Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Phase Velocity

  1. Sep 16, 2011 #1
    When something has a phase velocity greater than the speed of light,will it travel backwards in time in one frame?
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 16, 2011 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  4. Sep 16, 2011 #3
    but relativity says that if something were to travel faster than light than in one frame it will travel backwards in time.
  5. Sep 16, 2011 #4
    Hmm, how do you conclude that?
  6. Sep 16, 2011 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    No, it doesn't. It says the normal matter cannot travel faster than light (in any frame).
  7. Sep 16, 2011 #6
    I would agree with that but do you think that that would imply that the phase does not go backwards in time in another frame?
  8. Sep 17, 2011 #7
    ive read that its like an illusion the phase velocity traveling faster than light.
  9. Sep 17, 2011 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Apparently then the problem is that you do not understand what "phase" velocity means. "Phase" velocity is a property of a wave. There is nothing with mass moving at the "phase" velocity of a wave.
  10. Sep 17, 2011 #9
    Yes, and I implied that that was not the case?

    Phase velocity can be observed, and thus it can also be observed in many frames of reference.
  11. Sep 18, 2011 #10
    The propagation of emf in a waveguide has a wave velocity greater than c.

    What does "backwards in time" mean?
  12. Sep 19, 2011 #11
    Plenty of things can be observed to be faster than speed of light. But they don't transmit information or matter.

    Consider two very very long straight rulers, both moving at uniform speed (<c of course) perpendicular to their elongated direction. The point at which they cross has speed proportional to 1/tan(theta), where theta is the angle between them. So this point can travel at any arbitrarily high speed. Just like any point of the wave front of a dispersive wave.
  13. Sep 19, 2011 #12
    Yes I am aware of that.

    Did anyone claim the contrary?

    Not every single posting with a question about relativity is designed to question its validity as some apparently seem to think.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook