Constants in Science: Are they really constant?
by Owen Borville
July 22, 2024
Physics, Chemistry, Science
A constant in science is a factor that does not change during an experiment. A constant can be measured and cannot be altered, at least under known conditions in a system, such as the known universe or on Earth.
Constants are important in science because the help determine other factors that change. Such as when the constant factor is measured and other factors are measured to change value, then scientists can determine which factor changed.
If the constant changed value, than it would be difficult to determine which factor in an experiment changed.
Commonly used constants in science include: the speed of light in a vacuum c, the gravitational constant G, the Planck constant h, the electric constant ε0, and the elementary charge e.
However, in an experiment, there are conditions that could change, such as the temperature, heat, pressure, radiation level, or energy level.
We believe that we know the these particular conditions because we could measure them in the environment in which we live or the environment in which the particular experiment is located.
However, when we are talking about past events, or things that happened in the distant past, we can only assume that the conditions are the same as they are now. However, the particular conditions in the past may not have been the same.
In regards to cosmology and astronomy, much discussion has been made about the speed of light, which virtually all scientists believe is constant in our universe.
However, there is a major issue with the speed of light in our universe in regards to the origin of the universe.
Current calculations by astronomers have indicated that in order for light to have travelled as much or as far as it has in the universe, the light must have travelled faster than the speed of light during the very origin of our universe, during the proposed "Big Bang Theory" to account for the unexplained inflation observation or "horizon problem."
Of course, light travelling faster than the speed of light would be impossible according to our known physics of today.
Therefore, I propose that a unique event happened during the formation of the universe where light and the universe was made to stretch out faster than the speed of light for a relatively short time, so that the universe could exist as it exists or as it is observed today.
This event where the universe was stretched out faster than the speed of light was soon after the formation of the universe but after the formation of the universe.
This proposed stretching event is not happening today, and therefore this event cannot be factored into the theories of uniformitarianism, where the presently observed processes are the same processes that happened throughout history.
Also, considering physicist Albert Einstein's theories of special and general relativity, the speed of light may not be constant in all reference frames.
In addition, the speed of light is only constant to our knowledge as measured in a vacuum under known conditions.
The speed of light as measured through other mediums like air, glass, liquid water, or other substance is usually slower. Was light always travelling through a vacuum? Or was there some other medium, event, or process that light travelled through that could dramatically increase the speed of light?
Also, could light travel faster at different frequencies, if light is converted to a different frequency? If light can behave as a wave or a particle, according to the theory of wave-particle duality proposed in the 20th century, we know that light can be converted to different forms and act differently under different conditions.
Therefore, since we do not know the original conditions during the formation of the universe, light could have travelled faster than the currently measured speed of light in a vacuum to account for the rapid inflation during the early stages of the universe formation.
So most scientists today will not accept this theory, however, creationists and intelligent design proponents will consider this theory.
Radioisotope Decay Rate Constant
In addition, another constant that I have a similar theory regarding the nature of scientific constants is the radioactive isotope decay rate, which is considered to be constant for a particular isotope of an element as measured on earth and in the universe in laboratories.
However, we do not know the initial conditions of original sample parent material, or the amount of the parent material, to determine if the count of parent material or daughter material has decayed at the same rate as always on earth and in the universe.
In other words, there could have been some unknown conditions in the past that could rapidly speed up the radioactive decay rate of a particular isotope of a particular element.
Unknown conditions such as temperature, pressure, radioactive material or energy, some unknown chemical or physical process or event could have rapidly increased the decay rate in a particular isotope of a radioactive element in the Earth's crust so that a sample of this isotope would show a decay rate much slower that what actually happened in the past.
This is why I believe that fossils and rocks on earth, when measured for age using radio-isotope dating methods, usually show ages much higher than the actual ages.
Newly formed volcanic rocks on earth have been tested in a laboratory and showed ages in the millions of years-rocks that had just formed from a recent volcanic event only a few years ago within recorded human history.
A dramatic event in the past could have intensely increased the temperature and pressure of rocks and fossils underneath the subsurface and cause radioisotope measurements to show ages much higher than the actual age.
https://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all
https://medium.com/@thisscience1/the-speed-of-light-is-not-constant-cf551b5acf46#:~:text=Special%20relativity%20assumes%20that%20the,in%20a%20non%20inertial%20frame.
by Owen Borville
July 22, 2024
Physics, Chemistry, Science
A constant in science is a factor that does not change during an experiment. A constant can be measured and cannot be altered, at least under known conditions in a system, such as the known universe or on Earth.
