- #31
joery
- 1
- 0
you know light is just like energy, and you will never lose it, the second law of Newton...
Is there a 'Minimum' Speed of Light?
- Context: Graduate
- Thread starter Wave's_Hand_Particle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Light Minimum Speed Speed of light
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion centers around the concept of whether there is a 'minimum' speed of light, exploring implications for dark matter, zero point energy, and the behavior of light in various contexts. Participants examine theoretical and experimental aspects, including light's interaction with matter and its behavior in different media.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory
- Debate/contested
- Technical explanation
- Conceptual clarification
Main Points Raised
- Some participants propose that if there were a minimum speed of light, it could complicate detection using photons.
- Others mention experiments where light has been stopped, questioning the implications for the speed of light.
- There are claims that light travels at the speed of light in a vacuum, while its speed can vary in different media.
- Some participants discuss the concept of photons having no rest mass and the implications for their behavior when interacting with matter.
- A few participants suggest that light could be seen as a ripple in spacetime rather than a massed object, raising questions about its existence and properties.
- There are discussions about the relationship between energy and mass, particularly in the context of E=mc², and whether light can be considered to have a speed of zero when absorbed.
- Some participants argue that light's speed is never zero, while others suggest that there may be moments when it effectively stops during interactions with matter.
- Several participants express uncertainty about the implications of light slowing down near black holes and the nature of matter creation in such contexts.
- There are conflicting views on whether the speed of light is a constant and how this relates to established physics principles.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants do not reach a consensus on the existence of a minimum speed of light, with multiple competing views and ongoing debates about the implications of light's behavior in various scenarios.
Contextual Notes
Limitations include unresolved assumptions about the nature of light, the definitions of speed in different contexts, and the implications of varying speeds in different media. The discussion also touches on complex interactions between light and matter that are not fully resolved.
- #32
lawtonfogle
- 159
- 0
I was taught that the law says energy is never lost in a chemical reaction. Please tell me if this is another law that I have mixed up.
- #33
Loren Booda
- 3,108
- 4
What about minimal acceleration? Some speculation.
The "Hubble acceleration," aH=c2/RH=cH0=6 x 10-8 cm/s2, demarcates a critical radial acceleration for galaxies and larger bodies where the influence of so-called dark matter begins. Following the rotation curve for a given galaxy, one notices the departure from conventional luminous matter dynamics at approximately the rotational velocity v with radius r so that aH=v2/r. This asserts that the radial universal expansion parameters, i. e., the Hubble acceleration, also affect rotational dynamics.
The concept of "dark matter" may arise in large part to a quantizing of aH. If so, this would indicate a characteristic of baryonic matter's inertia to overcome an "ultraviolet catastrophe" (similar to the blackbody's). Consequently, it tends to maintain the acceleration, and likewise the velocity, of galaxies' outlying halos. The effects of "dark matter" on large-scale structures are predominantly due to compliance with discretized minimal acceleration, given by the ratio between speed of light squared and the cosmological horizon radius. The behavior of quantized acceleration might be measured in an atom trap.
From "Matters of Gravity" on my website, below.
The "Hubble acceleration," aH=c2/RH=cH0=6 x 10-8 cm/s2, demarcates a critical radial acceleration for galaxies and larger bodies where the influence of so-called dark matter begins. Following the rotation curve for a given galaxy, one notices the departure from conventional luminous matter dynamics at approximately the rotational velocity v with radius r so that aH=v2/r. This asserts that the radial universal expansion parameters, i. e., the Hubble acceleration, also affect rotational dynamics.
The concept of "dark matter" may arise in large part to a quantizing of aH. If so, this would indicate a characteristic of baryonic matter's inertia to overcome an "ultraviolet catastrophe" (similar to the blackbody's). Consequently, it tends to maintain the acceleration, and likewise the velocity, of galaxies' outlying halos. The effects of "dark matter" on large-scale structures are predominantly due to compliance with discretized minimal acceleration, given by the ratio between speed of light squared and the cosmological horizon radius. The behavior of quantized acceleration might be measured in an atom trap.
From "Matters of Gravity" on my website, below.
- #34
Chaos' lil bro Order
- 682
- 2
Light's Velocity varies depending on the medium it is in.
To say light's velocity is constant is silly. The Index of Refraction of various mediums (eg. crown glass, air, water, diamonds, etc.) was created to show that light does in fact move slower in these mediums than it does in a perfect vacuum speed of about C = 300,000 km/s.
