Please can anybody falsify this statement?

[sciencetoyboy]

Please can anybody falsify this statement?

“The speed of light is changing and the change is proportional to the expansion of the universe.”

 

if the speed of light was to slow down as a consequence of the expansion of the universe, when we consider E=MC2 than the drop in energy would explain where the energy comes from to drive the expansion “DARK ENERGY” .

In the distant past when the universe was half its size, consider the fabric of space time conducting light much quicker , just like vibration waves through a compressed spring would travel faster than waves through a not so compressed spring.

This would also give symmetry to gravity always being attractive, giving us a repulsive force throughout the universe.

Many Thanks

Alex

[Yuri Danoyan]

My be answer there...

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

[sciencetoyboy]

I don't mean a redshift in the frequency of light as the universe expands. I mean the speed of light as it is emitted being different depending on how compacted the universe is.

Imagine the fabric of space-time possesses more "tension" when it is small and less when it is large, and light travels faster through a more "tense" space time fabric.

[Yuri Danoyan]

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/expanding_universe.html

[sciencetoyboy]

Hi

thanks but again I think you have missed the point

Im not talking about a a shift in frequency as light travels large distances over long periods of time in an expanding universe.

Im talking about the speed of light not being 300,000km/s when the universe was half the size it is now, but being even faster.

Bound to travel at a different speed the moment it was emitted, due to its local space time.

[Klaynos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light#Varying_c_in_time

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_equivalence_principle

[sciencetoyboy]

Hi

Thanks for the links, the info they have given me is a bit bewildering but definitely hold the key to what it is I'v been wondering about.

The fine structure constant is a new one for me.

Im going to ask another question here at the risk of being flamed for random thoughts but here goes.

If any one of the constants, electron charge e, the speed of light c, and Planck's constant h, are changed, does this mean that all the others would have to change for the fine structure constant to remain the same, so that the laws of physics would remain the same. and so in effect if you upped the value for the speed of light you would be upping the value of "distance" as well, therefore in reality nothing changes? ( is that gauge symmetry?).

Sorry here is another few questions. These probably will get me flamed.

If just one of these constants was changed, lets say the speed of light and we don't change the others, so there is a real change in the fine structure constant. What would be the result ? Is it a proven fact that this has never happened? and if so what demonstrates this proof?

If anybody can help me to understand all this it would be greatly appreciated.

I know I'm a non scientist and if I phrase my questions in a non-scientific way its because I not only don't know the answers but I don't really know the right questions to ask. So I might convey my thoughts hypothetically in an imaginary theory, but I don't think that this is such a bad thing, if eventually it leads me to science.

Many Thanks

[Klaynos]

I've only just woken up, so i will resist the erge to answer the questions as the answers would probably make no sense...

 

But what I will say is that you wont be flamed for asking questions... You should never be flamed, but questions are good...

[sciencetoyboy]

Hi Klaynos

Sorry Iv just realized that the red writing on your post about philosophy and random thoughts is written on all your posts. I thought you where having a go at me for not being scientific enough. Im am new in my defence!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If anybody does post any answers to any of my questions on the fine structure constant, and changing any 1 of its combined constants like the speed of light for instance. I am going on holiday for a week so I apologise if I don't thank you straight away, but I will look forward to reading anything posted on the subject when I get back.

Many thanks

Alex

[J'Dona]

If any one of the constants, electron charge e, the speed of light c, and Planck's constant h, are changed, does this mean that all the others would have to change for the fine structure constant to remain the same, so that the laws of physics would remain the same.

...

If just one of these constants was changed, lets say the speed of light and we don't change the others, so there is a real change in the fine structure constant. What would be the result ? Is it a proven fact that this has never happened? and if so what demonstrates this proof?

As far as I'm aware, VSL theories (or at least the one proposed by Albrecht-Magueijo) allow for variation in the fine-structure constant [math]\alpha[/math] by keeping Planck's constant and other constants fixed. Supposedly this can help to explain certain erroneous measurements from quasars far back in the Universe's history, which would be explained by a lower value of [math]\alpha[/math] at the time. They talk about varying [math]c[/math] versus varying [math]\hbar[/math] (without any real math) on the first couple pages of their paper here, though this may not display for you: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9811/9811018v2.pdf

 

Other than quasars and apparently solving a few other problems in cosmology, I don't know if VSL theories are fully constistent with observations. A change in [math]\alpha[/math] should affect the probabilities of certain products in nucleosynthesis in a way that might predict different proportions of elements in the Universe (and might have [math]c[/math] varying significantly during this period), even though the proportions are very well understood by existing theories. I'd also be curious if anyone else has heard more about these theories and if they're dead or not (possibly Martin, as he tends to be deep in the know?).

[Adalast]

i was actually considering dark energy vs. the expansion of spacetime on the way home from a meeting today. the half hour drive alone leaves for quite a bit of time to percolate an idea. my idea takes a few liberties with the theories of relativity, the big bang and the actual function of time.

 

what i was wondering is, what if the term "flow of time" is actually not too far off? if you were to consider an unmeasured energy particle for time (tempron) was created along with the big bang along with all space and energy. i say energy here for the sake of argument that by relativity, matter is little else than condensed energy. so if we follow the model of relativity that considers space to be a sort of fabric, then i will call time kind of like a soupy mix of temprons.

 

now that i've basically outlined the liberties i'm taking with the current theories as i understand them, i'll talk about my idea. what if what we percieve as the passage of time is actually the "settling" of this tempron soup into the fabric of space. as more temprons settle into the mesh of space, it swells and expands. also, if you are still considering temprons as that soup, then it would pool near objects of great mass, which would give a result similar to the effects theorized in the deep gravity wells of black holes and such.

[sciencetoyboy]

Hi

Back from my hols

Thanks J Donna for the PDF of Albrecht-Magueijo paper.

I think it will take me a while to digest but it looks like its going to be great.

thanks again.

[sciencetoyboy]

Hi

Iv been reading the Andreas Albretcht paper on varying c over time and how the idea may solve some cosmological problems.

Its quite bewildering to a non mathematical person like myself, however i found the things I do understand ( or think I understand) fascinating.

One thing I did pick up on was the problem with talking about a dimensionless constant varying over time because we need a dimensional quantity to measure it against, and whose to say its not the other quantity changing?

Could it not be measured against itself (ratio of yesterdays speed to today's) ?

 

Another thing that Iv probably got all wrong is .....

 

"We have shown how a time varying speed of light could

provide a resolution to the well known cosmological puzzles.

These “VSL” models could provide an alternative

to the standard Inflationary picture, and furthermore resolve

the classical cosmological constant puzzle."

 

Is this paragraph talking about E=MC2 whilst considering c slowing down over time . Hence as c decreases so does energy, and this explains the expansion of the universe (the missing energy went into the expansion). Einsteins cosmological constant?