Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

January 19, 2018

ARTICLE: Breaking the Universe's Speed Limit [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

RL Oldershaw wrote on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 15:18 GMT
Will we get any testable predictions form these speculations?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 20:41 GMT
Hi dear Robert,

How are you it was time, but where were you?

rationalization's revoltion.....


For this article

it's interesting.I admit that the light limit is a problem for future travel inside our universal.The gravitational waves are relevant.Now of course we could find others linear speeds more important above the gauge of light and even without the light.The light is for the perception and like a fuel.It exists probably others linearities, but of course it's for the future.Can we find now, is it important to invest now, is it rational....

The gravitational waves are rlevant in all case.If you take some binar system with stars ,as pulsars, their rotations are improtant.We take the orbital period ,the time of arrival of signals,and the phasis of the orbital of the pulsar and the position and the topology spherical.The waves are under the general relativity , insert the volumes of spheres and the evolution linked witht the speeds of rotations orbitals and spinals see maxwell for the distribution of velocities and the cooling since the hypothetical BB,the rule of spheres become so important and the volumes also considering the entropic evolution.The cinetic momments are purelly correlated and the orbitals momments also, in logic of spherization repecting the cooling,we see the effect of mass and considering the volumes for BH we see the pure relativity if we understand the 4D space time and the distribution of velocities of these spheres, quantics and cosmologics.The gravitational waves are correlated but we see only the light gauge constant.In logic of distribution and with the evolutive volumes, we can find others linearities more important.perhaps the extrapolation of Taylor eissberg can help.The dr Corda and his very relevant works can find very relevant roads if we consider the spherical 3D waves and the pure ditribution of velocities of rotations.The volumes are a key and seem so essential as all thermodynamical links.



report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 15:51 GMT
SR is applicable for objects in space and not for the expansion of space itself.

The standard model of cosmology indicates that galaxies which have a red-shift of 1,5, their wavelength of light equals 150% of the one we measure in the laboratory, move away from us at the speed of light.

Right now we know of about 10.000 galaxies with a red-shift greater as 1,5. these objects are moving away from us at a recession speed faster as the speed of light.

The cosmic background radiation has covered a much longer road, its cosmological red shift is about 1100 !!!. So when the hot plasma that radiated the waves that we observe today, it is probable that it (relatively) moved away from us at a speed of 50 times the speed of light. The emitted photon has its local speed of light, so it looses distance compared with its origin (like someone trying to go up on a fast moving down staircase ) here we meet the Hubble Constant .

The Hubble constant right now is 70Km/sec/Mpc (one Mpc=3.262.000light years). In this view also the speed of light is variable and without its limit as indicated by Einstein. It would be interesting also to read the essay of Peter Jackson : 2020 Vision. A Model of Discretion in Space (Is reality digital or analog Contest)

When the above is applicable then the visible Universe should be much greater as the 13,6 milliard years that we are talking of now.

report post as inappropriate

B^2 wrote on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 17:11 GMT
I think this article has excellent timing considering the previous FQXI article was about real-time physics. Does John Donoghue postulate that time emerges from the microcosm of the quantum world? If these particles in the early universe are interacting and converging to a constant value for the speed of light then does that mean time had not yet emerged? If we keep time do Donoghue's ideas no longer work? Why is that last row of the Rubik's cube take an hour to solve when the first two rows can be solved in a few minutes?

I apologize if these questions seem puerile but please remember I am outsider to this community. I think a conceptual precis comparing and contrasting the big ideas for real time and emergent time would help me.

report post as inappropriate

Basil Altaie wrote on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 20:52 GMT
If the space expands with a speed faster than that of light then it will be torn apart into causally unconnected regions. However, gravity may have to travel faster than light in order to maintain the integrity of the universe.

report post as inappropriate

Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 22:15 GMT
Excuse the typo in my initial comment.

My question is a serious and sincere scientific question.

Is there any way to test Prof. Donoghue's ideas via predictions that are prior, feasible, quantitative, non-adjustable, and unique to those ideas?

Or not?

Speculation is fine and useful in the initial stages of theory development, but a scientific theory must eventually lead to definitive predictions, or it is not testable and therefore not science.

Robert L. Oldershaw

Discrete Scale Relativity; Fractal Cosmology

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 22, 2011 @ 00:47 GMT
Hi Robert,

I see possible overlap between your ideas and John Donoghue's. Are you and John collegues at Amherst? Suppose that our Classical Scale is defined on the large-scale side by the Speed of Light Scale limit, on the small-scale side by Planck's Scale limit, and has complexergy of ~10^41 (Dirac's Large Number).

A greater Scale (say the Cosmic Scale?) may have complexergy of ~10^123 (and thus the origin of the "Cosmological Constant" of 10^(-123)). I haven't read your ideas closely, but don't you have a scale number of order this number's square root ~3 x 10^61?

The greatest scale may be an infinite Multiverse (and our Observable Universe is but a fragment of fractal dust). OK - this scale isn't testable, but 10^(-123) deserves questioning. Is 10^123 dependant on a Cosmic Scale number, or is it Dirac's Large Number cubed (3 spatial dimensions)? What if Dark Energy is "leakage" from a greater Cosmic Scale?

Now to connect your ideas with John's:

A greater (say Cosmic) Scale should have a greater speed limit. I suspect that these different scales interact with Spacetime in such a manner as to "pinch off" Spacetime in certain extremes. Near the Black Hole "singularity", Spacetime rearranges into a Buckyball or toroidal lattice geometry because "Infinity" cannot exist in a Finite Observable Universe (we are Scale-limited from "Infinity"). On the outer edges of our Observable Universe, we may have a graphene-like lattice of Spacetime separating our Classical Scale and the greater Cosmic Scale. If Quantum Gravity exists in this Cosmic Scale with a greater speed limit, then it could be transferred holographically across this "graphene-like boundary" as an effective "Spacetime Curvature".

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith replied on Apr. 22, 2011 @ 15:24 GMT
At the risk of coming across as "old-fashioned" and/or of belaboring what should be obvious, it seems worthwhile at the outset of this (or any) discussion to ensure that all participants in the discussion share a common understanding of the terminology involved. Would it be safe to assume that the term "speed" as use in this article (and related discussion) is defined in the standard way, i.e., as being a ratio of some distance per some unit of time?

If the answer to the above question is yes, then is it also safe to assume that the definition of time being used is the so-called "operational definition of time," i.e., "time is that which is measured by clocks"? And then would it be safe to further assume that a clock is defined as being "a device which measures time"?

If so, let the discussion proceed. If not, please clarify how the terms being discussed here differ from the above. Thank you.


report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 22, 2011 @ 16:27 GMT
Dear JCNS,

The assumption of Scale Invariance and/or Scale Relativity set fundamental length scales upon which everything else could be based. The awkward fact is that multiple scales exist, and therefore, multiple definitions may be required.

We need to look at important dimensionless numbers for clues about Scale behavior. A couple of very relavant dimensionless numbers are the inverse fine-structure constant: 137, and Dirac's Large Number: 10^41.

Perhaps John and Robert could explain their definitions.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Apr. 22, 2011 @ 23:51 GMT
The idea that time does not exist and the speed of light varies, might be complementary to a situation where space does not exist but time does. In a noncommutative coordinate geometric setting this might then recover the constancy of the speed of light.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith replied on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 12:02 GMT

Wait, please; you're making my little head hurt. This is exactly why I asked (somewhere above) for clarification of the terminology being used here. As I understand the conventional use of the word "speed," it is defined to be a ratio of some distance per some unit of time. But if you then propose that ". . . time does not exist and the speed of light varies. . . ." (as you appear to have done) how do you determine speed without time? I fear that perhaps I'm too easily confused by what should be very simple concepts? Please explain. Thank you.


report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 24, 2011 @ 01:21 GMT
The argument involves quantum uncertainty between different coordinates. Principally this is between time and position. Suppose there is a theory that time does not exist. All that exist with some geometric content is space. Suppose there is another theory where only time exists, but not space. It might then be that these two theories are complementary sets. They are complementary in the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith replied on Apr. 24, 2011 @ 15:05 GMT

Thank you very much for your excellent reply to my question. You have explained this as clearly as I could have asked or hoped, and your answer is very logical, indeed. Moreover, I'm certainly not in any position to pick an argument with anything you've spelled out here.

That said, however, I'd like to clarify what I see as being probably the primary reason why some of us who...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 21:19 GMT
Quantum gravity depends upon inertial and gravitational equivalency in keeping with space that is made equally larger and smaller in keeping therewith. This balances attraction and repulsion, as the space is BOTH flattened/contracted and stretched/expanded in a balanced fashion.

Look at the ground and your feet. Gravity is key to distance in/of space.

I already proved this in/as dream experience. The center of the body is the linked origination and generation of our experience.

You all are repeatedly going about the unification of physics in the wrong manner.


report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Apr. 25, 2011 @ 14:57 GMT
J.C.N. Smith,

The nature of time is an interesting subject. I don’t get very partisan over the issue of time existing, for physics seems not to welcome ontological or existential ideas from the outset, but only suggests these within some theoretical construct. We have some issues with reality in a quantum mechanical content, in particular with nonlocality and a local definition of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith replied on Apr. 26, 2011 @ 14:56 GMT

Again, thank you for engaging on this. I fear, however, that because we have not explicitly addressed the paradigm issue which I raised in a previous post we continue, in essence, to talk past one another. This can be corrected, but it will take some effort. I'm willing if you are; I firmly believe it's well worth the candle.

You wrote, "The nature of time is an interesting...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 27, 2011 @ 04:01 GMT
The Parmenidean view is similar in a way to the block universe view of time. The Heraclitean perspective is more in line with the ADM relativity view of time.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith replied on Apr. 27, 2011 @ 12:27 GMT

Thank you for that clarification. I've tended to think of all versions of general relativity as being closely associated with the Parmenidean or block universe view of time, which is the antithesis of the paradigm for time which I've attempted to spell out in my various essays.

The disparity between the Heraclitean and Parmenidean views clearly is *not* an example of a distinction without a difference. The difference between these views (and what this difference means in terms which are meaningful to us as flesh and blood humans) could hardly be more dramatic, just as the difference between pre- and post-Copernican cosmology could hardly be more dramatic. And it is exactly for this reason that I'm puzzled (an immense understatement) that this question of which view is more "correct" has not been settled long before now. Using the more correct paradigm for the nature of time should, at least in principle, allow advances in science not unlike those which were made possible once the post-Copernican cosmology was accepted as being more correct than its predecessor.

I agree with David Deutsch that ". . . one of the most valuable, significant and also useful attributes of human thought generally is its ability to reveal and explain the fabric of reality." (D. Deutsch, 'The Fabric of Reality,' p. 3) Thus far, however, human thought apparently has not succeeded in finally resolving the Heraclitean-Parmenidean debate. This is astounding, in my opinion! And I place much of the blame for this failure directly on the faulty paradigm for the nature of time which has dominated western thinking since prior the advent of physics as a science.

The mainstream, prevailing paradigm for the nature of time has led to many brilliant successes, and this fact has tended to blind us to its less obvious shortcomings, in my opinion. I attempted to spell this out explicitly and as clearly as possible in my essay 'Time: Illusion and Reality.' Going back to the drawing board with a clean sheet of paper and reinventing physics using a different paradigm for the fundamental nature of time understandably is not something which would appeal to many of today's working physicists. And I certainly can't blame anyone for that. If I were more clever I'd give it a go myself, but I fear that the task far exceeds my abilities.



report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Apr. 25, 2011 @ 19:15 GMT
Since I drew this quote to make a point to Tom Ray, in the Clothes for the Standard Model Beggar post, I thought I'd repost it back here:

"The two cornerstones of modern physics, Einstein’s general relativity, which explains the behavior of stars and planets on the largest scales, and quantum mechanics, which governs the interactions of subatomic particles, each paint a different picture of the role of space and time. General relativity weaves space and time together into a four-dimensional fabric that can be warped by matter, while the equations of quantum mechanics use an immutable absolute clock to measure out the regular ticks as time passes. This difference has led some physicists to ponder whether spacetime changes character on different scales."

My point is that while QM doesn't have an internal time and clock, because it treats everything as simultaneous, when making measurements, scientists measure one simultaneous configuration, then another. The consequence is that they inadvertently reintroduce Newton's absolute flow of time. On the other hand, as I keep saying, if we treat the quantum state as the constant, then it is the configuration which changes, thus it is a flow from future to past. This emergent time is mathematically relativistic, without having to propose blocktime. It does this by separating space from time, so that while space is a constant dimension, regulating the relationship between energy and mass, time is an effect of these relationships and entirely relative to them.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Apr. 26, 2011 @ 03:06 GMT

Congratulations on the article in Physorg:

report post as inappropriate

Michael Jeub wrote on Apr. 26, 2011 @ 04:58 GMT
Is c scalable? That's a worthy pursuit. I would like more details about the program for which you were awarded the grant.

A harder question might be what is not scalable. Is pi scalable? I would say no, but the ratio components are scalable. We think we know what is extensible and scalable by looking at networks. So, in this context, is a node scalable and thus emergent? A black hole is definitely scalable and we measure it in terms of star masses. Conserved quantities and invariant forms, constants of nature seem to go in lock step. Scaling an object seems to be the only way to normalize it. The size and shape of. say, a network matters at every node and stage of development. Are there certain nodes that are not scalable? Even when a node desires to limit its scalability could not halt the extensibility around it. The discreteness of the problem becomes elusive: at the very small, the kernel becomes degenerate, vanishing; at the opposite end, accountings must be made for stuff we can only observe indirectly (dark matter and energy). Must one conclude that energy is not scalable but a totality? If c is not a self dual of some ultimate form, is there some other normed space that can be constructed from dark matter and dark energy to give a sort of quantum Hall effect for c being scaleable? What kind of object will this "light" be? It will not be guage invariant if a rank two tensor, so it must be a tensor of higher rank. Where can I learn more details?

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Apr. 26, 2011 @ 21:30 GMT

Yes, we are the “time mafia” and I am probably the worst of the bunch.`

I was tired of playing with shadows and ghosts. I devised a logical path for the reification of time directly from the requirement of a universe based on (or abiding by) the rule of non-contradiction. The passage of time is now a dynamic and substantial process that follows simple rules of logic which define both existence and causality. The passage of time makes everything and matter can be seen as a form of time replacing time passing by simple logical substitution.

Logic itself requires the ultimate reductionism, that, for the universe to be operational i.e. to work by itself, it has to be made of only one substance.

The “nature of time” is the most wrongly uttered words. The word “nature” calls for a specific aspect of time; what it is by itself, its ontology.

Looks simple and yet, I am the only one in the whole world who seem to be able to fathom this distinction. Everybody else is running around, wanting it all, but not willing let go anything...


report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Apr. 27, 2011 @ 01:33 GMT
Logic says we can’t add apples and oranges. This means that logic only allows operations on elements of the same nature. So, an equation like E=mc2 can only be viewed as being logical if/if we realize and accept the fact that every variable and constant on both sides of the equation represent, at the most fundamental level, elements of the same nature and logically computable.

