How does a light move in a material?  " aa=  moves in a vacuum --> captured by an atom for 10^(-8) sec  --> vacuum -> captured by an atom --> and so on. "  Is aa= true? you can say something about "10^(-8) sec" capturing time too because i dont know, i might hear about it somewhere long long ago.  Is this why the speed of light is slower than a vacuum?
9068
I know that if we solve the Maxwell equation, we will end up with the phase velocity of light being related to the permeability and the permittivity of the material. But this is not what I'm interested in - I want to go deeper than that. We know that the real speed of light is actually not changing, the decrease in speed is just apparent. Material is mostly empty, the light will still travel with $c$ in the spacing. The rare atoms will disturb the light in some way. So I am interested in how the atoms affect the light. Photon absorption-emission theory Some textbooks that I read explain it in a way kind of like this: In a material the photons are absorbed by atom and then re-emitted a short time later, then they travel a short distance to the next atom and get absorbed&amp;emitted again and so on. How quickly the atoms in a material can absorb and re-emit the photon and how dense the atoms decides the apparent speed of light in that material. So the light appears slower because it has a smaller “drift speed”. Interference theory But recently I realize an alternative explanation: Atoms respond to the light by radiating electromagnetic wave. This “new light” interferes with the “old light” in some way that results in delayed light (advanced in phase), this can easily be shown by using simple phasor diagram. Consequently effectively the light covers a smaller phase each second, which gives the impression of a lower phase velocity. However the group velocity is changing in a complicated way. I think that the first explanation does not explain the change in phase velocity of light. if we consider light travelling into a slab of negative refractive index non-dispersive material, let’s say the light is directed perpendicular to the slab. The phase velocity’s direction will be flipped, but group velocity’s direction in the material will not change. Only the second explanation can explain the flipped phase velocity direction. I guess that the velocity that we get in the first explanation is actually belongs to the group velocity. It makes sense to me that the front most of the photon stream determines the first information that the light delivers. So the question is What really cause the phase velocity of light to be decreased?  &quot;drift velocity&quot; of photons (they aren't the same photons, they are re-emitted all the time) phase difference between absorbed and emitted light something else  And also, I still don't really understand detailed explanation of the absorption-emission process for small light's wavelength (for large lambda compare to the atoms spacing, the photons will be absorbed by the phonons). The dispersion relation that we know is continuous and also some material is non-dispersive, therefore the absorption process must occur in all frequency for a certain range. So definitely it doesn't involve the atomic transition, otherwise it will be quantized. My guess is that the relevant absorption process gets smooth out by the dipole moment. What makes the spectrum continuous? EDIT: link for dispersion relation:
25883
I could understand that the definition of a second wouldn't have an uncertainty when related to the transition of the Cs atom, so it doesn't have an error because it's an absolute reference and we measure other stuff using the physical definition of a second, like atomic clocks do.  But why doesn't the speed of light have uncertainty? Isn't the speed of light something that's measured physically?  Check out that .
5991
As I learned today in school, my teacher told me that when light enters a glass slab it slows down due to the change in density and it speeds up as it goes out of the glass slab. This causes a lateral shift and the light emerges out from the point different than that from where it should have actually emerged from.  Okay so what I mean to ask is, when light enters point A on glass slab and emerges from point C why does the light speed up? Where does it get the energy it has lost when it entered the glass slab?  P.S.: Also, if I place a very very very large glass slab and make a beam of light pass through it will the light never come out as all the energy was lost in place of heat?
37464
Could someone judge my (stoner) hypothesis that the speed of light has changed over time -- i.e. as the universe has expanded in volume light has slowed down, perhaps going so far as back to the big bang when it was infinitely fast and there was no time because everything happened at once etc. Thinking that the speed at which information can propagate through the universe is linked to the size of it seems intuitive to me. My question -- is there an easy disproof of this? Would Einstein have to be wrong? Does it violate anything supposedly more fundamental such as quantum or string theories? Do any current experiments invalidate it? If not can you show me in any case why you think its unlikely.   Edit 8/24  I'm accepting Mark M.'s answer but will post this here because there is a character limit on comments  @Mark M thanks, good answer but as someone who has only read some popular physics, and should leave this to the experts, I'm still muddled in my personal theory. I don't see why you should need two units to measure the speed of light. The thing I have a hard time wrapping my head around is the relation of time and distance. They seem like they could fundamentally be the same thing. If you say time is measured fundamentally by the vibration of so and so quantum object in space... why can't we just measure that vibration distance as the constant... I'll repeat myself to try to be clear... there is a certain minimum distance that particles have to go to interact with each other... if it wasn't vibrating there wouldn't be time,its what creates the illusion of time...so instead of talking about speed or c as distance/time.... can't we simply talk about that distance a quantum object vibrates....I'll lead up to my point.....perhaps there can need be only one constant here, and that is the physical size of the universe. a tiny metal tuning fork doesn't appear to be vibrating at all but if you blew it up to the size of the empire state building the metal rods would move from window to window. perhaps as our universe expanded in size the length of that minimum vibration (perhaps infinite at point zero) would have expanded, and therefore created the illusion of time and the speed of light, which, as the universe expands, will continue slowing down. perhaps we are like a big balloon and we have been blown up and all the fields/particles-without-size are vibrating more and more in that space.. am i missing something obvious here?
14407
I read that an object at rest has such a stupendous amount of energy, $E=mc^2$ because it's effectively in motion through space-time at the speed of light and it's traveling through the time dimension of space-time at 1 second per second as time goes forward.  What troubles me here, is the fact that it is traveling through space-time at the speed of light. Why is it at the speed of light?
43352
Since electromagnetic energy is carried by photons and moves in forms of waves, does it mean that a single photon when propagating through space doesn't follow the straight path but instead always moves up and down, up and down like a wave. If so another question arises the speed of propagation of light in vacuum is fixed meaning that it will always take the same amount of time for it to travel from point A to point B, but if a photon always moves up and down it will also mean that it travels longer distance than the distance between A and B and so it ill travel faster than light propagates, is it even possible, could you please clarify these concepts for me?
112034
Speed of light may be obtained by inspecting the wave equation derived from Maxwell's equations making Lorentz transformation and special relativity necessary to mediate.  My questions are:  a) Without assuming that $\mu_0$ and $\epsilon_0$ are constant, do we have any theoretical proof that speed of light is constant?  b) Do we have any experiment in high speed condition that proves the constancy of $\mu_0$ and $\epsilon_0$?  c) Do the values of the constants depend on properties of the vacuum or frame (e.g. velocity)?
102081
Why is the speed of light defined as $299792458$ $m/s$? Why did they choose that number and no other number?  Or phrased differently:  Why is a metre $1/299792458$ of the distance light travels in a sec in a vacuum?
101388
As we know the speed of light in vacuum is constant for everyone (at least for all inertial frames), i.e., if we run away or toward a beam of light (in vacuum) the speed would be $c$. It doesn't change. But imagine a beam of light traveling in a denser medium (where the speed of light decreases), say, water. Let the speed of light in water be $s$. Suppose a fish is swimming away from that beam of light at velocity $V$. For the fish will the speed of light will be $s-V$ or $s$? Thank you for spending your precious time.
73547
How can light be called electromagnetic if it doesn't appear to be electric nor magnetic?  If I go out to the sunlight, magnets aren't affected (or don't seem to be).  And there is no transfer of electric charge/electrons (as there is in AC/DC current in space).   In particular, the  (which light is supposed to be composed of) have no electric charge (nor do they have ).   I'm looking for an explanation that can be appreciated by the average non-physicist Joe.
29313
I have just started special theory of relativity. The limiting speed known as speed of light fascinated me most. I asked my teacher:      Consider two massless objects moving in the same direction at the speed of light. What would be their relative velocity w.r.t each other?   My teacher tells me that their relative velocity would be zero. But then the speed of light is universal constant regardless of the motion of its frame of reference, so shouldn't their relative velocity be $c$? What is their relative velocity and how? Do objects moving at the speed of light obey law of addition of velocities?
61258
While the speed of light in vacuum is a universal constant ($c$), the speed at which light propagates in other materials/mediums may be less than $c$. This is obviously suggested by the fact that different materials (especially in the case of transparent ones) have a particular .  But surely, matter or even photons can be accelerated beyond this speed in a medium?  If so, what are the effects?
54513
As explained in the answers to  post, photons apparently exert a gravitational pull on other objects. It has also been explained on this site, that gravity propagates at the speed of light.  I'm wondering, though, how do you reconcile these two facts? I'm trying to imagine the gravitational field made by a photon and it seems like there are some paradoxes. For example, how can gravity propagate ahead of the photon at the speed of light, if the photon is also travelling at the speed of light? My guess is the solution is probably found in relativity, but I certainly can't figure it out.   Right now, the best I can do is to think about gravity as sound, and a photon as an object travelling at the speed of sound. Can anyone help me out?
114005
In an electromagnetic theory class, my professor introduced the concept of "action at a distance in physics". He said that:     If two charges are at some very large distance, and if any one of the charge moves, then the force associated with the charges changes instantaneously.   But according to Einstein, no information can travel faster than the speed of light.   So photons (the information carriers in electromagnetic force) cannot instantaneously deliver information.   So that we associate a field with the two charges and if any charge moves, there is a deformation in that field and this deformation travels with the speed of light and conveys the information.   If the field deformation information cannot travel more than the speed of light, how does the force instantaneously change at very large distances?
5466
Is the word "vacuum" equal to "nothing"? Imagine two charges of opposite sign, far from one another in vacuum, and moving with constant velocity - s.t. none radiates energy, none emits photons. At some time though, the course of their movement brings them closer. They begin to accelerate toward one another. How do they feel the presence of one another? During their constant movement no photons are emitted, no "information" spreads in the universe about their presence.
24386
This is not a contradiction and I know it is impossible but still consider a thought experiment by me and point out if something is wrong. See the following picture and then the explanation follows.    Rest frames are easy to understand. They are just for clarification. Lets move on to the moving frames. The velocity of the box is $0.1\ c$. Now a photon is emitted (I am not taking a light ray to avoid complication in discussion). After emission the box also moves a certain distance ahead. So the photon takes more than one second to reach the wall. But even the source moves that much distance ahead. When the light is reflected back, the source and the wall again move forward as the box is moving. But after reflection the wall has no role to play. We are concerned about the source. The source moves a certain distance ahead and therefore light takes less than one second to reach back. But the difference of the first case and the second case is not the same. To explain, I will give some equations.  Moving frame 1:  Velocity of the box: $0.1\ c = 30,000km/s$  Time taken by light to reach the wall $=\frac{330,000\ \text{km}}{300,000\ \text{kms}^{-1}}= 1.1s$  Distance moved ahead by the box from original position: $30,000\ \text{km}$  Moving frame 2:  distance moved ahead by the box from original position  $&gt;30,000\ \text{km}$ as the box also moves ahead after reflection.  let $d$ be the distance moved ahead by the box after reflection.  Time taken by light to reach the source: $\frac{270,000\ \text{km}\ -\ d}{300,000\ \text{kms}^{-1}} &lt;0.9s$  Therefore we see that this could possibly determine the absolute motion.  So in total we see that the light will take lesser time to reach the source. Please correct me if I am wrong and give your opinion why is it so.  EDIT 2 for clarification  The box is the compartment in space in which you are moving and I am calculating the time the light takes to reach back the source. I am not even adding velocities. Please correct me and tell me where did I add velocities. For clarification just let me give a simple example. Suppose person A is standing still and B is running towards a light source. Obviously he will see the light before person A even though the speed would be the same. So, what I am doing over here is not increasing the speed of light, but instead decreasing the distance to be covered by it.
103439
I've often heard that Einstein shattered the notion of absolute motion (i.e. all things move relative to one another) and that he established the speed of light as being absolute. That sounds paradoxical to me; I cannot understand how the two concepts can be reconciled.  Before going further, I'd like to say: 1) Over the years, I've seen many layman's explanations on these topics (including the nice YouTube video by Vsauce, ). I understand everything that's said (or, at least, I think I do). Just nothing I've found seems to address this apparent contradiction. 2) More recently, I've tried to find the answer on my own. That includes searching the posts on this site. Some come close (), but nothing I've been able to find seems address specifically what I'm asking.  Back to the question: Relativity shows us that there is no universal frame of reference by which to judge motion, so object A might be reckoned as moving at 10&nbsp;m/s relative to object B or as stationary relative to object C. This is fine for me. I can grasp that the universe has no intrinsic coordinate system, that we only think that way on Earth because we have the ground to move over.  Then there's the speed of light (in a vacuum). The speed of light is the ultimate "speed limit," it's often said. But if there is no universal frame of reference, how can there be any such speed? The very idea only make sense if there is a universal frame.   If one object is moving (uniformly) at 60%&nbsp;c and another object is also moving at 60%&nbsp;c, but in the exact opposite direct, then from the perspective of either one (if they could still see each other) the other would appear to violate that speed limit. All these spacetime bending consequences used to explain why nothing can move past this speed only seems to enshrine the concept that there is some ultimate speed standard. If there is only relative speed, then the concept of light having a specific speed in the vacuum should be a nonsensical one since it having speed (x m/s) would only make sense when measured against some other body.   Since I was very young, it has always sounded to me like motion is only mostly relative, that until you get close to the speed of light, the effects of an absolute frame of reference are negligible. Perhaps that there is an actual fabric of space which everything moves relative to, which is why there is something to expand between galaxies (faster than light can propagate) in the metric expansion of space. Growing up, I always thought this would just start makes sense with time. Now I'm up to a first year (college) level in physics, I even know basic calculus, yet I'm still hopelessly confused.  EDIT:  Thank you to whoever suggested this may be a duplicate of . It and others are very much related and at least partially answer my question. Unfortunately, explaining that distances become shorter and time becomes slower as a way to stop you from exceeding the speed of light does not explain how that speed is not an absolute.  By my reckoning, if all speed is relative, then no matter how fast you go light should always race away from you at the same apparent speed. I.e. there should be no speed limit. For there to be a speed which you cannot exceed or you would catch up (and make time irrelevant) requires the very concept of some external speed by which light can travel and nothing else can reach - thus my logical paradox continues unabated.