Post by KaRMa on Sept 4, 2003 0:18:19 GMT -5
has any one heard about the speed of light's possible decaying rate?
here's one of many sites with info:
www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992650
many "creationist-scientists" (in my opinion it is impossible to be both), are using this curved light rate to prove that light was at an infinite rate approximately 10k years ago (when they say god made the earth).
but we must also consider this: if the speed of light was the same throughout the history of the universe, then we can safely argue that the age of the universe is as old as the oldest objects we can see, and then some (because according to the big bang theory there was quite some time before the hot soup of the big bang became cool enough for constituents to organize into lumps and then a couple of millions of years before the first suns started to shine).
so, say, if the speed of light was constant, we can measure the age of the universe by looking ever further away and see how old the oldest stars we see are. right now the figure is around 14 billion years.
now, consider the alternative. the speed of light has slowed down as the universe expands. what does this tell us about the age of the Universe? perhaps a few things:
1. the universe may be much younger than we think (because the light of the farthest stars has not taken 14 billion years to reach us, after all), and would also support the theory that the universe is so young that it is actually expanding at an accelerating rate, rather than slowing down.
2. if the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit in the Universe, then everything must be slowing down, also at the quantum level where the speed of light becomes extremely important. that is the level at which e=mc2. so everything which moves at the speed of light, now moves slower. (i dont know too much about quantum, but i do know this much)
3. if the speed of light slows down over time, what does this say about the future of the Universe? will the speed of light keep slowing down? will it keep slowing down forever? does this mean that the universe will slowly grind to a halt and freeze (speculations, of course)?
4. it is postulated in Einstein's theory of relativity that nothing can move faster than light. If you read david bodanis's E=mc2 you might catch how mass is equal to energy at the squared speed of light (i understand the theory, just not "why"). now, if the speed of light is slowing down, does this mean that it is easier to convert energy to mass (and vice versa) now than at the beginning of time?
5. if the speed of light is slowing down, is everything else slowing down in exact relation to it? if not, will there ever be another entity or particle that will actually move faster than light? what impact will this have on the cosmos?
i dont know, these are a few of the thoughts that have been brewing in my head on the issue. im sorry to be so winded, but... oh well
anyone else have any thoughts?
here's one of many sites with info:
www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992650
many "creationist-scientists" (in my opinion it is impossible to be both), are using this curved light rate to prove that light was at an infinite rate approximately 10k years ago (when they say god made the earth).
but we must also consider this: if the speed of light was the same throughout the history of the universe, then we can safely argue that the age of the universe is as old as the oldest objects we can see, and then some (because according to the big bang theory there was quite some time before the hot soup of the big bang became cool enough for constituents to organize into lumps and then a couple of millions of years before the first suns started to shine).
so, say, if the speed of light was constant, we can measure the age of the universe by looking ever further away and see how old the oldest stars we see are. right now the figure is around 14 billion years.
now, consider the alternative. the speed of light has slowed down as the universe expands. what does this tell us about the age of the Universe? perhaps a few things:
1. the universe may be much younger than we think (because the light of the farthest stars has not taken 14 billion years to reach us, after all), and would also support the theory that the universe is so young that it is actually expanding at an accelerating rate, rather than slowing down.
2. if the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit in the Universe, then everything must be slowing down, also at the quantum level where the speed of light becomes extremely important. that is the level at which e=mc2. so everything which moves at the speed of light, now moves slower. (i dont know too much about quantum, but i do know this much)
3. if the speed of light slows down over time, what does this say about the future of the Universe? will the speed of light keep slowing down? will it keep slowing down forever? does this mean that the universe will slowly grind to a halt and freeze (speculations, of course)?
4. it is postulated in Einstein's theory of relativity that nothing can move faster than light. If you read david bodanis's E=mc2 you might catch how mass is equal to energy at the squared speed of light (i understand the theory, just not "why"). now, if the speed of light is slowing down, does this mean that it is easier to convert energy to mass (and vice versa) now than at the beginning of time?
5. if the speed of light is slowing down, is everything else slowing down in exact relation to it? if not, will there ever be another entity or particle that will actually move faster than light? what impact will this have on the cosmos?
i dont know, these are a few of the thoughts that have been brewing in my head on the issue. im sorry to be so winded, but... oh well
anyone else have any thoughts?