Has Lightspeed Changed Over Billions of Years?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anders Lundberg
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the speed of light has changed over billions of years and the implications of such a change on the universe. It raises the question of how a varying speed of light would affect chemical reactions and other universal constants, suggesting that any changes might balance out, making them undetectable. Experimental methods to test theories of a varying speed of light are mentioned, particularly through the electromagnetic coupling constant and its effect on spectral lines. Observational evidence indicates that any changes in the speed of light are constrained to parts per billion. The conversation also speculates on the rapid expansion of space during the Inflationary Period, suggesting that space itself may have exceeded the speed of light.
Anders Lundberg
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
In the summer 2004 I read an article in New scientist discussing if lightspeed has changed during the last few billion of years. (I have also read some Creationist o:) stuff about light being much faster about 6000 years ago, explaining why we can see stars billions of lightyears away in spite of the mere 6000 years since creation )
My question is: Would not a change of the speed of light (or rather; the speed that not light or gravity or any other fenomena can exceed), change the speed of all chemical reactions also? Would it not change every aspect of the universe? And would not that universal change "even out" the change of the speed of light so that we will never be able to notice it?
If the increased speed of light eg. also makes clocks tick faster (or makes the space expand a bit?), then we may still measure the speed of light to be 299 792 548 m/a. In other words, do we not chase our on tail here?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Anders Lundberg said:
Would it not change every aspect of the universe? And would not that universal change "even out" the change of the speed of light so that we will never be able to notice it?
Actually there are experimental ways to test theories with varying speed of light. One of the consequences of these theories is that the electromagnetic coupling constant \alpha=e^2/2\epsilon_0 h c does also vary. This constant determines for example the spitting of the spectral lines of the hydrogen (the “fine-structure”). Comparing distant spectral lines with the ones of today might provide information about a varying \alpha.
 
hellfire said:
Actually there are experimental ways to test theories with varying speed of light. One of the consequences of these theories is that the electromagnetic coupling constant \alpha=e^2/2\epsilon_0 h c does also vary. This constant determines for example the spitting of the spectral lines of the hydrogen (the “fine-structure”). Comparing distant spectral lines with the ones of today might provide information about a varying \alpha.

for example;

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601264"

on astro-ph today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Observational evidence, of the kind hellfire mentioned, severely constrains any possible changes in the speed of light over time to parts per billion. If you assume the fundamental constants of nature are coupled, as I do, this is the expected result. Causality would otherwise break down at some distance/time; which is pretty much what happens at the big bang.
 
space itself can exceed light speed

I've read that no particle or force can exceed C, however, there is no limit on how fast space's velocity can go. Perhaps (now I will speculate) that during the Period of Inflation (10*-36s -to- 10*-32s) when space is estimated to have expanded by a factor of 10*20 -to- 10*30 times, space actually expanded faster than C. However, since I am not sure how large space was at the time of this initial Inflationary Period, I cannot calculate its exapansion velocity during this Period.

Reference: Mark Filipenko, Berkeley
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top