Re: Afshar and "...the idea of a photon is dead"
I agree. If the photon did behave in an erratic way you would be able to say that the photon is behaving erratic and not the laws of physics that make your instruments work. But in this hypothetical case you would use some other way to relate time to space. This relation also has to involve a constant with the dimensions of a speed. We could call it c. And then someone else could claim that this c is changing as well! Ultimately c is a conversion factor to convert meters into seconds. The TOE doesn't have separate units to measure space, time mass, etc. These are all human constructs. Because we measure time and space in our own units, it is inevitable that dimensional conversion factors will appear in our formulas! - Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: "Henry Sturman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Aan: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Verzonden: Sunday, August 01, 2004 07:18 PM Onderwerp: Re: Afshar and "...the idea of a photon is dead" > You are right that there are no fundamental dimensional constants, i.e. > those constants are determined by our choice of units. But that doesn't in > itself imply that the speed of light can't change, although the speed of > light might be unchangeable for other reasons. The fact that a pint is an > arbitraty unit does not mean that a package of milk in the super market > can't contain less milk today than yesterday. If the speed of light were > something totally arbitrary, then there would be no point in ever measuring > it. If today I measure a speed of light x in whatever units and tomorrow I > measure 0.5 x, then the speed of light has changed. Put in a constant-free > wording: if today light travels x times the diameter of earth during one > earth revolution, and tomorrow it travels 0.5 x times that distance during > the same time, then the speed of light has changed. Well, at least > something has changed, and if not the speed of light, then either time, the > diameter of the earth, or the rotational speed of the earth has changed. > And Occam's razor implies we should assume the thing that has changed is > that which we can change with the fewest number of associated changes > required in our model of the universe and that would typically be the speed > of light. > > At 14:02 1-8-2004 +0200, you wrote: > >Unfortunately, sensationalists articles that are completely baloney appear > >in most scientific journals from time to time. > > > >Nature published an article claiming that if the fine structure conswtant is > >changing, as suggested by some astronomical observations, then this change > >must be due to a change in the speed of light. Now, this must be nonsense, > >because the value of the speed of light, being a dimensional constant, is > >determined by our choice of units. In fact, that there are dimensional > >constants at all, is an artefact of using inconsistent units at the same > >time. > > > > > >Michael Duff has explained this in the articles: > > > >http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0208093 > > > >and: > > > >http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110060 > > > > > >- Oorspronkelijk bericht - > >Van: "Nicole Barberis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Aan: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Verzonden: Friday, July 30, 2004 06:15 PM > >Onderwerp: Afshar and "...the idea of a photon is dead" > > > > > > > I was stunned to read "Quantum Rebel" in July 24th's > > > New Scientist. Shahriar Afshar, an American, comes to > > > the conclusion that "we have no other choice but to > > > declare the idea of Einstein's photon dead" (page 35). > > > His work has been tested and is now being peer > > > reviewed. How trustworthy is New Scientist as a news > > > source? Is it prone to sensationalists articles. I'm > > > a fairly new reader of this magazine, but it seemed to > > > me to be a good source of science news until last > > > week's rushed Hawking article and this week's > > > no-such-thing-as-a-photon showcase article. Of > > > course, if it is repeatedly proved true than I would > > > welcome the new finding but for now I'm just a bit > > > stunned by the news. > > > > > > -Nicole > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! > > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Li
RE: Afshar and "...the idea of a photon is dead"
> If a ''variable speed of light theory'' is confirmed by experiment, it is > still a matter of convention to say that the light speed has > changed and not > some other dimensional constant. Only dimensionless combinations of > constants can be said to have changed independent of conventions. > > This is the point that Duff made. It's a correct point. However, the argument the VSL advocates make is that the theories are much, much SIMPLER if you assume it's the speed of light that's variant rather than some other dimensional constant. Our old friend Occam's Razor... Of course, we may then ask "simpler with respect to what computational model"? The answer seems to be, simpler with respect to the computational model implicit in modern mathematical physics -- which is of course closely tied to human psychology Rather than "a matter of convention" we thus seem to have "a matter of human psychological naturalness". -- Ben Goertzel --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004
Re: Afshar and "...the idea of a photon is dead"
Questioning whether the speed of light has changed within a certain class of theories is nonsense and this is not an opinion but an elementary mathematical fact. Of course, one may e.g. question whether photons are massive and whether this mass has changed, leading to a (wavelength dependent) change of speed of light. The recently proposed variable speed of light theories are legitimate theories. However, they don't imply a changing speed of light. That's just the name given to the theory, not its content. The speed of light depends on the way you choose your units and is thus completely arbitrary. It is not possible to measure the speed of light before you define your units of space and time. If you use the speed of light to relate your units of time to that of space, you find that the speed of light is constant, regardless of your theory. If a ''variable speed of light theory'' is confirmed by experiment, it is still a matter of convention to say that the light speed has changed and not some other dimensional constant. Only dimensionless combinations of constants can be said to have changed independent of conventions. This is the point that Duff made. CMR wrote: > With respect, I think it was Dawkins in the Blind watchmaker who quipped > "your incredulity alone is no measure of reality" (I paraphrase..) > > You may well be correct that the speed of light is and has "always" been > constant, but this remains a point of some controversy that only continued > scientific research will settle (and never finally, at least according to > Popper). Your opinion that questioning the "fact" of the SOL's constancy is > nonsense, is just that (an opinion not nonsense, that is). And such an > opinion is less in the spirit of good science and more that of dogma, in my > own humble opinion. I submit that just because a position is held by a > minority and is not yet well supported by empirical data does not > automatically disqualify it or justify ridicule. Indeed, all currently > favored theories, including Einstein's, were once so. >
