Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Ethos on 10/03/2009 23:46:58
-
I believe the following equation has some merit, what do you folks think?
[(hbar*c/e^2)^3]*[(hbar*c/G^3)^3] = (pi^3 * 10^20)
-
erm... (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Fsmiley-sad031.gif&hash=91269c1ec329cd277307a6e729629df0) (http://www.freesmileys.org)
-
Uh.... I think your units are off to say the least.
-
Uh.... I think your units are off to say the least.
Please point out which units sir. This equation is balanced and dimensionless and is satisfied both in cgs and SI units. If you have a mind, please solve for G and tell me what your results are...........Ethos
-
I'm assuming e is the electron charge. The constants hbar, c and G don't have units of charge to cancel that out.
-
Yes, e stands for the electron charge. However, hbar times c divided by e squared is the fine structure constant to the minus 1.
(hbar * c/e^2)= approx. 137
(hbar * c/e^2)raised to the third power equals: 2.57338006 E6
[(hbar * c/e^2)]^3 * [(hbar * c/G^3)]^3 = (pi^3 * 10^20)
moving (pi^3 * 10^20) to the left denominator and G^9 to the right numerator,
we have: [(hbar * c/e^2)]^3 times [(hbar * c * pi-1)^3]/10^20] = G^9
[2.57338006 E+6] X [1.019159191E-71] = 2.6226839407 E-65
taking 2.6226839407E-65 to the ninth root we get: 6.6727538776 E-8 in cgs units
Because (hbar * c/e^2) is dimensionless and,
because (hbar * c/G^3) is dimensionless,
this equation works just as well when done in SI units.
6.6727538776 E-8 in cgs units and 6.6727538776 E-11 in SI units agrees very closely with NIST figures.
-
I'm assuming e is the electron charge. The constants hbar, c and G don't have units of charge to cancel that out.
Understanding so little about gravity, how can we be sure that the graviton has no significant charge. Charged particles bend space time because they posess magnetic fields. Even though gravity does not bend space time to the same extent per supposed particle, gravity does bend it. That being said, are we being premature in judging gravity to have no charge?
Understanding that there is no space empty of field, and the bending of space time is accomplished by both the electromagnetic and gravitational forces, I suspect that to assume gravity to have no charge is short sighted. We must honestly ask ourselves these question:
What is charge anyway?
And if magnetism and gravity both bend space-time, why should they be considered so different? Maybe it's only a question of magnitude and local stimuli....................Ethos
-
Ok. If you're working in the proper units, you can write the fine structure constant in that way. If that's the case, the second term needs to also be dimensionless. I'm confused as to how it gets so. Let's just check it in SI:
hbar ~ J-s = kg m2s-1
c ~ m s-1
G-3 ~ m-9kg3s6,
so:
hbar c G-3 = (kg m2s-1)( m s-1)(m-9kg3s6)=(kg s)4m-6,
which isn't dimensionless.
-
Wouldn't hbar ~ J-s = Kg m2s-2
-
J-s means J*s, which is the units for hbar, and I'm using * to denote multiplication. 1 Joule is 1 kg m2s-2, so 1 J*s= kg m2s-1
-
erm [???]
-
Yes, e stands for the electron charge. However, hbar times c divided by e squared is the fine structure constant to the minus 1.
(hbar * c/e^2)= approx. 137
(hbar * c/e^2)raised to the third power equals: 2.57338006 E6
[(hbar * c/e^2)]^3 * [(hbar * c/G^3)]^3 = (pi^3 * 10^20)
moving (pi^3 * 10^20) to the left denominator and G^9 to the right numerator,
we have: [(hbar * c/e^2)]^3 times [(hbar * c * pi-1)^3]/10^20] = G^9
[2.57338006 E+6] X [1.019159191E-71] = 2.6226839407 E-65
taking 2.6226839407E-65 to the ninth root we get: 6.6727538776 E-8 in cgs units
Because (hbar * c/e^2) is dimensionless and,
because (hbar * c/G^3) is dimensionless,
this equation works just as well when done in SI units.
