Timeline for Can I keep our universe, but without the speed limit (of light)?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 10, 2021 at 17:23 | comment | added | Justin Thyme the Second | By the units of the constant 'c' (distance divided by time), distance and time have to change in proportion to each other to give the same value. Twice the distance, twice the time | |
| Nov 10, 2021 at 17:17 | comment | added | Justin Thyme the Second | @Ilmari Karonen It seems by a lot of the general comments in the public media that not even many PhD physicists recognize that, really, 'c' is just a constant that links 'space' (distance) and 'time'. They talk about 'spacetime' without really thinking 'what is the constant that links space and time?' | |
| Nov 6, 2014 at 23:51 | comment | added | Loren Pechtel | It's not just nuclear reactions. Even chemical reactions have the same issue with mass loss. An infinite c means no chemistry, either. | |
| Nov 5, 2014 at 22:08 | comment | added | Ilmari Karonen | @MichaelKjörling: The $c$ that appears in $E=mc^2$ is not really the speed of light, as such, but the speed of massless particles. Giving photons a non-zero rest mass would not change $c$ in any way (although, AIUI, a significant photon mass would mess up everyday physics in plenty of other interesting ways). Actually, in many ways the best way to think of $c$ is simply as the fundamental conversion factor between the units we use to measure time and space. In fact, physicists often like to work in a system where time and space are measured using the same units, and where thus $c=1$. | |
| Nov 5, 2014 at 14:00 | comment | added | Anixx | Not only fusion but any chemical reaction | |
| Nov 5, 2014 at 12:24 | comment | added | user | What if light travelled at finite speed but there was nothing to force everything else to travel no faster than light? If photons had positive, nonzero mass...? | |
| Nov 5, 2014 at 12:23 | comment | added | overactor | I'm more interested in similarity in a macrospcopic sense. As I said, I'd like to keep galaxies, stars and planets. How it is achieved is less relevant. Some handwaving is also permitted. (But as little as possible) | |
| Nov 5, 2014 at 12:21 | comment | added | Philipp | @overactor But then the universe would not be "otherwise relatively similar to ours". | |
| Nov 5, 2014 at 12:20 | comment | added | overactor | The energy mass possesses could be governed by another law. though. | |
| Nov 5, 2014 at 12:18 | history | answered | Philipp | CC BY-SA 3.0 |