Speed of light may have changed recently

New Scientist ^ | 6/30/04 | Eugenie Samuel Reich

[DannyTN]

That's an interesting link. You ought to post that one if it's not already out there.

[mikegi]

The laws of the universe are uniform in all directions, or else!

Maybe not and maybe it could explain some things. See Petkov's paper:

Acceleration-dependent self-interaction effects as a possible mechanism for inertia

[mdmathis6]

"Yeah, but I usually skip a couple versions before upgrading. So I'll wait for one or two more adjustments to relativity theory before I upgrade."


I experience my light as "open source"...I never get dark!

[mikegi]

Experiments in the last decade have managed to slow light down, in some cases to as little as ten miles per hour...but the light at those slower speeds isn't bent by Gravity.

Both this and those supposed "faster than light" experiments are bogus. They're looking at material properties, not light, and misinterpreting the output. The faster-than-light experiments are particularly bogus. I could create the same effect with an op amp circuit.

[mdmathis6]

Shorter visible wave lengths of light have less amplitude than longer wavelengths of light...longer wavelengths "carry farther". Light from more distant galaxies has longer to get here and it travels thru regions of varying densities of gas and dust. It stands to reason that more distant points of light would appear redder as the shorter wavelengths would be absorbed by distance and variable matter densities in the voids of space. I suspect that after a certain distance, the ability to guage a star or galaxy's speed or direction relative to our own by means of red or blue shift must become indetirminate related to distance and particulate density. It takes more energy to produce higher wavelengths(at a lower frequency) at a given luminance than it does lower wavelengths(at a higher frequency). Somebody out there want to blow holes in my blather...go for it, I await instruction!

[VadeRetro]

I think the point of the article and what we need to take away from it is that there is evidence that the speed of light itself is relative and variable.

This is what I parodied back in post 20 when I said "The important thing is that science has changed its story again, thus proving right all the people who say science is wrong." This is not what I actually think the lesson is, that you can assume the state of the evidence will stretch to be whatever you need in your quest for some predetermined goal. Such a cavalier attitude toward fact is not science.

[VadeRetro]

My understanding is very different. Light moves at the speed of light (in a vacuum), and this is true regardless of its color. The color we see is the result of the wavelength, and that's determined by whether the source of the light is moving away from us (stretched out, thus red) or moving toward us (compressed, thus blue).

Well, it was a hypothetical. Changing the speed of light while en route would change the perceived frequency upon arrival. I still say that speeding up the light would speed up the arrival of the peaks and valleys, blue-shifting.

If light has been speeding up, but not the rate of expansion of the universe, then the degree of redshifting (or blueshifting) probably wouldn't change (I'm winging it here).

I assumed the expansion of the universe, a red-shifting effect, would overwhelm such a tiny increase in the speed of light as claimed by this article. The universe would be expanding much faster than light is speeding up, if light is speeding up at all. The claimed change is 4.5 parts in 10⁸ over 2 billion years, which would be hard to notice even without an overall redshifting trend.

[VadeRetro]

What if changing c changes lambda but not nu?

The inverse is easier to picture. If you just imagine the cosine wave suddenly shooting along faster, then lambda stays the same but nu rises. If the waveform slows down, lambda again is constant but nu falls. I don't see lambda changing with c unless you also play with something else.

If (as we think has happened) space stretches out while the photon is in flight, lambda goes up as nu goes down but c need not have changed at all.

[Light Speed]

Hello Vade

My personal interest is to invite options regarding constructs and theories.
for me...their is no..*Have arrived...absolute conclusion drawn..close book.

Article excerpt:

FAR APART, TWO PARTICLES RESPOND FASTER THAN LIGHT by Malcolm W. Browne
(From the New York Times Science Section, Tuesday, July 22, 1997)

It was as if some ghostly bridge across the city of Geneva had permitted two photons of light nearly seven miles apart to respond simultaneously to a stimulus applied to just one of them.

The twin-photon experiment by Dr. Nicolas Gisin of the University of Geneva and his colleagues last month was the most spectacular demonstration yet of the mysterious long-range connections that exist between quantum events, connections created from nothing at all, which in theory can reach from one end of the universe to the other.

In essence, Dr. Gisin sent pairs of photons in opposite directions to villages north and south of Geneva along optical fibers of the kind used to transmit telephone calls. Reaching the ends of these fibers, the two photons were forced to make random choices between alternative, equally possible pathways.

Since there was no way for the photons to communicate with each other, "classical" physics would predict that their independent choices would bear no relationship to each other. But when the paths of the two photons were properly adjusted and the results compared, the independent decisions
by the paired photons always matched, even though there was no physical way for them to communicate with each other.

Albert Einstein sneered [at] the very possibility of such a thing, calling it "spooky action at a distance." Scientists still (somewhat shamefacedly) speak of the "magic" of "quantum weirdness." And yet all experiments in recent years have shown that Einstein was wrong and that action at a distance is real."