6.6727538776 E-8 in cgs units and 6.6727538776 E-11 in SI units agrees very closely with NIST figures.
Remembering that (hbar * c/e^2) is dimensionless, the first part of the equation will remain the same whether figured in cgs or SI units. Now plug in the values in the second part of the equation with SI values and you'll find the answer for G will also be registered in SI values. This should prove that (hbar * c/G^3) is also dimensionless. Be my guest and do the math yourself.
If this interests you, I have something even more interesting to share........Ethos
-
An even easier exersize would be to figure (hbar * c/G^3) using both cgs units and SI units. If both computations are equal, then this equation is dimensionless.
Let's try in cgs: (1.054572669 E-27 * 2.99792458 E10/(6.67275E-8)^3 = 1.064098E5
Now in SI: (1.054572669E-34 * 2.99792458E8/(6.67275E-11)^3 = 1.064098E5
Looks like a dimensionless relationship to me....................Ethos
-
Very interesting Ethos; I'm assuming your maths correct; what is the implication? Have you shown a relationship that was not previously known? Are you showing a new relationship between gravity and the electromagnetic field?
-
Remembering that (hbar * c/e^2) is dimensionless, the first part of the equation will remain the same whether figured in cgs or SI units.
No, hc/e2 is dimensionless in c.g.s. only. In M.K.S. the dimensionless expression is 4πε0hc/e2.
Now plug in the values in the second part of the equation with SI values and you'll find the answer for G will also be registered in SI values. This should prove that (hbar * c/G^3) is also dimensionless.
No, that expression is not dimensionless neither in c.g.s. nor in M.K.S.
-
Remembering that (hbar * c/e^2) is dimensionless, the first part of the equation will remain the same whether figured in cgs or SI units.
No, hc/e2 is dimensionless in c.g.s. only. In M.K.S. the dimensionless expression is 4πε0hc/e2.
Now plug in the values in the second part of the equation with SI values and you'll find the answer for G will also be registered in SI values. This should prove that (hbar * c/G^3) is also dimensionless.
No, that expression is not dimensionless neither in c.g.s. nor in M.K.S.
Dimensionless is a term equal to a ratio, and when changing from cgs to SI, if the ratio does not change, then the equation is dimensionless. If you'll do the math, you'll find that the results are approiate for both cgs and SI units. Whether you agree that these initial terms are dimensionless or not, math does not lie and the ratio stays the same.
-
Dimensionless is a term equal to a ratio, and when changing from cgs to SI, if the ratio does not change
Who told you that it doesn't change? hc/e2 ≈ 137 in c.g.s. while it's ≈ 1.24*1012 J*m*C-2 = 1.24*1012 kg*m3*A-2*s-4 in M.K.S..
-
Dimensionless is a term equal to a ratio, and when changing from cgs to SI, if the ratio does not change
Who told you that it doesn't change? hc/e2 ≈ 137 in c.g.s. while it's ≈ 1.24*1012 J*m*C-2 = 1.24*1012 kg*m3*A-2*s-4 in M.K.S..
I'll grant you that, but I'm referring to (hbar c/G^3) not changing. All three values have their cgs and SI counterparts. Now for those that don't like me using (hbar c/e^2) in this equation, let's use this equation instead: (hbar c/(re me c^2)) All values in this equation have their cgs and SI counterparts.
[hbar c/(re, me, c^2)]^3 * [hbar c/G^3]^3 = pi^3 *10^20
All values in the above formula have their cgs and SI counterparts. If you'll do the math, using cgs units wil produces G in cgs. Likewise, using SI units will produces G in SI.
-
Very interesting Ethos; I'm assuming your maths correct; what is the implication? Have you shown a relationship that was not previously known? Are you showing a new relationship between gravity and the electromagnetic field?
