Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Who is right and who is wrong?


Check out Space.com today! More and more scientists agree with what yours truly predicted years ago, that the fundamental "constants" are changing. "Public confidence in the 'constants' of nature may be at an all-time low." It wasn't long ago that talking about this would get you shouted down in a room. Now who is smiling?
Shortly you may see a paper with collaborating evidence from an entirely different source, showing that c has been decreasing at exactly the rate the GM=tc^3 predicts.
In the meantime, I've been having a lot of fun with an underwater camera. Above is a typical day in the Great Barrier Reef.
Below is a Tasmanian Giant Crab. His shell can be 45 cm across!

11 Comments:

Blogger QUASAR9 said...

Now he looks like a mighty fella. The Tasmanian Giant Crab - one totally 'alien' species right here on earth. The fact they have their skeleton or shell on the outside makes you think of astronauts spacesuits & robotics does it not.

6:27 AM  
Blogger InsightAction said...

Why couldn't Newtons constant be changing instead? Or for that matter how is what you are proposing different than the hypothesis of mass creation in older static cosmological models?

With the way you have stated your equation there is no experimental way to differentiate between any of the three parameters evolving. How do you propose to over come this?

Isn't the honest way to phrase the question is to ask whether the Plank time sqrt(Gh/c^5) is changing? What experiment would you do to measure this quantity?

Oh and gloating is unattractive.

7:45 AM  
Anonymous another girl said...

Can't blame a girl for gloating when she's up against so much opposition. Right or wrong, let her have her happiness. What does it hurt anyone else? What I wonder (I'm not a physicist) is if c might be speeding up instead? Though I do have to admit that the idea of there being no real constants is not comfortable.

8:27 AM  
Blogger L. Riofrio said...

Very nice comments from all of you! Q9, I would be happy to do that. Insight, in the spirit of Richard Feynman, real theoretical physics produces testable results.

Paul Dirac proposed a varying-G cosmology. It was disproved by multiple experiments. One test used data from the Viking lander to show that Mars' orbital period wasn't changing. If G varied planetary orbits would not be stable and life could not evolve on Earth. Dirac and others have proposed continuous creation of matter, but that has never been observed.

In contrast, c change can be observed in supernova redshifts. It has been fashionable to speculate that c is fixed and the universe accelerates. Collaborating evidence from a different source distinguishes c change from "dark energy" ideas. I would love to elaborate, but that paper is still going through final review.

Making a prediction also risks being proved wrong. It also draws slings and arrows. As you know, elegant math can predict nothing. My enthusiasm comes from Cecilia Payne's "divine dipsomania". Guys get to do that funny dance when they score a goal.

6:47 PM  
Blogger InsightAction said...

How can redshift alone measure a change in the speed of light? Wouldn't you need to look at emission and absorbtion bands, as these explicitly depend on the speed of light, as well as charge and mass ratios?

But in a broader sense, if you are to argue that the physics of remote parts of the universe is different from the physics locally then how can one claim to make any sort of sensible observations of the remote universe. Our exrapolations of the remote universe, things like stellar evolution, brightness, etc are predict upon the assumption that physics throughout the universe is isotropic.

6:55 AM  
Blogger island said...

Dirac and others have proposed continuous creation of matter, but that has never been observed.

Excuse me, but it's common knowledge that the quantum vacuum has real particle potential where the continuous creation of matter occurs via the creation of matter/antimatter pairs.

The problem with Quasi Steady State Models is that the predicted low energy thermalizing "iron whiskers" are not observed.

This is not a problem for every quasi steady state model, and the one that is discussed here should by-rights be the preferred theory:

http://www.blogger.com/login-comment.do

P.S. Your travel companion is an excellent photographer, and you are a great subject.

6:13 AM  
Blogger L. Riofrio said...

Thank you, Island. Your site on the anthropic principle is interesting too. It would have been more accurate to state, "Continuous creation of matter in a steady-state Universe does not conform to observations," but I cut it short. Matter is created all the time in experiments.

I have been fortunate to talk with Narlikar about his steady-state models. The cosmology described here resembles a steady-state model in that the basic principles apply at all times. This cosmology does allow for creation of matter, though at a decreasing rate.

10:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12:45 AM  
Anonymous About Medicine Blog said...

It wasn't long ago that talking about this would get you shouted down in a room.

11:31 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page