Jump to content

einstein is wrong


Recommended Posts

A Dr. Murphy at cambridge has found evidence that the fine structure constant, might actually have varied billions of years ago. meaning one of the fundemental constants in physics, actually isnt so constant. The speed of light also depends on "alpha", and if one varies then the other does as well ,which means that einstein was wrong. now of course their are people who are also looking into this because physicists just can't accept their entire theory of general relavitivity is flawed, but i think Dr Murphy is right. i dont want ot go into the matho fi t all so i will offer two links:






So, there you go, boys and girls, there is a fundemental flaw in physics, the sacred "speed of light" is not so sacred afterall. even it changes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been hearing about variable alpha for many years----occasionally a little evidence surfaces, and there is a mild flurry, and then the next two or three studies dispose of it, and things quiet down.


Over the years it has gotten less and less credible that alpha changes. tighter and tighter bounds on its variation are established


this is confirmed by the source which you cite:


=====quote from Wikipedia=====

Is the fine structure constant really constant?


Physicists have been wondering whether the fine structure constant is really a constant, i.e. whether it always had the same value over the history of the universe, as some theories had been suggested which implied this not to be the case. First experimental tests of this question, most notably examination of spectral lines of distant astronomical objects and of the Oklo natural nuclear fission reactor, have not hinted any changes.

Recent improvements in astronomical techniques brought first hints in 2001 that in fact might change its value over time. (For a brief article see (1) ). However in recent years several experiments have put increasing tighter limits on the variability of over time. In April 2004, the first set of new and more-detailed observations on quasars made using the UVES spectrograph on Kueyen, one of the 8.2-m telescopes of ESO's Very Large Telescope array at Paranal (Chile), puts limits to any change in at 0.6 parts per million over the past ten billion years. ESO press release (2) (3)). In April and July 2005, further theoretical (4) and experimental (5) studies have placed even tighter bounds on the variation in the fine structure constant.



It is a popular mistake to assume that alpha and c are linked in an ironclad way so that if one changes the other must change.


Alpha and c occur together in some formulas, along with some other physical quantities. ANY ONE of these could, in principle, change and the change could be compensated by something else----so the quantities do not have to change in lock-step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things:


1) Scientists have been dealing with light moving at different speeds in a practical matter for as long as relativity has existed


2) Relativity does not actually depend on light's speed never varying; just that all observers see it as moving at the same speed, regardless of their relative velocities


So you can relax! There is reason for plenty of drama if Murphy is right, but not the kind you have in your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Locrian.


It is certainly a logical possibility that some important fundamental physical constants change! why not?


People have speculated about this for 50-100 years. What you say does not make sense, however.


One could have the speed of light changing WITHOUT ALPHA changing.

One could also have alpha changing but SPEED OF LIGHT still be CONSTANT.


It is mostly in popular newspaper articles that people link the two because the public is not so familiar with alpha, so to make it more exciting the news releases often connect it to the speed of light (more recognizable to general audience).


Logically, either could be changing, or the charge on the electron could be changing:-) or the ratio of the mass of the proton to the mass of the electron (which I think is around 1837) could be changing:D


But when people make observations of distant starlight, or geological evidence, etc. in an effort to find out if the fundamental numbers ACTUALLY DO change, the weight of the evidence (at least as I have seen over the years) is that they ACTUALLY DON'T CHANGE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for fun, let me put a different spin on things.


I've been reading a great deal about negative index (NI) materials. People are used to the idea that light travels slower in most materials. The idea that it could travel faster (the phase velocity, at least) in a NI material was not well accepted until 2002 - or later.


Anyways, in 2001 Valanju et. al. published a paper in physics review letters (Phys Rev Lett, 88 187401) entitled “Wave Refraction in Negative Index Media: Always positive and Very Inhomogenous.” They wrote:


In conclusion, we have shown that causality and finite signal speed preclude negative refraction for any waves incident on any material, including NIM. The NIM dispersion implies positive group refraction even when phase refraction is negative, and causes large angles upg between phase and signal fronts and creates inhomogeneous waves that rapidly decay, during and after passage through NIM. The strong distortion of the signal puts severe bounds on the bandwidth of the information that can be transmitted through NIM devices. Negative refraction ray diagrams in all earlier literature do not represent the correct positive wave (i.e., signal) refraction by NIM.


