Revision explores the varying speed of light with vacuum density, indicating implications for gravitational and electromagnetic waves.
This revision sharpens where the paper sits relative to the rest of the framework, and tightens the static-structure section. The paper's results are unchanged: the speed of light varies with vacuum density as δc/c = −ε exactly at the background exponent; that variation vanishes to first order around gravitating masses, because the Painlevé-Gullstrand configuration carries no first-order density perturbation, which makes solar-system constancy of c a derived fact rather than an assumption and Cassini consistency automatic; gravitational and electromagnetic waves share one medium and one speed, giving an exact null multi-messenger lag as a structural prediction rather than a suppressed one; and lensed repeating fast radio bursts define a reachable window eight orders of magnitude below current bounds. What changed is the treatment of static vacuum density structure. The naive refractive channel through a static density well gives a refractive index equal to minus one half the general-relativistic Shapiro index of the same potential — wrong sign in both faces, early arrivals and divergent deflection. The revised section states this as an independent optical exclusion that parallels the companion paper's gravitational no-go for the static density channel, at the same amplitude and from unrelated data: time-delay cosmography already excludes the naive channel, and any static vacuum structure is bounded to a few percent of the Shapiro index. The section no longer frames this as a requirement on a particular dark-matter mechanism; it bounds the photon coupling to static structure generally, which is what the argument actually establishes. Citations to the companion gravity and cosmology papers are updated to their current titles.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boris Kulangiev (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: