sciencetoyboy

Hi Iv been reading the Andreas Albretcht paper on varying c over time and how the idea may solve some cosmological problems. Its quite bewildering to a non mathematical person like myself, however i found the things I do understand ( or think I understand) fascinating. One thing I did pick up on was the problem with talking about a dimensionless constant varying over time because we need a dimensional quantity to measure it against, and whose to say its not the other quantity changing? Could it not be measured against itself (ratio of yesterdays speed to today's) ? Another thing that Iv probably got all wrong is ..... "We have shown how a time varying speed of light could provide a resolution to the well known cosmological puzzles. These “VSL” models could provide an alternative to the standard Inflationary picture, and furthermore resolve the classical cosmological constant puzzle." Is this paragraph talking about E=MC2 whilst considering c slowing down over time . Hence as c decreases so does energy, and this explains the expansion of the universe (the missing energy went into the expansion). Einsteins cosmological constant?

Hi Back from my hols Thanks J Donna for the PDF of Albrecht-Magueijo paper. I think it will take me a while to digest but it looks like its going to be great. thanks again.

Hi Klaynos Sorry Iv just realized that the red writing on your post about philosophy and random thoughts is written on all your posts. I thought you where having a go at me for not being scientific enough. Im am new in my defence! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIf anybody does post any answers to any of my questions on the fine structure constant, and changing any 1 of its combined constants like the speed of light for instance. I am going on holiday for a week so I apologise if I don't thank you straight away, but I will look forward to reading anything posted on the subject when I get back. Many thanks Alex

Hi Thanks for the links, the info they have given me is a bit bewildering but definitely hold the key to what it is I'v been wondering about. The fine structure constant is a new one for me. Im going to ask another question here at the risk of being flamed for random thoughts but here goes. If any one of the constants, electron charge e, the speed of light c, and Planck's constant h, are changed, does this mean that all the others would have to change for the fine structure constant to remain the same, so that the laws of physics would remain the same. and so in effect if you upped the value for the speed of light you would be upping the value of "distance" as well, therefore in reality nothing changes? ( is that gauge symmetry?). Sorry here is another few questions. These probably will get me flamed. If just one of these constants was changed, lets say the speed of light and we don't change the others, so there is a real change in the fine structure constant. What would be the result ? Is it a proven fact that this has never happened? and if so what demonstrates this proof? If anybody can help me to understand all this it would be greatly appreciated. I know I'm a non scientist and if I phrase my questions in a non-scientific way its because I not only don't know the answers but I don't really know the right questions to ask. So I might convey my thoughts hypothetically in an imaginary theory, but I don't think that this is such a bad thing, if eventually it leads me to science. Many Thanks

Hi thanks but again I think you have missed the point Im not talking about a a shift in frequency as light travels large distances over long periods of time in an expanding universe. Im talking about the speed of light not being 300,000km/s when the universe was half the size it is now, but being even faster. Bound to travel at a different speed the moment it was emitted, due to its local space time.

I don't mean a redshift in the frequency of light as the universe expands. I mean the speed of light as it is emitted being different depending on how compacted the universe is. Imagine the fabric of space-time possesses more "tension" when it is small and less when it is large, and light travels faster through a more "tense" space time fabric.

Please can anybody falsify this statement? “The speed of light is changing and the change is proportional to the expansion of the universe.” if the speed of light was to slow down as a consequence of the expansion of the universe, when we consider E=MC2 than the drop in energy would explain where the energy comes from to drive the expansion “DARK ENERGY” . In the distant past when the universe was half its size, consider the fabric of space time conducting light much quicker , just like vibration waves through a compressed spring would travel faster than waves through a not so compressed spring. This would also give symmetry to gravity always being attractive, giving us a repulsive force throughout the universe. Many Thanks Alex

Could it be that this is evolutionary behavior which stems from harem type groups of primates where a resistive gene for homosexuality could do well by way of a male primate being allowed to stay with the group because he wasn't a threat to his brother the dominant male, and helping to look after his brothers genes by staying within the group. just a thought.

I am really having trouble with understanding the experiment John Bell proposed to prove that the (spin) of one of the entangled particle pairs was indeed undecided until the moment the others orientation was measured. This is how I understand it so far.... Two particles are created from a particle with spin 0, the particles need to have opposite spins to cancel out so as to conserve overall spin value. Both particles are sent in opposite directions, even miles away. The spin of one of the particles is measured and so the spin of the other particle is known because it has to have opposite spin. Einstein used this experiment to demonstrate that the spin of both particles where decided the moment they where created "They had to be" but John Bell put a second detector after the first and somehow proved that the spin of particle A was not actually decided until particle B was measured. Could anybody explain in as simple terms as possible (cos Im not very clever) how this modification proves entanglement. Many thanks

Hi My nmeame is Alex or (sciencetoyboy) I am a newby and I decided to join this forum after my wife threatened to leave me If I tried to talk science to her one more time. I have no formal education on any science subject only recent books I have read and I look forward to sharing my ignorance with you.:

Wow! So there really is an end to the visible universe! This raises questions in my mind as to weather there may be galaxies that are blue shifted beyond our visibility! suggesting different regions of the universe expand and contract!

Im new to this forum, My wife is fed up with me talking science, and has SUGGESTED I join a science forum, so I did a google search and here I am. Hi Everyone. I have a passion for science, but unfortunately I had no such passion when I was at school hence my limited knowledge comes from recent books Iv read and not from an education. With this in mind I hope any experts out there will be gentle and be prepared to answer quite a lot of probably dumb questions I may have on aspects of science I am enjoying learning about. Here comes the first.... If a distant galaxy's red shift is observed to give a speed of 3/4 the speed of light and another galaxy in the opposite direction is also observed to be moving away from us at 3/4 the speed of light, does this mean that galaxy A is traveling faster than light speed relative to galaxy B ?