quote:

---

Paul Davies is a popular science writer who writes books about how quantum physics can lead us to God...

---

quote:

---

That means giving up the theory of relativity and E=mc squared and all that sort of stuff

---

Davies actually said this; this is beneath contempt.

quote:

---

Davies, and astrophysicists Tamara Davis and Charles Lineweaver from the University of New South Wales published the proposal in the August 8 edition of scientific journal Nature.

---

Remind me to take things in Nature with a grain of salt.

quote:

---

After considering that a change in the electron charge over time would violate the sacrosanct second law of thermodynamics

---

Wow, science is taking a beating! I probably don't need to tell anyone here that this is equating science with religion. Just one question: who called it sacrosanct, Davies or the reporter? I'd say Davies.

quote:

---

a theory Davies stresses represents only the first chink in the armor of the theory of relativity

---

So he's an anti-relativity nut? He thinks relativity is completely wrong and will need to be totally scrapped, not incorporated into future theories? No wonder he made the claim "That means giving up the theory of relativity and E=mc squared and all that sort of stuff."

quote:

---

When one of the cornerstones of physics collapses, it's not obvious what you hang onto and what you discard

---

Now he's done it. He's perpetuating that false notion that everything we know is found to be totally wrong with every new discovery. What cornerstone collapsed? None. Absolutely nothing "collapse[d]."

quote:

---

If what we're seeing is the beginnings of a paradigm shift in physics like what happened 100 years ago with the theory of relativity and quantum theory, it is very hard to know what sort of reasoning to bring to bear

---

So he's comparing this to the Michelson-Morley experiment? With Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle? Relativity? Does he have delusions of grandeur or just no respect for science?

quote:

---

For example, varying light speed could explain why two distant and causally unconnected parts of the universe can be so similar even if, according to conventional thought, there has not been enough time for light or other forces to pass between them.

---

No it could not. This tiny shift can't account for the isotropy of the CMB. To do that, it would require light to travel fast enough to double the distance traveled so far. Two points on the CMB can be as far apart as 30 Gly, but there has only been enough time for light to travel 15 Gly. One part per million in 10 Gyr won't change that a bit.

quote:

---

Or there may be startling implications that could change not only the way cosmologists view the universe but also its potential for human exploitation.

---

This does not mean we can travel any faster around the universe. The change is insignificant and, more importantly, could mean the speed of light is slowing down very slowly. So it could only hinder future exploration, were it true.

quote:

---

"For example there's a cherished law that says nothing can go faster than light and that follows from the theory of relativity," Davies said. The accepted speed of light is 300,000 km (186,300 miles) per second.

"Maybe it's possible to get around that restriction, in which case it would enthrall Star Trek fans because at the moment even at the speed of light it would take 100,000 years to cross the galaxy. It's a bit of a bore really and if the speed of light limit could go, then who knows? All bets are off," Davies said.

---

"All bets are off"?! He is clearly not a real physicist. He's a pseudoscientific crackpot. What about this, were it true, could possibly allow for faster than light travel? Nothing. Were it in my power, I'd make sure he never published a paper or worked as a scientist ever again.

And to think two feature articles in Scientific American's next issue are written by him. Disgusting. They'll sure be getting a letter from me, though I'm glad they've shown restraint (so far) and don't mention this potentially tentative finding in the next issue (though that may just be timing). If I see them endorcing this same nonsense Reuters has in a later issue, they will get a nasty letter from me pointing out how utterly ludicrus the things Davies claims are.

“The first warning sign of voodoo science is that it's pitched directly to the media." --Robert L. Park

Edited by - tokyodreamer on 08/15/2002 05:31:38

quote:

---

quote:

---

That means giving up the theory of relativity and E=mc squared and all that sort of stuff

---

Davies actually said this; this is beneath contempt.

---

Isn't the atomic bomb a direct result of E=mc2? Wouldn't it be kinda hard to give up a theory that has such specific real-world examples of it at work?


[OH CRAP ON A CRAP CRACKER! I'm SOOO sorry Cosmic String! I hit the Edit Button instead of the Quote button and erased your post! Do you happen to still have a copy of your message? ]

Edited by - tokyodreamer on 08/15/2002 05:34:46

quote:

---

I think if E=mc^2 wasn't true, we'd also have no way to manufacture matter and antimatter in particle accelerators. They make tens of thousands, sometimes millions, of particle-antiparticle pairs per day. They always get the same result: the mass of the pair is always equal to the energy of the photons that made them divided by c^2. And when they annihilate matter and antimatter, the energy created is always equal to the mass annihilated times c^2. And radiation pressure wouldn't exist if E=mc^2 wasn't true. There's no way Davies "forgot" about this. He has to have lost his mind or maybe he's just shameless science-damaging showman.

---