# Does space resist the passage of light?

• Bojan Keevill
In summary, your equation is based on an assumption that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, which is not known for sure. Additionally, your equation does not take into account the power of light.
Bojan Keevill
Please excuse my naive use of algebra.

$$R_{s}=c\frac{\phi_1 \phi_2}{r^2}$$

I have concocted this equation in an attempt to show that the stuff of which space is made resists the passage of light.
I wonder how more experienced members of this forum would interpret the equation?
R_s is the resistivity of space, c is the speed of light in a vacuum, ø is the flux of light in a location and r^2 is distance.

Does this make any sense at all?

It is not the velocity but the power of light which I think may encounter resistance as it moves through space. The velocity of light is constant across distance, its power is not.
It is the reduction of power that I am trying to describe.

Any better?

I doubt the above equation has any equation has meaning, either, and if it did... A lot more information would be required to show that it does.. I don't even think "impedance of free space" is a (known) real property of free space (?)

But, I think saying "the speed of light in free space is based on Maxwell's equations" isn't right either... The actual speed of light in vacuum isn't based on anything known.. It is just measured "property" of the universe, based on something we don't really understand fully. Right?

Last edited:
Bojan Keevill said:
It is not the velocity but the power of light which I think may encounter resistance as it moves through space. The velocity of light is constant across distance, its power is not.
It is the reduction of power that I am trying to describe.
Perhaps you're trying to describe the inverse square law, which shows how the intensity (but not the total power) from a point source drops off with distance? See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/vision/isql.html#c1"

Last edited by a moderator:
nuby said:
I doubt the above equation has any equation has meaning, either, and if it did... A lot more information would be required to show that it does.. I don't even think "impedance of free space" is a real property of free space (?)

But, I think saying "the speed of light in free space is based on Maxwell's equations" isn't right either... The actual speed of light in vacuum isn't based on anything known.. It is just measured "property" of the universe, based on something we don't really understand fully. Right?

I was going to ask a question related to this actually, why is the speed of light what it is?

Even if metres and seconds are some arbitrary human concoction that doesn't change the fact that the speed of light is a a certain thing. I have heard the weak anthropic principle, saying that 'if the speed of light were different the universe would be different and we wouldn't be here to ask that question', but i think it is a weak answer to a cool question...

nuby said:
But, I think saying "the speed of light in free space is based on Maxwell's equations" isn't right either... The actual speed of light in vacuum isn't based on anything known.. It is just measured "property" of the universe, based on something we don't really understand fully. Right?

I think the speed of light as its known is based on the energy of a photon and its wavelength:

$$E = hc$$$$/$$$$\lambda$$

$$c = E\lambda/h$$

On another note wouldn't the equation above allow for super luminous (FTL) photons where E is greater. So when it comes to virtual particles c is truly a barrier that can be tunneled?

Frank

The speed of light in a vacuum is constant everywhere in any inertial system, but we do not know what specifically determines this velocity. Nevertheless, we have named two "constants", the permeability of free space u0, and the permittivity of free space e0, and have via their placement in Maxwell's equations defined them as
1/sqrt(u0e0) = 2.99792458 m/s (speed of light in vacuum), and
sqrt(u0/e0) = 376.7254 ohms (the impedance of free space).

Bojan Keevill said:

It is not the velocity but the power of light which I think may encounter resistance as it moves through space. The velocity of light is constant across distance, its power is not.
It is the reduction of power that I am trying to describe.

Any better?

That makes even less sense.

Start this way: show how what you are proposing is actually consistent quantitatively with what we have observed now. After all, we have a huge range of laser power as it is already.

And just in case you missed it, the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374" that you agreed to already allow for very little leeway for personal unverified theory.

Zz.

Last edited by a moderator:
Bob S said:
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant everywhere in any inertial system, but we do not know what specifically determines this velocity.

Shouldn't the real question be: What determines the mass of a photon? Given the realtionship of engery, wavelength and the Planck's constant leaves only one answer for c.

But as I noted earlier c could change by a photon tunneling with more mass (engery) since its wavelength is fixed.

Frank

Last edited:
nuby said:
I don't even think "impedance of free space" is a (known) real property of free space (?)

Well, the impedance of free space is just $Z_0=1/\epsilon_0 \mu_0$ and is about 377 Ohm. It is certainly a "real property" in that it has real, measurable effects. However, it is obviously just a reactive impedance, there is no power loss (meaning free space can sort of be thought of as a lossless transmission line with an impedance of 377 ohms).
A good example of this is an antenna which can be thought of as a device that matches the impedance of an electrical circuit to that of free space in order to maximize power transfer.

There are also other -more subtle- effects. One interesting example is that if you try to study quantum mechanical effects of macroscopic electrical circuits you will find that the impedance of free space is effectively shunting your circuit which in turn leads to a "leakage" and therefore decoherence. Nowadays we've learned to design our circuits to minimize this effects, but if no precautions are taken the measured shunting impedance works out to be about 100 Ohms just as one would expect(the exact value predicted by theory is Z0 divided by pi).

Bojan Keevill said:
Please excuse my naive use of algebra.

$$R_{s}=c\frac{\phi_1 \phi_2}{r^2}$$

I have concocted this equation in an attempt to show that the stuff of which space is made resists the passage of light.
I wonder how more experienced members of this forum would interpret the equation?
R_s is the resistivity of space, c is the speed of light in a vacuum, ø is the flux of light in a location and r^2 is distance.

Does this make any sense at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light#General_features_of_tired_light_models"

E(x) = E(0)e − x / R

I used to love to think about it. Then someone said it was crackpottery. I had to give it up.

Then I discovered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam" .

I decided that light traveling through free space might be sapped by the mechanism of creating said foam, as a function of the cosmological constant; each wavelength giving up a minute amount of energy, unhindered in velocity, but forever weakening.

Supposedly, http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~sblondin/publications/timedilation/timedilation.pdf" written a couple of years ago put the final nail in the tired light coffin, which made me quite happy as I very seldom spend much time on my outlandish ideas of which I have very little background in the first place.

Last edited by a moderator:
When you come up with an equation make sure that at least the units are the same on both sides. This doesn't seem to be the case with your equation therefore it must be wrong.

ZapperZ said:
That makes even less sense.

Start this way: show how what you are proposing is actually consistent quantitatively with what we have observed now. After all, we have a huge range of laser power as it is already.

And just in case you missed it, the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374" that you agreed to already allow for very little leeway for personal unverified theory.

Zz.
Yes, sorry. I can see that I was being 'overly speculative'.

Last edited by a moderator:
f95toli said:
Well, the impedance of free space is just $Z_0=1/\epsilon_0 \mu_0$
Shouldn't that be $\sqrt{\mu_0/\epsilon_0}$ to get the units of an impedance?

diazona said:
Shouldn't that be $\sqrt{\mu_0/\epsilon_0}$ to get the units of an impedance?

Indeed it should
I guess I was thinking of $1/\epsilon_o c_0$ when I wrote down the equation above.

## 1. Does space have resistance?

No, space does not have resistance in the traditional sense. In a vacuum, there is no medium for objects to encounter resistance as they move through space. However, space can still affect the movement of objects through its gravitational pull.

## 2. Does light experience resistance in space?

No, light does not experience resistance in the traditional sense. In a vacuum, light travels at its maximum speed and is not slowed down by any medium. However, it can be affected by gravitational forces, which can cause it to bend or shift its path.

## 3. Why does light travel so far in space?

Light can travel so far in space because it is not slowed down by any medium. In a vacuum, light can travel at its maximum speed of 299,792,458 meters per second, allowing it to travel vast distances without encountering resistance.

## 4. How does the lack of resistance in space affect space travel?

The lack of resistance in space allows for space travel to occur at high speeds, as there is no medium to slow down or hinder the movement of spacecraft. However, the gravitational pull of celestial objects must still be taken into account and can affect the trajectory of a spacecraft.

## 5. Can light be stopped in space?

No, light cannot be stopped in space. In a vacuum, light travels at its maximum speed and is not slowed down by any medium. However, it can be absorbed or redirected by objects in its path, causing it to appear as if it has been stopped.

• Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
776
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
• Optics
Replies
15
Views
4K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
1K
• Optics
Replies
9
Views
11K
• Cosmology
Replies
27
Views
2K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
1K
• Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
708
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
48
Views
3K