I did some additional reading and came upon texts from John Moffat, John Barrow, Andreas Albrecht, and Joao Magueijo. Do you think that they are all off with their theories then?
It seems that in string theory variable speed of light is a common concept.
Also change in the fine-structure constant could be explained by varying the speed of light and/or the electron charge…
IANAPhysicist, so anything I add is coming from a thoroughly interested, yet alas, a layman.
When talking about VSL theories, it brings up a lot of questions, such as: are the ratios between other fundamental constants like the Planck length and the gravitational constant kept the same/remain normalized, etc?
It’s a whole 'nuther can of worms and starting a new thread specifically about VSL in GQ or GD might be warranted if you’d like to persue this issue as you’d probably attract the right posters suited better toward the questions you’re asking.
Thanks I will. I have been reading a lot since I posted few days ago and am slowly advancing 
That is so cool!! I always wanted to meet a physicist. People like yourself are awesome to listen to 
Since you understand all of this much better, could you possible share your vision on “consciousness”? I haven’t yet found a satisfactory definition.
IANA is an acronym for “I am NOT a…” So cymk is saying he is not a physicist. Which is also what “layman” means.
You should search for the many previous threads for “consciousness.” Nobody has any answers at all, but we manage to argue it at length regardless.
It’s not really even meaningful to ask whether c changes, since you’d have to specify units, which means that you’d need to specify standards by which to define those units, and then you could just as well argue that it’s really your standards that are changing, not c. All you can really meaningfully talk about changing are the dimensionless constants, such as the fine structure constant. If you wanted to talk about whether a speed is changing, what you’d do would be to take the ratio of that speed to c, and see whether that ratio is changing… But this is clearly useless when talking about c itself.
Not to mention, there are plenty of real-live physicists/astronomers aboard; Chronos, for one—from whom (et al) I’ve learned much from on these topics in my 11+ years here.
However, I do love a good discussion on the nature of consciousness (as I’m far more comfortable waxing philosophical than anything else), but this thread ain’t the place.
Do you think consciousness is present at quantum level? The reason I ask here is because I’d really appreciate to hear from someone with insight in physics and feel for formulas.
At least, we now know that God is particulate, with a half-life in the low billionths of a second.
Are these two statements mutually supportive?
Mmmm-s.
If it’s true what Wikipedia says,
, then light-years of lead might not be thick enough to stop the average neutrino, considering that we have to watch much more than a centimeter of neutrino detection fluid for longer than a second to see even one neutrino collision out of trillions that pass through it.
Its hard to imagine that something with mass can pass through a star…
Holy crap!
I think I just felt a neutrino. Kinda tingles…
Neutrinos?? It;s all witchcraft I say!
Time for another mushroom and then of to bed…
You joke, but the estimates are that one or two people on the planet “saw” neutrinos from Supernova 1987a. That is to say, that for those people, a neutrino would have interacted with the matter in their eyes in such a way as to produce a visible flash of light. Of course, there would be no way to find such people, or to be sure that that was the cause of any flash they might have seen.
Gin Bell, I’m not sure why you’d be eager to ask a physicist in particular about consciousness, since consciousness doesn’t really have anything to do with physics. You’d be much better off asking a psychologist or a philosopher.
What a wonderful way to get an unbiased opinion
It takes at least the size of 5 photons to see something and that much would be so small it is just considered noise. I highly a neutrino was ever seen with the naked eye.
Okay, now I’m just really preoccupied about seeing any neutrino flashes. One day, my opthamologist is going to reprimand me for not seeing him earlier because of retinal detachment, and my only lame excuse will be, “I thought I was detecting neutrinos!”
If my opthamologist is cool, he’ll nod in full understanding.
Then I’ll have to find a guide dog. And sob in utter darkness. Unless a neutrino hits a neuron in my occipital lobe.