Speed of Light Barrier

Thanks, cave.

There are many interesting and albeit confusing explanations here for something that can be easily explained, if you can just substitute an unknown (what is and constitutes gravity) into a "particle" or a piece of information called a "graviton", one popular theory is that these pieces of information travel (or are passed along) at the speed of light. As you move, therefore within the doppler effect you are condensing the space between the gravitons and therefore increasing your mass from the "front" of your traveling direction. Let us just say for arguments sake that each molecule of matter emits one graviton per microsecond (this graviton is actually a wave that moves in all directions. so, if you theoretically could get to the speed of light, then every microsecond your "wave" of gravitons would become larger and larger, forcing a buildup of your mass, unless only one graviton can occupy the same space, in which case, you would have to push yourself and each of the following gravitons to a speed more than that of the speed of light once or more than once a microsecond (if you were to surpass the speed of light.
any questions or corrections?

Speed of light barrier? First you are making the assumption that the speed of light is a constant - which it is not.Constant cannot be sped up or slowed down under any condition. For this reason the speed of sound is not constant as it travels faster or slower dependent on the medium through which it travels. Even that air temp. can affect sound speed.Researchers have been able to slow light to 38 mphPhysicists Slow Speed of Light – Harvard GazetteI would now submit that the speed of light is not a constant.What I do know of propulsion that the faster you go the more energy it takes and the consumption of energy is not linear. I do not think all the available universal energy could make a single shuttle craft move beyond the speed of light (which I will leave at the semi-constant of 3x10^8m/s).Furthermore if you wanted to be in such a craft and make it a livable 4G factors - it would take you hundreds of years to accelerate to anywhere near 90%SOL. And if you hit some dust along the way it would shear your little ship to bits.I assume you are trying to breech the SOL for travel purposes?

The linked article is deceiving. The experiment didn't actually make the light slow down. What happened was the photons were absorbed by the atoms and then re emitted to be absorbed by other atoms and re emitted. The particular state of the so-called "new matter" slows down the time between absorption and re-emission.Here is a simpler way at looking at this. Suppose I can run 10 miles an hour on a good day. One day, you decide to put a whole bunch of small boxes in my way in which in order to pass I have to enter them and exiting them on the other side. Obviously, the time it takes me to get to 10 miles away is considerably lengthened. Now, suppose you put obstacles in the boxes themselves. Say, you put super glue and all kinds of other shit in the boxes. These things will slow me down to a crawl.The speed of light through space remains constant. What's changed in this particular experiment is the presence of the "new matter" that slowed down the time between absorption and emission of the photons.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

So it remains A constant, but if it is presented with obstacles it can be slowed? This is intriguing because Harvard was not the first or the last university to put the brakes on light.http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../01/18/AR2007011801683.htmlWhat I am saying that in order to have a universal constant - it needs to be universally consistent. If not, then webster needs to redefine what a constant is.Again I am sensing this glass case that the speed of light being constant theory is now attached to evolutionary theory. Because if it is not constant then the light year is all jazzed up. We have no idea how fast light could move in the clear intergallactic space or even in interstellar space or interplanetary space.I would surmise that light travels slower the more junk it has to slide through. Since it is both a wave and a particle. It should move faster as it moves into less crowded areas of space.

Like Taz stated earlier, the individual photons of light always precede at c, the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s) between being absorbed and retransmitted by the atoms encountered enroute. It is this absorption and retransmission of light that is slowing down the "beam of light" not the individual photons of light themselves that are slowing down. What does the speed of light have to do with evolutionary theory?!? The speed of light through the relative vacuum of space is c. There is no issue here. It is only when light travels through atomically dense material that the speed of light (or I should more accurately state the speed of the light beam) decreases enough that it becomes noticable. It depends. The average atomic density given for interstellar space is between 0.1 and 5 atoms per cubic centimeter. This density is extremely low and only measurably affects the speed of a light beam over extremely long distances i.e. billions of light years or proceeding through relatively dense gasesous regions such as nebulae and galactic cores. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

"In the beginning, the Universe was created.

​

This has made a lot of people mad and been widely regarded as a bad idea." Douglas Adams

You're not getting this.(1) The speed of light constant, commonly referred to as C, is the actual speed of light through space.(2) The "new matter" absorbs a photon and emits a photon with delayed action. Ask yourself whether it could be the case that the photon absorbed is the same photon emitted. I don't understand what the problem is here. The universal constant of the speed of light describes it going through space. How the hell is putting obstacles in its path contradicting this constant? Might as well say you've proven the speed of light could be zero by putting a wall in it's path effectively cutting it off.Added by edit.Devil pointed out something that I wish I had. The speed of light in the experiment hasn't changed one bit. The speed of the light beam was changed. The speed of the absorbed and emitted photons between the individual atoms remained constant.That's why I said in the beginning that the article is deceiving. You have to read all the way down to the last couple paragraphs before the explained that it's not the speed of light that slowed and that it was actually the light beam that slowed.Added by edit again.By the way, I assure you that this isn't new. It's old news. It's also well known to those of us who actually care about the subject.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

You really can't define photon's in this fashion. They are not physical tangible particles of mass per se but rather are energy concentrations in relatively small regions of spacetime. They have 0 mass and therefore it really makes no sense to say whether this is the "same photon" as there is no way possible to identify one photon from the next.

---

"In the beginning, the Universe was created.

​

This has made a lot of people mad and been widely regarded as a bad idea." Douglas Adams

That was my point. He seemed to have taken my analogy about me running into boxes too literally. I wanted to provoke some thought out of him on this matter.

quote:

---

Speed of light barrier? First you are making the assumption that the speed of light is a constant - which it is not.
Constant cannot be sped up or slowed down under any condition. For this reason the speed of sound is not constant as it travels faster or slower dependent on the medium through which it travels. Even that air temp. can affect sound speed.

​

Researchers have been able to slow light to 38 mph

​

Physicists Slow Speed of Light – Harvard Gazette

​

I would now submit that the speed of light is not a constant.

---

Perhaps you are beings confused by the somewhat ambiguous terminology that we use. When we say "speed of light", we are usually being a bit sloppy. What we usually mean is "speed of light in a vacuum," which we designate by the constant c. And when we speak of the "speed of light" as constant, we always are referring to c, the speed of light in a vacuum. The speed of light in a medium (i.e. not in vacuum) is always slower than it is in vacuum.

Actually, the speed of light is always c. In a medium such as glass the photons are absorbed and re-emitted by the molecules, and the extra time this takes is responsible for the perceived lower speed. In between molecules the photons still travel at c.c is actually a measure of the fastest speed one part of the universe can influence another part. Two objects a light year apart cannot affect one another any sooner than a year. And for Tedrick's benefit, even if they're receding from one another, each will measure light from the other as traveling at c.--Percy

quote:

---

Actually, the speed of light is always c. In a medium such as glass the photons are absorbed and re-emitted by the molecules, and the extra time this takes is responsible for the perceived lower speed. In between molecules the photons still travel at c.
c is actually a measure of the fastest speed one part of the universe can influence another part. Two objects a light year apart cannot affect one another any sooner than a year. And for Tedrick's benefit, even if they're receding from one another, each will measure light from the other as traveling at c.

​

--Percy

---

Yes, you are correct when light is viewed as particles. But in experimental and applied fields of physics we often view light as waves whose speed changes according to the index of refraction of the medium. (And this is how the term was used in the article that Tedrick referenced.) To be more clear, we should probably call this an "effective" speed of light.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : Added particle/wave language.

Just in case there's anymore confusion and our words weren't clear enough, here are a couple of drawings done by moi for those who are more visually inclined. Materials copyrighted... just joking.Here is what it looks like when a photon travels through space. And here is what it looks like when a photon travels through a medium. Added by edit.The delay part happens between absorption and emission. This so-called "new matter" simply has a ridiculously slow absorption/emission rate.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Creation, I dont believe in 20th century physicist has ever claimed the speed of light is always constant. The argument is that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum and cannot be sped up past its speed in a vacuum.

c is a constant of nature. One way we establish its value is by measuring the speed of light in a vacuum. The speed of light is also the same within a medium such as glass, but it is much more difficult to measure within a medium because the distance a single photon travels is minuscule before being absorbed. See Message 148.--Percy