Posted on 09/09/2001 1:05:44 PM PDT by telos
A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book, Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same - 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees, Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists. Cosmology - the study of the origins and future of our universe - became popular in the early 20th century for physicists who wanted to think the unthinkable about creation. Einstein's theory of relativity, which describes how gravity controls the behaviour of our universe, was one of cosmology's greatest triumphs. But Einstein said there was an even deeper issue, which he described as whether God had any choice. In other words, could the laws that governed the way our universe formed after the big bang have worked any differently? He concluded that they could not. In the past 40 years, however, the increasing power of astronomical instruments has turned cosmology from a theoretical science into a practical one and forced scientists to re-examine Einstein's conclusions. Among the most striking claims is that our universe only exists because of a fine balance between several crucial factors. One is the rate at which nuclear fusion releases energy in stars such as the sun by squashing hydrogen atoms into helium and then other elements. Astronomers have found that exactly 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into starlight and that if this figure had been just a fraction different then carbon and other elements essential to life could never have formed. Another puzzle is the so-called "smoothness" of our universe, by which astronomers mean the distribution of matter and radiation. In theory, the big bang could have produced a universe where all the matter clumped together into a few black holes, or another in which it was spread out evenly, forming nothing but a thin vapour. "It could be that the laws that govern our universe are unchangeable but it is a remarkable coincidence that these laws are also exactly what is needed to produce life," said Rees. "It seems too good to be true." What he, Hawking and others such as Neil Turok, professor of maths and physics at Cambridge, are now looking at is the idea that our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes, with different laws of nature operating in each. Some universes would have all their matter clumped together into a few huge black holes while others would be nothing more than a thin uniform freezing gas. However, Hawking and his colleagues increasingly disagree over how this "multiverse" could work. At the conference Hawking dismissed the idea of a series of big bangs on the grounds that it extended into the infinite past and so could never have a beginning.
Okay. What is your basis for asserting that "all things decay in a closed system?"
Does a photon decay?
A neutron?
What causes the decay that you assert takes place?
We know how far away the Large Magellanic Cloud is because of how bright the stars are as we see them from here. Specifically, stars called Cepheid variables are used, because we can determine their absolute brightness by measuring their period of variation. But in any case, you can tell immediately that the LMC is very far away, simply because of the dimness and angular proximity of its stars. Even young-earth creationists admit that other galaxies are far away; if they were very close by, there'd be no need to postulate that the speed of light has changed.
Enter SN1987a. After it exploded, a shockwave of light and neutrinos went flying away from it. As it propagated outwards, it illuminated interstellar matter, which allows us to measure its progress as it moves perpendicular to our line of sight. IF we postulate that light moved much faster back then, we would see the shockwave propagate outwards very quickly, many light-years per year. Our measurement of the distance to the LMC with Cepheid variables is accurate to maybe 10%, more than good enough to distinguish between a normal speed of light and a vastly greater speed of light. Notice how I haven't said anything about how long ago the explosion occurred: the measurement of the speed of light back then depends only on how far away it was, and how big the shockwave appears to us after 14 years of expansion.
It is an experimentally measured fact that the speed of light in the Large Magellanic Cloud back when SN1897a occurred--whenever it may have occurred--was not significantly different from what it is now. Having conclusively established the stability of the speed of light, we are now at liberty to use it to calculate how long ago it occurred. At a measured one light year per year, that would mean SN1987a occurred 150,000 years ago.
The UCCJEA. I'm arguing that the jurisdiction denied by the "non-home" state language, is not subject matter jurisdiction that is prohibited by the "home-state" provisions, but "propriety" jurisdiction. If it were SMJ, then "any" act would be nullity. But some acts by non-home-state courts are permitted, recognizable, and ratifiable. In my analogy "SMJ doesn't blink in and out of existence like Schrodingers' Cat."
TYPO:
The UCCJEA. I'm arguing that the jurisdiction denied by the "non-home" state language, is not subject matter jurisdiction, but "propriety" jurisdiction. If it were SMJ, then "any" act would be nullity. But some acts by non-home-state courts are permitted, recognizable, and ratifiable. In my analogy "SMJ doesn't blink in and out of existence like Schrodingers' Cat."
Hawking just has a hang-up about infinite time.
Yes. I've actually performed the former experiment.
Plus how do you measure total energy output? Is some output in form of heat?
A nuclear reaction experiment might measure heat output. If I'm doing a particle experiment such as I described, I'm going to measure energy with an electromagnetic shower counter, also called an electromagnetic calorimeter.
