WHY SHOULD THE SPEED OF LIGHT BE CONSTANT? WHY SHOULD THERE BE A LEAST UPPER BOUND FOR SPEEDS?
Steve Bostedor
than the speed of light if we have no instruments to measure such an object
if it did?
Also, could it be possible that light only has a finite speed when making an
initial travel through space? What I'm saying is that after light has made
a path for other light to follow, can light, then, travel faster through
that space? I am likening this to a stream of water forming down the window
of your car. The first portion of the water travels slower until a path is
made, then water can travel much faster down the newly defined path. Is
there anything that proves this or disproves this yet?
Just a though, I don't claim to be a great physicist.
Steve Bostedor
Malcolm McMahon <mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:35f77168...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
Dr. Michael Albert
> than the speed of light if we have no instruments to measure such an object
> if it did?
All we can say is that the cumulative evidence of all experiments
is that nothing travels faster than the speed of light, and that
our current best theoretical understanding indicates that
if things were to travel faster than the speed of light,
there would be some truly bizarre consequences.
To elaborate, experiments have been done where you start
some at a certain time and place, and see if a
thing (or something from that thing) gets to a different
point faster than light could have travelled. J.D. Jackson's
electrodynamics textbook, in the chapter of special relativity,
describes several such experiments using particle accelerators
to attempt to coax something to move faster than the speed of light.
As an example on a truly vast scale, the first light from
supernova 1987A was correlated with a neutrino burst to
within a few hours. Given the astronomical distances involved,
even a few hours difference shows that the neutrinos and
light were moving at essentially the same velocity (actually,
the light starts out a few hours later because the neutrinos
can easily escape from the core of the star when it goes nova,
but the visible-light luminosity increase only a few hours
later, so this with the fact that no-one got a really high-precision
observation of the "first-light" sets a limit of accurracy
on this observation--but of course, all observations are
of limited accuracy). Humans have put a fair amount of
ingenuity into looking for something moving faster than
the speed of light, and so far we haven't found anything.
Additionally, it seems our world obeys the laws of relativity.
There are numerous tests of the predictions of relativity--for
example, the observed change of the "life-times" of high-velocity
elementary particles. According to special relativity,
if faster-than-light particles existed, one could set
up experiments in which effects preceeded their cause!
From time to time, papers appear in the literature discussing
proposed faster-than-light particles (called tachyons) but
so far there seems to be no good theoretical or experimental
evidence in their favor.
> Also, could it be possible that light only has a finite speed when making an
> initial travel through space? What I'm saying is that after light has made
> a path for other light to follow, can light, then, travel faster through
> that space? I am likening this to a stream of water forming down the window
> of your car. The first portion of the water travels slower until a path is
> made, then water can travel much faster down the newly defined path. Is
> there anything that proves this or disproves this yet?
I don't know of any direct experimental evidence relating
to this. Although you aren't explicity, I assume you
mean light in vaccuum (in material, it certaintly is possible
to have "non-linear"--for example, you can burn a hole
with a light beam, and that will certaintly effect the
next light beam to come along!). Certaintly humans
have experience with a wide range of light intensities,
going up to the intensities used by the folks doing
fusion by inertial confinement. If there were a big
effect, I suspect it would have been seen by now, but I
don't know of an example where someone looked for this in
detail. Perhaps if the beam were intense enough that
the energy density were enough to warp space (by
general relativity) or have "vacuum breakdown" (ie,
spontaneous production of electrons and positrons in
a sufficiently intense electric field) one might
see an effect, but these are almost inconcievably high
intensities.
Best wishes,
Mike
Shawn Driscoll
--
Shawn Driscoll
http://www.blackboxstudios.com/shonner
Steve Bostedor <ste...@nospam.modempool.com> wrote in message
news:37f3f...@news.modempool.com...
> Just a question, How can we be so positive that nothing can travel faster
> than the speed of light if we have no instruments to measure such an
object
> if it did?
> Also, could it be possible that light only has a finite speed when making
an
> initial travel through space? What I'm saying is that after light has
made
> a path for other light to follow, can light, then, travel faster through
> that space? I am likening this to a stream of water forming down the
window
> of your car. The first portion of the water travels slower until a path
is
> made, then water can travel much faster down the newly defined path. Is
> there anything that proves this or disproves this yet?
>
EL
Please understand that light propagates as a wave, not as a particle.
Hence, the velocity of light depends on the medium of propagation.
We logically expect that the velocity of light to be constant within a
constant environment.
Vacuum seems to be such a constant environment that would allow a
maximum speed of EM waves.
To exceed that limit you need to find a more "active" medium than
vacuum or disprove QM.
N.B. The speed of light is not a constant, it is medium dependant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <37f3f...@news.modempool.com>,
"Steve Bostedor" <ste...@nospam.modempool.com> wrote:
> Just a question, How can we be so positive that nothing can travel
faster
> than the speed of light if we have no instruments to measure such an
object
> if it did?
> Also, could it be possible that light only has a finite speed when
making an
> initial travel through space? What I'm saying is that after light
has made
> a path for other light to follow, can light, then, travel faster
through
> that space? I am likening this to a stream of water forming down the
window
> of your car. The first portion of the water travels slower until a
path is
> made, then water can travel much faster down the newly defined path.
Is
> there anything that proves this or disproves this yet?
>
> Just a though, I don't claim to be a great physicist.
>
> Steve Bostedor
>
> Malcolm McMahon <mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:35f77168...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
>
>
--
I am the most ignorant, by touching the unknown.
A humble science monk, whose brain is made of stone.
Yet, wisdom is my kingdom and knowledge my throne.
http://www.freeyellow.com/members8/hemetis/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Just a question, How can we be so positive that nothing can travel faster
>than the speed of light if we have no instruments to measure such an object
>if it did?
Why not? With the proper setup you can measure a fast object using
slow means.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Darren Garrison
>> Just a question, How can we be so positive that nothing can travel faster
>> than the speed of light if we have no instruments to measure such an object
>> if it did?
