Do scientists regularly check the speed of light or other constants of physics to make sure that their values always stay the same? Is it possible that the speed of light might "hiccup" occasionally or slowly change over time?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Robert Ehrlich in the physics department of George Mason University responds:

"Scientists do continually try to measure the constants of physics, but the usual motivation is to get more precise values, rather than to check whether those values have changed. If you had a technique to measure the speed of light that was no better than one that was previously used, you might not bother to make another measurement unless there were some reason to believe the previous value was in error. Moreover, if you did measure the speed of light and got an anomalous value, the odds are good that you would conclude that you had made a mistake in the measurement, rather than that the speed of light 'hiccuped' that particular day. State-of-the-art measurement techniques are extremely complex and require all sorts of checks to be sure they have been performed correctly. If in fact the constants of nature were changing, it would be very difficult to know how precise your experiment needed to be to detect such a change, unless you had some way of estimating the expected rate of change. Random, occasional hiccups in the constants almost certainly would go undetected.

"The physicist Paul A. M. Dirac once suggested that the universal gravitational constant, G, that measures the strength of attraction every particle of matter feels for every other particle was actually weakening with time, in proportion to the age of the universe since the big bang. According to Dirac's theory, the force of gravity would be only half as strong in 10 billion years as it is today. Given this specific prediction of the rate of weakening, scientists could make a specific test. The moon's distance from the earth is understood to be slowly increasing because of its tidal interaction with the earth (as tidal friction slows the rotation of the earth, the size of the moon's orbit must increase to conserve the total angular moment of the earth-moon system). If gravity were growing weaker with time, the moon would recede from the earth even faster than conventional theory predicted. Precise timing measurement of laser pulses from the earth bounced off reflectors that the Apollo astronauts left on the moon shows that the moon is indeed slowly receding but only at the expected rate, not the faster one Dirac's theory would imply.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe