# Faster than light speed - No conflict between classical and relativistic motion

1. Apr 4, 2004

### ramcg1

Assume that c is the maximum velocity of electromagnetic radiation in an inertial frame of reference centred upon the source of the elecromagnetic radiation.

Assign an interface (boundary layer) between adjacent inertial frames of reference such that the velocity of the electromagnetic radiation changes to the maximum velocity of electromagnetic radiation in that inertial frame of reference, which is again c.

Then relativity becomes the rules of physical interaction between adjacent interfaces.

Time, mass and length become invarient.

Any velocity is possible so classical motion can also be applied to relative motion between source and observer.

You can observe a source travelling >> c if enough frame of reference interfaces exist between source and observer

http://members.iinet.net.au/~ramcg1/Others/Relativity/Fun%20With%20Relativity.html [Broken]

http://members.iinet.net.au/~ramcg1/Others/Relativity/Relativity%20Applets.html [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
2. Apr 6, 2004

### ramcg1

It seems strange to me that no one has responded to my posting.
Perhaps my explanation was too sustinct and the readers unable to form a reply so I will expand upon what I have stated and let the reader follow the links at the end of this posting if this is not enough.

1. The speed of light “c” is the maximum speed of a photon with respect to the inertial frame of reference it is travelling through.

2. If the measured speed of light is c in any inertial frame of reference there must exist an interface (boundary layer) between adjacent inertial frames of reference over which the speed, wavelength and frequency changes.

3. The consequences of this are that
(a) There is no limiting velocity in the universe
(b) Time, length and mass are invarient – there is no need to warp the universe.
(c) Photons passing through many inertial frames of reference may have originated from a frame of reference that had a velocity difference many times the speed of light greater or less than the inertial frame of reference of the observer. The mathematics allows it.
(d) Relativity forms the rules the boundary layer.
(e) Spacetime becomes a view of this boundary layer not the universe.
(f) Classical motion and relativity coexist in harmony.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~ramcg1/Others/Relativity/Fun%20With%20Relativity.html [Broken]
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ramcg1/Others/Relativity/Relativity%20Applets.html [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
3. Apr 7, 2004

### matt grime

Things mobing faster than the speed of light is perfectly permissible (and if you've a large pair of scissors you can have a physical model for it) but these 'things' cannot carry information.

4. Apr 7, 2004

### Severian596

I admit the idea of an "interface" intrigued me, but also sounds very far fetched. A quote from your page (one of the bulleted list) is:

Somewhat innovative, but also somewhat reminiscent of the ether, except this ether only shows its face between frames of reference? If two clocks are moving relative to each other and one shines a light at the other, when is the interface crossed? With what matter does this light interact, and how does it know it "crossed over" to another reference frame?

5. Apr 7, 2004

### StarThrower

I wanted to have a look at this, but the applets didn't work.

Regards,

Star

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
6. Apr 7, 2004

### Severian596

Make sure you have the latest JRE, just in case. I didn't know if you'd need

Windows installation:

Mac installation:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/java/ [Broken]

Homepage (where I got the previous two links):

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
7. Apr 7, 2004

### StarThrower

Thanks

StarThrower

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
8. Apr 7, 2004

### ramcg1

I am proposing physical movement at one site in the universe being very much greater than the speed of light at some other site in the universe.

If you televise a football match at one of these sites then another entity, with the right equipment could watch it eons later at the other site.

9. Apr 7, 2004

### ramcg1

No aether.

I visualise a photon as an independent entity whose initial velocity is c with respect with its source.

Every time it ineracts with matter (atoms, molecules etc) its velocity changes to c with respect to that matter and is accompanied by a corresponding change in frequency and wavelength (possibly amplitude as well) so that its energy is conserved.

The interface is the microscopic site of interaction.

This interaction is probably electromagnetic.

On the macroscopic level if the matter in a moving object had a different velocity with respect to the matter outside the object then the photon would change velocity on its first interact into or out of that object.

Thus the photon can move through the universe constantly being modified by its interactions until it is absorbed.

10. Apr 7, 2004

### matt grime

I think that's called video.

11. Apr 7, 2004

### ramcg1

My local television station televises video but the relative velocity between my home and the television station is virtually zero.

12. Apr 9, 2004

### Severian596

Okay, your theory essentially says the following:

"Light moves away from an (atom or object) at speed c relative to that object. We'll assume it travels through a vacuum for awhile (because otherwise it would interact with the atoms of the medium it's traveling through). It travels merrily on its way through the void, then just PRIOR to "interacting" with an atom, it adjusts its speed and wavelength to a value that equals c with respect to that (atom or object)'s current motion."

The more I think about this theory the more far-fetched it feels; and not because I'm "adjusted" to relativity. The idea of an "interaction" is not clearly defined on your site, but it's obvious you're proposing that light must "pass through" a boundary, not unlike a screen door between two rooms. If you consider each of the two rooms as a Frame of Reference, this screen door works all the magic and makes it appear to each of the observers the the theory of relativity is reality.

You propose that relativity is NOT reality, and that instead these two individuals are indeed in two rooms that are absolute in space and time. This point is expressed on your site by the following quote:

* At some point in time the light pulse must leave the observed inertial frame of reference and enter the observer's inertial frame of reference.
* We can detect the effect of light crossing physical interfaces with in our frame of reference eg the wave length change as light enters water so why not a relativistic change as light crosses the physical boundary between two adjacent inertial frames of reference.
* This interface, be it sub atomic in width or light years across, is the reality.

I think 'light passing from air to water' sounds very different compared to 'light passing from one frame of reference to another.' In the case of air/water there is a clear and obvious change in the atomic structure of the reference frames. One has atoms sparsely distributed, the other has them densely packed. But reference frames are not pools of water. Two bodies in a vacuum have NO distinguishing features or physical layers between them.

To this you say that the "interface" of light happens at the atomic level, and JUST BEFORE the photon contacts an atom in a reference frame that is moving, it modifies its speed and wavelength so that THAT atom will ovserve the speed of the photon as c.

I'm not buying the idea that a photon has knowledge of an atom's speed before the photon reaches the atom, AND knows how to modify its own speed and wavelength before the atom observes it...how do you explain it?

Last edited: Apr 9, 2004
13. Apr 9, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

This isn't anything new, its just index of refraction. Scientists have succeeded in slowing down the apparent speed of light through certain media - enough so tha obects outside the media can be moving faster than the light inside the media. Though the high index of refraction is interesting, making an object outside the media move faster than the apparent speed of light inside the media is absolutely trivial.

Applying the idea to different inertial frames...no.

Last edited: Apr 9, 2004
14. Apr 9, 2004

### Severian596

One thing about the theory that bugs me is this: perhaps we could never prove it. If we ourselves are atoms, and everything we measure light with is composed of atoms, and everything we perceive light with is composed of atoms...how can we prove OR disprove this theory?

I'm not an occam's razor kind of guy but if the theories of SR and GR explain all of the apparent interactions with light, and you put an ethereal buffer between you and light that you can NEVER measure, but produces ALL the effects of relativity...well...it sounds like the buffer depends on (and is just a product of) the theories of relativity.

15. Apr 9, 2004

### wimms

interesting.
They do. As long as their clocks stay synchronised, they belong to same IRF. When bodies are in different IRFs, their clocks are out of sync. Distinguishing feature is intrinsic clock rate at given coordinate.

Photon needs no knowledge. Boundary is intrinsic clock rate - definition of speed changes with crossing the boundary, and it happens so that c measures constant. Perhaps index of refraction is consequence of such boundary aswell.

16. Apr 9, 2004

### FrankM

I didn't read through all the posts but let me make sure I have this straight:
1. You have two inertial reference frames A and B
2. A and B are separated by a boundary C.
3. Light moves through the boundary and because it is now in a different reference frame (according to the observer), it is now moving faster than C.

If I understand these correctly then please read on, if not then prepare your references to my diminutive intelligence and family ancestry.

First of all, reference frames are not defined by spatial boundaries like a box or sphere. They are defined by the movement of the observer. So when guy in Frame A is measuring the light and getting c, guy in Frame B can be doing the same thing and get the same answer. However, if guy in A measures guy in B's clock it will be moving slower or faster (depending upon who is moving faster relative to the other guy). This is where the time dilation factor comes in.

However, lets say that you can define a reference frame by some kind spatial dependence and it has a boundary. The light moves at what appears c on one side and c+x on the other.You would get a bending effect because of the difference in the two velocities just like when you see things that are partially submerged, they seem to bend.

This means that you would be able to create a lens (yes like in my eyeglasses) by moving at a different velocity that someone else. So instead of giving lenscrafters more of my hard earned money I should just get a faster car (or slower one, I can't figure it out).

17. Apr 10, 2004

### ramcg1

If my memory of the index of relection is correct then the velocity change across the inteface between air and water results in a wavelength change and not a frequency change.

Some of you have taken the time to consider my ideas so I will take them away and consider them before replying.

