The speed of light is constant, correct? My mind has a hard time believing that the light emitting from a star is the same speed as if/when that star goes supernova. That supernova “burst” does not increase the speed of light at all? I’m guessing because the photon has no mass then there is really no acceleration? Even so, my mind has trouble fathoming that. I love science.
Speed Of Light
- Thread starter SkiggyKamiggy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- speed of light supernova
SkiggyKamiggy, I think the answer is yes. The fine structure constant is used in spectrum of distant starlight and indicates c in the vacuum of space and at the star is constant, including Type I or Type II supernova. Wikipedia has more on this constant in physics. fine structure constant
Yes, the speed of light is constant - in a vacuum. But scientist have been able to slow the speed of light significantly by passing it through certain types of media. I can't remember what they used to do that.
The speed of light is constant….except when it isn’t. Over ten years ago when I joined SDC Uplink forums, my “Baptism by Fire” was my first post, Gedanken Experiment. I explained some inconsistencies I had found in comments about c, and proposed that members devise an experiment to verify the velocity of light without using anything from the Theory of Relativity. The result was that, not only did no one attempt to devise such an experiment, I was mercilessly attacked by the leading members of SDC with derisive comments and quotes from TOR. Each time I tried to get someone to try something outside of the TOR, they attacked me again. I may post a revised version of that Gedanken Experiment here.
The fact is, I had designed a foolproof experiment, but it would have required a setup on the Moon. I never revealed that because I wanted to see if anyone else independently came up with something similar. No one even tried.
Speed of Light = 1.802,614,041,067,005 MegaFurlongs/MicroFortnight
The speed of light has been measured since the 1670s, first by observations of Galilean moon eclipses and timings. The speed of c has been measured many times since then too. See this 2013 phys.org report - light-travel-time effect
Err, I think you'll find a glass lens does that quite effectively
Refractive index of a medium =speed of light in vacuum divided by speed of light in the medium . https://www.britannica.com/science/refractive-index
It was found that light could be “slowed down” in a Sodium Vapor Bose-Einstein Condensate to varying velocities depending upon how cold the vapor was, until it was literally stopped. Remember, heat is a function of the relative motion between molecules of a substance, the faster the molecules move, the hotter the substance is. Below, is a rational explanation of the observations in the Bose-Einstein condensate experiments. There may be other explanations, but none that seem to fit what we think we know about light.
When scientists slowed light down in a Bose-Einstein Condensate of sodium vapor, they discovered something very interesting. According to these scientists, they didn’t actually slow the photons down. What happened is that when the photons entered the Condensate, their patterns were transferred to the electron spins of the electrons of the molecules of the vapor. At that point the photons themselves ceased to exits as photons. The vapor was brought to near absolute zero by using lasers to slow down the molecules until all motion was stopped. In this way they trapped the patterns of the photons in the stationary molecules. As soon as they allowed the molecules to “warm up” the patterns representing the photons continued their journey through the Condensate to the other side. At that point, new photons were emitted which had the characteristics of the original photons, including frequency and direction. This also explains why light appears to “slow down” when “passing through” certain materials. Different materials transfer the patterns at a different rate.
Here is a report on slowing down c in measurement, slowing down c The report is from Jan-15 at phys.org site. However, this does not change the velocity of c as measured using the Galilean moon eclipses and transits or the velocity of c as it passes by the Sun during a total solar eclipse where stars are observed displaced according to Einstein near the Sun as their starlight passes by the Sun, measured in May 1919 total solar eclipse, other total solar eclipses since then, and also in August 2017, total solar eclipse across the USA. The quantum world is not altering the velocity of c as astronomers measure in the vacuum of space. We also have the fine structure constant and the electromagnetic force too, spectrums of remote starlight shows this as well as here on Earth.
Hmmmm.....Shape Shifters. Not really buying their claims.
AFAIK, no one has resolved the Wave-Particle Duality anomaly. It is probable that light is neither a wave nor a particle, but rather something for which we do not have a macro analogy. As such, it is illogical that anyone can determine the “shape” of a photon, let alone the “change in shape” of a photon.
Their comment that “light is supposed to speed back up to its normal constant after passing through a medium” actually supports the results of the Bose-Einstein experiments indicating that light is emitted at the boundary of the medium. Their claim that the light was slower after passing through the mask does not appear to be supported by the rest of their comments, especially since they then began referring to groups and envelope speed.
Maybe they had a little too much Scotch.
I am not sure why the quantum world is invoked to get around c as a fundamental constant in nature and space, as it seems to be in this thread and discussion. New Horizons space probe documents more than 6 hours light-time to Earth, Lunar laser ranging measurements of the distance to the Moon shows c velocity and distance to the Moon, ham radio operators bounce their signals off the Moon showing c, and the famous equation, E=MC^2 works because nuclear weapons are real and C^2 is not based upon the velocity in Bose-Einstein experiments. Unless the quantum folks can show they can slow down c and c remains at the slower rate traveling through the vacuum of space and our solar system, c remains a constant and starlight using the fine structure constant supports this too as well as communications with NASA space probes.
Also, E=MC^2 underlies the rate of nuclear reactions in the stars so if the quantum world changes and slows down c or c remains at a variable or different velocity in the universe, stellar nuclear reactions change too, so does all stellar evolution theory and H-R diagram interpretations. Playing around with c where c is no longer a fundamental constant - has huge impacts to astronomy and H-R diagrams created by computer models.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 179
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram