Speed of light is constant?

[9Westy9]

Just read an interesting article claiming the the speed of light being a constant is now being questioned by some scientists link. Not being well versed in physics I'm unsure as to whether this theory is being swept under the rug, embraced, or debunked. Interested if anyone knows something I don't on this?

edit: I relaise the link above is very creationism biased, however it raises an interesting group of more modern scientists who think that c may be decreasing. Link for that here

 

[Alex_G]

not read the article yet, but the speed of light isnt constant. It varies depending on what its travelling through. Its speed through a vaccum is however a constant.

 

[shawn001]

First it would be interesting to know when this was actually written, because it says this

"NASA is currently building a mission to fly a satellite by Pluto and beyond to the Kuiper Belt, scheduled for launch in 2005."

So if it was written back in 2005, that makes a difference.

Other then that have to look into it somemore.

 

[9Westy9]

not read the article yet, but the speed of light isnt constant. It varies depending on what its travelling through. Its speed through a vaccum is however a constant.

It seems to be suggesting that the speed of light, in general, has been decreasing over time

 

[Skwim]

First of all, be suspicious of anything from Wing Nut Daily. It has a strong fundamental Christian/conservative bias. Simply consider how it approaches its announced topic "Speed of light slowing down?" with an irrelevant attack on evolution. Look to other sources for the facts.

First it would be interesting to know when this was actually written, because it says this

Under the headline it says: "Published: 07/31/2004 at 1:00 AM"

 

[9Westy9]

First of all, be suspicious of anything from Wing Nut Daily. It has a strong fundamental Christian/conservative bias. Simply consider how it approaches its announced topic "Speed of light slowing down?" with an irrelevant attack on evolution. Look to other sources for the facts.

Oh, so they have a large bias then. That makes it more suspicious. Although I'm interested in the latter work it talks about. i.e. starting from 'within the last 24 months....'

 

[shawn001]

all the links go to sites that were from the early 80's up to 95 or 97 something like that, so they are old links for one.

if something has mass traveling at the speed of light it becomes a BIG issue.

As far as I now the speed of light is constant in a vacuum as mentioned and that hasn't changed to my knowledge.

Curious About Astronomy: Is the speed of light constant?

 

[9Westy9]

all the links go to sites that were from the early 80's up to 95 or 97 something like that, so they are old links for one.

if something has mass traveling at the speed of light it becomes a BIG issue.

As far as I now the speed of light is constant in a vacuum as mentioned and that hasn't changed to my knowledge.

Curious About Astronomy: Is the speed of light constant?

Interesting. although I'd like to see if the work of these guys has been discussed

Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat of the University of Toronto

 

[PolyHedral]

The speed of light changing, while not impossible, does wibbly things to Relativity. I think more this one needs more research, if it has any credit.

 

[9Westy9]

The speed of light changing, while not impossible, does wibbly things to Relativity. I think more this one needs more research, if it has any credit.

Everything I can find comes from early 21st century, so I'm not sure what has happened to the theory. Either way they seem to think they're on to something. Just started googling the names in my above post and it sounds interesting. I don't think they believe the universe is thousands of years old but they seem to have some reason for believing that c was different at some point.

 

[Reptillian]

The speed of light changing, while not impossible, does wibbly things to Relativity. I think more this one needs more research, if it has any credit.

Not only relativity, I'd worry about implications for electrodynamics. I mean, would Maxwell's equations still have the same form? The Lorentz force law? I have a feeling that a changing speed of light would make a lot of aphysical predictions. Constants relate to measurement scales in nature, so I'd also worry about implications for the very structure of space/time. One would likely find that we'd have to introduce a changing Planck's constant or gravitational constant as well in order to salvage conservation of energy/momentum/charge and to keep quantum mechanics, chemistry, and nuclear physics working as expected.

 

[Krok]

Just read an interesting article claiming the the speed of light being a constant is now being questioned by some scientists link. Not being well versed in physics I'm unsure as to whether this theory is being swept under the rug, embraced, or debunked. Interested if anyone knows something I don't on this?

The first sentence in your "article" tells me that it is nothing but pseudoscience. I'll quote from it:

The theory of evolution requires unfathomable lengths of time – eons … billions and billions of years.

The Theory of Evolution requires nothing like that at all. The ToE requires variation in genes. That's it. Nothing to do with the speed of light.

 

[9Westy9]

The first sentence in your "article" tells me that it is nothing but pseudoscience. I'll quote from it: The Theory of Evolution requires nothing like that at all. The ToE requires variation in genes. That's it. Nothing to do with the speed of light.

