Unlocking the Possibility of Faster-Than-Light Communication?

[Dale]

So that's why I don't consider α a measure of c.

I agree that $\alpha$ is not a measure of c, but when people actually express what they mean by statements like “c has a specific value regardless of the units used to describe it” what they are looking at is in fact the fine structure constant.

 

[Vanadium 50]

when people actually express what they mean by statements like “c has a specific value regardless of the units used to describe it” what they are looking at is in fact the fine structure constant.

I think that when people write that, they either don't believe in relativity, or they are completely confused.

Historically we measured time in seconds and length in meters. Also, for airplanes, we measure horizontal distances in nautical miles and vertical distances in 100-feet increments. In one case, you need c's and in the other you need 60.76's. They serve exactly the same function.

 

[Meir Achuz]

Let's start with permeability. Do you think the 4π is a) an artifact of the definition of units or b) a physical constant that just accidentally happens to be 4π?

Muzero is just a change of units like the fundamental constant 5280.
muzero/4pi=10^-7 to change the units from the original emu system to SI.
10^-5 comes from changing from cgs to MKS units. The 10^-2 comes from the change (in 1880 something) from the Absolute Ampere (defined by the force between two wires) to the SI Ampere. I think that was done because the telegraphers defined the ohm for their convenience.
If you changed 5280, an American could run faster.

 

[NBrown]

Somehow I stumbled across this question, that was posted 3 years ago. It is a brilliant, clear and simple question in search of an equally straightforward answer. Most of the answers show that there are many people around that have some level of grasp of modern physics, and that are willing to talk at length around it, but I found no good, direct, clear, simple and plausible answer. I do not believe that there is in principle no simple and elegant answer. I also don’t have it - and I don’t know whether science has it (yet). @TerranIV, if you have in the meantime received a satisfying answer, I would be intrigued to know what it is.

 

[PeroK]

Somehow I stumbled across this question, that was posted 3 years ago. It is a brilliant, clear and simple question in search of an equally straightforward answer. Most of the answers show that there are many people around that have some level of grasp of modern physics, and that are willing to talk at length around it, but I found no good, direct, clear, simple and plausible answer. I do not believe that there is in principle no simple and elegant answer. I also don’t have it - and I don’t know whether science has it (yet). @TerranIV, if you have in the meantime received a satisfying answer, I would be intrigued to know what it is.

I think @TerranIV was last seen looking for the company that built Nigel Tufnell's amplifier.

 

[Dale]

It is a brilliant, clear and simple question in search of an equally straightforward answer.

The straightforward answer is “no”.

 

[NBrown]

The straightforward answer is “no”.

Thanks, Dale, I already know your thoughts on the topic, but I was asking TerranIV if he had received a satisfying answer (meaning satisfying to him). I don’t expect this to be answered by anyone other than TerranIV.

 

[Dale]

Then I recommend you PM them. The public forums are for public commentary, not for a one on one discussion.

 

[Vanadium 50]

but I was asking TerranIV if he had received a satisfying answer

Then a PM would possibly be appropriate, but he hasn't been here in 3-1/2 years. But it sounds like you dislike the answers so far. As they say "Two plus two continue to make four, despite the whine of the amateur for three or the cry for the critic for five."

 

[gmax137]

I think @TerranIV was last seen looking for the company that built Nigel Tufnell's amplifier.

OMG I had to google that.