Is the speed of light constant?

[Rdivine]

Hey guys

I was just derping around one day when i came across a thought provoking idea. Is the speed of light constant, or is it steadily decreasing?

Many may argue that my idea violates the conservation of energy and relativity. But, hear me out.

My total idea is that the speed of light at the very moment the big bang happened is infinite. But that means that there would be infinite mass and such.

But, since it is infinite, the time frame is basically zero. That causes space/time to exist due to the unstability in the paradox.

However, right after the big bang happened, the speed of light decreases rapidly, to lets say about 400,000,000,000m/s

That would allow for matter to seemingly travel faster than the speed of light, but remember, the speed of light, c, is larger during that time as compared to now.

You might argue that right at the beginning, the rapid expansion of the fabric of space-time geometry increases the distance between particles, which may cause objects to "travel faster than the speed of light", even if they are not.

But, remember that the relativistic theory states that objects ARE travelling faster than the speed of light relative to an observer at the epicentre of the big bang.

Lets skip the long process of the formation of atoms and such. Now, after 1 billion years, the speed of light is about 800,000,000m/s.

Why would the speed of light be decreasing? Well, remember how the faster we go, the slower time is?

Now, the expansion of the universe is increasing each unit of time. Why?

Well, my idea is that space-time has a "concentration", and that space and time is linked to one another in an proportionate ratio. This is why at light speeds, your length(space) is zero, and time is basically zero. (as space decreases, time decreases).

However, the expansion of the universe is increasing space all around us, thus time is increasing.

Now, the speed of light is bound by time being 0. When there is a larger unit of time, there is a larger unit of space. Thus, light have more space to cross during t = 0. Hence, the speed of light, c , is decreasing.

Now, we are at the present world.

The speed of light is bound by the geometry of space-time. As the universe is very, very, very large, the speed of light seems constant, although it is decreasing.

This is what my theory is accompanied by:

-Tachyons. Tachyons in the past can travel faster than light (due to the increment of C). If they travel faster than light, time becomes negative. Hence, they must remain before a certain point in time. Which is why their existence is possible, but does not exist now, as they travel backwards in time.

-Conservation of energy states that the length of a single time frame in any point in time is the same. However, as my theory states that it is different, that means that there is an increasing amount of energy in our universe.

That is true, if we accept the theory of zero-point energy. The theory states that there is a "background energy" in empty space. It has been proven to exist, but yet not known well. As the universe is expanding, that means that more space must exist, hence more energy. The increasing amount of energy and space links back to my previous point.

You may ask : If your idea is true, why didn't anyone publish this theory?

I am seeking advice from the community and correct any of my statements if untrue. However, my theory only solves a few questions, while the current theories solve much more.

Ps: Some of my statements might be impossible/false. I know you may think they are, but if they are true, they answer much more questions.

Also, besides telling you guys my idea, i want it to create controversy!

If you read this message, you ARE obliged to leave a comment XD

discuss~

[VincentS]

I'm no physicist, but if c is actually c(t), how do you define t ? c is supposed to be frame independent, but t isn't.

[Rdivine]

I'm no physicist, but if c is actually c(t), how do you define t ? c is supposed to be frame independent, but t isn't.

Im suggesting that c is dependent on space-time, as c is not constant.

t is tied to space/constant.

[VincentS]

Let c_0 be any possible value for c. For any reference frame, you can chose t_0 as the moment where c = c_0 in that frame. So would c indirectly define some universal, frame-indepentant absolute time measure ?

[K^2]

Speed of light variations would absorb into metric, which varies already. Since metric is the thing we actually care about, speed of light is effectively constant. It's just a local conversion factor between time-ward and space-ward directions.

[vexx32]

To the best of my knowledge, tachyons are a purely hypothetical particle. There is as yet no evidence (that I have heard the barest whisper of) that would point to the existence of tachyons.

In addition, you shouldn't label this a 'theory', really -- at best, it's a hypothesis. And unless you can suggest some way that it might be proven or disproven, it can be no more than that; unless a hypothesis is testable, it cannot be a sound theory.

Finally,you state that this hypothesis (if true) would mean that the net amount of energy in the universe is increasing. Where does this idea come from? Why would it not decrease? I'm not overly familiar with the in-depth math of relativity and so forth, so if there is indeed a good reason for this assertion, please let me know.

Edited December 21, 2014 by vexx32

[K^2]

Standard Model effectively says that even if tachyons exist, they don't interact with normal matter. At which point, does anyone even cares?

[maltesh]

If you crank up the speed of light, you also need to decouple it from a /bunch/ of other things to avoid noticeable effects. Among them, mass-energy. If the speed of light is higher, the energy released by /any/ nuclear or chemical recaction increases quadratically. Early stars find it even harder to hold themselves together.

[Darnok]

Even light can't ran away from black holes gravity... so does gravity decrease speed of light?

During not so big bang there could be no gravity at all, so speed of light could be much much higher, right now we have many gravity sources, so they can decrease it.

[K^2]

If the speed of light is higher, the energy released by /any/ nuclear or chemical recaction increases quadratically. Early stars find it even harder to hold themselves together.

Gravity is proportional to energy, not mass. So it compensates itself. As I've mentioned above, speed of light isn't really a variable. Just a conversion factor.

Even light can't ran away from black holes gravity... so does gravity decrease speed of light?

No. There simply aren't any paths that lead out of the black hole. Going in any direction leads you back into black hole. That's how it traps light.

[vikmonster]

the speed of light © is constant, as described in special theory of relativity, and it is constant to all observers.

How space-time moves (what happened during big bang), or how time relative to other observers moves is irrelevant to the speed of light.

[Darnok]

No. There simply aren't any paths that lead out of the black hole. Going in any direction leads you back into black hole. That's how it traps light.

What... black hole is sphere like star, so you can make orbit around it or not?

My question is why light bends it's path and turn into black hole?

[sal_vager]

Black holes are points in space, they have no X, Y or Z dimensions which is why they get called singularities, their gravity is the same as the body before they became a black hole but because they are a point in space it's possible to get very much closer to them.

This is what makes them dangerous and why they bend light, the closer you get to the center the greater the effect of gravity, if you get close enough to a black hole not even light can escape, this is the "event horizon".

The event horizon for light is visible as we can see where light can no longer escape, it's just black, nothing gets back out, okay there's hawking radiation but that's it.

But yes, you can orbit a black hole, everything in our galaxy is orbiting the black hole at the center of the milky way, including our own sun.

[ZedNova]

If the speed of light is decreasing, how and why would it decrease everywhere at the same rate?

[arkie87]

Hey guys

I was just derping around one day when i came across a thought provoking idea. Is the speed of light constant, or is it steadily decreasing?

Many may argue that my idea violates the conservation of energy and relativity. But, hear me out.

My total idea is that the speed of light at the very moment the big bang happened is infinite. But that means that there would be infinite mass and such.

But, since it is infinite, the time frame is basically zero. That causes space/time to exist due to the unstability in the paradox.

However, right after the big bang happened, the speed of light decreases rapidly, to lets say about 400,000,000,000m/s

That would allow for matter to seemingly travel faster than the speed of light, but remember, the speed of light, c, is larger during that time as compared to now.

You might argue that right at the beginning, the rapid expansion of the fabric of space-time geometry increases the distance between particles, which may cause objects to "travel faster than the speed of light", even if they are not.

But, remember that the relativistic theory states that objects ARE travelling faster than the speed of light relative to an observer at the epicentre of the big bang.

Lets skip the long process of the formation of atoms and such. Now, after 1 billion years, the speed of light is about 800,000,000m/s.

Why would the speed of light be decreasing? Well, remember how the faster we go, the slower time is?

Now, the expansion of the universe is increasing each unit of time. Why?

Well, my idea is that space-time has a "concentration", and that space and time is linked to one another in an proportionate ratio. This is why at light speeds, your length(space) is zero, and time is basically zero. (as space decreases, time decreases).

However, the expansion of the universe is increasing space all around us, thus time is increasing.

Now, the speed of light is bound by time being 0. When there is a larger unit of time, there is a larger unit of space. Thus, light have more space to cross during t = 0. Hence, the speed of light, c , is decreasing.

Now, we are at the present world.

