Inconstant Speed of Light May Debunk Einstein

Reuters (via Yahoo) ^ | August 7, 2002 | Michael Christie

[PatrickHenry]

Light itself does not have an inertial frame.

There you go again ... making me think. This one isn't going to go down easy. But I'll work on it.

[Physicist]

But can't we envision being an observer photon moving alongside another photon?

The use of the word "observer" implies a vantage point (i.e., an inertial frame).

[gcruse]

 
That would be the first law. = "you can't get something for nothing."

The second law is that = ("You can't break even.")

They are actually the laws of life, and
there are three of them, all told.

You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't get out of the game.

[Physicist]

I see two possibilities. 1) This theory does not vindicate CDK. 2) This theory is a crock.

Well, it certainly doesn't vindicate CDK, as we're talking about a change of one part in 100,000 over 12 billion years. As for it being a crock, this result isn't a theory but a measurement, and while it may be in error, I have no reason to doubt it (although I still don't see how a change in the electron charge can be ruled out any more than a change in the speed of light).

There is one possible mechanism by which the speed of light may have changed. If there are large (order 1 mm) extra dimensions, some models predict that the compactification scale (the radius of curvature for the extra dimensions) will "relax" slightly over time after the universe forms. A tiny change in the speed of light may be a signature of that relaxation. If this is the case, relativity is unmolested. What we are seeing is the principle of relativity applied to a universe whose geometric structure is changing slightly over time.

[longshadow]

This one isn't going to go down easy. But I'll work on it.

I am always amazed at how often Linda Lovelace quotes have applicability to scientific problems.

;-)

[VadeRetro]

Well, it certainly doesn't vindicate CDK, as we're talking about a change of one part in 100,000 over 12 billion years.

A creationist would counter that magnitudes are unimportant where principle is involved. A woman who would have sex with me for a million dollars is a hooker, right? That clears the way to negotiate a better price! (OK, old joke!)

As for it being a crock, this result isn't a theory but a measurement, and while it may be in error, I have no reason to doubt it (although I still don't see how a change in the electron charge can be ruled out any more than a change in the speed of light).

I was merely establishing an either-or dichotomy between CDK vindication and reality. But I was wrong on one thing. The CDK loyalists don't seem to have the word yet.

[PatrickHenry]

That choking sound you so often hear isn't what you'd like to think. It's actually stifled laughter.

[another cricket]

There is one possible mechanism by which the speed of light may have changed. If there are large (order 1 mm) extra dimensions, some models predict that the compactification scale (the radius of curvature for the extra dimensions) will "relax" slightly over time after the universe forms. A tiny change in the speed of light may be a signature of that relaxation. If this is the case, relativity is unmolested. What we are seeing is the principle of relativity applied to a universe whose geometric structure is changing slightly over time.

Ouch! Can we have an ice pack over here? I think I sprained something trying to wrap my brain around this.

Did you say that if the shape of the universe is changing it could effect the speed of light?

a.cricket

[balrog666]

There is evidence to suggest that the fine-structure constant, [alpha] — a measure of the strength of the electromagnetic interaction between photons and electrons — is slowly increasing over cosmological timescales. As
[alpha] = e2/[h]c (where e is the electronic charge, [h] is Planck's constant and c is the speed of light), this would call into question which of these fundamental quantities are truly constant.

Anybody got a nice physics symbol font?

[RightWhale]

relativity is unmolested

The theory of relativity won't be retired. It might have a small adjustment added, a fine structure velocity factor perhaps. There is no reason to altogether dump a theory that still has some uses, especially if a new replacement theory is vastly more cumbersome.

[Scully]

Gentlemen! Please, let Linda rest. She's had a hard couple of decades.

[longshadow]

Gentlemen! Please, let Linda rest. She's had a hard couple of decades.

A "couple if decades" aren't the only thing that she's had that were..... oh, never mind!

;-)

[Scully]

;-) Hehe!

[PatrickHenry]

Please. This is a family website.

[longshadow]

Please. This is a family website.

Prude.

;-)

[Scully]

Well I think this is just about it for this thread. :-)

[TopQuark]

Is it not true that E=MC2 states that as an object with mass approaches the speed of light, its mass will increase to the point that it cannot accelerate further and never achieve "light speed"? If the mass of an object is not zero when it is at rest, then it increases and becomes infinite as the object's speed approaches c (this does not follow from the E=mc^2, incidentally).

If so, then how does light travel at the speed of light? The condition above does not hold: light has zero rest mass.

why is it effected by gravity? It is not affected by gravity directly: the space trough which it travels "changes" in the presence of gravity.

[SunkenCiv]

From 2002.

[SunkenCiv]

Note: this topic was posted in August of 2002, nearly five years ago.

Paul Davis is a big shot in string theory.