Status
Available
Call number
Publication
Cambridge, MA : Perseus Pub., c2003.
Description
The idea that the speed of light is a constant - at 186,000 miles per second - is one of the few scientific facts that almost everyone knows. That constant - c- also appears in the most famous of all scientific equations: e=mc2- Yet over the last few years, a small group of highly reputable young physicists have suggested that the central dogma of modern physics may not be an absolute truth - light may have moved faster in the earlier life of the universe, it may still be moving at different speeds elsewhere today. In telling the story of this heresy, and its gradual journey towards acceptance, Joao Magueijo writes as one of the three central figures in the story, introducing the reader to modern cosmology, to the implications of VSL (variable speed of light) and to the world of physicists. The initial rejection of Magueijo's ideas is beginning to give way to a reluctant acceptance that the young men may have a point - only the next few years will tell the final fate of this 'dangerous' idea.… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member fpagan
The author's maverick theory, supported by a few other physicists such as the Univ of Toronto's John Moffat, that c has varied (decreased) since the Big Bang. On journal referees, university bureaucrats, et al, he waxes maledictory.
LibraryThing member mcandre
Interesting, but it appears the idea has gained no scientific ground. Maguijo is probably wrong.
LibraryThing member tonynetone
Professor at Imperial College London,proposing, varying speed of light (VSL) theory of cosmology, that the speed of light was much higher in the early universe, of 60 orders of magnitude faster than its present value breakthrough discovery will come before recent discovery CERN research results
Show More
including Nagoya University in Japan, that neutrinos may travel faster than light particles called neutrinos moving just faster than the speed of light would overturn Albert Einstein’s theory, Joao Magueijo discusses some of the more dramatic implications of a varying speed of light, that indicate the story of his journey in physics with the revolutionary,of a Scientific Speculation, a book that could open and puts forth an extraordinary Scientifique, live source question at this time. Show Less
LibraryThing member drardavis
This book definitely gives an interesting glimpse into the actual world of scientific research. I recognize much of the process from my own brief time working on computational geometry. The problem is that every few pages the author bitterly rants about how stupid everyone else is, in increasingly
Show More
crude terms. Ignore that, however, and you get an overview of the theory of the varying speed of light, minus the mathematical details. The best part of this book was the author’s description of the relativity of time using Einstein’s dream of cows. Thanks for that. Show Less
LibraryThing member antao
"Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well-known
In “Faster Than the Speed of Light” (p. 250) by João Magueijo.
There was no “cause and effect axiom” in 1905. The two axioms from which Einstein deduced special relativity were the principle of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light. The falsehood of the second axiom killed physics, as suggested in the above quotation. Uhm…Come again?
This reminds me of the sad fact that the proponents of the hidden variable idea despite their failure managed to win popularizations claiming that all the problems of their project are actually some "weirdness" of the quantum theory. Tale about ridiculousness of the quantum theory sells better it seems. Sells so good that even if you don't support the hidden variables it's possible to present a trivial work as some novel fundamental research of cosmic importance by the following recipe. You add enough clichés into introduction of your paper, invent loud names for mundane stuff, and claim that it's relevant for some problematic topic without experimental data like quantum gravity. I'm sorry but you can't derive axioms within theory itself because they are, well, axioms. You can't reformulate your theory or call some objects with different names so that equivalent set of axioms becomes more fundamental or more "justified".
And they say quantum theory is an "ad-hoc patchwork, lacking any obvious physical interpretation or justification"? Seriously? You know, that's exactly the "criticism" used by all those anti-Einstein unrecognized geniuses like Magueijo. They use it for the special relativity they seem not to have any problems with. They use it because they failed to understand it, hearsay seems strange and they want to stop at the preceding level.
One of my favorite interpretations of QM is relational quantum mechanics, which also tries to use only a few axioms and information ideas to deduce QM. (Check it out on wikipedia or the arxiv (Rovelli 1996).) RQM posits that observation is interaction, which creates correlation between the observed and the observer -- yielding some relational notion of a state vector -- and that such an interaction/observation is also in principle given by an interaction Hamiltonian which another system (another observer) might be able to write down. In RQM, instead of trying to rationalize a classical universe with quantum mechanics (by supposing such a thing as wavefunction collapse), we have to give up our notions of the classical universe and suppose it's all interconnected in a quantum way. Great theories (like relativity) trade our "intuitive" or "classical" understanding of the universe for some beautiful (simple yet powerful) axioms. i hope to see space-time emerging along with QM from some concise set of principles, principles like those behind relativity and RQM, which leave us feeling quite wonderfully adrift in this strange universe. Interesting how we may have to give up "time" (causality) to do it :).
