Is the cosmic microwave background from the Big Bang?

[LoneShaman]

To his credit Einstein was much more humble over the certainty of his own theories towards the end of his life. Unlike the rest of the physics community.

Look at this one from a letter the year before he died.

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e. on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, and of the rest of modern physics."

Just a few years earlier...

". . .the growth of our factual knowledge, together with the striving for a unified theoretical conception comprising all empirical data, has led to the present situation which is characterized— notwithstanding all successes— by an uncertainty concerning the choice of basic theoretical concepts."

Sound advice...

"A scientific person will never understand why he should believe opinions only because they are written in a certain book. Furthermore, he will never believe that the results of his own attempts are final."

Finally for the worshippers.

"It strikes me as unfair, and even in bad taste, to select a few individuals for boundless admiration, attributing superhuman powers of mind and character to them. This has been my fate, and the contrast between the popular assessment of my powers and achievements and the reality is simply grotesque."

No doubt about it, a wise and brilliant man with humility. But human and not infallible.

 

[LoneShaman]

The 1919 eclipse experiment is said to be the clincher, this event in history was the turning point. However once again another explanation is readily available, It also just so happens to give the same !.76 arc seconds.
Plasma to the rescue again. Also to note that the edge of the sun is red shifted more than the centre. Interesting.

There is also a much longer lecture available.

Of course all these engineers, the guys that make stuff work are wrong, you can't trust these guys who are attempting to overthrow all of science with ahh...Science!

Findings show that important fundamental principles of mathematical Physics are consistently misapplied to concepts of gravitational lensing or just simply ignored. The thin plasma atmosphere of the sun represents an indirect interaction involving an interfering plasma medium between the gravitational field of the sun and the rays of light from the stars. There is convincing observational evidence that a direct interaction between light and gravitation in empty vacuum space is yet to be observed. Historically, the observed evidence of light bending occurred predominantly near the plasma rim of the sun, not in the vacuum space far above the rim. An intense search of the star filled sky will reveal a clear lack of lensing exists among the countless numbers of stars, where the lens and the source are by good chance co-linearly aligned with the earth based observer. With this condition at hand and assuming the validity of the light bending rule of General Relativity, the sky should be filled with images of Einstein rings. Moreover, the events taking place at the center of our galaxy under intense observations by the astrophysicists since 1992, presents convincing evidence that a direct interaction between light and gravitation simply does not take place. This highly studied region, known as Sagittarius A*, is thought to contain a super massive black hole, a most likely candidate for gravitational lensing. The evidence is clearly revealed in the time resolved images of the rapidly moving stellar objects orbiting about Sagittarius A*.

http://spie.org/Publications/Proceedings/Paper/10.1117/12.824116

Surely we could not have it so wrong could we? Perhaps a better way to look at it is to say surely we could not have it so right? Yet arrogant mathematicians claim to be able to probe the nano seconds after the big bang. Get real.

 

[EthanT]

I hope you don't mind Ethan, I wanted to address your post here.

Not at all, but I doubt I will have the time to resond much. Couple quick points, though, that I hope clarify some "popular" positions.

I don't blame you for feeling uneasy about spacetime being curved. Many physcists do. My GR instructor himself refused the reality of that interpretation! Also, it's important to realize practically nobody thinks spacetime actually curves like a "rubber sheet" or "membrane". In fact, that analogy is technically incorrect for a couple reasons. What is acknowledged is that gravity is unique from the other three forces, in that it seems to be intimately tied to the causal structure of spacetime. Roger Penrose points this out in that the other three forces don't cause the "titling of light cones", which is really just another way of saying gravity effects the causal structure of spacetime (or perhaps is the causal structure of spacetime!). Anyhow, this dynamic aspect of spacetime and gravity's influence on its causal structure is what is being mathematically modeled by differential geometry, which is historically used to describe curved spaces/manifolds. So, it gets described as a "curvature of spacetime" for heuristic purposes and ingestion by the masses, but it's really something deeper than a "rubber sheet curving", etc. To teach this stuff you have to wrap some kind of visual, conceptual notion around things and "curvature" is the obvious and simplest to imagine what GR is trying to say. It's somewhat general consensus that eventually the notion of spacetime being curved will get replaced by a more comprehensive viewpoint, or that even spacetime itself will get replaced by some still more fundamental concept, which is as of yet unkown. Go ask folks on physicsforums.com if they think Spacetime really curves. It's an interesting experience ;-)

