I Can the speed of light be constant and absolute? (1 Viewer)

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Hi all
I have struggled with the assumptions that the speed of light is absolute and constant. I have some logic to this which is based on the common assumptions that light behaves both as a wave and a particle. It is also based on light having mass, the effects of heat and vacuum environments. Without going into details, does anyone have views on this or study it?

Cheers
Matt
 

russ_watters

Admin
Mentor
17,945
4,446
Hi all
I have struggled with the assumptions that the speed of light is absolute and constant. I have some logic to this which is based on the common assumptions that light behaves both as a wave and a particle. It is also based on light having mass, the effects of heat and vacuum environments. Without going into details, does anyone have views on this or study it?
Welcome to PF!

Constant and the same for all observers is a subset of absolute, isn't it?

In any case, I'm sorry but basically everything else you said about light is wrong. Please start by reading this and let us know if there are things you still need cleared up:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
 
  • Like
Reactions: BvU
Welcome to PF!

Constant and the same for all observers is a subset of absolute, isn't it?

In any case, I'm sorry but basically everything else you said about light is wrong. Please start by reading this and let us know if there are things you still need cleared up:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
Thanks Russ. Will do.
 

Drakkith

Armchair Scientist
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2018 Award
20,289
3,999
It's not clear what you're looking for. Are you asking for papers or articles giving the theoretical foundation supporting the invariant nature of the speed of light? If so, I recommend Einstein's original paper on special relativity:
https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154
 
Welcome to PF!

Constant and the same for all observers is a subset of absolute, isn't it?

In any case, I'm sorry but basically everything else you said about light is wrong. Please start by reading this and let us know if there are things you still need cleared up:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
Hi Russ
Thanks for the link and direct feedback. I should have posted the comment as a question, not statement so I understand why you said it was wrong.

I have read through the link you sent and it does make me ask more questions. One in particular is that if space-time cannot tolerate or prohibits motion faster than the speed of light (c) then c squared cannot be achieved, making e=mc2 a false formula?
 

russ_watters

Admin
Mentor
17,945
4,446
I have read through the link you sent and it does make me ask more questions. One in particular is that if space-time cannot tolerate or prohibits motion faster than the speed of light (c) then c squared cannot be achieved, making e=mc2 a false formula?
C2 has units of m2/s2. It isn't a speed. It really isn't anything except most of the units for energy. Completed, it is kg-m2/s2, or just J (Joules); the unit for energy. This should look similar to you to the equation for Newtonian kinetic energy, which also contains speed squared.

This is a common misunderstanding, caused by not recognizing how integral the units are to the equations. They aren't just doing math to numbers. Indeed, it is often useful to use the units without numbers!
 
C2 has units of m2/s2. It isn't a speed. It really isn't anything except most of the units for energy. Completed, it is kg-m2/s2, or just J (Joules); the unit for energy. This should look similar to you to the equation for Newtonian kinetic energy, which also contains speed squared.

This is a common misunderstanding, caused by not recognizing how integral the units are to the equations. They aren't just doing math to numbers. Indeed, it is often useful to use the units without numbers!
Got it thanks.

To ask a question in my most logical way and why I joined this forum....if it is pure supposition and wrong, let me know. Likewise if it is an interesting question for a layperson.

I was speculating in my layperson mind that: if it is true that light behaves / has properties of both waves and particles (is this wrong?)
Then
Particles behave differently under both extreme pressure and heat.
If
We look at a macro level, pressure and heat exist to extremes is black holes and supernovas respectively.
So
Particle light behaviour should be different and it's speed should be faster.
Then
Our assumptions about celestial bodies being x million light years away is false and they are in fact closer.

To tell me these factors have been considered could be naive because "postulates" that support current thinking have not been proven in these conditions.
 
C2 has units of m2/s2. It isn't a speed. It really isn't anything except most of the units for energy. Completed, it is kg-m2/s2, or just J (Joules); the unit for energy. This should look similar to you to the equation for Newtonian kinetic energy, which also contains speed squared.

This is a common misunderstanding, caused by not recognizing how integral the units are to the equations. They aren't just doing math to numbers. Indeed, it is often useful to use the units without numbers!
Thanks. So it's an acceleration formula not velocity.
 

russ_watters

Admin
Mentor
17,945
4,446
Got it thanks.

To ask a question in my most logical way and why I joined this forum....if it is pure supposition and wrong, let me know. Likewise if it is an interesting question for a layperson.

I was speculating in my layperson mind that: if it is true that light behaves / has properties of both waves and particles (is this wrong?)
Then
Particles behave differently under both extreme pressure and heat.
I would usually answer this question "yes", which could get me in trouble with the physicists here (I'm an engineer) and in this case would lead you down this wrong path you are on. Simply put, just because light has some behaviors in common with particles (or waves), doesn't mean it has all the behaviors in common with particles (or waves). At this point, to avoid the confusion over what it does and doesn't have in common with particles and waves, physicists would say light is neither [classical] particles or waves, but a separate type of entity that has its own specific set of properties/behaviors.

Fluid pressure is not one of those properties/behaviors.
To tell me these factors have been considered could be naive because "postulates" that support current thinking have not been proven in these conditions.
While it's true that there are some limitations to our knowledge/understanding, I'd caution you to not speculate on where those limitations are. You're basically suggesting that thousands of PhD physicists who individually have spent tens of thousands of hours studying the behavior of light haven't thought this through as far as you have. You may get some gruff responsese to that suggestion...
 
I would usually answer this question "yes", which could get me in trouble with the physicists here (I'm an engineer) and in this case would lead you down this wrong path you are on. Simply put, just because light has some behaviors in common with particles (or waves), doesn't mean it has all the behaviors in common with particles (or waves). At this point, to avoid the confusion over what it does and doesn't have in common with particles and waves, physicists would say light is neither [classical] particles or waves, but a separate type of entity that has its own specific set of properties/behaviors.

Pressure is not one of those properties/behaviors.

While it's true that there are some limitations to our knowledge/understanding, I'd caution you to not speculate on where those limitations are. You're basically suggesting that thousands of PhD physicists who individually have spent tens of thousands of hours studying the behavior of light haven't thought this through as far as you have. You may get some gruff responsese to that suggestion...
Thanks Russ
I am a middle aged person who enjoyede matriculation physics only. These types of questions have stuck with me for a long time and, based on your reply, is a somewhat valid and inquisitive question? By no means do I want to be disrespectful to anyone regarding the postulates comment. Sorry.
 
No, acceleration is m/s2. As I said, C2 is most of a forumula for energy.
OK but e is the output here (being joules or energy). The two inputs are mass and C...I never memorised formula but rembered them by the story...if you take a mass and accelerate it to the speed of light squared it will give off a huge amount of joules. The key here for me was accelerate it to c2. It will give off joules over the acceleration curve but you will/cannot reach the end velocity of c2...you will respond huge joules even before you get to c1....
 

russ_watters

Admin
Mentor
17,945
4,446
Thanks Russ
I am a middle aged person who enjoyede matriculation physics only. These types of questions have stuck with me for a long time and, based on your reply, is a somewhat valid and inquisitive question? By no means do I want to be disrespectful to anyone regarding the postulates comment. Sorry.
Somewhat. But mostly at the starting question. You took the logic pretty far based on the incorrect premise though. You're doing fine, I just don't want you to waste your own time or get in trouble going so far down a closed road, when reading the sign at the intersection could have avoided it.
 

berkeman

Admin
Mentor
54,304
4,713
OK but e is the output here (being joules or energy). The two inputs are mass and C...I never memorised formula but rembered them by the story...if you take a mass and accelerate it to the speed of light squared it will give off a huge amount of joules. The key here for me was accelerate it to c2. It will give off joules over the acceleration curve but you will/cannot reach the end velocity of c2...you will respond huge joules even before you get to c1....
Wowie, that makes no sense... :wink:
 
Wowie, that makes no sense... :wink:
Really? And your feedback is constructive how?
Somewhat. But mostly at the starting question. You took the logic pretty far based on the incorrect premise though. You're doing fine, I just don't want you to waste your own time or get in trouble going so far down a closed road, when reading the sign at the intersection could have avoided it.
Thanks. Appreciate the constructive advice. I will keep reading before posting.
 

russ_watters

Admin
Mentor
17,945
4,446
OK but e is the output here (being joules or energy). The two inputs are mass and C...I never memorised formula but rembered them by the story...if you take a mass and accelerate it to the speed of light squared it will give off a huge amount of joules. The key here for me was accelerate it to c2. It will give off joules over the acceleration curve but you will/cannot reach the end velocity of c2...you will respond huge joules even before you get to c1....
Well, that's actually not what that equation is for. What it tells you is the energy equivalent of mass; it's what you get when an amount of mass is converted to energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence

What you are describing is [kind of] the Relativistic Kinetic Energy equation (which the mass/energy equivalence is simplified from). It actually goes to infinity as you approach C.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy#Relativistic_kinetic_energy_of_rigid_bodies

And again: the speed is just C. Not C2.
 

berkeman

Admin
Mentor
54,304
4,713
Really? And your feedback is constructive how?
Well, I couldn't find one thing correct in it to try to build on, sorry.

For example, this makes no sense no matter how hard I try to figure out what you are trying to say:
It will give off joules over the acceleration curve
It seems it would be best for you to spend some time at Wikipedia or Hyperphysics learning some basic stuff. I'll see if I can find some links to recommend...
 
Well, I couldn't find one thing correct in it to try to build on, sorry.

For example, this makes no sense no matter how hard I try to figure out what you are trying to say:

It seems it would be best for you to spend some time at Wikipedia or Hyperphysics learning some basic stuff. I'll see if I can find some links to recommend...
It is fine. Russ actually understood it and has already clarified it for me.
 

berkeman

Admin
Mentor
54,304
4,713
Yeah, Russ is pretty good at that! :smile:
 

PeroK

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2018 Award
8,626
3,086
OK but e is the output here (being joules or energy). The two inputs are mass and C...I never memorised formula but rembered them by the story...if you take a mass and accelerate it to the speed of light squared it will give off a huge amount of joules. The key here for me was accelerate it to c2. It will give off joules over the acceleration curve but you will/cannot reach the end velocity of c2...you will respond huge joules even before you get to c1....
If you choose units where ##c = 1## then ##c## and ##c^2## disappear from the formulas. You then have, for example:

##E = m##

In any case, this is the formula for the energy of a massive particle at rest. Speed doesn't come into it. And it doesn't apply to light, which has no mass and no rest energy.
 

The Physics Forums Way

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top