The Mystery of Light Slowing and Speeding Up - www.thefinaltheory.com

[zoobyshoe]

That's not a useful answer to muddlers question.

The question, itself, isn't put well. It is not important for light to be measured as constant. What happened is that when they have measured the speed of light, it always turns out to be constant. Even if you are, yourself, going at half the speed of light, a beam of light traveling in the same direction will pass you at the full speed of light, when it should seem only to be going half the speed of light.

Why it is like this is, really, a complete mystery. Einstein's solution to the problem was to theorize that, since light behaves that way, it must be because time is not absolute, that it can dilate in one reference frame relative to another by virtue of different relative velocities between the two reference frames.

Alot of people believe Einstein hit the nail on the head and explained the apparent problem with the constancy of the speed of light. Others have a lot of doubts.

Relativity is accepted by main stream physics, which doesn't mean you can't question it, but you get a great deal of resistence, of course.

 

[Muddler]

To Prometheus:
Sorry, no offense meant! I was just a bit frustrated about your "answering" my question by just talking about how complex physics are (by the way- I have to say that even your second response does not feel like an answer to my question to me...)

To Zoobyshoe:
You are right, my question wasn't put very well. What I really wanted to know is: have there been any experiments at higher speeds (e.g. half lightspeed as you stated) which prove that lightspeed is still constant with emitters/detectors moving that fast?
For I thought that all actual experiments where done using velocities which were small compared to lightspeed (and therefore our observations of constant lightspeed might not be as valid as we might think...).
It is easy to give examples of bodies moving at near-lightspeed when backed up by such an widely accepted theory as relativity, the question is which kind of examples are valid to prove it...

To all:
Just think about this one: instead of stating that lightspeed is the highest possible velocity in our universe you could as well say that lightspeed is the highest detectable speed (let's say for some reason as "spacetime-viscosity"). If we assume that any measurable effect in our universe can only be followed at lightspeed (just the way we are only able to perceive separate movement below frequencies of about 25 Hz - bad example, but I think it gets the idea...), then there would be no need for spacetime-dilation at all. I know this is pure speculation and therefore can't be disproved easily. But I don't find it harder to imagine that anything moving faster than light is just to quick to follow than trying to figure out, what warped spacetime looks like...

And finally:
As far as I understood Einstein's formula, any object (mass not zero) you try to accelerate to lightspeed (or above) will cause it's mass to go against infinite once you reach the "border", which means all additional acceleration-energy is then conversed directly into mass. If this is so, how comes all real fast moving particles we are able to observe have very little masses (or non at all) ?? And if you take E=mc² literally, doesn't that mean, that photons (which are said to have no mass) contain no energy at all??
The answer to that might be clear to you, but it keeps boggling my mind for sure...

 

[jcsd]

But I'm trying to determine if your "there must be" is a stipulation or if it has been determined to be true. Will a photon emitted from a spaceship traveling at an appreciable fraction of c at 90º to the ships direction of travel actually have a component of motion in the direction of the ships travel? Or is this a stipulation to make the point about what the observer will see? [p/quote]

I don't think I was partciualrly clear there must be, in the exmaple I showed were the light is emitted at 90 degrees to the direction of motion in the emitters rest frame, that's just a result of galliean relativity

Imagine the emitter/detector as two ships both traveling in the same direction at the same speed .9999999c. They are side by side but separated by 300,000 miles. It will take well over a second for a photon to cover this distance.

If ship Emitter aims its photon gun at ship Detector and fires one round, will not ship Detector have vacated the target area by the time the photon arrives where it was aimed?

No because the dector is at rest to the emitter so in that frame it doesn't even move and it just comes from self-cnsistenty that it must hit the dector in all rest frame.

If someone on ship Emitter throws a rock at ship Detector it will, indeed, eventually hit ship Detector. The rock, though, has acquired momentum in the direction of Emitter/Detector's travel by virtue of its mass. A photon has no mass and I wouldn't be surprised to find out it behaved differently than a rock in the same circumstances.

Rocks and photons do behave diffreently, but there's no need to consider the photons momantum here even as the importnat fact here is that light always travels at c.