Likewise, with special relativity. The fact that light moves at c, or that c is a "speed limit" is again a simpler heuristic way of looking at things. What is the more profound implication is that there exists a c, such that the spacetime interval is invariant between any two events. This interval is tied to the metric, which mathematically describes the structure of spacetime. This means that the speed of light is, once again, intimately tied to the causal structure of spacetime. Your A before B and B before A is a good example . It's not time or space intervals alone between events A and B that are absolute here and therefore observers don't agree upon. It is the interval, or the metric of spacetime, that everybody does agree on and remains invariant. C, or the speed of light, just happens to be the conversion factor between time and space that keeps the interval invariant, or the stucture of spacetime consistent. Einstein toyed with the idea of naming his new theory Invariance Theory (or something like that) because it this invariance of the interval that is the important aspect of Special Relativity. He knew it was this new-found symmetry in nature, which is behind Lorentz Invariance, that was the big insight here.

Also, General Relativty may not be compatible with Quantum Physics, BUT, Special Relativity (SR), or more specifically Lorentz Invariance, which comes out of SR, is part of the foundation of quantum physics. Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is built to be Lorentz Invariant. In fact, the reason the antimatter prediciton of QFT is such a big deal is because the existence of anitmatter preserves causality! The reason String Theory has 11, or 26, dimensions is also a requirement for Lorentz Invariance. (Althoug, as you know, I have reservations about String Theory). SR is at the heart of modern physics, which means the constancy of c is at the heart of modern physics, which means Lorentz Invariance is at the heart of modern physics.

 

[LoneShaman]

Thanks Ethan, that is a much more sobering view and I do agree with much of it.
For the layman language can be a barrier. Space, a relationship between things is sometimes mixed with the vaccuum. We would probably agree that the vacuum is not nothing. Mass is confused with amount of matter etc.. Yet E=mc^2 shows that mass is related to electromagnetic energy. Coordinate systems become observers, atomic oscillations become time.

These things seem to be unconsciously confused even in science it seems. Gravity is the elephant in the room really, the relationship between mass, matter and gravity. We really do not understand this. So it should actually bring some level of humility to the situation as our entire cosmology is based on a gravitational theory, yet we do not really understand gravity!

It seems to me that Einstein did not really do away with the Aether but just replaced it. These days they speak of a quantum foam, virtual particles, grainy space as in quantum loop gravity, which all in there own way say space is not empty. The words change but the concept is similar. Quantum loop gravity, if it pans out could finally put to rest some longstanding issues including invarience. You can call it little lumps of space time but it seriously looks like we are back to an Aether of sorts.

Invarience seems quite obvious to me, it may be that the reason for it is because of a universal Aether that is an absolute frame of reference for physical reality and relativity is just an apearance.

 

[LoneShaman]

You know the more I look into this the more I feel that Lorentz was closer to the mark than Einstein. A Lorentzian interpretation does not suffer from the paradoxs of simultaneity. A universal frame allows for absolute simultaneity in the universe. This works quite well for QM as we can see. And can equally account for all observations interpreted in Einsteins version. Clocks change in gravitational potential and in motion, but there is absolute time. Clocks, pendulums, atomic oscilations change and not time itself. After all the rate of a clock is but a representation and not actually a measure of time itself.

This seems intuitive and natural. A universe that is coherant in the present and universaly connected in the now.

 

[EthanT]

I definitely think relativity is probably only appearance, which the interval is already hinting at. Despite how wild the relativity of simultaneity can makes things, using the space-time metric all observers can always reconstruct what every other observer would see and they all can agree upon the interval, which is a deeper, more fundamental aspect of spacetime, than space intervals, or time intervals, are on their own. Even the relativity of simultaneity has restrictions - it can only happen for what's called space-like separated events, i.e. events that are not causally connected, or events that don't lie in the same light cone. So, Mother Nature is pretty slick in that she keeps things sane in the midst of all this.

But, I've had an idea for an absolute frame for some time now, but I should probably warn this is my own wacky idea and far from accepted in science, hehe.

Anyhow, it starts with something that wasn't generally accepted 20 years ago, but now widely is. I remember asking my ST teacher about the Lorentz Transformations equations - the equations that transform from one inertial frame to another, while keeping things Lorentz Invariant. Anyhow, you can derive time dilation and length contractions formulas from these, which show just how much two different observers disagree on the time and space intervals between any two events. Two parameters in these equations are velocity (v) and speed of light (c). I just pointed out that when you look at these equations in the limit that v goes to c it seems to suggest that light sees zero time and zero space between any two events (i.e. it's everywhere before it ever left!). He told me you can’t do that because the equations break down at v=c, etc. I kept asking why, why, why, but, why, but, why, why, but .... and, he eventually more, or less, told me to shut up, lol.

