C, is it a constant?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-01-22 07:58pm

In the last few years there has been speculation that C (the speed of light) through a vacuum is NOT a constant. It has been speculated that, over time and distance, light slows down and looses velocity. If that is true, that would completely destroy Einstein's Theory Of Relativity, which assums that C is a constant. And, as you know, the Theory of Relativity, is a cornerstone of modern physics. This would make the majority of things in most Physics textbooks wrong, and therefore, would have to be re-written.

Just wondering what your thoughts on this matter were.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-01-22 08:02pm

Sounds fishy to me. I'd like to see some of that evidence and have it reviewed by reliable scientists before I even thought of making such claims.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-01-22 08:04pm

Speculation.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-01-22 08:10pm

heres a couple sources of info on the subject:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 ... 114024.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s347215.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/as ... -light.htm

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-01-22 08:13pm

Just to add to the speculation, some Greek scientists (don't laugh) at the university of Athens, actually found (please take this with a HUGE grain of salt), that light is not in-exact totally constant, that at different wavelengths (or something) travel at slightly different speeds (or in differnt mediums or something).

Okay that was useless, I know, but I was just hoping to jolt someone else's memory in case they saw the same article, like I said, unless I can actually FIND the article, just consider it speculation and dismiss it...

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-01-22 08:15pm

Well Einstein was proven right, the other week when it was discovered that gravity does travel at light speed, so his theory is looking more solid then ever really...

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-01-22 08:15pm

Nope, haven't heard that one, but, If you do find the link, post it up, as I would be interested seeing this.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-22 08:16pm

Light can be made to go slower or faster of very small scales but the rate of change over increably long distances is negiable at least as has been demostrated so far

e = mc squared does NOT apply at the Quantum level, Which can best be described "The Places where werid shit happens" to quote a old High-School Teacher of mine

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-01-22 08:19pm

Actually, and I'm talking from my arse here, because I read none of his works, there's a portuguese, part of a british team. who published a theory in which light speed varies with time.

He was in the top 12 more influential world scientists list of this year.

I know of it because it has had a lot of media coverage here.

It's still speculation, of course.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-22 08:22pm

Crown wrote:Just to add to the speculation, some Greek scientists (don't laugh) at the university of Athens, actually found (please take this with a HUGE grain of salt), that light is not in-exact totally constant, that at different wavelengths (or something) travel at slightly different speeds (or in differnt mediums or something).

The constant is not the speed of light, but the speed of light through a vacuum. Light travels at different speeds through different mediums; we've known this for a long time, now. Scientists have been able to completely stop it by passing it through a Bose-Einstein condensate.

NF_Utvol wrote:In the last few years there has been speculation that C (the speed of light) through a vacuum is NOT a constant. It has been speculated that, over time and distance, light slows down and looses velocity. If that is true, that would completely destroy Einstein's Theory Of Relativity, which assums that C is a constant. And, as you know, the Theory of Relativity, is a cornerstone of modern physics. This would make the majority of things in most Physics textbooks wrong, and therefore, would have to be re-written.

Correction: it would render Einstein's theory of relativity incorrect on certain scales. General relativity accounted for the perihelion in Mercury's orbit, which Newtonian mechanics predicted to be in a different place from where it was observed to be. Also, general relativity's predictions about space-time curvature have held up quite well in experiment, as has its prediction about what speed gravity propogates at (the speed of light). Even if we did observe a discrepancy in the speed of light over large, large distances, we'd hardly through relativity out the window.

Furthermore, if the speed of light has varied over time, like some creationists like to postulate, it can't have varied by a significant amount, otherwise formation of our solar system would have been drastically different.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-22 08:24pm

Mr Bean wrote:Light can be made to go slower or faster of very small scales but the rate of change over increably long distances is negiable at least as has been demostrated so far

What's your source on this?

e = mc squared does NOT apply at the Quantum level, Which can best be described "The Places where werid shit happens" to quote a old High-School Teacher of mine

E = mc^2 does, in fact, apply on the quantum level. Particles' masses are measured as their rest energy in eV, and when collisions occur with enough kinetic energy, you can form new particles.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-22 08:30pm

What's your source on this?

Yours as matter of fact to quote you back to you

Light travels at different speeds through different mediums; we've known this for a long time, now. Scientists have been able to completely stop it by passing it through a Bose-Einstein condensate.

E = mc^2 does, in fact, apply on the quantum level. Particles' masses are measured as their rest energy in eV, and when collisions occur with enough kinetic energy, you can form new particles.

Excuse me correction, it does not apply COMPLETLY thanks to the inherant instablity down at the Quantum level where atoms are coming into existance and decaying out of it every single Pico-second, I should note that this just means that e=mc^2 is only temperoarly imbalanced thanks to all the action and only in small small cases(If you could acutal mesurse said cases which you can't because of the Uncertiantiy Principle)

Prehaps I should rephrase that better as at the Quantum level E=mc^2 its easily conaminated via the temoprary existance of other terms which quickly annilate themselves and anyplace but the atomic level we hardley even noitce

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-01-22 08:35pm

Erm, if E=mc², then doesn't that mean the amount of energy in the universe is decreasing because the speed of light is?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-22 08:40pm

Mr Bean wrote:
What's your source on this?
Yours as matter of fact to quote you back to you

Light travels at different speeds through different mediums; we've known this for a long time, now. Scientists have been able to completely stop it by passing it through a Bose-Einstein condensate.

That doesn't mean that light going through a vacuum slows down eventually. As far as we know, the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.

E = mc^2 does, in fact, apply on the quantum level. Particles' masses are measured as their rest energy in eV, and when collisions occur with enough kinetic energy, you can form new particles.
Excuse me correction, it does not apply COMPLETLY thanks to the inherant instablity down at the Quantum level where atoms are coming into existance and decaying out of it every single Pico-second, I should note that this just means that e=mc^2 is only temperoarly imbalanced thanks to all the action and only in small small cases(If you could acutal mesurse said cases which you can't because of the Uncertiantiy Principle)

Prehaps I should rephrase that better as at the Quantum level E=mc^2 its easily conaminated via the temoprary existance of other terms which quickly annilate themselves and anyplace but the atomic level we hardley even noitce

I think you're misunderstanding the concept. Atoms do not pop in and out of existence. Virtual particles do, and that occurs within the timeframe of 10^-43 seconds, which is just a disastrously small amount of time -- if you wanted to think of time as we perceive it taking discrete steps, those steps would be 10^-43 seconds long. In other words, it's the smallest unit of time possible. So, while particles do pop into existence and then annihilate, the universe doesn't really "notice" it because it happens so quickly. However, if a particle/anti-particle pair pops into existence right outside the event horizon of a black hole, one of them might get sucked in before it can annihilate its partner. So, the other particle escapes as radiation, and the black hole loses mass to account for it. See? Conservation of energy still applies. This is the mechanism by which black holes evaporate.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-22 08:53pm

That doesn't mean that light going through a vacuum slows down eventually. As far as we know, the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.

This is combined with the Virtual Particual bit, Basicly Even in Vacume Virtual Particals happen and has been Theroies(And demostrated "I THINK" have to dig up the Duke Reasurch Project, Basicly they shined a beam of light through a Vacume and tested to see it would go anywhere but into the reciptor at the other end and lineded the Vacume containers with sensors to measure if any did reflect off)

Thusly in theroy anyway VP's can appear in the path of light, prehaps deflecting it or slowing it down then destroying each other

Exuse me will I try and find that study its late here so their is a good chance my sleep-addled mind IS confusing things to all Hell

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-22 08:57pm

NF_Utvol wrote:In the last few years there has been speculation that C (the speed of light) through a vacuum is NOT a constant.

Speculation != observation

If that is true, that would completely destroy Einstein's Theory Of Relativity, which assums that C is a constant.

You cannot destroy a theory of known predictive usefulness by proposing a speculation.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-22 09:01pm

NF_Utvol wrote:heres a couple sources of info on the subject:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 ... 114024.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s347215.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/as ... -light.htm

I hate to break it to you, but an interview with a journalist is not an actual research paper. People have been proposing this "c was a lot faster" theory for decades, but no one has ever been able to reconcile it with the observations. They look for minute incongruities, mysteries etc. and ignore the fact that if c is NOT constant or at least very close to constant, then our observations of the universe are far, far more difficult to rationalize, not less.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-01-22 09:03pm

And what would be slowing down the light? Not only is it speculation, it is speculation which seems to me to violate Conservation of Energy and Newton's laws.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-01-22 09:33pm

NF_Utvol if you were asking about gravity traveling at light speed there it is, but as for the other stuff, forget about it, as Durandal pointed out the different medium thing is obviously not what I remembered, since I already knew that (refraction anyone) but more like wavelenght thing, but since I can't find it, I can't prove it, and thus it shouldn't have been mentioned to begin with...

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-01-22 09:34pm

I never claimed them to be research papers, that was just what I could find on it at the spur of the moment.

And I was not trying to destroy the Theory of Relativity. I was just throwing this up for speculation. And, I said that if it was TRUE, not just speculation, then it would throw off the Theory of Relativity. Speculation has never destroyed anything, far as I know anyways

.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-01-22 09:37pm

Crown wrote:NF_Utvol if you were asking about gravity traveling at light speed there it is, but as for the other stuff, forget about it, as Durandal pointed out the different medium thing is obviously not what I remembered, since I already knew that (refraction anyone) but more like wavelenght thing, but since I can't find it, I can't prove it, and thus it shouldn't have been mentioned to begin with...

Hmm, I had never really thought about that. But, gravity travelling at light, that is logical. Man, Mike was right, Einstein was really something. I seriously do not see how the man came up with all he did. You know you would have to be a bit crazy to be able to come up with this stuff, though, lol. Wow, if that is true, then I might be the next Einstein, lol.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-22 09:46pm

Einstein was a genius who didn't give a shit about status or titles. He developed his theories of relativity while working as a lowly patent clerk.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2003-01-22 09:53pm

Just thinking about Einstein and other people of his caliber makes me feel like Julius Caesar did when he cried in front of a statue of Alexander the Great. However, I'm quite certain that unlike Caesar, I won't surpass the one before me or even come close to it...

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-01-22 09:54pm

Actually, and I'm talking from my arse here, because I read none of his works, there's a portuguese, part of a british team. who published a theory in which light speed varies with time.

You must have heard it wrong. Special Relativity destroyed the notion of absolute time in favor of a constant speed of light (in a vacuum). So no matter your local time, the speed of light will always be the same. The only way the speed of light could change would be for time to be an universal absolute.

Also, I remember a report a year or two ago that light in cesium vapor travels faster than light in a vacuum.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-22 10:13pm

NF_Utvol wrote:I never claimed them to be research papers, that was just what I could find on it at the spur of the moment.

Let's put it this way: if these people were submitting formal research papers to peer-reviewed journals instead of going directly to ABC or USA Today, I might be more inclined to take them seriously. As it is, I consider it no more worthy of note than the shit I took this morning.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

C, is it a constant?

C, is it a constant?

Re: C, is it a constant?