One for Gottheit...

So when is a constant not a constant????

Speed of light slowing down?

Whaddya think?

 

that gave me a head ache... interesting read though about quantum red shifts, particularly with the satellites mentioned.

 

Would be as large a shift in world view as the change from believing light speed is instantaneous to a measurable fixed speed a few centuries ago. Mindblowing.

 

"He believes that light speed reached a point where it is asymptotic since the mid 1960s. "

That was lucky

 

no its not slowing down
we're speeding up
it just looks that way

I mean think about it. . .the milky way is just one of many galexies getting sucked into a black hole
at the centre of every galaxy is a black hole. every thing disappears. . .even light.
so as we get sucked in, we get closer, as we get closer we move faster
but if time doesn't exist , how does anybody even know?
I am just talkn out my butt, nuttn to do
good read though

 

The thing is, without going into too much detail, that time itself is directly bound and related to space, just as matter/energy is directly bound and related to gravity. Meaning that if you alter one parameter, the other parameter gets altered accordingly.

Since 'speed' is directly related to time measurements and the dimension of length (distance), the speed calculations are altered as well. When all is done, to date anyway, light barrier factor still remains constant. The Relative speed can vary enormously, though.

These measurements are still consistant with The Fitzgerald Contraction and Time Dialation effects as per the Relativity Theories.

 

so then Einstine was proven wrong?or only half right?

 

no, he was just right, even though he himself thought the relativity theories couldn't be correct.

 

Thanks for pointing this out GT.
Also, Good post Phantom.

I do want to point out that the relative speed of light is always the same, though. Regardless of the observers velocity.

Looking at the data they present in the article, I can understand how they deduced that the "constant" is asymptotic. It seems to have leveled out since 1877, but dropped ~3,000 km between 1738 and 1877...I'd really like to see a proposed graph for this.

I really don't know what to say other than all this is really REALLY mindblowing...I keep getting drawn to the idea that maybe all this is due to the expansion of the Universe, and the effect it has on spacetime. e.g. the cosmic background radiation is now emanating at VERY long stretched-out wavelengths when it was once composed of very high energy waves. Who knows...

I need to get more theories on the hows and whys.

 

When browsing the links at the bottom of the page, I found this: http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml

Very detailed.

 

LOL. I thought you'd like that one Gottheit. Will be interesting to follow this one... if it's settled in our lifetimes. Any shift this major will likely have scientists disagreeing for many years.

 

Ugh...I just typed out a really elaborate reply, and accidentaly (don't ask me how) hit f5...

Basically, what I said was that I'm skeptical and plan to do more research on the topic. This is the first I've heard of it, so I can't make a decision yet.

 

Same here. It's definitely not proven yet, but the evidence is interesting, and the ramifications would be vast.

 

One thing that isn't clearly stated from all the discussion on that web site is that the speed of light is a constant in vacuum not through any dense or material medium. Although it may be a small contribution to the differences observed I think it should make a difference to the results.

Does all the measurements stated account for relativistic effects caused by “bends” in space-time by gravity/mass? I would like to have seen some reassurance that any recalculations took this into account as well as the materials that were used (see above). However, since the original apparatus is no longer here for all the historical observations it would be difficult to see how this can be accounted for.

Another thing that is clear, is that like is not being compared with like. As an analogy, if I measure velocity of a vehicle travelling at a constant 50 mph using some crude method and then move on to increasingly more accurate measurements and got the results of 60, 55, 53, 51 and 50 mph – does this imply that the vehicle is slowing down? I think not and that the statistical hypothesis test hasn’t accounted for the fact that the measurements are not repeated using the same methods.

Finally the theories of relativity (special and general), quantum electro-dynamics (QED) and quantum chromo-dynamics (QCD) are all based and validated to a very high degree by experimentation on the premise derived from Maxwell’s equations that the speed of an electro-magnetic wave is constant in a vacuum. I cannot see that this would be discredited that easily. I feel more confident that the experimentation hasn’t accounted for everything but I have discovered a truly marvellous demonstration of this proposition but this forum post is too narrow to contain.
-------
Just been reading Schrodinger's Kittens by John Gribben, interested book to read.

 

Well, the statistical analysis of the data accounts for errors in the ranges indicated. Now, since I can't really go into depth on the type of data that was analyzed, or the processes by which they analyzed it, I am forced to simply trust the numbers. With the possible maximum error being + or - 310 km/s when the accepted value was 303,320 km/s, that gives a difference of 3,218 km/s to 3,838 km/s between it and today's accepted value of 299,792 km/s. That's a pretty interesting find.

 

This would be true if the measurements were made using the same method and equipment but since they aren't and the correction is unknown then the error is more than just an error in the measurements made. I would wager that none of the earlier equipment were calibrated and thus the error term is not computable.

 

Whether or not they used the same equipment in their experiments matters not. What does matter is that we KNOW what they used, and how they used it to gain their data. Since it is common practice in science to take EXTREMELY detailed notes while engaging in experiments (for the sake of being able to reproduce the same data), we can know how their instruments were set up, and what kind of errors this may have caused them to incur. Thus allowing us to determine a window of error in their experiments.

Now, since I'm not too well versed on the intial experiments to determine light's speed, all I can do is assume...But the scientific method has been around for quite some time, and I can only imagine that serious experiments such as these were only taken seriously because they were in-line with it.

 

Extrememly detailed notes on methods, tools, etc. The first experiments used to prove the speed of light would have been scrutinized most carefully, and repeatable results would have been mandatory, since standard theory was that light propagation was instantaneous. They had to PROVE to the entire world that they were wrong.

As will have to happen now. Scientists are not as objective as we like to think. They don't take kindly to their pet assumptions being challenged.

