Doubting Didymus

This has been discussed a little in other threads, but I really think it needs its own thread.

<a href="http://news.ninemsn.com.au/Sci_Tech/story_36933.asp" target="_blank">This article</a> reports that a team of australian scientists has found that the speed of light has slowed over time. There are statements here like "the first thing out the window is the theory of relativity", also: "scientists may have underestimated the age of the universe", and: "the speed of light may have been close to infinite just after the big bang" (how can somthing be 'almost' infinite?)

This is published in nature apparrently, but I couldn't seem to find it. What is going on here? Is this legit or not? I don't dismiss it out of hand of course, but the above statements make me a little suspicious, and I would have thought that a decent scientist should be skeptical of his own theory first, before claiming that something like relativity should be thrown out the window because of his findings.

The claim is that light has slowed over billions of years, so there is really no victory for creationists here, but like I say in the title, start those miraculously-found-in-a-forest watches everyone, because this will set the creationists screaming.

Autonemesis

The article is not very literate:

Oh yeah? How close to infinity did it get? Infinitely close? Or something a little less than that?

Nevertheless, Paul Davies is a well-known researcher and author. He's a staunch supporter of the strong anthropic principle, bordering on intelligent design. <a href="http://aca.mq.edu.au/pdavies.html" target="_blank">Here's</a> his home page at the <a href="http://aca.mq.edu.au/index.html" target="_blank">Australian Centre for Astrobiology</a>. There's a bibliography that ought to give you an idea of where he's coming from.

Doubting Didymus

Interesting, but I will not be committing an authority fallacy, As I simply can't find the paper anywhere, (and physics just isn't my area, anyway so it would probably fly past me, a mere biology guy )

Does anyone know where the article is? How has he measured the speed of light in the past? Also, if he is right, are we really going to throw relativity away? Why would it stop working if light has slowed? As I say, this just isn't my field.

Principia

The seminal paper by Webb that presented the experimental data is in Aug 27 2001 issue of Physical Review Letters (which you may not be able to read unless you have access to an academic institution).

<a href="http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/cwc/fsc.html" target="_blank">Here</a> is a less technical breakdown of the paper. The result by Davies' group won't appear until the Aug. 8 issue of Nature.

Coragyps

Nature, 418, pp602-603. It's online, but subscription/ pay-per view. I can't get it to come up properly right now, and likely won't understand it if I can later.... but I'll try to bring back a report.

Doubting Didymus

Thank you for that, my fine fellow.

But hang on just one cotton picking second.

You're saying that the paper hasn't even been published yet? Has there been peer review by the scientific community? What is this man doing running to the papers shouting about kicking Einstein to the pavement before his work is even reviewed? I make no allegations, but my skeptical alarm bells just keep getting louder. Has davies jumped the gun?

Doubting Didymus

Sorry, coragyps. I posted before I saw your post.

So has the scientific community reviewed this yet? do we have any comments from anyone else?

Principia

From the looks of it, scientists have had a couple of years to verify Webb's results ('99 was the first paper on the subject, I believe). Apparently Davies presented a theoretical argument that of the three fundamental constants making up the fine structure constant (Planck's, the speed of light, and the charge of an electron), that could vary over time, the speed of light would be the more likely candidate.

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

beausoleil

Since it was accepted by Nature some time back, obviously it has been peer reviewed - at least 2 scientists somewhat related to the field will have commented favourably on the paper. Nature would have issued a press release some time back with the use embargoed until the day of publication (or possibly the day before). This gives the mainstream media a chance to compile expert opinion for articles to appear on the day.

Doubting Didymus

Obviously this discovery does not have much impact on biology. What are the implications for physics? Is relativity really going to go the way of phlogisten?