So it turns out the speed of light might not be constant after all

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for LauraPortinari
#1 Posted by LauraPortinari (67 posts) -
Our God is a particle???. XD http://www.catholic.org/technology/story.php?id=50261 The current laws of physics says that light travels approximately 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum. That's been a handy fact that has allowed scientists to calculate the distances to faraway objects and to conduct other research with great accuracy. However, that measurement assumes that space is a vacuum. It isn't. Space is filled with tiny subatomic particles which although extremely diffuse, can theoretically slow down light just a tiny bit. How tiny? About 50 attoseconds per square meter of crossed vacuum. An attosecond is a one quintillionth (10^-18) of a second. An attosecond is to a second what a real second of time is to 31.71 billion years. So that's not a lot of egg on the face of physics. Still, over very great distances light from distant objects could be slowed just slightly. That slowing isn't enough to impact any currently accepted theories regarding physics, but it still suggests that even the most reliable of yardsticks may be variable after all. Very minor changes to currently accepted understandings may be required, but since the changes are so slight they might not be significant, and therefore unworthy of much modification. The greatest change might be to textbooks, which will need to add a caveat that the speed of light is constant, only in a true vacuum-which space isn't. The findings must still survive peer review before that happens.
Avatar image for Rattlesnake_8
#2 Posted by Rattlesnake_8 (18452 posts) -
Interesting.
Avatar image for DirigiblePlums
#3 Posted by DirigiblePlums (142 posts) -
[QUOTE="LauraPortinari"]Our God is a particle???. XD http://www.catholic.org/technology/story.php?id=50261 The current laws of physics says that light travels approximately 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum. That's been a handy fact that has allowed scientists to calculate the distances to faraway objects and to conduct other research with great accuracy. However, that measurement assumes that space is a vacuum. It isn't. Space is filled with tiny subatomic particles which although extremely diffuse, can theoretically slow down light just a tiny bit. How tiny? About 50 attoseconds per square meter of crossed vacuum. An attosecond is a one quintillionth (10^-18) of a second. An attosecond is to a second what a real second of time is to 31.71 billion years. So that's not a lot of egg on the face of physics. Still, over very great distances light from distant objects could be slowed just slightly. That slowing isn't enough to impact any currently accepted theories regarding physics, but it still suggests that even the most reliable of yardsticks may be variable after all. Very minor changes to currently accepted understandings may be required, but since the changes are so slight they might not be significant, and therefore unworthy of much modification. The greatest change might be to textbooks, which will need to add a caveat that the speed of light is constant, only in a true vacuum-which space isn't. The findings must still survive peer review before that happens.

Ah, the most useless facts are also the most important.
Avatar image for DirigiblePlums
#4 Posted by DirigiblePlums (142 posts) -
[QUOTE="LauraPortinari"]Our God is a particle???. XD http://www.catholic.org/technology/story.php?id=50261 The current laws of physics says that light travels approximately 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum. That's been a handy fact that has allowed scientists to calculate the distances to faraway objects and to conduct other research with great accuracy. However, that measurement assumes that space is a vacuum. It isn't. Space is filled with tiny subatomic particles which although extremely diffuse, can theoretically slow down light just a tiny bit. How tiny? About 50 attoseconds per square meter of crossed vacuum. An attosecond is a one quintillionth (10^-18) of a second. An attosecond is to a second what a real second of time is to 31.71 billion years. So that's not a lot of egg on the face of physics. Still, over very great distances light from distant objects could be slowed just slightly. That slowing isn't enough to impact any currently accepted theories regarding physics, but it still suggests that even the most reliable of yardsticks may be variable after all. Very minor changes to currently accepted understandings may be required, but since the changes are so slight they might not be significant, and therefore unworthy of much modification. The greatest change might be to textbooks, which will need to add a caveat that the speed of light is constant, only in a true vacuum-which space isn't. The findings must still survive peer review before that happens.

But I don't quite understand. How could scientists overlook something as obvious as "space isn't a vacuumn."
Avatar image for MannyDelgado
#5 Posted by MannyDelgado (1187 posts) -

The greatest change might be to textbooks, which will need to add a caveat that the speed of light is constant, only in a true vacuum-which space isn't. The findings must still survive peer review before that happens. LauraPortinari
Silly. This is already a very well-known fact

Popular science reporting remains as sh*t as ever

Avatar image for GOGOGOGURT
#6 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

Light moves at different speeds through different substances.

 

Where have you been the last 100 years?

Avatar image for kuraimen
#7 Posted by kuraimen (28078 posts) -
http://www.catholic.org/technology/story.php?id=50261 http://www.catholic.org/technology http://www.catholic.org catholic
Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#8 Posted by br0kenrabbit (15094 posts) -

It's NOT slowing down the speed of light, it's slowing down the APPARENT speed.

Lets take a glass window for example. You can see through it, so that means light passes unimpeded through it, right?

Not so. What is actually happening is that the photons are being absorbed by the atoms in the glass, and then re-emitted. This is the only reason that lenses work as they do. If light passed right through it, a convex lens would give you the same distortion as a flat glass: none. Eyeglasses wouldn't work, prisms wouldn't work, fiber optic wouldn't work...

 

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
#9 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12605 posts) -
Ya know, I think this young lady (might be a G.I.R.L.) is nothing more than a spammer. She starts threads, hasn't made any replies in said threads except once, yet has a sig that advertises a pay for mentoring type system and uses that same company as her blog/profile banner. Something fishy if ya ask me.
Avatar image for playmynutz
#10 Posted by playmynutz (7876 posts) -
all i ever hear from the science channel is light travels at a constant speed. if light is a particle i wonder if you can eat it
Avatar image for coolbeans90
#11 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

OP's thread title seems a touch misleading.

Avatar image for LauraPortinari
#12 Posted by LauraPortinari (67 posts) -
I know that we already knew light isn't a constant and can be slowed by a medium. Isn't that how refraction works? hmm...
Avatar image for LauraPortinari
#13 Posted by LauraPortinari (67 posts) -

OP's thread title seems a touch misleading.

coolbeans90
"it's a breakthrough though" xd
Avatar image for Yusuke420
#14 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

I know that we already knew light isn't a constant and can be slowed by a medium. Isn't that how refraction works? hmm...LauraPortinari
Yeah but what this is talking about is that science didn't think there was anything in space to effect the travel of light. So the speed they have been using doesn't take into account these newly found particles. 

Avatar image for Nibroc420
#15 Posted by Nibroc420 (13571 posts) -

[QUOTE="LauraPortinari"] The greatest change might be to textbooks, which will need to add a caveat that the speed of light is constant, only in a true vacuum-which space isn't. The findings must still survive peer review before that happens. MannyDelgado

Silly. This is already a very well-known fact

Popular science reporting remains as sh*t as ever

This. we should note that even in the equation E=MC^2 C is "The speed to light in a vacuum" Scientists have been aware that light moves at different speeds in different mediums for quite some time..
Avatar image for Nude_Dude
#16 Posted by Nude_Dude (5372 posts) -
Brought to you by catholic online
Avatar image for comp_atkins
#17 Posted by comp_atkins (34300 posts) -
[QUOTE="DirigiblePlums"][QUOTE="LauraPortinari"]Our God is a particle???. XD http://www.catholic.org/technology/story.php?id=50261 The current laws of physics says that light travels approximately 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum. That's been a handy fact that has allowed scientists to calculate the distances to faraway objects and to conduct other research with great accuracy. However, that measurement assumes that space is a vacuum. It isn't. Space is filled with tiny subatomic particles which although extremely diffuse, can theoretically slow down light just a tiny bit. How tiny? About 50 attoseconds per square meter of crossed vacuum. An attosecond is a one quintillionth (10^-18) of a second. An attosecond is to a second what a real second of time is to 31.71 billion years. So that's not a lot of egg on the face of physics. Still, over very great distances light from distant objects could be slowed just slightly. That slowing isn't enough to impact any currently accepted theories regarding physics, but it still suggests that even the most reliable of yardsticks may be variable after all. Very minor changes to currently accepted understandings may be required, but since the changes are so slight they might not be significant, and therefore unworthy of much modification. The greatest change might be to textbooks, which will need to add a caveat that the speed of light is constant, only in a true vacuum-which space isn't. The findings must still survive peer review before that happens.

But I don't quite understand. How could scientists overlook something as obvious as "space isn't a vacuumn."

perfect vacuum, no, but a vacuum for all practical purposes...
Avatar image for MannyDelgado
#18 Posted by MannyDelgado (1187 posts) -

[QUOTE="LauraPortinari"]I know that we already knew light isn't a constant and can be slowed by a medium. Isn't that how refraction works? hmm...Yusuke420

Yeah but what this is talking about is that science didn't think there was anything in space to effect the travel of light. So the speed they have been using doesn't take into account these newly found particles. 

That's not a new discovery, either

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium

Avatar image for The_Lipscomb
#19 Posted by The_Lipscomb (2603 posts) -

Good, lets keep the scientfic research flowing.

