Posted on 08/08/2002 9:06:23 AM PDT by 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.
IT'S NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND! Who said it was? That's easy to understand. We (creationists) are not stupid (most of us anyway). What we can't understand are things like: why isn't the sea saturated with salt by now? how can unstable structures like the rings of Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune survive for 10 million years? where do short period comets come from? why are there no transitional forms between species? You know, things like that.
By means of disclosure, I think the Bible is bunk, but have no problem with others believing in it
Thanks. You seem to be one of the few around here.
We are blessed with knowledgeable contributors like Freeper Physicist who is always willing to explain things in lay-speak so everyone who wants to, can understand. This is a wonderful place to learn!!!
Regardless of whether you're stupid or not, you are religious fanatics.
why isn't the sea saturated with salt by now?
Why would it be? Salt concentrations vary. Have you never heard of salt being deposited on a shore?
how can unstable structures like the rings of Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune survive for 10 million years?
Because they're not unstable in any meaningful sense of the word. It will likely take billions of years before they disintegrate.
where do short period comets come from?
Kuiper Belt?
why are there no transitional forms between species?
There are many.
You know, things like that.
Actually, I don't know. Your argument seems to be based on selective (mis)readings of scientific data, blind faith in a Near Eastern tract, and a refusal to submit any sort of coherent, falsifiable theory with which to expound your views. Science cannot answer every question in the universe at the moment, and doesn't need to. For some reason, however, you religious folks need an answer to everything, right away. If that isn't selfish egotism, I don't know what is.
As a "religious fanatic", I must say, "selfish egotist" is one of the nicer names I've seen us creationists called. Bless you Andy.
I was going for accuracy, not name calling. I bear no personal illwill towards anybody, no matter how misguided.
I don't know how much longer I can continue to work in obscurity and sacrifice my heath for scientific progress. I could really use some grant money, if you know of anyone. I'd be more then happy to have you co-write and share in the research.
'why isn't the sea saturated with salt by now?' Why would it be? Salt concentrations vary. Have you never heard of salt being deposited on a shore?Concentration of dissolved solids in rivers x flow of rivers x billions of years - salt deposits = saturation
'how can unstable structures like the rings of Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune survive for 10 million years?' Because they're not unstable in any meaningful sense of the word. It will likely take billions of years before they disintegrate.No way. NASA was shocked to find rings around Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune, because they were not thought to be stable.
'where do short period comets come from?' 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?
'why are there no transitional forms between species?' There are many.No there aren't. If there were I would still believe in evolution. Name one.
'You know, things like that.' Actually, I don't know. Your argument seems to be based on selective (mis)readings of scientific data, blind faith in a Near Eastern tract, and a refusal to submit any sort of coherent, falsifiable theory with which to expound your views. Science cannot answer every question in the universe at the moment, and doesn't need to. For some reason, however, you religious folks need an answer to everything, right away. If that isn't selfish egotism, I don't know what is.Ego? Look in the mirror. You apparently speak for "Science." I'm just glad you have "no problem" with us poor souls who believe in such "bunk" as the Bible.
What you are not appreciating is that the speed of light is a limitation on relative velocity. There is no such thing as absolute velocity. The speed of light is not some magical brick wall that you smack up against as you go faster and faster.
Relative to yourself, you are always going at a velocity of zero. When we Earthlings say that you are travelling close to the speed of light, we mean that you are travelling close to the speed of light relative to us. If you don't look out the window of your spaceship, you will have no way of knowing how fast you are going. Or rather, you know exactly how fast you are going: you are standing still, and it is the Earth that is moving.
So what does happen, then? You have to understand that time is a dimension. The key feature of the dimensions of space is that there is a transformation--rotation--that transforms one axis of the coordinate system into another. Let's say I have a ruler lying along the x-axis. It has a certain size in the x direction, say 1 meter, and very small size in the y-direction. If I pick a different point of view, by rotating my coordinate system slightly, the x length becomes shorter by a factor equal to the cosine of the angle of rotation, and the y length becomes longer by 1 meter times the sine of the angle. In other words, some of the x size has transformed into y size. Simple.
In the case of time, there is a different transformation that does this: the Lorentz transformation. Instead of turning by a certain angle, different points of view are generated by changing relative velocity. The greater the relative velocity, the shorter the moving object appears, just as our rotated ruler became shorter in the x-direction (this is called Lorentz contraction). At the same time, the time between events--such as the ticks of a clock--becomes longer, just as our ruler became longer in the y-direction (this is called time dilation).
So how does this affect the addition of velocities? Let's suppose you really get cooking in your ship, so that you're only 10 meters per second shy of the speed of light, as viewed from Earth. On board you have a high-powered rifle, which you will fire in your direction of travel. What do you see, and what do we see from Earth?
You see the bullet fly forward at 1000 meters per second, as if your ship were standing still. As far as you're concerned, your ship is standing still. We see something different. Time is moving more slowly on your ship...by a factor of more than 22 million! If we wait long enough, we might see the bullet creep forward by a tiny fraction of an inch with respect to your ship. It may be going ever so slightly faster than your ship, but it certainly isn't going faster than light with respect to us.
Another problem. If nothing can travel faster than light. What about the case of an observer who observes a vehicle traveling toward his left ear at say .9 light speed. And a second vehicle traveling toward his right ear at .9 light. Then aren't the two vehicles traveling at something greater than light speed relative to each other? Einstien groopies say that there is some wierd math that proves that I might observe this condition, but that the two vehicles would observe each other traveling at less than light.
That's exactly right, except that the math isn't weird. In fact, it's accessible to anyone who's had middle school algebra. Each vehicle sees the other closing at a velocity of v1+v2/(1+v1v2/c²)=0.9945 c.
Ok. And I've got a bridge to sell you.
You're hardly in a position to reject it out of hand when you've refused to look into the math (which really is simple). But that's beside the point: all of these claims are experimentally testable. And believe me, they have been tested more thoroughly than you would ever imagine. Nobody has taken Einstein's word for it: clocks really do slow down and lengths really do shrink, to exactly the extent predicted by Einstein.
It has answers to your questions.
Plenty of normal people disagree with me. As Winston Churchill may or may not have said, a fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. That would seem to describe most "creationists" I've run into rather well.
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.
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.
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'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.
Name one.
Clepsydrops. Ok, you happy?
You apparently speak for "Science"
I speak for no one but myself. I don't profess to have any special scientific training, but I'd like to think I can address facts put before me in a logical manner.
I'm just glad you have "no problem" with us poor souls who believe in such "bunk" as the Bible.
I don't. You can believe the earth is flat for all I care. Just don't try to impose your cults on others.
Come on, June. I've been there before. Mostly non-answers. I can refer you to FAQs too.
Not necessarily true. "Shepherd satellites" can maintain rings for many 100s of millions of years. NASA was more delighted than "shocked" because the rings hadn't been observed and nobody anticipated them. In fact, their presence cleared up the long standing puzzle over why only Saturn had rings.
It (the Kuiper Belt) 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.
There's plenty of evidence for the Kuiper Belt -- Kuiper hypothesized it on the basis of patterns in hundreds of comet orbits. Over the past 10 years or so dozens if not hundreds of Kuiper objects have been observed and catalogued. The Oort Cloud is another matter, but it's a good hypothesis in that it explains several observations without contradicting physical law.
Not necessarily true. "Shepherd satellites" can maintain rings for many 100s of millions of years. NASA was more delighted than "shocked" because the rings hadn't been observed and nobody anticipated them. In fact, their presence cleared up the long standing puzzle over why only Saturn had rings.
It (the Kuiper Belt) 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.
There's plenty of evidence for the Kuiper Belt -- Kuiper hypothesized it on the basis of patterns in hundreds of comet orbits. Over the past 10 years or so dozens if not hundreds of Kuiper objects have been observed and catalogued. The Oort Cloud is another matter, but it's a good hypothesis in that it explains several observations without contradicting physical law.
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.