Varying Speed of Light Theory

[GalacticBeatDown]

I am currently reading a book about the Varying Speed of Light Theory. I am wondering if anybody knows if this is feasible. From what I understand the important point of the theory is that in the early universe the speed of light was much faster than it was now. So then c= a variable, a non-constant number. Does anybody think this is feasible? (Please explain why or why not.)

[Nick Theodorakis]

Here is an argument against it, using observational data from the behavior of a supernova.

Nick

[GalacticBeatDown]

Thanks Nick I am reading information on that site as I am writing this.
Its funny that you would mention this because in the book I am reading it was talking about how a team of Australian astronomers, working at an observatory at Mt. Stromlo in Australia, showed that light from nearby galaxies confirmed a value for alpha and "light from faraway clouds seemed to suggest that the constant was different." The author also noted that as you look at faraway objects you are also viewing them as they were in the past, obviously because light takes time to travel distances. Also he found that the lead astronomer, John Webb found results to suggest that alpha was changing over time and that c (speed of light) was getting smaller.

[astromark]

It is dangerous to draw conclusions from incomplete data... And even more so to draw conclusions from error. A group of astronomers may draw a conclusion, that does not make it a fact. Just as my rebuttal of this idea does not make it redundant. We need facts. Verifiable information. backed up with direct observational data.... you know the story...

[snowflakeuniverse]

HI GalacticBeatDown

You asked regarding a variable speed of light theory the following

Does anybody think this is feasible? (Please explain why or why not.)

This is a question that would require an “against the mainstream” answer. The moderators discriminate against such responses, even if they are “expert”.

Yes I belief that the speed of light varies over cosmological periods of time.

The arguments referred to by Nick Theodorakis primarily focused against a 6000 year old Universe to repudiate the Creationists assertion a young universe. The arguments to not “kill” a variable speed model.

If you wish to review the geometry of the model, as well some rather detailed discussions, feel free to review some of my postings to this forum.

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mai...ng-metric.html
post number 5 of the above link mentions the variability of the speed of light.

Snowflake

[antoniseb]

... The moderators discriminate against such responses, even if they are “expert”. ...

Sometimes the word discriminate can have bad overtones (I like to think we have discriminating tastes). We DO separate the mainstream views from the non-mainstream views. At this time, any cosmology that involves the value of "c" changing in the large any time since the CMBR is regarded as non-mainstream. However, if you think you can make a good case for a variable c, and want to engage people who will present opposing data and viewpoints, please start a debate in the ATM section.

[Cougar]

I am currently reading a book about the Varying Speed of Light Theory.

Please be careful about the books you read! There are many excellent books about science in the last 10-20 years, and a few not so good, or should I say, misleading and/or contrary to observation.

This article will explain why your question is, um, somewhat ambiguous. First, the speed of light does vary as it goes from one medium to another, such as from air to water. We realize you're not talking about that. Nevertheless, the speed of light has units distance per time. But the observed speed of a clock can depend on the observer, and obviously this would have some effect on a measurement of the speed of light. As the linked article states:

The quantum theory of atoms tells us that these frequencies and wavelengths [that we use to define a second] depend chiefly on the values of Planck's constant, the electronic charge, and the masses of the electron and nucleons, as well as on the speed of light. By eliminating the dimensions of units from the parameters we can derive a few dimensionless quantities, such as the fine structure constant and the electron to proton mass ratio. These values are independent of the definition of the units, so it makes much more sense to ask whether these values change. If they did change, it would not just be the speed of light which was affected. The whole of chemistry is dependent on their values, and significant changes would alter the chemical and mechanical properties of all substances. Furthermore, the speed of light itself would change by different amounts according to which definition of units you used. In that case, it would make more sense to attribute the changes to variations in the charge on the electron or the particle masses than to changes in the speed of light.

In any case, there is good observational evidence to indicate that those parameters have not changed over most of the lifetime of the universe. See the FAQ article Have physical constants changed with time?

[GalacticBeatDown]

Thanks Cougar, I was looking at that those 2 articles you included in your post and they were helpful. And yes I know some books are bad and misleading and I try to keep away from them because I am an amateur not a professional and I do not want to get sucked into the wrong ideas. But however I did understand some of the things he was trying to explain. It was interesting to say the least what he was presenting (which was basically changing all of known physics). That is why I asked on this forum if it seems feasible. I knew I would get responses from people who know much more about this topic than me.

[Jetlack]

I think its a good idea to keep an open mind about the so-called constants. Many of what were once believed to be immutable natural forces may have emerged and changed throughout and after the BB process. If gravity, strong and weak forces emerged then perhaps so did certain properties of light.