 

[jcsd]

To Zoobyshoe:
You are right, my question wasn't put very well. What I really wanted to know is: have there been any experiments at higher speeds (e.g. half lightspeed as you stated) which prove that lightspeed is still constant with emitters/detectors moving that fast?
For I thought that all actual experiments where done using velocities which were small compared to lightspeed (and therefore our observations of constant lightspeed might not be as valid as we might think...).
It is easy to give examples of bodies moving at near-lightspeed when backed up by such an widely accepted theory as relativity, the question is which kind of examples are valid to prove it...

I think there's 2 different things at work here:

1. the model that is special realitvity

2. evidence for that model.

So far we've only adressed the model, but be assured there is ALOT of evidence for special relativity.

 

[Muddler]

I think there's 2 different things at work here:

1. the model that is special realitvity

2. evidence for that model.

So far we've only adressed the model, but be assured there is ALOT of evidence for special relativity.

Of course there is! That's why the theory of relativity is still used.
I'm not trying to discredit the whole theory, all I wanted to know is, what kind of proof we have to rightfully assume lightspeed to be constant under all thinkable (or better: testable) circumstances. If you have references for such experiments, I'd be real happy!

 

[ram1024]

Tom Mattson is currently on a mission (albeit slightly MIA) to collect his available data for speed of light trials.

i'm thinking there was a mathematical calculation error personally, hopefully i can pinpoint where it is and convince you guys to see it from my perspective (which seems to be the hard part) :D

 

[russ_watters]

...all I wanted to know is, what kind of proof we have to rightfully assume lightspeed to be constant under all thinkable (or better: testable) circumstances. If you have references for such experiments, I'd be real happy!

We've got quite a collection in THIS thread.

 

[reilly]

One can always hope that tunnel vision of SR will expand -- at what cost, who knows. There are a few points that typically get lost in these endless discussions of the validity of SR.

First, physics is a rough and tumble sport, and physics is full of predators. That is, at the first sign of weakness or fuzziness in a theory, and experiment, a calulation, physicists will jump all over the offending offering. So, SR has been cross-examined to an almost infinite degree. Someone earlier in this thread wrote about vested interests protecting SR. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any physicist would love to be the one to poke a hole in SR; that would mean immortalitiy. Just has not happened. The seminars in physics departments can be terribly vicious. Those challenging SR would last at most minute or two before being torn to intellectual shreds in any physics department seminar. Most posts here are gentle compared to comments from most professional physicists.

Second, physics like the law depends greatly on circumstantial evidence, mostly in the form of two way logic chains. The entire enterprise of particle physics depends critically on SR, usually with respect to relativistic kinematics -- and relativistic QM and field theory. That is, if the assumption that the speed of light is constant is not true, then many parts of physics would simply be wrong. That is, the evidence supporting SR is overwhelming. So overwhelming that it takes several years of course work to learn about the extent of the fabric of SR. About almost direct measurements of c: the pi 0 meson decays into two photons. if I'm not mistaken there's lots of data on the photon frequencies for a variety of pi 0 speeds. Circumstantial evidence to be sure, but it supports SR, and isotropy of c.

Is it possible that SR is wrong? Of course. But if it is, the odds are that the problems will emerge in areas about which we don't know much. Certainly we don't know much about photons that carry, say the energy of an asteroid. Perhaps at enormously high frequencies there might be problems. This suggests, perhaps, problems with relativistic field theory. There is, undoubtedly massive opportunity in the ultra-ultra hight frequency aries of physics.

It seldom pays to look for problems where the light has exposed all the nits and nats.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[geistkiesel]

One can always hope that tunnel vision of SR will expand -- at what cost, who knows. There are a few points that typically get lost in these endless discussions of the validity of SR.

First, physics is a rough and tumble sport, and physics is full of predators. That is, at the first sign of weakness or fuzziness in a theory, and experiment, a calulation, physicists will jump all over the offending offering. So, SR has been cross-examined to an almost infinite degree. Someone earlier in this thread wrote about vested interests protecting SR. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any physicist would love to be the one to poke a hole in SR; that would mean immortalitiy. Just has not happened. The seminars in physics departments can be terribly vicious. Those challenging SR would last at most minute or two before being torn to intellectual shreds in any physics department seminar. Most posts here are gentle compared to comments from most professional physicists.

Second, physics like the law depends greatly on circumstantial evidence, mostly in the form of two way logic chains. The entire enterprise of particle physics depends critically on SR, usually with respect to relativistic kinematics -- and relativistic QM and field theory. That is, if the assumption that the speed of light is constant is not true, then many parts of physics would simply be wrong. That is, the evidence supporting SR is overwhelming. So overwhelming that it takes several years of course work to learn about the extent of the fabric of SR. About almost direct measurements of c: the pi 0 meson decays into two photons. if I'm not mistaken there's lots of data on the photon frequencies for a variety of pi 0 speeds. Circumstantial evidence to be sure, but it supports SR, and isotropy of c.

Is it possible that SR is wrong? Of course. But if it is, the odds are that the problems will emerge in areas about which we don't know much. Certainly we don't know much about photons that carry, say the energy of an asteroid. Perhaps at enormously high frequencies there might be problems. This suggests, perhaps, problems with relativistic field theory. There is, undoubtedly massive opportunity in the ultra-ultra hight frequency aries of physics.

It seldom pays to look for problems where the light has exposed all the nits and nats.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

Reilly take Enstein;s gedunken experiment where two photons are emitted simultaneously at A and B just as the moving observer is at the midpoint M of the A and B sources. As the moving frame continues it first detects the B phtobn and later the A photon coming from the rear. Einstein uses this sequential observtion of the pohotons as a definition of the loss of simultaneity and says that the observers in the moving frame "must therefore" conclude the photons were notwemitted simulataneously in the moving frame.

Let ius redesignethe experiment. At M the midpoint of gthe A and B photon sources, we insert some mirrors (\/) that deflect the A and B photons simultaneously into the moving frame, simultaneously. The photons are reflected when side by side. Tell us how the moving observers are able to, 1). Detect the photons were not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame and 2), which photon came from which source and 3) how simultaneity can possibly have any relevance to this problem that AE used as an example for the loss of simultaneity and the discarding of absolute time, among other aspects of SR.
If you can't answer this one you just kissed special relativity goodbye.

      M
  A-->\/<--B  stationary frame.
      ||
########### detectors in the moving  --> frame.
     A'B'

 

[russ_watters]

If you can't answer this one you just kissed special relativity goodbye.

Your continuing misunderstandings of SR do not constitute evidence that it is wrong.

 

[Alkatran]

I see what you're trying to do: You're trying to create an event (same time and position) and then make it so this event isn't simultaneous to all observers (all events at the same position are simultaneous).

Well here's what happens: In the stationary frame the light is emitted simultaenously and hits the detectors simulatenously.

In the moving frame the light also hits the emittors simulatenously, but is emitted at different times (the right emitter goes first).

 

[Jonopants]

Debunking closed minds

Is it possible that people who explain and debunk are merely paroting what their teachers said to them? Is this the case in debunking this "The Final Theory".

 

[Prometheus]

Just think about this one: instead of stating that lightspeed is the highest possible velocity in our universe you could as well say that lightspeed is the highest detectable speed

Just think about this one: instead of focusing on the idea that the speed of light is the highest possible speed in the universe, focus on the idea that the speed of light is the only speed in the universe. Everything always moves at the same speed, the speed of light. The speed of light is constant, in space-time. As motion through space changes, so does motion through time.

Your point about "detectable" is valid, in the context of your usage of light as motion through space only, out of the context of time. Light from parts of the universe so far distant that it has not reached us yet has a different time element, and therefore should not be expected to travel through space at the same rate as the light with whcih we are familiar, in this part of the universe.

 

[reilly]

geistkiesel -- Sorry to say, you just don't get it. Said another way, to rephrase my post #98, how can you ignore almost 100 years of history -- the score is Einstein, 100,000, opponents 0. Nobody has made even the slightest dent in SR; it is tested everyday. I fully concur with Russ Watters. If you are so convinced that you are correct, publish, speak, and, above all, convince. And note, that you will have to convince those of us who have worked with SR -- I've got almost 40 years.

The truth will out; you have a long way to go to be compelling with your SR doubts. When I taught SR, students asked questions like yours at the beginning of the course; at the end of the course they could answer their own questions and thus affirm SR in their own minds.

