Inconstant Speed of Light May Debunk Einstein

Reuters via Yahoo! ^ | Wed Aug 7, 2:07 PM ET | By Michael Christie

[Momaw Nadon]

SYDNEY (Reuters) - A team of Australian scientists has proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics -- Einstein's theory of relativity.

The team, led by theoretical physicist Paul Davies of Sydney's Macquarie University, say it is possible that the speed of light has slowed over billions of years.

If so, physicists will have to rethink many of their basic ideas about the laws of the universe.

"That means giving up the theory of relativity and E=mc squared and all that sort of stuff," Davies told Reuters.

"But of course it doesn't mean we just throw the books in the bin, because it's in the nature of scientific revolution that the old theories become incorporated in the new ones."

Davies, and astrophysicists Tamara Davis and Charles Lineweaver from the University of New South Wales published the proposal in the August 8 edition of scientific journal Nature.

The suggestion that the speed of light can change is based on data collected by UNSW astronomer John Webb, who posed a conundrum when he found that light from a distant quasar, a star-like object, had absorbed the wrong type of photons from interstellar clouds on its 12 billion year journey to earth.

Davies said fundamentally Webb's observations meant that the structure of atoms emitting quasar light was slightly but ever so significantly different to the structure of atoms in humans.

The discrepancy could only be explained if either the electron charge, or the speed of light, had changed.

IN TROUBLE EITHER WAY

"But two of the cherished laws of the universe are the law that electron charge shall not change and that the speed of light shall not change, so whichever way you look at it we're in trouble," Davies said.

To establish which of the two constants might not be that constant after all, Davies' team resorted to the study of black holes, mysterious astronomical bodies that suck in stars and other galactic features.

They also applied another dogma of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, which Davies summarizes as "you can't get something for nothing."

After considering that a change in the electron charge over time would violate the sacrosanct second law of thermodynamics, they concluded that the only option was to challenge the constancy of the speed of light.

More study of quasar light is needed in order to validate Webb's observations, and to back up the proposal that light speed may vary, a theory Davies stresses represents only the first chink in the armor of the theory of relativity.

In the meantime, the implications are as unclear as the unexplored depths of the universe themselves.

"When one of the cornerstones of physics collapses, it's not obvious what you hang onto and what you discard," Davies said.

"If what we're seeing is the beginnings of a paradigm shift in physics like what happened 100 years ago with the theory of relativity and quantum theory, it is very hard to know what sort of reasoning to bring to bear."

It could be that the possible change in light speed will only matter in the study of the large scale structure of the universe, its origins and evolution.

For example, varying light speed could explain why two distant and causally unconnected parts of the universe can be so similar even if, according to conventional thought, there has not been enough time for light or other forces to pass between them.

It may only matter when scientists are studying effects over billions of years or billions of light years.

Or there may be startling implications that could change not only the way cosmologists view the universe but also its potential for human exploitation.

"For example there's a cherished law that says nothing can go faster than light and that follows from the theory of relativity," Davies said. The accepted speed of light is 300,000 km (186,300 miles) per second.

"Maybe it's possible to get around that restriction, in which case it would enthrall Star Trek fans because at the moment even at the speed of light it would take 100,000 years to cross the galaxy. It's a bit of a bore really and if the speed of light limit could go, then who knows? All bets are off," Davies said.

[mtg]

"Uh, Captain Kirk, I wouldn't fire those photon torpedoes if I were you!"

[balrog666]

"Uh, Captain Kirk, I wouldn't fire those photon torpedoes if I were you!"

Speaking of rings around Uranus...

[Dinsdale]

he found that light from a distant quasar, a star-like object, had absorbed the wrong type of photons from interstellar clouds on its 12 billion year journey to earth.

Anybody out there who can translate this from idiot journalist back into correct science?

Sounds like the spectral lines from the gas cload are wrong. Perhaps Mr Creationist just forgot about red shift?

[Erasmus]

But if you drive faster than the speed of light are you overdriving your headlights?BWHAHAHAHAHA!

Yes. In fact, you're bombarding innocent bystanders with a Cerenkov shock wave.

[far sider]

'Concentration of dissolved solids in rivers x flow of rivers x billions of years - salt deposits = saturation' I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

It's easy to measure the dissolved salt content of rivers. It's easy to calculate the total flow of rivers into the ocean. It's easy to calculate the amount of salt in salt deposits. The math proves that the earth can't be 4.5 billion years old. The oceans should be worse than the Dead Sea by now.

'No way. NASA was shocked to find rings around Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune, because they were not thought to be stable.' And they've since modified theories of ring stability to fit the available evidence. That's the way science works.

They were right the first time. With every little collision the particles in the rings lose momentum, and they have yet to come up with an expalnation of how they could be stable for thousands of years. In fact, Jupiter's rings are nearly gone.

'Come on. It doesn't exist. Neither does the Oort Cloud. They were both theorized to try to explain where comets come from, but there's no evidence they exist. Deus ex machina. Right, Physicist?'I'm not a physicist. [I was referring to the Freeper known as Physicist. Sorry. I got confused.] I'm a political philosopher and a lawyer, by training. But I do know that the Kuiper Belt exists. Many Kuiper belt objects, including 1992 QB1, 1993 SC and 1998 WWB1 have been photographed.

Can you provide a reference?

'Name one.'Clepsydrops. Ok, you happy?

Which is a ...what.

Just don't try to impose your cults on others.

Your definition of cult must be very interesting.

[Physicist]

Kuiper Belt? Come on. It doesn't exist. Neither does the Oort Cloud. They were both theorized to try to explain where comets come from, but there's no evidence they exist. Deus ex machina. Right, Physicist?