>
>All we can say is that the cumulative evidence of all experiments
>is that nothing travels faster than the speed of light, and that
>our current best theoretical understanding indicates that
>if things were to travel faster than the speed of light,
>there would be some truly bizarre consequences.
Technically, doesn't theory say that nothing with a rest mass can travel AT the speed of light, but
that the formula allow for particles that always move FASTER than light, gaining energy as they slow
down, so that that it would take infinite energy to slow them to the speed of light? Or is that an
oversimplification?
Charles Francis
writes
>Please understand that light propagates as a wave, not as a particle.
>Hence, the velocity of light depends on the medium of propagation.
>We logically expect that the velocity of light to be constant within a
>constant environment.
>Vacuum seems to be such a constant environment that would allow a
>maximum speed of EM waves.
>To exceed that limit you need to find a more "active" medium than
>vacuum or disprove QM.
>N.B. The speed of light is not a constant, it is medium dependant.
See QED by Richard Feynman. Light propagates as a particle, at the speed
of light, but by laws which are not understood. In a medium light is
slowed because the photons are being absorbed and reemitted by electrons
in the medium.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
A Theory of Quantum Space-time
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909047
A Model of Classical and Quantum Measurement
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909048
Conceptual Foundations of Special and General Relativity
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909051
A Pre-Geometric Model Exhibiting Physical Law
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909055
An Alternative Model of Quark Confinement
Stush
>> Just a question, How can we be so positive that nothing can travel faster
>> than the speed of light if we have no instruments to measure such an
object
>> if it did?
My personal (perhaps unscientific) opinion...
The Universe is expanding at the speed of light. So if you could exceed the
speed of light within our universe using its laws of physics, then you could
leave the Universe. But a universe and its physics laws form a closed
system. So you can exceed the speed of light, but to do so you would have
to be operating outside our Universe and its physics laws.
Sean T
yet if they exist, but most scientists are skeptical. The critical formula
you are referencing is:
m = m0
---------------------------
sqrt(1 - (v^2) / (c^2) )
where m = mass, m0 = rest mass, v = velocity (relative to observer), and c =
speed of light.
This equation results in a division by zero at v = c. It is the major
correction to Newtonian dynamics for relativity. A good introduction to it
can be found in Richard Feynman's "Six Not-So-Easy Pieces."
Regards,
Sean
Darren Garrison <cyn...@greenville.infi.net> wrote in message
news:37f6345e....@news.greenville.infi.net...
> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 22:33:00 -0400, "Dr. Michael Albert"
<alb...@esther.rad.tju.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Just a question, How can we be so positive that nothing can travel
faster
> >> than the speed of light if we have no instruments to measure such an
object
> >> if it did?
> >
Yuko
Sean T <Se...@yieldworks.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
7t23h7$58r$1...@news.servint.com...
> The theoretical objects you refer to are called "tachyons." We don't know
> yet if they exist, but most scientists are skeptical.
Those "tachyons" are the particles reaching earth although their half-life
period is actually too short to do so, right?
So what about those particles emitting from a black hole? (Somewhere I've
read about that.....). A black hole is called black hole because even light
at the speed of light can't escape; but there have been particles measured
that do escape.
Or did I get something wrong??
Yuko
Clive Tooth
>Sean T <Se...@yieldworks.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
>7t23h7$58r$1...@news.servint.com...
>> The theoretical objects you refer to are called "tachyons." We don't know
>> yet if they exist, but most scientists are skeptical.
>
>Those "tachyons" are the particles reaching earth although their half-life
>period is actually too short to do so, right?
Tachyons have never been observed. There is little reason to suppose they
exist.
>So what about those particles emitting from a black hole? (Somewhere I've
>read about that.....). A black hole is called black hole because even light
>at the speed of light can't escape; but there have been particles measured
>that do escape.
>Or did I get something wrong??
No such measurements have ever been made.
It is possible that a pair of virtual particles could be created near a
black hole. One might fall into the black hole and the other might escape.
Through this mechanism a slight flux of particles from a black hole might be
observed.
--
Clive Tooth
http://www.pisquaredoversix.force9.co.uk/
End of document
Gerben Dirksen
Accurate measurements have shown that the speed of light in relation to yourself
is 299792458 m/s NO MATTER AT WHAT SPEED OR IN WHAT DIRECTION YOU'RE TRAVELLING.
Putting that into the equations that transform inertial systems for x,y,z,t you
get that nothing can catch up with light, i.e. nothing can travel at the speed
of light.
That's all there's behind it actually.
Gerben Dirksen
Brian
"wave". a sound wave "waves" the air. what do light waves "wave"? the medium
might actually be the unseen 4th spacial dimension, too small to be seen.
EL <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:7t189b$3vd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> [EL]
> Please understand that light propagates as a wave, not as a particle.
> Hence, the velocity of light depends on the medium of propagation.
> We logically expect that the velocity of light to be constant within a
> constant environment.
> Vacuum seems to be such a constant environment that would allow a
> maximum speed of EM waves.
> To exceed that limit you need to find a more "active" medium than
> vacuum or disprove QM.
> N.B. The speed of light is not a constant, it is medium dependant.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In article <37f3f...@news.modempool.com>,
> "Steve Bostedor" <ste...@nospam.modempool.com> wrote:
> > Just a question, How can we be so positive that nothing can travel
> faster
> > than the speed of light if we have no instruments to measure such an
> object
> > if it did?
Loomis Philanthrope
acceleration of an object is due to a force equal to it's mass multiplied
by that acceleration?? Can you prove that F = ma?
And now something that addresses your question more directly. We can send a
particle in one direction at 2/3 the speed of light. We can send another
particle in the opposite direction at 2/3 the speed of light. We would
imagine that the particles would be moving relative to each other at 4/3 the
speed of light. Our current observations lead us to believe there is time
dilation for these particles. Time actually moves faster for those
particles than it does for us (I am assuming we ejected the particles away
from ourselves and we are stationary) and the definition of velocity = d/t
is v = d/t'. Since t' > t, the velocity is less than you expect. This
dilation is at a rate faster than the particle can catch up to the speed of
light. (btw, this is very hand wavy and in no way a very good explanation)
Loomis
Steve Bostedor <ste...@nospam.modempool.com> wrote in message
news:37f3f...@news.modempool.com...
