The speed of light is NOT a constant?! A milestone in Physics?

[KenWittlief]

Remember you read it on CD first.

People have been kicking around the idea for several years that the constants in physics (the speed of light, the charge of an electron....) may have been changing as the Universe expands.

Now there is more evidence. If this new theory is correct it would be a milestone in our understanding of physics

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/13816702

[Not2B]

Now I have no idea what the speed limit is...

I thought my flashlight was slowing down... and I was just going to replace the batteries.

Seriously, that is a huge thought to contemplate. Sometimes I'm glad that I only deal with newtonian physics, even though it's not PERFECT.

Thanks for the linky.

[Cynette]

Constants that aren't constant?!? The very foundations of my existance are crumbling! Is nothing sacred anymore?

BTW, it looks like now would be a good time to go into the field of physics, if any of you are interested in that area... a total re-write of the laws of physics could take years!

[anna~marie]

Crazy.
Leave it to Ken to post this
Thanks for the link; I really enjoyed the slide show!!!

[SuperJake]

Originally Posted by mocat1530

Constants that aren't constant?!? The very foundations of my existance are crumbling! Is nothing sacred anymore?

BTW, it looks like now would be a good time to go into the field of physics, if any of you are interested in that area... a total re-write of the laws of physics could take years!

Thankfully a re-write is already in the works in the form of Super String Theory! Something to do with 10th dimensional thinking or something or another. Its not perfect, and I'm glad I'm done with school... I had enough problems when I only had to worry about 4 dimensions (x, y, z, t)!

[Elgin Clock]

Thanks.. This is just another excuse for me to not like physics.

Not physics per say as in how things (should) work, but as in trying to figure out how they work (math).

Not that I have ever needed to use the knowledge of the speed of light for anything as of yet anyways.

Someone better notify Google to update their calculator.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=speed+of+light

I think a random number generator in place of a calculator would work nicely.

[KenWittlief]

been thinking about this - if the speed of light continues to slow down as the universe expands

and E=MC^2 remains in effect - then that means the nuclear power available from fission and fusion reactions will keep decreasing.

As the universe expands the amount of energy that stars (and our sun) is able to produce keeps dropping. The power from nuclear reactors would keep dropping.

Seems like there would be a point where fusion and fission reactions would no longer be self sustaining, and we would have an intergalactic blackout?

[henryBsick]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

been thinking about this - if the speed of light continues to slow down as the universe expands

and E=MC^2 remains in effect - then that means the nuclear power available from fission and fusion reactions will keep decreasing.

As the universe expands the amount of energy that stars (and our sun) is able to produce keeps dropping. The power from nuclear reactors would keep dropping.

Seems like there would be a point where fusion and fission reactions would no longer be self sustaining, and we would have an intergalactic blackout?

Ken, I thought it said that the bonds between the particles of nuclei: protons and neutrons, were becoming stronger as time goes on as compared to the slowing speed of light.
//Edit:
Which would make the nuclear power plants more plentiful and efficient as more energy would be released in the breaking or joining of the particles.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Henry_222

Ken, I thought it said that the bonds between the particles of nuclei: protons and neutrons, were becoming stronger as time goes on as compared to the slowing speed of light.
//Edit:
Which would make the nuclear power plants more plentiful and efficient as more energy would be released in the breaking or joining of the particles.

so what does that do to Einsteins equation? does it become invalid as light slows down, but the bonds become stronger?

one of the things that has always blown my mind is that Einsteins equation has no K factor - no constant to balance it.

Think about that for a while. The units of energy, mass, and distance and time (defining the speed of light) had all been defined before Einstein came up with his famous equation

BUT the units came out perfect - there is no correction (fudge) factor

E = MC^2

so what happens to it now?!

[henryBsick]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

so what happens to it now?!

**I call "Not it" on re-working the entire light and nuclear energy based physics mathematics to incorporate the slowing down of light!!!

For that matter any math involved in this. If it is true, school is going to get hairy.

May the Flying Spaghetti Monster help us all (I know He is the one up to this )

-Henry

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

so what does that do to Einsteins equation? does it become invalid as light slows down, but the bonds become stronger?

one of the things that has always blown my mind is that Einsteins equation has no K factor - no constant to balance it.

