C-decay

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''c''-decay}}{{crenav}}
{{hatnote|Not to be confused with the radioactive decay of Carbon (<sub>6</sub>C) isotopes used in [[Carbon dating]].}}
'''''c''-decay theory'''<ref group=note>This is notably a lowercase ''c'', as the constant representing the speed of light in science is always given in the lowercase, even when this causes a grammatical nightmare. Such are the problems when combining scientific notation with the language the rest of us speak.</ref> is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] [[creationist]] [[cosmology]] put forward by [[cdesign proponentsists]]. It attempts to solve the [[starlight problem]] by claiming that the [[speed of light]] in a vacuum was faster in the past and has since decayed to the value we observe it to be today.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html The Decay of c-decay]</ref>

Since the development of electronic digital counters and pulsed lasers, it has been possible to measure the speed of light in the laboratory with extraordinary precision.  Even if the speed of light reached the proximity of its final value decades ago, there would be enough residual decay as the value reached its limit asymptotically for our modern apparatus to detect.  There is none, forcing the proponents of the theory to toss out the exponential decay which governs nearly every phenomenon in the universe in favor of wild trigonometric functions they found by brute force curve-fitting, without an underlying explanation of "why".  Ultimately, even many creationists have abandoned c-decay.<ref>Aardsma, Gerald A., Has the Speed of Light Decayed? May 1, 1988. https://www.icr.org/article/has-speed-light-decayed/</ref>

Keep in mind that, in order to be useful for validating an age of the universe less than 10,000 years rather than more than 10 billion years, the speed of light needs to be more than a million times faster, a difference which would be difficult to miss. We're not talking about a difference of a fraction of a percent.

== Notes about ''c'' ==
Creationists would have us believe that the speed of light is arbitrary and somehow separated from the rest of reality; however, ''c'' is not just "the speed of light." It is a universal constant which is observed as unchanging no matter who is observing it. It can be thought of as the speed which all objects fly through the four dimensions of [[spacetime]] &mdash; if you move along "space" you have less of the speed left to go through "time" and you experience the effect of time dilation. "''c''" is also used in many equations related to electromagnetic phenomena such as Maxwell's equations, and it is the fact that these equations mention ''c'' without asking what the speed is ''relative to'' as should happen in a [[relativity|relativistic]] universe that lead to the notion that ''c'' is constant for all observers. It is also a key component in [[Einstein]]'s famous ''E'' = ''mc<sup>2</sup>'' equation; in this case, if ''c'' were larger in the past, then matter would have had more unit of [[energy]] per unit of mass in the past. Spontaneously losing this energy would at least violate the law of [[conservation of energy]] in some way.

The speed of light is intimately related to two other physical constants: the vacuum permittivity ''ε''<sub>0</sub> and the vacuum permeability ''μ''<sub>0</sub>:
:<math>c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu_0\epsilon_0}}</math>
Therefore, a variation on the value of ''c'' implies variation either on ''ε''<sub>0</sub> or ''μ''<sub>0</sub> or both.  These properties of space are measured in experiments that don't even involve light, such as experiments with capacitors and magnets.

'''''c''-decay''', therefore, does not simply mean that "light travels a bit faster;" it means that the very fabric of reality would be subject to change in the temporal dimension. So believe us, anyone who postulates that "''c'' may decay" needs to understand that it has ''very serious'' and ''very far-reaching'' consequences.  One of the most far-reaching being that the speed of light changing with time implies that energy is not conserved.

And yes, you can just say God did it, pulling a miracle, but that sort of escape hatch raises its own problems.  Why stop at one miracle to get around a specific issue in an otherwise naturalistic scheme, and not just miracle everything up?  Also, wouldn't '''''c''-decay''' make God a deceiver just as in the [[Omphalos hypothesis]]?  After all, it was cooked up as an ad hoc explanation for the same naturalistic problem as Omphalos was, and for evidence '''''c''-decay''' has only older and less precise/accurate estimates of the speed of light, with no consideration of the ramifications of a change in the speed of light, as detailed above.

==''c''-decay and the fine-tuned universe==
''c''-decay may be in conflict with the argument that the fundamental constants of the universe are, and must be, [[Anthropic principle#Fine-tuned universe|fine-tuned]] for life as we know it. Indeed, the speed of light is closely related to the fine-structure constant ''α'', which may be defined as 
: <math>\alpha =\ \frac{e^2}{(4 \pi \varepsilon_0)\hbar c}\ =\ \frac{e^2 c \mu_0}{2 h} = \frac{k_\mathrm{e} e^2}{\hbar c},</math>

where:
* ''e'' is the elementary charge;
* ''ħ'' = ''h''/2π is the [[Planck's constant#Slash_aitch|reduced Planck constant]];
* ''c'' is the speed of light in vacuum;
* ''ε''<sub>0</sub> is the electric constant or permittivity of free space;
** or  µ<sub>0</sub> is the magnetic constant or permeability of free space;
** or  ''k''<sub>e</sub> is the Coulomb constant. 

J.D Barrow published in 2001 that stable matter, and therefore life and intelligent beings, could not exist if the value of ''α''  were much different. Barrow wrote that if ''α'' were to increase by 4%, "there would be a disaster... Stars would rapidly... collapse to degenerate states or black holes", while if ''α'' were 10% smaller, the "pathways to the buildup of biological elements would be blocked."<ref>page 147 in:
J.D. Barrow (2001), "Cosmology, Life, and the Anthropic Principle" ''Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences'' volume 950 number 1 (December 2001) pages 139-153. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb02133.x</ref>

==Definition of the meter==

Currently, the second is defined in terms of the frequency of the hyperfine transition in the {{wpl|cesium|cesium}} atom, and the meter is defined in terms of how far light travels in a vacuum in  1/299,792,458 of a second. {{cn}} In other words, the unit of distance depends on the speed of light and a measure of time, not on the length of some specific physical object (although it used to between 1889 and 1960). If an experiment were to indicate that it takes more cesium transitions for light to travel to a previously measured distance, then based on the definition of our measurement units, we would actually be forced to conclude that the measured distance has increased, i.e., that everything is getting larger, not that the speed of light has decreased.

Seriously, look at that fraction: we can accurately measure how far light travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second.  If the speed of light were changing, at all, we would have to change the official definition of the meter pretty frequently. Yet we aren't.

== Not to be confused with ==
*[[Carbon dating]], a scientific method for dating organic matter, based on the radioactive decay of <sup>14</sup>C.

==External links==
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRmJbP25m-Y Trigonometry disproves this]

==Notes==
<references group=note/>
==References==
{{reflist|2|90%}}

[[ru:Скорость света изменялась]]
{{crebox}}

[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Creationist claims]]
[[Category:Pseudoastronomy]]
[[Category:Pseudophysics]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]
[[Category:Starlight problem]]

Categories: Creationism, Creationist claims, Pseudoastronomy, Pseudophysics, Pseudoscience, Starlight problem