Randy Poe
>
> Just a question, How can we be so positive that nothing can travel faster
> than the speed of light if we have no instruments to measure such an object
> if it did?
The theory of relativity sets this (theoretical) limit.
Nobody claims that relativity is the end of theoretical
physics, it's just the best we have today. An object
which was able to accelerate to and beyond the speed
of light would not be consistent with relativistic
theory. It would require new physics to explain its
behavior. Changes in physics are nothing new or
shocking. Most physicists would be excited to witness
such a revolution.
Observation comes from interacting with ordinary matter.
There's nothing preventing a faster-than-light
object from being observed. Unless you are
also postulating that your particles are free of
other physical laws besides the speed of light
limit.
But then you start to get beyond not only current
physics but the entire field of physics. Physics
is a description of the observable universe. Anything
which does not have any effect on any observable,
measurable quantity, is by the very nature of physics
not of interest.
- Randy
Padraig Columb
Anything that does not have mass can travel faster than the speed of light.
Light itself is made up of photons which do not have mass. Anything with
mass requires infinite mass to go faster than the speed of light.
Padraig.
PS: A particle without mass was sent faster than the speed of light inside
a particle accelerator. It had the effect of hitting its target before it
was sent. Thus it went back in time.
Steve Bostedor <ste...@nospam.modempool.com> wrote in article
<37f3f...@news.modempool.com>...
> Just a question, How can we be so positive that nothing can travel faster
> than the speed of light if we have no instruments to measure such an
object
> if it did?
Brian Trosko
: PS: A particle without mass was sent faster than the speed of light inside
: a particle accelerator. It had the effect of hitting its target before it
: was sent. Thus it went back in time.
You are, of course, pulling this story entirely out of your ass.
Greg Neill
: Steve,
: Anything that does not have mass can travel faster than the speed of light.
: Light itself is made up of photons which do not have mass. Anything with
: mass requires infinite mass to go faster than the speed of light.
: Padraig.
: PS: A particle without mass was sent faster than the speed of light inside
: a particle accelerator. It had the effect of hitting its target before it
: was sent. Thus it went back in time.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide a reference for this last
statement. I find it *highly* unlikely to be the case.
Also, you may want to re-read your first paragraph, give it some
thought (and maybe check out the FAQ), and try again.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Neill,
HNSX Supercomputers Inc.
http://www.capecod.net/~cfoster1/orrery.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
dann...@here.com
<alb...@esther.rad.tju.edu> wrote:
>> Just a question, How can we be so positive that nothing can travel faster
>> than the speed of light
Debroglie wave velocity does.
Dan.
Ian Stirling
>Padraig Columb <pad...@mcolumb.iol.ie> writes:
>: PS: A particle without mass was sent faster than the speed of light inside
>: a particle accelerator. It had the effect of hitting its target before it
>: was sent. Thus it went back in time.
>You are, of course, pulling this story entirely out of your ass.
Which is, of course, a very powerfull particle accellerator.
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Sean T <Se...@yieldworks.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> 7t23h7$58r$1...@news.servint.com...
> > The theoretical objects you refer to are called "tachyons." We don't know
> > yet if they exist, but most scientists are skeptical.
>
> Those "tachyons" are the particles reaching earth although their half-life
> period is actually too short to do so, right?
>
No that's not correct. The particles reaching earth beyond
their half life are muons with speeds less than c.
> So what about those particles emitting from a black hole? (Somewhere I've
> read about that.....). A black hole is called black hole because even light
> at the speed of light can't escape; but there have been particles measured
> that do escape.
> Or did I get something wrong??
>
You don't see things escaping from black holes, you
see radiation emitted from infalling matter that is
being squeezed by the high tidal forces outside the black
hole and being accelerated by the gravitational field.
John Anderson
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Dr. Michael Albert wrote in message ...
> >> than the speed of light if we have no instruments to measure such an
> object
> >> if it did?
>
>
> The Universe is expanding at the speed of light. So if you could exceed the
> speed of light within our universe using its laws of physics, then you could
> leave the Universe. But a universe and its physics laws form a closed
> system. So you can exceed the speed of light, but to do so you would have
> to be operating outside our Universe and its physics laws.
No offense, but your posting is total crap.
John Anderson
and...@attglobal.net
>
> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 22:33:00 -0400, "Dr. Michael Albert"
> <alb...@esther.rad.tju.edu> wrote:
>
> >> than the speed of light
>
>
The theoretical ones based on Newtonian mechanics can.
But anything is capable of going faster than c in Newtonian
mechanics.
John Anderson
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Steve,
>
> Anything that does not have mass can travel faster than the speed of light.
> Light itself is made up of photons which do not have mass.
And which travel at the speed of light, not faster or slower, just
like any other massless particles.
> Anything with
> mass requires infinite mass to go faster than the speed of light.
>
"Anything with
mass requires infinite" ENERGY "to go faster than the speed of light."
>
>
> PS: A particle without mass was sent faster than the speed of light inside
> a particle accelerator. It had the effect of hitting its target before it
> was sent. Thus it went back in time.
>
When did this happen? Want to cite a reference?
You're talking about a theoretical idea, like virtual particles,
not about an experimental observation.
John Anderson
Joseph Lazio
ST> The theoretical objects you refer to are called "tachyons." We
ST> don't know yet if they exist, but most scientists are
ST> skeptical. The critical formula you are referencing is:
m0
m = ---------------------------
sqrt(1 - (v^2) / (c^2) )
ST> where m = mass, m0 = rest mass, v = velocity (relative to
ST> observer), and c = speed of light.
The correct formula is
mc^2
E = ------------------------
sqrt(1 - (v^2) / (c^2) )
An object's mass is invariant or does not change with its velocity.
Its energy, on the other hand, does change.
--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail: jla...@patriot.net
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html
Andrew Thomas Wilson
Steve Bostedor wrote:
> Just a question, How can we be so positive that nothing can travel faster
> than the speed of light if we have no instruments to measure such an object
> if it did?
