http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/nov/18/neutrinos-still-faster-than-light?newsfeed=true Some time ago I had a theory about the big bang anomalies versus my hypothesis that the static universe should not be ruled out. My hypothesis required the speed of light not to be a constant through out time but the maths got to complicated for me to expand and develop on. My calculations were attempting to unite gravity into Maxwells equations and to show that gravity was a form of electromagnetic disturbance.. Can this new, but not yet fully tested, observation of the speed of light have an impact on the big bang theory? Is a new physics about to start? I hope so.
gravity is the property known as 'entanglement' the BB is based on virial theorem............ and has been proven wrong since they noticed the arms of the galaxies do not rotate as predicted yes. it's called a 'paradigm shift'
Got absolutely nowhere with my approach of looking at energy levels based on stating that gravity is a form of energy. I was trying to mirror the same approach which led to Maxwell inferring that Light is an electromagnetic disturbance. This was about 25 years ago at a time when my knowledge on calculus, electromagnetism and astrophysics was quite good just after graduating. I started with gravitation and unification, got nowhere, but side tracked onto static universe theory and the more I looked into it, some of the simpler calculations seem to imply that by allowing the speed of light to vary over time of transmission could give rise to a static universe. I gave up after the maths got too complicated. I wish I kept the notes
Yes, you are right. I threw away the second hypothesis because I got too frustrated with it and the first one (static universe) was more interesting to me.
Unless there is a breakthrough in non-linear physics, quantum mechanics will not be able to explain it all-the math is just too big to wrap one mind around let alone creating an experiment to prove it. Some quantum models have always thought that some matter can go faster than light (Star Trek was based on it), it would explain alot and open up new possibilities.
Unifying any fundamental force with gravity usually ends in frustration both mathematically and experimentally. We know the messenger particles for U(1) the photon, SU(2) the W and Z boson, and SU(3) the gluon but no known graviton. We just don't exactly know how gravity is mediated across space on extremely small scales.
hey........... you made a solid claim..... what is the 'size' difference of a gamma and radio frequency photon? no such thing as a 'graviton' ie... particle monkeys create a particle at most ever new 'spin' (pun) because particles are the joke of physics
So is this the part were I say that Einstein is the one and only Truth, and anyone who disagrees is destined for eternal punishment in a lake of fire? Or simply adjust my opinions and thoughts on truth to observations? lol
And i "REWROTE" the DSE. ie.... the recieving mass, is what is causing the 'blips' to appear versus it being actual particles. Have you ever observed einstein PE paper? (the energy is what causes the concept of the 'particle' emmision.) Think of the emission as white caps on an ocean surface. The wind is causing the waves to peak and whip up mass ejections (the white caps) Try the experiment; change the recieving mass from say, graphene, to gold foil; watch the pattern change. When you do that with a single emitting photon (per se) and then 'electron' gun thru the double slit experiment and watch the 'evidence' unfold itself. ie.... i made the claim, proposed the experiment and postulate the evidence. either do it, or shut up!