Anyhow, maybe like 10 years later they used neutrino oscillations to show that neutrinos must have some mass. There were several scientists on TV saying that if neutrinos had no mass they could not sense the passage of time and therefore could not undergo a time-dependent phenomenon. But the fact that they detected the oscillations means the neutrinos are undergoing a time-dependent phenomenon in their frame and therefore they must have mass. I couldn't help but think "aha, vindication!", because this was exactly what I was trying to say 10 years earlier.

So, this starts to sound like an absolute frame of reference, because all massless observers moving at c would all agree on what they observe - zero time and zero space between all events. Everything would be happening all at once. Sort of sounds like the experience of time reported by NDE'rs, which is why I sometimes joke if you want to know what eternity is like, just ask a photon! So, maybe we've just been looking in the wrong place for an absolute frame - too far into spacetime. This also supports the notion that eternity is not never-ending time, but rather the complete absence of time. It also hints at the idea that if you could accelerate to and move at the speed of light, you'd no longer really be moving - the concept of speed requires time.

So, this is another reason I don't view the speed of light as just a "speed limit". As I mentioned above, it is intimately tied to the structure of spacetime. But, my wild speculations here seem to make it sound even more like a dimensional barrier (one that our consciousness, being massless, can overcome at any time, no pun intended! In a sense, Remote Viewing is the ability to ignore time and space seperations, or zero them out. Also makes it interesting how spirit has often been equated with light, throughout all religions and myths) I think all this could even be hinting at another realm that exists outside spacetime and that is a type of absolute existence (or frame?). Photons would exist just on the border between these two realms. (There are some un-accepted theories out there that actually say what we see as light is actually a "shadow" of a higher dimensional phenomenon, but I have unfortunately been unable to find these papers again)

I'm sure when we do figure all this out it will be different than I could have imagined, but there are several areas like this where I can't help but think modern physics is hinting at the kind of things we hear from NDE'rs, and at what we get out of psi evidence, etc., or maybe I just have an over-active imagination, hehe.

Anyhow, I've gone far outside the realm of accepted/mainstream physics here, but it's fun to think about ;-)

 

[EthanT]

You know the more I look into this the more I feel that Lorentz was closer to the mark than Einstein. A Lorentzian interpretation does not suffer from the paradoxs of simultaneity

Lorentz did come up with the core of the math for SR before Einstein came along. Einstein's "big" contribution, which does cause the relativity of simultaneity, was adding in the constancy of c and the idea of no absolute frame. But, Lorenz equations were already hinting at all of this. In addition, Maxwell's Equations of EnM were also hinting at this - Einstein recognized they were naturally already Lorentz Invariant and compatible with the constancy of c, or SR. Even though it may seem like it at first, there is no paradox in the relativity of simultaneity. It's actually one of the biggest stumbling blocks, by far, for almost all beginning SR students in school. I had to work through a lot of problems before I was comfortable with it. But, it's the metric and the interval, and the deeper 4-dimensional structure of spacetime that resolves all the seemingly paradoxical situations one can run into with relativity.

Some of them are sort of fun. My favorite SR brain teaser was one that had a barn that could explode. One observer was at rest with respect to the barn. The other observer was carrying a pole that would run through the barn. But, each door at the end of the barn was wired to an explosive. If each end of the pole was in the barn doors at the same time, it would trigger the explosive. But, in one frame the pole is too short and the other it's long enough - Lorentz length contraction formula at work. So, the question is does the barn blow up, or not? This was a tricky one for a lot of folks! Using the Lorentz Transformation equations one can make sense of it, but it's a lot easier to just realize the pole has to be in both doors as seen by the frame in which the explosive is located, i.e. the one at rest with respect to the barn. But, this is the one that sees the pole length contracted and too short to be in both doors at the same time. Space intervals and time intervals are disagreed upon here, but both observers will agree upon the interval and their individual space and time intervals will both "sum" up the same spacetime interval, or spacetime "distance", via the metric (ds^2 = -c*dt^2 + dx^2. Note c acting as a conversion factor that puts time and space on the same footing!). The metric is basically the 4 dimensional equivalent of Euclid's Theorem c^2 = a^2 + b^2, which is used to measure distance in a flat 2, or 3-dimensional space. The metric is used to measure distance in the 4-dimensional arena of spacetime, or a distance that is a combination of space and time separations. Measuring (or, as the metric does, defining) all the possible distances in a given space (or, space-time) defines the structure of that space.


Anyhow, both observes breathe a sigh of relief ;-)


EDIT: I should also add that the main gist of GR is that the metric is now a bit more complicated and dependent on time, something like:

dt^2 = -c*dt^2 + a(t)*dx^2.

This is a simplified Robertson-Walker metric. The time dependence in a(t) adds the dynamic nature to spacetime and this is what's called "curvature" (in this case, in the form a very simple expansion/contraction). The full Robertson Walker metric for the Universe is more complicated, but the above gets the essential point across.

Sorry for rambling on, fun stuff to think about for me

 

[LoneShaman]

I apreciate the ranting, I have never been able to put into words exactly my problem with relativity. This has helped. I should not be referring to relativity actually but Einsteins treatment of relativity. As relativity was already around, all surrounding the Aether issue. Yet it was really the eclipse experiment that sealed the deal, and the Einstein juggernaught became full swing. The result of that is questionable we have other ways that give the same result as is often the case, but the competition was considered completely squandered. There are cultural and political issues to be considered as well. He was already praised fot the work on brownian motion and the photo electric effect. E=mc^2 has been dramatically verified. But it is this one treatment of the transformations that require this overcomplicating abstraction of what is called space time that replaced the Aether. But I find some quotes from him like "space without an Aether is unthinkable". And certain parts of one of his speechs that indicate the same thing. And I am confused! Maybe he was feeling the heat from the decades of Dayton Miller experiments.

Funny, I was just reading about the pole and barn paradox. I don't think these things truly describe reality. And that is merely a result of math.

It is a shame that the word Aether has been so damaged. I suspect that the vacuum or one of the ground states of the physical universe is a static electric charge field. This could be the Aether. The unified field in theoretical physics? I have even heard that it could be a neutrino feild. It's nature I don't now, but a static charge field could explain why gravity appears to be instantaneous. Action at a distance even.

Mass is somehow related to charge. E=mc^2. There is some observational evidence for this. Some controversial experiments but notably an effect in comets. The EU maintains that comets are under electrical discharge within the Suns electric field. They are nothing more than asteroids on orbital paths that take them in and out of the suns electrical potential.

Now the point is when the Mass of comets is calculated using the standard assumptions these comets appear to be light fluffy things! Dirty fluff balls! This is nonsense, all missions to comets have shown a blackened cratered and scratched rocky surface with only a tiny amount of ice or none at all.

It also seems G is not constant at all.

It is an electric universe, right down to the very essence of matter. Well that is my opinion. It is not anti scientific, it is not breaking physical law or conflicting with actual data. It does challenge the interpretations of that data. Which is añ entirely different and often subjevtive thing. It is all a matter of perception. It was actually this stuff that got me hooked on biology can you believe it! Why? Well it for paints a more biocentric view. The universe seems more lifelike.

You know me, I say we are spirits, but our physical manifestation can be described as a bio electric organism composed of trillions of molecular machines processing mountains of non physical coded information in unified precission. Electricity is life, it stimulates your muscles to move, it beats your heart, it encodes the patterns in your consciousness, it can effect your consciousness. Seems the dead can more easily interact with electrical equipment. We could be considered connected with Earths electric field, (schumman resonance?) in turn connected with the Sun, in turn connected with the galaxy and so on...

 

[LoneShaman]

Anyhow, I've gone far outside the realm of accepted/mainstream physics here

Well I think we have found some common ground at least. A universal frame changes everything though, If Lorentz was correct there is no need for the abstraction of space time. Non of the paradoxes. And I think your idea has merit.

 

[LoneShaman]

I definitely think relativity is probably only appearance, which the interval is already hinting at. Despite how wild the relativity of simultaneity can makes things, using the space-time metric all observers can always reconstruct what every other observer would see and they all can agree upon the interval, which is a deeper, more fundamental aspect of spacetime, than space intervals, or time intervals, are on their own. Even the relativity of simultaneity has restrictions - it can only happen for what's called space-like separated events, i.e. events that are not causally connected, or events that don't lie in the same light cone. So, Mother Nature is pretty slick in that she keeps things sane in the midst of all this.

I think Mother Nature uses efficiancy. A universe coherant and present in a universal now is what intuition tells us. It would need to interact with itself in the moment for stability. Time is not anything that can be manipulated physically it is not anything at all really. It is deeply connected to consciousness I am sure.

So, this starts to sound like an absolute frame of reference, because all massless observers moving at c would all agree on what they observe - zero time and zero space between all events. Everything would be happening all at once. Sort of sounds like the experience of time reported by NDE'rs, which is why I sometimes joke if you want to know what eternity is like, just ask a photon! So, maybe we've just been looking in the wrong place for an absolute frame - too far into spacetime. This also supports the notion that eternity is not never-ending time, but rather the complete absence of time. It also hints at the idea that if you could accelerate to and move at the speed of light, you'd no longer really be moving - the concept of speed requires time.

An absolute frame means absolute time. No need for the time space metric. Beyond this barrier as you hinted at would be timeless, I have expressed similar thoughts. You know of my thoughts on information. Well I side with the quantum information angle that information is the fundamental stuff that is not stuff. I imagine this level of reality is outside of time. Information is not physical so it can transcend space and time. Why a photon seems not constrained by time. However the quantum teleportation experiments also suggest that when the information is teleported it destroys the original.

Consciousness is the processing and experience of information. Time is a perception, the perception of time can be severly altered, I know all to well! Time does not seem to exist after 7g of mushrooms. It may seem like I gave been in the other dimension for hours but when I get back the clock has only shown 5 minutes! But this does not mean time is some sort of fabric.

So, this is another reason I don't view the speed of light as just a "speed limit". As I mentioned above, it is intimately tied to the structure of spacetime. But, my wild speculations here seem to make it sound even more like a dimensional barrier (one that our consciousness, being massless, can overcome at any time, no pun intended! In a sense, Remote Viewing is the ability to ignore time and space seperations, or zero them out. Also makes it interesting how spirit has often been equated with light, throughout all religions and myths) I think all this could even be hinting at another realm that exists outside spacetime and that is a type of absolute existence (or frame?). Photons would exist just on the border between these two realms. (There are some un-accepted theories out there that actually say what we see as light is actually a "shadow" of a higher dimensional phenomenon, but I have unfortunately been unable to find these papers again)

I am right there with you on this. I think information ultimately is of a higher dimensional source, outside the barrier, the absolute frame of reference. Outside of absolute time.

 

[LoneShaman]

Besides if you take the quantum information angle or something along the lines of digital physics, holographic universe or just 50mg of DMT you can see this is all an elaborate mirage anyway. Time and space are an illusion. But the space time metric as hypothesized by Einstein is a mathematical illusion in my opinion.

It is quite clear cosmological models are broken, this is because of the assumption that gravity is the dominant force in the universe. It is not. Electromagnetism is billions and billions and billions of times stronger than gravity, attracts and repels, and space is full of magnetic fields, charged particles and ionized plasma!

GR is a theory of gravity. Gravity undoubtedly is something deep down in the very essence of matter itself within the arrangement and orientation of the sub atomic structure. And not due to any mathematical abstraction. There will be no anti grav in Einsteins physics. Don't tell those UFO's either;)

"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin.” Poincare

Electrons and protons become less responsive to feilds the more they are accelerated, this is interpreted as an increase in mass. But this is jumping the gun as we do not know exactly why matter has mass in the first place. And the comet mass is calculated making it look like a sponge. In replacing the Aether which Maxwells laws of electromagnetism were built on with an abstract mathematical concept, Einstein single handedly removed the possible link between gravity and electromagnetism.

 

[LoneShaman]

Here's the full documentary on the Electric comet. This is in my opinion one of the strongest arguments from the Electric Universe. The ramifications from just this alone changes everything.

The comparison between this model and the standard assumption is startling. Please watch and ask yourself should we be ignoring this information?

I hope you can take the time to watch Ethan. It also details some predictions confirmed!

The comet is a lynch pin case for the rest of cosmology, It spectacularly demonstrates the validity of the electric model.

 

[LoneShaman]

Just a summary.

The cosmological model built on the premise of GR has failed. The empirical observations defy an expanding universe, Red shift has another cause. Verified experimentally, along with the many anomolies catalouged by Arp that astrophysics have ignored for decades. Eddington changed his mind. The universe cannot be said to be expanding.

The CMB cannot be attributed with a cosmological source. It is a physical impossibility to remove the noise from the signal. The Earths signature is never taken into account. This along with the refutation of the red shift hypothesis invalidates the big bang.

Black holes defy not only logic but the math they are based on. They remain a completely mathematical construct and never have been directly detected. The adhoc theories to explain the jets using gravitation, shockwaves etc...have been falsified. The observation of magnetic fields, x-rays, synchroton radiation, gamma rays in extraordinarily energetic events demands an electrical interpretation. The dense plasma focus model easily explains observations well within known laws of physics.

