Log In | Register
134 Comments
Print
advertisement
The speed of light is denoted by the symbol c.
It is the speed of all electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum.
Electromagnetic radiation is a wave/particle that has both electrical and magnetic properties, but no mass.
c is also the speed of anything that has no mass. If any particle were suddenly without mass, it would also suddenly be moving at c.
If you were moving at 99.9999% of c (perpendicular to a stationary observer) and turned on a flashlight and pointed it straight ahead, you would see that the light (electromagnetic radiation) coming from your flashlight would move ahead of you at c.
Although you would think that the observer would see the light from the flashlight moving at, oh, something close to 199.9999% the speed of c (since you're moving at 99.9999% of c and the light is moving ahead of you at 100% c) --you would think that you could add the two speeds together, but you would be wrong. Why? Because you were moving so fast in the first place...the result of which was that time slowed down and you became flat, like a cardboard-cutout version of yourself moving forward, extremely dense, with more mass, and flatly squared with your destination.
The observer would see the light from the flashlight moving at its normal speed, the speed of light, c.
Is what you observe different than what someone else observes?
In your frame of reference, the light is moving away from you at c.
In the observer's frame of reference, the light is moving at c...not 199.9999% c.
So, why is it the speed of light that is the constant? The fact that it is the speed that is constant means that space and time (or, spacetime) have to be changeable. A second for you is a different amount of time than it is for me in reality, but we both experience it as a regular old second.
Why isn't the speed of gravity an important constant? Gravity propagates at c. If the sun suddenly disappeared, the planets revolving around it would experience the sudden lack of gravity at the exact same time as the light from the sun stopped hitting them. This would happen sooner for Mercury than it would for Pluto.
btw, you experience the same slowing of time and length-contraction when you are in an extremely strong gravitational field...like, near a black hole, where space and time are warped in the same way that they are when you are moving very fast.
The Spacetime Constant
Why isn't Light the constant instead of its speed?
Light doesn't move through time. It couldn't be said to experience time. Maybe the perception that light moves at all is an illusion. Maybe the different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation are just differences in perspective, from one observer at one time, to another observer at another time. Electromagnetic radiation and its many wavelengths -- light itself -- is just a disturbance in spacetime, caused by mass, seen differently from different perspectives/frames of reference.
Light is the flip side of gravity. Light is a marker that connects to its source: a massive object that has caused a distortion of spacetime by simply existing. It is The Friction of Time that acts on mass to cause the phenomenon of light.
Gravity is the curvature of spacetime and is caused by mass...it is the force that becomes evident when massive objects exist...causing distortion of space and, therefore, spacetime.
Light is a detectable disturbance of spacetime and is caused by mass...it is the force that becomes evident when massive objects exist...causing friction with time.
When we see light, we see spacetime.
57 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- JCAtom's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: Logic on the Vine, Newsvine Science, Science And Technology, Science Fiction
- Regions: none
 | Special Relativity–The Basics | Chris from MN | Sun Aug 3 | 5 |
- Public Discussion (134)
- Public Discussion (0)
- Logic on the Vine
- Newsvine Science
- Science And Technology
- Science Fiction
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
151
84
13
{"commentId":2341035,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
I'm sure this makes no sense to anyone but me. Still, anyone who does understand physics, and can help me understand what is wrong with my perception of it, is welcome. Be nice if you're able. If not, come on anyway, I want to understand better and can take the accusations of idiocy if needed.
{"commentId":2341035,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"jcatom"}
- 6 votes
#1 - Fri Aug 1, 2008 10:43 AM EDT{"commentId":2341180,"authorDomain":"jessihibbs-sanders"}
Ok, you are right I have no idea what any of that meant. But it is nice to learn something new everyday.
{"commentId":2341180,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"jessihibbs-sanders"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":2342695,"authorDomain":"japark"}
I won't comment on your conclusion. Doesn't seem to follow for me, but then I am not a physicist.
I question one statement -- that gravity propagates at the speed of light. I have seen that in many places, stated by many respected physicists. But I question it.
If gravity propagates at the speed of light, why does a black hole have an external gravitational field? Light cannot escape a black hole. How can gravity if gravity if gravity is limited to the speed of light?
{"commentId":2342695,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"japark"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":2343332,"authorDomain":"japark"}
It doesn't make sense to say the speed of gravity to me ...
It doesn't to me either.
Gravity is something we know so little about. How would you measure the speed of propagation of the curvature of space (if that is indeed what gravity is)?
{"commentId":2343332,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"japark"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2343426,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2344816,"authorDomain":"Tenurist"}
If the speed of light and gravity are the same, then if they didn't 'start' at the same time, we'd have a chaotic universe, because they could not match into the 'dimensional fold' which provides suitable math to describe the phenomenom mentioned. Since objects moving at the speed of light seem to retain 'irrelative' quantities which seems to render E=mc(2) as incomplete or partial to C being a variable (in the same way you perceive a spacetime variable and a light constant: a relationship between relative and irrelative energies).
But one of the problems with this perspective is an 'original lack of substance' since the equations denote the 'fluctuations' of relative space, it predicts a natural state of unbalance which perhaps describes constants in dualities and thus trading between relative and irrelative creates a new type of hybrid variable constant. Eg. The speed limit is 60km hour, we understand it to be a constant, but it is not immutable. The lack of substance predicts an immutable universe, which according to our observations is unlikely.
If anything working in this direction means a disappearing universe is permissable, since there is a constant trade of dimensional energy scales called 'scalar energies' which revises the E=mc2 to incorporate the fluctuations present in C, the disappearing universe itself seems to create a natural state of unbalance, yet predictable 'growth' patterns' which seem to contradict the theory of limited energy in the universe, perhaps if we were to revise it to the 'limits of energy.
For if we look at the universe we see an image / shadow relationship which dubiously render a relative universe (see mobius translations), challenging the nature of the circular reasoning through the idea of convex and concave oracles and how that interaction occurs with relative space allow a revisitation of E, by imagining it in a scale of energy constants.
This would occur within the few instances of the universe, when the laws of physics are defined, but the concave, convex oracle theory denotes no creation or universal genesis.
{"commentId":2344816,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"Tenurist"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":2348539,"authorDomain":"incredulous"}
Light doesn't move through time. It couldn't be said to experience time. Maybe the perception that light moves at all is an illusion.
the light doesn't think so, but you certainly do. If you turn on and off a light source, you can calculate how long it will take the pulse to reach a distant point. If you look at the detector too soon, it hasn't arrived yet. Doesn't this seem to you as if it has a speed?
Maybe the different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation are just differences in perspective, from one observer at one time, to another observer at another time.
you can disperse (spread) the wavelengths of a light source like the sun, for example, with a prism. One observer, you, will see the different colors. You don't need another observer.
I'm not sure why you need to reinterpret a satisfactory understanding of light, or if you do, why your interpretation is a better one or what it explains that the accepted one doesn't. Seems unnecessarily confusing to introduce new concepts that don't explain anything.
{"commentId":2348539,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"incredulous"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2350199,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2351400,"authorDomain":"incredulous"}
I think to have a serious discussion you have to be more precise. At least that's what I need to have a "serious" discussion about physics or we'll quickly get into problems of interpretation, and meaning.
If the light were seen as a stationary thing then the mass in the crystal has caused friction which, since you move through time and space, appears all at once.
you are using non-standard terminology. Light is not affected by friction (directly). we're getting into an inconsistency in terminologies which is not helpful in understanding these things. At a fundamental level there is no such thing as friction. Friction is only a name given to non-conservative forces (they are not derivatives of a potential) that causes things to lose energy, and when we cannot account for all the energy, we say "friction". If you looked at the most fundamental interactions, you would see only that energy is conserved i.e. there's no friction. When we can't account for the energy loss, we call it friction. In quantum field theories, there are not even things like forces. There's only energies and potentials.
My point is not to try to explain anything in particular, it's that you must use a consistent picture in concept and terminology to understand physics. When it can't be done, then a certain amount of mixing and matching must be done in order to have a useful conversation even in modern physics. But you are introducing new concepts together with old terminology in a way that does not clarify anything, imo.
If you want to talk about light not having a velocity, that's ok, but then you have to adjust everything else, otherwise, we will be trying to explain your new interpretation using the "old" i.e. current understanding, and that won't work. so, for example, when I say, it takes time for a light pulse to go from here to there, which means it has a velocity, you will say what? And whatever you say will involve some other "new" interpretation, etc.
Otoh, if your interpretation were to clarify or simplify things, it should be discussed. So far, I don't see that it adds anything useful.
{"commentId":2351400,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"incredulous"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":2355032,"authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
If gravity propagates at the speed of light, why does a black hole have an external gravitational field? Light cannot escape a black hole. How can gravity if gravity if gravity is limited to the speed of light?
What you might think of as the "surface" of a black hole is just the Event Horizon, which is the distance from the singularity where the gravity is so great that light can no longer escape. It's the point of no return. It's the point where you no longer have enough "gas" to get back.
The actual singularity at the center is warping spacetime into a deep, deep gravity well. If you get caught in the well, at some point the "walls" become steep enough that there's no hope of climbing out. The escape velocity required becomes greater than the universe allows.
Material objects (light and energy and you and I are material objects) cannot escape the event horizon. Gravity is not a material object, it's a warping of the fabric of space. (Another way to think of it is that gravity is not affected by itself.)
It is the information that gravity from any given source affects you that cannot move faster than c. We know the sun's gravity affects us. That's information. If the sun vanished, we're not allowed to have that information for the ~8 minutes it takes for that info to get here at c.
{"commentId":2355032,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2355373,"authorDomain":"japark"}
That makes no sense.
If the Sun were to disappear, there would be a period of approximately 8 minutes before we would become aware visually of the change, since light is limited by the speed of light.
If you argue that gravity propagates at the speed of light, it would likewise be a period of approximately 8 minutes before the earth's movement would be affected by the change.
Likewise, if the Sun collapsed into a black hole, it would be approximately 8 minutes before we would be visually aware of the change.
How is it that if the Sun collapsed into a black hole, the earth would never feel any change?
How is it that a phenomenon which propagates at the speed of light can escape the black hole?
We both know that light cannot. How can gravity?
I suspect that gravity, whatever it is, is not limited in its propagation by the speed of light.
{"commentId":2355373,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"japark"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2355628,"authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
Likewise, if the Sun collapsed into a black hole, it would be approximately 8 minutes before we would be visually aware of the change.
How is it that if the Sun collapsed into a black hole, the earth would never feel any change?
You are thinking that gravity is a form of radiation that propagates like other forms of radiation. In the current theory of gravity (General Relativity), that's not so. It is literally the warping of spacetime caused by mass.
If the sun collapsed into a BH, the spacetime warping would still be there due to the mass of the BH. The light would vanish, but we would remain in orbit.
{"commentId":2355628,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2356010,"authorDomain":"japark"}
We would remain in orbit.
A black hole closes space-time around it into an event horizon. Nevertheless, the gravity effects of the mass of the black hole continues to effect normal space-time in the same manner as if there were no black hole.
Gravity is not affected by the black hole or its event horizon.
I am not postulating that gravity is electromagnetic in nature. In fact, I suspect it is not. Whatever it is, nothing seems to affect it, not even an event horizon.
I see no reason to postulate that gravity, whatever it is, is bound by light speed in its propagation.
{"commentId":2356010,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"japark"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2356161,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2356174,"authorDomain":"japark"}
Yes. And that says nothing about the propagation speed of gravity.
{"commentId":2356174,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"japark"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":2356455,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2356589,"authorDomain":"japark"}
Relativity predicts gravity waves (does it predict their speed?) but we have never created or detected a gravity wave.
Gravity may be a wave phenomenon and it may not. We still don't know what gravity is and we do not know how it propagates nor do we know what speed it propagates at (presuming the question even has meaning in relation to gravity).
{"commentId":2356589,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"japark"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2356622,"authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
I see no reason to postulate that gravity, whatever it is, is bound by light speed in its propagation.
All forms of information in this universe are bound by c. There are no exceptions under current theory. (That's what makes Bell's Theorem so spooky. We totally don't get that one, yet.)
As JCAtom points out above, gravity waves, which are due to disturbences of mass propagate at no more than c.
There's a few experiments trying to record gravity waves from, for example, supernovas, but these waves, if they exist at all, are extremely weak and very difficult to pick up.
{"commentId":2356622,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2356652,"authorDomain":"japark"}
All forms of information in this universe are bound by c.
Makes a fine quote, but you don't know that.
Since we don't know what causes mass, inertia and gravity, and don't really know what those quantities represent, we cannot state with authority that gravity is bound by light speed.
Quantum entanglement apparently works instantaneously. Why can't gravity?
{"commentId":2356652,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"japark"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2357238,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2358326,"authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
All forms of information in this universe are bound by c.Makes a fine quote, but you don't know that.
Which is why my next sentence was, "There are no exceptions under current theory." (Emphasis added.)
Einstein's Relativity Theory and The Copenhage Interpretation are two of the most well-tested theories in existence. You are absolutely right that there are many things we don't understand, and it's almost certain that a completely different theory is required. For one thing, Einstein and Copenhage cannot both be entirely right, because parts of each exclude the other.
None of this can be stated fully authoritatively! Right now all we have is a cookbook that works great and agrees with every test we can devise. But we have no clue why it works so well, or what it all means. For all our iPods and iPhones, we have no idea what an electron really is.
For all we really know, this is just a Butterfly's Dream.
{"commentId":2358326,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2360212,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2362318,"authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
So, if I measure one light beam going from my left to my right and, at the same time, measure a light beam going from my right to my left...
Which way am I moving?
I donno, JC. I think this c=0 thing is a bit fruitless, but I'm keeping an open mind.
{"commentId":2362318,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2370232,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2370590,"authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
Photons may not experience time, but they move in time. Think of distant stars. The photons we see were created hundreds of years ago and have been moving towards us since them.
{"commentId":2370590,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2370708,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2818205,"authorDomain":"JessWondering"}
Here's a discussion I found about the speed of gravity. It doesn't make sense to say the speed of gravity to me, and it doesn't make sense to say, then, the speed of light.
It is actually the speed of time and the measure of distance as we define the two concepts today.
Time is the relative placement of events in space. The event of the light from a distant new star reaching this planet can be ascertained--observed in fact. The relative placement of the event of the light of that same new star reaching a planet distant from ours can also be ascertained and described using the concepts of space, distance and relative placement in space. By that mechanism we can measure the speed of light.
So that time (as the relative placement of events in space) is an observational thing--it is, as the empiricists would say, simply a perceived stream of when event can be and are observed. For every creature, changing events in space make-up time as a perceptual matter.
So why is the the speed of light a constant? Because we reliably experience it as such. Why isn't it light itself that is the constant? Because what we are perceiving is news of the events in space through the messenger (or energy) of light. Our experience will be relative because we've come to understand that information reaching us reaches us at different times depending on where we are situated in space. Moreover, we've ascertained the rules that govern what experiencial differences will be caused by location in space and movement of information through space. News of an exploding star will reach point A at X time and point B at Y time because of the distance between the two places through which the news must be carried by light which travels at a constant speed.