Think about that for a while. The units of energy, mass, and distance and time (defining the speed of light) had all been defined before Einstein came up with his famous equation

BUT the units came out perfect - there is no correction (fudge) factor

E = MC^2

so what happens to it now?!

There is a constant of proportionality; in this case, with these units, it's 1. But that's a deliberate consequence of the use of SI base units. Any combination of SI base units, by definition, when equated with a different (but dimensonally equivalent) combination of base units, automatically generates this result. But if we defined E in British thermal units (BTU), m in electron volts (eV; mass as energy is a consequence of the E = mc² equation), and c in astronomical units per fortnight (AU/fortnight), there is a distinctly non-unity constant of proportionality. So it's not as if scientists and mathematicians dreamed up these units, and one day, Einstein crunched the numbers and, magically, it worked. It was defined this way, because it's convenient.

And incidentally, if we're just talking about fundamental dimensions*, then of course it works—you wouldn't have much of a physical law, if the sides of the equation were dimensionally different.

So, basically, the equation doesn't change dimensions. Energy is defined fundamentally as [M][L]²[T]^-2, and mass is [M]. And if the speed of light (in a vacuum, to be precise) changed, then any quantities derived from it would also change proportionally—but the fundamental unit [L][T]^-1 would remain the same. So the equation would still hold, with a different c, which changes with time (and more than likely spawns a horde of differential equations describing some other previously-static quantities changing proportionally with time).

*Fundamental dimensions are units such as [L], [M] and [T] (length, mass and time, respectively), which form the basis for dimensional analysis.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

... So it's not as if scientists and mathematicians dreamed up these units, and one day, Einstein crunched the numbers and, magically, it worked. It was defined this way, because it's convenient....

Im not quite following you here. The units of time (seconds) distance (meters) mass (kilograms) and energy (speed^2 x mass or distance x force)... were all defined before Einstein made the connection that nuclear energy E = Mass x speed of light squared.

the established SI units had no relationship to the energy stored in the bonds between protons and neutron

but it was not necessary to balance Einsteins equation - as you said, K = 1

how did the speed of light just happen to fit the equation perfectly, so it was not E= 1.2783729832987 * MC^2 ? or some other correction constant?

Thats the part that blows my mind!

The established SI units were more or less arbitrary. A second is proportioal to the rotation of the earth on its axis - a meter is about the distance from someones nose to their fingertip, a kilogram is about one cubic centimeter of something or other.... so how did those arbitrary units come out perfect for nuclear energy?

[Doug G]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

The established SI units were more or less arbitrary. A second is proportioal to the rotation of the earth on its axis - a meter is about the distance from someones nose to their fingertip, a kilogram is about one cubic centimeter of something or other.... so how did those arbitrary units come out perfect for nuclear energy?

Too much confusion - ouch it's hurting my brain. Well be careful, the meter is based off of how far light travels in 1/299792458 of a second, and a kg turns out to be defined by how much of a gravitational interaction exist between the earth and said mass. So it all boils down to defining units based on time and space measurements which is what E=mc2 is really all about. And the E is not just for nuclear energy! It describes any energy!! Its just in nuclear reactions the quantities of energy are more and thus measurable. I have more mass when I'm at the top of a roller coaster than at the bottom. Unfortunately it is not a measureable amount. E=mc2 is a mass energy equivalence for any type of energy!

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Remember you read it on CD first.

People have been kicking around the idea for several years that the constants in physics (the speed of light, the charge of an electron....) may have been changing as the Universe expands.

Now there is more evidence. If this new theory is correct it would be a milestone in our understanding of physics

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/13816702

OK, so if the speed of light is not a constant, then that means that the speed of other forms of electromagnetic radiation are also not constant. Thus, radar - both emitted and reflected - does not travel at a constant speed. Therefore, radar cannot really be calibrated against a known constant - because there is no known constant.

I think I just found a defense for my next speeding ticket...

-dave

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by dlavery

OK, so if the speed of light is not a constant, then that means that the speed of other forms of electromagnetic radiation are also not constant. Thus, radar - both emitted and reflected - does not travel at a constant speed. Therefore, radar cannot really be calibrated against a known constant - because there is no known constant.

I think I just found a defense for my next speeding ticket...

-dave

Dang, I guess some clever engineer will have to develop a method of detecting Dave's velocity components in the other six dimensions -- only then can his excessive speed be confirmed by measurement against an invariant standard.