Constants are important in science because the help determine other factors that change. Such as when the constant factor is measured and other factors are measured to change value, then scientists can determine which factor changed.
If the constant changed value, than it would be difficult to determine which factor in an experiment changed.
Commonly used constants in science include: the speed of light in a vacuum c, the gravitational constant G, the Planck constant h, the electric constant ε0, and the elementary charge e.
However, in an experiment, there are conditions that could change, such as the temperature, heat, pressure, radiation level, or energy level.
We believe that we know the these particular conditions because we could measure them in the environment in which we live or the environment in which the particular experiment is located.
However, when we are talking about past events, or things that happened in the distant past, we can only assume that the conditions are the same as they are now. However, the particular conditions in the past may not have been the same.
In regards to cosmology and astronomy, much discussion has been made about the speed of light, which virtually all scientists believe is constant in our universe.
However, there is a major issue with the speed of light in our universe in regards to the origin of the universe.
Current calculations by astronomers have indicated that in order for light to have travelled as much or as far as it has in the universe, the light must have travelled faster than the speed of light during the very origin of our universe, during the proposed "Big Bang Theory" to account for the unexplained inflation observation or "horizon problem."
Of course, light travelling faster than the speed of light would be impossible according to our known physics of today.
Therefore, I propose that a unique event happened during the formation of the universe where light and the universe was made to stretch out faster than the speed of light for a relatively short time, so that the universe could exist as it exists or as it is observed today.
This event where the universe was stretched out faster than the speed of light was soon after the formation of the universe but after the formation of the universe.
This proposed stretching event is not happening today, and therefore this event cannot be factored into the theories of uniformitarianism, where the presently observed processes are the same processes that happened throughout history.
Also, considering physicist Albert Einstein's theories of special and general relativity, the speed of light may not be constant in all reference frames.
In addition, the speed of light is only constant to our knowledge as measured in a vacuum under known conditions.
The speed of light as measured through other mediums like air, glass, liquid water, or other substance is usually slower. Was light always travelling through a vacuum? Or was there some other medium, event, or process that light travelled through that could dramatically increase the speed of light?
Also, could light travel faster at different frequencies, if light is converted to a different frequency? If light can behave as a wave or a particle, according to the theory of wave-particle duality proposed in the 20th century, we know that light can be converted to different forms and act differently under different conditions.
Therefore, since we do not know the original conditions during the formation of the universe, light could have travelled faster than the currently measured speed of light in a vacuum to account for the rapid inflation during the early stages of the universe formation.
So most scientists today will not accept this theory, however, creationists and intelligent design proponents will consider this theory.
Radioisotope Decay Rate Constant
In addition, another constant that I have a similar theory regarding the nature of scientific constants is the radioactive isotope decay rate, which is considered to be constant for a particular isotope of an element as measured on earth and in the universe in laboratories.
However, we do not know the initial conditions of original sample parent material, or the amount of the parent material, to determine if the count of parent material or daughter material has decayed at the same rate as always on earth and in the universe.
In other words, there could have been some unknown conditions in the past that could rapidly speed up the radioactive decay rate of a particular isotope of a particular element.
Unknown conditions such as temperature, pressure, radioactive material or energy, some unknown chemical or physical process or event could have rapidly increased the decay rate in a particular isotope of a radioactive element in the Earth's crust so that a sample of this isotope would show a decay rate much slower that what actually happened in the past.
This is why I believe that fossils and rocks on earth, when measured for age using radio-isotope dating methods, usually show ages much higher than the actual ages.
Newly formed volcanic rocks on earth have been tested in a laboratory and showed ages in the millions of years-rocks that had just formed from a recent volcanic event only a few years ago within recorded human history.
A dramatic event in the past could have intensely increased the temperature and pressure of rocks and fossils underneath the subsurface and cause radioisotope measurements to show ages much higher than the actual age.
https://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all
https://medium.com/@thisscience1/the-speed-of-light-is-not-constant-cf551b5acf46#:~:text=Special%20relativity%20assumes%20that%20the,in%20a%20non%20inertial%20frame.