For example, water's Index of Refraction value is n=1.33, this means that when light enters water its speed becomes C / 1.33 which equals 225,000 km/s.
As a point of interest, it is possible for light to exceed the 'speed limit' of a medium that it is in and when it does the result is a bluish glow called 'Cheryenkov Radiation'. Of course this does not apply to the medium of a perfect vacuum where light's velocity is fundamentally limited to 300,000 km/s.
Remember, light,or more appropriately, photons, come from atoms who have an excited electron in their outer orbitals, and when the excited electron falls back down to a ground state orbital (called 'deexcitation') a photon is released. The energy of this photon is precisely the amount of energy lost by the electron as it went from excited to deexcited orbitals. This amount of energy corresponds to the wavelength of light the emitted photon will have via two simple equations: E = hf and Wavelength = C / f
So when you look at your computer screen and see a blue 'Windows XP' scrollbar, the pixels that are emitting those blue photons contain many many atoms that are constantly having their electrons excited by an electrical current (energy input) and then when the electrons deexcite, poof, a photon of blue color is emitted whereupon it enters your eye.
As a side note, the greater the 'energy input' you put into exciting an electron above its ground state, the greater the 'energy output' you will get when the electron deexcites and outputs a photon. For this reason, extremely energetic light (or, more correctly thought of as 'Electromagnetic Radiation') like gamma-rays can only be created by extremely energetic sources like neutron stars and black holes. Radio waves are the lowest energy EM emitters, unless you want to include the famed gravitational waves which are still in the realm of theory.
P.S. I have an idea that I need shot down by more knowledgeable minds than mine, here it goes. If you could build a pole that was ten light years long, extremely thin, and extremely durable and strong, would it be possible to send communications faster than the speed of light if the sender tapped one end of the string in morse code and the receiver recorded the morse code? Besides the obvious feasibility issues of creating this pole, what physical laws would prevent this communication method? Even if the pole weighed a trillion trillion trillion ...etc. kilograms, you would only need to accelerate it to say 1 km / hour every time you tapped its end, so in essence Relativity is not violated from an energy nor from a exceeding C's velocity standpoint. However, I am aware that the atoms comprising the pole would have to mediate the force of the tapping and that this is likely the limiting factor that makes my idea nullified. If anyone knows how to scientifically explain this limiting factor please reply. I'm very curious to know.
Thank you.
To say light's velocity is constant is silly. The Index of Refraction of various mediums (eg. crown glass, air, water, diamonds, etc.) was created to show that light does in fact move slower in these mediums than it does in a perfect vacuum speed of about C = 300,000 km/s.
For example, water's Index of Refraction value is n=1.33, this means that when light enters water its speed becomes C / 1.33 which equals 225,000 km/s.
As a point of interest, it is possible for light to exceed the 'speed limit' of a medium that it is in and when it does the result is a bluish glow called 'Cheryenkov Radiation'. Of course this does not apply to the medium of a perfect vacuum where light's velocity is fundamentally limited to 300,000 km/s.
Remember, light,or more appropriately, photons, come from atoms who have an excited electron in their outer orbitals, and when the excited electron falls back down to a ground state orbital (called 'deexcitation') a photon is released. The energy of this photon is precisely the amount of energy lost by the electron as it went from excited to deexcited orbitals. This amount of energy corresponds to the wavelength of light the emitted photon will have via two simple equations: E = hf and Wavelength = C / f
So when you look at your computer screen and see a blue 'Windows XP' scrollbar, the pixels that are emitting those blue photons contain many many atoms that are constantly having their electrons excited by an electrical current (energy input) and then when the electrons deexcite, poof, a photon of blue color is emitted whereupon it enters your eye.
As a side note, the greater the 'energy input' you put into exciting an electron above its ground state, the greater the 'energy output' you will get when the electron deexcites and outputs a photon. For this reason, extremely energetic light (or, more correctly thought of as 'Electromagnetic Radiation') like gamma-rays can only be created by extremely energetic sources like neutron stars and black holes. Radio waves are the lowest energy EM emitters, unless you want to include the famed gravitational waves which are still in the realm of theory.
P.S. I have an idea that I need shot down by more knowledgeable minds than mine, here it goes. If you could build a pole that was ten light years long, extremely thin, and extremely durable and strong, would it be possible to send communications faster than the speed of light if the sender tapped one end of the string in morse code and the receiver recorded the morse code? Besides the obvious feasibility issues of creating this pole, what physical laws would prevent this communication method? Even if the pole weighed a trillion trillion trillion ...etc. kilograms, you would only need to accelerate it to say 1 km / hour every time you tapped its end, so in essence Relativity is not violated from an energy nor from a exceeding C's velocity standpoint. However, I am aware that the atoms comprising the pole would have to mediate the force of the tapping and that this is likely the limiting factor that makes my idea nullified. If anyone knows how to scientifically explain this limiting factor please reply. I'm very curious to know.
Thank you.
- #35
anti_crank
Science Advisor
- 128
- 0
Wow, could this be one of those TD threads where people actually learn something instead of having knowledge and crackpottery collide into painkillers? The problem with the idea is that rigid bodies that retain their shape when one exerts a force on one end do not exist in SR; in fact their existence would contradict SR as you have discovered for yourself. It turns out that the speed of longitudinal waves, or sound/impulses propagating through the metal, is limited by the speed of light.
- #36
timeformation
- 13
- 0
ok ok, hold up a second...
"light" which in itself is interesting by wording because it is infact light ( not heavy)
continued... When "photons" are absorbed, there is a delay, before light is given off from the particle which absorbed it. If photons do not bounce off, then explain how a charged particle does not accept incoming photons? test, take a laser, shoot it at a particle, particle = charged, then what happens to the other light coming at the particle? there is a delay between conduction band fall to valence band, and there are cases of other orbits achieveable by electrons, so that they can accept more energy than usual, however...
ok ok... so can photons bounce off, wonders...
now then... what process can take some light, then convert it to a form which "matter" feeds from.. yes it feeds, caue why is the light absorbed in the first place.. but enough of that... there will be no recoil action of an electron if it gives off light, since light is "light", so no momentum echange force to be balanced.
ever think that maybe, the lgiht is stationary, the particles are all moving frames of references, since they have temperature, and the momentum we perceive is just, the distortion of that motionless medium. ( well not motionless, but keep things simple for now) Forces are distuebances in the light medium, and why we do not see light giviong a recoil action when it is emitted is because, in fact it is just our matter moving, but since matter is our frame of reference we detect no movement, only light moving away at its light speed.
Does temperature of particle, affect the wave of light being emiited, either longitudianlly or transverse, ( sorry bout spelling) because if it does change with temperature, then it will definitely show how the oscillations of matter caused by temperature occur so rapidly, that it explains why there is an osscilation of light, and not just a staright line, as would be logical.
OSCILLATIONS ARE CAUSED BY MOVING POINT SOURCES.
which we all know is true.
more on this later...
"light" which in itself is interesting by wording because it is infact light ( not heavy)
continued... When "photons" are absorbed, there is a delay, before light is given off from the particle which absorbed it. If photons do not bounce off, then explain how a charged particle does not accept incoming photons? test, take a laser, shoot it at a particle, particle = charged, then what happens to the other light coming at the particle? there is a delay between conduction band fall to valence band, and there are cases of other orbits achieveable by electrons, so that they can accept more energy than usual, however...
ok ok... so can photons bounce off, wonders...
now then... what process can take some light, then convert it to a form which "matter" feeds from.. yes it feeds, caue why is the light absorbed in the first place.. but enough of that... there will be no recoil action of an electron if it gives off light, since light is "light", so no momentum echange force to be balanced.
ever think that maybe, the lgiht is stationary, the particles are all moving frames of references, since they have temperature, and the momentum we perceive is just, the distortion of that motionless medium. ( well not motionless, but keep things simple for now) Forces are distuebances in the light medium, and why we do not see light giviong a recoil action when it is emitted is because, in fact it is just our matter moving, but since matter is our frame of reference we detect no movement, only light moving away at its light speed.
Does temperature of particle, affect the wave of light being emiited, either longitudianlly or transverse, ( sorry bout spelling) because if it does change with temperature, then it will definitely show how the oscillations of matter caused by temperature occur so rapidly, that it explains why there is an osscilation of light, and not just a staright line, as would be logical.
OSCILLATIONS ARE CAUSED BY MOVING POINT SOURCES.
which we all know is true.
more on this later...
- #37
Chaos' lil bro Order
- 682
- 2
Light cycles due to the spin of electrons
Interesting conversation so far, thanks for the comments.
1) When a photon is emitted from and electron due to deexcitation, the photon spirals outwards in a shape similar to a stretched out toy 'slinky'. The photon takes this shape because its parent electron spinning around an atom at the time the photon is emitted. Therefore, the photon is accelerated outwards in a spiral like pattern of radiation. The wavelength of the emitted photon of radiation is dependent on the input of energy into the initial electron excitation.
2) There is also the photoelectric effect where an incident photon will eject electrons from a metal plate and in turn this creates an electric current. Of course, there are limitations to this effect, for instance it is frequency dependent, not amplitude dependent.
Meaning, a metal like gold for example, will have a critical threshold whereupon if you send a photon of a given frequency incident on the metal plate no electrons will get ejected. Even if you increase the amplitude of the incident photon beam on the gold plate, no electrons will get ejected. However, if you raise the frequency of even 1 photon above the critical threshold of the gold plate and send it incident, an electron will get ejected from the gold plate.
Also, metals have a 'work function' which is given in units of eV (electron volts) and is equal to the amount of energy lost when the photon is converted into electricity (from heat I'm guessing, but I'm not sure exactly why there is a loss).
3) Question. What is this lag you speak of, 'When "photons" are absorbed, there is a delay, before light is given off from the particle which absorbed it.' Please explain this to me, I would like to know about it and who it works. Thanks.
4) Also you said, 'ever think that maybe, the light is stationary, the particles are all moving frames of references, since they have temperature, and the momentum we perceive is just, the distortion of that motionless medium. ( well not motionless, but keep things simple for now)'
This idea sounds interesting, can you expand on it with more examples and clearer writing so I can understand it, thanks.
Interesting conversation so far, thanks for the comments.
1) When a photon is emitted from and electron due to deexcitation, the photon spirals outwards in a shape similar to a stretched out toy 'slinky'. The photon takes this shape because its parent electron spinning around an atom at the time the photon is emitted. Therefore, the photon is accelerated outwards in a spiral like pattern of radiation. The wavelength of the emitted photon of radiation is dependent on the input of energy into the initial electron excitation.
2) There is also the photoelectric effect where an incident photon will eject electrons from a metal plate and in turn this creates an electric current. Of course, there are limitations to this effect, for instance it is frequency dependent, not amplitude dependent.
Meaning, a metal like gold for example, will have a critical threshold whereupon if you send a photon of a given frequency incident on the metal plate no electrons will get ejected. Even if you increase the amplitude of the incident photon beam on the gold plate, no electrons will get ejected. However, if you raise the frequency of even 1 photon above the critical threshold of the gold plate and send it incident, an electron will get ejected from the gold plate.
Also, metals have a 'work function' which is given in units of eV (electron volts) and is equal to the amount of energy lost when the photon is converted into electricity (from heat I'm guessing, but I'm not sure exactly why there is a loss).
3) Question. What is this lag you speak of, 'When "photons" are absorbed, there is a delay, before light is given off from the particle which absorbed it.' Please explain this to me, I would like to know about it and who it works. Thanks.
4) Also you said, 'ever think that maybe, the light is stationary, the particles are all moving frames of references, since they have temperature, and the momentum we perceive is just, the distortion of that motionless medium. ( well not motionless, but keep things simple for now)'
This idea sounds interesting, can you expand on it with more examples and clearer writing so I can understand it, thanks.
- #38
Chaos' lil bro Order
- 682
- 2
1) 'Wow, could this be one of those TD threads where people actually learn something instead of having knowledge and crackpottery collide'
Yes I agree with your comment, there is so much garbage to filter through on these message boards. If we all write concisely we can learn more in a shorter time.
2)'It turns out that the speed of longitudinal waves, or sound/impulses propagating through the metal, is limited by the speed of light.'
Ok, I see your point, my idea does not circumvent light speed in any respect. Question. What is the force involved here? Use a steel pole for example, is the limiting speed due to iron atoms being sequentially pushed sideways into other iron atoms, and the ensuing Coulomb repulsion domino effect carries the signal to the receiving end? If so, I can see how this must be slower than light speed considering the mediating particle of the Weak (Coulomb) force are bosons, which certainly are bound by light speed as particle acceleration tests can evidence.
