SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A report from researchers at Imperial College London suggests that, contrary to Einstein's theories, the speed of light in a vacuum may not be constant. The proposed new theory provides a prediction that could be used to test its validity.
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.
[...] The assumption that the speed of light is constant, and always has been, underpins many theories in physics, such as Einstein's theory of general relativity. In particular, it plays a role in models of what happened in the very early universe, seconds after the Big Bang.
But some researchers have suggested that the speed of light could have been much higher in this early universe. Now, one of this theory's originators, Professor João Magueijo from Imperial College London, working with Dr Niayesh Afshordi at the Perimeter Institute in Canada, has made a prediction that could be used to test the theory's validity.
[Continues...]
Professor Magueijo said: "The theory, which we first proposed in the late-1990s, has now reached a maturity point – it has produced a testable prediction. If observations in the near future do find this number to be accurate, it could lead to a modification of Einstein's theory of gravity.
"The idea that the speed of light could be variable was radical when first proposed, but with a numerical prediction, it becomes something physicists can actually test. If true, it would mean that the laws of nature were not always the same as they are today."
The testability of the varying speed of light theory sets it apart from the more mainstream rival theory: inflation. Inflation says that the early universe went through an extremely rapid expansion phase, much faster than the current rate of expansion of the universe.
'Critical geometry of a thermal big bang' by Niayesh Afshordi and João Magueijo is published in Physical Review D.
Article text (excluding photos or graphics) available under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons license.
The above-referenced journal article is paywalled, but arXiv.org has a preprint available.
It is well-worth reading if for no other reason than they posit the actual existence of a warp factor! Its Introduction raises some interesting shortcomings of the current theory:
1. Introduction. In spite of its mathematical simplicity and observational triumphs, the Big Bang model of the Universe remains an unfinished work of art. Many of its late-time successes can be traced to the initial conditions postulated for its early stages, and these are put in by hand, without justification, other than to retrofit the data. The main culprit for this shortcoming is the so-called horizon problem: the cosmological structures we observe today span scales that lay outside the ever-shrinking "horizons" of physical contact that plagued the early universe. This precludes a causal explanation for their initial conditions.
Several extensions of the Big Bang model have been proposed with the aim of opening up its horizons. An early bout of accelerated expansion [1–3], a contracting phase followed by a bounce [4], a loitering early stage [5], and a varying speed of light (VSL) [6, 7] have all been considered. None of these proposals evades the criticism that retrofitting the data is still used to select in detail the primordial fluctuations that the model should produce. Once primordial causal contact is established, work can start on concrete physical mechanisms for spoiling perfect homogeneity (e.g. vacuum quantum fluctuations or thermal fluctuations). Typically it is found that one can produce a wide range of initial conditions including, but not circumscribed to those explaining the observations.
Are there any cosmologists/astrophysicists in the house who can weigh in? Years ago when I was in college, I took several astronomy courses, so I understand enough of the material to get the general idea, but it is well beyond my background to follow the details.
Specifically, if the spectral index is found to match their prediction, does that mean that the speed of light did, or did not, vary? And, if it DID vary, what impact would that have on our current understanding of the universe?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mcgrew on Tuesday November 29 2016, @05:56PM
What sent both creationists and atheists into a frenzy was when the "big bang theory" came around. Creationists were in a snit because they thought the theory was "in the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded"; but that's not what the theory says. The theory actually parallels Genesis, which had atheists in a hissy fit, because believing the solid-state theory that stood because there was previously no evidence that the universe wasn't here forever.
I think the whole thing is entertaining.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @06:05PM
because there was previously no evidence that the universe wasn't here forever.
This statement doesn't make any sense. How could there have been time before the universe?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tathra on Tuesday November 29 2016, @06:16PM
thats the exact problem with trying to figure out "before the big bang" from inside the universe. there's no such thing as "before". its like mario trying to consider what was happening before the game was turned on, you have to get outside of the universe before there can be a concept of "before", and thus far its not provable that there is an "outside the universe". an attosecond or femtosecond after t=0 is probably the furthest back we can go so long as we're stuck working within the universe.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @06:47PM
Yeah from within Mario's universe, it could have existed forever with no proof of a beginning or end or any creators. The credits screens/scenes aren't 100% proof.
But from outside we know that the Mario universe was created. That's no proof this universe was created (or that it wasn't) but people shouldn't be so proud and sure of their beliefs/faith/"science".
The only thing I can be sure of is that I experience consciousness. But the funny thing is there's no way for me to 100% prove that to anyone else. And how the heck does it arise? Does doing any math result in it? e.g. if I do any math on paper does that create consciousness (in the paper? In the pencil?) ? Or does it have to be a certain sort of math or process? Or does it only work on certain sorts of computers/machines? How would we even test it? :)
So the universe we live in is simple in some ways and strange and unfathomable in other ways. If there really was a creator or more than one creator it's stupid to make those popular but silly assumptions on why he/they can't exist, or why he couldn't have created the universe or the real reasons.
For all we know, a Creator exists, he created this universe for "beer money" and he's not running it but the "End User" is ;).
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @06:57PM
Essentially "God" is the server admin if we are a simulation, and from our perspective he indeed would be omnipotent: he could delete any person, place, or thing at whim. He may even want us to sing praises to him every 7 days to pump his ego, and personally hate it when we yank off.