Your example is a trivial modification of the train experiment: the Lorentz transform ascribes different times to the emission of photons A and B in a frame moving with respect to the "emitting frame" But, all inertial observers will agree that the photons reach M, the midpoint, in the emitting frame, between A and B at the same time. If you use your mirrors, you will have photons on a parallel track; how to distinguish them is a matter of displacement of the photons by the mirrors, and or a matter of intial different polarizations states, or frequency. All you are doing is using a different detection procedure than is usually ascribed in the Train Expt.

You will have to do much better in order to convince your critics.

My motives in participating in this thread are those of a teacher -- I like to help people get to the truth. And, I believe in history, and the successful history of physics in particular.

Why do you hold on so hard to being an anti SR person? You want to be a successful physicist, then consider the rational approach which says that the odds of succeeding in your present path are virtually negative.A focus on experiments and data would greatly help your possibility of doing some good physics.

I've explained your nominal conundrum. Please explain where I've gone wrong in #98, particularly with respect to the ubiquity of SR in the physics of now, and the 20th century.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[ram1024]

Why do you hold on so hard to being an anti SR person? You want to be a successful physicist, then consider the rational approach which says that the odds of succeeding in your present path are virtually negative

Because SR is wrong? When something rubs you the wrong way, you attack it with all verve and determination you can. only when it completely makes sense to you can you ever give up and claim defeat. if you give up before then you're just lying to yourself and depriving the scientific world of your earnest efforts.

respect the cracked pot. there's always the possibility he might be right.

 

[reilly]

geistkiesel -- Sad to say, cracked pots hold a one way ticket to obscurity, speeded up by their level of compulsion. If in fact you are the one in a billion that is right, then you must convince the rest of the world that you are correct. A better mousetrap will bring people to your doorstep, along with their respect. A fantasy moustrap might have a romantic appeal to a few, but will be jive to most. Good luck.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[Chronos]

All of science has been built upon observation. Once we developed the language of mathematics, the ambiguities between observation and reality have rapidly disappeared. In that sense, mathematics is the ultimate description of reality. It is a language that is unambiguous. What we have discovered, unfortunately, is that the language of mathematics is just as incomplete and mysterious as the logic of Aristotle. It does not adequately explain all observations. Even our revered mathematics break down when 0 or infinities appear in the solution. According to Planck, time breaks down at 10-43 seconds, volume breaks down at 10-99/cm^3, and mass density breaks down at 10-93 gm/cc. These are not imaginary values. All observations to date have revealed no evidence these barriers have ever been breached [or even approached]. The good Lord knows, because many have tried and failed: even Einstein, who was a pretty bright fellow.

The only escape from 'singularities', such as these, is that our version of math is incomplete. Godel made that point long ago. Assumptions cannot be validated within the system they arise. 'a priori' assumptions ultimately become identities when reduced to simplest terms. The most fundamental interpretation of GR insists that all reference frames are innately self-referential.

Where is this 'better' math to be found? Unclear. My best guess is that we need not discard current knowledge. Just fill in the gaps where current math predicts infinite [or 1/infinite] results. Don't ask me how to do that. I am too old to both write and correct the numerous mistakes I would commit before I went nova.

WARNING: If this thread forces me go to the math forum for answers, I will find a way to make the most qualified star nearest to your planet to go Ia: assuming I find the math. [more likely it will be a dud and result in yet another main sequence yawner star orbited by dirt balls populated with equally annoying sentient beings].

 

[notimeleftforyou]

radioactive decay

I'm just a computer scientist that specializes in networking so I wouldn't fathom to say I am in your league if you are working on a Phd in physics.

I was reading the debate on time dilation & found it interesting that at no time any of you mentioned radioactive decay. Someone stated time=motion.