One of the leading experimentalists in quantum optics, Dr. Raymond P. Chiao of the U. of California, Berkeley, hailed the Geneva experiment as "wonderful."

But an underlying enigma of quantum mechanics remains unfathomed.

The connections that persist between distant but entangled particles are "one of the deep mysteries of quantum mechanics," Dr. Chiao said in an interview. "These connections are a fact of nature proven by experiments, but to try to explain them philosophically is very difficult," he said.

Quantum events obey the laws of quantum theory, which governs the behavior of minute objects like atoms and subatomic particles, including photons of light. By contrast with the laws of "classical" physics (which apply to the relatively large objects of the everyday world), quantum physics often exhibits behavior that seems impossible.

One of the weird aspects of quantum mechanics is that something can simultaneously exist and not exist; if a particle is capable of moving along several different paths, or existing in several different states, the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics allows it to travel along all paths and exist in all possible states simultaneously. However, if the particle happens to be measured by some means, its path or state is no longer uncertain. The simple act of measurement instantly forces it into just one path or state.

Physicists call this a "collapse of the wave function." The amazing thing is that if just one particle in an entangled pair is measured, the wave function of both particles collapses into a definite state that is the same for both partners, even separated by great distances.

Comment.

The Term **Quantum jump is a new play word/fill in the blank word for outcomes.
Clearly....quantum dynamics is a field of study with much comment that it is percived....yet not fully understood.
A field of endeavour with more suprises for sure : )

Specialists in astrophysics and all those big names..have noted that *Comets begin to light up when passing the Orbital quadrants of Jupiter and Saturn.
Both are kicking out electricity and other particle flow.
Is *Quantum jump occuirng here?..I think so.
SOHO captured the Sun burping Plasma off repeatedly toward Comet 2002v1 Neat..at 0.0999 AU. on perihelion.

Shift:

Cassini-Huygens
Instruments
RPWS: Radio and Plasma Wave Science
The major functions of the Radio and Plasma Wave Science (RWPS) instrument are to measure the electric and magnetic fields and electron density and temperature in the interplanetary medium and planetary magnetospheres.

The RPWS instrument will be used to investigate electric and magnetic waves in space plasma at Saturn. Plasma is distributed by the solar wind, and it is also contained by the magnetic fields (the magnetospheres) of bodies such as Saturn and Titan. The Cassini RPWS instrument will measure the AC electric and magnetic fields in the interplanetary medium and planetary magnetospheres and will directly measure the electron density and temperature of the plasma in the vicinity of the spacecraft.

RPWS will study the configuration of Saturn's magnetic field and its relationship to Saturn Kilometric Radiation (SKR), as well as monitoring and mapping Saturn's ionosphere, plasma, and lightning from Saturn's atmosphere.

RPWS Scientific Objectives

To study the configuration of Saturn’s magnetic field and its relationship to Saturn Kilometric Radiation (SKR)
To monitor and map the sources of SKR
To study daily variations in Saturn’s ionosphere and search for outflowing plasma in the magnetic cusp region
To study radio signals from lightning in Saturn’s atmosphere
To investigate Saturn Electric Discharges (SED)
To determine the current systems in Saturn’s magnetosphere and study the composition, sources, and sinks of magnetospheric plasma
To investigate the dynamics of the magnetosphere with the solar wind, satellites, and rings
To study the rings as a source of magnetospheric plasma
To look for plasma waves associated with ring spoke phenomena
To determine the dust and meteoroid distributions throughout the Saturnian system and interplanetary space
To study waves and turbulence generated by the interaction of charged dust grains with the magnetospheric plasma
To investigate the interactions of the icy satellites and the ring systems
To measure electron density and temperature in the vicinity of Titan
To study the ionisation of Titan’s upper atmosphere and ionosphere and the interactions of the atmosphere and exosphere with the surrounding plasma
To investigate the production, transport, and loss of plasma from Titan’s upper atmosphere and ionosphere
To search for radio signals from lightning in Titan’s atmosphere, a possible source for atmospheric chemistry
To study the interaction of Titan with the solar wind and magnetospheric plasma
To study Titan’s vast hydrogen torus as a source of magnetospheric plasma
To study Titan’s induced magnetosphere

[VadeRetro]

Correct. It was supposed to be faster.

If you can't tell by now, I think CDK is a crackpot theory. It supposes light to have been a lot faster (about 11 million times the present value) not long (6000 years) ago. It does this and engages in several other contortions to attain a predetermined religious end, a literal-Genesis Archbishop Ussher timescale for the universe. Wrong-headed and hopelessly unworkable from the get-go, it lives on in the limbo of theories that cannot die because it is not permitted for them to do so. (God wouldn't like it.)

[js1138]

It stands to reason that more distant points of light would appear redder as the shorter wavelengths would be absorbed by distance and variable matter densities in the voids of space.