Yes, but untill we can reach an understanding about the equation I'm using, it would be of little use to expound upon it. Thanks for the interest..................Ethos
-
Now for those that don't like me using (hbar c/e^2) in this equation, let's use this equation instead: (hbar c/(re me c^2))
Why don't you just call that first term α-1, the inverse of the fine structure constant, which is dimensionless? But even if you do that, it doesn't change the fact that the second term has the wrong units and is not dimensionless. Having the same value in c.g.s. and SI does not mean something is dimensionless. Any quantity with units of mass2/distance3 will have the same value in c.g.s. and SI, but it has dimensions. Take for example:
1 kg2/m3=1 g2/cm3=106g2/m3=10-6kg2/cm3
-
Charged particles bend space time because they posess magnetic fields....
...and the bending of space time is accomplished by both the electromagnetic and gravitational forces...
Are you really sure about that? Empirical evidence suggests that electromagnetism does not bend spacetime.
-
I appreciate the feedback jpetruccelli, and I also appreciate the manner in which you handle yourself when faced with someone that needs better understanding about the nature of physics. I confess, there is much I need to learn about this field and you have shown patience with me that others have not. I didn't come here to argue with anyone and find myself rather disturbed when others confront my understanding in an aggressive manner. To that, I again thank you for your patience and ask to further correspond about this issue with you via private message. I wish to no longer stir the pot, as it were, in public forum because I think you can help me with this idea in private. If that would be OK, let me know and I'll get back with you. Thanks for the civil behavior you've demonstrated on my behalf..........Ethos
-
I appreciate the feedback jpetruccelli, and I also appreciate the manner in which you handle yourself when faced with someone that needs better understanding about the nature of physics. I confess, there is much I need to learn about this field and you have shown patience with me that others have not. I didn't come here to argue with anyone and find myself rather disturbed when others confront my understanding in an aggressive manner. To that, I again thank you for your patience and ask to further correspond about this issue with you via private message. I wish to no longer stir the pot, as it were, in public forum because I think you can help me with this idea in private. If that would be OK, let me know and I'll get back with you. Thanks for the civil behavior you've demonstrated on my behalf..........Ethos
I really hope you wasn't talking about me when you say that others confronted your understanding in an aggressive manner, because I really hadn't the slight intention to be so, and, infact, I objectively wasn't.
-
Now why would you get that idea?
-
Now why would you get that idea?
So it was my having coloured in red some of my post?
If it's so, I can immediately change it; I usually use blue and red just because they are the best seen colours among the available ones.
-
Quoting Wikipedia; 'Dimensional analysis'
"It has been argued by some physicists, e.g., Michael Duff, that the laws of physics are inherently dimensionless. The fact that we have assigned incompatible dimensions to Length, Time and Mass is, according to this point of view, just a matter of convention, borne out of the fact that before the advent of Modern Physics, there was no way to relate Mass, Length and Time to each other. The three independent dimensionful constants: c, h and G, in the fundamental equations of physics must then be seen as mere conversion factors to convert Mass, Time and Length into each other."
...................Ethos
-
Quoting Wikipedia; 'Dimensional analysis'
"It has been argued by some physicists, e.g., Michael Duff, that the laws of physics are inherently dimensionless. The fact that we have assigned incompatible dimensions to Length, Time and Mass is, according to this point of view, just a matter of convention, borne out of the fact that before the advent of Modern Physics, there was no way to relate Mass, Length and Time to each other. The three independent dimensionful constants: c, h and G, in the fundamental equations of physics must then be seen as mere conversion factors to convert Mass, Time and Length into each other."
...................Ethos
This is interesting, and there is much truth in it; but it can't be completely true. How can one deduce, for example, the physical law
F = -Gm1m2/r2
from such a consideration?
-
Quoting Wikipedia; 'Dimensional analysis'
"It has been argued by some physicists, e.g., Michael Duff, that the laws of physics are inherently dimensionless. The fact that we have assigned incompatible dimensions to Length, Time and Mass is, according to this point of view, just a matter of convention, borne out of the fact that before the advent of Modern Physics, there was no way to relate Mass, Length and Time to each other. The three independent dimensionful constants: c, h and G, in the fundamental equations of physics must then be seen as mere conversion factors to convert Mass, Time and Length into each other."
...................Ethos
This is interesting, and there is much truth in it; but it can't be completely true. How can one deduce, for example, the physical law
F = -Gm1m2/r2
from such a consideration?
