With respect, I think it was Dawkins in the Blind watchmaker who quipped
"your incredulity alone is no measure of reality" (I paraphrase..)
You may well be correct that the speed of light is and has "always" been
constant, but this remains a point of some controversy that only continued
scientific research will settle (and never finally, at least according to
Popper). Your opinion that questioning the "fact" of the SOL's constancy is
nonsense, is just that (an opinion not nonsense, that is). And such an
opinion is less in the spirit of good science and more that of dogma, in my
own humble opinion. I submit that just because a position is held by a
minority and is not yet well supported by empirical data does not
automatically disqualify it or justify ridicule. Indeed, all currently
favored theories, including Einstein's, were once so.
Cheers
----- Original Message -----
From: "Saibal Mitra" <smitra.domain.name.hidden>
To: <>
Cc: "everything" <>; <nbarberis.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 5:02 AM
Subject: Re: Afshar and "...the idea of a photon is dead"
> Unfortunately, sensationalists articles that are completely baloney appear
> in most scientific journals from time to time.
>
> Nature published an article claiming that if the fine structure conswtant
is
> changing, as suggested by some astronomical observations, then this change
> must be due to a change in the speed of light. Now, this must be nonsense,
> because the value of the speed of light, being a dimensional constant, is
> determined by our choice of units. In fact, that there are dimensional
> constants at all, is an artefact of using inconsistent units at the same
> time.
>
>
> Michael Duff has explained this in the articles:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0208093
>
> and:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110060
>
>
> ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
> Van: "Nicole Barberis" <nbarberis.domain.name.hidden>
> Aan: <Fabric-of-Reality.domain.name.hidden>
> Verzonden: Friday, July 30, 2004 06:15 PM
> Onderwerp: Afshar and "...the idea of a photon is dead"
>
>
> > I was stunned to read "Quantum Rebel" in July 24th's
> > New Scientist. Shahriar Afshar, an American, comes to
> > the conclusion that "we have no other choice but to
> > declare the idea of Einstein's photon dead" (page 35).
> > His work has been tested and is now being peer
> > reviewed. How trustworthy is New Scientist as a news
> > source? Is it prone to sensationalists articles. I'm
> > a fairly new reader of this magazine, but it seemed to
> > me to be a good source of science news until last
> > week's rushed Hawking article and this week's
> > no-such-thing-as-a-photon showcase article. Of
> > course, if it is repeatedly proved true than I would
> > welcome the new finding but for now I'm just a bit
> > stunned by the news.
> >
> > -Nicole
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> > Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/pyIolB/TM
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/
> >
> > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
> >
> > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Mon Aug 02 2004 - 10:49:41 PDT