"Faster Than the Speed of Light" Do you believe in VSL?

[why06]

<p>VSL stands for varrying speed of light hypothesis. Im not sure yet as to wether&nbsp; it has become a theory yet, but since their is no experimental data to back it up I will keep it as simply that. A hunch.</p><p>I am currently reading a story titled: "<em>Faster than the Speed of Light</em>" by: Joao Magueijo</p><p>While this discussion should truly be placed in the cosmology section, I felt since there was no section labled "cosmology" that "space science & astronomy". Now I know some of you will argue that the premise Maqueljo proposes is completely absurd, based of nothing more than a hunch, and be better fit to be moved to Phenomenon with all the other "crak-pot" ideas.&nbsp; Well if it so be it than let this thread be moved, but however if those of you who have read and support his thesis choose to argue the opposite we will see who wins out by the outcome of this thread's final destination.</p><p><strong>Supporters</strong> argue their points as to why they think VSL would be a great addition to the big bang theory</p><p><strong>Disbelievers</strong> argue to sun it and let it be removed from all fora with the term 'science"</p><p><strong>I</strong> will continue to finish reading the book and post any thoughts or suggestions I think might contribute.</p><p>And now time for the big question: <strong>Do you believe in VSL? Explain?&nbsp;</strong></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[lildreamer]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>VSL stands for varrying speed of light hypothesis. Im not sure yet as to wether&nbsp; it has become a theory yet, but since their is no experimental data to back it up I will keep it as simply that. A hunch.I am currently reading a story titled: "Faster than the Speed of Light" by: Joao MagueijoWhile this discussion should truly be placed in the cosmology section, I felt since there was no section labled "cosmology" that "space science & astronomy". Now I know some of you will argue that the premise Maqueljo proposes is completely absurd, based of nothing more than a hunch, and be better fit to be moved to Phenomenon with all the other "crak-pot" ideas.&nbsp; Well if it so be it than let this thread be moved, but however if those of you who have read and support his thesis choose to argue the opposite we will see who wins out by the outcome of this thread's final destination.Supporters argue their points as to why they think VSL would be a great addition to the big bang theoryDisbelievers argue to sun it and let it be removed from all fora with the term 'science"I will continue to finish reading the book and post any thoughts or suggestions I think might contribute.And now time for the big question: Do you believe in VSL? Explain?&nbsp; <br />Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>may not be such a odd idea really, in my opinion everything in this universes has shown to slow down either instantly or over a time scale that we can humanly measure.&nbsp; What I mean humanly is we don't live long enough to judge it.</p><p>but here is a paper that seems to ask the same question:</p><p>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0509/0509582v1.pdf</p><font face="CMR17" size="5"><p align="left"><font size="1">A simple varying-speed-of-light hypothesis is</font></p><p align="left"><font size="1">enough for explaining high-redshift supernovae data</font></p></font><font face="CMR12"><p><font size="1">By Yves-Henri Sanejouand</font></p><p><font size="1">So the Idea is not all that preposterous.</font></p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>may not be such a odd idea really, in my opinion everything in this universes has shown to slow down either instantly or over a time scale that we can humanly measure.&nbsp; What I mean humanly is we don't live long enough to judge it.but here is a paper that seems to ask the same question:http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0509/0509582v1.pdfA simple varying-speed-of-light hypothesis isenough for explaining high-redshift supernovae dataBy Yves-Henri SanejouandSo the Idea is not all that preposterous.&nbsp; <br />Posted by lildreamer</DIV><br /><br />It seems to me that you are getting ahead of the game.&nbsp; There is no reason not to keep and open mind about new hypotheses.&nbsp; But before one takes a stance as to whether or not they should be accepted a good deal of information is needed.&nbsp; One needs to know what experimental evidence there is both supporting and refuting the hypothesis and whether that evidence has been repeated in carefully formulated experiments.&nbsp; One also needs to know how that hypothesis fits in with the overall body of accepted physical theory,&nbsp; whether it is compatible with the theory in cases where the theory is known to be accurate, and what revisions might be required.&nbsp;&nbsp; Without that additional information and debate, taking a position is tantamount to merely stating an uninformed opinion -- basically worthless.&nbsp;</p><p>In the case of a varying speed of light, presumably speed of light in a vacuum, what you are talking about is nothing less than a time dependency of one of the basic laws of physics.&nbsp; Such an idea has been advanced, only as a conjecture,&nbsp;for consideration by theoreticians.&nbsp; While the idea has possibilities,&nbsp; it represents a truly major departure from current thinking regarding physical principles.&nbsp; There is very little evidence in support of the principles of physics being anything other than constant in space and time.&nbsp; That does not mean that the notion should be rejected out of hand, but it does mean that acceptance will require strong supporting data, data that is not in evidence at this time.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[why06]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It seems to me that you are getting ahead of the game.&nbsp; There is no reason not to keep and open mind about new hypotheses.&nbsp; But before one takes a stance as to whether or not they should be accepted a good deal of information is needed.&nbsp; One needs to know what experimental evidence there is both supporting and refuting the hypothesis and whether that evidence has been repeated in carefully formulated experiments.&nbsp; One also needs to know how that hypothesis fits in with the overall body of accepted physical theory,&nbsp; whether it is compatible with the theory in cases where the theory is known to be accurate, and what revisions might be required.&nbsp;&nbsp; Without that additional information and debate, taking a position is tantamount to merely stating an uninformed opinion -- basically worthless.&nbsp;In the case of a varying speed of light, presumably speed of light in a vacuum, what you are talking about is nothing less than a time dependency of one of the basic laws of physics.&nbsp; Such an idea has been advanced, only as a conjecture,&nbsp;for consideration by theoreticians.&nbsp; While the idea has possibilities,&nbsp; it represents a truly major departure from current thinking regarding physical principles.&nbsp; There is very little evidence in support of the principles of physics being anything other than constant in space and time.&nbsp; That does not mean that the notion should be rejected out of hand, but it does mean that acceptance will require strong supporting data, data that is not in evidence at this time.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Good reply. However I dont know of any experiments to test VSL. In fact the conducting of such an experiment would seem extremely difficult and require very precise instrument that would say measure an average experimental speed for a very long time. Are there others ways to test VSL? Perhaps one of its effects? Has experimental data been gathered so far? </p><p>I feel this topic might become a hot-bead for scientific debate sort of like dark matter became. What do you think?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[Szkeptik]

