Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes"

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

User avatar
Steel
Jedi Master
Posts: 1122
Joined: 2005-12-09 03:49pm
Location: Cambridge

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes"

Post by Steel »

Lord Oskuro wrote:Also, I'd like to make sure everyone is on the same page here. Light can move at less than c, all you need is to make it move through a different medium (like air). The thing is that it has a tendency to move at the fastest speed possible, and in the absolute vaccum of space, that speed is c, thus c is the fastest speed possible in the universe, and since light is the only thing we know moves that fast, is hence referred to as the speed of light.
I think that actually the light is traveling at c while in the medium, but it it just taking a less direct path in effect, and so while the time taken is less than the straight line distance divided by c, it is still traveling locally at c.
Lord Oskuro wrote:
Kanastrous wrote:I heard on some physics-for-dummies program that while there is a postulated limit to the speed with which light can travel, there is no such limitation upon how fast space can expand.
There is: c
Not so. In fact the universe has been observed to be expanding everywhere, so that about a given point the speed of recession of another point is proportional (by hubbles constant, H) to the distance between them, v = Hx. This means that you see me moving away from you and i see you moving away from me and we both see the point between us moving away from ourselves. The edge of the visible universe is the point where the recession velocity is c, beyond that we cant see anything. Obviously if you live over there you can see another horizon further, but you cant see back past the place where we live as beyond there again the universe is receding from you at c.
Apparently nobody can see you without a signature.
User avatar
Zixinus
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6663
Joined: 2007-06-19 12:48pm
Location: In Seth the Blitzspear
Contact:

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes"

Post by Zixinus »

You really have to wonder who are the people writing this and whether they resent this job.

I mean seriously, what the hell is going with this?

Allow me to give an example: with gun nuts who write gun magazines, they do it because they either know what they're writing about or just love guns for one reason or another. They understand guns because they use them, if at no where else but at the firing range to show off. Your mileage may vary, but in the end you get something that's remotely worthwhile. The same is true for ANY magazine, let it be about cars, houses, furniture, fashion, etc. They write because they know some.

These people? They don't know shit. They got the speed of light wrong and show that they are completely ignorant of how science works. So they just use "popular science" (that requires no learning or effort) to write about stuff they heard about and try to give the impression that science is a dick-waving competition where the most "brilliant" guy wins.

I can't help but imagine some downtrodden hack journalist landing a job at this kind of website and writing shit like this to give a semblance of work so they won't get fired.

What's with "Big Science" anyway? I know that the scientific community is not perfect, but try to show it here as some kind of Mafia carter. Sure, they is likely space for stupidity and bullshit, but its a relatively dick-free field of work as far as the actual science is concerned.
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
User avatar
wautd
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7588
Joined: 2004-02-11 10:11am
Location: Intensive care

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes"

Post by wautd »

Natorgator wrote:From The Daily Galaxy:
Like most radical, potentially seminal thinkers, Magueijo shakes the foundations of the physics community, while irritating off many of his fellow scientists.
5 bucks the "Expelled"-cultists will love the sound of this article
User avatar
Oskuro
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2698
Joined: 2005-05-25 06:10am
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes"

Post by Oskuro »

Steel wrote:I think that actually the light is traveling at c while in the medium, but it it just taking a less direct path in effect, and so while the time taken is less than the straight line distance divided by c, it is still traveling locally at c.
Ok, I had a bit of a mixup there. From what I've read, light moves at c between particles of a given medium, but the apparent slowdown of the beam is due to the energy spent on collisions with particles.
Steel wrote: Not so. In fact the universe has been observed to be expanding everywhere, so that about a given point the speed of recession of another point is proportional (by hubbles constant, H) to the distance between them, v = Hx. <snip>
Yeah, my bad again. What has been calculated to move at precisely c is space distortions, such as those caused by gravity, I kind of assumed it applied to the expansion of space. Now I'll have to study the subject a bit, are you happy? :wink:


As for my previous comment regarding how the theory made me think of creationist theories, I was just commenting on my reaction to it, not on the actual theory being a veiled attempt at helping creationism. Hence the smiley. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
unsigned
Kanastrous
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6464
Joined: 2007-09-14 11:46pm
Location: SoCal

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes"

Post by Kanastrous »

LordOskuro wrote: Ok, I had a bit of a mixup there. From what I've read, light moves at c between particles of a given medium, but the apparent slowdown of the beam is due to the energy spent on collisions with particles.
Couldn't it simply be because the light must take a longer path? Traversing a longer distance takes more time, regardless of interactions with other particles along the way...
I find myself endlessly fascinated by your career - Stark, in a fit of Nerd-Validation, November 3, 2011
User avatar
Mad
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2002-07-04 01:32am
Location: North Carolina, USA
Contact:

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes"

Post by Mad »

LordOskuro wrote:Ok, I had a bit of a mixup there. From what I've read, light moves at c between particles of a given medium, but the apparent slowdown of the beam is due to the energy spent on collisions with particles.
Losing energy would would change the wavelength, not the speed.

My understanding is that the photons are being absorbed and re-emitted after a short delay.
Later...
User avatar
Serafina
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5246
Joined: 2009-01-07 05:37pm
Location: Germany

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes"

Post by Serafina »

Afaik, it works somehow like this:

A photon may hit an electron, elevating its energy. Very, very short time later, the electron loses that energy, releasing another photon. Virtually no energy is lost.
The light is only slower on average: The more photons are blocked, the slower the light (not the photons themself, they always travel at c).
Of course, this is an layman-explanation.

This "average speed of light" is no upper limit - c is.
There is a common effect that occurs when particles exeed the "average speed of light": Cherenkov-radiation (wiki-link).
SoS:NBA GALE Force
"Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent." - Sir Nitram
"The world owes you nothing but painful lessons" - CaptainChewbacca
"The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." - Wilhelm Stekel
"In 1969 it was easier to send a man to the Moon than to have the public accept a homosexual" - Broomstick

Divine Administration - of Gods and Bureaucracy (Worm/Exalted)
User avatar
starslayer
Jedi Knight
Posts: 731
Joined: 2008-04-04 08:40pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes"

Post by starslayer »

The last few posters got the gist of how light travels through dense media. Here's the full picture: When a light wave (really, billions upon billions of photons) encounters a dense medium, it strikes the atoms that make it up. Usually, a photon will hit one of the electrons orbiting the nucleus. This causes the electron to gain energy equivalent to that of the photon's. About 10^-8 seconds later, on average, the electron emits a photon of approximately the same energy in a random direction. So what you get, in essence, are a bunch of sources of spherical waves, as each atom is being struck by millions of photons a second, and is emitting new ones in random directions. This would seem to violate conservation of energy, but it doesn't. The beam is partially absorbed as it travels through the medium; backscatter isn't observed because the photons that aren't emitted in the original direction of the beam are, on average, out of phase and destructively interfere, so almost no energy is transmitted backwards or to the sides. The only portion that's in phase, and thus visible, is the portion that travels with the direction of the beam.

Anyway, photons can only exist at c, yet we can easily verify that light waves travel more slowly through dense media. The key is that time delay I mentioned earlier. Because each individual photon that makes up the beam is essentially now doing a random walk, and has a 10^-8 s delay at each "turn", the beam appears to slow down.

There is also no "average speed of light." c is the speed of a photon, period. They never slow down, and never speed up; they are only absorbed and emitted. If Magueijo is right, what I just said is still right; it's c that's changing, I presume (I haven't seen his actual papers, so I could be completely wrong here).
User avatar
Serafina
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5246
Joined: 2009-01-07 05:37pm
Location: Germany

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes"

Post by Serafina »

Well, my term "average speed of light" refered to the speed of light that we observe - not the speed of individual photons. Its "how long does it take until i can see it".
Yes, i made the term up - there may be a proper scientific term, but i do not know it.

Due to individual photons being stopped (by hitting electrons), they need more time to reach their destintion (for the sake of observation).
If 1 in 10 photons is stopped for 10^-8 seconds, once, on ~300.000 kilometers (one light-second, 299.792 km), each photon needs 1.000000001 seconds on average to reach point B.
If each photon is stopped 100.000 times, they need 1.01 seconds to reach c (on average). The "average speed of light" is now slower than c.

I hope this explains what i mean by "average speed of light". Kinda the speed of the light"wave", not the photon.
SoS:NBA GALE Force
"Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent." - Sir Nitram
"The world owes you nothing but painful lessons" - CaptainChewbacca
"The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." - Wilhelm Stekel
"In 1969 it was easier to send a man to the Moon than to have the public accept a homosexual" - Broomstick

Divine Administration - of Gods and Bureaucracy (Worm/Exalted)
User avatar
starslayer
Jedi Knight
Posts: 731
Joined: 2008-04-04 08:40pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes"

Post by starslayer »

You're looking for the group velocity, there. It's a concept common to all waves.
User avatar
HMS Vanguard
Redshirt
Posts: 24
Joined: 2009-01-06 12:01pm

