Why is it that more people arent aware of the fact that the Speed of Light Has been Broken?
113572
I too would be veeerrrrry interested in seeing some evidence for this claim from a non-creationist source. I keep an eye out for this sort of thing out professional as well as personal interest and I can't recall seeing anything like it.\n\nRoger are you absolutely certan that you haven't misundertsood the phase velocity experiments of Wang? They were done around that time (published 2000 IIRC). But they never shattered the speed of light or anything like that, no  did Wang et al ever make such a claim.\n\nTo help you out Roger, folow the link below? Is that what you arehtinkng of? If so you have misunderstood the results entirely.\n\n" Wang et al. (2000), who produced a laser pulse in atomic cesium gas with a group velocity of 310+/- 5 C. In each case, the observed superluminal propagation is not at odds with causality, and is instead a consequence of classical interference between its constituent frequency components in a region of anomalous dispersion (Wang et al. 2000)."\n\nIOW the speed of light wasn't exceeded by a particle, massless or not. It was the speed of the frequency change wihtin the medium that was 300 times faster than light. Perhaps the easiest way for a layman to understand this is to imagine one of those Newton's Cradle's toys. (see link 2). \n\nWhen you let go of one ball the motion is tranferred through the two intervening balls to the other end, causing that ball to fly up. That motion is is transmitted at near enough the speed of sound. IOW when the dropped ball hits the suspended balls the motion is passed along at the speed of sound. \n\nBut, and this is important, the ball itself wasn't travelling at the speed of sound. Nor did the ball on the end fly out at Mach 1 just because the motion was tranferred at MAch 1. The motion of the drooped ball was transferred at Mach 1, but at no stage was the ball or anyhting else actually travelling at Mach 1.\n\nWang's experiments did approximately the same thing using photons rather than metal balls. By some very clever work they managed to induce a phase change within the Cesium medium. In essence the Cesium atoms became the middle balls in newtons cradle. When light  hit an atom on one side it caused a phase change that was then passed on to the next atom, then the next and so forth, all at 300*C. But it was the phase change that was moving at that speed, not photons, not even electrons, just a phase change.
592101
The negative of the Speed of Light.
1128096
If you want an answer based on the known theories or experiments... they all will fail on the very assumption of something moving at speed greater than speed of light.\n\nBut in principle.... if something like that can be done.. it would be possible if not clearly see.. but record such events.\n\nMicrowave Background Radiation (if you have ever heard off) are the signatures of what must have happened at time of birth of universe i.e. just after big bang.
842139
No.\n\nIt seems like it ought to be different, doesn't it?  But the genius of Einstein's discovery was that the speed of light is a constant, and that it is the limiting speed of the universe.  Literally everything else--even time itself--will change in order to keep the speed of light constant (approximately 186,000 miles per second).  \n\nIt is a difficult concept to get your mind around, but it's been more than 90 years since Einstein did this work, and every experiment done since then has confirmed it.\n\nGood luck!!
415410
Probably one of the main reasons is that, as our knowledge expands, we realize that the early versions of the theories were just special cases of more general theories.\n\nThe best example of this is Newtonian physics versus Einstein's Relativistic Physics.  Newtonian physics was all well and good when all we could measure were speeds that we could achieve under muscle power on earth, but once we began to be able to measure things like the speed of light, Newtonian physics was no longer able to adequately explain some features.  Along came other scientists who further modified and expanded on Newtonian physics to incorporate the new knowledge.  Einstein derived the best set of equations to explain what we knew -- his equations could both explain and predict Newtonian physics AND the relativistic physics that was being revealed.\n\nAs time passes, we will eventually find that Einstein's Relativity Theories are special cases of some even grander description of the universe.
555954
Updated 1997 by PEG.\nOriginal by Philip Gibbs 1997.\n\n\nI am driving my car at the speed of light and I turn on my headlights.  What do I see?\n\nSadly this question and all others about experiences at the speed of light do not have a definitive answer.  You cannot go at the speed of light so the question is hypothetical.  Hypothetical questions do not have definitive answers.  Only massless particles such as photons can go at the speed of light.  As a massive object approaches the speed of light the amount of energy needed to accelerate it further increases so that an infinite amount would be needed to reach the speed of light.\n\nSometimes people persist: What would the world look like in the reference frame of a photon?  What does a photon experience?  Does space contract to two dimensions at the speed of light?  Does time stop for a photon?. . .  It is really not possible to make sense of such questions and any attempt to do so is bound to lead to paradoxes.  There are no inertial reference frames in which the photon is at rest so it is hopeless to try to imagine what it would be like in one.  Photons do not have experiences.  There is no sense in saying that time stops when you go at the speed of light.  This is not a failing of the theory of relativity.  There are no inconsistencies revealed by these questions.  They just don't make sense.\n\nDespite these empty answers, nobody should feel too put down for asking such questions.  They are exactly the kind of question that Einstein often asked himself from the age of 16 until he discovered special relativity ten years later.  Einstein reported that in 1896 he thought,\n\n``If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as a spatially oscillatory electromagnetic field at rest.  However, there seems to be no such thing, whether on the basis of experience or according to Maxwell's equations.  From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest.  For how, otherwise, should the first observer know, i.e., be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion?  One sees that in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained.  Today everyone knows, of course, that all attempts to clarify this paradox satisfactorily were condemned to failure as long as the axiom of the absolute character of time, viz., of a simultaneous, unrecognizedly was anchored in the unconscious.  Clearly to recognize this axiom and its arbitrary character really implies already the solution to the problem.''\n\nIn 1905 he realised how it could be that light always goes at the same speed no matter how fast you go.  Events that are simultaneous in one reference frame will happen at different times in another that has a velocity relative to the first.  Space and time cannot be taken as absolute.  On this basis Einstein constructed the theory of special relativity, which has since been well confirmed by experiment.\n\nQuestions of relative velocity in relativity can be answered using the velocity subtraction formula v = (w - u)/(1 - wu/c2) (see relativity FAQ: velocity addition).  If you are driving at a speed u relative to me and you measure the speed of light in the same direction (w = c in my frame), the formula gives v the speed of light in your reference frame as, v = (c-u)/(1 - u/c).  For any speed u less than c this gives v = c so the speed of light is the same for you.  But if u = c the formula degenerates to zero divided by zero; a meaningless answer.\n\nIf you want to know what happens when you are driving at very nearly the speed of light, an answer can be given.  Within your car you observe no unusual effects.  You can look at yourself in your mirror which is moving with the car and you will lo
283556
The speed of light is a CONSTANT and has the symbol c in Science and is measured in meters per second.\n\nc (the speed of light) is equal to 3 times 10 to the power 9.\n\nNow 3x10*9 meters per second equals 3000000000 meters per second. (3 then nine zeroes!).\n\nc is important in physics because nothing can go faster than  c. \n\nNothing can go faster than the speed of light and as Einstein showed with the Theory of Relativity (a very important theory in physics) when an object (mass if you will) approaches c it gets bigger and bigger!! \n\nIf it gets to c then its mass will become infinite - this is impossible! An object with infinite mass! Hence it is impossible to reach the speed of light. \n\nHope this helps.
90556
Always exactly the same speed, c = 299 792 458 meters/second, no acceleration or deceleration or anything.\n\nThe *apparent* speed of light through glass is less than c, but that is because the photons (the light) bounce off all the atoms and that slows down the speed through the glass. The speed of light from one atom to the next is exactly c.\n\nAlso, sometimes you will read about experiments where the popular press version says some bunch of light has been made to faster than c, but this is just the phase speed and so isn't quite the same thing. You can't send any information faster than c with this method.\n\nThere is an apparent something that goes faster than light in what is called the EPR-effect, a wierd property of quantum mechanics often misleadingly called "quantum teleportation," but again, no information travels faster than c.\n\nThere are hypothetical particles called tachyons which *always* go faster than light - they can't go slower. But no evidence for these have been found and most physicists think they can't exist.\n\nAs for warp drives and other faster-than-light science fiction type things, that, in my opinion isn't possible. Certainly everything we know about physics and the universe now says it is impossible, and it is unlikely that any future theory will show we are so wrong now that we missed this one. Also if FTL is possible then you can have a sort of time travel, and then cause and effect get ruines and, well, its a mess.\n\nBe glad that c is absolutely the same to all observers in every situation - the universe wouldn't work without it.
10713
no, only things traveling at speeds close to the speed of light experience the distortion of time.  Light itself doesn't have mass or anything, it's an electromagnetic wave.  And even if it did, time is only distorted for the thing thats moving at the high velocities, so you wouldn't ever know it.