Dozens of comets are seen every year. Understand that, according to Kepler's second law, the time a comet spends passing through our solar system is but a small fraction of its orbital period: it moves far faster at perihelion than at aphelion. Therefore, if we start with any non-perverse distribution of comets (i.e., one that is consistent with the virial theorem), each one we see implies the presence of a large number of comets that we do not see. But it gets worse than that: comets that pass through the solar system get eliminated eventually by collisions and by sublimation. What we see are the survivors. So that's another big factor by which we must multiply our sample. Put those factors together and you end up with substantial populations of comets, even with extremely conservative assumptions.

Asking how we know the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud are there is like asking how we know that the Earth is full of molten rock. We don't see much molten rock, but we get enough samples of it that we can deduce its presence.

[RightWhale]

NASA was shocked to find rings around Jupiter

They shouldn't have been. Jupiter's rings were reported in Sky & Telescope in the 50s.

[Doctor Stochastic]

A link for the e=mc**2 skeptics: http://mothra.rerf.or.jp/ENG/A-bomb/photo-1/Contents.html

[coloradan]

Frankly, I think you are in a terrible bind, and will have no other alternative than to collect more data.

[RightWhale]

Just for general Kuiper Belt interest:

---

New object deemed largest minor planet

August 24, 2001

By Richard Stenger

CNN

(CNN) -- An icy body beyond Pluto has unseated the asteroid Ceres as the largest minor planet in the solar system, breaking a record that stood for two centuries, European astronomers announced this week.

The frozen rock has a diameter of at least 1,200 kilometers (745 miles), much larger than the old titleholder, a colossal boulder discovered in 1801 by Italian astronomer Giuseppe Piazzi.

Ceres, which resides in the main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, has a diameter of about 950 kilometers (590 miles).

The new object is half the size of Pluto and slightly larger than Pluto's moon Charon. It orbits the sun in a ring of primordial comets beyond the planets known as the Kuiper Belt.

. . .

[far sider]

I was referring to short-period comets which are supposedly generated by the supposed Oort Cloud. Is there any evidnce that the Oort Cloud exists other than "it must exist because short-period comets have to come from somewhere since they can't be primordial"?

[steamroller]

There you are!!Amen!!To think that us finite little specks of dust can be able to understand the infinite power and expanse of God is arrogant beyond belief.We can have insights from God by His grace,but we can never know the essential physical nature of things because how can the part know the whole?W'eve been able to penetrate the surface(atomic weapons,genome mapping,etc.),but the true nature of it all must forever be a mystery.

[Richard Kimball]

I remember from my old physics that the speed of light is NOT constant.

Yeah, I remember the same thing, although not from physics class. I was a fine arts major and took classes that had topics like "our friend, the 7". However, if it is impossible to change directions without changing speed, then refraction and reflection prove the speed of light is not constant (at least I thought it did.) Also, it would seem logical to me that light would slow down after so long. If this is the case, wouldn't it be possible that the red shift in all the stars might mean NOT that the stars were moving away from us, but that the light was slowing down as it crossed the galaxy?

[Leisler]

I suspected so. Nevertheless, duty and humanity will have to be my reward. I only hope that after I am elemental dust, others will pick up the baton of progress with a kind word and remembrance of my efforts.

I must go to the lab now……weary but determined….

[andy_card]

The math proves that the earth can't be 4.5 billion years old.

Show me the math.

With every little collision the particles in the rings lose momentum, and they have yet to come up with an expalnation of how they could be stable for thousands of years

The gravitational pull of Shephard Satelites keep the rings relatively stable, at least in the short run (billions of years).

Can you provide a reference?

I'll provide photographs, if you want.
Here's an article about the Kuiper Belt, written for laymen. The Oort Cloud is still somewhat controversial, but over 400 Kuiper Belt objects have been detected. Here are a few pictures of them:

Which is a ...what.

Clepsydrops is an example of a transitional genus between reptiles and mammals, which I just picked out of a hat. I could list many others if you want.

[RightWhale]

light would slow down after so long

Light used to be seen in the park playing chess all afternoon, but lately it has become forgetful about even feeding pigeons, just sitting and watching, going home when it starts growing cold.

[aristeides]

What kind of orbit does that newly discovered minor planet have, a highly elliptical one like a comet, or a nearly circular one like a planet? Does the object still lack a name?

[aristeides]

Speaking of stability, I just read that the Great Red Spot on Neptune, discovered by Voyager 2 in 1989, had disappeared by the time the Hubble Space Telescope looked at the planet in 1994. How could that be, if the reason the Great Red Spot on Jupiter has not disappeared for at least 300 years is that it would have to be disrupted by a larger storm, which does not exist (at least not yet) on Jupiter?

[RightWhale]

Naming things is our assigned task. It has a name. 2001 KX76. The International Celestial Object Naming Committee might just leave it at that.

[BlackRazor]

It's easy to measure the dissolved salt content of rivers. It's easy to calculate the total flow of rivers into the ocean. It's easy to calculate the amount of salt in salt deposits. The math proves that the earth can't be 4.5 billion years old. The oceans should be worse than the Dead Sea by now.

So what you are saying is that even today, the salinity of the oceans continues to increase, as more and more salt is deposited. That should be a fairly simple thing to prove with empirical data. Is there any such data?

While it is true that scientists have yet to come up with satisfactory mechanisms to account for all of the removal processes of salt from the oceans, it is also true that they are fairly confident that the salinity of the oceans has remained unchanged for approximately 1.5 billion years (based on the salinity tolerance of photosynthetic bacteria found in fossils).

If true, that would be enough to discredit your theory. We might not know how the salt is being removed from the oceans, but the fact that salinity has remained stable for so long means it is in fact being removed. Therefore salinity levels couldn't plausibly be used as a method to estimate the earth's age.