Changes in the intensity of light at various frequencies caused by absorption of dust, etc, are unrelated to frequency shift.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The photons were exhibiting QM (rather than classical) correlations. Neither information nor energy was transmitted faster-than-lignt.

[VadeRetro]

Your post is a long "Science doesn't know everything" handwave. No, science doesn't know everything. But not knowing everything is not equivalent to knowing nothing, to being unable to rule anything out. Science knows plenty and can rule out much. Some theories are already identifiably wrong, have been discarded, and will not be back.

[Light Speed]

Well G

I simply did a cut/drag..something to look at..or reject.
Sorry you are bristling from Wal and companies Sarcasim.

If I post you directly again..will edit out the upsetting lingo.

Hey..I'm smart..but clearly not at your level of knowledge..but that does not deter me.
all manner of theories and constructs are undergoing revision.

such as:

Physics Finder- The American Institute of Physics
Mach Cones and Magnetic Forces in Saturn's Rings T. W. Hartquist and O. Havnes

JETP Letters Vol 78(2) pp. 97-98. July 25, 2003 Abstract

Recently, Mamun, Shukla, and Bingham claimed that Havnes and his collaborators mistakenly neglected magnetic fields in their work on Mach cones as potentially powerful diagnostics of properties in Saturn's rings. We show that the magnetic force on a charged particle is entirely negligible in comparison with the electric force on the particle in a wave with a wavenumber relevant to the Saturnian Mach cone problem.

[Light Speed]

Your post is a long "Science doesn't know everything" handwave

Well V..thats your take on things....not my attitude really.
Science *does infact know alot : )

[Light Speed]

take it you're "Holden" out for something to turn modern physics on its head...

No....modern physics is very good..if not excellent.

I get neato colored chips pushed to my side of the table everytime *Electric something revision gets published by the academic community.

note my post with the Cassini- Huygens assignment tasking.
more outcome revision concerning Electrical transmission in Space.

Think I will just stay away from these threads....
In the end..its time wasted...
as the Papal types rail at me for questioning Mary's authority.

Oh yes..That is indeed how I view most of the flame lords.

[mdmathis6]

No I was talking about over all cast or absortion of spectra.

Think of radio waves....it takes more energy to produce longer wavelengths at a given intensity over distance but they also carry farther and are less affected by objects, trees mountains ect. Shorter wave lengths at a given intensity over distance need even more energy or amplitude behind them to be detected at the same distance than longer wave radiation because they are more easily effected by reflections and multipath interferences...the higher the frequency the shorter the wavelenghth and the higher the energy it takes to propagate over the same distance due to inteference.

It seems to me then that bluer light has shorter wavelengths than redder light and would be more affected than redder light by distance and the particulate/gaseous densities of the space it has to travel to get here. Another words think of a light filter in which only the longer wavelenths at a given intensity get thru more efficiently at a vs. the shorter wavelenths at the same intensity. What can mess up the figures is whether or not there are a larger number of stars producing light at a higher frequency AND very high intensity in a galaxy billions of lightyears distant, these may appear more bluer shifted than others in the same vacinity. Red light to be visible at a certain distance takes more originating energy (due to the longer wavelengths) than blue light at the same distance but bluer light is more effected by the densities of the medium it travels thru than red light would be, so more originating energy would be needed for the blue light source to maintain equal visibility with that of red. For a more practical point...think about a misty foggy night. Red tail lights cut thru better than the yellows and blues. Low beams with its yellower cooler spectra are better to use on a foggy night than brighter bluer whiter light as all that extra light "reflects" back and blinds you with the glare...unless one has one of those million lumen fog lamps often used in "jacklighting" deer(with much higher originating energies therefore higher intensity) that can cut thru the fog by overwhelming its reflectivity.

I'm not saying the blue/red shift tool isn't a useful measure for guaging speed and direction for closer objects, I'm questioning the tools by which we guage the distance and speed of objects farther out than say a thousand light years or so!

I know the scientists extrapolate these equations based on observation of our own sun and planets and derive distances...ect. It is astounding to me that we could figure out that our average distance to our sun was infact 93 million miles even before we sent out probes that would behave exactly as the theoretical equation stated they would...at the exact distances theorectically pre-calculated. So if they say Proxima Centauri is 4.3 light years from us I believe it. I'm having more trouble believing the figures for objects much farther away...especially when it comes to speed and direction!

[PatrickHenry]

It is astounding to me that we could figure out that our average distance to our sun was infact 93 million miles even before we sent out probes that would behave exactly as the theoretical equation stated they would...at the exact distances theorectically pre-calculated. So if they say Proxima Centauri is 4.3 light years from us I believe it. I'm having more trouble believing the figures for objects much farther away.

No need to remain astounded. The information is everywhere. For example: Distances to the Sun and Stars. Words to look up to get you started: parallax, Cepheid variables.

[usslsm51]

Now I'll never be able to turn off the lights and jump into bed before they go out.

[Cap Huff]

Maybe it will slow down next year. It is not a leap year, afterall, and the election will be over.