1158120
Wow.\n\nA few people here know what they're talking about.  A few.  Very few.\n\nMost of these responses are absolutely hilarious.  Most of them are from people trying to sound smart, in which case they do NOT.  Other cases are from kids with big imaginations, with "Anything is possible!"\n\nEinstein was brilliant, no question.  But all great scientists are capable of mistakes, and Einstein was no exception.\n\nHis theory on time travel was based on the speed of light and the "paradox" in which light travels at a fixed rate of speed.  This is true; light moves at 186,000 mps no matter what conditions are in place.\n\nHis theory's flaw is accounted to the fact that light has NO mass.  Light, in it's fixed movement, cannot be compared to any living organism (which is made up of mass) or any other object.  Any object made up of mass (for example, a human being, or any kind of lightspeed-capable rocket ship) does NOT have a fixed speed; therefore the velocity equation paradox that Einstein based his theory on does not apply to them.\n\nThis is all I want to say tonight.  Anyone who understands his theories will understand what I've said here, so think about my statements.  Let me know what you think (again, only those of you who understand what Einstein's theories were all about), as I'm no expert on relativity.  Like everyone else posting on a Yahoo answers forum about Albert Einstein and his theories on time travel, I'm just a fan.  Don't act like any of us are any more.\nEveryone else:  Please don't worry about it.\n\nAlthough I am skeptical by nature, like any smart person, it is NOT my goal to bash the idea of time travel.  After I spotted the flaw in Einstein's theory I presented it to many professionals in the field (or the few that I know, anyway) and have so far received very positive feedback.  I searched online as well and have discovered that others seem to have come up with the same idea, or similar.  Let me know what you think about the whole deal.\n\nBeing proven wrong only makes you smarter.
63744
B only seems impossible because you're looking at it from a small, everyday perspective.  Read a book on quantum phenomenon and you'll discover that particles literally appear out of no where everyday, and we take this as completely normal.  The Universe and Everything is far more sophisticated than you're giving it credit for.
641394
As weird as it sounds, the theory of relativity says that if you are in a car traveling at 200,000,000 m/s with the headlights on, then the light from those headlights will pass a person standing still at 299,792,458 m/s and not 499,792,458 m/s. And if that stationary person shines a light at your car, you will see his light approaching you at 299,792,458 m/s and not 499,792,458 m/s.\n\nThe theory is so weird that numerous scientists have done numerous experiments to test it. The most famous of these experiments is the Michelson-Morley Experiment. All experiments have confirmed that this strange prediction of relativity is true.\n\nBelieve it or not!
95460
Your thinking is correct! There's a phrase that's unfortunately left out when we read about the universe -- "observable universe." We see a galaxy 13-billion light years distant as it was 13-billion years ago. During the 13-billion years it took light from there to reach us, that galaxy has moved beyond the limits of the "observable universe." Remember, the farther away a distant galaxy is when we observe it, the faster it's rushing away.\n\nIn the case of the galaxy 13-billion light years away, it's recessional velocity is 3^11 km/sec. That's NOW. But in the 13-billion years it's taken light to get here, that same galaxy has moved another 1.2^16 light years farther away, and that puts it well beyond the limits of the "observable universe."
408049
Current estimates for the size of the universe are that it is so large that light from some parts of it that has been traveling towards us since the moment of the Big Bang still hasn't had enough time to reach us.  Furthermore, the universe is expanding rapidly enough that such light will NEVER reach us.  Therefore, no matter how advanced our telescopes become, humans will never be able to see the most remote reaches of space.
380806
Well, there are believed to be a class of unverified particles that surpass the speed of light called Tachyons.  If they move toward the object that created it then perhaps it could be true.  That's about the only way I could think to prove it since actually getting any object of study to surpass the speed of light would likely cause the big collapse and pull the entire universe on to one spot right were the object reached that speed and gain infinite mass as Einstein also theorized.\n\nOn the other hand, claiming anything as entirely impossible is foolish.  Science lives in absolutes and when thy get proven wrong, there always tons of frumpy old men in lab coats ready to restate that it was a theory though they called it a fact the day before.
25302
There isn't an easy explanation, though it isn't that hard either.  \n\nThe whole idea of special relativity is that all motion is relative to the speed of light and that nothing with mass can travel that speed.  So, in answer to your first two questions, the speed of the light in both directions is still the same as it would be if you were standining still.  \n\nWhat Einstein proved was that there are no fixed points in space, but that space and time are constantly streching and contracting to accomodate the fixed speed of light.  The important thing to understand is that distances of space and lengths of time are different depending upon your relative motion.  I hope that begins to answer your question.
1187636
Light always travels at the same speed in a vacuum, the speed changes ever so slightly when it has to go through a different medium (water e.g.) but its so fast to begin with you wouldn't really notice it. 300,000 kilometers per second is beyond human comprehension, I mean you can only imagine how fast that is, you can't experience it or 'know' it.