Lower? Wasn't it supposed to have been faster 6000 years ago?
Very confusing. I'm pretty sure it slowed down for Joshua when he made the sun stand still. Otherwise, I donno. I've misplaced my notes.
Ahem. Nothing existed 6000 years ago, Mr. Beelzebub. Where do you get these crazy questions from? Sheesh!
There are a couple of guys over at Berkley and a Russian Physics dude...etc. This is just one more added to the list. It'll still probably take another 10-20 years before all the empirical evidence has enough weight to make it mainstream. But cdk seems to be the gathering momentum ,(for the moment,) as the most promising solution in the quest for the mythical universal constant.
From the Article:
Some physicists would happily accept a variable alpha. For example, if it had been lower in the past, meaning a higher speed of light, it would solve the "horizon problem".
Cosmologists have struggled to explain why far-flung regions of the universe are at roughly the same temperature. It implies that these regions were once close enough to exchange energy and even out the temperature, yet current models of the early universe prevent this from happening, unless they assume an ultra-fast expansion right after the big bang.
However, a higher speed of light early in the history of the universe would allow energy to pass between these areas in the form of light.
Correct. It was supposed to be faster. Consistent readings of the speed show a slight but continuing decrease.
As measurements are refined, over a few more years, we will have an absolute answer about whether it is occurring, but there is still afaik atheoretical basis for it.
This site has a good summation.
It may be a consequence of the new theory (discovered by me in 94, and by Sima and Sukenik of Slovakia in '89) of the Expansive Non-decelerative Universe.