I am limited by my own sense of knowledge. Hence, I keep reading, looking, and am forced to keep thinking. I am the dash runner, and am always seeing myself from that sense of gravity I was born with. That keeps me grounded, yet I keep moving. My intention is to keep searching for knowledge. Where that came from is a fact that I picked up on when I became conscious. The thoughts in all of our brains are the universe(s) that surround us, and will be the decaying plasma we will leave behind. While I'm in this conscious state, I feast on. It's a strange custom and habit to carry around an equal sign that I removed and place it at my will and pleasure for selfish satisfaction, or to help where I can. I didn't damage or hurt anything because that equal sign is always where it was. That's not spooky at all when you think about it.
As Josh Billings quipped over a century ago: “The trouble with people is not that they don’t know but that they know so much that ain’t so.”
Show More
effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc², all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."In “Faster Than the Speed of Light” (p. 250) by João Magueijo.
There was no “cause and effect axiom” in 1905. The two axioms from which Einstein deduced special relativity were the principle of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light. The falsehood of the second axiom killed physics, as suggested in the above quotation. Uhm…Come again?
This reminds me of the sad fact that the proponents of the hidden variable idea despite their failure managed to win popularizations claiming that all the problems of their project are actually some "weirdness" of the quantum theory. Tale about ridiculousness of the quantum theory sells better it seems. Sells so good that even if you don't support the hidden variables it's possible to present a trivial work as some novel fundamental research of cosmic importance by the following recipe. You add enough clichés into introduction of your paper, invent loud names for mundane stuff, and claim that it's relevant for some problematic topic without experimental data like quantum gravity. I'm sorry but you can't derive axioms within theory itself because they are, well, axioms. You can't reformulate your theory or call some objects with different names so that equivalent set of axioms becomes more fundamental or more "justified".
And they say quantum theory is an "ad-hoc patchwork, lacking any obvious physical interpretation or justification"? Seriously? You know, that's exactly the "criticism" used by all those anti-Einstein unrecognized geniuses like Magueijo. They use it for the special relativity they seem not to have any problems with. They use it because they failed to understand it, hearsay seems strange and they want to stop at the preceding level.
One of my favorite interpretations of QM is relational quantum mechanics, which also tries to use only a few axioms and information ideas to deduce QM. (Check it out on wikipedia or the arxiv (Rovelli 1996).) RQM posits that observation is interaction, which creates correlation between the observed and the observer -- yielding some relational notion of a state vector -- and that such an interaction/observation is also in principle given by an interaction Hamiltonian which another system (another observer) might be able to write down. In RQM, instead of trying to rationalize a classical universe with quantum mechanics (by supposing such a thing as wavefunction collapse), we have to give up our notions of the classical universe and suppose it's all interconnected in a quantum way. Great theories (like relativity) trade our "intuitive" or "classical" understanding of the universe for some beautiful (simple yet powerful) axioms. i hope to see space-time emerging along with QM from some concise set of principles, principles like those behind relativity and RQM, which leave us feeling quite wonderfully adrift in this strange universe. Interesting how we may have to give up "time" (causality) to do it :).
I am limited by my own sense of knowledge. Hence, I keep reading, looking, and am forced to keep thinking. I am the dash runner, and am always seeing myself from that sense of gravity I was born with. That keeps me grounded, yet I keep moving. My intention is to keep searching for knowledge. Where that came from is a fact that I picked up on when I became conscious. The thoughts in all of our brains are the universe(s) that surround us, and will be the decaying plasma we will leave behind. While I'm in this conscious state, I feast on. It's a strange custom and habit to carry around an equal sign that I removed and place it at my will and pleasure for selfish satisfaction, or to help where I can. I didn't damage or hurt anything because that equal sign is always where it was. That's not spooky at all when you think about it.
As Josh Billings quipped over a century ago: “The trouble with people is not that they don’t know but that they know so much that ain’t so.”
Show Less
Subjects
Language
Original publication date
2002-12
Physical description
vi, 277 p.; 24 cm
ISBN
0738205257 / 9780738205250
Similar in this library
The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory by Brian Greene