on Loop Quantum Gravity is under contest by String Theorists for saying that Loop Quantum Gravity is a competiting theory. STers don't think there's any competing theories. Sounds more like Moonies to me. I'm expecting them to require everyone to drink kool-aid and go lay down at some point.
Now this just one man's opinion and, as such, should be disregarded completely. I do not mean this to be flame-bait. If you happen to believe in string theory, more power to you. You're obviously much more brilliant than I am. I'm still wondering what happened to Schroedinger's Cat.
There are two secrets to life: 1) Don't tell everything you know...
>
> > I hate to take on the mentality of yesteryear when the world was flat.
> But
> > these people are wackjobs. Even more-so than the string-theorists. OOPS
> did
> > I say that out loud?
> >
>
>
> Hello, just wondering what you have against string theory? Not trying to start
> a flame war, just interested in other peoples ideas.
>
>
>
Dont worry I dont have enough knowledge to fight this battle well but, from some of the theories that Ive read about it just seems so highly improbable that it seems that some basic fact is missing, thus causing the string theory. This theory reminds me the old search for ether. Some magic that cant be proven or tested. As I understand it, space-time is so highly distorted and dynamic that current theories just breakdown. String theory is spawning other theories and adding to a pile of mud that just gets to complex to cipher through with any meaning. It just seems that something as small as a photon obeys GR with precision over distance, but ST say that rules dont apply just a little further down!? My thought is their is some basic principle/element that we cant measure as of yet that will let the micro-macro levels blend seamlessly rather than creating some mystical spaghetti to explain it.
> This theory reminds me the old search for ether. Some magic that cant be
> proven or tested.
In fairness it is a little different than ether. The mathematics of string theory are very complete, as well as fit in with both newtonian and quantum physics.
Also, string theory *can* be tested. We know how to do it, we just don't have the means quite yet. But once the new collider is built in Geneva, there might be enough data to verify or deny string theory. Or maybe Fermilab will even have some success before the Large Hadron Collider is built :)
such things just should not be writ so please destroy this if you wish to live 'tis better in ignorance to dwell than to go screaming into the abyss worse than hell
> The changing in the speed of light just doesnt make any sense to me. I worked
> in radar for years. The red shift is caused by movement going away, wether it
> be the source or the receiver moving. I understand that there could be other
> factors such as gravity that one would be able to perceive a redshift but I
> would think that this would only be aparent on the edges of some body (e.g.
> causing a prisiming effect where light is scattered). My work with radar was
> with the military and we did some really interesting things with it. "Red
> shifting" was a technique that was used for radar deception which is what I
> did. A red shift can be measured on near objects as well as distant objects.
> And its a measure as to the speed of which an object is moving away.
In the UK we tend to refer to it as a Doppler shift (or as I like to call it the MeeeeeoooooW affect!) I don’t think it is what Tom was getting at because Red_Shift/Doppler_effect is a perceived frequency change due to relative movement; Tom was talking about an actual change to C.
I may be way of base, but isn’t C variable, dependant upon the density of the material it’s transiting (photons have a mass)?
The ‘red shift’ has several military applications, an area I have worked with. Improved detection abilities/target definition are good, but it’s implications on stealth technologies is far more interesting.
If you find yourself standing in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging!
No, because C is specifically the speed of light in a vacuum, not the speed of light in general. Light (and everything else for that matter) can move slower than C, but not faster and no matter can move as fast as C.
------------------------------------ There's a thin line between Genius and Insanity. That's where I live, baby!
> No, because C is specifically the speed of light in a vacuum, not the speed of
> light in general. Light (and everything else for that matter) can move slower
> than C, but not faster and no matter can move as fast as C.
>
Iron sun is right, many things can go faster than the speed of light (in materials other than free space). See for example: Cherenkov radiation
To my mind, anything that has
)
To my mind, anything that has been theorised, researched, examined, tested and/or debated by fully schooled, practising, and specialised physicists and we are still left with two (or more) schools of thought on the matter means we currently to not have the technology and understanding necessary to know that thing.
Catch your own wave...
Well, here's another problem
)
Well, here's another problem with changing constants. Lets say the speed of light were to suddenly decrease by 10%...now (forgetting all other objections previously given)what mechanism would allow the speed to change across the entire universe simultaneously? If there was such a mechanism, our understanding of the universe would be so far off we'd have to start from scratch. If there was no such mechnism but the speed of light was changing at different rates across the universe it would also mean our understanding of the universe would be so far off we'd have to start from scratch. Until we have hard evidence that it is/has occured to assume that it did would require us to rewrite all of physics based solely on assumptions and that's just foolish. So far the only so-called proof that the speed of light has changed is that it could answer some questions about how the universe works but it ends up creating even more questions.
------------------------------------
There's a thin line between Genius and Insanity. That's where I live, baby!
THE SPACEPORT - The Other Side of Space
> Hello, just wondering what
)
> Hello, just wondering what you have against string theory? Not trying to start
> a flame war, just interested in other peoples ideas.
That's a really good question. I suppose the best way to answer it in terms of string theory is to not answer and tell you that not answering is the only way to not affect it. Sounds bonkers? It is.
First off, to understand string theory you have to have a deep understanding of Quantum Physics. Niels Bohr, the father of the orthodox 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of quantum physics once said, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it". In order to get your head around it, you have to believe at least one of the following:
Your consciousness affects the behaviour of subatomic particles.
Particles move backwards as well as forwards in time and appear in all possible places at once.
