Relative relativity
Perhaps one of the most sacrosanct "truths" in the realm of science over the past century has been the constant confirmations of Einstein's theory of relativity as we've gained the technical ability to put his ideas to the test. Time and again, we've found them to be true, and a plethora of extraordinary concepts have sprung from his physics. And this apparent infallibility has made him something of a "god of physics", even though his theories aren't entirely perfect (for example if I remember correctly, there've been some problems with reconciling Einstein's relativity theory and quantum physics). But essentially, there's a kind of comforting familiarity about Einstein and his famous E=mc2.
But recent developments (brought to my attention by some very interesting articles in a magazine) have begun to nibble away at this very fundamental core of physics. A new, young physicist - Joao Magueijo - has emerged with the hypothesis that we might have a better explanation for how the universe began, if only we were willing to let go of one of the cornerstone foundations upon which Einstein's theories are based - that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant 186,282 miles per second: anywhere, anytime. In other words, that "c2" constant in E=mc2 isn't really so constant after all. In other words, the theory of relativity is...relative!
As I understand it, most traditional theorists agree on the "inflation" theory of the beginning of the universe - that between 10-37 and 10-34 seconds after the Big Bang, the universe actually exploded *again* and inflated from the size of a proton to about the size of a melon...and has been expanding ever since. The theory rests on the unproven existences of an "inflationary field" and some other antigravity particle (Star Wars alert) called an "inflaton" or something similarly ridiculous. None of these, of course, have ever been observed. Talk about a black hole in the theory.
Joao Magueijo's new theory is compelling. There's a whole load of scientific jargon used to describe his theory in the article I had to trawl through, but basically, in the simplest way I can put it, he believes that for a few moments at the beginning of time, the fantastic levels of heat in the universe made light particles move a hell of a lot faster than 186,282 miles per second - in fact, they moved at almost infinite velocities. Then, as the universe expanded and cooled, its physical properties changed. When the temperature dropped below the "critical transition value", light "froze" at the lower speeds we see today.
It's a lot to demand, isn't it? That we give up on one of the core aspects of modern science that we've always been able to absolutely count on in physics - that constant in E=mc2. I mean, there've been all manner of fantastic and audacious claims cropping up amongst physicists, such as the infinite parallel universe theory, or even that the thing we experience as the passage of time doesn't actually exist! Does nothing hold true anymore?
My MSN screen name a while ago was a lyric from a Vertical Horizon track - "The only thing that's certain is that nothing stays the same". This isn't profound cleverness on VH's part (although it is a great song) - it's actually a concept espoused by Heraclitus, a Greek philosopher, something like...2000 years ago or something (been a while since I've read Sophie's World). The only real constant, he said, is change itself. If anything, this new theory of lightspeed is at least ample proof of that. What it'll amount to, though - only time will tell.