Actually your question contains its own answer. What physicists mean by "nothing
can travel faster than the speed of light" is that nothing detectable can go
faster than the speed of light. This is a consequence of Einstein's theory of
relativity. More directly, you can not detect anything that outruns the
information that gives away the position of where the object is.
In Einstein's theory of relativity, there is this quantity called the "lapse
function." In special relativity, it is represented by the symbol gamma. At any
rate, it basically tells how much relativity will affect an observation. Beyond
the speed of light and inside black holes, the lapse function becomes imaginary
(ie has Sqrt[-1] in term). This means that there is a nonphysical result
involved. This doesn't mean that objects can't go faster than light, just that
you will not know about it when they do. The ultimate reason physicists don't
believe that objects can go faster than light, is because in order to do so,
they would have to acquire more energy than is available in the universe.
> Also, could it be possible that light only has a finite speed when making an
> initial travel through space? What I'm saying is that after light has made
> a path for other light to follow, can light, then, travel faster through
> that space? I am likening this to a stream of water forming down the window
> of your car. The first portion of the water travels slower until a path is
> made, then water can travel much faster down the newly defined path. Is
> there anything that proves this or disproves this yet?
The question was actually settled in the last century, when James Clerk Maxwell
proved that the speed of light must be what it is because it is electromagnetic
in nature. Furthermore, experiments including those of Fizeau and on the Jovian
moons conclusively show that the speed of light is indeed finite. As for light
slowing down, it can only do that when interacting with matter.
> Just a though, I don't claim to be a great physicist.
Cool. You are thinking and that's what counts.
Andrew Thomas Wilson
EL wrote:
> Please understand that light propagates as a wave, not as a particle.
Are you sure? Einstein showed conclusively that light is a particle, even
though Young showed conclusively that it is a wave. As strange as it seems,
the experimental data shows that both are right.
> Hence, the velocity of light depends on the medium of propagation.
True (James Clerk Maxwell proved so).
[...]
> To exceed that limit you need to find a more "active" medium than
> vacuum or disprove QM.
...or even EM.
Andrew Thomas Wilson
Shawn Driscoll wrote:
> Is a beam of light affected by friction?
No, but it can be affected by gravity.
Andrew Thomas Wilson
Padraig Columb wrote:
> PS: A particle without mass was sent faster than the speed of light inside
> a particle accelerator. It had the effect of hitting its target before it
> was sent. Thus it went back in time.
Huh? When did this happen? It's kind of hard to imagine anyone being able to
manipulate neutral particles in an accelerator. I know that Oak Ridge can, but
they have special "particle optics" to do it with. As far as any particle going
faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, I'm only aware of this happening to
EM waves in a plasma as in Alven waves. But then they aren't stictly particles.
I sincerely doubt that this ever happened especially considering that FTL
objects do *not* go back in time.
E r v i n
"Dr. Michael Albert":
> All we can say is that the cumulative evidence of all experiments
> is that nothing travels faster than the speed of light, and that
> our current best theoretical understanding indicates that
> if things were to travel faster than the speed of light,
> there would be some truly bizarre consequences.
Just a small correction:
It's not accurate to say 'nothing can travel faster then the
speed of light', but 'no mass particle can travel faster the
the _speed_of_light_ in_vacuum_'.
EL
Gamma rays photons have enough energy so that when they hit a magnetic
field, electron-positron pairs are produced.
The photon particle is the standing form that when propagates it does
as a wave.
Particles are anchored waves, so there was no reason to panic from a
simple logical statement.
Now, vacuum is not "emptiness" but a dynamic matrix of a primordial
force, which mathematically is considered as a state of equilibrium or
as some put it "Infinite points of zero energy".
You can just try to study the material on my web site and comment
instead of projecting names in my face.
I know Feynman very well and I am aware of anti-Maxwellian schools.
I answer with simple logic. If light was a particle trajectory the
speed of the source MUST be added to the speed of light.
This is not what is observed in Laboratory or in Cosmology.
Light speed is constant in vacuum regardless of the speed of the source.
Therefore the propagating light MUST be a wave and consequently vacuum
MUST be a propagation medium.
QED by EL : )
EL
In article <8Vd8GbAq...@clef.demon.co.uk>,
Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
> In article <7t189b$3vd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EL <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp>
> writes
> >Please understand that light propagates as a wave, not as a particle.
> >Hence, the velocity of light depends on the medium of propagation.
> >We logically expect that the velocity of light to be constant within
a
> >constant environment.
> >Vacuum seems to be such a constant environment that would allow a
> >maximum speed of EM waves.
> >To exceed that limit you need to find a more "active" medium than
> >vacuum or disprove QM.
> >N.B. The speed of light is not a constant, it is medium dependant.
>
> See QED by Richard Feynman. Light propagates as a particle, at the
speed
> of light, but by laws which are not understood. In a medium light is
> slowed because the photons are being absorbed and reemitted by
electrons
> in the medium.
>
> --
> Charles Francis
> cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
>
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
> A Theory of Quantum Space-time
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909047
> A Model of Classical and Quantum Measurement
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909048
> Conceptual Foundations of Special and General Relativity
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909051
> A Pre-Geometric Model Exhibiting Physical Law
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909055
> An Alternative Model of Quark Confinement
>
--
EL
Gamma rays photons have enough energy so that when they hit a magnetic
field, electron-positron pairs are produced.
The photon particle is the standing form that when propagates it does
as a wave.
Particles are anchored waves, so there was no reason to panic from a
simple logical statement.
Now, vacuum is not "emptiness" but a dynamic matrix of a primordial
force, which mathematically is considered as a state of equilibrium or
as some put it "Infinite points of zero energy".
You can just try to study the material on my web site and comment
instead of projecting names in my face.
I know Feynman very well and I am aware of anti-Maxwellian schools.
I answer with simple logic. If light was a particle trajectory the
speed of the source MUST be added to the speed of light.
This is not what is observed in Laboratory or in Cosmology.
Light speed is constant in vacuum regardless of the speed of the source.
Therefore the propagating light MUST be a wave and consequently vacuum
MUST be a propagation medium.
