Speed of C
WG
of interest.
Lets suppose the properties of light [mass equivalence according to
E=mc^2] are set by the value of the mass of the universe as a whole
out to the visible horizon [sort of a Machs principle type of argument]
Lets suppose that we treat the universe as a potential well [out to the
visible horizon] and that the minimum kinetic energy of a photon is
exactly equal to the minimum required to raise it out of this potential well.
This would require that mC^2=GMm/R [where M=Mu mass of
Univ (out to Horizon)]
Plugging in the values yields. Mu/Ru=1.347x10^27 Kg/meter
Mass of the universe divided by the current radius out to the visible
horizon.
You might ask, what the heck does Mu/Ru give us? But lets carry on
and see where it leads.
In order to see if this ratio is even in the right ballpark, we could use
this Mu/Ru to calculate a density of the universe and see if it's even
close to what is observed and now accepted, i.e. critical density.
Using the currently accepted value of the Hubbles constant and latest
research indicates a flat universe, we use Euclidean geometry where
density=M/4.189R^3.
Working out a density yields 10^-29 gm/cm^3.
This not only is in the right ballpark, it's bang on, right at the critical
density.
What else might we do to see if Mu/Ru is correct?
We arrived at Mu/Ru by using a photon traveling the maximum
distance across the mass of the universe out to the visible horizon.
Why not try the other extreme, and use the minimum distance and
mass that a photon upon being created might traverse, and see if
this ratio is even close?
The plank units come to mind where the plank mass equals
2.1767x10^-8KG and the plank length equals 1.616x10^-35 m.
Dividing yields, m/r= 1.347x10^27 Kg/meter
It's Identical! The same ratio has returned!
We seem to have arrived at the same ratio from three different
starting points. Could this just be coincidence?
The current contender against Inflationary theory, is a varying velocity
of C theory put forward by John Moffat, University of Toronto as well
as Dimitri Nanopoulos and Keith Randall of Texas A&M University.
So for the final speculation we look to see what the original expression
mC^2=GMm/R, has to say about C as a f(n) of time.
If we assume the mass of the universe is constant [safe],
And that G is a constant [not so safe, I suspect G may change &
complicate things].
We see that the velocity C squared is a f(n) of the reciprocal of R
and thus of time.
I.e. C decreases as the universe expands [evolves]
Example;
At 10^-35 sec [plank time] after the big bang, it would yield a Velocity
of C=10^39 m/sec. [At time of decoupling C would be less]
Inflation doesn't enter into the equations at this point and complicate things,
since VSL theories replace inflation.
This value of M/R (if correct) may be significant, since it is determined
using hard empirical constants rather than soft observational data.
Thanks WG
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> Here is a simple speculation using Newtonian mechanics which may be
> of interest.
[Mod. note: entire quoted article trimmed -- mjh]
Dirac numerology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_large_numbers_hypothesis
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
Gordon Stangler
> Here is a simple speculation using Newtonian mechanics which may be
> of interest.
>
> Lets suppose the properties of light �[mass equivalence according to
> E=mc^2] are set by the value of the mass of the universe as a whole
> out to the visible horizon [sort of a Machs principle type of argument]
E=mc^2 is quite relativistic, and has nothing to do with Newtonian
mechanics. Nor does it have anything to do with light. The Energy of
a light photon is E=hc/ \lambda; the photon is quite massless.
Mach's principle states: "Local physical laws are determined by the
large-scale structure of the universe." Since your hypothetical
universe is being dealt with as a whole, Mach's principle does not
apply.
>
> Lets suppose that we treat the universe as a potential well [out to the
I know you meant to say gravitational potential well, but for shits
and grins I used U(r) = cos(r/R_u).
> visible horizon] and that the minimum kinetic energy of a photon is
> exactly equal to the minimum required to raise it out of this potential well.
> This would require that � �mC^2=GMm/R � � [where M=Mu mass of
> Univ (out to Horizon)]
> Plugging in the values yields. Mu/Ru=1.347x10^27 Kg/meter
> Mass of the universe divided by the current radius out to the visible
> horizon.
I used M_u = 10^80 atoms, with R_u defined to be the comoving distance
between Earth and the edge of the Universe. It yields R_u = 46.5 x
10^9 ly * 10^15 m/ly to get M_u/R_u of O(10^55) atoms/meter, which
even when you figure that there is Avagadro's number of hydrogen atoms
to kilo of hydrogen, the finals answer is O(10^32), a factor of 10,000
off from your 10^27 kg/m. So I don't know where you are getting your
numbers, but they are not representative of reality.
>
> You might ask, what the heck does Mu/Ru give us? But lets carry on
> and see where it leads.
>
> In order to see if this ratio is even in the right ballpark, we could use
> this Mu/Ru to calculate a density of the universe and see if it's even
> close to what is observed and now accepted, i.e. critical density.
> Using the currently accepted value of the Hubbles constant and latest
> research indicates a flat universe, we use Euclidean geometry where
> density=M/4.189R^3.
WHAT? The mass of a 3-ball is (4/3)*\pi* R^3. Where the heck did you
get M/4*189M^3?
Besides, you already have a mass/ radius term, your M_u/ R_u term
above.
>
> Working out a density yields 10^-29 gm/cm^3.
Again, what universe are you drawing your numbers from?
>
> This not only is in the right ballpark, it's bang on, right at the critical
> density.
I note with interest your lack of significant figures.
>
> What else might we do to see if Mu/Ru is correct?
> We arrived at Mu/Ru by using a photon traveling the maximum
> distance across the mass of the universe out to the visible horizon.
> Why not try the other extreme, and use the minimum distance and
> mass that a photon upon being created might traverse, and see if
> this ratio is even close?
> The plank units come to mind where the plank mass equals
> 2.1767x10^-8KG and the plank length equals 1.616x10^-35 m.
>
> Dividing yields, m/r= 1.347x10^27 Kg/meter
This number means what exactly? It is not useful.
>
> It's Identical! The same ratio has returned!
> We seem to have arrived at the same ratio from three different
> starting points. Could this just be coincidence?
Seeing as your first set of numbers are not listed, I am suspect of
them. So I will say no, your work is doctored.
[snip]
>
> So for the final speculation we look to see what the original expression
> mC^2=GMm/R, has to say about C as a f(n) of time.
> If we assume the mass of the universe is constant [safe],
> And that G is a constant [not so safe, I suspect G may change &
> complicate things].
> We see that the velocity C squared is a f(n) of the reciprocal of R
> and thus of time.
> I.e. C decreases as the universe expands [evolves]
If the speed of light changed with the radius of the universe, it
would show up as a change in other fundamental constants, a change
that would be measurable. To my knowledge, only one study has shown a
systematic change in the fine structure constant, but that study is
considered controversial, as no other study has conformed the results,
indeed, most have gotten results that say the fine structure constant
is constant.
[snip]
-Gordon