Subscribe
OK, other than the fact that I cannot pronounce this guys name. This show looks quite interesting and will be premiering on Science Network on Sunday, May 25th at 9PM ET/PT. The host of the show is a cosmologist, which is a branch of astronomy. Apparently Joao is a pretty controversial guy and not too many people take him or his theories very seriously.
Joao is from Portugal and is a Professor of Theoretical Physics in London and is the pioneer of the varying speed of light theory. Hmmm…interesting.
Image Source: www.thegreatdebate.org
836 days ago
Reaz. In the 1950’s a mathematician named Kurt Godel created a circular model for the universe which, if true, would have certain ramifications for special relativity. Apparently, if the Universe orbited, you could theoretically violate causality by traveling backward in time simply by jumping out of the orbit, waiting for the Universe to rotate, and then jump back in to find yourself in a completely different spacetime. This ‘loophole’ annoyed Einstein to no end because it violated causality but was not prohibited by either relativity theories.
Godel was a funny guy in this sense. He came up with mathematical proofs for the existence of God, using formalisms and self-consistent proofs which a great deal of ordinary mathematical and physical theories rely for support. He developed something called the “incompleteness theorem” which states that it is possible to construct a multitude of logical proofs that are inherently false. It was based on issues in set theory, which showed, roughly speaking, that you cannot find a complete and consistent set of axioms which apply to all mathematical formalisms.
Reply
836 days ago
“you could theoretically violate causality by traveling backward in time simply by jumping out of the orbit, waiting for the Universe to rotate, and then jump back in to find yourself in a completely different spacetime”
Randall, that’s very interesting, I’ll have to look him up. But I don’t see how you would travel backward or even forward for that matter. If you apply the same method on planet Earth for example, you can leave the orbit, but when you jump back in, you would return in a future date. But it would not be an instantaneous time travel because you would have to wait and allow time to pass before reentering the orbit.
Reply
833 days ago
VSL
Who ever said that nothing could go faster then the speed, needs to reconsider their thinking. Consider a simple analogy. You are in a rocket ship and you keep going faster and faster until you exceed the speed of light. What do you think is out there to stop you from going faster then the speed of light. Only your perspective changes and the way you are precieved by others. Some one behind you would not see you
(so to them you do not exsist) and those ahead of you would see you coming. Joao should use this analogy to explain his theory of VSL.
Reply
831 days ago
Einstein did not explicitly say that you cannot exceed light speed. It is implied in relativity theory. Here’s why:
Photons have zero mass and do travel at light speed (C). Ordinary matter has mass, and the faster matter travels, the more its mass increases. The problem is that once matter approaches C it acquires infinite mass, which according to thermodynamic laws would require an infinite energy source to continue its momentum to achieve C. There is a paradox here since there is no possible way to acquire infinite energy. The closest analog would be the gravitational forces in a black hole. But we all know the catastrophic consequences of what happens within the event horizon of a black hole…You drop into a singularity never to be seen from again. Good luck with the VSL experiment…hope you have life insurance!
Reply
831 days ago
Bill, Two other considerations that you may have overlooked could be based on your apparently linear approach to acceleration. First, according to special relativity, time and space both bend. Second, you can have continually positive acceleration and yet still have c as a velocity asymptote. In fact, my understanding is that c is a velocity asymptote, rather than a “speed limit.” Anything that happens to travel faster than c (most likely undetectable by us), can never decelerate below c. While anything traveling slower than c can never exceed c.
Reply
831 days ago
Nathan. Excellent framing of SR in your last comment. Clifford Pickover mentioned in his book about hyperspace that the ‘edge’ of the vacuum itself might be expanding at FTL speed. This is also connected in some way to the idea that phase transitions might occur in a nearly dead universe, which could theoretically change the laws of physics. If the Universe branched into some other phase space we might find a Universe where special relativity was as alien a concept as VSL is in our own .
Reply
828 days ago
@ M.J.Lessem
Red shift is used as a theory because it has supporting documented evidence. We can then apply the known facts from what we have previously seen to the conditions of the movement of galaxies. Your just pointing out the obvious in human fallibility.
And why does there have to be another way to explain the red shift? It seems pretty fundamental when you actually look at the math, but maybe its too complex for your simple attitude. The red shift is a result of something we experience every day. It is no different from the doppler effect.
Even if the speed of light can change over time, this doesn’t directly relate to light that is already in motion. based on the light we currently receive from distant galaxies, they are moving away based on the fact that there is a red shift. It doesn’t matter if that speed is fluctuating in between, its what we are observing at this very moment is what matters.
Reply
805 days ago
I agree with the comment from Mark, “that according to the big bang theory, background microwave radiation is remnant radiation from the big bang which has “cooled off”, i.e. lowered in frequency all the way from hyper-cosmic radiation all the way down to microwaves, and yet starlight from 13 billion light years away doesn’t miss a beat, i.e. remains at the same frequency all the time. In other words light ages, but does not age. (?) On the other hand, if light does in fact age, then red-shifting is ALSO caused by light aging, and thus should emerge another factor besides Doppler effect in any equation interpreting red-shifting.” I just read this article in the universe today, from UC Davis, that indicates that the MAGIC (Major Atmospheric Gamma-ray Imaging Cherenkov) telescope found that high-energy photons of gamma radiation from a distant galaxy arrived at Earth four minutes after lower-energy photons, although they were apparently emitted at the same time. If correct, that would contradict Einstein’s theory of relativity, which says that all photons must move at the speed of light. If there was a variable speed of light wouldn’t that wipe out hubble’s law? We would then have to admit that we have no way of measuring how old our universe is and we would not be sure if it was static, like Einstien orginally thought, or dynamic like Friedmann convinced him it was. If I’m correct, I think that hubble’s law and the idea of expanding spacetime is what lead everyone to the big bang theory in the first place. So this would solve the horizon problem, but if the speed of light wasn’t a constant wouldn’t that contradict the idea of an expanding universe and possibly the big bang theory as well? I am glad that he posed this question though because the theory of relativity doesn’t sit right with me. I like the obsessive personality of Newton but now days a great man like that would be given a pill instead of a question.
Reply
805 days ago
Deborah, Is there a web site where we can find more information about this recent observation?
Also, as for special reletivity, that was clearly demonstrated decades ago when the east- & west-bound airline experiment. It’s also demonstrated on a regular basis with the atomic clocks in CO & MD. It’s counter-intuitive, for sure. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not true. Pretty much everything in quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive as well, yet also true.
Reply
805 days ago
Nathan, the cite was High Energy Gamma Rays Go Slower Than the Speed of Light? | Universe Today. Who knows if it is true or correct, but it was interesting. I have read every book I can get my hands on about relativity but what bugs me is that the velocity time dialtion test used the dobbler shift to measure their results and in the Hafele–Keating experiment Louis Essen the inventor of the atomic clock thought there was inadequate accuracy of the experiment. I’m not totally convinced about the dobble shift or about the expanding universe. Calculations are ultimately based on determining which events are simultaneous. Notice also that establishing simultaneity of events separated in space necessarily requires transmission of information between locations, which by itself is an indication that the speed of light will enter the determination of simultaneity. I have an open mind but I am human and we do enjoy our power of reason. What do they mean when they say that experimental evidence has shown that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source. Light is a tranverse wave but if the motion of the source is moving it creates a longitudinal wave like the red shift. I do not get it. If we start to think that at the beginning “c” was different where do we draw the line? Newton’s 3rd law sounds reasonable. This would make sense to me if someone said it was happening due to the resistance of motion, like flying against the rotation of the earth would cause it to slow down and flying with it would cause it to speed up. I think that is what special relativity does predict right. It just seems like it is our perception which is warped not spacetime. I’m just a housewife that likes to think while I work so don’t think that I am capable of a debate. You sound smart. What do you do for a living?
Reply
777 days ago
In One of his episodes while he is talking about the Horizon Problem there is a creepy subliminal message, that i barely caught with my eye, but can confirm with Tivo. A few seconds after he uses the metaphor of seeing 3 different people with orange paint on them far away from each other in a city.
Right where the title “Horizon Problem” is a line forms, then the next frame it gets stretched into the Words “AXIS OF EVIL” – The following frame changes the words to “666 of Evil” (look closely), then the following 3-4 frames are again “Axis of Evil” but in different fonts.
Pretty creepy if you ask me, on what you would think would be a politically nuetral program.