The reductionism in physics has followed our knowledge and has seen a reduction in the number of independent variables: electricity and magnetism, electro-magnetism, mass and energy, space and time etc. but, always gaining in the process the relation that tied them together. But physics limits the amount of reduction we can achieve because we must keep those dimensions around that allow us to do physics... We have to move right into metaphysics in order to effect the final reduction and gain, not one more relation, but the actual logical understanding of the universe. But for this, we have to let go of our reality, just for a moment.

The type of shotgun reductionism that Amrit proposes is about shooting down one important variable without gaining its proper relation to the rest of physics i.e. where it really fits into the big puzzle.


report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Apr. 28, 2011 @ 16:19 GMT

Since Tom insists on questioning every term I use, I keep have to respond by further focusing my argument. I'll post this latest itineration and see if you think it makes sense, as a description of time:

There is only that thermal medium/particle cloud/quantum state.

As the energy/mass/plasma/waves/particles moves around, it changes configuration.

Since it is in a constant state of flux, these configurations are constantly being replaced.

Some areas in which there is greater activity naturally change shape faster than those with slower levels of activity.

Now since we are mobile points of reference, we are also one of those particles moving about. We are moving forward from our individual perspective and the larger situation is changing, so it is quite easy to conflate our sense of motion with this larger change, thus we seem to move from one configuration to the next, in much the same way we move along a path.

The larger reality though, is that our actions are balanced in this larger context, so there is that non-linear reaction to our motion, which compensates for our motion, to maintain the larger equilibrium.

Because there is just this sea of energy and energy is conserved, it is impossible to have sequential configurations co-existing, because they are constituted from the same energy.

So the old configuration fades into what we colloquially refer to as the "past." As all this energy bounces around, the new configurations emerge from this action. Those ranges of probabilities of what might happen as this energy interacts, are what we colloquially refer to as the "future."

So this current configuration emerges out of this action and is replaced by it.

What we colloquially refer to as the "present" doesn't move along some fourth dimension, because it is all that energy/mass particles/waves/thermal medium/cloud of motion that is all that exists.

Thus these moments of configuration emerge from that "future" and recede into that "past."

It is only because we can only exist in that present state, that we sense it as going from past configurations to future ones, but it is not the present which moves, only that it changes shape.

So while we have this subjective sense of "moving" from "past" to "future," the objective reality is that potential becomes actual and is replaced, ie. the future becomes past.

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 02:33 GMT

I have great difficulty with the structure, format and content of the text.

What is well understood can be expressed clearly. I am not sure you understand well the idea you are trying to convey.

This appears to be the typical struggle when we mix elements of our reality and element of a real universe as can be deduced from various accepted theories.

1- future, present and past are true in our reality because we have no choice about it, this is the way we think and work. Period. There is no sense in screaming and kicking about it.

2- The real universe is different from our reality and can be inferred/deduced from literal understanding of SR & GR. and applying it to something that exists

in substance.

Again, contradiction and paradox appears when we mix and compare elements from our reality and elements from the real universe.

I am always interested in a theory of time that addresses a specific component of time. I always do it; try to re-formulate it in simple terms ..

The Perception of time I leave to psychologist and neurobiologists and maybe some philosophers etc.


report post as inappropriate

Nemo replied on May. 5, 2011 @ 11:06 GMT

Most of what John is referring to is thermodynamics and phase spaces this should be obvious to all physicists.

"This appears to be the typical struggle when we mix elements of our reality and element[s] of a real universe as can be deduced from various accepted theories.

1- future, present and past are true in our reality because we have no choice about it, this is the way we think and work. Period. There is no sense in screaming and kicking about it.

2- The real universe is different from our reality and can be inferred/deduced from literal understanding of SR & GR. and applying it to something that exists"

You are deducing your conclusion is "true" from various "accepted theories". Your conclusion may be "valid" when deduced from your "premises". Telling John that (1) is true and there is no sense in screaming and kicking about it is dogmatic and rude. In (2) it seems you are deducing the true nature of reality through mathematical realism. I agree that the perception of time is better understood in other disciplines. However, I find it interesting there are no (credible) accounts of someone remembering the future. Why is it necessary to create the dichotomy between our reality and that of SR and GR? We are apart of that reality, we are "something that exists".

Most of these posts are nothing more than jargon filled talking points. John is genuinely curious and he is creating his own model about this subject while everyone else, myself included, is pedantic and snobbish. John is a passionate, curious and stubborn autodidact which is in the spirit of Einstein. He has no funding or experienced colleagues to assist him. We should motivate this type of person to keep going and not shut them down and ignore their ideas. Marcel perhaps you also have that independent spirit too. There is a fine line between constructive criticism and ego crushing comments. Save the latter for the celebrity scientists they are the ones who need the reality check.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 12:01 GMT
To JCN Smith,

Einstein probably made the biggest push forwards in our understanding of time. He demonstrated with the invariance of light speed that time was interchangeable with space. This is the Lorentz transformation. This extends to general relativity, where now spacetime is in a sense the “field” of gravity. However, something is odd here, for gravitational degrees of freedom...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on May. 1, 2011 @ 00:25 GMT

"Einstein probably made the biggest push forwards in our understanding of time. He demonstrated with the invariance of light speed that time was interchangeable with space. This is the Lorentz transformation"

I think that a finite maximum speed of light gives us the time - space interchangeable relation, not its invariance. The speed of light may change from place to place ... But in any place, the speed of light is the local maximum speed.

For example, the light beam going to the moon and back changes speed a few times but in any point of this travel, it moves at the local maximum speed.

This is because the rate of passage of time varies locally between the Earth and the moon and c=m/s and those seconds don't run the same everywhere. This explains the local invariance; c is always adjusted to the local rate of time and the ratio is invariant. The measured value of c is invariant.

So, my point is that a local maximum speed is not the same thing as the invariance of that maximum speed relative to other various places. This said, it is locally measured as invariant, a constant, because we measure two aspects of the same thing; the local ratio of space-time to the rate of time.

This make sense to you?


report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 1, 2011 @ 02:02 GMT
Light cones one Earth, the moon and between the two are shifted a very tiny amount. However, given that time differences are ~ 2GM/rc^2 ~ 10^{-10} and that the light travels back and forth in about 2.5 seconds this is a very small effect. It would be on the order of a fundamental time unit of an atomic clock. Differences of this sort which involve the difference between ruler and clock distances are measurable for light or EM radiation passing by the sun have been measured.


report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on May. 1, 2011 @ 15:09 GMT

Thank you for the equation. Yes! It is small! But it is there.

Small is relative to something and often to what we want to do.

For the engineer, it could be insignificant. For the scientist, it is small. For the ontologist, it is very significant because it is there, and if it is there, it is part of the understanding of the whole picture.

There are currently billions spent on finding very very small numbers... Gravity probe, gravitational waves detectors etc. In a first instance, we try to demonstrate the presence of something and then we try to measure the magnitude of parameter, more and more precisely.

I take it as a puzzle; every piece has equal importance.



report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 2, 2011 @ 11:52 GMT
I buttered my bread for a while working out how to synchronize Ce atomic clocks on satellites and the Earth’s surface for GPS applications. Those small deviations in the g_{tt} elements δg_{tt} = 10^{-11} as meaning that for every second measured on the Earth surface there is 10^{-10}sec de-synchronization with a clock at 1/2-geosynch where the GPS sats orbit. If I multiply by c = 3x10^{10}cm/sec this implies an error drift of 3mm per second. As a result there are practical ways in which this does materialize.


report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on May. 5, 2011 @ 20:48 GMT
One more proof of C-field announced yesterday:

"The longest-running project in NASA's history has completed its mission. Gravity Probe B has finally confirmed that the Earth drags spacetime around as it rotates like a spoon twisting in a jar of honey, mission scientist announced at a May 4 NASA press briefing."

"Other experiments had already confirmed this "frame-dragging" effect, predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity."

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 9, 2011 @ 12:11 GMT
Strange, for the reports I am getting suggest nothing about a C* field. These results are basically analogous to the Faraday effect in electromagnetism. A moving charge is associated with a magnetic field. In a weak field limit the Einstein field equations are very similar to the Maxwell equations, and the motion of mass, or the rotation of a mass, is associated with a gravitational analogue of a magnetic field.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 10, 2011 @ 06:20 GMT

I would think you were joking except you seldom show signs of humor. If you had read my essay or any of my hundred or so comments, you would know that the C-field *is* the gravito-magnetic analog of the electro-magnetic B-field.

Wake-up and smell the coffee.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 11, 2011 @ 00:08 GMT
Your gravito-magnetic field within your C* field theory is a completely different notion than the magnetic analogue in general relativity due to moving or rotating masses.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 9, 2011 @ 06:12 GMT
To suggest that "our understanding of spacetime and, in turn, the speed of light, may need to be rewritten" without referring to the possible falsehood of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate (Is the speed of light really independent of the speed of the emitter?) is not quite fair.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 9, 2011 @ 22:51 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

If we consider photons as electromagnetic waves, then it is very likely that they behave like phonons, i.e. waves in elastic media: They do not directly depend on the motion of the emitter relative to the receiver, and their velocity of propagation is limited.

In so far, the emitter theory by Ritz was presumably wrong while Ritz was definitely correct in that the future does not yet exist.

We need not imagine photons like particles (bullets) because static electric and magnetic fields in "empty" space do obviously not require a carrying medium. They might rather constitute their own ether, possibly subject to dragging effects which were already discussed at the time of Stokes.

Anyway, there is no reason to look for a mistake by questioning c, since Poincarè's round-trip (de)synchronization is obviously an illegitimate merger of past and future.



report post as inappropriate

Domenico Oricchio wrote on May. 10, 2011 @ 12:40 GMT
I am studying a my article, and I obtain some problem that I don’t understand totally.

The first problem is the mass definition: it seem not a fundamental constant in the Einstein equations, because only the metric tensor and the stress-energy tensor are the fundamental quantities in relativity, so that only a metric, and energy-momentum, measure is enough.

The second problem is the entanglement problem, with my Scheibe equation or the Wheeler-DeWitt equation there is not a quantum solution that depends on the speed of light, but only on the metric tensor in the spacetime: so if I obtain a zero-point energy (single quantum system) of a macroscopic state near 0° K (like spinglass system), and I make a separation in two macroscopic states near 0° K , then the change of the spin orientation near 0° K can be used to obtain the change of the quantum system of the other part in an instantaneous time (speed limit greater of speed of the light); so it seem possible a transmission between two entanglement-transmission apparatus of a character encoding (there is ever the speed limit for the apparatus, but it is possible a speed violation for the transmission).

It seem possible a multiple transmission using a little perturbation that change, and bring back in the initial state, a little set of the macroscopic state.


report post as inappropriate

Re_Ality (Facebook) wrote on May. 11, 2011 @ 09:46 GMT
If one understands reality then issues over whether light speed has historically altered can be put into a proper context. One would have to find entities where their perceived rate of change(it might be pulsation, movement, light shift, whatever)throws up an anomaly. That is, the rate of change is different from what would be expected given relative movement. However, since these variables are intertwined, ie one calulates space and relative movement as a function of light quality, I am not sure if it is possible to escape this conundrum, ie light may always appear to be constant because it provides the basis of the calculation. It might be a case of (going back to my chilhood when watching TV), 'yes it is the transmission that is actually faulty but all you can do is pointlessly adjust the controls'.

I don't know, I'm not a physicist, I'm just pointing out the fundamental nature of the problem.

Paul Reed

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on May. 14, 2011 @ 02:05 GMT
Dear Eckard Blumschein,

You were kind enough to point out above that experimental results can be used as "proof" of a number of unlikely things, and to ask me to coherently summarize recent results that I claim support my theory. I thank you for your interest and also because, in writing this comment, I realized how much has transpired since I submitted my essay.

On these threads...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 19, 2011 @ 18:33 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

"fqxi is based on recognition of severe problems in current physics". While I should admit having almost no knowledge of current physics as compared to you, I feel having hit some key points that are related to the notion of time and SR.

Let me try and formulate as simple as possible how my view differs from the commonly assumed notion of time: I see the latter an abstract and unlimited to both sides construct that is only partially anchored in the really traceable past.

While I cannot imagine that I am the first one who got aware of this perhaps irrefutable trifle, I guess that others were rejected and ignored because such distinction is at odds with current physics. Tom confronted me with putative evidence for SR. As long as I cannot see how your work relates to SR, I will not yet deal with it. Please do not take it amiss. I do not exclude that GR is at least partially correct.



report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 16, 2011 @ 17:35 GMT
Quantum gravity requires:

Inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing.

That space be equally, and both, invisible and visible.

That energy/force be represented consistent with distance in/of space (inertially and gravitationally).

That space be both larger and smaller.

Combining and including opposites.

That space be contracted/flattened and stretched/expanded in a balanced fashion.

Balanced attraction and repulsion.

That space manifest as gravitational/inertial/electromagnetic energy.

That space be semi-detached from touch.

report post as inappropriate

Jeff Schmitz wrote on May. 19, 2011 @ 16:14 GMT
There has to be some constant to use as a standard. I could state "the speed of light doubled five minutes ago." if space and time changed with the speed of light you have no way of disproving that statement.

If there is gravity waves and if they can travel faster than light why should they be the new standard?

The only place we have a chance of detecting gravity waves is in changes to very dense objects. Light travels slower in a material. When looking at high density objects (neutron stars, super-novas) are we now at a place where we have an "index of refraction" for gamma-rays? We might be looking at slow gamma-rays and not a true change in the speed of light.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 25, 2011 @ 17:33 GMT
If you try to renormalize the speed of light, or set it to a different value, something interesting happens. The Planck length and the rest of the Planck units all adjust accordingingly. Similarly the Bohr radius changes as well. All of this will take place so as to completely hide any change in the speed of light. The speed of light is a parameter for the projective subspace in a Lorentzian manifold. As such this structure is independent of any rescaling of a projective line. Here the lines are the null rays or light cones in spacetime.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Russ Otter wrote on May. 27, 2011 @ 21:19 GMT
Dear John Donoghue,

Your out of the conventional foundations box work, is essential to the expansion of knowledge, as "spacetime" is a askew fundamentally. I would argue that Space and Time are two immutable constants, equal to the notion of infinities existence, which is a constant we of finite mathematical means will never understand. In other words if a Tree falls and no one hears it, does it still make a sound? The Answer is Always "Yes." Time and Space are of that capacity. The refinement of Time and Space, which Space ONLY will be subject to gravity within a finite spectrum is a worthy endeavor, that will enable better understanding of our physics. In other words, Space does not curve or warp, nor does Time, save particles or waves in Space bending their motion based on gravities influences. The misnomer of curved "Spacetime" is a thought problem, that has misled us for too long and your work, I hope will better open perspectives to view the world, as it really is. Both "Finite" and "Infinite" and a twain of which will never meet. Confusing the two has been our scotoma, our myopic view for too long. Note: Our Big Bang Universe in only a Planck's size and 10 fold smaller, relative to the larger Universe beyond our own Big Bang universe. Once we understand the scope of our ultimate "Thought Problem" of the Alpha and the Omega, which has no beginning nor end, we will build upon a foundation that will liberate our sentient intelligence to see, within and possibly beyond our finite limitations.

