The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Topic started by: rangerrebew on November 27, 2016, 04:47:04 pm
-
Theory that challenges Einstein's physics could soon be put to the test
Date:
November 25, 2016
Source:
Imperial College London
Summary:
Scientists behind a theory that the speed of light is variable -- and not constant as Einstein suggested -- have made a prediction that could be tested.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161125084229.htm
-
@LateForLunch Check this out!
-
Damned interesting.
The notion that "C" is variable has been around for a long time but this is the first time I remember physicists claiming that they can test to confirm it with astronomical data.
Of course, if they do get a discrepancy, what next? They will have to come up with a correlate method to CONFIRM that discrepancy so they know it's not an anomaly of some other principles at work. So I doubt anything conclusive will result from this specific measurement.
Every time C has been measured through interferometry or other means, it always works out to the limits of technology.
A lot depends on it remaining consistent - values of most of the basic features of the universe - total age of the universe and everything in it, total mass, total energy even the parameters of fundamental forces are at stake. If it can be variable, much of that goes out the window and they have to consider starting over. They'd have to throw out all calculated values about distance of objects using Cepheid variable stars, because they are too far away (old) to be sure that C was consistent in the time the light started toward us (more than 12 billion years ago).
Just to forestall any misconceptions about "C" - it refers to the speed of light IN A VACUUM. The speed of light can slow considerably depending on the medium in which it travels. Photons can be slowed to immobility by artificial means such a super-cold laser-beam interference chambers. When a particle like an electron exceeds the speed of light in a dielectric medium (heavy water for instance) it generates a blue glow (as seen in nuclear piles), but the actual speed of light is defined as never MORE than 186K miles per second.
-
Just goes to show there is no such thing as "settled" science and consensus means zip...
-
Just goes to show there is no such thing as "settled" science and consensus means zip...
Well it depends on what science is "settled"..
-
Well it depends on what science is "settled"..
Yes, a consensus can be about whether a theory is viable. The theories about the fundamental forces, molecules, other principles of hard science have all been validated by observations which the theory predicts. That's why AGW doesn't even qualify as a theory - it never accurately predicts observable data.
-
Just goes to show there is no such thing as "settled" science and consensus means zip...
Science by definition, is not settled. It is and should always be tested and validated (ie the Scientific method).
If someone stands up and says it is settled and can't be questioned, it crosses the line to faith, not science.
The closest we can have to 'settled' in science is a theory or law because we can measure and calculate against them, but even in science they are always questioned, challenged, and tested to learn more.
-
Science by definition, is not settled. It is and should always be tested and validated (ie the Scientific method).
If someone stands up and says it is settled and can't be questioned, it crosses the line to faith, not science.
The closest we can have to 'settled' in science is a theory or law because we can measure and calculate against them, but even in science they are always questioned, challenged, and tested to learn more.
Precisely. Cross tha line it becomes dogma. My Karma ran over my Dogma long ago.
-
Seems to me that although the speed of light is constant, our measurements of it vary and are influenced by gravity and time. :shrug:
-
Seems to me that although the speed of light is constant, our measurements of it vary and are influenced by gravity and time. :shrug:
That seems much more likely to me! The fact of the matter is that we cannot even measure sea surface temperatures accurately yet!
-
Just goes to show there is no such thing as "settled" science and consensus means zip...
You aren't possibly referring to the theories put forth by St. Algore, are you? :silly: