Was Einstein Wrong About The Speed Of Light? 

OR IS IT? My vsauce sense just triggered

Who needs Einstein when you have Eobard Thawne.

One thing that is constant in our universe is change. It would make sense for there to be variances even in the speed of light. The fun part is figuring out what outlying factors could cause them .

Like this idea. I've often wondered if inflation could be explained by varying the speed of light.

Hey DNews, how can we see If our eyes aren't real?

Okay, I have a question. If the universe originally expanded to 10^26 its size in a fraction of a second (inflation theory) then wouldn't that mean that the particles were moving much faster than light?

The question in the introduction is exactly why I love humanity

I always wondered if in actuality the speed of light has been slowing down even now but to us (and the universe) speed of light is the absolute yardstick of velocity, so on a realtive scale it will just seem like the universe and the space itself is expanding.

Actually, the speed of dark has been proven to be able to be faster than that of light under certain situations and set ups. However, without those set ups, they are both equal in their measured speeds. Which, actually makes a lot of (common) sense.

Hey Julian, I came across with this paper a few weeks ago, I says that a constant (specifically, the Fine Structure Constant) isn't as constant as we thought, that it has spatial variation. This is the paper: journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.191101 Maybe you can check it out and make a video about it, it might mean that what we thought were universal constants, aren´t so.

hey stop touching yourself keep scrolling

I think it will turn out to be like the particle/wave theory; inflation/increased speed of light depending on the experiment.

I am so fortunate to be living now with all these scientific discoveries!

Nice video i love your presentation keep it up : )

Could we theoretically see back in time if we could bend light so that it has to travel longer, not like much but is it possible?

That BSB lyrics @2:06 was so subtle, the 90's would have been proud.

this new guy reminds me of john green. Awesome. Like to show support for the new dude.

Never use the word "bigly" again. Seriously, don't.

If it's a fixed speed, there should be a certain limiting factor to it or a property of Photons that we haven't discovered yet..the only way to go faster than light is to go around it. The fabric of space-time could be manipulated by warping it to move around a stationary body such as a ship, and once space-time returns to normal, the ship would have reached the point at which the warp was manipulated to. Miguel Alcubierre's warp drive proposal is very interesting and I hope it succeeds someday. Non of this would have been possible without Einstein and a few others.

I like to think of the similarities of photons and free electron movement. And how they both permeate their desired mediums. But would this also mean that electrons have a relativistic mass? Or that light could have a verifiable mass... Light seems to slow down in certain mediums. If it is due to friction... I wonder...

if anyone hasn't watched the video yet, Einstein was not wrong about the speed of light.

haha insanely biggly number. cute.

""Hi there, speedsters!" ...got to love that!

I like Julian alot! He fits this channel great, and tells things in a really nice way. *thumbs up*

I enjoy these videos

Einstein was right about the size of your ears, he said they'd be massive.

LOVED the "Flash" Intro ♡

has anyone seen the canon commercial? does anyone know the name of the song it uses

if the observable universe is 93,000,000,000 light years across why is the universe only 14.5 billion years old?

Let's hope so. Would like to see the results of whether there is life on Alpha Centuri

Well, for me, I think the speed of light is a constant, but its will be affected by the gravitational pull of a black hole: if it is sucked in there, maybe it will slow down; if it is emitted out of it, it will be faster.

I read the book the Brazilian who came up with this wrote. The problem was that he proposed no test that would indicate that the Variable Speed of Light hypothesis fit the evidence better than the cosmic inflation hypothesis.

*_HEY DNEWS!!! I GOT A QUESTION!!!_* ...How old would the Universe *_have_* to be, in order for the CMB to have actually found equilibrium the good old-fashioned way? Ignoring expansion altogether...how long would it take to see the same results?

Let's hope Einstein was wrong so that we can explore space

Cool video. Seems funny that yesterday i was learning a bit more about the inflation module and today i video about this appears on the channel.

The opening reminded me of Futurama were the Professor was talking to Cubert about the ships engines.

Well, its fun to think about but these explanations are not reflective of real physics. You have to be a bit careful about postulating whether something is possible or not when the more likely explanation is that your basis of information is flawed. That is, you don't understand the physics well enough to postulate other results. Light bouncing of atoms in e.g. glass is a good example of not understanding the physics, as others have pointed out. But also the expansion of space vs the speed of light is also fairly well known. There is no evidence whatsoever of the speed of light having ever been anything different than what it is, and huge amounts of evidence that space has been expanding for a long time simply by measuring the Doppler shift from galaxies at widely varying (by any measure) distances from us. The other thing to note is that the speed of light is not a fundamental constant of nature. It might seem that way to the lay-person, but it isn't a fundamental constant in reality. It's value can be derived from other things. For example, the speed of light can be derived from Maxwell's equations. For example, the fundamental way an electro-magnet works actually changes depending on the observer (whether you are the experimenter observing the electrons move, or you an electron observing everything else move), but has the same result which all observers agree on. In order to argue that the speed of light can have been different at various points in the past, the fundamental nature of matter and energy would also have to have been different (in ways that would be evident from observation)... but our observations of extremely distant galaxies seem to indicate that the fundamental nature of matter and energy was the same shortly after the big-bang as it is now. It gets worse. Via Einstein and the theory of relativity, space and time are inexorably linked together. In fact, it shows that all matter and energy in the universe always operates at the speed of light in SPACE-TIME. That is, not just SPACE, not just TIME, but SPACE-TIME. A fixed speed in SPACE-TIME. Never slower, never faster. Exactly one speed, period. So an object that appears to be stationary in space (relative to the observer) will also run at the maximum rate of TIME possible, again relative to the observer. but if an object is moving in space relative to the observer, that object's time appears to move more slowly. This relationship between space and time produces a constant... the speed of light. Changing the speed of light would again have enormous implications on what we would observe looking at distant galaxies. We just don't observe any differences so.... another nail in the coffin of the speed of light possibly having been different at some point in the past. This is a real problem for anyone who wants to argue that the speed of light might have been different at some point in the past. -Matt

time travel is big joke in physics..😂😂

i love the flash reference haha nicely done.

Julian, any thoughts on how we'd actually go about testing this? What instruments would we use? You mention testing this theory in the future when our instruments are good enough, but I'm curious what that might actually entail!

Anyone got that backstreet boys reference 😂

Such a bigly number! Lol

I'm liking that Futurama reference at the start

Cool nicely explained

Did he just say "bigly" ...

He said bigly. That's not a word.

Please do a follow up video of *what* limits the speed of light.

music reference yesterday and today...i like lol

didn't we already make it 300000000m/s from 299792458m/s?

bigly number?

the barry reference was ameazing. will never ever forget it

Barry setterfield has a four-part series on RU-vid that really does put all of the speculation about this question to rest. The truth of the matter is that there is only one method of measuring the speed of light that does not unanimously show a decrease, and that method is also, unfortunately, affected by the same phenomena that is affecting the speed of light, and in exact proportion, and so very few people noticed the problem; and that method is, of course, the atomic clock, by which the speed of light has been officially declared to be invariant. Numerous studies have proved, however, that the number of atomic seconds in any given orbital interval is decreasing. There is a perfectly logical and simple explanation, the mathematics of which are easily able to reproduce every single major result obtained by relativity, without inventing any strange undetectable forces or any such thing to account for any troublesome anomalies. All the anomalies that plague standard physics (such as the horizon problem and even redshift periodicity) are accounted for by factoring in the reality of one overriding force. Mr. Setterfield's series will give you a great start. These things are only mysterious in the minds of those whose foundational principles are obsolete. A major revision in physics is needed and is coming. But don't worry, E still equals MC²!

"Was Einstein Wrong About The Speed Of Light?" No.

We hear about the speed of light and that nothing is faster, but what about the speed of darkness? l=D Crazy thought here, but what if darkness is faster in a way? Like, in the beginning before the big bang and all, wasn't there darkness all over? At least that's how they do it when they show the big bang. All you see is blackness and then, boom! Something happens and you start seeing other things. So it seems that light and everything else is just inhabiting that space that darkness was already. So wherever we are or go, darkness is there. This does not mean that darkness travels super fast or anything, but it's always there. I'd be like always running, but no matter how fast you run, you never outrun your shadow.

How could this be tested? Please, I really would care to know.

Since light is moves it's ways through water in a big zag pattern could it do the same in space over long distances?

Um no. c is defined as 1/sqrt(u*e) where u is magnetic permittivity and e is electric permittivity. These are properties of materials. Obviously c changes depending on the material that it in. All this says is that the material properties of space were different a long time ago than they are now. Also this was known before einstein so...

FALSE. This is a common, but incorrect explanation of why light slows in a medium. Photons don't bounce around and take a less direct path through to the other side. If that were true, you'd see light coming out in all sorts of random directions.

Question? If you have a mass hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum and that mass starts to expel gas as a projectant than does that make the object travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum?

What confuses me about this topic is why is the horizon problem such a problem? What about the big bang says that a universe cant start homogeneous in the first place? with out the need for any time to reach thermal equilibrium. I think there are other reasons to believe inflation theory may be correct (which have slipped my mind atm) but this argument seems like a syllogism to me with out adding additional information. Thoughts? Explanations? Thanks

the part about light moving slower in a medium because it is constantly being absorbed and re-emitted is wrong. Please don't spread misinformation.

God is faster than the speed of light.

Einstein: nothing goes fasten than speed of light. Entanglement: i m about to end this man's whole career.

if an object is travelling in mach and shot a laser from it then does that mean you just boosted the speed of light with the speed of sound. sound + light is greater than light right? or I dunno

"Bigly"

Elfs are real. I am looking at one.

if nothing can moove faster than the speed of light in this universe , how can you moove foward ( increasing in speed ) while holding a flashlight or a laser in front of you ( emitting photons ), do you must add your speed to the speed of light for the photon or do the photons slow down a bit to adjust with the maximum speed of the universe ?

This is the second DNews video I've seen this week that slightly awkwardly inserted 90s pop music lyrics into the script. This is just to see if we notice?

I have to correct one mistake in the video. The reason light (seems) to move (usually) slower in materials is not that photons collide with atoms in it. For instance diamond has a refractive index of 4, so the apparent speed of visible light in diamond is the quarter of c. At the same the apparent speed of X rays in glass is *larger* than the speed of light in vacuum! This does not invalidate the proven fact that c is invariant. In reality photons travel with c even in materials. I think there's a video about this on the Sixty Symbols channel here on youtube.

for God sake someone get this dude a sandwich.

Why do we base "time" on the earth going around the sun and the spin of the earth? How would that affect a mission to Mars (if at all)?

I got a qestion. So let's imagine that you have an infinit ammount of sticks (1 m long) and you take one in your hand and start spining. Each rotation you add one more and so on and so forth. And as we all know if you speen somethink the center will move slower then the eages. At some point the stick line will be so long that one of the ends will travel at the speed of light. So what would happen if you add one more? Or N times more? How fast will one of the ends go?

There's no such thing as a true vacuum either.

Click bait

I didn't come here to care about how nerdy or cool the video host appears. I came here to be enlightened in an interesting topic in concise layman's terms without being overloaded in scientific garble. Julian did a good job and has whetted my curiosity some more. Thank you.

How would you make any particle to travel at speed C² according to Einstein's equation to make energy out of it??

Those glasses are funky looking.

loved the Flash reference !

🆒 topic loved it

"A lot of rethinking" implies the thinking stopped and has to start over. "A lot more thinking" is closer, but also assumes a finite thought process.

Love your shirt!

0:26 >Seinfeld theme plays

What about if a container that is large enough to measure the speed of light, and this container is moving in a speed of light, then you fire something inside the container at the speed of light. Does that mean that object fired inside the container will never reach the other end of the container?

Well since the meter is defined from the second and the speed of light the speed of light ought to be the same even if it isn't. The meter however... (but i'm not to sure if the definition of second is light speed indepleted)

In Futurama there was an episode about that... the professor said: "the speed of light was increased in 2208."

my theory to the microwave background is that light or any wavelength in the matter over time and distance elongate just like Soundwaves. so the "microwave" radiation is just light that has elongated over the distance. the light at the point of the microwave radiation has turned into microwave wavelengths and if we were able to compress the wavelength than we could technically see past it if done correctly.

sorry..distracted. I couldn't stop thinking about how you need to lose the mustache and keep the goatee 😅

good explation

So if I'm traveling at the speed of light and I turn my head lights on what happens?

This is like in futurama

"*hair flip* oR IS IT ?"

Bigly? I will forgive it for the nice Spaceballs reference. Ludicrous speed now!

what about a gradual decrease in the speed of light over time - possible ?

First person i ever saw whose head reminds me of a downward pointing arrow. ...That admittedly, meanly said 2:50 ...'the speed of light in a vacuum.' Good point which i'd never put any thought into before.

What about tachyon? Is it faster or slower than light????

You didn't explain the experimental result of how does speed of light stops in super cold gas? Then how is temperature affect speed of light? How speed of light is affected by gravity, ephemeral vacuum particles induce speed-of-light fluctuations, Einstein's original theory of VSL, or SN 1987 A?

There's another aspect to consider. Hopefully we're all familiar with wormhole theory. Well, the cool thing about wormholes is that they slow down and speed up time to the point where net change is = 0, or displacement of time is zero. However, these changes still occur. Time slows you you approach the centre, but it speeds up as you pass the centre. So if you travel through the middle of a wormhole in a straight line you would arrive at the other side instantaneously relative to an outside observer. Yet traveling outside of the wormhole to cover the same linear distance would take far longer. So what's causing this? Well, a wormhole is infinite (or at least extremely) dense at the centre, which means its gravity at the centre is almost impossible to imagine. And we know that gravity can slow down time... what if it also slows down light? What if light is bound to time as light could indeed travel in a vacuum at the same rate time would progress if unhindered by gravity. In essence, light could be the observable waste of the progression of time. Basically, in a gravity-deprived environment, we might be able to observe light traveling faster than Einstein calculated. Did Einstein account for the role gravity plays in limiting speed and temporal progression?

YESS THE BARRY REFRENCE

what if the speed of anything is constant but the area or distance travelling thru is changing that would mean that time is dependent on size and not velocity or speed.

What if we could make a closed tunnel in space, and in that tunnel we physically slow down light and then "hop" onto the light and finally resume its speed?