Lights speed is constant because we observe that to be true no matter where we are situated, in which direction light and we are traveling, or at what speed we are traveling.
From this observational foundation, I do not see how we make the leap that light itself is by nature what we observe as only how it behaves.
It may be so, but what makes you think so?
Light undoubtedly often marks out gravity for us to observe, but that function and the speed at which that function occurs does not necessarily imply a duality between light and gravity. As far as we observe they are just independent aspects of a larger reality we observe.
Of course, you do make an important observation: Why should the the means to observationally experience gravity independent of light travel though space at the same rate of speed as light--why should notice of the bending of space passing though space travel at the same rate as light? This coincidence almost certainly points to something more fundamental as yet not understood, but again: it does not necessarily imply a duality.
There are also may be a differences between the perception of gravity and light. No matter what speed one is traveling, light will always be perceived as traveling toward or away from you at a fixed rate of speed. Is that true of gravity's influence? Doesn't perception of gravity always travels toward you from the location of mass and away from you in the direction away from mass? Do the same rules of constancy of speed control gravity? If one is traveling at half the speed of light, when gravity from new mass overtook one and naturally shot-off ahead, what speed would that event horizon be traveling? Would it be half the speed of light or would it too remain constant at the speed of light? I'm too unstudied to know.
To get completely disengaged from responsibility to scientific discipline for a moment, my intuition seems to tell me that the "bending space" construct is erroneous. It is geometrically beautiful but it makes the relative observation of events in space by humans a fourth dimension that is unnecessary to explain most phenomena in the universe. Explaining the force of gravity as something aside from all other forces seems inelegant and has tossed theoretical physics into a whirlwind of "inventing" other spacial dimensions to explain conflicting observations. No supporting observation has arisen in over a quarter of a century.
Oh....gotta go, I Love Lucy just came on.
{"commentId":2818205,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"JessWondering"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2818731,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":3728243,"authorDomain":"ezeques"}
Still, anyone who does understand physics, and can help me understand what is wrong with my perception of it, is welcome.
You should ask Sarah Palin. She knows.
{"commentId":3728243,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ezeques"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2341863,"authorDomain":"madmilker60"}
Light is the flip side of gravity
until you get to Washington D. C .....both you and Galileo can ignore air resistance........but with all tat hot air in D. C.....tat dang light would ricochet off tat Hill and end up next door to Abell 1835 IR1916 bout the time the American debt gets to $0.00.
{"commentId":2341863,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"madmilker60"}
- 3 votes
#2 - Fri Aug 1, 2008 12:04 PM EDT{"commentId":2342372,"authorDomain":"juno"}
Okay, see, I don't know if any of what you said makes sense! But it TOTALLY appears that you are WAY smarter than little-ole me!
I'll take a couple aspirin now, and once the ache is gone, maybe, just maybe, you'll have made me smarter.
Just in case, thanks! : )
{"commentId":2342372,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"juno"}
- 4 votes
#3 - Fri Aug 1, 2008 12:53 PM EDT{"commentId":2342656,"authorDomain":"jessihibbs-sanders"}
Yes, I agree I little head can't take all that thinking at once.LOL
{"commentId":2342656,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"jessihibbs-sanders"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":2342704,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2342927,"authorDomain":"jessihibbs-sanders"}
Well thanks for trying to make it sound like it was your writing when I definitely know that's not the case. By the way your writing has always made sense to me. Mine on the other had is not so well. In my writings you can tell I am a country girl with an opinion. I do try to write as well as I know how, it just don't always show.
{"commentId":2342927,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"jessihibbs-sanders"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2343172,"authorDomain":"juno"}
The links are probably more informative than my writing.
Perhaps more informative, but less understandable.
I'll just have to live with my dubious grasp of physics . . .
Recently read, Prizes by Erich Segal, and that contained enough 'high brow' Nobel-type information to tax my poor brain.
Could being center-brained be the cause of my inability to grasp such things fully, do you think?
{"commentId":2343172,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"juno"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2343356,"authorDomain":"jessihibbs-sanders"}
Wish I could help I am just trying to keep up with the conversation.LOL
{"commentId":2343356,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"jessihibbs-sanders"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2343452,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2345500,"authorDomain":"madmilker60"}
so much for Galileo, air resistance and Abell 1835 IR1916.
{"commentId":2345500,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"madmilker60"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2356832,"authorDomain":"dwemmy"}
maybe, what's center-brained?
Juno is being facetious. Neurological studies show that the right side of the brain, notably the frontal lobe and hypothalamus, is where we process our creative ideas. Conversely the left side of the brain (again in those same two areas) is where we process reasoning, logic, math, etc.
The pituitary gland is the only part of out brain that has no matching right/left, and is therefore in the center.
{"commentId":2356832,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"dwemmy"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2358448,"authorDomain":"juno"}
Juno is being facetious.
Yeah, that's me being silly, it really comes down to, it does not compute (for me). And IF on the chance it begins to, the process will be so slow that it wouldn't matter anymore.
Neither my left or right hemi's are willing to let go to make process possible.
According to a test, taken years ago in college, (to learn how I learn) I am Right dominate, but with Left 'interference.' Whatever that means . . .
{"commentId":2358448,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"juno"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2359281,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2347691,"authorDomain":"CarbonCopy"}
kurzweilai.net
Just start researching foreign nations technological websites. America seems to be one of very few hiding the facts. Others have been openly reverse engineering ufos for a long time.
Check out this site for example indiadaily .com
{"commentId":2347691,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"CarbonCopy"}
- 2 votes
#4 - Sat Aug 2, 2008 3:51 AM EDT{"commentId":2347802,"authorDomain":"dungbeetlemania"}
There seems to be more science on the Vine these days which is a great thing. And when people are writing their own science articles it's even better! Thanks JCAtom, I enjoyed reading it. c is an odd thing, I'm not sure I follow all of your statements but the majority of it looks good to me.
{"commentId":2347802,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"dungbeetlemania"}
- 3 votes
#5 - Sat Aug 2, 2008 4:57 AM EDT{"commentId":2348533,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2358167,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2349226,"authorDomain":"mrgeniussir"}
OK-I LIKE trying to understand this, but definitely over my head, Here's hoping newsvine will make me smarter.
"Friction of Time" has a nice poetic ring to it!
{"commentId":2349226,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"mrgeniussir"}
- 5 votes
#6 - Sat Aug 2, 2008 12:33 PM EDT{"commentId":2351638,"authorDomain":"nicknaz"}
If light is linear and you are traveling at 9999.99% of the speed of light, then the gravitational pull on you causes him to travel in a non-linear path. The stationary observer is observing light at c while you are traveling in spacetime. You have mass which means gravity has its effect on you, while light is not afffected by it. I believe that since light is linear and not affected by other forces, it is reason that its speed is used as the constant. It is bent physically in the prism but its speed does not alter
I am trying to simplify your argument and if my rationale has a flaw, please feel free to respond. Thanks for making this brain go to work and locate resources long forgotten.
Please do not think I am presumptuous but merely offering my observations.
{"commentId":2351638,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"nicknaz"}
- 3 votes
#7 - Sat Aug 2, 2008 8:39 PM EDT{"commentId":2354927,"authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
please feel free to respond
Hi, Nick. I'll take you at your word and respond, but let me first say "Thanks!" for your kind comment below. I've been blessed with the opportunity to learn many fascinating things, and part of my mission in life is to share them with anyone interested!
Couple of points: Gravity is (we believe) a warping of spacetime caused by mass. The usual metaphor is to imagine a horizontal sheet of rubber stretched taut. That represents normal spacetime. If you place a heavy weight (which represents the mass of an object) on the rubber sheet, it bends the rubber downward around the weight.
That is the effect of gravity, caused by mass, on spacetime. A "gravity well" is literally the downward depression caused by the mass. The greater the mass, the deeper the gravity well. The effect of gravity we feel is literally us "sliding down" the "depression" in spacetime.
The sheet of rubber is two-dimensional, space is three-dimensional, so you have to understand that, unlike the rubber sheet, the gravity warping of spacetime is in directions we can't see. We feel the effect of the warping as gravity.
Now imaging rolling a marble across the rubber sheet. If there's no weights on the sheet, the marble will roll in a straight line. That represents a beam of light moving in a straight line through space.
If you roll the marble past a depression caused by a weight, the stretching of the rubber can deflect the path of the marble. In the same fashion, the warping of spacetime caused by mass can deflect the path of a light beam. The effect has been well tested during solar eclipses. We can see a star that is just behind the sun's edge, because the mass of the sun bends the light around it.
A prism works because light goes slower in glass than in air. As the light hits the glass and slows down, its path is bent. Different frequencies are affected slightly differently, which is why the prism splits white light into colors--each color is bent slightly differently.
Think of driving a front-wheel drive car off the road into the sand. If you drive off at an angle, let's say your left wheel hits the sand first and loses traction. Your right wheel is still on pavement, so it's still pulling the car strongly. The difference in traction will twist your car left.
That's exactly what happens when light enters glass from an angle. It's bent. Prisms and lenses depend on that effect.
{"commentId":2354927,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2358191,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2358438,"authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
[grin] 'Ware of taking analogies too literally!
I was debating whether linking to Wikipedia's entry for Friction would get mired in the phrase, "it is derived from electromagnetic forces between atoms and electrons," but I had to laugh when I read:
Friction should not be confused with traction.
:-) right back atcha!
{"commentId":2358438,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2359304,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2352265,"authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
Interesting article! I love this stuff (but I am not a physist). I confess you lost me a little in the last part.
What we're talking about here is Special Relativity, Einstein's first Theory of Relativity. The genius of the theory is that everyone assumed light was like everything else that moved. That light has speed was known and measured long ago. One of my favorite bumper stickers goes: 186,282 Miles Per Second. Not just a good idea, it's the law! It can go slower, such as in glass or water, but never, ever faster. (c is the speed in a vacuum)
If you stand on a moving train and throw a ball "forward" (same direction train is moving), the ball moves away from you at the speed you threw it (let's call that S). If someone stands on the ground outside the train, they see the ball moving at that speed, S, plus the speed of the train (let's call that T).
If you throw the ball "backwards", it still moves away from you at S, but to the person outside, now it's moving at S minus T. (And if the train is moving faster than the ball, that means the ball, as seen by the outsider, has a negative velocity and is apparently moving backwards. Think of walking backwards to the lavatory in an airplane. From the ground perspective, you're actually moving backwards at very high speed. A jet speed moonwalk.)
Anyway, until Special Relativity, people assumed light acted like the balls. Shine it forward on the train, it's actually moving a little faster (c plus T) relative to the ground. Shine it backward, it's actually slower (c minus T). The problem was c was so fast, nothing we normally experience moves fast enough to make a difference plus or minus.
Einstein's genius was to ask himself what would happen if you run alongside light at nearly c speed. Would you see waves of electromagnetism? Could you see a field? He decided that was impossible. The only other conclusion, as you point out, was that light always moves at c regardless of your frame of reference. That was a huge, and new, idea.
Okay, he thought, if that's true, what must follow from that? If c is always c from any frame of reference, what then? For one thing, it turns out time has to change. There's no way around it. The reason is actually not too hard to understand once you grasp the basics. (It takes three diagrams to explain well, so maybe I'll do an article so I can show you those diagrams.)
It also turns out, as you said, your length approaches zero in the direction of travel, and your mass approaches infinity. The reason nothing with mass can go c is that it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate infinite mass, and no one has that many Copper Tops.
Spacetime, then, is the four-dimensional vector containing Time plus good old X (left/right), Y (back/forth) & Z (up/down). Your motion in spacetime is described along all four axes.
We don't know why the speed of light is a constant. It just is. It seems built into the fabric of things just like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
The reason why the effects of gravity can't move any faster than c is that information can never move any faster than c. Light is information. The effect of gravity on objects is information. If information could go faster than c, this would screw with causality. (I don't quite understand the explanations of it I've read, so I won't try to explain them to you.)
Okay, that's bunch of background and a long comment. I can't see the Preview anymore!
{"commentId":2352265,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
- 4 votes
#8 - Sat Aug 2, 2008 10:43 PM EDT{"commentId":2352556,"authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
Okay, here's where I don't follow...
Why isn't Light the constant instead of its speed?
A constant is a number (or possibly set of numbers). For example, pi, the ratio of a circle to its radius. Light is a thing. In an ever-changing universe in spacetime, no objects can be constant. At the very least they are moving in time no matter how still they stand. So it is a quality of light that is constant.
Light doesn't move through time.
Everything moves through time.
Everything moves forward through time,.. and we don't know why. We wish we knew why, but we don't. The laws of physics work great forwards and backwards. It has something to do with entropy, or entropy has something to do with it, but... so far there's no fundamental reason for time to move forward.
Time stops for you when you travel c. When a photon is created by whatever source, time for that photon is frozen at that moment in the photon's frame of reference. Time continues to pass for us outside the photon's frame of reference. To us, the photon moves through time.
The wavelength of EM radiation is just how far it travels in one cycle of its vibration or frequency. The real measure here is frequency. Wavelength is just a calculation of speed over frequency. The frequency reflects the energy of the light. If you push a cart harder, it goes faster. If you "push" (apply energy to) light, its frequency increases.
Radio waves, microwaves and infrared radiation are all low frequency forms of light. They have less energy than "visible" light. Red light has less energy than blue light. Green is in the middle. Applying more energy gives us ultraviolet radiation, X-rays and then Gamma rays and large green monsters.
Light is the flip side of gravity. Light is a marker that connects to its source: a massive object that has caused a distortion of spacetime by simply existing. It is The Friction of Time that acts on mass to cause the phenomenon of light.
Perhaps you mean that in a metaphoric or poetic sense? I can't parse it, and there's a couple seeming missteps (perhaps I'm just not on on your wavelength, yet :-).
Light sources don't need to have much mass at all, and once light leaves its source, the source can vanish. Consider a distant supernova. The source is hundreds of years gone once the light reaches us.
"Friction of Time" doesn't parse to me. Friction is a property of thermodynamics and material objects. It doesn't seem to make sense applied a spacetime dimension.
You're correct that we think mass causes spacetime distortion, but mass affects spacetime, it doesn't cause it. Objects exist within the spacetime fabric and move through it in four directions.
It might be misleading to say that mass causes light in and of itself. Any object has mass, and all objects emit some radiation if they have any temperature at all. But a jet black brick doesn't generate what we'd think of as "light" no matter how massive it is.
When we see light, we see a form of energy. To see spacetime, just look across the room! :-)
{"commentId":2352556,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
- 3 votes
#9 - Sat Aug 2, 2008 11:40 PM EDT{"commentId":2360005,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2362502,"authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
Yes, certainly true of dark matter, but dark energy is believed to be a form of energy, so I'm not sure the question really applies to it. (I could be completely wrong about that. We're talking about something very exotic that is just a theory.)
We theorize Dark Matter is there, because of the way galaxies behave (there's more gravity apparent than can be explained). We think about 22% of the universe is dark matter.
We theorize Dark Energy is there, because of the way the Universe behaves (it's expanding faster than we can explain otherwise). We think 73% of the universe is dark energy.
We means all the normal matter we see on earth and see in the sky (all the stars, all the galaxies) is just 5% of the total substance of the universe.
I try to not let it keep me up at night. :-)
{"commentId":2362502,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2364507,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2820423,"authorDomain":"JessWondering"}
I used the idea of the mass having friction with time because mass experiences time, while light doesn't.
I don't see it. Time is only the relative placement of events in space. How does mass "experience" time?
{"commentId":2820423,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"JessWondering"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2352812,"authorDomain":"levato76"}
im not sure of the replies so far JC but the problem you might be coming up against
is that TIME is an entirely fabricated thing where as light,mass,speed as aspects of actual things
time is only a concept
where the other things are attributes of a particular thing
{"commentId":2352812,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"levato76"}
- 2 votes
#10 - Sun Aug 3, 2008 12:29 AM EDT{"commentId":2352827,"authorDomain":"levato76"}
here is a question you should really be asking
in theory mass increases until an object breaks the speed of light
so therefore energy or light is only matter moving at the speed of light. right?
and if you could slow down light, could you turn it into matter?
{"commentId":2352827,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"levato76"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2357587,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2358477,"authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
It's actually misleading to think the E=MC^2 means energy and mass can be converted into one another. It really means they are the same thing.
A photon has zero rest mass. If you could actually stop one, it would have no mass. But in flight they have energy (more energy=higher frequency), and energy IS mass.
If you heat up a cup of cold coffee, you increase its mass (just slightly) due to the added energy.
{"commentId":2358477,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2360280,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2362548,"authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
It moves at c.
Think of gamma rays (very high energy photons) moving through the vacuum of space. They have lots of energy, but they travel at c.
{"commentId":2362548,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2370397,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2370696,"authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
I'm afraid I don't really have the math chops to fully appreciate what the article is saying. Perhaps The Incredulous One does.
I can only note that Special Relativity isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, and our friend c2 is (twice). I suspect this form of scale invariance, if anything, is more a consequence of SR than a cause of it.
{"commentId":2370696,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":9659669,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2353081,"authorDomain":"nicknaz"}
WOW, you guys are good! Seriously Chris, thanks for the breakdown. It made it easy for this old guy to understand.
{"commentId":2353081,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"nicknaz"}
- 3 votes
#11 - Sun Aug 3, 2008 1:35 AM EDT{"commentId":2354597,"authorDomain":"lummox"}
so i get this friend request from newsvine. hmm i think, probably some sort of spammer or other tripe. There is cause not to get your hopes up, dontcha know. then i find the article that said person has written. wow. friend added. and this guy who has not done much with newsvine yet sees reason to jump in.
I have not wrapped my brain around this article, but I'm a gonna, and thank you for posting it, very interesting.
{"commentId":2354597,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"lummox"}
- 3 votes
#12 - Sun Aug 3, 2008 12:26 PM EDT{"commentId":2354967,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2355313,"authorDomain":"papacliff"}
{"commentId":2355671,"authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
FWIW, I've finished a couple articles participants of this thread might find interesting:
Special Relativity–The Twins Paradox
The latter article has the diagram I mentioned earlier that demonstrates the time dilation effect. I saw the explanation in a book decades ago, and it took me about that long for the light bulb to go on. Hopefully, it'll happen sooner for y'all.
Comments welcome.
{"commentId":2355671,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
- 4 votes
#14 - Sun Aug 3, 2008 4:00 PM EDT{"commentId":2356198,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2356640,"authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
My pleasure, happy to toss my hat in the ring. I love this stuff!
I look forward to your responses!
{"commentId":2356640,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2356851,"authorDomain":"dwemmy"}
Good article and seed, JC. Everybody gets voted up for good thinking and positive vibes.
{"commentId":2356851,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"dwemmy"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2360361,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2362561,"authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
An EM field has energy, so by definition, it has mass.
{"commentId":2362561,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2356869,"authorDomain":"Tenurist"}
Let us put it in terms of black and white, a black hole, is black or absent of light. And light or objects moving at C are white, considering when slowed (refracted) it becomes an array of colours. Black and white are considered shades of grey, combining the idea of black holes as gravity's 'colour' and white light as C's representative, then we can use the idea of contrast in our physics.
If a black hole can absorb light, then gravity can permeate the photons path, or, the distance must be increased due to the folds in space time, the rate of folding space time must excede the speed of light, black holes acting like giant capacitors if the speed was the same, light would escape. The distance has been increased so that in order to cross our 3 dimensional space, light and gravity must pair inside forming a 'light dark contrast' pushing these scalar quantities further towards normal space time. So within the event horizon light and dark are the same scalar quantity, using the light constant, velocity C becomes = (D - length) or approaching length rather than velocity, represented using complex numbers, which requires further understanding of negative square roots. In theory when length of space time matches with the speed of light, it is no longer a scalar energy (nor represented with the format A(n) + i) and therefore the D-brane, hypothesis that the Universe is actually one large D brane is congruent with the natural state of physical law existing within convex and concave oracles. The D-branes within the black hole have dimensional consequences due to the nature of scalar energies, which revisits Einstein's equation E= mc(2).
The scalar energies are kind of like oracles, except they are unbalanced, which leads to quantum entanglement with other D-branes, this entanglement within black holes is due to the 'missing universe' since there are 2 universes side by side, which allow the quantum entanglements to untangle, which result in a release of what we call 'anagrade motion', resulting from what we would call a big bang singularity, the only thing that allows this to exist is the second universe or in this case (D-brane) or universes (D-branes) which allow for anything to exist at all. Now that all time is over and the universe is inert, we can begin to look at how our universe does not exist. So not only are we existing, but not existing at the same time (combining relative and irrelative energies), which leads to an infinite length (C=D) which collapses into the particle universe we see today with the constants remainders. If we shove all of the relative energy for which there is a limit in the universe, we can find how our universe fits into a more complex model, detailing non entropic energy systems.
So therefore light and gravity are paired not as velocity or spacetime, but as a complex number, using imaginary mass according to bosonic string theory, unbalanced by the notion of infinity minus one, or non linear number scales (squares, roots, negative squares and negative roots , for square := polygon)
The D branes seem to encase cosmic strings, balancing the relative and irelative quantites to be represented through scalar energies. The interaction between forming convex/concave oracles or constantly in an exchange turning itself inside out, except it doesn't due to dark matter, since when we are observing dark matter, we are actually observing something before it has formed, the universe forms around it constructing itself around the hyperplane. To put it in other words the universe is going in two 3-d directions at the same time, outwards and inwards which will eventually 'seperate into the original two universe which were spoken of, or void and spirit, a mobius translation. But this is deconstruction of the universe / construction, not the gooey centre.
{"commentId":2356869,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"Tenurist"}
- 2 votes
#15 - Sun Aug 3, 2008 8:04 PM EDT{"commentId":2356976,"authorDomain":"Tenurist"}
This is how the universe is actually psychic, but it deconstructs itself and its physical laws meaning particle reality doess not let us escape Karma. k Else O+infinite karma theory.
I feel sicks, too sicks. I have to get rid of this universe somehow, its following me (Karma).
{"commentId":2356976,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"Tenurist"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2357962,"authorDomain":"nicknaz"}
Lilith, my head is spinning so much from your post, I feel like I've been binging for three days and my ass is burning from the bed turning. I am so glad that people get so deep into science and have a clear understanding of the Universe. Quite frankly, I would rather drink to get a head spin like that. Go getem girl and keep trying to educate us lowly souls.
{"commentId":2357962,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"nicknaz"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2358151,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2362112,"authorDomain":"nicknaz"}
As they say within my padded walls. I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy............... anyday!
{"commentId":2362112,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"nicknaz"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2356955,"authorDomain":"nicknaz"}
Instead of playing "Brain Age" to keep my mind in shape, I'll read Chris and JC's posts to keep the "sticky" stuff out of my noggin. Seriously folks, this is more fun today than it was when I took it high school 43 years ago. I learned more about velocity and mass when Mr. Spadafora threw stuff at me for my wisecracks or when I was talking to one of the few girls in my class. We also learned most of the Italian swear words in that class, but they had little in common with Einstein.
{"commentId":2356955,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"nicknaz"}
- 2 votes
#16 - Sun Aug 3, 2008 8:27 PM EDT{"commentId":2357735,"authorDomain":"lummox"}
So a couple questions. One big one, one little one. Guess which is which.
If I walk into a room with no light, close the door, what have I done to remove space-time friction?
And, to anyone who has a good understanding of science: For you, is there a point where science leaves off? Is it possible that there is that which is beyond knowing? On this, from my readings (limited) it seems that quantum physics gets squirrelly. Some knowing is available, but it shifts depending on the question and the technique of the answer, x number of dimensions according to string theory for example. The answer I have been playing around with is; when stuff is particles, light waves etc, the science is good. But we have learned enough to know that there are events where they are between those states. Perhaps we are not going to know about that domain, because it is not knowable.
Like accountants after tax reform, would this put a lot of scientists and particle accelerators without jobs? Actually I don't think so. My question is not about negateing the views and value that science provides, in favor of mysticism or spirituality. At each of these steps, we learn things of great value. But then there is the thing about how as we come up with answers it does not seem to reduce either the number or intensity of questions.
{"commentId":2357735,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"lummox"}
- 1 vote
#17 - Sun Aug 3, 2008 11:14 PM EDT{"commentId":2361643,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2364851,"authorDomain":"incredulous"}
The word friction is being used here rather loosely by me as a way of getting at what I'm trying to understand.
But if you are trying to understand it in terms of some force that rubs, or causes something to lose energy, or any attribute of friction that is already understood, you will draw the wrong conclusions. Friction is not a good model for your purpose.
I think the idea of EM being the result of friction between mass and time has something to do with the refractive index, but mass doesn't seem to be part of that equation. I don't know how the mass of a particle relates to the refractive index, or if it does.
In fact, the refractive index does have something to do with mass; the mass of the molecules in the dielectric (i.e. non-conducting) medium (like a lens, say) are oscillating (or trying to) with the electric field of the EM wave that is entering it or passing through it. Imagine a mass on a spring that you are trying to oscillate. You can bounce it at a frequency you'd like. But it "wants" to bounce at its own resonant frequency so it will be in our out of phase with the bouncing (E-field of EM wave). It is the bouncing of the molecules which become polarized by the incoming wave (polarized means the charges separate with some distance between them). A bouncing charge will radiate EM waves. This bouncing produces a net wave which bears some phase relationship (in or out of step) to the incoming bouncing. The net result is a slowing of the phase velocity of the waves...or the incoming EM waves "slow" down in the medium. That's what "causes" the refractive index.. But nowhere is there friction. Friction could be involved if you needed a model where there was this same stuff as above, but in addition you needed a damping force e.g. the molecules were being dragged through some viscous medium.
Imagine a screen door slower-downer without the oil. No damping, no friction. But refraction does not need friction to explain the phenomenon.
Back to light. If you put c=0 into any equation in physics, you will get the wrong answer. The physics will bear no relationship to the experimental reality and the world we know. If you need it for your own interpretation or to understand something the way you like to think of it, that's fine. But, you will have to put in the correct value for the speed of light or you'll get nonsense.
There are many things in physics, and especially light, that will give the wrong answer if you think in your "classical" terms. You could talk about, for example, the acceleration of light. It starts at zero, and instantly goes to c. How could that be? But there is no such concept as light acceleration. It also has momentum. We know that momentum is mass x velocity. But light (a photon) has no mass. Does that mean it has no momentum? No, it has momentum which is E/c, it's energy divided by the speed of light. What happens when you put c = 0 here?
Physics offers a consistent picture. Your light or time friction idea doesn't.
{"commentId":2364851,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"incredulous"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2412872,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2439813,"authorDomain":"incredulous"}
JCAtom, you say many things that are either non-standard, incorrect or seem to contradict what you've already said, so I'm not able to understand where you're coming from or where you're going. You seem to have some creative ideas but that's not enough to make progress in physics. You actually have to have mastered a good deal of known physics and mathematics. Frankly, I'm not quite sure what problem you are trying to solve, or what "deficiency" you are trying to address.
What's the point of bringing up accumulation points? Are you describing a set of points belonging to a sequence of points? What has this to do with c? The concept of asymptotic approach to a value is well known but I don't know why you bring it up. Everyone who studies relativity knows that a massive particle can only approach c, but never reach it. You say c is scale invariant, while claiming that the speed of light (c) = 0, at the same time saying something like:
no matter what units of space or time you or I use to measure c it is always exactly 1,079,253,000 km/hr.
First, scale invariance has nothing to do with units of measure. It only has to do with scales of length (or energy, for example). Scaling. Magnifications. Dilatations. That sort of thing. Not units. Second, you can make c = 1 by taking length as a light-year, and time = 1 year, so I don't know what you imply by the significance that "c it is always exactly 1,079,253,000 km/hr." Not if it's = 1 or some other number in other units.
You mix and match a lot of things, but physics is about concrete things that are specified very precisely so they can be described and discussed. You're not doing that so it's hard for me to converse with you.
If our units can vary, then how can there be a speed...speed is based on units of time and space and, if they can commute around c then c is obviously scale-invariant.
didn't you just tell me what the speed was in km/hr, and that it's always the same?
This is describing the un-collapsed wavefunction and the relationship to uncertainty, which would seem to suggest that measuring the exact, precise speed of light would cause its location to be a superposition of all possible locations, everywhere at once, which would also suggest that it isn't actually moving.
No, because the uncertainty principle is not about velocity. It is about momentum, and position (or energy and time). The momentum of a photon can change by virtue of its frequency which defines its energy. The momentum of a photon does not change by changing its velocity. Momentum and position are conjugate variables, and if one is made small, the other becomes larger. This comes generally from the properties of Fourier transforms.
speed is based on units of time and space and, if they can commute around c then c is obviously scale-invariant.
"commuting around" c (or anything else) is not a concept from math or physics, so I don't understand what you're saying. In QM two observables (or operators corresponding to observables) are said to commute if the order of doing a measurement on one, does not affect the other. Then they commute, If they don't commute, them measuring one first will produce a different outcome that measuring the other first. They don't have eigenstates in common.
I really have no idea why you're juxtaposing all these well know facts and statements from math and physics, and including things like scale relativity, which btw, claims to avoid renormalization. But this is a new and disputable theory. In my opinion, you'd be better off studying the actual physics that is known, and when you think it runs into trouble, then go for the more exotic. Anyway, you need math for that, and I haven't seen you present any that would explain whatever it is you're trying to explain. Sorry, I'm not able to engage in this more with you, but I really don't know what you're getting at.
{"commentId":2439813,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"incredulous"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2459481,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2471577,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2484482,"authorDomain":"incredulous"}
JCAtom, if c is an illusion, as you claim, and if c has no velocity, as you claim, then you have to figure out what c is doing in all those equations in physics to make it all come out right. That's a bigger problem for you than to guess about non-standard and exotic physics that you are concerned with to explain phenomenon that you are not explaining. As I've said before, you are mixing and matching concepts and I often don't understand where (or why) you're coming from or going to. For example:
Once you move out of that frame and I have stayed in it, your unit of space (meter) and your unit of time (second) would be different than mine. Still we would both end up with the same measurement for c within our own coordinate system, using our differing scales.
These are the Lorentz transformations between inertial frames, and has nothing to do with your concept of c There is no rest frame for a photon, and there is nothing controversial about it in physics or in anything I've said to you.
Yes and the momentum of a photon is meaningless without c.
No, that is incorrect. The momentum, p, is the energy/c BUT, the momentum = planck's constant over the wavelength; we have p = h / λ i.e. it is independent of the speed of light. The photon's momentum depends only on its wavelength. But if you say "meaningless" and if you're speaking metaphysically, as in 'life is meaningless without c', then okay, but it has nothing to do with physics and nothing to do with your concepts about c. You may have in mind to discuss what's more fundamental, frequency or wavelength, but you haven't indicated that, so I'm guessing.
In #17.3 , you try using the Uncertainty Principle to explain
...that measuring the exact, precise speed of light would cause its location to be a superposition of all possible locations...
and when I explain that your concept is incorrect, you respond by quoting something from wikipedia:
...the normal concept of a Schrödinger probability wave function cannot be applied to photons.[40] Being massless, they cannot be localized without being destroyed; technically, photons cannot have a position eigenstate...
thereby, demonstrating you are incorrect. And this was a response to me? So, you contradicted yourself, demonstrated you were incorrect, and respond to me. Your "explanations" are littered with concepts that are well-known and often unrelated, but they show you are a creative individual. Still, I have the feeling that you don't really understand the fundamental ideas, but are relying on the word descriptions to connect concepts. This can only go so far, and not very, so some of your "connections" are really not well related.
I'm sorry but I think this will be my last response to your interesting comments: creative, yet lacking the fundamental understanding that would make a conversation between us more meaningful. Without the mathematics, and without properly specifying the precise conditions for your examples of clumping soap bubbles and stretching spacetime voids and clumping gravity wells, you'll get nowhere. Sorry to be so critical. Suggestion: if you could focus your attention on something that interests you in the physics, and pursue that without introducing still other concepts in an ad hoc manner whenever you think you see a relationship to something else, you might produce an idea that could be useful to someone who could actually exploit it. Otherwise, it's just a lot of talk, and much of it, nonsense.
{"commentId":2484482,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"incredulous"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2490089,"authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
I've been sitting on the sidelines not contributing, but I want to say a word in support of Incredulous One's very considered and measured comments here. I've read enough good books to discuss the topic intelligently, but One sounds like s/he either works with it professionally or reads it at an expert level.
The context of "science as we know it" provides a set of targets or mileposts any new idea must reach or exceed. That's if you want to talk science. (If you want to talk poetry or metaphysics, that's a different conversation, and c doesn't really apply. :-)
As to light; Galileo supposedly said, "Eppur si muove." And, yet it moves. :-)
{"commentId":2490089,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2490908,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2491186,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2505349,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2505424,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2511797,"authorDomain":"incredulous"}
JC, I don't think you're being snarky. I think you're trying to understand something, and that's fine with me.
Is the wavelength not v/f, even for EM? If p is dependent on λ and λ is dependent on the frequency and velocity, then why is p not dependent on c in the case of EM?
Of course the momentum will "depend" on the numerical value of c. But c is a constant, let's call it 7, in some system of units; it can even be dimensionless. I suppose someone could ask a question like: does the momentum depend on 7? Does your weight depend on how many ounces are in a pound? Sure, numerically. But usually what we mean by dependent is in terms of a dependent variable when an independent variable changes. The momentum can take on any value, depending on the wavelength. It can not take on any value depending on 7. So, the momentum does indeed depend on 7 in the sense of calculating a numerical value, but that's not really what we mean by dependency.
Physically, you can imagine a star's Doppler shift, let's say to the red. The wavelength is longer, and therefore the momentum (and energy) are smaller (btw, question for you to ponder: where'd the energy go if energy is conserved?) Why is the momentum smaller? Ans: not because of anything c is doing, but only because λ is larger. So, I'm satisfied saying that the photon's momentum depends only on wavelength.
Hope, that answers your question. If not, then ask again in a slightly different way, and I'll try again.
On the Lorentz transformations: I know that's what you meant, but I didn't know what you were trying to explain by mentioning it.
{"commentId":2511797,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"incredulous"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2357895,"authorDomain":"incredulous"}
If I walk into a room with no light, close the door, what have I done to remove space-time friction?
bill-henderson, there is no such concept as space-time friction in physics, and it's unfortunate that all this talk about it may have led you to believe there is. That's the "danger" in proposing answers for which there are no questions as this article attempts to do. It's okay as a "game" or to provoke thought but we shouldn't imagine it has anything to do with actual physics.
{"commentId":2357895,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"incredulous"}
- 4 votes
#18 - Sun Aug 3, 2008 11:43 PM EDT{"commentId":2357916,"authorDomain":"lummox"}
thanks incredulous, so I am curious as to what you think of the second issue, is there that which is not know-able?
{"commentId":2357916,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"lummox"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2358056,"authorDomain":"incredulous"}
... there that which is not know-able?
on it's face this is a metaphysical question, so every scientist will have as valid/invalid opinion as every non-scientist about what is knowable or not But there are in fact questions which are understood to be outside the bounds of science; questions of morals, ethics, aesthetics, politics, all sorts of interesting and important stuff. On the other hand, sometimes people ask questions about things which are well within the purview of science, but which involve hypothetical objects and effects which lay outside of any scientific framework. Those phenomena which rely on these hypothetical objects and effects to explain things can not be taken seriously by scientists, so the proposer of an answer that uses such things to "explain" a phenomenon for which science has no good answer (yet) might conclude that this is a phenomenon which lay outside the realm of science, when in reality, it's just something which so far can't be explained (by science). There are many such questions; that's what makes science interesting.
Bottom line: there are things which science knows it can't answer because it's not "supposed" to be able to. There are also things which science could answer, but hasn't yet.
Not sure if this addresses your question, but if not, ask again.
{"commentId":2358056,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"incredulous"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2358530,"authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
Absolutely. I couldn't have said it any better.
One comment about scientific theories. To be a true theory, an idea must be disprovable. Someone once said, the best theories are the ones we've disproved, because now we don't have to worry about that path anymore.
The best example I ever heard was, I can have a theory that "All Swans are White." And I can go for years only seeing white swans. Every swan I see is white, but that does not prove my theory. In fact, unless I can somehow test every swan that ever was, is and will be, I cannot say my theory is proved.
On the other hand, the moment I see a black swan, that's it. My theory's done.
One other thing. For me, there is a Yin/Yang between science and god (or as I think of them, knowledge and faith). As One points out, metaphysics, pretty much by definition, is beyond the purview of of physics.
{"commentId":2358530,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":2362013,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2371629,"authorDomain":"patriciaad"}
If you were moving at 99.9999% of c (perpendicular to a stationary observer)
I got lost right about here. Visual representations are usually helpful to the non-physics person like me. ;)
{"commentId":2371629,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"patriciaad"}
- 2 votes
#19 - Tue Aug 5, 2008 2:39 PM EDT{"commentId":2372161,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2372685,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2372879,"authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
Those are some great links! The images put my poor efforts to shame!
This one and this one show what I was talking about in my second article.
I'm going to try to at least animate my images! Maybe I need to collaborate with an artist, though (hint, hint).
{"commentId":2372879,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2373061,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2373196,"authorDomain":"patriciaad"}
Thanks for the links - the first one was quite helpful. I tend to try to over-complicate things - so this really simplified it for me.
{"commentId":2373196,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"patriciaad"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2478806,"authorDomain":"douglas-douglasadams"}
{"commentId":2478884,"authorDomain":"douglas-douglasadams"}
{"commentId":2820323,"authorDomain":"peterpanippleskin"}
Hi JC Atoms,
You know... this is so interesting (to me, anyway), and I only wish I knew math... because I have always said to others who know me that:
The speed of light is equal to the resistance of time.
That is my quote and my thought on time and the speed of light which is gravity and the resistance of time.
I knew this when I was only a young teenager, although I can no more prove it than to read about it much later in life by those who have the mathematical means to verify it to be true... eventually.
Like matter:
At age 8 I looked at a BB rolling across the floor and wondered:
There must be matter out there somewhere that is so dense that matter the size of a BB would weigh tons.
I knew it to be true, although I could no more prove it than to read about it later in my life after it was verified.
I know that I am correct about the speed of light being equal to the resistance of time. I even wrote to scientists and asked them about it. I never received a response... which I expected. I mean, after all, I have no mathematical education and my question, then, is strictly speculative without a background capability to embark on my own research to prove any theory.
So, to read your articles (as I have been) is always a joy... mixed with regret that I can not possibly form any kind of self-recognition or credit by having known long before that I was correct prior to the revelation of what I already knew ahead of time.
Still, just the validation is enough for me.
Thank you for your articles.
I have so many more intuitions that I believe to be true, yet no capability of proving them... and I must wait until those who are mathematically inclined eventually bring those facts out into the open, some day.
...... Hal Helmboldt
{"commentId":2820323,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"peterpanippleskin"}
- 1 vote
#22 - Mon Sep 8, 2008 2:19 PM EDT{"commentId":2852655,"authorDomain":"JessWondering"}
OK, so here is a joke that nobody on the garbage truck that I work-on thinks is funny. Maybe you nerds will get it.
The Cean atom smasher fired up today. It is looking for Bosons. Bozons are named after Bozo because they are such funny little things...................
Ha, ha, ha.....................well, OK--I still like it. Luddites.
{"commentId":2852655,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"JessWondering"}
- 2 votes
#23 - Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:16 AM EDT{"commentId":2852859,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":2856465,"authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
Oh, quit clowning around! :-)
{"commentId":2856465,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"ProgrammerDude"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2958910,"authorDomain":"Mdphknmrk"}
Gravity (as we know it) is what brings scientists down to earth, so that folks like me can join in conversations that I will only twist around to mean something different.
{"commentId":2958910,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"Mdphknmrk"}
- 1 vote
#24 - Tue Sep 16, 2008 6:06 PM EDT{"commentId":2959904,"authorDomain":"JessWondering"}
At this late date, are we in agreement that time is only a human construct--an internal device human minds use to organize the sensory perceptions received from objects interacting in space based upon physical laws: physical laws that do not include time?
I've looked into it a little and discovered that there has been great controversy in scientific circles about the rate at which gravity's event horizon (it's propagation, if you will) travels. It seems that measurements recently made from black holes loosing mass through particle discharges put the speed between 0.8 and 1.2 the speed of light--a vast range but still one that is centered on the speed of light.
But nowhere do I see any reference to the prorogation of gravity having light's quality of remaining constant regardless of the speed at which an observer is traveling. I see no reason why this should be true. Does anybody else?
Here my little intellectual flashlight starts reaching the end of its illumination cone, but I have some half formed notions to toss out: Light always travels at its universal speed, but the propagation of the gravity of the two objects would cease to travel at some point of balance between the two objects and be mutually bent all around in every other direction because of each of the two objects. Would these interactive affects not slow down the speed of propagation? What do we think.
Finally, and here I'm probably going to reveal how really dumb I am, since increasing the speed of an object increases its mass, why is it not the case that single subatomic particles traveling near the speed of light do not vastly affect the geometry of gravity vastly. To travel at those incredible speeds their mass should be quite substantial. Why isn't the fabric of gravity like a silk sheet being run across by billions of heavy marbles--each a particle low in weight but high in speed?
{"commentId":2959904,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"JessWondering"}
- 2 votes
#25 - Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:19 PM EDT{"commentId":3013705,"authorDomain":"sherwood-1"}
Last time my head felt like this I was reading The Dancing Wu Li Masters. I have some questions about gravity and magnetism that any one of you guys could probably answer. but I am not in any shape to form the question at the moment, let alone understand anybodies answer. Like some one earlier said I don't know the math involved in it all, it is just something I have been wondering about for a long time.
I will be back tomorrow and at least try to be a little more coherent. This really is fascinating stuff to me.
thanks for the mind food.
{"commentId":3013705,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"sherwood-1"}
- 1 vote
#26 - Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:49 AM EDT{"commentId":3017928,"authorDomain":"sherwood-1"}
Being something of a less than enlightened layman on the subject I put myself at risk of sounding rather stupid here, but there are several questions that I have wondered over for a long time.
Since all things in the universe seem related in some way, are light, magnetism, gravity, electricity and thought all different things or are they manifestations of something else?
On an atomic level the bond that holds neutrons and protons together in the nucleus is magnetism, or gravity. From what I read above, you guys are saying that the two are different things. Atoms are bound together by the same force to form matter. Matter is subjective and becomes what we perceive according to thought. As I understand it, in quantum physics, the act of observing certain particles actually creates those particles being observed, which would mean that thought is a related force in it's own right.
Electricity can be created with magnetism, light with electricity and thought is said to be electrochemical in origin, that leads me to think that they are all related and magnetism is the common denominator.
So if magnetism is the force that holds the universe in place, is it not possible that magnets are a mechanical lens that focuses that force at a particular point and the apparent power in a magnet is not it's total potential? And if thought is a related force could it not be measured and magnified to some potential use?
My whole hypothesis here is probably flawed from start to finish, but this is the first time I have ever had access to a forum that could put it to rest for me once and for all. I have left out a lot of what all I think about along these lines and being concise is not one of my strong suits, but I try. My knowledge of physics is not unlike the dark matter issue, there is a lot more missing than what is known.
{"commentId":3017928,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"sherwood-1"}
- 1 vote
#27 - Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:42 PM EDT{"commentId":3018232,"authorDomain":"JessWondering"}
I'll have to defer to Mr. JCATOM. Like yourself, I have questions, but not so many answers.
{"commentId":3018232,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"JessWondering"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3718267,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
{"commentId":3372336,"authorDomain":"netgrits"}
Amazing. I shall return.
{"commentId":3372336,"threadId":"324071","contentId":"1598347","authorDomain":"netgrits"}
- 1 vote
#28 - Wed Oct 8, 2008 1:20 AM EDT{"commentId":3409939,"authorDomain":"pbcraven"}
{"commentId":3416458,"authorDomain":"pbcraven"}
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"324071","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop Tracking
COMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
