Black hole theory suggests light is slowing (down)!

New Scientist ^ | 13:27 08 August 02 | NewScientist.com news service

[vannrox]

Black hole theory suggests light is slowing

13:27 08 August 02

Hazel Muir

One of Einstein's most dearly held concepts - that the speed of light is constant - is looking a little fragile. Physicists in Australia claim there is good reason to think the speed of light has slowed over time.

"Einstein would have absolutely hated this," said Paul Davies of Macquarie University in Sydney. "His entire theory of relativity was founded on the notion that the speed of light is an absolute fixed universal number."

The physicists' suggestion follows earlier measurements of a key quantity called the "fine structure constant". This quantity dictates how photons of light interact with particles such as electrons. Observations of the light from distant, superbright galaxies suggest that this "constant" was actually slightly smaller 10 billion years ago (New Scientist print edition, 11 May 2002).

Because the value of the fine structure constant depends on two quantities - the electron's charge (e) and the speed of light (c) - this implies that one of these two quantities has also changed. Either c has decreased over time, or e has increased.

Event horizon

Now Davies and his colleagues say the most likely answer is that c has decreased. They argue that if instead the charge of the electron could go up, then this would mean the event horizon of a black hole - the region from which light and matter cannot escape - would shrink over time. And that would violate one of the golden rules of physics, the second law of thermodynamics.

It is a very speculative suggestion, however, because the detailed physics of black holes are very poorly understood and totally untested. Davies himself admits the arguments are "only suggestive".

But if he is proved right and the speed of light has slowed, it would revolutionise physics. "If these results hold out, we need to start re-examining the very nature of space and time," said Davies.

If the speed of light in the early Universe was much higher than it is now, physicists would have to rethink many of their ideas, such as the theory of inflation, which says space expanded extremely rapidly in the first split second after the big bang.

Journal reference: Nature (vol 418, p 602)

13:27 08 August 02

Return to news story

  © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.

 

[vannrox]

I remember when I was being taught in elementary school how the speed of light was a constant barrier. And, that we could never be able to go faster than it. I remember thinking..."...that's not right...".

[berned]

If the speed of light was much faster at the beginning of the universe than it is now, wouldn't that mean that our calculation of the age of the universe is WAY off? (i.e. the universe is much younger than previously thought?)

[Salman]

If the speed of light was much faster at the beginning of the universe than it is now, wouldn't that mean that our calculation of the age of the universe is WAY off? (i.e. the universe is much younger than previously thought?)

Or taking it in the other direction, this still doesn't mean it's possible to accelerate faster than light. The implication is that eventually nothing can move as the speed of light approaches zero.

[mlo]

"His entire theory of relativity was founded on the notion that the speed of light is an absolute fixed universal number."

Yes, for all observers. It is not a statement that the speed of light has always been the same. This article's statements about Einstein are wrong.

[mlo]

I remember when I was being taught in elementary school how the speed of light was a constant barrier. And, that we could never be able to go faster than it. I remember thinking..."...that's not right...".

Our intuition doesn't always understand how the universe really works. Nothing has happened to change what your teacher told you.

[VadeRetro]

If the speed of light was much faster at the beginning of the universe than it is now, wouldn't that mean that our calculation of the age of the universe is WAY off? (i.e. the universe is much younger than previously thought?)

From the article:

Observations of the light from distant, superbright galaxies suggest that this "constant" was actually slightly smaller 10 billion years ago (New Scientist print edition, 11 May 2002).

Well, it's still at least ten billion years old, and if c has only lost a fraction of one percent in 10 billion years, it's hard to see how the universe can be WAY younger than previous estimantes would have it.

[TopQuark]

"Einstein would have absolutely hated this," It is alsways a pleasure when a mediocrity speaks on behalf of Einstein.

The fact is Einstein was a true thinker of unwavering intellectual honesty. He did not fully accept quantum mechanics but he certainly understood it and did not "hate" it.

[vannrox]

"...If the speed of light was much faster at the beginning of the universe than it is now, wouldn't that mean that our calculation of the age of the universe is WAY off? (i.e. the universe is much younger than previously thought?)..."


Indeed...
.
Yes. If, for instance there would be evidence for an inversely exponential decrease in the speed of light, then once we had an idea of the magnitude of the variables, it would be possible to track the speed as a function of other physical parameters. My guess is that time would NOT come into being, as I am a firm believer that the concept of time is but a human construct. But that the physical states of space and matter attributes, on the quantum level would play a role.

This is a very exciting development, but unless it fits into the eleven dimensional universe explaniaton, I am at a loss to understand it.

[Rockyrich]

which says space expanded extremely rapidly in the first split second after the big bang.

The "big bang" like evolution are still only theories. There is no scientific fact either of these occured.

[tictoc]

Have you visited www.crank.net?

They have an entire category called Einstein Was Wrong.

Most of the websites referenced there are so obviously loony, even a non-scientist like myself can see it.

Others are produced by people with engineering degrees and even physics Ph.D's, and in these cases it is impossible for me to determine why they are crackpots. For example Tom van Flandern.

[Billthedrill]

...the speed of light has slowed over time....

I know how it feels. Next thing you know the speed of light will be getting up in the middle of the night to take a pee...

[Entropy Squared]

When my son was 5 I taught him to say, "According to Einstein's Theory of Relativity nothing can exceed the speed of light," so he could dazzle adults with the statement. He didn't understand what it meant, but he quickly learned its dazzle power, coming from a five-year-old.

[Enemy Of The State]

self ping for later read

[BulletBrasDotNet]

We need to hear from Al Gore on this, since he invented light.

[artios]

There was another announcement last week about someone that had developed a technology to transmit data at 4x the speed of light. Now - don't flame me - it was an AP story.... I am not smart enough in physics to really know if it is a fraud or not.

[Age of Reason]

And that would violate one of the golden rules of physics, the second law of thermodynamics.

Well hey, maybe we need a new second law.

[TopQuark]

Thanks for the pointer: I've never heard of this one before.

A brief look makes me reach the same conclusion as you did. Pure waste of time.

Consider statemets such as this:

"More than an intuitive nonsense, Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, it would seem, legitimised a century of stupidity. Sound like a person with a great deal of ambition who has failed calculus in college.

Or this:

The physics that was taught in the 20th century was supposedly based on Einstein. In fact this is not the case, there was a conspiracy against Einstein and his theory was replaced by the physics establishment in 1925/ 1926 by a false theory that is still called Einstein’s theory. The conspiracy started before World War II, and was maintained after the war because of Cold War tensions of wanting to keep atomic secrets from the Russians, and after that it evolved into a doctrine that prevents certain experimental research being carried out that can prove the 1925 theory as being wrong.

Does it not look like not-so-mild case of paranoia?

[snudge]

Wait a minute... If a black hole can destoy the past, does the future exist?

[ZinGirl]

...the speed of light has slowed over time....

Actually, the universe just needs new batteries....(and since you posted the article, I guess you're just the person to do it!) try using a brand-name battery this time. ;-)

[mlo]

The "big bang" like evolution are still only theories. There is no scientific fact either of these occured.

You really need to read more.