Feeds:
Posts

## What If “c” Isn’t A Constant?

 A reasonable percentage of the general public have heard of Einstein’s formula for equating Mass with Energy (E=mc²).  Now the way I was taught this, the “c” is merely a constant representing the value of conversion – so, a little mass will equal a lot of energy. The value of the constant “c” is equal to the speed of light (commonly know as 186,000 miles per second).  So, when squared, you receive a tremendous amount of energy for a little mass. But, what happens if “c” isn’t “just” a constant?  What if “c” is an actual “thing“.  That is, what if “c” is actually equal to space AND time (or what we understand these two things to be).  What then? c² = E / m Now, we (normal folks) think of things as lines (one dimension), planes (two dimensions) and cubes (three dimensions).  Move a cube through space (meaning over some length of time) and you are starting to get a fourth dimension (space in time). Now, what is “c”?  It is the distance light travels through space in a set amount of time. Ok.  But what does this leave us with? Without high level math skills and a pretty high level of understanding of physics, I can only say, “I don’t know…” My feeling is that we are fundamentally incorrect in our current understanding of the universe.  At the moment, we (“science”) believe we come from a Big Bang.  There seems to be residual radiation all around us and this is believed to be the after-glow of creation. One problem with this understanding is that we appear to be in a universe which is growing greater (expanding) in all directions.  That is, all parts are moving apart, in all directions, and at ever accelerating rates.  Logically, if we all come from some fixed point of origin, we should all be moving away from that point equally.  This does NOT appear to be what is experimentally provable. That’s a problem because either the data doesn’t agree with the theory (and the theory is incorrect); or, the logic is incorrect (the universe isn’t expanding from a central point of origin AND the theory is still incorrect); or, there is something wrong with the way we are measuring and gathering the data (in which case the theory may or may not be correct, but we can’t tell and won’t be able to until we can come up with a valid experimental measure). Now, let’s suppose we had one or more places where mass could not exist (as we know it) because of tremendous energy forces – say for example, in a singularity (aka “A Black Hole”).  Energy can’t escape and additional mass is continuously being added.  Where is all this “stuff” going? We don’t know…  Maybe to another “universe” or a parallel dimension?  We don’t know…  But, what if it’s merely being turned into space/time?  What if deep gravity holes “create” high gravity peaks?  What if at some related, proportional distance, “new” space/time is being created and this (new space/time) is what is actually driving all of the universe apart.  The creation of this space/time would almost of necessity create “friction/vibrations” (for want of a better term) between other points of creation.  This “frictional vibration in space” is what I would use to describe something more popularly know as energy.  In turn, compressed energy becomes mass (“matter”) in space/time. Thus my little thought experiment has accounted for continuous creation of the universe (at least we now have no way to determine its age), the background energy (of the Big Bang) – it’s the “sound” of continuous creation, and what’s going on in singularities (they are converting – recycling – mass and energy into space/time). There now remain three issues (aka problems): 1) theory, a math proof – a neat equation; 2) observation, experimental proof – confirming data; and, 3) a test – a workable experiment.  As I stated, I do NOT have the math skills to propose a workable equation, nor would I really know where to start mathematically. The best I could do would be to ask: where is the background energy weak and strong?  Is there anything in either of those two types of areas?  Are “new” galaxies in or near the weak/strong points?  If yes, is there any commonality amongst them?  If no, where are new galaxies relative to the map of the background energy? And these, folks, are the musings of a blogger wondering about the universe on a Fall evening…  “Just another disturbance in the time-space continuum” .