Mach's principle and variable speed of light.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Mach's principle, articulated by Sciama in 1953, posits that gravitational interaction is contingent on the mass distribution of the universe. This discussion highlights the implications of a variable speed of light (VSL) theory, which aligns with general relativity (GR) tests and allows for a reformulation of energy as E=mc^2. However, skepticism arises regarding the validity of VSL theories, particularly due to the argument that the speed of light is merely a unit artifact. Additionally, Mach's principle's credibility is questioned, with Brans-Dicke theory cited as a more reliable framework.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Mach's principle and its historical context
  • Familiarity with general relativity (GR) principles
  • Knowledge of variable speed of light (VSL) theories
  • Awareness of the Brans-Dicke theory and its implications
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Mach's principle in modern physics
  • Study the Brans-Dicke theory and its relationship to GR
  • Investigate the concept of a variable fine structure constant
  • Explore critiques and validations of variable speed of light theories
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, cosmologists, and researchers interested in gravitational theories, variable light speed concepts, and the foundational principles of modern physics.

CarlB
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
1,246
Reaction score
45
Mach's Principle and a Variable Speed of Light
Alexander Unzicker

Mach's principle, according to which the origin of gravitational interaction depends on the presence of all the masses in the universe, was expressed in a quantitative form by Sciama (1953). Since this idea suggests a variable speed of light (VSL), it is shown here that the arising variability of c is in agreement with all GR tests regarding time and length scales which are subject to variation as well. Moreover, VSL opens the possibility to write the total energy of a particle as [tex]E=mc^2[/tex]; this necessarily leads to the proportionality of inertial and gravitating mass, the equivalence principle. Furthermore, a formula for c depending on the mass distribution is given that reproduces Newtons law of gravitation. This mass distribution allows to calculate a slightly variable term that corresponds to the `constant' G. The present proposal may also supply an alternative explanation to the flatness problem and the horizon problem in cosmology.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511038

I just saw this on Arxiv and haven't read it yet. But I recognize the author as having written interesting papers before.

Carl
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Note that this paper is more than a decade old and has not yet been published in a peer reviewed journal. Its quality and correctness is doubtful.

That aside, one problem that I have with all VSL theories is that the speed of light is an artifact of your choice of units. So a VSL simply means that you have units which change over time or space. There is no physical content to a VSL. In SI units the speed of light is fixed by definition and so in SI units any VSL theory is immediately falsified.

The physical content of a VSL is actually captured in a variable fine structure constant. That is a dimensionless constant which describes the actual physics and is not subject to the criticism above. The fine structure constant depends on other parameters besides c, such as e, the charge on an electron. There is no reason that you couldn’t interpret a variable fine structure constant as a variable e instead of a VSL. In my view this is more natural and is a major weakness of all VSL theories. In addition, there is currently no good evidence for a variable fine structure constant.

Furthermore, Mach’s principle is in doubt, in my opinion. To my knowledge, the best theoretical embodiment of Mach’s principle is Brans Dicke theory. As the Brans Dicke parameter gets larger it becomes closer and closer to GR, with the non-Machianness of GR. So far the parameter has a very large lower limit. So I am skeptical that Mach’s principle is a correct representation of physics, at least insofar as BD gravity does embody Mach’s principle and GR does not.

All in all, a theory that seeks to combine both Mach’s principle and a VSL is doubly-problematic in my view.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K