Dr. Jai Maharaj posted: > > Speed of light may not be constant, physicists say > > By Jesse Emspak > LiveScience > Fox News > Monday, April 29, 2013 > > Lasers have come a long way since they were invented in > 1960. (ornl.gov) > > The speed of light is constant, or so textbooks say. But > some scientists are exploring the possibility that this > cosmic speed limit changes, a consequence of the nature > of the vacuum of space. > > The definition of the speed of light has some broader > implications for fields such as cosmology and astronomy, > which assume a stable velocity for light over time. For > instance, the speed of light comes up when measuring the > fine structure constant (alpha), which defines the > strength of the electromagnetic force. And a varying > light speed would change the strengths of molecular bonds > and the density of nuclear matter itself. > > A non-constant speed of light could mean that estimates > of the size of the universe might be off. (Unfortunately, > it won't necessarily mean we can travel faster than > light, because the effects of physics theories such as > relativity are a consequence of light's velocity). [10 > Implications of Faster-Than-Light Travel] > > Two papers, published in the European Physics Journal D > in March, attempt to derive the speed of light from the > quantum properties of space itself. Both propose somewhat > different mechanisms, but the idea is that the speed of > light might change as one alters assumptions about how > elementary particles interact with radiation. Both treat > space as something that isn't empty, but a great big soup > of virtual particles that wink in and out of existence in > tiny fractions of a second. > > Continues at: > http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/04/29/speed-light-may-not-be-constant/
Shocker (not). Im also figuring its a matter of time (possibly soon, considering this post) before they figure out that light isnt actually the speed limit, light has mass, and that dark matter/energy doesnt exist because it isnt needed to satisfy their observations.
Addressing the universe mathematically will teach you an awful lot, but it doesnt solve everything. I believe its a forest for the trees problem.
Of course, to a mathematician Im an unqualified boob - but its not the first time Ive sat back and said well duh at one of these discoveries.