Note their reasoning: causality. Light traveling at a different speed to them suggested a serious problem with how we view the world.


They were wrong. They were writing up that paper the same time negative refraction was being experimentally demonstrated, and that paper was published within a similar time frame. Hows that for a bad day, coming to work to find out your paper that just got printed is already wrong?


So in conclusion, it is easy to be fooled when you see that the speed of light might change into thinking all of physics suddenly crashes at our feet. It doesn't, as Valanju et. al. can tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, you guys know much more about this than me, which is obvious. i asked a friend of mine, "how could the universe expand faster than light at one point of its creation if lighti s supposedly the fastest thing in the universe and nothing can expand faster than it? i asked him this and he told me maybe the speed of light was not always what it was. So, after a few hours of trying to sort through the crazy stuff (the articles on ftl by crazy people) i stumble upon this. But you guys are stil lsaying its not possible, so my question to you is, then how did the universe do it? How did it do something that is supposedly impossible? because there have been recent studies that the CNO cycle is actually two times slower than we thought, which would make the universe much older than we thought. So, if the CMB is spread uniformily across the universe, then that means this heat energy was somehow faster than light? so how can that be if light has been the same speed its been and cannot change and nothing supposedly can go faster?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The expansion of the universe and therefore also the increase of distances between stars with >c is (using mainstream cosmology/GR) not related to the speed of light at all. Both "speeds" are conceptually totally different. You might have heard about the "rubber-sheet analogy". The universe is considered a band of rubber that is expanded. Therefore, the distance between two points you might have marked on that sheet/band increase. There is actually no fundamental limit on how fast "the sheet is expanded". Velocity in the sense of lightspeed is something different. It´s a local property, which technically means that it locally puts constraints on the directions you can move in spacetime (no need to worry if you don´t understand that sentence, let´s go back to the rubber sheet...). In the rubber-sheet analogy, it is usually visualized by a small animal (small because it´s a local property, as I said - the expansion of the universe shall not notably expand the distance between the creature´s legs) sitting on that rubber sheet and moving along. Since it´s only a normal little ... say spider, it can only move with some maximum velocity, for example c. Since the expansion rate of the rubber sheet is unconstrained, the poor spider can have bad luck and ending up moving slower than the points around it move away from it.

Stupid story made short: "The universe expands" does not mean that the stars in the universe travel to already-existing space with overlightspeed. It means that the distances between points increase really fast due to some other weird mechanism (which ultimately is the field equations of GR).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The value of time is covariant with the value of space it occurs in. The covariance of space-time coordinate systems accomodates that the speed of light varies from place to place and time to time, but that is it always constant (C - Celeritas Constant) relative to the coordinate system from which it originates and with which it is associated."

In the 4-D space-time continuum, yesterday's speed of light is slower when compared to today's, and today's speed of light is slower when compared to tomorrow's; while the speed of light remains constant at any given moment on and within - relative to - any given coordinate system.

(Refer, the dynamics of and solutions to 'optical - event - horizon' & 'Olber's paradox')


- K.B. Robertson, GRAVITY, ELECTRICITY & MAGNETISM are the 4th, 5th & 6th Dimensions. The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field - Steady State - Theory (Aka, TOTAL FIELD THEORY: The Big Bang Theory is Wrong. Entropic 'Heat Death' is a Myth) http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

People often mistake c and alpha to be interconnected, but don't actually realise what the speed of light DOES depend on. The speed of calculated the taking the product of the permettivity of free space, and the permeability of free space, squaring rooting that, then finding the recipricol. If one of those were to change, then so would c...i think..not sure lol...


Permittivity is a physical quantity that describes how an electric field affects and is affected by a dielectric medium, and is determined by the ability of a material to polarize in response to the field, and thereby reduce the field inside the material. Thus, permittivity relates to a material's ability to transmit (or "permit") an electric field.


Permeability is pretty much the same, but for magnetism. Basically, it relates to somethings ability to transmit or..allow magnetic fields.


Therefore C wont change unless space-times composition somehow changes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.