The speed of light is bound by the geometry of space-time. As the universe is very, very, very large, the speed of light seems constant, although it is decreasing.

This is what my theory is accompanied by:

-Tachyons. Tachyons in the past can travel faster than light (due to the increment of C). If they travel faster than light, time becomes negative. Hence, they must remain before a certain point in time. Which is why their existence is possible, but does not exist now, as they travel backwards in time.

-Conservation of energy states that the length of a single time frame in any point in time is the same. However, as my theory states that it is different, that means that there is an increasing amount of energy in our universe.

That is true, if we accept the theory of zero-point energy. The theory states that there is a "background energy" in empty space. It has been proven to exist, but yet not known well. As the universe is expanding, that means that more space must exist, hence more energy. The increasing amount of energy and space links back to my previous point.

You may ask : If your idea is true, why didn't anyone publish this theory?

I am seeking advice from the community and correct any of my statements if untrue. However, my theory only solves a few questions, while the current theories solve much more.

Ps: Some of my statements might be impossible/false. I know you may think they are, but if they are true, they answer much more questions.

Also, besides telling you guys my idea, i want it to create controversy!

If you read this message, you ARE obliged to leave a comment XD

discuss~

i had this idea too

If space itself is constantly expanding since the big bang, which is known to be the case, then the speed of light is essentially "slowing down" since it can cover less distance with present space than it could with older space... which implies that that speed of light was faster long ago

Edited December 21, 2014 by arkie87

[K^2]

Gravity of a black hole is not the same. It is the same out where you would be able to orbit before, but not closer to the center. It is fundamentally different, because gravity is not linear. For example, there are no stable orbits close to the black hole. Even well above the event horizon.

[sal_vager]

The term you're looking for is the Roche limit, the closer you get, the greater the tidal forces, this is why you do not find bodies orbiting near to a black hole that are not being torn up into little bits.

[NielsBohr]

This is quite complex physics and one needs a PhD to fully understand this subject, and for good measure I do not have a PhD. I will try to answer this though. Physics is formulated through the language of mathematics as precisely as physicists can. The confusion stems from abstracting or even "translating" complex mathematical language to everyday linguistical language and a lot of confusion arises from that transition. I am by no means saying, that your "theory" (it is really a hypothesis though) is wrong, but if one mathematically investigates what you are proposing (perhaps you have done that), one will get closer to the degree of wrongness of your hypothesis, so to speak. The other way around, does not work.

Once a mathematical framework is provided for a hypothesis the most interesting part of the story begins. Falsification. Within a mathematical framework, it is allowed to explore that framework thoroughly to find its consequences. Once that has happened a prediction can be made and through that prediction an observation or measurement can be done. That would be the way to test your "theory". In all humility, unless we have a PhD amongst us, none of us here can honorable answer the degree of truth nor wrongness of your "theory".

Just a minor yet very interesting physics piece, which answers your first question: Is the speed of light constant?

Now, c, is not constant. It has been shown that the speed of light depends upon the medium. The speed of light as normally described is in vacuum, but decreases in other forms of mediums. I can highly recommend researching about the physicist Lene Hau who managed to slow a beam of light down to about 17 m/s. (http://www.seas.harvard.edu/haulab/publications/pdf/Slow_Light_1999.pdf)

[ZetaX]

The term you're looking for is the Roche limit, the closer you get, the greater the tidal forces, this is why you do not find bodies orbiting near to a black hole that are not being torn up into little bits.

No, that is not what K^2 was talking about. Close enough to a black hole there is no possible orbit, not even for particles like photons or electrons. That has nothing to do we the Roche limit.

[AngelLestat]

I read some theories which mention that light speed may change depending the universe age.

That in the past may be different from now.

But I guess that understanding why the speed of light it is as it is. May hide the biggest secret of the universe or bulk structure. (from my opinion)

Gravity of a black hole is not the same. It is the same out where you would be able to orbit before, but not closer to the center. It is fundamentally different, because gravity is not linear. For example, there are no stable orbits close to the black hole. Even well above the event horizon.

It depends of many factors, we can said that the moon does not have a stable orbit, it all depends on the time scale.

