The Changing Speed of Light

In his book, “Faster than the Speed of Light”, Joao Magueijo claims that, at one time, the speed of light was much faster than it is currently. This theoretical physicist postulated that, at and/or shortly after the Big Bang, the speed of light was unimaginably faster than today. This scientific heresy was conceived to explain the complex mysteries of the origin of the universe. Magueijo should be applauded for challenging widely accepted theories and even stepping out on a limb to say that Albert Einstein may have been wrong.

This physicist does provide a compelling argument at great risk to his career. His theory provides a plausible answer to some of the early universe-forming problems. Yet, his theory creates new anomalies as it is deals with others. First and foremost is – “What causes the speed of light to later slow down?”

At the very beginning, in the relatively immediate time following the Big Bang, it is easy to imagine a light speed that could have been much faster. However, in this birthing phase of the universe, it is doubtful that objects could have coalesced in space and developed enough gravitational strength to later slow the speed of light. And, if these neophyte bodies did possess this great influential strength, what happened to that strength?

Another issue that would need to be looked at is, if gravity was not the influence on light speed in this early universe, what was?

So, we don’t have the answer to these questions concerning the early phase of our universe, therefore we need to look at the speed of light and those things that influence it now. Note: I am not saying that Joao Magueijo is wrong about the speed of light in the early years of our universe. I am saying that if the speed was much faster then and slowed – then it should be still slowing now. Interesting thought!

From the point of view of a simple, mechanical-minded person – Cause and Effect reigns supreme over every theory. For every phenomenon (effect) there was something that influenced it (cause). Often the effect will become the cause of yet another effect. Thus, whenever an event is described, you must address its cause. Then you must look into the effects that will result from that event. This must be repeated until a end-product has materialized. The end-product in this writing is the speed of light and universe that we can see and test now. Failure to do this will result in a rejection of the basic theory.

Now, at this point, you may be thinking that this is the end of this posting. Take a poke at Joao Magueijo, like most all of his peers, and then run. No way! I happen to agree with him that the speed of light is variable. I, however, am not at risk for a loss of my livelihood. I can state, like I believe Magueijo wanted to, that the speed of light has and still can be changed. There you go – said it. The speed of light is not a constant. Here is why I have come to this conclusion:

1. We can see the moon! This very basic truth is only possible because the light has impacted the surface of the moon and reflected back towards us. For this to happen, the light has to slow to zero at the point of impact. Otherwise we would be unable to see the moon. Any forward momentum would result in the light passing through. A stealth moon is not realistic with our current scientific knowledge or technology, so before the light could reflect off of the surface of the moon and return to an extremely high rate of velocity, it had to come to a stop.

2. Water can eventually prevent light from reaching extreme depths. Defusion or stoppage due to passage through or contact with matter is the cause of this. Many of you will immediately state that this doesn’t count. The water is not in a vacuum. True, but I am using this as an example of outer space that is supposedly a vacuum (future topic). Outer space is filled with debris and gasses that would act just like the matter in water. This earthly example is just to draw a comparison for light interacting with matter.

3. Having addressed space debris and gasses, I now draw your attention to the posting on this blog titled “Redshift – Hubble could have been wrong”. The David Effect described there also influences the speed of light. After all, ultraviolet and infrared light move at different wavelengths and thereby cover different distances during any given time. This is the basis for measuring red or blue shift to determine travelling direction or distance of stars and galaxies.

4. Light’s interaction with black holes is very interesting. Theoretically, a black hole has gravity so strong that not even light can escape it. After, a star enters the event horizon of a black hole its light bends back into the hole. The light fails to achieve escape velocity due to the immense strength of gravity in the black hole. This is much like throwing a ball into the air here on Earth. The ball rises while it still has upward velocity then it stops. However, that is not the end of the process. The ball then begins to gain downward velocity due to the gravity. Given enough space before impacting the Earth the ball could achieve speeds in excess of that which it had on the way up. The ball could reach a speed described as Terminal Velocity. It would then be safe to imagine (I don’t like the word: Assume) that same effect would be found with regard to light falling into the black hole. This could also be extended to light emitted from a star that has not yet passed through the event horizon. Light emitted from a star in the direction of the black hole would then be accelerated. A speed of light in excess of the constant is achieved.

5. The last example I will discuss is that of light bending around a large gravitational body, such as our sun. Imagine, if you will, the lift characteristics of an aircraft wing. Wind is divided at the leading edge of the wing. Wind passing over the wing covers more surface area than the wind passing under the wing. For the separated elements to remain in the same relative space together, the wind taking the long route has to move at a faster rate than the wind that travels the shorter route. This is how lift occurs. I am not trying to say that light has lift (maybe it does have some sort of influence on the body). I am saying that in order for side by side light particles/rays to pass around this type of body and rejoin each other on the other side. The two light particles/rays would have to travel at different speeds except when they are evenly split from alignment dead center on the sun.

With the above (hopefully clearly) addressed, the theory of variable speed of light becomes realistic. These examples are elementary, yet provide for the strong probability that the speed of light is not a constant regardless of the presence of a vacuum or not. While some many continue to argue against it, they would have to do it at the risk of saying Einstein was wrong in his theory of general relativity. His theory is the support for the influence of gravity on light after all. So, does that mean e=mc2 is wrong?