 

I understand the point you are making but I think since the original equipment is not around now (maybe it is?) nor calibrations made at the time it would be difficult to really ascertain the error.

Anyway, with regard to the initial experiments, I quote from the book I'm reading:

"Galileo discovered the four largest moons of Jupiter in 1610; in 1676, studies of the movement of these moons made it possible to measure the speed of light for the first time.
The trick was carried out by the Danish astronomer Ole Rømer, and depended on measuring the times at which the moons were eclipsed by Jupiter itself. The timing of the eclipses seemed to be affected by whether the Earth was on the same side of the Sun as Jupiter was, or on the opposite side; Rømer explained the differences in the eclipse timings as due to the extra time required for light from the moons to reach Earth when it was on the opposite side of the Sun. Putting some modern numbers in, it takes light more than eight minutes, travelling at 300,000 km per second, to reach us from the Sun, across half the diameter of the Earth's orbit. So the maximum 'delay' in observing an eclipse of one of the moons of Jupiter is twice that - more than a quarter of an hour."

The book goes on to mention about Isaac Newton in the same decade as this measurement was made, transformed the theory of optics and the scientific ideas about light by a publication in 1672.

 

Maxwell, your information actually points out why their results were trustworthy. Measuring light speed either requires very precise and fast measuring capabilities, or vast distances. Their methods used the latter, and the distance/time involved is such as to make finicky precise measurement less of a requirement. Although timekeeping even back then was fairly precise. And known. We know what they measured, and to what degree of accuracy. Their results were valid, and repeated through the centuries.

 

No, Einstein has neve been proved 'wrong' as such. Most of these so-called 'proofs' have either been derived from lack of understanding of Einstein's theories, or that fact that Relativity is NOT a complete answer. Nothing new there - Einstein himself said that.

On a parallel note, it's a bit like all these folk that claim Darwin and Evolution is 'wrong'. It's not - it's just not the last word in answers. The author of the theories was quiet aware of that.

Everybody wants to be famous for debunking the 'big boys' in scientific theories/discoveries.

You can read up on the General Theories of Relativity here:-

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/General_relativity.html

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/gravity.html


The Special Theories of Relativity are here:-

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Special_relativity.html

Einsteinian Physics is a LOT more than e=mC^2. That's just the mass-energy conversion formula. (Yeah, I know most of you know that - but a lot don't as well).

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/energy/mass-energy.html


Some research topics for those interested:-

Doppler Shift (& Fresnel):-
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Doppler.html




Lorentz wrote a paper in 1886 where he criticised Michelson's experiment and really was not worried by the experimental result which he dismissed being doubtful of its accuracy. Michelson was persuaded by Thomson and others to repeat the experiment and he did so with Morley, again reporting that no effect had been found in 1887. It appeared that the velocity of light was independent of the velocity of the observer. [Michelson and Morley were to refine their experiment and repeat it many times up to 1929.]


http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Lorentz.html



I did several Theses on Cosmology and Relativity Theory back in the mid-eighties when I completed my PhD. at Cambridge. (Ended up becoming a Chemist anyway, LoL) . One of my 'pet' subjects. Alas, not much time to get involved in it nowadays.

A lot more has been measured and discovered about Cosmology nowadays, since Einstein’s days. Including 'Dark Matter', which apparently comprises anything from two thirds to eighty percent of the Universe, depending on which theory you prefer. Black Holes; Multi-verses; String/Chaos Theories; etc, etc.

 

Very true...With this new theory, Einstein's self-proclaimed "greatest blunder" (the introduction of lambda as the cosmological constant) may actually be proven correct.

http://www.ldolphin.org/dethrone.html

 

This would imply that Einstein regarded his own theories as somewhat incomplete, as I said.

Conventional laws of physics may well not be applicable in the very first few moments of the "Big Bang" Since time dimensions and matter are linked to the actual existence of such, that is not suppressing to me.

(e.g. How can you have laws relating to time and distance before there was any time and distance as we know it? ) The world of the ultra-dense is still very much unexplained a.t.m.

 

The thing that doesn't reconcile with your statement is that the author stated "Putting some modern numbers in" indicating to me that there are some unknowns or inaccuracies but I don't know what. Perhaps a relativistic, atmospheric or diffraction correction was applied?

What is known that equipment then will have suffered chromatic aberration and limited resolution. Also, seventeenth century clocks were accurate to 10 minutes a day in 1657 but improved to around one second a day in 1721. However, we don't know if these deficiencies were apparent in the earlier measurements nor calibrated and if the calibration was accurate. This coupled with the fact the same equipment is not around now in the same condition gives me the impression that we cannot determine the accuracy or error of the measurements made historically. I would have to work through the calculations and statistics myself to be more convinced of a change in the speed of light with time.

Reminds me of, which clock is more correct one that doesn't work or one that loses a minute a day - the answer being the one that doesn't work since it is always correct twice a day.

 

Don't know what Einstein thought about his theories or what he would have thought given what we know today but he questioned quantum mechanics and came up with the EPR experiment and the phrase "God does not play dice".

I came across this interesting article whilst researching: http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html

 

Well a close study of the physics of the very small (subatomic) and the very large (Cosmic scale) reveals that some degree of randomness, or probability factor does occur.

For example, Chemists like me talk about electron shell distributions in atoms and molecules. When examined by physicists, it turns out that electron and other subatomic particle positioning in atoms is more like a probability distribution roughly coinciding with the electron shell shape.

Is there ultimately some discrete 'Butterfly Effect', or ultimate rules or reason behind everything, or are we in fact, at the mercy of certain random influences? That's one of the great, still unanswered questions facing humanity.



(Yes, Prof. Hawking was, and A.F.A.I.K. still is Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University when I was there)