QED By: EL
EL
In article <nv5J3.653$QE1....@newshog.newsread.com>,
"Brian" <br...@suite224.net> wrote:
> a vacuum is not a medium. there is nothing there for the light-wave to
> "wave". a sound wave "waves" the air. what do light waves "wave"? the
medium
> might actually be the unseen 4th spacial dimension, too small to be
seen.
>
> EL <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message
> news:7t189b$3vd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > [EL]
> > Please understand that light propagates as a wave, not as a
particle.
> > Hence, the velocity of light depends on the medium of propagation.
> > We logically expect that the velocity of light to be constant
within a
> > constant environment.
> > Vacuum seems to be such a constant environment that would allow a
> > maximum speed of EM waves.
> > To exceed that limit you need to find a more "active" medium than
> > vacuum or disprove QM.
> > N.B. The speed of light is not a constant, it is medium dependant.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > In article <37f3f...@news.modempool.com>,
> > "Steve Bostedor" <ste...@nospam.modempool.com> wrote:
> > > Just a question, How can we be so positive that nothing can travel
> > faster
> > > than the speed of light if we have no instruments to measure such
an
> > object
> > > if it did?
> > > Also, could it be possible that light only has a finite speed when
> > making an
> > > initial travel through space? What I'm saying is that after light
> > has made
> > > a path for other light to follow, can light, then, travel faster
> > through
> > > that space? I am likening this to a stream of water forming down
the
> > window
> > > of your car. The first portion of the water travels slower until
a
> > path is
> > > made, then water can travel much faster down the newly defined
path.
> > Is
> > > there anything that proves this or disproves this yet?
> > >
> > > Just a though, I don't claim to be a great physicist.
> > >
> > > Steve Bostedor
> > >
> > > Malcolm McMahon <mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:35f77168...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
Sergio Lleras
> Padraig Columb wrote:
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > Anything that does not have mass can travel faster than the speed of light.
> > Light itself is made up of photons which do not have mass.
>
> And which travel at the speed of light, not faster or slower, just
> like any other massless particles.
>
> > Anything with
> > mass requires infinite mass to go faster than the speed of light.
> >
>
> "Anything with
> mass requires infinite" ENERGY "to go faster than the speed of light."
> >
> >
> > PS: A particle without mass was sent faster than the speed of light inside
> > a particle accelerator. It had the effect of hitting its target before it
> > was sent. Thus it went back in time.
> >
>
> When did this happen? Want to cite a reference?
> You're talking about a theoretical idea, like virtual particles,
> not about an experimental observation.
>
> John Anderson
Of course, it happened before they conceived the experiment. : )
Sergio Lleras
purdey
This is stupid. In order to detect light, we have to optically register a
photon. Without light, there are no photons with which to evaluate or even
rationalise the use of optics. Without optics we are completely unaware of
'light'.
It makes sense then, that *nothing* can be faster than light because
everything must exist within our present definition of light. It's exactly
this paradox that's left us with the unanswerable question: 'is there
anything faster than light?'
The real answer is, yes. But I can't prove it.
purdey
----------
In article <37f3f...@news.modempool.com>, "Steve Bostedor"
<ste...@nospam.modempool.com> wrote:
> Just a question, How can we be so positive that nothing can travel faster
purdey
This has nothing to do with that chicken madras I had last night.
----------
In article <938819389.256.0....@news.demon.co.uk>, Ian Stirling
<ro...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In sci.physics Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>Padraig Columb <pad...@mcolumb.iol.ie> writes:
>
>>: PS: A particle without mass was sent faster than the speed of light inside
>>: a particle accelerator. It had the effect of hitting its target before it
>>: was sent. Thus it went back in time.
>
Androcles
Dr. Michael Albert <alb...@esther.rad.tju.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.99093...@esther.rad.tju.edu...
> > Just a question, How can we be so positive that nothing can travel
> > than the speed of light if we have no instruments to measure such an
object
> > if it did?
>
> is that nothing travels faster than the speed of light, and that
> our current best theoretical understanding indicates that
> if things were to travel faster than the speed of light,
> there would be some truly bizarre consequences.
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of
the state of motion of the emitting body", is nothing more than a proof by
assertion.
The "bizarre" consequences, if light did indeed travel at various speeds
DEPENDENT on the motion of the source, is that we would observe phenomena
such as cepheids, recurrent nova and so called "eclipsing" binaries, but
would still interpret what we see according to our beliefs.
Androcles
William L. Bahn
Androcles wrote in message ...
>
>Dr. Michael Albert <alb...@esther.rad.tju.edu> wrote in message
>news:Pine.GSO.3.95.99093...@esther.rad.tju.edu...
>> > Just a question, How can we be so positive that nothing can travel
>faster
>> > than the speed of light if we have no instruments to measure such an
>object
>> > if it did?
>>
>> All we can say is that the cumulative evidence of all experiments
>> is that nothing travels faster than the speed of light, and that
>> our current best theoretical understanding indicates that
>> if things were to travel faster than the speed of light,
>> there would be some truly bizarre consequences.
>Actually, all we can say is that Einstein's bold statement "light is always
>propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
of
>the state of motion of the emitting body", is nothing more than a proof by
>assertion.
No, it is far more than a "proof by assertion." You can calculate the speed
that an electromagnetic wave must propogate with in order to be
self-sustaining - it is simply 1/sqrt(mu*epsilon). While mu and epsilon are
both medium dependent, neither is dependent on reference frame nor the state
of motion of the emitting source (which is basically saying the same thing).
If neither is dependent on reference frame, then that means that the
required velocity of propagation is independent of reference frame.
Therefore, Einstein's "bold statement" is merely a statement of the direct
consequences of Maxwell's Equations.
It is always possible that Maxwell's Equations are incorrect or not
complete - as Newtonian Mechanics turned out to be (though, interestingly
enough, Newton's formulation of his second law is actually correct
relativistically - it has just commonly been simplified under the assumption
that mass is invariant).
Malcolm McMahon
He's probably talking about Hawkins radiation. But the particles aren't
really particles that escape. They are particles which materialise just
outside the event horizon. You get a virtual particle pair which would
normally exist only for an incredibly bried time but one of the pair is
swallowed by the black hole so they can't anihilate and the other
particle becomes "real".
Malcolm McMahon
wrote:
>Actually, all we can say is that Einstein's bold statement "light is always
>propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of
>the state of motion of the emitting body", is nothing more than a proof by
>assertion.
That's purely a straw man. The statement isn't any kind of proof. Rather
the axiom is the basis for the whole edifice of special relativity which
can be, and has been, subjected to numerous scientific tests. We can be
fairly confident the statement is correct because the theory derived
from it works pretty well.
Of course the notion of the constancy of light follows logically from
the presumption that the luminiferous eather doesn't exist. In the
absence of the aether then the speed of light is a property of empty
space. Since empty space cannot reasonably have any kind of measurable
velocity then the speed of light ought to be a universal constant.
Gerry Quinn
>On Sat, 02 Oct 1999 05:24:09 GMT, "Androcles" <andr...@home.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Actually, all we can say is that Einstein's bold statement "light is always
>>propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of
>>the state of motion of the emitting body", is nothing more than a proof by
>>assertion.
>
>That's purely a straw man. The statement isn't any kind of proof. Rather
>the axiom is the basis for the whole edifice of special relativity which
>can be, and has been, subjected to numerous scientific tests. We can be
>fairly confident the statement is correct because the theory derived
>from it works pretty well.
>
Ether theories are also based on the postulate that light speed is
constant (apart from the effects of gravity). The interesting thing is
that ether and relativistic theories have different ways of interpreting
this statement.
>Of course the notion of the constancy of light follows logically from
>the presumption that the luminiferous eather doesn't exist. In the
>absence of the aether then the speed of light is a property of empty
>space. Since empty space cannot reasonably have any kind of measurable
>velocity then the speed of light ought to be a universal constant.
>
On the contrary, an advantage of the ether is the way it explains why
the speed of light can be constant, the alternative being empty ranting
such as the above ("light cannot have a velocity so it must have a
constant one").
In fact, light can readily be observed to be slowed in the presence of a
gravitational field. Relativists go into all sorts of contortions to
define this away.
- Gerry Quinn
Steven B. Harris
And incidentally, what happens to the mass of the hole then is the
same kind of a thing as our little problem about what happens when you
lower a mass to the horizon on a massless infinitely strong rope. The
answer is that the mass of the hole itself decreases as you extract
work from it. The rope itself picks up mass as a result of tension.
Release the mass and it goes into the hole, and the inertial "mass"
(stress energy) in the rope tension, mg, is gone. In the end, the hole
has the same mass it did before, even though it swalled the mass m.
Obviously, you got mc^2 work out of that.
When a massive particle is created near an event horizon, its
partner goes into the hole, and mass of the hole is increased. The
mass of the whole system however, does not change because it also
includes the rest mass and kinetic energy of the escaping twin.
The remaining particle is given enough kinetic energy to escape. As
it moves off, this kinetic energy is converted to gravitational
potential, and the particle slows. By the time it gets away, it may
have little more than rest energy. The potential energy it was bound
with is left as increase in the hole mass, and this plus the extra G
potential more than up for the "mass" of the particle the hole has
lost. And that's how black holes evaporate.
David Smyth
The nature of science is to develop models to explain natural
phenomena and the simplest model is considered the most desirable.
The simplest component a model can have is a constant. C, the speed
of light, is a constant which arises from the relativistic model.
AFAIK, all experiments used to measure c within the framework of the
relativistic model have produced consistent results.
The above of course does not answer the question as to "why" c is a
constant.
On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 20:36:19 -0400, "Steve Bostedor"
<ste...@nospam.modempool.com> wrote:
>Just a question, How can we be so positive that nothing can travel faster
>than the speed of light if we have no instruments to measure such an object
>if it did?
John R Ramsden
>
> Ether theories are also based on the postulate that light speed is
> constant (apart from the effects of gravity). The interesting thing is
> that ether and relativistic theories have different ways of interpreting
> this statement.
>
> the speed of light can be constant, the alternative being empty ranting
> such as the above ("light cannot have a velocity so it must have a
> constant one").
The easiest way to "intuit" (ghastly word :-) a constant speed of light
for all observers in uniform relative motion is to think of the light
constantly being absorbed and regenerated at a sub-atomic level by the
seething particles that pop in and out of existence. It is analogous to
a relay race, with runners packed together at the Plank scale and each
taking the "baton" a comparable distance.
So what we think of as a single ray of light is really a multitude of
interactions that combine to give the light the same speed regardless
of one's relative velocity to it.
Putting it another way, it is like one of those olden-day messengers
who would gallop a few miles between way stations, changing his mount
at each. The message stays the same, but the horses keep changing!
BTW in an accelerating frame, or a gravitational field, this constant
speed law need not apply.
Cheers
---
John R Ramsden # "No one who has not shared a submarine
# with a camel can claim to have plumbed
(j...@redmink.demon.co.uk) # the depths of human misery."
#
# Ritter von Haske
# "Adventures of a U-boat Commander".
Kristopher/EOS
>
>> All we can say is that the cumulative evidence of all
>> truly bizarre consequences.
> Actually, all we can say is that Einstein's bold statement
> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
> velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
> the emitting body", is nothing more than a proof by
> assertion.
Wrong. It's been confirmed experimentally. Light does
travel at a velocity unaffected by the motion of the
emitting and receiving parties, and constant within any
particular medium. (Layman's words, I know...)
> The "bizarre" consequences, if light did indeed travel at
> various speeds DEPENDENT on the motion of the source, is
> that we would observe phenomena such as cepheids,
> recurrent nova and so called "eclipsing" binaries, but
> would still interpret what we see according to our beliefs.
Whatever. More "belief" nonsense.
Kristopher/EOS
Kristopher/EOS
>
> In fact, light can readily be observed to be slowed in the
> presence of a gravitational field. Relativists go into all
> sorts of contortions to define this away.
