Were physicists all wrong about the speed of light? You might think so, given the stories posted recentlyabout a new paper suggesting that light travels a bit more slowly than the 186,000-miles-a-second figure that's familiar to generations of science geeks.
[imageeffect image=”11963″ type=”frame” css_animation=”appear”



physicists all wrong about the speed of



You might think so, given the stories posted recently about a new paper suggesting that light travels a bit

more slowly than the 186,000-miles-a-second figure that’s familiar to generations of science geeks.


paper’s author, University of Maryland, Baltimore County physicist Dr. James Franson, said his work had been “sensationalized” in some of the stories, including one

entitled “Physicist

Suggests Speed Of Light Might Be Slower Than Thought.”

And Franson isn’t the only physicist who takes a

dim view of the coverage. So does celebrated astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. 

“The speed of light has almost

mythical significance in physics,” Tyson told The Huffington Post in an email. “But to be honest, the headline in this case needs to say something like ‘New

Calculations Suggest that the Speed of Light May Be 0.0000003% Slower Than We Thought,’ which then might not have garnered any headlines at all.”

Neil deGrasse Tyson

further expressed

What is new

about my calculations is that they suggest that a gravitational field may slow light down slightly more than it does other particles, such as neutrinos.

Neutrinos have extremely small masses and they travel very nearly at the speed of light as a result. My calculations suggest that the velocity of light may be

slowed down by a few parts per billion more than the neutrinos.

In the paper, Franson argues that a“corrected” value for the speed of light might help explain a puzzle stemming from observations of a

supernova that exploded in 1987.

Following its explosion, astronomers observed photons (particles of light) and

nearly massless particles known as neutrinos streaming fromSupernova 1987a, Franson told The Huffington Post in an email, adding that photons and neutrinos have been thought to travel

at roughly the same speed. But the first photons from the supernova, which was located in a small satellite galaxy of the Milky Way known as the Large

Magellanic Cloud, were observed much later than the first neutrinos — a discrepancy that astronomers were hard pressed to explain.

Franson’s paper offers calculations suggesting a possible explanation for the anomaly, as he explained

So if we’ve been wrong

about the speed of light, it’s only by the tiniest bit. And Franson said that, in the absence of corroborating evidence, “we should be skeptical about these


Tyson, too, stressed the preliminary nature of the calculations. “If the author’s calculations are correct,” “then the speed of

light may drop measurably… If true, this would be an important result for physics.”

What’s the takeaway? Maybe this: When it comes to accepting a new

value for fastest speed in the universe, let’s take it nice and slow.

Author Profile

Donovan Crow
Donovan Crow
Web and Mobile App Technology for increasing marketing resources and increase productivity. Automation Customisation CRM ERP Solutions and interesting articles are yet other things we provide.

Sharing is caring!