|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
age/size of universe
On Jun 17, 4:30*pm, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity: Rudolf Drabek wrote: How can I look back 14 billion LJ (assumed age of universe 15 B yrs ). At that time the universe was 1 billion yrs old and the light should have approached quite earlier at me. No. In big bang models the universe has been expanding sufficiently fast that such light took 14 gigayears to reach you. Or there was no BigBang? Without one it's exceedingly difficult to construct a cosmological model that agrees with observations. But the details before something like 10^-27 second are not well known, and it's possible there was not truly a singularity -- in GR there definitely is one, but there's no reason to expect GR to apply to such extreme conditions. Understanding this will almost surely have to wait for a theory of quantum gravity to be formulated.... Tom Roberts YOU should formulate it Roberts Roberts although you are still a freshman among hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult. Half of your superior brothers are already making money elsewhere, the other half speak of "energy-dependent speed of light" and therefore will abandon Einsteiniana soon: http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track -- but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity." http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized Einstein's general theory of relativity.....But there is another possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of relativity! This was understood a few years ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy." Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
age/size of universe
The age of the universe must include the universal expansion that
carried the most distamt onbjects out to 13 bilion lighy years. The light then had to return accross expanding space. Mitch Raemsch |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
age/size of universe
On Jun 17, 5:04*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jun 17, 4:30*pm, Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity: Rudolf Drabek wrote: How can I look back 14 billion LJ (assumed age of universe 15 B yrs ). At that time the universe was 1 billion yrs old and the light should have approached quite earlier at me. No. In big bang models the universe has been expanding sufficiently fast that such light took 14 gigayears to reach you. Or there was no BigBang? Without one it's exceedingly difficult to construct a cosmological model that agrees with observations. But the details before something like 10^-27 second are not well known, and it's possible there was not truly a singularity -- in GR there definitely is one, but there's no reason to expect GR to apply to such extreme conditions. Understanding this will almost surely have to wait for a theory of quantum gravity to be formulated.... Tom Roberts YOU should formulate it Roberts Roberts although you are still a freshman among hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult. Half of your superior brothers are already making money elsewhere, the other half speak of "energy-dependent speed of light" and therefore will abandon Einsteiniana soon: http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. *On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track -- but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these heated debates. *I also realized that there were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. *So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity." http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized Einstein's general theory of relativity.....But there is another possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of relativity! This was understood a few years ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy." Roberts Roberts if you want to become a member of the Perimeter Institute where Einsteiniana is still a money-spinner: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ you should start repeating the words of Master Joao Magueijo who is now inside the Perimeter Institute and eats a lot and is very happy: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all ''Perhaps relativity is too restrictive for what we need in quantum gravity,'' Dr. Magueijo said. ''We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light.'' Something like this: Tom Roberts: ''We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light yes we need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light oh yes we need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light yes yes yes! Then Big Brother Lazaridis may appreciate your revolutionary ideas and then you will be given a place at the table, next to eating Master Joao Magueijo. Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
age/size of universe
On Jun 18, 1:06*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Roberts Roberts if you want to become a member of the Perimeter Institute where Einsteiniana is still a money-spinner: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ you should start repeating the words of Master Joao Magueijo who is now inside the Perimeter Institute and eats a lot and is very happy: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all ''Perhaps relativity is too restrictive for what we need in quantum gravity,'' Dr. Magueijo said. ''We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light.'' Something like this: Tom Roberts: ''We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light yes we need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light oh yes we need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light yes yes yes! Then Big Brother Lazaridis may appreciate your revolutionary ideas and then you will be given a place at the table, next to eating Master Joao Magueijo. Roberts Roberts Big Brother Lazaridis and Superior Brother Smolin have already considered your 2006 discovery: http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...1ebdf49c012de2 Tom Roberts, Feb 1, 2006: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability would be reduced)." They were inclined to offer you a place at one of the tables at the Perimeter Institute, next to eating Master Joao Magueijo, but then an incredibly intelligent Einsteinian called Superior Brother Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond told them that you are in fact "parvenu et plagiaire": it is Superior Brother Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, not you Roberts Roberts, that has discovered that Einstein's 1905 false light postulate is obsolete and if the speed of light is constant Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity "would be unaffected" and if the speed of light is variable Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity "would be unaffected" again: http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part, nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais, empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de futures mesures mettent enévidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer, il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs plus economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la condition de l'exploiter a fond." http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity." Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Age and Size of the Universe. | George Dingwall | UK Astronomy | 11 | November 8th 07 10:04 AM |
Accelerator The Size of the Universe | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 43 | April 30th 06 10:19 AM |
Size of the universe | Ray Vingnutte | Misc | 4 | December 6th 04 09:43 AM |
Size of Universe | Michael Stogden | UK Astronomy | 2 | July 9th 04 05:43 AM |
Size of the universe vs. c | timbo | Misc | 5 | May 31st 04 02:22 PM |