Is there anything besides photons that travels at the speed of light?

>>7798110
neutrinos

gravity waves
propagation
entropy

Literally everything relative to the universe is traveling the speed of light.

Only massless particles can travel at the speed of light. That means:

photons
gluons
gravitons

>>7798111
>>7798113
>>7798119

No.

>>7798119
What does relative to the universe mean?

>>7798129
No? Everything is always going at the speed of light. It's impossible for it not to.

>>7798135

Stop.

>>7798110
Ur mums weight increment

>>7798145
I measured the speed of the universe's expansion to be at the speed of light. Since the universe is everything then we can deduce everything is moving at the speed of the expansion of the universe--the speed of light. QED

>>7798152
>I measured the speed of the universe's expansion to be at the speed of light.

Please stop.

>>7798135
maybe if you don't define a thing as the sum of its parts; sure if you break anything down enough you'll get a particle moving at the speed of light

otherwise you can see the lack of speed of light as an emergent property of something having mass

>>7798152
I cringed

>>7798110
well light itself for starters.

>>7798152
It's actually faster than the speed of light and you didn't measure shit. Plus, the expansion of space is not proper movement. Plus whether or not it is moving things apart at the speed of light is totally based on the reference frame. For example, no objects in our galaxy is "moving" away from you at the speed of light or at any speed due to expansion.

File: image.png (856KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

856KB, 750x1334px

Takyons

>>7798152
If you were right, the Universe would expense at twice the speed of light:
One photon in a direction, and the other in the opposite direction.

>>7798110
photons
gluons
gravitons
dilatons
photinos
gluinos
gravitinos
dilatinos
axions
axinos?
various other unnamed gauge bosons and their superparterners

>>7798110
hello Reddit!

>>7798476
Don't forget about latinos

File: 1253an-cringing-in-pain-cringe-grief-sad-miserable.jpg (73KB, 909x681px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 909x681px

>>7798152
>I measured the speed of the universe's expansion

>>7798152
Objects with mass cannot move at the speed of light. To say that EVERYTHING moves at the speed of light is retarded.

>>7798145
Actually he is partially right. This problem arises due to lack of universal frame of reference

>>7798129

Gravity waves do propagate at C though

>>7798129
Want about antiphotons?

>>7798110
you mean, in the void?
Cause light does not always travel at c ...

>>7798135
Yes, everything does move at the speed of light, but in different directions. That's the cause of time dilation. An object "at rest" is moving through the 4th dimension at the speed of light, and since speed is constant, the faster it moves in the other dimensions the slower it moves through time.

>>7798299
Incorrect. Tachyons CAN only travel faster than light - and speed up as they lose energy.

>>7798447
Yes but it would still add up to 1c. That's how relativity works.

>>7798800
underrated

>>7798167

>otherwise you can see the lack of speed of light as an emergent property of something having mass

Wait, this makes sense to me. Can someone explain why this doesn't make sense please? Or explain further?

>>7799130

What about lights peed consistency? I thought c always = 300,000km/sec?

I filmed a lamp turning on then watched the clip in slow motion, so I could calculate the speed of photons. Then I paused and zoomed in so I could pinpoint a photon.

I've got notepad open atm, I'll write an article on the experiment this night and publish it on /b/

>>7799171
>I thought c always = 300,000km/sec?
Leave /sci/ forever, please go back to your containment board
>>>/pol/

>>7799129
Photons are their own antiparticle

There is no fixed center of the universe. No fixed point in space exist. So if you take 2 flashlights, point them at each other then photons from both lights are traveling at the speed of light, but in opposite directions. Relative to each other the photons from 2 flashlights appear to be traveling 2x the speed of light.
>Light traveling faster than light.
>trollscience.jpg

>>7798110
Information

>>7798110
Gravitons
>inb4 it's just the current theory

>>7799092
As far as we know. There are at least five large scale observatories trying to prove/disprove that by observing gravitational fluctuations and comparing them to the light coming from the gravitational objects.

>>7798207
>what are photons

>>7798299
Nice dubs for the Death Grips

File: wutdafuk.png (176KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1366x768px

>>7798110
The fuck is this bullshit popsci invasion?

>>7799198
No, relative to each other the photons are traveling at the speed of light.

>>7799269
Aren't the photons experiencing near 0 time?

How could each experience each other travelling the speed of light?

>>7799193

Whoops, slipped a kilo in there, but the question still stands.

why can photons move at the speed of light and have momentum but not have mass? wouldn't kinetic energy be zero and in turn mean they have no velocity?

also, don't photons accelerate when they bounce off atoms? or are they being absorbed and emitted?

>>7799171
c is speed of light in a vacuum.
It is constant.

Light traveling in a transparent material is slowed down by a ratio that corresponds to that material refractive index.
For example, I've read electrons are faster than light when traveling under water

>>7798129
>believing in gravitons

lel

>>7799317

Gotcha, thanks.

>>7799275
Like any massless particle, they experience literally zero time.

>>7799236
light is a wave, not a particle.

>>7798476
>various other unnamed gauge bosons and their superparterners
this is what physicists in hep-ph believe.

>>7799086
>Actually he is partially right. This problem arises due to lack of universal frame of reference

In no reference frame is anything with mass moving at the speed of light. Arbitrarily close, yes, but not at c.

>>7799710
>Trust me guys, light isn't quantized

>>7800111

It's a quantized wave. Calling it a particle just confuses people.

>>7800171
It's quantized particles that travel in waves

>>7800171
Calling it not a particle also does.