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes"

Post by HMS Vanguard »

This isn't actually news, and isn't set to somehow disprove Einsteinian relativity either. Here is a much better article on it - http://ldolphin.org/dethrone.html Despite putting the Einstein dethroning thing in the title (groan, why do journalists seem so prone to repeating one anothers' buzz-words?) this sort of nonsense isn't in the text and it actually gives a fairly decent account of why this might be a sensible idea.
User avatar
Serafina
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5246
Joined: 2009-01-07 05:37pm
Location: Germany

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes"

Post by Serafina »

starslayer wrote:You're looking for the group velocity, there. It's a concept common to all waves.
Thank you, thats the term i meant.
SoS:NBA GALE Force
"Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent." - Sir Nitram
"The world owes you nothing but painful lessons" - CaptainChewbacca
"The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." - Wilhelm Stekel
"In 1969 it was easier to send a man to the Moon than to have the public accept a homosexual" - Broomstick

Divine Administration - of Gods and Bureaucracy (Worm/Exalted)
User avatar
Oskuro
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2698
Joined: 2005-05-25 06:10am
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes"

Post by Oskuro »

<snip of photon-particle interaction>
So, the actual explanation is... Quantum!

Sorry, I just began reading the introductory chapters to quantum theory from The Elegant Universe, and I kind of understand why Star Trek blames Quantum for all the inconsistencies in their physics.

As for VSL, if c is a feature of the universe's "architecture", it stands to reason that if said architecture varies over time, c might have changed too. Of course that's just a layman observation, there isn't much to say without some math and a few verifiable predictions.
unsigned
User avatar
Serafina
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5246
Joined: 2009-01-07 05:37pm
Location: Germany

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes"

Post by Serafina »

Changing pysical laws are ridiculous - unless we are talking about the early life of the universe (after the Big Bang).
While i can not say what a change in c would mean for stars, planets, galaxys and life, i am pretty sure that it would influence other physical laws - and a change in one of those would mess everything up.
SoS:NBA GALE Force
"Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent." - Sir Nitram
"The world owes you nothing but painful lessons" - CaptainChewbacca
"The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." - Wilhelm Stekel
"In 1969 it was easier to send a man to the Moon than to have the public accept a homosexual" - Broomstick

Divine Administration - of Gods and Bureaucracy (Worm/Exalted)
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29211
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes"

Post by General Zod »

Oberst Tharnow wrote:Changing pysical laws are ridiculous - unless we are talking about the early life of the universe (after the Big Bang).
While i can not say what a change in c would mean for stars, planets, galaxys and life, i am pretty sure that it would influence other physical laws - and a change in one of those would mess everything up.
I don't see why that's necessarily a bad thing. If new material comes along to legitimately change existing laws and peer review winds up concluding it's accurate, then things should be updated in order to accommodate it.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
User avatar
Serafina
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5246
Joined: 2009-01-07 05:37pm
Location: Germany

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes"

Post by Serafina »

No, i was talking about the "laws of physics themself" changing, not the stuff we know about them.
Gravitiy works, no matter how we perceive it. Simply stating "gravity works different as we thought" is not what i meant. More like "gravity now behaves different than 10 years ago".

Assuming that the laws of physics changed, such as c getting bigger or smaller or weak nuclear forces dissipating, or the first law of thermodynamics no longer appling IS ridiculous. At least if we are not talking about the time shortly after the Big Bang, where they propably DID. But if they would be changing TODAY (or over the last millions of years) life and the universe as we know it could propably not exist.
SoS:NBA GALE Force
"Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent." - Sir Nitram
"The world owes you nothing but painful lessons" - CaptainChewbacca
"The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." - Wilhelm Stekel
"In 1969 it was easier to send a man to the Moon than to have the public accept a homosexual" - Broomstick

Divine Administration - of Gods and Bureaucracy (Worm/Exalted)
User avatar
Fingolfin_Noldor
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11834
Joined: 2006-05-15 10:36am
Location: At the Helm of the HAB Star Dreadnaught Star Fist

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes"

Post by Fingolfin_Noldor »

Oberst Tharnow wrote:Assuming that the laws of physics changed, such as c getting bigger or smaller or weak nuclear forces dissipating, or the first law of thermodynamics no longer appling IS ridiculous. At least if we are not talking about the time shortly after the Big Bang, where they propably DID. But if they would be changing TODAY (or over the last millions of years) life and the universe as we know it could propably not exist.
If C is different, it's not so much that the "Laws of Physics" get changed, but rather, many other physical constants will be affected. There are very few instances where "Laws of Physics" might be challenged and for the most part theories need to be symmetric; be true in all coordinate spaces etc. etc.
starslayer wrote:The last few posters got the gist of how light travels through dense media. Here's the full picture: When a light wave (really, billions upon billions of photons) encounters a dense medium, it strikes the atoms that make it up. Usually, a photon will hit one of the electrons orbiting the nucleus. This causes the electron to gain energy equivalent to that of the photon's. About 10^-8 seconds later, on average, the electron emits a photon of approximately the same energy in a random direction. So what you get, in essence, are a bunch of sources of spherical waves, as each atom is being struck by millions of photons a second, and is emitting new ones in random directions. This would seem to violate conservation of energy, but it doesn't. The beam is partially absorbed as it travels through the medium; backscatter isn't observed because the photons that aren't emitted in the original direction of the beam are, on average, out of phase and destructively interfere, so almost no energy is transmitted backwards or to the sides. The only portion that's in phase, and thus visible, is the portion that travels with the direction of the beam.

Anyway, photons can only exist at c, yet we can easily verify that light waves travel more slowly through dense media. The key is that time delay I mentioned earlier. Because each individual photon that makes up the beam is essentially now doing a random walk, and has a 10^-8 s delay at each "turn", the beam appears to slow down.

There is also no "average speed of light." c is the speed of a photon, period. They never slow down, and never speed up; they are only absorbed and emitted. If Magueijo is right, what I just said is still right; it's c that's changing, I presume (I haven't seen his actual papers, so I could be completely wrong here).
There are actually a number of factors that come into play, not least dispersive effects such as phonon energy, multi-wave mixing etc.
Image
STGOD: Byzantine Empire
Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29211
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes"

Post by General Zod »

Oberst Tharnow wrote:No, i was talking about the "laws of physics themself" changing, not the stuff we know about them.
Gravitiy works, no matter how we perceive it. Simply stating "gravity works different as we thought" is not what i meant. More like "gravity now behaves different than 10 years ago".

Assuming that the laws of physics changed, such as c getting bigger or smaller or weak nuclear forces dissipating, or the first law of thermodynamics no longer appling IS ridiculous. At least if we are not talking about the time shortly after the Big Bang, where they propably DID. But if they would be changing TODAY (or over the last millions of years) life and the universe as we know it could propably not exist.
. . . .physical laws don't work that way, or they'd be utterly useless in applied science. If things did change at random like that in a measurable fashion then our explanations would have to be adjusted to accommodate for it.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
User avatar
Serafina
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5246
Joined: 2009-01-07 05:37pm
Location: Germany

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes"

Post by Serafina »

General Zod wrote:
. . . .physical laws don't work that way, or they'd be utterly useless in applied science. If things did change at random like that in a measurable fashion then our explanations would have to be adjusted to accommodate for it.
Yeah, thats what i am saying: It is madness to assume they DO change.
SoS:NBA GALE Force
"Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent." - Sir Nitram
"The world owes you nothing but painful lessons" - CaptainChewbacca
"The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." - Wilhelm Stekel
"In 1969 it was easier to send a man to the Moon than to have the public accept a homosexual" - Broomstick

Divine Administration - of Gods and Bureaucracy (Worm/Exalted)
User avatar
Surlethe
HATES GRADING
Posts: 12267
Joined: 2004-12-29 03:41pm

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes"

Post by Surlethe »

Oberst Tharnow wrote:No, i was talking about the "laws of physics themself" changing, not the stuff we know about them.
Gravitiy works, no matter how we perceive it. Simply stating "gravity works different as we thought" is not what i meant. More like "gravity now behaves different than 10 years ago".

Assuming that the laws of physics changed, such as c getting bigger or smaller or weak nuclear forces dissipating, or the first law of thermodynamics no longer appling IS ridiculous. At least if we are not talking about the time shortly after the Big Bang, where they propably DID. But if they would be changing TODAY (or over the last millions of years) life and the universe as we know it could propably not exist.
As a practical matter, you're probably correct. As a matter of principle, though, I disagree: if physical laws changed over time, then they would probably do so in a consistent and measurable fashion, which means that we would be able to find a new set of laws governing them that don't change. For instance, your attitude applied at the end of the nineteenth century might be incredulous at the discovery of radioactive transmutation. But in fact it occurs, and it occurs in a consistent and measurable fashion.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
Post Reply