There is no true evidence gravity can bend light, the plasma rim of the Sun can cause refraction. No gravitational lensing is observed where it should be. The monumental eclipse experiment of 1919 is meaningless.

The GR gravitaional model demands many times more mass than observed. The monumental fudge factor of invisible matter that can never be directly observed! This one thing alone should set alarms ringing! This diagram should be an embarrassment to physics!

The result of a failed model, sorry GR.


Space is not a complete vaccuum, it is permiated with ionized and inert dust and charged particles. A plasma. No doubt affecting the speed of light. Only electric currents create magnetic fields. The obvious mechanism for particle acceleration is an electric field. Plasma cosmology offers a simpler explanation of observations based on tried and true labatory plasma effects. The electric Comet model dramatically demonstrates the difference and quality of the opposing models. Meeting the requirement of valid theory with valid predictions.

Gravity appears instantaneous as per observation. Not propagating at the speed of light as Einstein said it should which would no doubt lead to instability. If it even propagates at all.

Modern physics is pointing once again to an Aether. The reasons for dismissing the concept were unfounded. And experimental evidence for it does exist. Maybe I will take a look in further rants.

The absolute time / variable speed of light of Lorentz (1904) and the relative time / absolute speed of light of Einstein (1905) are only slightly different mathematically. And all observations can be cast in light of both. There is evidence in favour of Lorentz, it also does not suffer from the absurdities, paradoxs and contradictions of Einstein. Remember time and space are mathematically adjusted to make C constant! This unfounded leap is normally unacceptable in science. Which would seem more likely? Lorentz is by far the simplest explanation.

Oh, and clocks are effected by gravity time is not. GPS does not prove Einsteins relativity. That is a myth.

 

[LoneShaman]

Rupert Sheldrake on the constancy of C.

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the speed of light in a vacuum is invariant: it is an absolute constant. Much of modern physics is based on that assumption. There is therefore a strong theoretical prejudice against raising the question of possible changes in the velocity of light. In any case, the question is now officially closed. Since 1972 the speed of light has been fixed by definition. The value is defined as 299,792.458 ± 0.001 # 2 kilometers per second.
As in the case of the universal gravitational constant, early measurements of c differed considerably from the present official value.

From around 1928 to 1945, the velocity of light appeared to be about 20 km/s lower than before and after this period. The 'best' values, found by the leading investigators using a variety of techniques, were in impressively close agreement with each other, and the available data were combined and adjusted by Birge in 1941 and Dorsey in 1945.
In the late 1940s the speed of light went up again. Not surprisingly, there was some turbulence at first as the old value was overthrown. The new value was about 20 km/s higher, close to that prevailing in 1927. A new consensus developed. How long this consensus would have lasted if based on continuing measurements is a matter for speculation. In practice, further disagreement was prevented by fixing the speed of light in 1972 by definition.

How can the lower velocity from 1928 to 1945 be explained? If it was simply a matter of experimental error, why did the results of different investigators and different methods agree so well? And why were the estimated errors so low?

In the case of the velocity of light, however, this question is now academic. Not only is the velocity fixed by definition, but the very units in which velocity is measured, distance and time, are defined in terms of light itself.

The second used to be defined as 1/86,400 of a mean solar day, but it is now defined in terms of the frequency of light emitted by a particular kind of excitation of caesium-133 atoms. A second is 9,192,631,770 times the period of vibration of the light. Meanwhile, since 1983 the meter has been defined in terms of the velocity of light, itself fixed by definition

Nevertheless, if such changes really happened, we would be blind to them. We are now shut up within an artificial system where such changes are not only impossible by definition, but would be undetectable in practice because of the way the units are defined. Any change in the speed of light would change the units themselves in such a way that the velocity in kilometers per second remained exactly the same.

http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/constants/

Science set free?

 

[LoneShaman]

Looks like I am not alone in my heretical views.

From John Bell!

I think it’s a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things. But I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincaré thought that there was an aether—a preferred frame of reference—but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether . . . that is certainly the cheapest solution. Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz invariant . . . what is not sufficiently emphasized in textbooks, in my opinion, is that the pre-Einstein position of Lorentz and Poincaré, Larmor and Fitzgerald was perfectly coherent, and is not inconsistent with relativity theory. The idea that there is an aether, and these Fitzgerald contractions and Larmor dilations occur, and that as a result the instruments do not detect motion through the aether—that is a perfectly coherent point of view . . . . The reason I want to go back to the idea of an aether here is because in these EPR experiments there is the suggestion that behind the scenes something is going faster than light. Now if all Lorentz frames are equivalent, that also means that things can go backward in time . . . [this] introduces great problems, paradoxes of causality, and so on. And so it is precisely to avoid these that I want to say there is a real causal sequence which is defined in the aether.

Maybe I am not so crazy after all. :D

And this.

‘’We have to give up Einstein’s interpretation of special relativity and return to Lorentz’s interpretation and with it to...absolute space and time...’’ - Karl Popper.

Wow! I had no idea.

 

[EthanT]

Here's the full documentary on the Electric comet. This is in my opinion one of the strongest arguments from the Electric Universe. The ramifications from just this alone changes everything.

The comparison between this model and the standard assumption is startling. Please watch and ask yourself should we be ignoring this information?

I hope you can take the time to watch Ethan. It also details some predictions confirmed!

The comet is a lynch pin case for the rest of cosmology, It spectacularly demonstrates the validity of the electric model.

I will definitely check this out. To be fair, I still find EU aesthetically pleasing with some good points, so I still planned to watch more (even if a few parts from the other videos turned me off a bit).

Maybe this will end up like String Theory for me, another theory I love to hate, or hate to love, lol. It too has some aesthetically pleasing concepts, but that one is the mother of all epicycles. Plus it's the only area of physics I ever studied where I actually didn't enjoy the math. But, recently Sri Aurobindo, of all people, got me thinking about it again a bit more favorably.

Anyhow, just got back from a Sierra trip (a day early) and I'm exhausted, but will eventually reply back.

Thanks!

 

[LoneShaman]

Cool, there are many proposals from the EU on a variety of subjects. Are they all valid? Well probably not. The important thing is looking at things in a different perspective. The basic concept that electromagnetism plays a much larger, even dominant role in the universe seems like a no brainer. You can see it in the fillamentary structures of plasma, the pervasive presence of magnetic fields throughout the universe and the fact that the visible universe is over 99% matter in the plasma state. X-rays, synchroton radiation are all signs of electricity. The particles from the sun defy gravity and actually speed up past the Earth. This is clearly particles being accelerated in the Suns electric field.
Some things are beyond reasonable doubt.

I know some things are difficult to hear when you have been instructed that they are true. I was once a big banger too.

Did you watch the CMB lecture from Robitallie? Pretty hard to ignore I think. Even harder to refute.

I would rather discuss the actual empirical evidence regarding actual observations. Math is important but it can't substitute for observation and experiment. That pretty much sums up my beef with cosmology. The comet model is a perfect example, there is lots of data and observations to draw on.

As for speculating I think the Aether is a valid alternative, especially in light of modern QM.
It is not all speculation though, there are several experiments that point towards it.

Harold Aspden, of the Aspden Effect refered to a dynamic Aether fluid crystal structure permeating all space: the energy source that regulates quantum activity, constantly framing our whole physical universe, and that accounts for the creation of matter.

Now they can have photons from the vacuum, and are talking of matter from light. This is exactly that. It would not surprise me the man made several amazing precision predictions in his time.

He also refered to it like a spirit of the universe.

 

[EthanT]

Funny, I was just reading about the pole and barn paradox. I don't think these things truly describe reality. And that is merely a result of math.

The math is no different - it's still a direct result of the Lorentz Transformation equations. It's only four very simple equatons. What's different is whether you hold c constant, or not. However, ...

... one of the coolest lab courses I had as a physics student was measuring the speed of light. All it took was a laser, a couple mirrors and an oscilloscope. I was amazed how close a bunch of goofball college students could get at measuring a speed so astronomical huge and of something so ethereal as light. At least one chemistry guy walking by and witnessing this lab switched his major to physics!

Anyhow, at the time, I couldn't help but think if we could pull this off surely some professional physicists could just get one oscilloscope in motion with respect to the other and prove the constancy of speed of light. Well, turns out it's a bit more sophisticated than that (no surprise!), but in numerous ways the constancy of the speed of light has been shown to extraordinary degrees of precision. The time dilation and length contraction formulas follow immediately from the Lorentz Transformation equations.

The predictions of these formulas show up all over the place.

Muons created in cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere just don't have the life span to reach the Earth at high rates, yet we see exactly that. That's because their experience of time is dilated as compared to ours at "rest" on Earth, while from their perspective the length between them and the Earth is contracted.

Every single run at the LHC ( and all other particle colliders ) are just like the pole/barn paradox. The particles are driven to speeds near light. Also, the increase in relativistic momentum and energy is not only measured to high degrees of precision, it needs to be accounted for to get sensible results. These are calculated from formulas similar to the time dilation and length contraction. All the formulas contain something called gamma, or the stretch factor.

