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.

[Junior]

I can't tell how much of this stuff he believes, but his frame of reference is just loopy.

That pretty much sums up the genre and its adherents.

[OBAFGKM]

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?

Current wisdom is that Neptune's "Dark Spot" and Jupiter's "Red Spot" are different phenomena. I wouldn't place too much credence on "explanations" of either, though, because neither is yet well understood!

Neptune's Great Dark Spot of 1989

Unlike Jupiter's Great Red Spot, the Great Dark Spot of Neptune is thought to be a hole, similar to the hole in the ozone layer on Earth, in the methane cloud deck of Neptune. The white clouds shown in the picture are above the "hole". In many images of Neptune, the Great Dark Spot can be seen to change size and shape.

The Great Red Spot of Jupiter is thought to be a hurricane which has been raging on Jupiter for at least 400 years. The Great Dark Spot, seen here by Voyager in 1989, disappeared (either dissipating or being masked) in 1994, and was replaced very soon by a similar "Spot" in a similar place, but in the north instead of in the south.

This is an image of Neptune's Great Dark Spot of 1989.
Click on image for full size version (80K JPG)

[medved]

Where to begin with Ginenthal's link?

Try reading it and understanding it. That's as good a begin point as any.

[equus]

Thank you so much for posting this! I was looking for it this morning as it relates to some discussions I was having with another physicist who was on the cover of New Scientist on June 29--he has a different approach to the same idea, which is that quantum mechanics did not operate in the early universe and instantaneous interactions were therefore possible and explain the uniformity of the early universe.

It's exciting to feel a sea-change happening in cosmology.

[Publius6961]

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.

Let's see now.
They lack the proper means to explain a "bad" observational result, so we must revamp all known physical laws to explain it?

I propose that they examine the reality that what we don't know about the universe is many many orders of magnitude greater than what we do know.

Perhaps the answer is as simple as a little more humility, and a lot more patience and research.

[realpatriot71]

Hmmm - I can picture God chuckling and saying to Himself: "You guys got it figured out, yet?"

LOL Exactly! Someday when we all get to go home, God will sit us down and draw out the physics on a black board and say, "See?" and we will. :-)

[Publius6961]

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

The cosmos is full of comedians...

[InterceptPoint]

Do we have any physicists out there? I have a question.

Assuming that the universe is expanding and has been doing so for some 12 to 15 billion years does this mean that space itself is expanding or just that this space bubble we call the universe is spreading out into, well into what?

Assuming that space itself is expanding it would seem to me that this should have some effect on the speed of light in the medium. We define the index of refraction for a vacuum as our reference and we can calculate the speed of light in any dielectric medium if we have a dielectric constant or equivalently the index of refraction for the material. The dielectric constant for a pure vacuum is 1.0 and for any other medium it is greater than 1.0. Bigger dielectric constant, slower speed of light.

So the question is: As space expands does the dielectric constant (or the index of refraction) change?

If the answer is yes then do we know if this is taken into account by those who think the speed of light is changing?

If the answer is no. How do you know that?

Food for thought. I won't be able to sleep until I have an answer.

[Publius6961]

I knew it! We're all doomed!

It's that damned CO2 again.
If we had signed up for Kyoto, this would not be a problem.

[Publius6961]

The power of imagination was as strong then as it is now. All are works of fiction.

At various points in history, an eminently convenient and exploitable assumption.

History is not over yet.
Nor will it be after you and I are gone.

[Doctor Stochastic]

And 10^60 is larger than 1^720 even.

[Publius6961]

Because I've seen zero evidence of any global flood in the last few billion years. That's why.

Did you shoot video?
Or are you simply relying on memory?

[andy_card]

At various points in history, an eminently convenient and exploitable assumption.

Without corroborating evidence, yes, it is safe to assume that the Bible and similar tracts are works of fiction. However, should you show me a magic beanstalk or an anthropomorphic pillar of salt, I might be forced to reevaluate my position.

History is not over yet.

Francis Fukuyama to the contrary notwithstanding.

Nor will it be after you and I are gone.

Yet Ted Holden's great great grandchildren will inevitably deconstruct works of pulp science fiction from the early 21st century, looking for evidence of cataclysms not otherwise supported in the scientific record.

[andy_card]

Or are you simply relying on memory?

My personal memory of what transpired more than a few hundred million years ago is rather foggy, so I've had to rely on what Senator Thurmond has told me, in many cases.

[balrog666]

How about doing us all a favor by posting in blue.

[Junior]

Yet Ted Holden's great great grandchildren will inevitably deconstruct works of pulp science fiction from the early 21st century, looking for evidence of cataclysms not otherwise supported in the scientific record.

Could you imagine what they'd do with Red Storm Rising?

"Well, we know for a fact that the countries of the United States and the Soviet Union existed, so they must have fought a limited war in the 20th century. Why else would anyone have written about it?"

[andy_card]

Could you imagine what they'd do with Red Storm Rising?

Nah. I'd go whole-hog. Holden's descendents will look at such works as On the Beach as clear and convincing evidence that the human race was extinguished in global thermonuclear war at some point during the 1960s. These descendents will be puzzled by the undeniable fact that they are, afterall, alive, but will quickly come up with a creative and universally satisfactory solution for that minor theoretical discrepancy.

[RightWhale]

I won't be able to sleep until I have an answer

Will any answer do, or do you want a correct answer?

[medved]

Try thinking really hard about the idea of "space expanding"...

I mean, what kinda BS is that? What's fifty feet gonna expand into in a hundred years? Fifty one feet?? You gonna tell people you haven't really gained any weight since college days, it's just the space expanding around your midsection??

The notions of a "big bang" and an expanding universe are total BS, based on nothing more than a fundamental misinterpretation of redshift data. Those ideas have been coercively disproven.

Big Bang, Electric Sun, Plasma Physics and Cosmology Etc.

• Wal Thornhill home page
• Electric Universe
• Tony Peratt, Los Alamos; plasma cosmology etc.
• Don Scott's Version of Electric Sun Theory
• DragonScience: Arp, Demise of Big Bang etc.
• Goodman Site

[Physicist]

So the question is: As space expands does the dielectric constant (or the index of refraction) change?

I would guess not.

If the answer is no. How do you know that?

Because even a tiny index of refraction would induce a gigantic chromatic aberration in the light of distant sources such as quasars. An index of refraction doesn't just slow the speed of light; it slows it in a frequency-dependent way. If that dispersion accumulates over cosmological distances, I don't see how we'd miss it.