The equation c = 1 / sqr ( µ0 . ε0 ) is well known, and provided that µ0 and ε0 remain constant, the value of c will be constant.

However, if we look back to the Big Bang and we assume that this equation applies from T = 0, can we also be sure that the values of µ0 and ε0 were the same values then as the steady state (or asymptotic?) values we know about today? It occurs to me that if these values started out at or very close to zero, and increased at a rate yet to be determined (and possibly including one or more step functions) , to the values we know today, then c would have started out at a value far higher than today's value, and decreased steadily in accordance with the equation.

This may go some way to explaining the inflation phase of the Universe, and also why the farthest galaxies we can observe show the largest red shift. The particles of which they are composed would have been the first to leave the fireball, so would have been travelling at a higher velocity than particles which left later. The result is red shift from the point of view of our frame of reference, because that light passes us at our "current value" of c regardless of the value of c at the time of emission of that light.

It may also be worth considering the possibility that if this variation of the nature of the space-time fabric exists, ie variations of µ0 , e0 , and therefore c , associated with the creation of those particles, then those variations may remain in that state today within their own locality. One possible conclusion is that the nature of the fabric of space-time is not constant throughout the Universe, but varies depending on the distance from the point of Creation. I have no idea how this may be tested, but I suspect that the astronomers as well as the particle physicists will have some relevant ideas about this.

I lack the philosophical capability to take these proposals any further, so any comments you are able to make to either take the idea further, or to prove it to be a non-starter, would be welcome.

All very interesting, assuming that the 'big bang theory' is a fact and not just an assumption.

The world exists because I exist. If I cease to exist, then it ceases.

Simple eh !

Royston

I would rather have full bottle in front of me, than a full frontal lobotomy

Me ead hurts and I only got to the 2nd line :)

**Fergie wrote:**

All very interesting, assuming that the 'big bang theory' is a fact and not just an assumption.

Now there's something . . .

What if there was a big bang and ......ions of years before, there had been another big bang because it had all taken .....ions of years to expand then retract, the 'outward' impetus being gradually slowed then reversed by the gravitational energy forever present and the theory being that in .....ions of years from now it will again retract and there will eventually be yet another big bang when all will start over yet again; a continuation of events with no beginning and no ending!

Goodbye to all thoughts of religion . . .

Ron

A lot of modern scientific comment on the anomalies that seem to come with the 'big bang theory' are usually accompanied by phrases like: "...at this stage we simply don't know why about 90% of the known universe seems to be missing"..... ('dark matter', for example)

So it's entirely possible that the maths that accompany the 'knowledge' acquired *so far* is way off beam.... and may be just nonsense....

The scientific community can't even agree on how many universes may or may not exist.......trying to 'fine tune' the calculations made so far is probably a waste of time.......

Most of the incomprehension is down to the limits of human intelligence.... As a species, we're simply nowhere near clever enough to understand what's *really* going on....

**rogs wrote:**

As a species, we're simply nowhere near clever enough to understand what'sreallygoing on....

But, as a species, we are the *only* ones who are *trying* to understand - and our knowledge in increasing all the time.

Of course, there are some in this world who are trying to drag the human race backward to a time when everyone believed in supernatural beings but, as education increases, so interest in religion decreases.

The spread of the internet means that that individual cleverness, as typified by Einstein, has been replaced by an interconnected cleverness (brains working together around the world) and the ability to spread ideas quickly.

How can we understand that that does not exist? There is no answer because it exists only in your mind. You created it, and when you die it dies with you.

An update following an e-mail exchange between myself and Professor Chris Lintott:

We are able to observe spectra from galaxies that existed within the first billion years of the Universe’s evolution, and can use these to test whether constants are changing However, there is no significant evidence of any change at something like the 1% level (source: e-mail of 4/11/2015 from Professor Chris Lintott).

Because of the difficulty (impossibility?) of astronomical observers being able to look back to significantly earlier than the 1 billion year mark, perhaps the theorists could come up with an equation or set of equations which describe how µ0 and e0 might increase from zero (or very close to zero), from T = zero or very close to zero. If this is possible, then it should be possible to determine how c might follow a decreasing path with respect to time.

I suspect that these values approach asymptotes, and the fact that there is only about 1% (?) difference between the 1 billion year mark and now, 13.7 billion years, suggests that we are very close to the asymptotes. It also implies that most of any increase in µ0 and e0 must have occurred before the 1 billion year mark. It further implies that the increase could not be occurring at a linear rate with respect to time, but must be following a curve which starts off near vertical at small values of T (where T is the X-axis), levelling off to an asymptote at high values of T.

If, on the other hand, we reject the idea of the type of increase that I propose, then there would be a difficulty in explaining why µ0 and e0 sprang into being at T = 0 at, or very close to, the values we an observe today.

I suggest that this subject could be for theoretical cosmologists and particle physicists to consider, with their theories tested by the observations of astronomers as far as that is possible.

The mathematics involved is far beyond my capability, so I hope that someone else with more mathematical know-how can "pick up the ball and run with it".