Sagnac-type of experiments show that light doesn't care about rotating sources, either, also demonstrating the constancy of c.

Photons have been measured to lose energy rising in a gravitational field - GR time dilation - over the decades in numerous ways. These experiments also validate the constancy of C and hence SR.

GPS satellites ( as well numerous experiments involving airplanes) have time corrections based off Special and General Relativity. In the case of GPS, these time differences, although very small, propagate into huge spatial errors over time and must be taken into account.

Anyhow, one could probably go on all day long into numerous other areas. Point being, these formulas are tested every day an untold number of times to incredibly significant degrees of precision with astounding success.

With all that said, some important points follow, which I hope clarify the mainstream/popular opinion.

(1) Physicists generally aren't opposed to C changing. The only real reason to get wrapped up about C changing is if one views it solely as some absolute speed limit. Rather, as I explained above, it is more deeply viewed as being related to the structure of space-time itself. If this structure evolves than C would also evolve, or change.

(2) There are reasons (Quantum Gravity stuff above my head and possibly BS at this point anyhow) to suspect that Lorentz Invariance may be violated, but this would be hiding at scales where it would leave the above mentioned time dilation and length contractions formulas still valid in all the arenas mentioned. So, Lorentz Invariance isn't some absolute, written-in-stone thing either, in the eyes of many.

(3) It's even viewed as possible that light may have a small (as of yet, undetectable) mass. Even here, that would mean that light could vary from c by small (again, as of yet, undetectable) amounts, but there would still be a c that would act as a conversion factor between time/space and still preserve the causal structure of space-time as viewed under Special Relativity. It's just wouldn't be the speed of light anymore.

Point I'm trying to make is that physics doesn’t view the speed of light, Lorentz Invariance, or other matters, as rigidly as is often perceived.

 

[EthanT]

From John Bell!

I'd say Bell was being a bit short-sighted here, but one can't blame him - even being Bell. The whole "something must be going faster than the speed of light" to explain entanglement view, is becoming somewhat antiquated, but only very recently.

It arises from a particle vs wave worldview which is being replaced by the field-centric view (which physicists are already looking to replace with something else, but that's a whole 'nother discussion)

Particles, as talked about in QFT, are very strange things. They show up in Quantum Field Theory as definite states of momentum in Fourier Space - meaning they are non-local in regular space. Put very simply and perhaps a bit too loosely, what they are is the smallest quantized amount of energy/momentum a field can come in. A field is inherently non-local, but when it interacts it must do so locally and this is what appears as a "particle" - the local interaction of a field, which shows up in discrete amounts of energy/momentum.

Since a field is non-local, so is the information it contains. Therefore, the information for the system of entangled particles, is also non-local and spread out across space, meaning it doesn’t have to travel anywhere. Remind you of something? Psi, maybe ;-)

Even more deeper, it has been shown that entanglement in space is equivalent to entanglement in time, so the above mentioned logic applies not only across space, but time as well.

This is part of the reason I am a fan of Time Symmetric Quantum Mechanics. It already contains a richer view on time that jives up nicely with the rest of this. Under TSQM, the system of entangled pairs can be viewed as entangled through time (back to when the pair was together) Likewise, with the information the system contains. Penrose is also a fan of this view for providing a "mechanism" for entanglement. It's also ideas like this that are helping physics make progress to eventually explaining psi, in my humble opinion. This has to be why guys like Aharanov are open-minded about psi (behind the scenes)

So, of course, hard for Bell (or anybody else!) to see all this coming. This is one reason why quotes from physicists, especially older ones, aren't always taken super seriously. As genius as they can be, it's hard even for them to imagine what future physics (let alone spirituality, parapsychology!) might say.

 

[EthanT]

I know some things are difficult to hear when you have been instructed that they are true. I was once a big banger too.

I should probably clarify my postion here. I ultimately think the Big Bang theory is probably wrong. I think some refined version of a Big-Bang-Like theory will apply to very early time periods of the Universe, in such a way that will "seal the deal" on the Universe (or at least this instance of the Universe ) being finite into the past. [Of course, the BICEP results have potential to change my position somewhat if they are actually confirmed, but for now I hold to the above view.]

This is sort of how I view Black Holes too ( as well as physicists, generally, I think it is safe to say ). Ultimately, we don't really know what the heck they really are, but General Relativity is accurate to high degrees of precision up to a point where the "deal is sealed" that something Black-Hole-Like is left behind. But, it sure ain't going to be what the simplistic view of a singularity says it is.