If you can elaborate on this and help me understand it more, i'd appreciate it.
Thanks.
P.S. What is 'TD'? I hate acronyms I don't know :)
Yes I agree with your comment, there is so much garbage to filter through on these message boards. If we all write concisely we can learn more in a shorter time.
2)'It turns out that the speed of longitudinal waves, or sound/impulses propagating through the metal, is limited by the speed of light.'
Ok, I see your point, my idea does not circumvent light speed in any respect. Question. What is the force involved here? Use a steel pole for example, is the limiting speed due to iron atoms being sequentially pushed sideways into other iron atoms, and the ensuing Coulomb repulsion domino effect carries the signal to the receiving end? If so, I can see how this must be slower than light speed considering the mediating particle of the Weak (Coulomb) force are bosons, which certainly are bound by light speed as particle acceleration tests can evidence.
If you can elaborate on this and help me understand it more, i'd appreciate it.
Thanks.
P.S. What is 'TD'? I hate acronyms I don't know :)
- #39
elas
Light travels at the speed of light. Period. And speed and energy are two completely different things:
So that's why E=M(cc)
Mass/energy equivalency has also been thoroughly proven
Perhaps Mass/energy/speed relationship is also thoroughly proven?
That was first proven by the Michelson Morley experiment in the late 1800s
This experiment could also be interpreted as showing that light travels faster than anything we can measure, therefore it is always recorded at the fastest speed we can measure (hence the c squared constant?). A similar error was made in reading ozone levels, but in that instant it was possible to build a new measuring device.
So that's why E=M(cc)
Mass/energy equivalency has also been thoroughly proven
Perhaps Mass/energy/speed relationship is also thoroughly proven?
That was first proven by the Michelson Morley experiment in the late 1800s
This experiment could also be interpreted as showing that light travels faster than anything we can measure, therefore it is always recorded at the fastest speed we can measure (hence the c squared constant?). A similar error was made in reading ozone levels, but in that instant it was possible to build a new measuring device.
- #40
cincirob
- 24
- 1
"If light travels a certain distance in space in a given time, is it possible that if space were contracted, light would travel over this "shortened" distance over the same time. i.e. to an outside observer it would appear to slow down."
According to relativity theory every observer will measure light at the same speed, c. This would be true for an observer watching a contracted frame. It might seem to him/her that the observer in that frame should measure v>c. But this doesn't happen because time for the observer in motion is dilated (slowed down) at just the right rate to result in a measurement of c for him/her also.
"As gravity changes space, as one approaches a black hole, light would be slowed, but never stopped. Maybe that's why black holes are black, not because light can't escape but rather that light slows down on the way in and speeds up on the way out. We just haven't yet seen the light that is slowly coming out? So maybe there are black holes that are bright also; ones that the light has escaped."
Again, light travels at c in this case also. Light trying to "climb" out of the gravity of a black hole loses energy, not speed. Since Planck tells us that E=hv, where E=energy, h is Planck's constant, and v =s the frequency of light, loss of energy means lower frequency or redshift.
This all goes back to Maxwell whose equations of electromagnetism show that light speed is governed only by the permeability and permitivity of the meduim through which it travels.
According to relativity theory every observer will measure light at the same speed, c. This would be true for an observer watching a contracted frame. It might seem to him/her that the observer in that frame should measure v>c. But this doesn't happen because time for the observer in motion is dilated (slowed down) at just the right rate to result in a measurement of c for him/her also.
"As gravity changes space, as one approaches a black hole, light would be slowed, but never stopped. Maybe that's why black holes are black, not because light can't escape but rather that light slows down on the way in and speeds up on the way out. We just haven't yet seen the light that is slowly coming out? So maybe there are black holes that are bright also; ones that the light has escaped."
Again, light travels at c in this case also. Light trying to "climb" out of the gravity of a black hole loses energy, not speed. Since Planck tells us that E=hv, where E=energy, h is Planck's constant, and v =s the frequency of light, loss of energy means lower frequency or redshift.
This all goes back to Maxwell whose equations of electromagnetism show that light speed is governed only by the permeability and permitivity of the meduim through which it travels.
- #41
Nacho
- 157
- 0
Not trying to hijack this thread .. but this one has me puzzled about the invariance of the speed of light.