To FrankM:

I am not suggesting a mathematical construct. I am sugesting that when a photon interacts with an atom that has a different velocity to its source atom then its frequency changes according to SR. This atom then becomes its source atom and the process continues. One would expect this to be refected in the macro universe where one observes a receding star.

I am skeptical myself
.
Here is something else for you lot to consider.

o A photon is emitted by an atom. Its velocity is c with respect to that source atom. When it reaches the next atom it can either be absorbed or it can move on. Now consider that the photon has moved on. Its new velocity would be c with respect to this atom. If the second atom had a velocity that was different to the first atom then special relativity would apply to its change in frequency and wavelength as the velocity of the photon changes. As this is an elastic interaction the energy must be conserved.
o The energy of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency E = hf where h is Planks constant. Thus the energy of the photon also undergoes transformation by by special relativity. So why is there a difference in energy? If the photon gains velocity its frequency decreases (observed energy lower) and the difference in energy is used raise the photon's velocity. If the photon loses velocity the energy released by the lowering of velocity is used to increase the frequency (observed energy greater).
o Interactions with atoms having the same velocity as the source would cause no change in frequency and when the photon is absorbed it would only be the energy E = hf that would be observed.

18. Apr 10, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

Yes - maybe you used frequency in your theory and I missed it (frankly, I only skimmed it). IF so, it would seem to be inconsistent with similar phenomena.

19. Apr 11, 2004

### ramcg1

It is good to have someone I can bounce the suggestion off and make me think about and refine my suggestion.

* This interface, be it sub atomic in width or light years across, is the reality.

This text was removed between the time you read it and the time I come back to this forum because as the further I looked into the possibilities the more I realised that the interface has to be at the atomic level.

* At some point in time the light pulse must leave the observed inertial frame of reference and enter the observer's inertial frame of reference.

I started my analysis by looking at what an interface would mean in the macro world. It is only after quite a bit of thought that I now consider the “interface” to be the interaction of photons with matter at the atomic level. Not JUST BEFORE the photon contacts an atom but as it interacts with the atom.

I am still thinking about the how. My current thoughts are:

When the photon reaches an atom there is an additive interaction between the photon and the atom. If the energy of the photon is the correct amount then the photon is absorbed by the atom, if not the correct amount it is re-emitted and now has a velocity c with respect to the atom it interacted with.

* We can detect the effect of light crossing physical interfaces with in our frame of reference eg the wave length change as light enters water so why not a relativistic change as light crosses the physical boundary between two adjacent inertial frames of reference.

Thanks, I agree that these are two vastly different things and not a fair comparison. I have made too many minor edits to my web page so I shall do a major rewrite of it before semantics and inconsistencies become an issue.

Severian596 wrote:

One thing about the theory that bugs me is this: perhaps we could never prove it. If we ourselves are atoms, and everything we measure light with is composed of atoms, and everything we perceive light with is composed of atoms...how can we prove OR disprove this theory?

To disprove a theory we need to find a counter example. Perhaps your question should be where could we find the counter example?

I'm not an occam's razor kind of guy but if the theories of SR and GR explain all of the apparent interactions with light, and you put an ethereal buffer between you and light that you can NEVER measure, but produces ALL the effects of relativity...well...it sounds like the buffer depends on (and is just a product of) the theories of relativity.

No ethereal buffer required.

If what I am suggesting is correct then it places SR and GR at the interaction between photons and atoms. The macro universe becomes classical ie time, length and mass are invariant and there is no limiting velocity for matter in the macro universe.

This is a significant change to the accepted view of the universe.

I think that is enough to make the pursuit of the suggestion worthwhile.

Wimms wrote
Photon needs no knowledge. Boundary is intrinsic clock rate - definition of speed changes with crossing the boundary, and it happens so that c measures constant. Perhaps index of refraction is consequence of such boundary as well.

You are looking at the problem from the wrong angle.
The proposed suggestion implies that time, length and mass are invariant so there is no change to the definition of speed and that photons have a velocity c with respect to their last atomic interaction and a velocity c + dv with respect to the next atomic interaction, dv being the difference in velocity between the atom that it has interacted with and the atom it is to interact with next.

20. Apr 11, 2004

### Integral

Staff Emeritus
It seems to me that you are using a screwdriver to pound nails. If you wish to consider the interaction of light and matter use QM not Relativity.

When light crosses an interface between materials it does not change inertial frames of reference, unless the material is traveling at some velocity with respect to the observer.

A frame of reference does not have a "boundary". A frame of reference is simply a coordinate system used to track positions in space. The Lorentz transforms map the coordinates of a point in one reference frame to a point in a second reference frame. All points in each frame can be referenced in the other, it is simply described by a different set of numbers.