3 ms·
> The hard part for physicists to accept is that the theory requires the speed of light to change. I'm a complete layman here, so I don't understand how the li
by daeken 11y ago
> The hard part for physicists to accept is that the theory requires the speed of light to change.
I'm a complete layman here, so I don't understand how the link you shared says that the speed of light is changing; it seems more like a change in the way we define the speed of light. Is that right?
If the actual speed of light is to change, how is that possible? We've experimentally verified it up one side and down the other, so this seems like a huuuuuge discovery.
- leblancfg 11y agoA large part of theoretical physics is getting to grips with the terminology -- not that you should imply that I'm in any way an expert. I think I'd go with the wording "it seems more like a change in the way we understand the speed of light". From that, it implies that, yes, its definition would change, but it's something much bigger! So yes, this seems like a huge discovery. Pretty much all of our understanding of relativity is based on the fact that c is, well, immutable. Changing the way we understand c means that we'll need to completely change the way we grok the last century of theoretical physics.
- lisivka 11y agoSagnac effect shows that speed of light is not constant and can be changed. [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0609222.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0609222.pdf
- empath75 11y agoSo there's c, which is essentially a conversion factor between space and time, and also happens to be the speed at which massless particles move. If photons happen to not be massless, the speed of light might change, though 'c' wouldn't have to.