I don't see how it can hold true in an expanding Universe, expecially one with accelerating expansion. Take an extreme case:
You're observing an object at the very limit of the observable horizon, one that will wink-out shortly. Wouldn't you measure the speed of that light progressively approaching zero?
I guess maybe the answer might be, that what you really observe, is the wavelength progressively being redshifted and the SOL always the same, and at the point of wink-out you would observe a close-to-infinite redshift, but always the SOL the same?
I don't see how it can hold true in an expanding Universe, expecially one with accelerating expansion. Take an extreme case:
You're observing an object at the very limit of the observable horizon, one that will wink-out shortly. Wouldn't you measure the speed of that light progressively approaching zero?
I guess maybe the answer might be, that what you really observe, is the wavelength progressively being redshifted and the SOL always the same, and at the point of wink-out you would observe a close-to-infinite redshift, but always the SOL the same?
- #42
Beyond-Numbers
- 8
- 0
Nacho: In short, I think the answer is NO. You would simply be observing the edge of the OBSERVABLE universe. And since you state (hypothetically) it will "wink out soon", this object must be on a course away from you so it will be disgustingly red-shifted. You answered your own question and I back it up.
However, if the universe is infinite then it cannot expand. You can't really get more from the most can you? You have to either assume the universe is infinite and moves like deep ocean currents or it IS bound and expanding. Both theories support red-shift, stellar drift and the like, by the way.
However, if the universe is infinite then it cannot expand. You can't really get more from the most can you? You have to either assume the universe is infinite and moves like deep ocean currents or it IS bound and expanding. Both theories support red-shift, stellar drift and the like, by the way.
- #43
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 11,420
- 750
Compressibility is very easy to demonstrate. A high speed video of a golf club impacting a golf ball clearly shows a time delay before the side of the golf ball opposite the impact side moves. Relativity explains why there is no such thing as a totally rigid [i.e., inelastic] object. Pushing a steel rod is merely a slower version of striking it with a golf club. BTW, TD is Theory Development - this thread. Having your thread moved here means it is deemed scientifically unsupported by the moderators.Chaos' lil bro Order said:1) 'Wow, could this be one of those TD threads where people actually learn something instead of having knowledge and crackpottery collide'
Yes I agree with your comment, there is so much garbage to filter through on these message boards. If we all write concisely we can learn more in a shorter time.
2)'It turns out that the speed of longitudinal waves, or sound/impulses propagating through the metal, is limited by the speed of light.'
Ok, I see your point, my idea does not circumvent light speed in any respect. Question. What is the force involved here? Use a steel pole for example, is the limiting speed due to iron atoms being sequentially pushed sideways into other iron atoms, and the ensuing Coulomb repulsion domino effect carries the signal to the receiving end? If so, I can see how this must be slower than light speed considering the mediating particle of the Weak (Coulomb) force are bosons, which certainly are bound by light speed as particle acceleration tests can evidence.
If you can elaborate on this and help me understand it more, i'd appreciate it.
Thanks.
P.S. What is 'TD'? I hate acronyms I don't know :)
- #44
Antiphon
- 1,685
- 4
Wow. Here goes.
Even in vacuum, there is a line of thinking which allows a photon to travel faster
and slower than the speed of light somewhat like a quantum tunneling effect.
In this line of thinking, c is only the *macroscopically* observed speed of light.
Even in vacuum, there is a line of thinking which allows a photon to travel faster
and slower than the speed of light somewhat like a quantum tunneling effect.
In this line of thinking, c is only the *macroscopically* observed speed of light.
- #45
skeletonic
- 7
- 0
Tom McCurdy said:
scientists took two extremely acurate atomic clocks, one stayed on the ground while the other was in a plane flying arround (i don't know the details). when the scientist reviewed their findings they saw that the one that was flying arround was off by a few nanosecs (please excuse my crudenes). from what the rest of the article said, that proved that the speed of light was actually slower than what it used to be.
personaly i cuold never understand that mumbojumbo about whiping arund the sun to travel back in time, but maby it is not so ubsured. although i believe that time only exists in our minds, the fact that the one clock slowed down raises some unusual points to ponder.
- #46
Loren Booda
- 3,108
- 4
skeletonic,
I think in that classic verification of general relativity the speed of light remained constant for each observer reference frame; it was the spacetime paths the airplanes circuited which varied.
I think in that classic verification of general relativity the speed of light remained constant for each observer reference frame; it was the spacetime paths the airplanes circuited which varied.
- #47
ExecNight
I have a poor high school graduate,pathetic logic view about the speed of light..It is as poor as my grammar and vocabolary :shy:
When someone says the speed of light is constant, then of course i think "no way should change according to my velocity"
Though the explanation probably lies within the words that are used..The first question should be is speed of light a velocity?
Therefore my logical conclusion is that it shouldn't be..But well,what else can you tell 300.000 km/s? that is definitely a velocity..
But i prefer thinking speed of light reacting according to my velocity by its frequency..Ok it is formed by photons but it is also very well known that it has wave characteristics therefore i think light should have a frequency.
As you can imagine, if i would reach the speed of light with my flying elevator, i would see the universe like a picture as the frequency reaches 0..Think about it like this, you are in a standstill position and can view a virtual world by turning around using your mouse..If the frame rate is 0, then as you turn all the image will become nonsense, as it doesn't update..That is of course when it is 2 dimensional..
Unlike that while we exist within 3-D then, i would see the universe as it is..A picture, which is absolutely in a stand still..Not even an electron moving..
On the other hand if frequency changes according to my vectoral movement, then there is another consequence..The light coming towards me, and i am traveling forward becomes updating much more faster, while the light i am running away becomes updating much more slower or at a stand still situation..
Therefore from my flying elevators window i would see a weird universe.Where there is a stand still universe behind my vectoral movement..Slow motion as the angle becomes less than 180degrees from both sides..Same movement rate at 90 degrees and faster movement rate where the angle is less than 90 degrees..
Well, as i said my stupid logic...
When someone says the speed of light is constant, then of course i think "no way should change according to my velocity"
Though the explanation probably lies within the words that are used..The first question should be is speed of light a velocity?
Therefore my logical conclusion is that it shouldn't be..But well,what else can you tell 300.000 km/s? that is definitely a velocity..
But i prefer thinking speed of light reacting according to my velocity by its frequency..Ok it is formed by photons but it is also very well known that it has wave characteristics therefore i think light should have a frequency.
As you can imagine, if i would reach the speed of light with my flying elevator, i would see the universe like a picture as the frequency reaches 0..Think about it like this, you are in a standstill position and can view a virtual world by turning around using your mouse..If the frame rate is 0, then as you turn all the image will become nonsense, as it doesn't update..That is of course when it is 2 dimensional..
Unlike that while we exist within 3-D then, i would see the universe as it is..A picture, which is absolutely in a stand still..Not even an electron moving..
On the other hand if frequency changes according to my vectoral movement, then there is another consequence..The light coming towards me, and i am traveling forward becomes updating much more faster, while the light i am running away becomes updating much more slower or at a stand still situation..
Therefore from my flying elevators window i would see a weird universe.Where there is a stand still universe behind my vectoral movement..Slow motion as the angle becomes less than 180degrees from both sides..Same movement rate at 90 degrees and faster movement rate where the angle is less than 90 degrees..
Well, as i said my stupid logic...
- #48
TheUnknown
- 85
- 0
Nothing in the universe is constant, not even light.
- #49
TheUnknown
- 85
- 0
also, i saw on some other site, the question "will traveling faster than light open up time travel?"... my view. traveling faster than light is simply that... traveling faster than light. Example. The Sun and I start at point A, we are racing towards Earth, point B. 1...2...3.. GO, the Sun shines it's light, but i can travel faster, i can reach Earth.. let's say roughly 3 and a half minutes before the light from the sun can... reaching point B before light can does not make me a time traveler... many people are stuck on this idea that if we can travel faster than light then we can distort time in some way, can someone explain to me why this is? i am studying phylosophy and physics, i just want to hear some real genuine answers if you could help... thanks all! :) i am new here, and it has given me a great deal of information, i love this stuff.
Last edited:
- #50
AWolf
- 177
- 0
Here's a link that may be of interest.
http=www.earthtech.org/publications/Mitre%20Conference.pdf
http=www.earthtech.org/publications/Mitre%20Conference.pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
- · Replies 19 ·
- · Replies 15 ·
High School
Speed of light versus wavelength
- · Replies 14 ·
- · Replies 4 ·
- · Replies 23 ·
- · Replies 25 ·
- · Replies 19 ·
- · Replies 12 ·
Graduate
Speed of Light when not in a vacuum?
- · Replies 5 ·
- · Replies 5 ·