Hello all, I'm Dan and am just somebody with an interest in general science. I've a 'Pop science' level of understanding you might say.

 

I occasionally pop over to your Forum and read through some interesting threads, the level of knowledge usually quickly surpasses my own, but each time I gain a little more myself.

 

So, my question. I often like to have a little ponder on one very specific topic and try and follow some train of thought to some sort of a conclusion. Sometimes I think I have a good conclusion, sometimes not.

 

Gaps (chasms) in my knowledge prevent me from finding the answer to the question, "Light does not accelerate or decelerate, what fundamental effect does this have on the laws of physics", or alternatively; "What effect on the laws of physics would there be if light had to accelerate and decelerate?"

 

I've no doubt the answers are very simple, but I can't get very far with it myself.

 

Help please? And go easy!

 

Thanks all

Dan

Before the Michelson–Morley experiment found the speed of light was constant, physicists thought light propagated through a Luminous Aether. There may be papers or notes from that era that explain the effects of light changing speed. Since then, it seems unlikely anyone would research or consider anything except the speed of light being constant. The Wikipedia article on the Luminous Aether captures some of that thought process, and is easy to access. Good luck.

Light does decelerate and accelerate when it goes from vacuum to an occupied volume. One interesting result of that is "Cherenkov radiation".

Surely you also need a particle at high speed (greater than phase speed of light in the material) for Cherenkov - it is basically a shckwave in the electromagnetic field within the material and if the driver particle is moving greater than the local speed of light you get a coherent result