Your work is a wedge into that inevitable change that physics will provide to us in a much fuller manner someday.

Congratulations to you and your colleagues...

report post as inappropriate

Bashir Yusuf wrote on May. 30, 2011 @ 22:35 GMT
Dear John and Collegues

I appreciate this kind of work(disscusion) though some points are not clear to me. In general I believe that we all do same thing (searching for Knowledge)though we may have different aspects. I think a fundamental problem is that we can not understand something, unless we undretand it's basis

Here are some statement from the collegues "What is well understood can be expressed clearly" from Marcel-Marie LeBel

"Your out of the conventional foundations box work, is essential to the expansion of knowledge" from Russ Otter

which remembers me the qoutation of Betrand Russell "Passive acceptance of the teacher's wisdom is easy to most boys and girls. It involves no effort of independent thought, and seems rational because the teacher knows more than his pupils; it is moreover the way to win the favour of the teacher unless he is a very exceptional man. Yet the habit of passive acceptance is a disastrous one in later life. It causes man to seek and to accept a leader, and to accept as a leader whoever is established in that position".

I would like you to ckeck the essay named "A Linking Theory of the Structure of Matter from Ultimate elementary particles to Astrophysics" and to have your advice

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 31, 2011 @ 07:44 GMT
Dear Bashir Yusuf,

"fqxi is based on recognition of severe problems in current physics." Wasn't Edwin Eugene Klingman correct in that? I am trying to show that tense-less physics and some inappropriate putative basics of mathematics relate to improper use of abstraction.



report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev wrote on May. 31, 2011 @ 20:45 GMT
Dear All,

The answer to how the universe emerged and appears the way it is lies with in us. We just need to introspect ourselves and realize that we are the singularity or one with the universe.

who am I? I am vitual reality, I is absolute truth.



report post as inappropriate

Bashir Yusuf wrote on Jun. 4, 2011 @ 00:54 GMT
Dear Eckard

I agree that Edwin Eugene Klingman correct was correct, saying that "fqxi is based on recognition of severe problems in current physics." (more general in current physics).

Klingmans essays is one of the essays that I think contain lot of more rational facts including “Yet this cosmological and particle physics explanation for current physics is far simpler than many physicists wish it to be” because, as Robert Godwin says

“One begins by abstracting from concrete existence, and ends by attributing concreteness to the abstraction” and many more.

I also suspect the way I expressed my essay, linguistically, because it seems to be different from what I expected others understanding.

However, “If someone claims some improper issue, reason must be included, since reasoning is governing the acceptance of a Scientific Theory” and there is no problem.

The most serious challenge the current Physics is very basic and easy understandable if we change our view to a more conceptual one.

I try to clarify what I think its important and simplest view the nature and the reality behind it. To reach the destiny of Reality, one could follow its right track since it has analogue property.

“to explain any and more fundamental reality, must based on Matter, Space and Time issue, I think is very Important which we could try deeply understand. Here lies foundation of physics. So long, these three terms (Gram, meter and second) are valid we may achieve a rational concept of things. In other words I don’t know how to express any reality without this minimum requirement. Otherwise, controversial situation arise here.

Can matter be converted energy? If yes, what is the meaning of Energy? Can matter be converted time? Can matter be converted wave? I already experienced some physicist claiming there are no particles in fundamental level, when tried to get insight, get difficulty can waves exist alone? What makes waves? How particle can a mass-less? How can we explain, an inexistent particle? Many more likely....

When I've tried to answer one of these questions every thing became illogic and some kind comedy. Finally I realized that there important to have at least the most basic units to explain things rationally. Like our word combination makes a sentence which understandable.

Best wishes.


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 4, 2011 @ 06:20 GMT
Dear Bashir,

“One begins by abstracting from concrete existence, and ends by attributing concreteness to the abstraction”. Indeed, the latter is questionable unless one carefully checks what got lost with the abstraction.

While virtually all contemporary physicists including fqxi members seem to be ready to question nearly anything in order to maintain SR and QM, I prefer looking for obvious fallacies affecting foundational reasoning in mathematics as well as in physics. So far, nobody refuted my objections.

I suspect "braking the universe's speed limit" is one more helpless attempt to avoid admission of quite simple mistakes.



report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jul. 15, 2011 @ 15:38 GMT
Quantum gravity requires gravitational and electromagnetic equivalency -- with regard to force/energy -- that involves balanced/equivalent attraction and repulsion and balanced and equivalent inertia and gravity.

F=ma would then ultimately be shown as balanced -- in any successful understanding of quantum gravity -- in keeping with inertia and gravity that are balanced and equivalent.

