Has Speed of Light changed Recently?

You have to remember I am not as well educated as the rest of the leaque connected at Peter Woit's site. But how could one think anything less, then what perception can contribute, as less then what the educated mind might have thought of? If it did not have the scope enlisted by others in consideration cosmology might have expressed, then we might have reduced the value of reducitonism role in how we perceive the beginning of the cosmos?

So what Does Peter Woit say here? I am glad that the support(choir:) moved to Peter's cause for truth and enlightenment, is clarifying itself, instead of the ole rants that we had been witnessed too, in the past.

Understanding the clear disticnctions make's it much easier now, instead of what opportunities might have been past by? Of course I understood that he is quite happy with the life given, makes it all the more reason that the value of opinion will have direction(not hidden causes). Contributions by the the opinions generated, held to a educative process that we all would like to be part of.

Peter Woit:

In general, what I really care about and am willing to invest time in trying to carefully understand, are new physical ideas that explain something about particle theory, or new mathematical ideas that might somehow be useful in better understanding particle theory.

Strings /M theory moved to cosmological thinking because of where it had been?

Life, the cosmos and everything:

Lee Smolin stressed that it is only justifiable if one has a theory that independently predicts the existence of these universes, and that such a theory, to be scientific, must be falsifiable. He argued that most of the universes should have properties like our own and that this need not be equivalent to requiring the existence of observers.

Smolin's own approach invoked a form of natural selection. He argued that the formation of black holes might generate new universes in which the constants are slightly mutated. In this way, after many generations, the parameter distribution will peak around those values for which black-hole formation is maximized. This proposal involves very speculative physics, since we have no understanding of how the baby universes are born. However, it has the virtue of being testable since one can calculate how many black holes would form if the parameters were different.

So what are Lee Smolin's thoughts today, and one can see where the interactions might have, raised a claerer perception of what falsifiable is meant in context of today's reasonings. Has this changed from 2003?

Lee Smolin:

My impression, if I can say so, is that many cosmologists undervalue the positive successes of CNS. It EXPLAINS otherwise mysterious features of our universe such as the setting of the parameters to make carbon and oxygen abundent-not because of life but because of their role in cooling GMC’s. It also EXPLAINS the hierarchy problem and the scale of the weak interactions-because these can also be understood to be tuned to extremize black hole production. Further, it EXPLAINS two otherwise improbable features of glaxies: why the IMF for star formation is power law and why disk galaxies maintain a steady rate of massive star formation.

So while we are engaged in the thinking of what can be measured from the big bang till now( Sean Carroll has given us a positon to operate from), but having the Poor man's collider introspective, helps us to consider how we may see the developement of particle interaction, as Pierre Auger experiments have reminded us?

Since the COBE discovery, many ground and balloon-based experiments have shown the ripples peak at the degree scale. What CMB experimentalists do is take a power spectrum of the temperature maps, much as you would if you wanted to measure background noise. The angular wavenumber, called a multipole l, of the power spectrum is related to the inverse of the angular scale (l=100 is approximately 1 degree). Recent experiments, noteably the Boomerang and Maxima experiments, have show that the power spectrum exhibits a sharp peak of exactly the right form to be the ringing or acoustic phenomena long awaited by cosmologists:

Then how would we see such changes and views that might of held the mind to variances in the landscape, as hills and valleys, portrayed in our cosmo? Perception between the Earth and the Sun. What shall we say to these values in other places of the cosmo? Will we see the impression of the spacetime fabric much differently then we do with the fabric as we see it now? Some might not like this analogy, but it is useful, as all toys models are useful?

Had we forgotten Wayne Hu so early here, not to have thought before we let this all slip from our fingers, as some superfluid and how we got there, Whose previous existance we had not speculated(what about Dirac), yet we understand the push to the singularity do we not?

"How do you actually make a collapsing universe bounce back? No one ever had a good idea about that,” Albrecht said. “What these guys realized was that if they got their wish for an ekpyrotic universe, then they could have the universe bounce back."

Such gravitational collapse sets the stage for what was initiated from, yet, we would not entertain cyclical models, that would instigate geometrical propensities along side of physics procedures?

So what do we mean when I say that we have pushed the minds eye ever deeper into the world of the Gluonic phases, which we would like so much to validated from such "traversed paths" that such limitations might have then been projected into the cosmo for a better perspective of time? Langangrain valuations alongside of the cosmic string? Which view is better?



When I started to look at the idea of these xtra dimensions, and how these would be manifesting and the experimental attempts at defining such, I recognized Aldeberger with eotvos contributions here, that a few might have understood and seen?

Together now such a perspective might have formed now around perspectve glazes that we might now wonder indeed why such a path taken by Aldeberger might now have been seen in such fine measures?

The Shape of the UNiverse in Omega Values

Having walked through the curvature parameters, in the Friedmann equations while understanding the nature of the universe, I thought would have been very important from the geometrical valuations, that I have been trying to understand. That it might arise in a terminology called quantum geometry, seems a very hard thing to comprehend, yet thinking about CFT measure on the horizon(Bekenstein Bound) is telling us something about the space of the blackhole?

So people have these new ideas about quantum grvaity and some might have choosen monte carlo methods for examination in the regards of quantum gravity perceptive.

Plato:

Now some of you know that early on in this blog John Baez's view about the soccer ball was most appealing one for consideration, but indeed, the sphere as the closet example could all of a sudden become the ideas for triangulations never crossed my mind. Nor that Max Tegmark would tell us, about the nature of these things.

JUst as one might have asked Max Tegmark what the shape of the universe was, he might of quickly discounted John Baez's soccer ball? Yet little did we know, that such a push by Magueijo might have had some influences? How would you measure such inflationary models?


Plato said:

When I looked at Glast, it seemed a fine way in which to incorporate one more end of the "spectrum" to how we see the cosmo? That we had defined it over this range of possibilties? How could we move further from consideration then, and I fall short in how the probabilties of how we might percieve graviton exchange of information in the bulk could reveal more of that spectrum? A resonance curve?

Variable "constants" would also open the door to theories that used to be off limits, such as those which break the laws of conservation of energy. And it would be a boost to versions of string theory in which extra dimensions change the constants of nature at some places in space-time.

One of the ways that has intrigued my inquiring mind, is the way in which I could see how xtra-dimensions might have been allocated to the views of photon interaction? We know the ways in which calorimetric design helps us see how fine the views are encased in the way Onion people work?

I had recognized quite early as I was getting research material together of Smolin's support of Magueijo, had something to do with the way in which he was seeing VSL approaches to indicators of time valuations?

Again, this is quite hard to conclusive drawn understanding, in that such roads lead too, would have instantly said that (speed of light in a vacuum)C never changes? How many good teachers would have chastize their students, to have this held in contrast to todays way we do things when looking at Magueijo?

Magueijo started reading Einstein when he was 11, but he wanted to comprehend the theory using mathematics rather than words. So he read a book by Max Born, which explains relativity in the language of mathematics. He quotes Galileo as having said, "The book of nature is written in the language of mathematics."

Let's look at what is being said from a fifth dimensional perspective, and tell me why this will not change the way we see? Why model comprehension has not sparked this foundational change in the way we look at the cosmos and the spacetrime fabric?