João Magueijo, Imperial College, London, UK

Articles: Parity at the Planck scale (2017), Planck-scale dimensional reduction without a preferred frame (2013), New varying speed of light theories (IOP, 2003), Faster than light, (FQXi, 2012)
ArXiv: A Universe that does not know the times (2018)
Books: Publications
CV (PDF) More
Homepage. FQXi
inSpire-HEP  Co-authors: J.D.Barrow (21), G.Gubitosi.1 (17), Pedro.G.Ferreira (13),  C.R.Contaldi (11), H.B.Sandvik (10), L.Smolin (10), M.Arzano (9), S.H.Alexander (9), G.Amelino.Camelia (7) Twitter
Wikipedia
YouTube  Plus: TVO

This page is: https://81018.com/2018/09/27/magueijo/

Most recent (third) email: January 26, 2022 @ 8 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. João Magueijo:

I thought you might want to know about a few little references to your work:

https://81018.com/validate/#1f The source page: https://81018.com/validate/#1b

Best wishes,

Bruce

PS. If you ever want anything deleted, added, or changed on that page, please just say the word! Thank you. -BEC

Second email: Friday, 8 May 2020 at 7:45 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. João Magueijo:

Thank you for your courage to introduce new ideas. You inspire us all:
https://81018.com/2018/09/27/magueijo/ (That is our page of references to your work.)

Recently I found your work among the FQXi: https://81018.com/fqxi/#Joao

Given your involvements with FQXi, I wonder if you might take a look at my article; it’s the very first time to enter this sophisticated arena of scholars: 
Overview: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3428
Article: https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Camber_3u.pdf
(The first five pages are the article. There are five pages of references.)

Do you think that it could have some merit?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

First email: September 27, 2018, 12:36 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. João Magueijo:

Although probably written in 2002 (Reference 1), its 46 pages are a wonderful introduction for me to the concept of a variable speed of light (VSL). Your note of thanks on page 46 is a wonderful acknowledgement of your scholarly community and the subsequent eleven pages of references to their work could keep me busy for years! So, to say the least, I am glad to find your work and your discipline, a great help to begin to understand concepts that have not been common in my experience. It was also good to see the names of others that I recognized from my prior studies, people like John Barrow, Giovanni Amelino-Camelia, MikeDuff, Nigel Afshordi, Lee Smolin, and Neil Turok. And, yes, those words of Poincaré are also most helpful.

Your current work, including that posted in ArXiv, is my next step. I was especially pleased to see the most recent articles, one with Barrow and the other with Smolin. You are a scholar’s scholar. I am an idiosyncratic one, picking up where I left off in 1980. There are many folks like me, but my re-entry was sparked because of some simple work within a high school geometry class. My nephew needed a little help and I had tools for the kids to build Plato’s basic solids. When asked about Zeno’s paradox, we had no answer so we began following tetrahedrons-octahedrons, going within, step-by-step, deeper within, by dividing the edges by 2: https://81018.com/tot/ is our model of our first steps. By step 45, on paper only, we were in the CERN-scale of particle physics. In another 67 steps within, we were touching the Planck Wall. 

It was the first time for all of us.

The next day, we multiplied by 2, and to our surprise, we were in the range of the Hubble measurement of the size of the universe in just 90 doublings. We learned about exponential notation and the Wheat and Chessboard stories and we began to ponder the numbers. By 2015 we had added the other Planck base units and created a horizontally-scrolled chart so we could follow the numbers more easily. We noticed that in the 143rd notation, the simple doubling to the Planck units gave us a very good approximation of the speed of light. Then, we noticed every notation gave us an approximation!

Of course! So we specially charted that calculation on line 10 and noticed that the number was a variable. Our chart is here: https://81018.com/chart/

There were so many numbers to consider, we said, “We’ll get to it.”  Today, we are getting to it.  Could you tell us if what we are doing is irrelevant? Or, is there something here?

Best wishes,

Bruce