There are many kinds of shower counters, but they all use the same basic principle: high energy photons interact with matter to create electron-positron pairs, which emit photons that create more e+e- pairs, and so on, and so on, and so on, until the photons are too soft to create new pairs. So I might, for example, have a series of lead plates, interspersed with scintillating plastic. This special plastic emits light when charged particles pass through it. I can then measure the light output with photomultiplier tubes. I can measure the energy of the photon by counting the number of particles in the electromagnetic shower.
Plus, when you have isotopic decay, do you have a loss of mass?
Oh, yes. This you measure by looking at the masses of the nuclei, and simply subtracting. The lost mass--maximal for iron--is known as the nuclear binding energy. It is very well known.
Go with the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland. That one did come and go. Schroedinger's cat, once dead, stayed dead.
So, your argument is now that because you have observed that metal rusts, trees and people die, and wood rots, everything must decay. Since everything "decays," the speed of light must "decay."
I know it's difficult to believe how simple somethings are, but I would assume you're a believer in evolution and require things to get better for your ideas to work: in spite of what is plainly observable.
I have no idea what this has to do with the speed of light. Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with electromagnetic phenomonon, such as light. What is clear is that you have not presented us with a scientific basis for asserting that everything must decay, hence the speed of light must decay. I will now show you that there are some things that DON'T decay.
Does a photon decay? Yes. A neutron? Yes.
Free neutrons do decay, but photons don't; neither do several other nuclear particles. Here's what one source ( http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/decays.html ) states:
"As far as we know today, electrons, protons, photons, and neutrinos are the only fundamental particles that never decay." [emphasis added]
There you are; four fundamental nuclear particles that NEVER decay. (If you have evidence that they DO decay, publish it and you'll probably win a Nobel Prize.) Hence your assertion, based on anectodal evidence, that everything decays, is refuted. Thus you have no basis for claiming that the speed of light "must" decay.
What causes the decay that you assert takes place? You wouldn't believe me if I told you, but I'll tell you anyway. The wages of sin is death and ever since Adam sinned and death entered the world, things have decayed, rotted, rusted, and people have been dying at a rate of 100%.
So, essentially your basis for asserting that "things decay" is based on theology principles, not scientific evidence. It is unfortunate that you seem to feel your theological beliefs are threatened by science, but that is no basis on which to deny the best available scientific understanding we currently have, which is based on careful experimental observation and testing of theories.
Evolution is insanity.
Gratuitous assertion, gratuitously denied.
If you want to learn about religion, you don't read a science text. If you want to learn science, you can't do it by reading theology.
If you have some scientific basis for asserting that the speed of light "must" decay, by all means post it. But, as you must have noticed, "Physicist" has explained that we have direct observational evidence that there has been NO significant change in the speed of light between whenever SN1987A blew up and the present.
Either you aren't listening or aren't thinking this through. The 14 years simply provides more accuracy to the long-ago measurement. Even if you think that the events in the Large Magellanic Cloud aren't all of 150,000 years old, they still happened a long time ago by any standard. The deceleration measurement is happening over that long time. I say it's 150,000 years, and while your mileage may vary <grin>, it's still going to be a long time.
So pick a number! Tell me how long ago you think SN1987a occurred, that is, tell me how many years you think the light's been travelling to get to us. That number (not 14 years) is the time over which the "decay" is being measured.
So how long ago was it? I dare you to guess.
Since you can't measure any decay in 14 years then it doesn't decay.
That brings up another argument. With the kind of deceleration you would need, and with the acccuracy to which we can measure the speed of light in the laboratory, you unquestionably would be able to measure it unambiguously over a span of 14 years.
I quoted a Stanford University website that provided information on the currently accepted theory of particle physics. It isn't what one scientist "thinks" it is what is accepted by the overwhelming preponderance of professionals trained in this field.
Chuck Missler, Ph.D, B.A. all that good stuff in astrophysics says light does decay in speed and your guy only said that "as far as he can tell."
That's an interesting misquote of what I posted. The remark about "as far as he can tell" was with respect to the stability of the proton (as there is a theoretical possibility that it could be unstable, but with an incredibly long half-life.) The remark had nothing to do with the speed of light. The fact remains that if any of the nuclear particles I listed were unstable and decayed, you could get yourself a Nobel prize if you had evidence of it happening. Where is it? There is none; hence, my refutation of your assertion that everything decays still stands. Thus, you have no scientific basis for asserting the speed of light decays.
As for your claim that the speed of light has been measured to be slowing down, scientists can't seem to find the data that you claim supports this claim. Selective use of data, especially error prone measurements made hundreds of years ago, hardly constitutes proof that the speed of light is slowing down.
Now, as to your expert who you claim says that light speed decays, would you please post exactly what his degrees are, and a link to where we can verify them. He sounds very interesting. I look forward to scrutinizing his credentials.
How fast do you think light travelled back then? A ballpark will do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.