Avatar image for coolbeans90
#20 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

I'm still trying to understand how this is news.

Avatar image for The_Lipscomb
#21 Posted by The_Lipscomb (2603 posts) -

I'm still trying to understand how this is news.

coolbeans90
Is it? Well, I'm not very informed on this subject.. So it's new to me.. I'm doing some more research on it now.. Sometimes you have to repeat things.
Avatar image for MannyDelgado
#22 Posted by MannyDelgado (1187 posts) -

Better (i.e. not completely retarded) source

Avatar image for Big_Pecks
#23 Posted by Big_Pecks (5972 posts) -

Still way over my head.

Avatar image for The_Lipscomb
#24 Posted by The_Lipscomb (2603 posts) -

Still way over my head.

Big_Pecks

That's the fun part of it.. It's so fascinating and complex.. I wish we knew so much more.

Avatar image for LauraPortinari
#25 Posted by LauraPortinari (67 posts) -

I think we all have come to a mutal agreement that the catholics are seriously behind in their facts. They just want God to exist so bad they will say anything. Religion is on its way out from all these newly found discoveries in which makes sense rather than all those stories our civilization was founded on. 

Avatar image for toast_burner
#26 Posted by toast_burner (24692 posts) -

Light moves at different speeds through different substances.

 

Where have you been the last 100 years?

GOGOGOGURT

No it doesn't

Here's a quick video that explains it nicely

Avatar image for MannyDelgado
#27 Posted by MannyDelgado (1187 posts) -

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

Light moves at different speeds through different substances.

 

Where have you been the last 100 years?

toast_burner

No it doesn't

Here's a quick video that explains it nicely

He's referring (giving him the benefit of the doubt) to the average speed, which varies by substance, whilst you're referring to the instantaneous speed

edit: By 'average speed' I mean the magnitude of the average velocity, rather than the average of the magnitude of the velocity

Avatar image for GOGOGOGURT
#28 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

Light moves at different speeds through different substances.

 

Where have you been the last 100 years?

toast_burner

No it doesn't

Here's a quick video that explains it nicely

 

I actually watched the video and it said exactly what I said. 

 

You are grasping at straws for an argument brah.

Avatar image for Zeviander
#29 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
I'm pretty sure advanced physics takes these things into consideration. It's general physics that makes the assumption for the sake of ease of calculation and teaching. I took some university astronomy classes and they very clearly said that space is not a vacuum... it's merely the ideal state to calculate distance. Black holes also ruin standard physics of light.
Avatar image for toast_burner
#30 Posted by toast_burner (24692 posts) -

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

Light moves at different speeds through different substances.

 

Where have you been the last 100 years?

GOGOGOGURT

No it doesn't

Here's a quick video that explains it nicely

 

I actually watched the video and it said exactly what I said. 

 

You are grasping at straws for an argument brah.

Light doesn't change speeds, it just takes longer to travel through some substances as it has more distance to travel. 

Avatar image for Nibroc420
#31 Posted by Nibroc420 (13571 posts) -

Light doesn't change speeds, it just takes longer to travel through some substances

toast_burner

 

Herp Derp.

Cars dont change speed, the distance between the car and it's destination simply changes.

Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
#32 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4889 posts) -

This sounds like something that's been known for like 300 years.

Light slows down and bends when going between mediums.

Avatar image for Kats_RK
#33 Posted by Kats_RK (2080 posts) -

[QUOTE="Big_Pecks"]

Still way over my head.

The_Lipscomb

That's the fun part of it.. It's so fascinating and complex.. I wish we knew so much more.

Yep but we discover little by little.

Avatar image for toast_burner
#34 Posted by toast_burner (24692 posts) -

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

Light doesn't change speeds, it just takes longer to travel through some substances

Nibroc420

 

Herp Derp.

Cars dont change speed, the distance between the car and it's destination simply changes.

What has that got to do with what I said? A car driving at 50MPH would take longer to drive a 100 mile journey than a 50 mile journey. That doesn't mean it's driving at a slower speed. 

Avatar image for DirigiblePlums
#35 Posted by DirigiblePlums (142 posts) -

[QUOTE="Big_Pecks"]

Still way over my head.

The_Lipscomb

That's the fun part of it.. It's so fascinating and complex.. I wish we knew so much more.

Even the smartest scientists deal with things that are way over their heads. The beauty of science is that it is a perpetual gold mine. And so we keep digging.
Avatar image for dramaybaz
#36 Posted by dramaybaz (6020 posts) -
It has already been known that the speed of light is not constant, it is however the speed limit. Where were you last century?