Black hole theory suggests light is slowing

newscientist ^

[Bogey78O]

I know the answer but I promised to never reveal it. Sorry.

[Shovelhead]

"...if he is proved right and the speed of light has slowed..."
...blame it on global-warming

[Texas_Jarhead]

Oh no, we all know that the speed of light is a constant. there is no way it could be changing.

[Texas_Jarhead]

If it is ever proven that the speed of light has been slowing over time then that would be an incredibly important finding.

[chance33_98]

Prove a theory today, and then it is shown tomorrow to be wrong, so what then does it mean to 'prove' a theory?

I could go into a long diatribe here about religion, ghosts, and science but I will refrain :)

[Bogey78O]

But I have it on a very reliable source.


I've said too much.

[Maurice Tift]

...blame it on global-warming

Please don't tell Al Gore that the speed of light is slowing. We want it to be a surprise when his solar powered car stalls on the highway.

[RightWhale]

Prove a theory today, and then it is shown tomorrow to be wrong

It was the main premise to the special theory of relativity. If it turns out to be not so, then the theory of relativity may need an adjustment, but the theory is still useful and won't be discarded.

I am expecting someone to begin applying Wolfram's new program theory to relativity and some other cosmological theories.

[LloydofDSS]

I have often wondered if the red-shift is really caused by photons losing energy very slowly as they pass through thousands of years of space-time. There is only two ways a photon can lose energy... either its wavelength becomes longer or it slows down. I think we have evidence that the wavelength becomes longer (the red shift). How would you test such a theory?

If the speed of light is slowing down, would a photon be slowing down along with it?

[chance33_98]

Wolfram effectively sidesteps the issue of degrees of complexity. There is no debate that a degenerate pattern such as a chessboard has no effective complexity. Wolfram also acknowledges that mere randomness does not represent complexity either, because pure randomness also becomes predictable in its pure lack of predictability. It is true that the interesting features of a Class 4 automata are neither repeating nor pure randomness, so I would agree that they are more complex than the results produced by other classes of Automata. However, there is nonetheless a distinct limit to the complexity produced by these Class 4 automata. The many images of Class 4 automata in the book all have a similar look to them, and although they are non-repeating, they are interesting (and intelligent) only to a degree. Moreover, they do not continue to evolve into anything more complex, nor do they develop new types of features. One could run these automata for trillions or even trillions of trillions of iterations, and the image would remain at the same limited level of complexity. They do not evolve into, say, insects, or humans, or Chopin preludes, or anything else that we might consider of a higher order of complexity than the streaks and intermingling triangles that we see in these images.

I found this review to be rather interesting, but I do like Wolfram's work.

[stylin19a]

Help me out, here. I was taught a theory can only be disproved, not proved. Is that too simplistic?

[BenLurkin]

I like to put it this way: "Science is always wrong."
Even though scientists are constantly debunking older theories, they still insist that their current theory is the truth.
Baloney!

[jae471]

Prove a theory today, and then it is shown tomorrow to be wrong

... If it turns out to be not so, then the theory of relativity may need an adjustment, but the theory is still useful and won't be discarded.

Exactly.

Newton comes to mind. Relativity (general or special) proved Newtonian physics wrong. Yet every general physics class teaches it. Are students being taught wrong physics? No. Newton works just fine under 99% of all physics problems. Relativity, if proven wrong, would still work in .99% of that last 1%. Just because a theory is "wrong" doesn't mean it's bad (at least not in physics.)

[RightWhale]

If the speed of light is slowing down, would a photon be slowing down along with it?

The jury is still out on photons. Einstein created photons as a byproduct of his various theories. While they explain some things, they are the result of a model and nothing more. Light is simply the energy released by nerves in the eye when whatever-it-is strikes them. When they refer to the speed of light, they mean the speed of propagation of the phenomenon referred to as photons.

[RightWhale]

a theory can only be disproved, not proved

A theory in physics is a mathematical model. If the model does certain things well, such as allowing calculation of certain results of experiment beforehand, called prediction, then it is a useful model. It might be considered proven, but only until the next generation of instruments comes along that measures to another decimal place. At that time an adjustment might have to be made, just like the adjustment made to Newtonian mechanics by Einsteinian relativity: another factor, an additional calculation if speeds are high enough, or if there is a huge gravity field. No theories are expected to last forever, to be the final word.

[Shovelhead]

"Please don't tell Al Gore that the speed of light is slowing. We want it to be a surprise when his solar powered car stalls on the highway."

And when it does stall, he'll be seen holding a sign that reads: "Will pimp for any cause, just me a ride in your ozone depleting, Earth-in-the-balance, vee-hickle".

[Consort]

I like to put it this way: "Science is always wrong."

I tend to agree but we need scientific proof of it.

[tjg]

Scientific theory is simply the process of developing a model to describe a physical phenomenon. Sometimes the model is usefull and it can be used to do practical things like build bridges and computers.

A scientific theory doesn't have to explain everything or be completely accurate to be usefull or correct. It simply has to fullfil a function and be repeatable within a certain range of parameters.

Why would this article prompt you to diatribe on religion? It has nothing to do with it.

[chance33_98]

Not religion per se, more along the lines of skeptics to the extreme. Those who believe nothing unless it is proven. I am a skeptic myself, but do not like the rantings of some of what I call the more militant skeptics. We know a lot, but we also know so little - and to formulate hypothesis about things with only the knowledge we have without use of imagination stagnates growth. It was einstein who said it best I believe 'Imagination is more important then knowledge'. And John Nash's character in a Beautiful Mind also made reference to this in stating that theories developed by a peer had no originality.