Reply
777 days ago
i guess i should look into it before i post. I guess Joao uses the tern to describe hot and cold spots in the CMB that do not fit with the normal pattern. And maybe the 666 part is just some wierd editing between frames
Reply
777 days ago
I would like to start by asserting that I know nothing about cosmology, or any of the scientific “laws” that it adheres to; nor do I have any scientific “knowledge” about the universe at all, besides what I have learned from a few TV shows here and there, and from what I have conjured up in my imagination, which ultimately has proven to be the main catalyst for the propagation of science and inquiry in the first place, so I figure why negate a few ‘crazy,’ scientifically unsupported thoughts that have just recently popped up in my head regarding (VSL). Therefore, in a very impromptu manner, how about this: at the moment the big bang occurred, when energy began turning into mass, the universe was in a unique state—a true vacuum state—that enabled light to travel at speeds faster than any recorded measurements of light traveling in a “vacuum” on earth; for the reason that matter in the early universe hadn’t formed into large objects with a defined mass and gravity, which would have exerted a force upon the light, causing it to slow down. Furthermore, perhaps the early universe lacked an abundance of black holes and other profoundly dense objects with massive amounts of gravity that cause light to slow and bend. So…as the universe cooled, and matter formed into denser objects with different gravitational levels, the universe, in a sense, possesses more obstacles, or forces, or dark matter, or whatever, that oppress the speed of light. Thus, when we measure the speed of light in a vacuum on earth, the calculations are not pure—like the time right after the big bang—but diluted by forces from matter and particles that were not present immediately after the big bang, which have developed over the billions of years of cooling and have caused light to slow. Perhaps think of it like traffic: early in the morning you (light) can drive your car fast because there is a lack of other cars (formed, dense matter with gravity) on the road, but as time goes on, and more cars drive onto the road, you have to slow down due to the existence (the forces acting against you) of the other cars on the same road. Ergo, while at one time you moved fast; now, the forces of traffic act upon you, causing you to slow down.
Reply
777 days ago
Ah, my verb agreement is off and I can’t edit the post…lovely. oh well, you get the point.
Reply
777 days ago
Wow Todd I’m gonna have to check that out. I don’t have TiVo so I might have to watch it a couple times.
Reply
777 days ago
Juelz, that were you going to say? I don’t see your posting.
Reply
777 days ago
His comparison, when discussing the Horizon issue, didn’t make much sense to me. He was comparing himself and Felix from his childhood and mentioned that based on existing theory, he and Felix should be identical. But isn’t he comparing apples to oranges? As far as we can tell, space isn’t making decisions every second that can alter their future; whereas, Felix can and did, which made his a butcher. What am I missing?
Reply
632 days ago
Big Bang is a fake for me.Red shifting is a electromagnetic property for long distance solid angle.We have a very small light signal who theoretically had disappear but still see.Photons
lost frequency & energy towards red shifting.
Vacuum generate chaotic electromagnetic in 0 Kelvin ,
or (else we have a 0 Kelvin universal hard block ,I imagine).
Reply
621 days ago
There is no way to explain the Horizon Problem much less his theory on a short TV program. He is interesting to watch and a true top cosmologist, but if you want to understand the issues completely it will take years of study.
Also there is not time on a TV program to point out all the contributions others have made.
The map of the back ground big bang radiation that he shows on the program came from a NASA satelite. The chief investigator on that program won a Noble prize for his work. That was a first for a NASA scientist.
He also does not even mention dark matter or Nonsymmetric Gravitational Theory or John Moffat’s latest work on a Theory of Modified Gravity.
Anyway, if the program gets a few people interested I guess it did it job.
Reply
487 days ago
I have only just watched Joao’s program on the big bang and his VSL theory and although I’m only a layman, I believe it can be proved much more easily than people think. Randall Rhodes talks about objects with mass attaining infinite mass if accelerated to velocities approaching the speed of light. This argment is used by the mad prophets of doom who insist the LHC will generate a black hole that will eventually swallow the universe but the very existence of muons contradict this argument. Muons have mass and travel through space at speeds very close to that of light and yet they have a mass that is infinitessimally small.
I came up with an idea several years ago that I call “Yapman’s Paradox” which states – “If the speed of light is constant the the flow of time must also be constant, but if the flow of time is constant, then the speed of light is not neccessarily constant”. This idea evolved from considering the predicted effect of time dilation and I think is easily checked out.
If we take a line from the theoretical origin of the big bang, extend it through the milky way and beyond, by comparing the state of galaxies on this line, some closer to the origin and also some approximately equidistant, but further away, time dilation predicts that the galaxies further away should be significantly younger in their stage of development than those closer to the origin. If that proves not to be the case, then Einstein’s got it wrong and E=mc² needs re-evaluating.
I realise that many people are going to consider me as a crank but I can offer good, reasoned arguments that show the idea of time dilation to be nothing more than an illusion. I believe Joao’s bang on the button with VSL.
Reply