I don’t think so, at this time, because the amount of energy released by matter may be affected by the localized speed of light. I will have to think about this for later. I will just close this posting by stating that Einstein spent his final days of life working to find the answers to the doubts he had in his own theories. He thought he could be wrong; so, why shouldn’t we.

http://www.sciencedoubt.com

REDSHIFT - Hubble Could Have Been Wrong!

As you look at the morning sunrise, you sometimes notice the glow shines with red light. This is the subject of a saying for mariners that goes like this. "Red sky at night, sailor take delight. Red sky in the morning, sailor take warning." This is advice concerning the forcoming weather that draws attention to material in the sky that is defusing the blue light, suggesting that foul weather is on the way. It is a form of redshift that is observable with regard to a light emitting object that is relatively close to earth. How it works and its implications follow - read on.

This posting is written with the intent that you try the experiment outlined for yourself. You are more than welcome to just read the entry and accept the findings. However, you may find enjoyment in observing the process for yourself. Seeing is believing.


Materials Required: A ten gallon (or larger), rectangular fish tank, a sheet of white paper, one functioning flashlight, some scotch tape, and some white milk.
Setup: Fill the fish tank with tap water to within 2 or 3 inches from the top. Tape the sheet of white paper to the outside of one small side of the fish tank.
Execution 1: Turn the flashlight on and point it at the end with the paper attached from the other end. The light should be passing through the tap water and reflecting off of the paper.
Observation 1: The reflected light will be shining white. No surprise.
Execution 2: While continuing to shine the light as described above, begin adding small amounts of milk to the water. Continue until a visible change is apparant in the light reflected off the paper.
Observation 2: The reflected light from the sheet of paper will now be red. The visible light has changed from white to red.
Explanation: The white light at the start of the experiment is a display of all of the visible light. While not easily discerned, this light includes blue light. The combination of the blue and red light has given a visual impression of white light. Thus, it (the white light) contains both ultraviolet and infrared light, both of which have different wave lengths. After adding milk into the liquid, you difused (redirected) the ultraviolet light away from the reflection point on the paper. Thereby, less ultraviolet light is included in the reflected light.
Background: I was quasi watching (more listening to) a show on a cable network where a Jr. High School Science Fair was being featured. In this fair, a young lady (student) had submitted this experiment to show what happens to light when the blue light is difused. Her entry, if memory serves me correctly, earned her a third place award in the Science Fair. I wish I could remember her name because she deserves to recieve some credit here. If you can help identify her, please let me know.
Major Scientific Implication: While this was missed by the judges at the Science Fair, I did not fail to identify the larger implication of this simple experiment. What was really proven by practical application, was that Hubble has misinterpreted his observations of light coming from stars and galaxies in the Universe. Hubble viewed the cosmos looking to see red and blue shift in an attempt to prove that the Universe is expanding. He did, in fact, find that most of the Light Emitting Bodies (LEB's) were displaying a redshift from our perspective. Because most of these LEB's were showing redshift, he assumed that they were moving away from us here on Earth. The more redshift that LEB's displayed indicated to him that they were moving faster away from us faster than those that displayed less redshift. This was later interpreted by others to also indicate a farther distance from Earth. Conversely, those LEB's, that were few in number comparatively, that showing blueshift were either closer to or closing with us. This blueshift theory, I am in agreement with. Hubble went looking for evidence to support a preconceived notion, and therefore, failed to contemplate any other possibility for his observations. Thanks to the fish tank experiment, we can, with practical experimentation, speculate that all LEB's in space are likely to display redshift due to all sorts of debris and gas out there. A true redshift measurement of LEB's movement relative to Earth would have to take into consideration the amounts of debris/gas in between. While those LEB's displaying blueshift are most probably moving closer to us, those displaying redshift are likely to be indiscernible, at this time, with regard to movement or distance. We need a system to measure the amount of debris/gas located between the measured objects. Therefore, redshift LEB's could be at vast distances, moving away or closer, or staying relatively stationary. Our current science cannot tell.
Additional Observational Support: Scientists observing the heavens for Gamma Ray Bursts are using the redshift of heated debris and gasses to measure the distance to supernovas, hypernovas, blackholes, or any other object currently considered to be gamma ray emitters. Gamma rays can not be visibly recorded or seen by us. So the heating of nearby debris and gasses by the rays and, the subsequent, measuring of redshift from these objects is used by scientists currently to guess at the distance between us and the gamma ray emitters. However, debris and gasses are the very items that would cause ultraviolet light difusion (redshift) between any bodies. The vast distances between us and any other body would contain incalculable amounts of space debris and gasses. Redshift should be displayed almost everywhere!!
Other Scientific Implications: This phenomena has affects on other areas of scientific measurement. Some of those are: Age of the Universe, Spacial Distance, Light Speed, Expanding Universe, Collapsing Universe, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Star Type/Size, Star Birth/Death, Black Hole Measurements, and all manner of Big Bang Measurements. This just names a few.

More on this Redshift Effect, to be called from here on "The David Effect" is forthcoming in future postings. The term "The David Effect" is hereby claimed under copyright and trademark laws.

http://www.sciencedoubt.com