Re: Afshar and "...the idea of a photon is dead"
With respect, I think it was Dawkins in the Blind watchmaker who quipped "your incredulity alone is no measure of reality" (I paraphrase..) You may well be correct that the speed of light is and has "always" been constant, but this remains a point of some controversy that only continued scientific research will settle (and never finally, at least according to Popper). Your opinion that questioning the "fact" of the SOL's constancy is nonsense, is just that (an opinion not nonsense, that is). And such an opinion is less in the spirit of good science and more that of dogma, in my own humble opinion. I submit that just because a position is held by a minority and is not yet well supported by empirical data does not automatically disqualify it or justify ridicule. Indeed, all currently favored theories, including Einstein's, were once so. Cheers - Original Message - From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <> Cc: "everything" <>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 5:02 AM Subject: Re: Afshar and "...the idea of a photon is dead" > Unfortunately, sensationalists articles that are completely baloney appear > in most scientific journals from time to time. > > Nature published an article claiming that if the fine structure conswtant is > changing, as suggested by some astronomical observations, then this change > must be due to a change in the speed of light. Now, this must be nonsense, > because the value of the speed of light, being a dimensional constant, is > determined by our choice of units. In fact, that there are dimensional > constants at all, is an artefact of using inconsistent units at the same > time. > > > Michael Duff has explained this in the articles: > > http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0208093 > > and: > > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110060 > > > - Oorspronkelijk bericht - > Van: "Nicole Barberis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Aan: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Verzonden: Friday, July 30, 2004 06:15 PM > Onderwerp: Afshar and "...the idea of a photon is dead" > > > > I was stunned to read "Quantum Rebel" in July 24th's > > New Scientist. Shahriar Afshar, an American, comes to > > the conclusion that "we have no other choice but to > > declare the idea of Einstein's photon dead" (page 35). > > His work has been tested and is now being peer > > reviewed. How trustworthy is New Scientist as a news > > source? Is it prone to sensationalists articles. I'm > > a fairly new reader of this magazine, but it seemed to > > me to be a good source of science news until last > > week's rushed Hawking article and this week's > > no-such-thing-as-a-photon showcase article. Of > > course, if it is repeatedly proved true than I would > > welcome the new finding but for now I'm just a bit > > stunned by the news. > > > > -Nicole > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> > > Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70 > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/pyIolB/TM > > ~-> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/ > > > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > >
Re: Afshar and "...the idea of a photon is dead"
That's correct, but such theories can be mapped to theories with constant C. Ultimately only dimensionless constants matter, all other constants are just conversion factors. - Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Aan: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: "everything" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Verzonden: Sunday, August 01, 2004 07:00 PM Onderwerp: RE: Afshar and "...the idea of a photon is dead" > > I don't know anything about Afshar, but I do know that > variable-speed-of-light (VSL) theories of quantum gravity are now being > considered seriously by physics journals and by some leading physicists. > > Joao Maguiejo (sp?) has a popular book on the topic entitled "Faster than > the Speed of Light." The first half of the book will be too elementary for > members of this list, but the second half is a good read -- though it leaves > one eager for the mathematical details, which are found in the author's and > others' technical papers. > > Lee Smolin, who is well-respected for his role in creating loop quantum > gravity, is now taking VSL theories seriously. > > -- Ben Goertzel > > > -Original Message- > > From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 8:03 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: everything; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Afshar and "...the idea of a photon is dead" > > > > > > Unfortunately, sensationalists articles that are completely baloney appear > > in most scientific journals from time to time. > > > > Nature published an article claiming that if the fine structure > > conswtant is > > changing, as suggested by some astronomical observations, then this change > > must be due to a change in the speed of light. Now, this must be nonsense, > > because the value of the speed of light, being a dimensional constant, is > > determined by our choice of units. In fact, that there are dimensional > > constants at all, is an artefact of using inconsistent units at the same > > time. > > > > > > Michael Duff has explained this in the articles: > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0208093 > > > > and: > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110060 > > > > > > - Oorspronkelijk bericht - > > Van: "Nicole Barberis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Aan: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Verzonden: Friday, July 30, 