- #1
tumor
- 126
- 1
Can speed of light increase?
The connection between what we can observe and what happened in the early universe is somewhat indirect; the earliest we can 'see' is ~300,000 years after the BB (the surface of last scattering, the CMBR), and other, earlier footprints (e.g. primordial abundance of nuclides, large scale structure, ISW effect) require good models to interpret.Matrixman13 said:I've read Joao Magueijo's book...Faster Than The Speed of Light. His theory is that in early stages of the universe...the fifth dimension was "unraveled", allowing light to travel faster than the modern speed limit. As the universe cooled, the fifth dimension curled up, slowing the speed of light. I think this may have been vaguely mentioned earlier.
Phobos said:geometer - those waves bend (do not remain rigid down the line)
geometer said:Not in my experience,...
geometer said:There are some everyday things that can travel faster than light. Consider a seawall and a single water wave impinging on the wall at some angle greater than 0 with respect to the wall. The point at which the wave first impacts the wall moves down the wall with some velocity that is dependant on the wave's velocity and the angle the wave makes with the wall. As this angle approaches 0, the point of contact moves faster and faster until at 0 it can be considered to have infinite velocity.
But Nicolas Gisin claims that he has observed a group velocity faster than c, and Gisin is a very prestigious opticianThe group velocity however, which carries energy and information can absolutely never pass c, so all is compatible with relativity.
Nereid said:Think of one of those laser pointers, spinning; the 'red dot' so beloved of Hollywood action movies will move across a canvass 100 million light years away at a speed many times c. For a more 'down to Earth' example, what about the radio (or X-ray) pulse from a pulsar? We can clearly 'see' these pulses, even from 10,000 light-years away; if the pulsar is a milli-second one (let's say period 10 ms), how fast does the pulse sweep across radio telescopes on Earth?
Nereid said:Think of one of those laser pointers, spinning; the 'red dot' so beloved of Hollywood action movies will move across a canvass 100 million light years away at a speed many times c. For a more 'down to Earth' example, what about the radio (or X-ray) pulse from a pulsar? We can clearly 'see' these pulses, even from 10,000 light-years away; if the pulsar is a milli-second one (let's say period 10 ms), how fast does the pulse sweep across radio telescopes on Earth?
Let's say the laser pointer spins at 1 rps (revolution per second). At a distance of 1km from the centre of the pointer, the beam will trace a circle, [tex]\pi [/tex] km long, so the red dot moves across a circular screen 1 km in radius, at [tex]\pi [/tex] km/sec.GOD__AM said:I think that when the distance gets great enough for the "red dot" to be propagating across the surface, at near the speed of light, that it would start to be redshifted to the point that you would observe nothing. Maybe redshifted isn't the right word, but I know this "red dot" will not be observed going above c.
Nereid said:Let's say the laser pointer spins at 1 rps (revolution per second). At a distance of 1km from the centre of the pointer, the beam will trace a circle, [tex]\pi [/tex] km long, so the red dot moves across a circular screen 1 km in radius, at [tex]\pi [/tex] km/sec.
What if we set up a white screen 100 km away? 10,000 km? 1 million km? Where we set the screens up has no effect whatsoever on the laser pointer! Indeed, setting up one screen makes no difference to another screen (unless one blocks the other)!
So, why do you think the red dot wouldn't be observed going faster than c?
GOD__AM said:Well, there well be a number of photons released in one revolution. If you divide the number of photons by the circumfrence you will get a distance. As the circumfrence increases so do the distance between photons. My guess is that this will decrease the freequency.
Gonzolo said:The frequency of what? Certainly not the one related to photon energy [tex]E = hf[/tex] Why would you guess that?
The frequency of the photons your screen receives will depend on the properties of space-time between your screen and the emittor, not on the speed with which the beam traverses your receptors.GOD__AM said:From a position on the canvass looking back at the laser, if it weren't spinning, we would measure a steady freequency of photons. Now if it starts spinning at a constant rate we can measure a number of photons received during the time the light is visible. If it starts spinning faster the number of photons we measure during the time we can see the laser decreases. Isn't that a change in frequency or am I thinking wrong? Eventually the frequency will drop below 1. What do we detect then?
GOD__AM said:Yes, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used the word frequency. So what this means basically is that there is just more distance between events (photon detection). Not that anything is observed traveling faster than light. I mean if we made a strip of lights 600,000 Kilometers long and set timers to trigger the lights in sequence so that they all go off over one second, we have gotten a chain of events to happen faster than the speed of light, but nothing moved faster than the light.
Hi, I've doing some investigation today. I've found this article by Nimtz..."signal velocity", defined as the front of a square pulse. It is this that cannot exceed c.
Just to add more to your confussion (not that I want to make you suffer, but...):Just for the record, I am not convinced about vgr being able to be vgr > c.
According to the current understanding of physics, the speed of light in a vacuum is considered to be a fundamental constant and cannot be changed. This is known as the speed of light postulate, which is a key principle in Einstein's theory of relativity.
While there have been some scientific studies that have suggested the speed of light may have been different in the early universe, these findings are still highly debated and have not been confirmed. Currently, there is no conclusive evidence that the speed of light has changed in the past.
At this point in time, there is no known technology that can change the speed of light. As mentioned earlier, the speed of light is considered a fundamental constant and is deeply ingrained in our understanding of the laws of physics. It would require a major breakthrough in our understanding of the universe to develop such technology.
If the speed of light could be changed, it would have a profound impact on our understanding of the universe and the laws of physics. It could potentially open up new possibilities for space travel and communication, as well as challenge our current understanding of causality and time.
While there are ongoing studies and experiments in the field of physics, there is currently no known research specifically focused on changing the speed of light. Most scientists agree that the speed of light is a fundamental constant and any attempt to change it would require a major breakthrough in our understanding of the laws of physics.