Huh? I mean, to me, as a layman, it just kinda makes sense
that if gravity affects energy AND mass, then light would
experience a change in velocity from gravity.
Kristopher/EOS
Slavek Krepelka
and tails from an experiment which does not have the exact setup and exact
observations thoroughly described. It leads to eithjer parroting or arguing
missinterpretations.
Troll.
Andrew Thomas Wilson wrote:
> Padraig Columb wrote:
>
> > PS: A particle without mass was sent faster than the speed of light inside
> > a particle accelerator. It had the effect of hitting its target before it
> > was sent. Thus it went back in time.
>
Malcolm McMahon
>On the contrary, an advantage of the ether is the way it explains why
>the speed of light can be constant, the alternative being empty ranting
>such as the above ("light cannot have a velocity so it must have a
>constant one").
>
It's only a problem when you overstretch the metaphor of light as being
a wave.
>In fact, light can readily be observed to be slowed in the presence of a
>gravitational field. Relativists go into all sorts of contortions to
>define this away.
>
They do considerably better than "define it away". They explain it.
Pax
Well... THANK YOU! That's EXACTLY what I thought! :)
Be well - Pax
Joseph Lazio <jla...@adams.patriot.net> wrote in message
news:llyadm4...@adams.patriot.net...
madtomN...@myremarq.com.invalid
something "was" and nothing at all about where something
"is"? How come you can have it both ways?
> Actually your question contains its own answer. What
physicists mean by "nothing can travel
> faster than the speed of light" is that nothing
> This is a consequence of Einstein's theory of relativity.
More directly, you can not detect
> anything that outruns the information that gives away the
position of where the object is.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
madtomN...@myremarq.com.invalid
"real" particle that moves away, take some extra energy
with it, away from the horizon ( surface boundary object).
In a process that can be described simply as cooling by
evaporation.
> He's probably talking about Hawkins radiation. But the
particles aren't really particles that
> escape. They are particles which materialise just outside
the event horizon. You get a virtual
> particle pair which would normally exist only for an
incredibly bried time but one of the pair is
> swallowed by the black hole so they can't anihilate and
the other particle becomes "real".
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Steve Bostedor
Loomis Philanthrope <Loo...@inter.net> wrote in message
news:Yv5J3.423$p97.1...@firenze.visi.net...
>
Androcles
William L. Bahn <wb...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:rvb8va...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Androcles wrote in message ...
> >
> >Dr. Michael Albert <alb...@esther.rad.tju.edu> wrote in message
> >news:Pine.GSO.3.95.99093...@esther.rad.tju.edu...
> >faster
> >> > than the speed of light if we have no instruments to measure such an
> >object
> >> > if it did?
> >>
> >> is that nothing travels faster than the speed of light, and that
> >> our current best theoretical understanding indicates that
> >> if things were to travel faster than the speed of light,
> >> there would be some truly bizarre consequences.
> >Actually, all we can say is that Einstein's bold statement "light is
always
> >propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
> of
> >the state of motion of the emitting body", is nothing more than a proof
by
> >assertion.
>
It is nothing more than a proof by assertion! Einstein's statement is clear
enough, and offers no proof.
> You can calculate the speed
> that an electromagnetic wave must propogate with in order to be
> self-sustaining - it is simply 1/sqrt(mu*epsilon).
This is nothing more than assumption to support the orginal claim, and
circular. Indeed, it assumes properties of aether, he powers of which are to
comonly asserted (without proof) in this forum.
> While mu and epsilon are
> both medium dependent,
(If there is a medium)
> neither is dependent on reference frame nor the state
> of motion of the emitting source (which is basically saying the same
thing).
> If neither is dependent on reference frame, then that means that the
> required velocity of propagation is independent of reference frame.
> Therefore, Einstein's "bold statement" is merely a statement of the direct
> consequences of Maxwell's Equations.
(Which assumes a medium)
> It is always possible that Maxwell's Equations are incorrect or not
> complete -
Good point. Maxwell's equations assume light is a wave in a medium, whereas
we now know from the photo-electric effect that light is corpuscular as
Newton guessed. The point is that light is propagated in EMPTY space,
INDEPENDENT of the motion of the source. This is nothing more than
assertion, and certainly not proof.
as Newtonian Mechanics turned out to be (though, interestingly
> enough, Newton's formulation of his second law is actually correct
> relativistically - it has just commonly been simplified under the
assumption
> that mass is invariant).
Androcles
Malcolm McMahon
wrote:
>It is nothing more than a proof by assertion! Einstein's statement is clear
>enough, and offers no proof.
>
Science proceeds roughly as follows. You come up with a theory (usually
for aesthetic reasons). Then you work out the implications of that
theory (such as massive particles approaching c only asimtotically as
their kinetic energy increases without bounds). Some of those
implications are testable so you test them. When a theory has jumped
through enough hoops successfully it tends to be accepted. If it falls
at some hurdle, and fails to be corrected sucessfully, then it must be
rejected.
A theory that produces no testable implications is considered worthless.
No such theory is ever, in any absolute sense, proven because its
innately impossible to prove a universal.
In the case of the Aether theory the hurdle that tripped it up rather
badly was the Michelson Morely experiment. If you made a sonic
equivalent of the MM experiment it would detect air movement. So why
didn't the MM experiment detect aether movement? The aether theory
predicts the way the MM apperatus should behave, and it doesn't behave
that way.
Androcles
always
> >propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
of
by
> >assertion.
>
> That's purely a straw man. The statement isn't any kind of proof.
> Rather
> the axiom is the basis for the whole edifice of special relativity which
> can be, and has been, subjected to numerous scientific tests. We can be
> fairly confident the statement is correct because the theory derived
> from it works pretty well.
Sorry to say it, but that is utter nonsense. One can as easily support the
Ptolemaic theory of crystal spheres because eclipses of the sun and moon
work "pretty well".
> Of course the notion of the constancy of light follows logically from
> the presumption that the luminiferous eather doesn't exist.
No, it certainly does not. The notion of the constancy of the speed of light
follows from the inate concept that what we see is what is to be believed.
