Physics looks for new Einstein as nature rewrites laws of universe

Times Newspapers Ltd. ^ | September 9 2001 | Jonathan Leake

[rightofrush]

I have long thought that "c" was just the limit to the transfer of information by the EM spectrum. If you were to exceed light of light, objects before you would fade to the UV, then black, while objects to your rear would fade to IR before turning black.

[Physicist]

Good metaphor...do you think there is any significant isomorpism between them?

No, I don't see how there would be.

[Squantos]

I gotta get glasses.....when I saw the word "Cosmologists" my first thought was why are we worried about what a bunch of hair dresser's think ?

Stay Safe....

[RightWhale]

To begin with a presupposition regarding the speed of light

Perception of the speed of light in a vacuum does not change with motion of the observer. That is, if the observer is moving at nearly the speed of light, he will not see the oscillations of the light wave traveling alongside him as nearly frozen. The frequency or the wavelength of the oscillation will change, but not the perceived speed.

[Nogbad]

When I was a child I read in my schoolbook that the universe was 2 billion years old.

I now hear that it is 10 billion years old.

Wow, to think I have lived 8 billion years.

I wonder how old it will be by the time I kick the bucket.

[RightWhale]

If you were to exceed light of light

No reason why not except we are made out of particles that are linked to photons, electrical and magnetic fields. If we can disconnect from that linkage somehow . . .

[telos]

You are travelling at the speed of light, and that not bad.

[StriperSniper]

when I saw the word "Cosmologists" my first thought was

Glad you you didn't 'see' proctologist!;-)

[bryan1276]

The Lord recorded for you the way the universe was created--separating water from water and creating space (Gen. 1:6). The ice above is what gives the universe its pyramid shape and is what closes the universe up in its finite space. THis makes laws possible. (So the universe is encased in ice.) Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Job 38:29 Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it? The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen. Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth? Exodus 28-40 is more specific about all this. As to the speed of light, it is not constant according to the BIble and never was. This has been proven, but forgotten for the sake of holding up Einstein as a god in order to promote relativity in moral standards on the assumption that it existed in physics. However, back in the 1880s light was "clocked" at over 200,000 miles/second... as we know it is now timed at 180,000 miles/second. But since all things in a closed system tend toward entropy, that includes light. (The Red Shift concept is not due to an expanding universe, rather a decreasing speed of light.) Anyhow, physics shows we live in a closed system and any thought to the contrary is alot of vain imagination.

[bryan1276]

If you exceeded the speed of light you wouldnt see anythying. Why do you think that is? (It's pretty simple.)

[Moonman62]

We know that the total energy of the universe is zero.

Where does the energy go from photons that are redshifted by the expanding Universe?

[PatrickHenry]

If we can disconnect from that linkage somehow . . .

There's a great deal of disconnect going on around here. Some people are very good at it.

[Physicist]

Where does the energy go from photons that are redshifted by the expanding Universe?

It doesn't go anywhere. It's a Doppler shift. If you were comoving with the distant galaxy right now, you'd see the photons at exactly the frequency that the source sent them. If you were comoving with the Milky Way back when the photons were emitted, and were close to the source, you would see them as redshifted as we see them today. The photons haven't changed at all; it just that frequency depends on point-of-view.

[Physicist]

(The Red Shift concept is not due to an expanding universe, rather a decreasing speed of light.)

That is not a physically tenable position. There have been entire threads on FR debunking that hypothesis.

Anyhow, physics shows we live in a closed system and any thought to the contrary is alot of vain imagination.

It seems to me that that assertion redounds more to my position than to yours. I do not assume any "outside" to the universe. By introducing a tinkering creator, you have to.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

I trust you don't think I agree with the manipulative Berry; I have faith the pursuit of truth will lead to God. At any rate, these scientific/religious/philosophic exercises move me toward faith. I am expecting no Heaven on earth

What do you mean by maniplative? I would love details. I have to friends who literally work with/for Berry(and either Brian Schimmer or Matthew Fox.) What do you know about Berry? My buddy gave my a book co-authored by Berry and one of the other two, and I couldn't get past the first few pages b/c it was so insipid. I am a bit of a physics buff (actually took several graduate level quantum and relativity classes whild I was persuing an engineering degree, and read a bit to this day), but my friends wouldn't undestand the implications of something like Bell's Inequality if it slapped them in the face...

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

This may be a silly question. It's been a while, but ...

Does we actually understand why the red shift exists? I remember talking to some physics grad students (I was a lowly math/physics undergraduate at the time) who said that no one really understood why there was a red shift, as opposed to the Doppler effect which clearly exists because there is a medium in which the waves are being produced, and against which the source moves. There is no medium for light, ie. no ether if you believe Michelson/Morley.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

as opposed to the Doppler effect for sound waves

[Linda Liberty]

There is a very interesting book by Lee Smolin (a well known theoretical physicist) called "The Life of the Cosmos" that starts from the premise that (a) black holes are basically small universes of their own and (b) the laws of physics in a black hole are small mutations on the laws of physics in the universe surrounding the black hole. From this you immediately get a kind of evolution: survival of the fittest where fittest means laws of physics that have a lot of black holes. I.e., there are a huge, maybe infinite, number of different universes with different laws of physics, but the vast majority of them have laws of physics that cause lots of stars and thus lots of black holes. But this explains why our universe has the laws it does: the laws of physics have to be such as to make lots of stars, and that involves extreme fine tuning of the laws, which is then accomplished by evolution.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I don't believe E=MC^2.

Take a tour of Frenchman's Flat sometime. Or Eniwetok.

[Linda Liberty]

The doppler effect for light waves is as well understood as the doppler effect for sound waves. Transmission of waves without a medium is well understood. A separate effect, the gravitational red shift is also well understood, following from general relativity.

Probably what you are thinking of is the question of whether the red shift observed in astronomical objects is due to motion of the objects away from us or some other cause, and whether one can reliably say that a quasar with a red shift X is really a distance Y away, as calculated from hypothesis regarding the origin of the cosmological red shift, and whether one can reliably infer that the universe is expanding at such and such a rate, is such and such an age, etc. On this it is fair to say there is considerable consensus, but some room for challenge.