With respect to SR & GR common sense would suggest that acceleration is the key to time dilation with respect to the two astronauts perspective. But arguments dealing with age don't make much sense. Replacing the persons with clocks doesn't either because all of these entities experience radioactive decay. It would be better to compare two atomic clocks surrounded by a vac traveling into balls of energy capable of escape velocity. With that in mind there are 3 points of reference:
1) Earth
2) Clock A
3) Clock B

From what I know about atomic clocks they are somehow affected by natural forces (G, EM, SN, WN). These forces are not constant in the universe so naturally they will vary the rate at which atomic clocks tick (figuratively speaking). That's why it's entirely possible for the following scenario:
Two energy balls carrying two atomic clocks leave at the same Earth time.
The travel the same distance, experience varied levels of acceleration, but arrive back at the same Earth time. It is possible for the clocks to differ greatly based on the natural forces they encountered in their journey.

So I don't think I would agree that time=motion. I would agree with time=decay. You could argue that motion is required for decay & I wouldn't disagree. But motion implies something multi-directional & decay implies something uni-directional. I think this is an important distinction because it pretty much addresses time-travel. If you view time as multi-directional motion then time travel is theoretically possible. But if you view it as uni-directional then it's not.

Now this is a far-reaching hypothesis but well it's good to add some fun to
the thread. The Bible says that God created the Universe & everything in it
in 6 days. God=creator, or initiator if you will. We know via decay measurements that this is impossible. But that assumes that decay has occurred at a constant rate throughout time. Why should we assume this?
Why should we expect that (G,EM,SN,WN) would remain constant throughout the passage of Earth time? Now I'm not suggesting the Bible is right. But I am suggesting that relativity as indeed provided us explanations for how something like that could be right. All you have to imagine is that during those 6 God days of creation, the rate at which atomic clocks were ticking was a great magnitude higher then they are today. Is that plausible? Who knows. But I remember reading a theory that believed that was the case. Not the whole Bible thing but rather that the Earth has varying rates of atomic clocks. The closest you travel to the center the faster the rate of the clock.

As for The Final Theory, I would not agree with the premise of that which we do not know & label as mysterious is necc flawed. Unless the author can show an example of where his theory would lead enable us to conquer space travel, food shortages, energy shortages, or something else that would be beneficial to society the Standard Theory seems adequate to me. With it we have developed virtual reality, will develop nanotechnology, & eventually cyborgs. Even with the application of Standard Theory we should arrive close to God-hood in terms of extending human life & making it more durable to travel the Universe in a century from now. I think that's significant progress.
What I believe the author completely disregards in his comments that prevailing science is predicated on ST that is well over a century old is the impact of computer science. Computer science has enabled us to attack scientific problems at light speed relatively speaking in comparison to what was possible 4 decades ago.

One day we will know exactly what the force is that makes magnets stick
to fridges. Does the author know why? Because technology born of CS & ST
will help us to observe the inner-mechanisms of that force first hand.

 

[Layne]

Hello everyone! I blundered into this forum by clicking the link from The Final Theory website. I'd like to put in my two cents.

It is my fervent hope that someday an outsider will come along and shatter our current paradigm with a more elegant, more simple, and more functional explanation. Just as some of yesterday's cults are today's mainstream religions, and some of the rabble-rousing, authority-defying, status-quo-breaking people in history are now revered as fathers of (insert name of their nation, cause, religion, or branch of science here), many of the breakthroughs in science - and the scientists that offered them - were met with stiff opposition and open hostility before they became universally accepted.

With this historical perspective in mind, it makes sense to suspend our disbelief and preconceptions as much as possible and give a newcomer such as The Final Theory a fair opportunity to convince us that what we have believed up till now is incorrect.

But the knife cuts both ways. The Final Theory owes the scientific community the same consideration. He owes us a fair opportunity to put his theory to the test, to question it, and to respond to it.

So here's my problem. The Final Theory claims one simple principle is responsible for gravity, electro-magnetism, atomic structure, celestial observations, and more. But demands we pay $29.95 each for the chance to learn what this one simple principle is.

He may be absolutely correct. There may be one simple principle that explains all this stuff. There's no way any of us can know unless we know the one simple principle he uses as the basis of his book. Why doesn't he submit this theory to a science journal instead of try to make money off a generally uneducated public? If is book is as convincing as his website would have us believe, why not present it to one of the physics journals or even Scientific American?

How can we have an intelligent discussion with him of only he knows the principle we're discussing? This isn't poker. We shouldn't have to pay to see his cards.

Layne