If you would be willing to think with me out side of the proverbial box, I'll present for you a new way of balancing these formuli. On the otherhand, if you are committed to the prevailing scientific convention, we will have no success in reaching a meeting of the minds.
...................Ethos
-
If you would be willing to think with me out side of the proverbial box, I'll present for you a new way of balancing these formuli. On the otherhand, if you are committed to the prevailing scientific convention, we will have no success in reaching a meeting of the minds.
Don't have problems in discussing about new ideas. However I don't like to be committed to something different than my own spiritual self, so, if you find something in my reasonings that can be ascribed to other's committment, I'm happy to know it (but of course this is true for everyone's ideas, included yours...)
Now I'm ready to discuss your ideas.
-
If you would be willing to think with me out side of the proverbial box, I'll present for you a new way of balancing these formuli. On the otherhand, if you are committed to the prevailing scientific convention, we will have no success in reaching a meeting of the minds.
Don't have problems in discussing about new ideas. However I don't like to be committed to something different than my own spiritual self, so, if you find something in my reasonings that can be ascribed to other's committment, I'm happy to know it (but of course this is true for everyone's ideas, included yours...)
Now I'm ready to discuss your ideas.
As a free thinker myself, I am committed to absolutely nothing but the truth. That's not to say that I alone have access to the truth, quite the contrarty. I have been very mistaken so many times, I've grown rather accustom to it. My soul purpose in life is to find and understand the true nature of this universe. Whether it comes by my own reasoning or by factual instruction from others, it is of no consequence to me. It's not about whether I'm right or wrong, it's about truth. So far in this discussion, I have been shown many times where I was mistaken about one thing or another. For me at least, this is the best and fastest way for me to learn and redirect my thinking. Nevertheless, the basic idea behind my search has not been shattered.
Let us set some groundwork so we can establish a few principals that we can both agree upon.
First: The rules governing the transposition of cgs to SI, and visa-versa, have been instituted to accommodate different practical uses. Therefore, one has trouble sometimes when trying to express conversions between them. In a effort to overcome this technical obsurdity, I choose rather to look at the physical universe from a less complicated perspective. I'll explain what I mean by this later on.
Second: I'm rather sure you,ve heard the expression; "One cannot add apples and oranges." And this is quite true on the surface, an apple and an orange do not make two of either, they are different in many respects. However, if one were to say; "One apple and one orange equals 2 fruits", this would be true and represent a mathematically correct assessment. This is a simple illistration but should serve to explain how I view the question about universal constants.
Third: Before I totally invest all my ideas in this conversation, allow me to make one observation about the universe we may have a chance to agree on. There are many physicists that believe there is no space empty of field. I'm sure you can understand why this view is held by many physicists today. I'll take the notion a step further; The word space is, in itself, not realistically the proper word to be using. The word space suggests a region where objects can move about basically unrestricted because a so-called nothingness lies between them. Nothing is further from the truth.
Fourth: Imagine space more like an ocean, and we inhabitants move thru it by displacing the water which surrounds us all. In essence, space is not a vacuum, it is composed of a field, a network of interconnected overlapping contiguous fields. Nowhere is it empty, even where no particle or energy is observed.
It may appear that I've gone off on a tangent and you may be asking yourself; "What does this have to do with dimensionless constants?" Please allow me, I believe I can make the connection. I would first like to get your take on the points I've already raised. Do you agree that 'There is no space empty of field'. Or at least, is it a likely possibility.
At any rate, critique the information I've thus far offered and get back with me. If you disagree with this view, please don't hesitate to offer your rebuttal. But please, offer it in a way that is patient and suggest your alternative.
.................Ethos
-
About the presence of fields in space, as you say, many physicists would agree, for various reasons. Specifically, are you talking about virtual particles, void's intrinsic energy, Higgs' field, gravitational potential energy or else?
However there isn't anything widely accepted about that, isnt'it? Anyway, since we are in a the right forum, we can freely discuss these ideas...