<p>Light moves at light speed because the resting mass of photons is zero. The speed of light is&nbsp;actually the speed of a&nbsp;massles particle. So anything that has mass - since mass is basicly a resistance to acceleration -&nbsp;can never have speed that is equal or&nbsp;larger than the speed of something with zero mass.</p><p>&nbsp;And this is why VSL is probably not true. Lightspeed would only change if the maximum possible speed&nbsp;in the universe would&nbsp;change.</p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; VSL?&nbsp;... I feel this topic might become a hot-bead for scientific debate sort of like dark matter became. What do you think? <br />Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>I think it is more likely to becone a hot-bead for non-scientific debate.&nbsp; It will only be addressed from a scientific perspective if it becomes a likely explanation for a body of validated data.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Saiph]

<p>I ran across this hypothesis a few years back.&nbsp; It has a few things going for it, sadly no real evidence yet, but it does provide an interesting mechanism for things like BB inflationary period.&nbsp; Basically you don't really need as strong an inflationary period if the speed of light was higher then.</p><p>Szkeptik:&nbsp; A change in the fundamental speed of light is exactly what this hypothesis preposes.&nbsp; That the two fundamental constants that are the arbitrators of light speed (the permeability and permisivity of free space, the magnetic and electric constants respectively) have, or could, change as the universe ages and/or changes in size.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Now, there's no reason to dub this "non-science".&nbsp; It's quite radical, but the way it is being persued is quite solid and scientific.</p><p>Btw, I don't think there should be a cosmology forum...this fits quite nicely in "space science" &nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p>&nbsp; That the two fundamental constants that are the arbitrators of light speed (the permeability and permisivity of free space, the magnetic and electric constants respectively) have, or could, change as the universe ages and/or changes in size.&nbsp;Now, there's no reason to dub this "non-science".&nbsp; It's quite radical, but the way it is being persued is quite solid and scientific./QUOTE]</p><p>I agree with your statement.&nbsp; But it is being pursued scientifically as an interesting hypothesis, scrutinized with solid theoretical tools and real data, not as part of any hot-bed of debate.&nbsp; Very rarely is scientific discourse found in the form of heated debate.&nbsp; Honest discussion and sometimes disagreement, yes.&nbsp; Heated debate, not usually.</p><p>For instance there has been heated debate on the subject of evolution.&nbsp; But the heated debate is due to lawyers and kooks, not scientists.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I ran across this hypothesis a few years back.&nbsp; It has a few things going for it, sadly no real evidence yet, but it does provide an interesting mechanism for things like BB inflationary period.&nbsp; Basically you don't really need as strong an inflationary period if the speed of light was higher then.&nbsp; <br />Posted by Saiph</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Does extremely high temperatures at the BB = Light?&nbsp; Normally, you would think so.&nbsp;&nbsp;But, how?&nbsp; Another similar question would be, does extremely high forces (strong force, weak force, gravity, and electromagnetic force, all as one force) at the BB = Light?&nbsp; In other words, can photons escape this single super force?&nbsp; I would have to say Nope.&nbsp; Or, did light appear only after 300,000 yrs. when protons, neutrons, and electrons, formed?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Does extremely high temperatures at the BB = Light?&nbsp; Normally, you would think so.&nbsp;&nbsp;But, how?&nbsp; Another similar question would be, does extremely high forces (strong force, weak force, gravity, and electromagnetic force, all as one force) at the BB = Light?&nbsp; In other words, can photons escape this single super force?&nbsp; I would have to say Nope.&nbsp; Or, did light appear only after 300,000 yrs. when protons, neutrons, and electrons, formed? <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>At one point there were apparently photons, electrons, neutrinos and corresponding antiparticles, and nothing else -- about 0.0108 seconds into the life of the universe.</p><p>Not sure what you meana aby photons escaping he single super force.&nbsp; Very early one the universe was rather small, so there was not really anywher to escape to.</p><p>If you want to hear more about this stuff from a real expert, get a copy of "The First Three Minutes" by Steven Weinberg.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>