The universe is splitting, every Planck-time (10 E-43 seconds) into billions of parallel universes.
The universe is interconnected with faster-than-light transfers of information.
Once you get past this and embark on string theory, you're off into a through the looking glass world of multi-dimensions, of which there may be 26 or 11 or 10 but perhaps 4 depending on who's in vouge with The String Theory Du Jour. But that's ok because the multiverse has always been and always will be, except where it's not. If it sounds like I'm not a string theorist, it's because I don't do drugs and have trouble with theories that are best understood by non-thought.
Secondly, String Theorists are an evangelical group in my experience. Either you beleive it or you're wrong. There is no competing theory, according to them. If you happen to believe in Loop Quantum Gravity, you're going to get treated like a red-neck hick that hsn't mastered elementary school. For example, Wikipedia has more than a few pages (like this page on Quantum Gravity which got attcked by string theorists. This page on Loop Quantum Gravity is under contest by String Theorists for saying that Loop Quantum Gravity is a competiting theory. STers don't think there's any competing theories. Sounds more like Moonies to me. I'm expecting them to require everyone to drink kool-aid and go lay down at some point.
Now this just one man's opinion and, as such, should be disregarded completely. I do not mean this to be flame-bait. If you happen to believe in string theory, more power to you. You're obviously much more brilliant than I am. I'm still wondering what happened to Schroedinger's Cat.
There are two secrets to life: 1) Don't tell everything you know...
> > > I hate to take on the
)
>
> > I hate to take on the mentality of yesteryear when the world was flat.
> But
> > these people are wackjobs. Even more-so than the string-theorists. OOPS
> did
> > I say that out loud?
> >
>
>
> Hello, just wondering what you have against string theory? Not trying to start
> a flame war, just interested in other peoples ideas.
>
>
>
Dont worry I dont have enough knowledge to fight this battle well but, from some of the theories that Ive read about it just seems so highly improbable that it seems that some basic fact is missing, thus causing the string theory. This theory reminds me the old search for ether. Some magic that cant be proven or tested. As I understand it, space-time is so highly distorted and dynamic that current theories just breakdown. String theory is spawning other theories and adding to a pile of mud that just gets to complex to cipher through with any meaning. It just seems that something as small as a photon obeys GR with precision over distance, but ST say that rules dont apply just a little further down!? My thought is their is some basic principle/element that we cant measure as of yet that will let the micro-macro levels blend seamlessly rather than creating some mystical spaghetti to explain it.
WARNING! DiHydrogen MonOxide kills!
> This theory reminds me the
)
> This theory reminds me the old search for ether. Some magic that cant be
> proven or tested.
In fairness it is a little different than ether. The mathematics of string theory are very complete, as well as fit in with both newtonian and quantum physics.
Also, string theory *can* be tested. We know how to do it, we just don't have the means quite yet. But once the new collider is built in Geneva, there might be enough data to verify or deny string theory. Or maybe Fermilab will even have some success before the Large Hadron Collider is built :)
such things just should not be writ so please destroy this if you wish to live 'tis better in ignorance to dwell than to go screaming into the abyss worse than hell
> The changing in the speed
)
> The changing in the speed of light just doesnt make any sense to me. I worked
> in radar for years. The red shift is caused by movement going away, wether it
> be the source or the receiver moving. I understand that there could be other
> factors such as gravity that one would be able to perceive a redshift but I
> would think that this would only be aparent on the edges of some body (e.g.
> causing a prisiming effect where light is scattered). My work with radar was
> with the military and we did some really interesting things with it. "Red
> shifting" was a technique that was used for radar deception which is what I
> did. A red shift can be measured on near objects as well as distant objects.
> And its a measure as to the speed of which an object is moving away.
In the UK we tend to refer to it as a Doppler shift (or as I like to call it the MeeeeeoooooW affect!) I don’t think it is what Tom was getting at because Red_Shift/Doppler_effect is a perceived frequency change due to relative movement; Tom was talking about an actual change to C.
I may be way of base, but isn’t C variable, dependant upon the density of the material it’s transiting (photons have a mass)?
The ‘red shift’ has several military applications, an area I have worked with. Improved detection abilities/target definition are good, but it’s implications on stealth technologies is far more interesting.
If you find yourself standing in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging!
No, because C is specifically
)
No, because C is specifically the speed of light in a vacuum, not the speed of light in general. Light (and everything else for that matter) can move slower than C, but not faster and no matter can move as fast as C.
------------------------------------
There's a thin line between Genius and Insanity. That's where I live, baby!
THE SPACEPORT - The Other Side of Space
> No, because C is
)
> No, because C is specifically the speed of light in a vacuum, not the speed of
> light in general. Light (and everything else for that matter) can move slower
> than C, but not faster and no matter can move as fast as C.
>
Iron sun is right, many things can go faster than the speed of light (in materials other than free space). See for example: Cherenkov radiation
Just not as fast as c.
the Speed of
)
the Speed of light
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae219.cfm
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0004226A-F77D-1D4A-90FB809EC5880000
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/twin.html
etc
Greetings from Germany NRW
Ulli
[img]http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=380 [/img]
> the Speed of light > >
)
> the Speed of light
>
> http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae219.cfm
>
>
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0004226A-F77D-1D4A-90FB809EC5880000
>
> http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/twin.html
>
> etc
>
> Greetings from Germany NRW
> Ulli
>
============
Hi Ulli ,
thanks for those great links
My Very Best wishes to everyone ......... and keep on crunching :)
from:
friendly and respectful
byron ... [/url]_Earth Flag