Alas, gravity, obviously, is not so weak after all. That is obvious. You see and feel the feet/ground while standing, right?

Dreams fundamentally unify physics and prove everything in this post.

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev wrote on Jul. 21, 2011 @ 14:41 GMT
Dear All,

The true and simple mathematical equation zero = infinity, will solve all the complex and intelligent theories physics.

zero = I = infinity

One can see the absolute truth in one self.



report post as inappropriate

KHALID MASOOD wrote on Jun. 3, 2012 @ 09:48 GMT
I have independently created “TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING”.

My main research interests are Physics, Modern Cosmology , Philosophy, Particle physics, Relativity, Time, Theory Of Everything and Economics.

My interests are very broad, extending from origin of the Universe and the origin of life, to the deeply philosophical.

I like to ponder the big questions of existence: How...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 13, 2014 @ 16:50 GMT
Variable Speed of Light in Gravity

The top of a tower of height h emits light downwards. As the light reaches the ground, its speed relative to the ground is:

A) c' = c(1+gh/c^2) (Newton's emission theory)

B) c' = c(1+2gh/c^2) (Einstein's general relativity)

C) c' = c (Richard Epp, Stephen Hawking, Brian Cox)

where c is the initial speed of the light (relative to the emitter). The frequency as measured by observers on the ground (e.g. Pound and Rebka) is:

A') f' = f(1+gh/c^2)

where f is the initial frequency (as measured by the emitter). Clearly A' is compatible with A and incompatible with B and C. That is, the Pound-Rebka experiment actually confirmed the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory and refuted any different variation.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 14, 2014 @ 15:44 GMT
Gravitational Frequency Shift Disproves Both Special and General Relativity

The top of a tower of height h emits light downwards. If, as the light reaches the ground, its speed relative to the ground is:

c' = c(1 + kgh/c^2)

then, in gravitation-free space, as the observer starts moving towards the light source with (small) speed v, the speed of the light relative to the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 15, 2014 @ 19:35 GMT
Einstein refuted in a single sentence:

University of Texas: "Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength (...) but a different frequency (...) to that seen by the stationary observer. This phenomenon is known as the Doppler effect."

For the moving observer the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of the light wave)/(wavelength)

is valid, and since "the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength", the shift in frequency can only be due to a shift in the speed of the light wave relative to the observer. That is, as the observer starts moving towards the light source with (small) speed v, the frequency shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L (L is the wavelength), which obviously implies that the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, in violation of special relativity.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 17, 2014 @ 18:20 GMT
Special Relativity Is Obviously False

Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (...) This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."

That is, if the frequency measured by a stationary observer is f=c/L (L is the wavelength), the frequency measured by an observer moving towards the light source with speed v is:

f' = f(1+v/c) = (c/L)(1+v/c) = (c+v)/L = c'/L

where c'=c+v is the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer. Clearly special relativity is false.

Note that the fatal formula c'=c+v is derived from f'=f(1+v/c), a formula that can be found in any textbook (Fendley's text is neither unique nor indispensable). If v is small, the relativistic corrections are negligible and both c'=c+v and f'=f(1+v/c) are virtually exact formulas no matter whether the relativistic or non-relativistic Doppler effect is considered. (If v is great, no profit for special relativity - it can be shown that the relativistic corrections make c', the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer, even greater than c+v.)

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 18, 2014 @ 17:20 GMT
Special Relativity Is Obviously False II

The observer starts moving away from the light source with speed Vo, and accordingly the speed of the light waves relative to him shifts from c to c'=c-Vo, in violation of special relativity.

As a result, " in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) ":

Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (....) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

In other words, the frequency shift from f to f'=f(1-Vo/c) is caused by a shift in the speed of the light waves relative to the observer, from c to c'=c-Vo. Special relativity is OBVIOUSLY false, which explains the behaviour of many Einsteinians nowadays:

Ordinary Einsteinians leave the sinking ship in panic.

Einsteiniana's high priests leave the sinking ship in a well-organized way

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 7, 2014 @ 17:32 GMT
The Most Crucial Question in Relativity

A light source emits a series of pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d=300000km).

A stationary observer/receiver measures the frequency of the pulses to be f=c/d.

An observer/receiver moving with speed v towards the light source measures the frequency of the pulses to be f'=(c+v)/d.

The most crucial question:

Why does the frequency shift from f=c/d to f'=(c+v)/d ?

Answer 1 (fatal for relativity): Because the speed of the pulses relative to the observer/receiver shifts from c to c'=c+v.

Answer 2 (saving relativity): Because...

I know of no reasonable statement that could become Answer 2.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Mar. 28, 2015 @ 10:06 GMT
speed of light is variable and depend on energy density of quntum vacuum.

report post as inappropriate

lionel john wrote on Jul. 3, 2017 @ 11:57 GMT
It is a never ending subject for discussion. The evolutions as well as the destiny of the universe is discussed so often among the scientist and researchers and still do not have a proper explanation for that. Keep sharing more about this. remodeling contractors Los Angeles

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.