Also what about the accelerating expansion of space/time? Would that not have an effect on the speed of c, or our measure of it?

[kleindoofy]

... a book about the Varying Speed of Light Theory. ... the important point of the theory is that in the early universe the speed of light was much faster than it was now. ...

My question is "why?"

That is, why bother worrying about what the speed of light was after the BB in comparison to now?

If this is an isolated issue, it's totally pointless and bears the odor of "I kinna thinks someth'n, and the Powers That Be gots to be wrong."

However, if this issue is being proposed to support some other theory, which I would guess is the case, it would be interesting to hear what that theory might be.

[rommel543]

Please be careful about the books you read! There are many excellent books about science in the last 10-20 years, and a few not so good, or should I say, misleading and/or contrary to observation.

This article will explain why your question is, um, somewhat ambiguous. First, the speed of light does vary as it goes from one medium to another, such as from air to water. We realize you're not talking about that. Nevertheless, the speed of light has units distance per time. But the observed speed of a clock can depend on the observer, and obviously this would have some effect on a measurement of the speed of light. As the linked article states:

The quantum theory of atoms tells us that these frequencies and wavelengths [that we use to define a second] depend chiefly on the values of Planck's constant, the electronic charge, and the masses of the electron and nucleons, as well as on the speed of light. By eliminating the dimensions of units from the parameters we can derive a few dimensionless quantities, such as the fine structure constant and the electron to proton mass ratio. These values are independent of the definition of the units, so it makes much more sense to ask whether these values change. If they did change, it would not just be the speed of light which was affected. The whole of chemistry is dependent on their values, and significant changes would alter the chemical and mechanical properties of all substances. Furthermore, the speed of light itself would change by different amounts according to which definition of units you used. In that case, it would make more sense to attribute the changes to variations in the charge on the electron or the particle masses than to changes in the speed of light.

In any case, there is good observational evidence to indicate that those parameters have not changed over most of the lifetime of the universe. See the FAQ article Have physical constants changed with time?

A thought just occurred to me (I think I thought a thought) regarding this. BB, expanded started, yada yada yada. The initial primordial universe I am picturing like a giant nebula. Mainly just massive hot gas clouds expanding and cooling. Wouldn't light travelling through this gas be slowed, much like light through water?

Also I thought that the true speed of light didn't change. It was that it's "bouncing off" the atoms of the medium its travelling through. Yes there is absorption but that would decrease the speed of the still traveling photons.

[Tim Thompson]

I am currently reading a book about the Varying Speed of Light Theory.

This one: Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation (Joao Magueijo, Perseus publishing, 2003)?

The hypothesis was developed by Magueijo while he was a graduate student (Albrecht & Magueijo, 1999). He suggested a variable speed of light (VSL) in the infant universe as a substitute for inflation, to avoid problems caused by inflation. But the VSL idea has problems of its own, though Magueijo has defended it. I think the biggest problem is probably that it may not conserve electric charge (Landau, Sisterna & Vucetich, 2001). The majority opinion has remained in the inflation camp, primarily because most of the problems solved by VSL theory have been solved within the inflation paradigm without resorting to the more extreme (but interesting) solution of a non constant speed of light.

Note that Magueijo's hypothesis has nothing to do with the creationist varying speed of light hogwash, and is also not relevant to the claims of a varying fine structure constant in quasar spectra (Webb, et al., 1999). All of Magueijo's varying speed of light happens in the first tiny fraction of a second in the infant universe, or so I understand it, as a substitute for inflation.

But it does bring up the niggling question: Are the fundamental constants of physics really "constant"? There is no fundamental reason I can think of that requires this (general relativity does not require a cosmologically constant "speed of light", which is how Magueijo gets away with this in the first place). This is a long standing problem in fundamental physics, and still a topic of conversation (i.e., Damour, 2009; Dent, 2008; Levshakov, et al., 2008; García-Berro, Isern & Kubyshin, 2007; Ignatiev & Carson, 2005; Ignatiev & Carson, 2004; Peres, 2003 & etc.)

[cjl]

My question is "why?"

That is, why bother worrying about what the speed of light was after the BB in comparison to now?

If this is an isolated issue, it's totally pointless and bears the odor of "I kinna thinks someth'n, and the Powers That Be gots to be wrong."

However, if this issue is being proposed to support some other theory, which I would guess is the case, it would be interesting to hear what that theory might be.

The reason is because if the speed of light were much faster just after the big bang than it is now, there would be no need for inflation.

[snowflakeuniverse]

I posted a brief explaination of a varible speed of light model in the A T M section.

Snowflake