Evidence of invalidity of relativity theory.

[cambraceres]

In a post some while back, a scholarly young square-jawed poster alerted myself and others to the odd fact that the speed of light is apparently changing. Without discussing whether or not it is, does anyone believe it may lend credibility to David Bohm's Quantum Mechanics formulation?

He, after being urged to do so by Einstein, developed a special edifice of Quantum Mechanics knowledge, and a new framework within which to view QM.

This new formulation largely mitigated the stochastic effects and effectively ends the ever maligned Quantum Discontinuities. The only problem was that it was dependent on the Theory of Relativity being false. Now that it may be, perhaps we should take another look at Bohm's elegant work.

Cambraceres

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6092

Link to aforementioned article on inconstant light speed

[Metric]

Actually, it is not at all clear what is meant by a "changing speed of light." Dimensionful constants (like "c") are a matter of convention and definition. What is required by relativity is Lorentz invariance.

[BluffTHIS!]

I read other articles on that. Even if c is not an absolute constant, but changeable depending on conditions much like the speed of sound in air versus water, then that still doesn't change the fact that it is a barrier that cannot be crossed (although some scientists have posited particles that always travel faster than c and thus can't go slower).

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
I read other articles on that. Even if c is not an absolute constant, but changeable depending on conditions much like the speed of sound in air versus water, then that still doesn't change the fact that it is a barrier that cannot be crossed (although some scientists have posited particles that always travel faster than c and thus can't go slower).

[/ QUOTE ]

The speed of light IS different in different materials. It is fastest in a vacuum (c), and the ratio of the speed of light in a vacuum to its speed in a material is the index of refraction of that material. For example, in glass, the speed of light is about 1.5 times slower than it is in a vacuum. It is even slightly slower than c in air. Here is a table of indices of refraction (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/tables/indrf.html) for some materials. The difference between the indices of refraction of materials causes light rays to bend or "refract" when crossing from one material to another, and this forms the basis for lenses. Now it IS possible for a particle to travel faster than the speed of light in a material IN THAT MATERIAL. When this happens, a charged particle emits "Cherenkov radiation", which is analogous to a sonic boom caused when an object travels faster than the speed of sound in air.

[jtollison78]

I was reading a book recently, A World Without Time, which claimed that Godel had produced a proof which shows that, "In any universe described by the Theory of Relativity, time cannot exist."

Einstein basically conceded to the proof, and then everyone promptly forgot about it.

I have not finished the book, and even if I had, I would probably not be able to explain what was in it.

John

[Sharkey]

Something I’ve wondered about on occasion but never looked into is a version of the Twin Paradox where both go on identical voyages except in opposite directions then return to their common starting point and compare ages.

It’s not so easy to account for an asymmetry in this case.

[orentha]

[ QUOTE ]

I was reading a book recently, A World Without Time, which claimed that Godel had produced a proof which shows that, "In any universe described by the Theory of Relativity, time cannot exist."

Einstein basically conceded to the proof, and then everyone promptly forgot about it.

I have not finished the book, and even if I had, I would probably not be able to explain what was in it.

John

[/ QUOTE ]

what book are you refering to ?

[spoohunter]

What a strange question from you, a crazy idiot, he was talking about A World Without Time.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
I read other articles on that. Even if c is not an absolute constant, but changeable depending on conditions much like the speed of sound in air versus water, then that still doesn't change the fact that it is a barrier that cannot be crossed (although some scientists have posited particles that always travel faster than c and thus can't go slower).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the thing, the evidence now says that it is not a constant at all. It says that light in a vacuum now travels at a different speed than light in a vacuum 100 million years ago. The Aether or whatever has no effect.

But the op has been sufficiently treated by metric, and in only a few sentences.


Cambraceres

[MelchyBeau]

I know this is a very old topic but I am going to bump it to inform you about something that is interesting.

It is called Cerenkov Radiation

From Wikipedia
Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or sometimes Čerenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle passes through an insulator at a speed greater than the speed of light in the medium.

As an undergrad I worked on electronics that detected this for a project at Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility.

Thought people might find this interesting

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
I know this is a very old topic but I am going to bump it to inform you about something that is interesting.

It is called Cerenkov Radiation

From Wikipedia
Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or sometimes Čerenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle passes through an insulator at a speed greater than the speed of light in the medium.

As an undergrad I worked on electronics that detected this for a project at Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility.

Thought people might find this interesting

[/ QUOTE ]

I mentioned Cerenkov radiation in my post in this thread. I don't see what it has to do with the invalidity of relativity unless it happens in a vacuum, and even then, that would just imply that something is going faster than light in a vacuum, which doesn't violate relativity if it was always going that fast.

[MelchyBeau]

oh no, I wasn't saying relativity is invalid. I believe it is quite true. I was just showing something interesting.

I didn't realize you talked about Cerenkov Radiation, my fault

[Hopey]

Obviously this proves that the world is only 6000 years old.