But even if there is such a server admin, I doubt humans (inside) got his preferences correct. If he really wanted to send a "wish list" of our behavior, he wouldn't use old scrolls and rely on "faith" to get word around, but blast it all over the sky in bright colors: "PEOPLE OF EARTH, STOP YANKIN' OFF, OR I'LL DELETE YOU! -GOD"
(Score: 3, Funny) by EvilSS on Tuesday November 29 2016, @07:10PM
"Have you tried turning it off and back on again?"
(Score: 3, Funny) by mhajicek on Tuesday November 29 2016, @07:19PM
Does 1+1=2 even if there's no one to think about it? If so, should not all possible postulations already already have their solutions? If so, then all possible universes exist in logic space.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday November 29 2016, @07:46PM
That's actually strong thread in judaeo-christian thought, found in many different writers from many different schools and sects at many different times. They hold that the creator indeed writes his commands so we can't help but see them - that virtue is visibly rewarded, and vice visibly discouraged, right here in this world. Gluttony does tend to make one unhealthy, pig flesh brings more than its share of health problems, etc.
It's easy to see how some, perhaps even all the 'sins' are bad things that actually hurt one, so it makes sense to a point. However, on the other side, is virtue necessarily rewarded? That point seems much harder to swallow, but for those who do, we've probably all seen examples of this, "success" itself is seen as tantamount to proof of virtue, and proof of divine favor.
On the positive side this can really spur people to develop work ethics - because they expect to be rewarded. On the other hand it can lead them to adore, to practically worship, the wealthy, to the point where they become blind to how well crime can and does pay in this world. This extreme is sometimes parodied as 'worshipping the god of Darwin' though for the most part people actually doing it would certainly not identify with Darwin - yet the scientific thinker may find it hard not to draw the implication. The little bug gets eaten by the big bug gets eaten by the little fish gets eaten by the bigger fish etc. - sheer amoral survival of the fit - and the creator of this universe, who set its laws in motion, surely intended it to work this way, this is your objective standard of morality, right?
At any rate, for my own contribution to the discussion I would propose that, for the most part, Admin does not tell us what he wants, and further that the reason for this is simply that we lack the capacity to understand what he wants.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Touché) by HiThere on Tuesday November 29 2016, @08:18PM
It can also lead people to observe what actually does enable one to become wealthy, and to redefine that as good. In large societies this can be quite destructive.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:49AM
(Score: 2, Informative) by Arik on Wednesday November 30 2016, @01:59PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:56AM
At any rate, for my own contribution to the discussion I would propose that, for the most part, Admin does not tell us what he wants, and further that the reason for this is simply that we lack the capacity to understand what he wants.
a) the admin is a woman. e.g. It's not the same if she has to tell us ;).
b) it's for entertainment. So reasonable levels of doing bad or good is fine as long as it results in entertaining/interesting situations. Of course you eventually getting punished for doing bad stuff could be part of the entertainment too...
(Score: 3, Funny) by bd on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:05AM
I think at this point it is pretty clear what the server admin really wants: round rocky things circling around round shiny things...
I mean, that is what I don't get about the judeo-christian viewpoint, and most other god-fearing religions. You have to ignore some obvious stuff if you think your behavior is the most important thing on god's mind.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @08:35PM
If God is like our universe's server admins, He wants us all to stop wanking off except for the hot chicks.
(Score: 3, Funny) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday November 29 2016, @09:49PM
Yeah, and the Great Flood was not actually a punishment from god. It was an automation script gone bad. Also the locusts plague was a mod for his minecraft gone wrong.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 1) by Demena on Thursday December 01 2016, @05:31AM
One thing we can be certain of; that if there is a god he does not have good intentions.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Thursday December 01 2016, @07:51AM
Looks like I've got my new /etc/motd thanks!
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 4, Informative) by DannyB on Tuesday November 29 2016, @06:31PM
You are assuming that everyone understands that time is part of the fabric of the universe, and that the universe is not "within" time.
Prior to special relativity, there were common basic "self evident" assumptions such as:
* time is the same for all observers, everywhere
* a stick has a fixed length, the same for all observers
I would even add one more "obvious" assumption:
* time is so basic and fundamental that the universe exists within time
To anyone who has that kind of thinking, not informed by special relativity, it would seem "obvious" that you could talk about "before" the universe.
When you realize that time is just another dimension of space-time, you can't meaningfully talk about "before" the big bang.
The people who rely on government handouts and refuse to work should be kicked out of congress.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday November 29 2016, @06:39PM
part of those "self evident" assumptions come from the fact that it was assumed that other universes outside the mortal realm - duat, hades, sheol, heaven, etc - existed and were just as real as this one. if you're working with the assumption that there are other "layers" (universes) outside from the one we're all inhabiting now, then you're already working from an "outside the universe" perspective, thus "before this universe" is something that can naturally be considered.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday November 29 2016, @10:05PM
If you believe that time and space are separate and that time is emergent only from the movement of objects in space, then i guess "before the big bang" has no meaning at all.
(see Julian Barbour)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Tuesday November 29 2016, @08:09PM
If we consider time to be a dimension, just like in the naive interpretation of the general theory of relativity, then our universe (time and space) could be embedded as a growing thin-walled bubble in a higher-dimensional universe, with which we still interact as our bubble keeps expanding (all that vacuum energy and quantum chaos in empty space could well be things from the outside of our universe interacting with our expanding bubble surface). So the time dimension may well have existed before our universe emerged from a singularity.
And this is even before we consider more modern theories about emergent and/or discrete time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 29 2016, @08:10PM
How could there have been time before the universe?
Exactly! So there was no time when the universe did not exist, therefore universe is eternal. No creation or sky fairy required.