2004 06:15 PM > > Onderwerp: Afshar and "...the idea of a photon is dead" > > > > > > > I was stunned to read "Quantum Rebel" in July 24th's > > > New Scientist. Shahriar Afshar, an American, comes to > > > the conclusion that "we have no other choice but to > > > declare the idea of Einstein's photon dead" (page 35). > > > His work has been tested and is now being peer > > > reviewed. How trustworthy is New Scientist as a news > > > source? Is it prone to sensationalists articles. I'm > > > a fairly new reader of this magazine, but it seemed to > > > me to be a good source of science news until last > > > week's rushed Hawking article and this week's > > > no-such-thing-as-a-photon showcase article. Of > > > course, if it is repeatedly proved true than I would > > > welcome the new finding but for now I'm just a bit > > > stunned by the news. > > > > > > -Nicole > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! > > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> > > > Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70 > > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/pyIolB/TM > > > ~-> > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/ > > > > > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > > > > > > --- > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004 > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004 >
RE: Afshar and "...the idea of a photon is dead"
I don't know anything about Afshar, but I do know that variable-speed-of-light (VSL) theories of quantum gravity are now being considered seriously by physics journals and by some leading physicists. Joao Maguiejo (sp?) has a popular book on the topic entitled "Faster than the Speed of Light." The first half of the book will be too elementary for members of this list, but the second half is a good read -- though it leaves one eager for the mathematical details, which are found in the author's and others' technical papers. Lee Smolin, who is well-respected for his role in creating loop quantum gravity, is now taking VSL theories seriously. -- Ben Goertzel > -Original Message- > From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 8:03 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: everything; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Afshar and "...the idea of a photon is dead" > > > Unfortunately, sensationalists articles that are completely baloney appear > in most scientific journals from time to time. > > Nature published an article claiming that if the fine structure > conswtant is > changing, as suggested by some astronomical observations, then this change > must be due to a change in the speed of light. Now, this must be nonsense, > because the value of the speed of light, being a dimensional constant, is > determined by our choice of units. In fact, that there are dimensional > constants at all, is an artefact of using inconsistent units at the same > time. > > > Michael Duff has explained this in the articles: > > http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0208093 > > and: > > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110060 > > > - Oorspronkelijk bericht - > Van: "Nicole Barberis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Aan: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Verzonden: Friday, July 30, 2004 06:15 PM > Onderwerp: Afshar and "...the idea of a photon is dead" > > > > I was stunned to read "Quantum Rebel" in July 24th's > > New Scientist. Shahriar Afshar, an American, comes to > > the conclusion that "we have no other choice but to > > declare the idea of Einstein's photon dead" (page 35). > > His work has been tested and is now being peer > > reviewed. How trustworthy is New Scientist as a news > > source? Is it prone to sensationalists articles. I'm > > a fairly new reader of this magazine, but it seemed to > > me to be a good source of science news until last > > week's rushed Hawking article and this week's > > no-such-thing-as-a-photon showcase article. Of > > course, if it is repeatedly proved true than I would > > welcome the new finding but for now I'm just a bit > > stunned by the news. > > > > -Nicole > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> > > Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70 > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/pyIolB/TM > > ~-> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/ > > > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004 > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004
Re: Afshar and "...the idea of a photon is dead"
Unfortunately, sensationalists articles that are completely baloney appear in most scientific journals from time to time. Nature published an article claiming that if the fine structure conswtant is changing, as suggested by some astronomical observations, then this change must be due to a change in the speed of light. Now, this must be nonsense, because the value of the speed of light, being a dimensional constant, is determined by our choice of units. In fact, that there are dimensional constants at all, is an artefact of using inconsistent units at the same time. Michael Duff has explained this in the articles: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0208093 and: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110060 - Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: "Nicole Barberis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Aan: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Verzonden: Friday, July 30, 2004 06:15 PM Onderwerp: Afshar and "...the idea of a photon is dead" > I was stunned to read "Quantum Rebel" in July 24th's > New Scientist. Shahriar Afshar, an American, comes to > the conclusion that "we have no other choice but to > declare the idea of Einstein's photon dead" (page 35). > His work has been tested and is now being peer > reviewed. How trustworthy is New Scientist as a news > source? Is it prone to sensationalists articles. I'm > a fairly new reader of this magazine, but it seemed to > me to be a good source of science news until last > week's rushed Hawking article and this week's > no-such-thing-as-a-photon showcase article. Of > course, if it is repeatedly proved true than I would > welcome the new finding but for now I'm just a bit > stunned by the news. > > -Nicole > > > > > > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> > Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70 > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/pyIolB/TM > ~-> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/ > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >
