Faster than the speed of light

  • #101
Funny thing is that the speed of light has been observed to be slowing down.
The speed of light is calculated using atomic clocks. Scientists have observed that, in fact, either the atomic orbits are slowing down, or the speed of light is slowing down because every once in a while you have to change the calculations to accurately fit the atomic clocks. Einstein himself said that he would be surprised if the speed of light was an actual constant.

Also, neutrino is slower than the speed of light and light has a small amount of bass itself.
 
  • #102
6
0
An example to exceed c has been proposed.

A recent paper is to prove the velocity of motion V in point mechanics should be the energy flow velocity S/w (S_Poynting vector,w_energy density) of the wave theory instead of the group velocity and so on. This velocity(V or S/w) of surface electromagnetic waves in vacuum can be faster than c. It does not lead to any negative and imaginary mass(energy).
 
  • #103
30,288
6,754
Hi Mr.GaGa, welcome to PF.

Yes, there are in fact many quantities with units of speed and values > c. None of them can be used for superluminal travel or superluminal communication.
 
  • #104
epenguin
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,796
829
Funny thing is that the speed of light has been observed to be slowing down.
The speed of light is calculated using atomic clocks. Scientists have observed that, in fact, either the atomic orbits are slowing down, or the speed of light is slowing down because every once in a while you have to change the calculations to accurately fit the atomic clocks.
:surprised Is that true and accepted? Sounds like a big thing for a throwaway comment.

Anyone else?

Also it seems to me that nothing can be faster than the speed of light, although I know there was a book of that name which I have even read. Also that nothing can be slower than the speed of light. Not for physical reasons but for grammatical ones.
 
  • #105
JesseM
Science Advisor
8,496
13
:surprised Is that true and accepted? Sounds like a big thing for a throwaway comment.
No, it's a completely silly claim that Antymattar seems to have picked up from a creationist source:
With respect to the fact that measurements made after 1960 do not show any decrease in the speed of light, Walt Brown has concocted his own misinformed "explanation" based on the assumption of two different systems of time:

By way of background, scientists found that it was necessary to revise the length of a "standard" second. The standard second is equal to the number of vibrations of a cesium atom that correspond to a second based on the time required (in seconds) for the earth to orbit the sun.

The cesium atom vibration frequency is extremely constant. Scientists have constructed instruments which can count these vibrations. By assigning a specific number of vibrations to a standard second, a super-accurate clock can be constructed. However, the cesium clock must be calibrated in order to correspond to the average period of revolution of the earth around the sun. In order to make the standard second (as defined by the cesium clock) precisely equal to the length of a second based on new and more accurate astronomical measurements, it was necessary to revise the previously selected number of vibrations corresponding to the standard second. The change was extremely minute.

The CSC web site speaks of "orbital" time versus "atomic" time as if they were two different systems of time measurement. Because of the necessity to re-calibrate the cesium clock, Brown mistakenly concludes that "atomic" time is "slowing." He states: "If atomic frequencies are decreasing, then both the measured quantity (the speed of light) and the measuring tool (atomic clocks) are changing at the same rate. Naturally, no relative change would be detected, and the speed of light would be constant in atomic time-but not orbital time." Of course, this is complete nonsense.
(many creationists like the idea that light is slowing down because they want to believe the universe was created only a few thousand years ago, but this leads to the obvious problem of explaining how we can see galaxies and supernovas and such that are millions or billions of light-years away)
 
  • #106
DrGreg
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,303
960
Funny thing is that the speed of light has been observed to be slowing down.
The speed of light is calculated using atomic clocks. Scientists have observed that, in fact, either the atomic orbits are slowing down, or the speed of light is slowing down because every once in a while you have to change the calculations to accurately fit the atomic clocks.
:surprised Is that true and accepted? Sounds like a big thing for a throwaway comment.
I'm guessing that Antymattar is getting confused with the leap second which we need to occasionally add to compensate for the fact that the Earth's rotation is very gradually slowing down. The second is defined using atomic clocks, not the Earth's rotation which is no longer reliable enough for accurate timing, which is why we have to add leap seconds to compensate.

Technically it's impossible for the speed of light to slow down since 1983, when the new definition of the metre fixed the speed of light at 299,792,458 m/s precisely.
 

Related Threads on Faster than the speed of light

  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
606
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
Top