I guess we can find a stable orbit around a black hole playing with the tidal forces and how big it is. (if we fix a time scale where we can said "that is stable")

I know that orbits would not be eliptical, their will be a lot more complex.

The term you're looking for is the Roche limit, the closer you get, the greater the tidal forces, this is why you do not find bodies orbiting near to a black hole that are not being torn up into little bits.

It depends on the black hole size. A planet can be very close to the event horizon and had weak tidal forces.. It can cross it and had weak tidal forces. It all depends on both sizes. We can not generalize.

[ZetaX]

IIt depends of many factors, we can said that the moon does not have a stable orbit, it all depends on the time scale.

I guess we can find a stable orbit around a black hole playing with the tidal forces and how big it is. (if we fix a time scale where we can said "that is stable")

I know that orbits would not be eliptical, their will be a lot more complex.

No. Not even a single (almost) elliptical round around a black hole is possible if too close. Again: this has absolutely nothing to do with tidal forces, Roche limit, some very long term effects like gravitational wave based energy extraction or other "imperfections", but is solely a effect of the geometry of spacetime.

[Newt]

The main way that we would have evidence for this, would be looking at the most distant possible things, and trying to understand whether the apparent chronology (assuming c is constant), versus how it would seem were c to change. This would be compared to a modeled chronology based on physical understanding. We do not entirely comprehend all of the processes going on at all times in the Universe's history, but I do not believe that there is good evidence available to support this hypothesis.

[stupid_chris]

I'm only gonna reply to one part of this.

You might argue that right at the beginning, the rapid expansion of the fabric of space-time geometry increases the distance between particles, which may cause objects to "travel faster than the speed of light", even if they are not.

But, remember that the relativistic theory states that objects ARE travelling faster than the speed of light relative to an observer at the epicentre of the big bang.

No no no. That's not it at all. When space expands, objects are not moving. The space between them is expanding. But relatively to their local space, the objects don't move. It makes the objects /appear/ to go faster than the speed of light, but they really don't. Spacetime can expand, contract, and do whatever it is, and as it's not matter, it can "move" faster than the speed of light. This is the whole concept behind the alcubierre drive. You can't make the ship move faster than the speed of light. But there is absolutely nothing preventing you from making the space englobing the ship move faster than light. You can just lock an object in a spacetime bubble and move that bubble around as fast as you want. It takes a lot of (negative) energy to do so, but on paper, it's possible.

So no, the relativistic theory does not state that any objects are travelling faster than the speed of light, ever in the known history of the universe. Even in the few first nanoseconds of the Big Bang, when the universe became ridiculously voluminous from nothing in such a short amount of time, objects didn't move faster than the speed of light, but the space between them did expand faster than it. That's the concept behind redshifting. Far far away galaxies are not actually moving away from us, the the space between us and them is expanding faster than they might be able to move toward us. And the further they are, the more space can expand between us and them, and the faster they appear to be moving, the more the light coming from them is redshift.

There are no evidence ever than the speed of light might have changed across time. The strenght of a theory is in the accurate predictions it can make, and general relativity where c is constant has made more than enough to prove it's rock solid.

[AngelLestat]

No. Not even a single (almost) elliptical round around a black hole is possible if too close. Again: this has absolutely nothing to do with tidal forces, Roche limit, some very long term effects like gravitational wave based energy extraction or other "imperfections", but is solely a effect of the geometry of spacetime.

before answer you, please define "too close".

You can't make the ship move faster than the speed of light. But there is absolutely nothing preventing you from making the space englobing the ship move faster than light. You can just lock an object in a spacetime bubble and move that bubble around as fast as you want. It takes a lot of (negative) energy to do so, but on paper, it's possible.

I am agree with the rest of your explanation, but I wanna add:

there is absolutely nothing preventing you from making the space englobing the ship move faster than light which we know about it.

There are some papers who find troubles with the stability of the bubble when its close to the speed of light. Also I keep reading each month a different explanation to negative matter.

Which may give us a clue that there is not much we can said for certain on negative matter or to describe its properties.

I even hear a theory that said it may be made from ordinary matter.

[ZetaX]

before answer you, please define "too close".

This heavily depends on things like the rotation of the black hole and the direction of the orbit. Generally, inside the event horizon is definitely "too close".