It wasn't the ToE stuff that I was questioning. It was the so called 'scientists' who claim that c is decreasing. Setterfield's arguments have good rebuttals but I've seen nothing about the 'newer' theories. Maybe if you have found some evidence against those that I could look at?

 

[Krok]

It wasn't the ToE stuff that I was questioning. It was the so called 'scientists' who claim that c is decreasing. Setterfield's arguments have good rebuttals but I've seen nothing about the 'newer' theories. Maybe if you have found some evidence against those that I could look at?

If they have an "argument" like that, they should publish it in peer-reviewed scientific journals. That's where scientific arguments are debated.

They could, for example, publish somewhere where the data directly obtained from SN1987A is countered with their data.

The fact that your "article" started with a pseudo-science sentence that is absolute nonsense, tells me that the author is a wierdo and doesn't do science. Not worth even reading what he wrote. It's just "sciency-sounding" stuff to lie to people who would believe their holy books, come what may.

 

[9Westy9]

If they have an "argument" like that, they should publish it in peer-reviewed scientific journals. That's where scientific arguments are debated.

They could, for example, publish somewhere where the data directly obtained from SN1987A is countered with their data.

The fact that your "article" started with a pseudo-science sentence that is absolute nonsense, tells me that the author is a wierdo and doesn't do science. Not worth even reading what he wrote. It's just "sciency-sounding" stuff to lie to people who would believe their holy books, come what may.

True. It did seem very biased towards creationism. However it mentioned a few scientists (below) who's work seems interesting. and these are all very intellectual people. I've been trying to find scientists who've actively spoken out against their theory but so far not found anything.

Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat of the University of Toronto

 

[Krok]

True. It did seem very biased towards creationism. However it mentioned a few scientists (below) who's work seems interesting. and these are all very intellectual people. I've been trying to find scientists who've actively spoken out against their theory but so far not found anything.

Scientists don't normally comment on the pseudo-sciences, except for saying that all pseudo-sciences are nonsense. Scientists normally only comment on scientific articles published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals.

Why do you think scientists would comment on every one of the millions of religious "articles" appearing on religious websites and church pamphlets every day all over the world?

 

[9Westy9]

Scientists don't normally comment on the pseudo-sciences, except for saying that all pseudo-sciences are nonsense. Scientists normally only comment on scientific articles published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals.

Why do you think scientists would comment on every one of the millions of religious "articles" appearing on religious websites and church pamphlets every day all over the world?

I've seen no evidence that the scientists I've quoted are religious. In fact Dr João Magueijo is by no means a young earth creationist

Cosmologist Dr João Magueijo is reported to have caused a scientific furore in 1999 when he published a paper claiming that light may have travelled much faster at the Big Bang than it does now. This may be serious scientific research, but does not suggest that the universe is thousands of years old. In fact, the quote implies the opposite.

Dr Webb and his former PhD student, Dr Michael Murphy are cited for publishing research that has revealed that one of the fundamental laws of physics known as the "fine structure constant" has altered in a way suggesting the mathematical possibility that light has slowed down in the past 12 billion years. This is important: these scientists say the speed of light slowed down in the past 12 billion years. They do not support the creationist position that the universe is thousands of years old.



Read more: Are there any scientific citations proving that the speed of light is slowing down and therefore that the world is only thousands and not billions of years old that are not by Creationists

 

[Krok]

True. It did seem very biased towards creationism. However it mentioned a few scientists (below) who's work seems interesting. and these are all very intellectual people. I've been trying to find scientists who've actively spoken out against their theory but so far not found anything.

SN1987A, for example, was studied extensively. The maximum speed of light was found to be the same 167 000 thousand years ago as it is now. This was done by various methods, by lots of authors. All published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals. That was accepted as scientific concensus, by hundreds of thousands of experts on the subject. Same consensus since 1920.

A few weirdo's, who don't even try to publish their different "findings"in peer-reviewed, scientific journals, but on church web sites, are not considered to do science. They don't do science. Nobody comments on pseudo-science.

 

[Photonic]

Oh, so they have a large bias then. That makes it more suspicious. Although I'm interested in the latter work it talks about. i.e. starting from 'within the last 24 months....'

We are not aware of any "slowing down" of a universe constant, no. C is the speed of light in a vacuum. Until we find some evidence showing otherwise, it will continue to be the speed of light in a vacuum.

 

[Nois Forme]

I've been trying to find scientists who've actively spoken out against their theory but so far not found anything.

Hey there. This may help; The Decay of c-decay