-
About the presence of fields in space, as you say, many physicists would agree, for various reasons. Specifically, are you talking about virtual particles, void's intrinsic energy, Higgs' field, gravitational potential energy or else?
However there isn't anything widely accepted about that, isnt'it? Anyway, since we are in a the right forum, we can freely discuss these ideas...
As far as which field I would choose to explain the so-called vacuum, I prefer to step beyond trying to name anyone of the few you have chosen as examples. Let me explain why;
If I'm correct in assuming that you hold to the standard model, The Big Bang and all that has been theorized about it's consequences is where I would like to start this investigation. From that point in time, the very beginning of time and space it'self.
I have found that, in general, the common view of this epoch suggests a time when all four forces were combined into one dominant and all encompassing one. I find this view very compelling and at this point in my understanding I choose to build upon it's context.
Trying to understand a universe in which there is no difference between the four forces may be difficult for some but not for me. Using a very simple example, one that everyone is familiar with, like the difference between steam, water and ice, one can see that even though steam is very different than water, and water much different than ice, they are really just different representations of the same substance changed only by the effects of local stimuli. Consequently, I find it very easy to view the four forces as merely different representations of the same thing changed only by a difference in local stimuli. Having said that, to understand that the difference between the forces is, actually, not a difference at all, just a change induced by local conditions.
You may ask, "Why go back to a time just slightly after the Big Bang to identify the nature of Mass, length, energy ect....?" I am convinced that if we are finally able to unit the forces, we must understand the basic force responsible for the now present four.
If I may be allowed the liberty, I choose to call this force; 'The Basic Stimuli'. Others may refer to it as the Grand Unification or any number of other monikers, I personally have chosen 'The Basic Stimuli' because I wish not to bias the name toward any of the now, well know four. This way, I establish it unto itself, and thus require no dependence upon any other discription for it's personal identity. This field could be associated with the theorized Higgs field I suppose but something tells me that, 'The Basic Stimuli' that I'm imagining rests even closer to the Big Bang than the Higgs Boson.
In our present time, it is assumed that Mass gives rise to Gravity. Before the split occured, I believe that The Basic Stimuli gave rise to Matter and Energy, exactly opposite to what we understand Gravity is doing today. Now that this phase transition has occured, the resulting Mass and Energy give rise to Gravity. With out the presence of Mass or Energy, The Basic Stimuli may be seen for what it really is. A dense field issuing forth from The Big Bang but changing into something unrecognizable from it's birth, cloaked behind the Mass and Energy it produced.
........................Ethos
-
I believe the following equation has some merit, what do you folks think?
[(hbar*c/e^2)^3]*[(hbar*c/G^3)^3] = (pi^3 * 10^20)
Since you've asked me to take a look at this, i would like to know a few things first. Firstly, are you using natural units for c and G, and hbar is self-explanatory as a perfect example of equalling 1 in plankian-like equations. However, i take it from the interpretation of your equation, that G is supposed to take on quite a large value, but it also looks as though is is the charge on a particle in some Gravitational Constant view. If your calculations are correct, it uncannily represents the ''huge discrepency'' in the energy of the vacuum, where the cosmological value of the expectancy eigenvalue is a massive 10^20 magnitudes out of order. The geometry of pi^3 is unfamiliar to me... What is it? It's been a while since i have worked on general geometry. :)
-
I believe the following equation has some merit, what do you folks think?
[(hbar*c/e^2)^3]*[(hbar*c/G^3)^3] = (pi^3 * 10^20)
Since you've asked me to take a look at this, i would like to know a few things first. Firstly, are you using natural units for c and G, and hbar is self-explanatory as a perfect example of equalling 1 in plankian-like equations. However, i take it from the interpretation of your equation, that G is supposed to take on quite a large value, but it also looks as though is is the charge on a particle in some Gravitational Constant view. If your calculations are correct, it uncannily represents the ''huge discrepency'' in the energy of the vacuum, where the cosmological value of the expectancy eigenvalue is a massive 10^20 magnitudes out of order. The geometry of pi^3 is unfamiliar to me... What is it? It's been a while since i have worked on general geometry. :)
This equation may be a bit better understood if I write as:
(a^-1) * (hbar*c/G^3) = pi * 10^6.6666.........
Solving for G we get:
(a^-1) * (hbar*c/(pi * 10^6.66...)) = G^3
Using these figures, G equals: 6.67275388 * 10^-8 cgs and 6.67275388 *10^-11 SI.......
These figures agree very closely with NIST
Unfortunately, I been instructed by several astute members here that this equation is not dimensionless resulting in an error. But if all universal constants are intrinsically dimensionless, why can't this equation be expressed as such? I can accept my error if I can understand the why and the wherefore. According to my first post on this page, which came from Wikipedia, there are physicists that agree that all universal constants are dimensionless.
I need help and patience to understand where I've gone wrong......Ethos
-
I believe the following equation has some merit, what do you folks think?
[(hbar*c/e^2)^3]*[(hbar*c/G^3)^3] = (pi^3 * 10^20)
Since you've asked me to take a look at this, i would like to know a few things first. Firstly, are you using natural units for c and G, and hbar is self-explanatory as a perfect example of equalling 1 in plankian-like equations. However, i take it from the interpretation of your equation, that G is supposed to take on quite a large value, but it also looks as though is is the charge on a particle in some Gravitational Constant view. If your calculations are correct, it uncannily represents the ''huge discrepency'' in the energy of the vacuum, where the cosmological value of the expectancy eigenvalue is a massive 10^20 magnitudes out of order. The geometry of pi^3 is unfamiliar to me... What is it? It's been a while since i have worked on general geometry. :)
This equation may be a bit better understood if I write as:
(a^-1) * (hbar*c/G^3) = pi * 10^6.6666.........
Solving for G we get:
(a^-1) * (hbar*c/(pi * 10^6.66...)) = G^3
Using these figures, G equals: 6.67275388 * 10^-8 cgs and 6.67275388 *10^-11 SI.......
These figures agree very closely with NIST
Unfortunately, I been instructed by several astute members here that this equation is not dimensionless resulting in an error. But if all universal constants are intrinsically dimensionless, why can't this equation be expressed as such? I can accept my error if I can understand the why and the wherefore. According to my first post on this page, which came from Wikipedia, there are physicists that agree that all universal constants are dimensionless.
I need help and patience to understand where I've gone wrong......Ethos
Well, that would depend on whether the value of G changes or not. This would mean by definition that a dimensionless system requires that it be, (in this case) a constant G. But your equation would work if you adopt that the gravitational force differs over time (this wa first postulated by Dirac).
-
Well, that would depend on whether the value of G changes or not. This would mean by definition that a dimensionless system requires that it be, (in this case) a constant G. But your equation would work if you adopt that the gravitational force differs over time (this wa first postulated by Dirac).
Yes, I believe I've heard about that proposition. It's also very likely that if G varies over time, then most, if not all constants of nature also follow suit. That being the case, when the ratio; 1/2 changes to 3/6, the absolute relationship hasn't changed. It is quite possible that as G changes, it's fellow constants, and I use the word constant here with hesitation, also change. We may never notice the change because the ratio between them may stay the same.
The only thing that may be constant here is their relationship one to another.........................Ethos
-
Well, that would depend on whether the value of G changes or not. This would mean by definition that a dimensionless system requires that it be, (in this case) a constant G. But your equation would work if you adopt that the gravitational force differs over time (this wa first postulated by Dirac).
Yes, I believe I've heard about that proposition. It's also very likely that if G varies over time, then most, if not all constants of nature also follow suit. That being the case, when the ratio; 1/2 changes to 3/6, the absolute relationship hasn't changed. It is quite possible that as G changes, it's fellow constants, and I use the word constant here with hesitation, also change. We may never notice the change because the ratio between them may stay the same.
The only thing that may be constant here is their relationship one to another.........................Ethos
It is very possible that with the advent of dicovering a not-so-constant G, then certainly other fundemental factors would need to be taken into consideration, such as Plancks Constant and even the speed of light. Is the speed of light not variable over different energy densities? John Barrow certainly believes that a long time ago, light could have actually been many multiples the speed of light. If my memory serve me correctly, he derived at a speed at superluminal superiority for the photon as being c^50. Then take into consideration Plancks Constant? Surely as space expands, the area which difines the Planck Space ''the very single unit of spacetime'' would also inexorably expand without recourse, so perhaps all the ''so-called'' constants are just very decieving, and yet simultaneously descrete actions we have yet to experimentally varify.
-
It is very possible that with the advent of dicovering a not-so-constant G, then certainly other fundemental factors would need to be taken into consideration, such as Plancks Constant and even the speed of light. Is the speed of light not variable over different energy densities? John Barrow certainly believes that a long time ago, light could have actually been many multiples the speed of light. If my memory serve me correctly, he derived at a speed at superluminal superiority for the photon as being c^50. Then take into consideration Plancks Constant? Surely as space expands, the area which difines the Planck Space ''the very single unit of spacetime'' would also inexorably expand without recourse, so perhaps all the ''so-called'' constants are just very decieving, and yet simultaneously descrete actions we have yet to experimentally varify.
This brings up a question about the expansion of the universe and the so-called inflationary period.
I have felt for a long time that the speed of light is dependant upon the expansion itself. Therefore, during the inflationary period, the expansion was not surpassing c, because the expansion itself determines c. I realize this will probably not be accepted by the scientific community because they have too great a stake in current theory. Nevertheless, I see no reason why universal expansion could or should not be responsible. As the expansion changed, likewise the speed of light. This might explain many of the present contradictions that arise surrounding the inflationary theory................Ethos
-
It is very possible that with the advent of dicovering a not-so-constant G, then certainly other fundemental factors would need to be taken into consideration, such as Plancks Constant and even the speed of light. Is the speed of light not variable over different energy densities? John Barrow certainly believes that a long time ago, light could have actually been many multiples the speed of light. If my memory serve me correctly, he derived at a speed at superluminal superiority for the photon as being c^50. Then take into consideration Plancks Constant? Surely as space expands, the area which difines the Planck Space ''the very single unit of spacetime'' would also inexorably expand without recourse, so perhaps all the ''so-called'' constants are just very decieving, and yet simultaneously descrete actions we have yet to experimentally varify.
This brings up a question about the expansion of the universe and the so-called inflationary period.
I have felt for a long time that the speed of light is dependant upon the expansion itself. Therefore, during the inflationary period, the expansion was not surpassing c, because the expansion itself determines c. I realize this will probably not be accepted by the scientific community because they have too great a stake in current theory. Nevertheless, I see no reason why universal expansion could or should not be responsible. As the expansion changed, likewise the speed of light. This might explain many of the present contradictions that arise surrounding the inflationary theory................Ethos
The speed of light is not so much independant on the expansion of the universe itself. The reason why, and why the constant of c cannot be dependant on expansion, is because even when the vacuum is moving at superluminal speeds (just like we are oberving in the far distant galaxies), to avoid a drastic methodologies that are weak in the breakdown of relativity, we say the particle (photon) i dragged by spacetime, so even if this photon is moving at speeds away from us many time the speed it is normally permitted to have relative to us, it's actually the vacuum which ''drags'' matter along with it, much like the vicosity of water (a subject i like to initialize to describe the universe as being ''fluidlike'').
You could instead say, that the photon and the vacuum are interdependant because one cannot exist without the other. This is true from relativity, because it states that a manifold spacetime cannot exist without the presence of matter and energy.
-
You could instead say, that the photon and the vacuum are interdependant because one cannot exist without the other. This is true from relativity, because it states that a manifold spacetime cannot exist without the presence of matter and energy.
OK, I think I understand. It would appear to us that c is moving faster than 186,282 miles/sec but relative to the vacuum in that particular region, it is still only moving at c. An anology would be like a fish swimming downstream in a swiftly moving system. For a bystander, the fish would appear to be moving much faster but relative to the system, the fish would still only be moving at it's own physical limit. Excellent point Mr. Scientist...................Ethos