The "invention" of luminiferous aether
was a direct consequence of the idea that the speed of light is constant,
analogous to sound in air.
> In the
> absence of the aether then the speed of light is a property of empty
> space.
A property of empty space which perfectly obeys the rules that aether
provides.
> Since empty space cannot reasonably have any kind of measurable
> velocity then the speed of light ought to be a universal constant.
Not a logical conclusion. Of course empty space has no velocity, and of
course light does. And since there is no aether, then light is not bound by
any properties empty space may have. The only logical conclusion is that
light is DEPENDENT on the RELATIVE velocity between source and observer,
with nothing in between to affect it.
Androcles
Erik Max Francis
> Science proceeds roughly as follows. You come up with a theory
> (usually
> for aesthetic reasons). Then you work out the implications of that
> theory (such as massive particles approaching c only asimtotically as
> their kinetic energy increases without bounds). Some of those
> implications are testable so you test them. When a theory has jumped
> through enough hoops successfully it tends to be accepted.
... Provided it has some advantage over whatever is the current reigning
theory -- either because it explains more, is simpler, etc. Otherwise,
it at most a restatement of current theory, and thus has no advantage by
Occam's razor.
--
Erik Max Francis | icq 16063900 | whois mf303 | email m...@alcyone.com
Alcyone Systems | irc maxxon (efnet) | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA | languages en, eo | icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
USA | Sun 1999 Oct 3 (78%/949) | &tSftDotIotE
__
/ \ He who conceals his disease cannot expect to be cured.
\__/ (an Ethiopian proverb)
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>Malcolm McMahon <mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:is31N9VmIpgJF9exv=o2e9h...@4ax.com...
>
>> the axiom is the basis for the whole edifice of special relativity which
>> can be, and has been, subjected to numerous scientific tests. We can be
>> fairly confident the statement is correct because the theory derived
>> from it works pretty well.
>Sorry to say it, but that is utter nonsense.
Nope, it isn't.
>One can as easily support the Ptolemaic theory of crystal spheres because
>eclipses of the sun and moon work "pretty well".
There is no other test for a physical theory than whether it works
well.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Paul F. Dietz
> Did they really manage to make particles approach the speed of light
> asimtotically ? Is there a strong enough accelerator ?
We've been able to do this for generations. It's not hard.
It can be done with tabletop apparatus. Current high energy
accelerators achieve speeds extremely close to c (within 1
part in 10^11 or better, for electrons accelerators.)
Paul
John R Ramsden
>
>> Since empty space cannot reasonably have any kind of measurable
>> velocity then the speed of light ought to be a universal constant.
>
> Not a logical conclusion. Of course empty space has no velocity, and of
> course light does.
"Empty space" (or the virtual particles coming and going in it) has
_every_ velocity (speed and direction), up to and including the speed
of light. That is the point I was trying to get across in a previous
post in this thread, and is precisely the reason that light has the
same velocity for every observer in relative uniform motion.
Am I out on a limb here? I thought this was common knowledge and
that, in relation to my earlier post, "silence gave consent".
> And since there is no aether, then light is not bound by any properties
> empty space may have. The only logical conclusion is that light is
> DEPENDENT on the RELATIVE velocity between source and observer,
> with nothing in between to affect it.
> Androcles
Cheers
Udi Shpirer
asimtotically ?
Is there a strong enough accelerator ?
Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Oct 1999 05:33:16 GMT, "Androcles" <andr...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It is nothing more than a proof by assertion! Einstein's statement is clear
> >enough, and offers no proof.
> >
>
> Science proceeds roughly as follows. You come up with a theory (usually
> for aesthetic reasons). Then you work out the implications of that
> theory (such as massive particles approaching c only asimtotically as
> their kinetic energy increases without bounds). Some of those
> implications are testable so you test them. When a theory has jumped
EL
Andrew Thomas Wilson <atwi...@HiWAAY.net> wrote:
>
>
> EL wrote:
>
> > Please understand that light propagates as a wave,
> > not as a particle.
>
> Are you sure? Einstein showed conclusively that light is a particle,
> even though Young showed conclusively that it is a wave.
> As strange as it seems,
> the experimental data shows that both are right.
>
> > Hence, the velocity of light depends on the medium of propagation.
>
> True (James Clerk Maxwell proved so).
>
--
If light was a particle trajectory the speed of the source MUST be
added to the speed of light.
This is not what is observed in Laboratory or in Cosmology.
Light speed is constant in vacuum regardless of the speed of the
source.
Therefore the propagating light MUST be a wave and consequently vacuum
MUST be a propagation medium.
QED by EL : )
EL
--
I am the most ignorant, by touching the unknown.
A humble science monk, whose brain is made of stone.
Yet, wisdom is my kingdom and knowledge my throne.
http://www.freeyellow.com/members8/hemetis/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Pope Stan
actually approach asymptotically or in some other fashion), but if I
remember correctly I think they've gotten some relatively light stuff
(perhaps muons?) up to around at least 0.9999c (I might have one too many
or a couple too few 9's there, tho). Seems really impressive, but it's not
like these accelerators are whipping tennis balls around. Muons are,
mathematically speaking, really really tiny.
--
I was never here.
--PSPC Stan McDougal
Udi Shpirer <ushp...@ort.org.il> wrote in article
<37F7D76D...@ort.org.il>...
Slavek Krepelka
function of a wave, and that its wave is the reason for its propagation?
Regards Troll.
Malcolm McMahon
wrote:
>Did they really manage to make particles approach the speed of light
>asimtotically ?
>Is there a strong enough accelerator ?
>
It's the nature of an asimtote to be infinitely far out of reach.
Accelerators can, and do, approach closely enough to see the shape of
the curve.
You can easilly put hundreds or thousands of time the energy into a
particle which would be required to take it past the speed of light in
Newtonian physics.
Malcolm McMahon
wrote:
>
>Malcolm McMahon <mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:is31N9VmIpgJF9exv=o2e9h...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 02 Oct 1999 05:24:09 GMT, "Androcles" <andr...@home.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Actually, all we can say is that Einstein's bold statement "light is
>always
>> >propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
>of
>> >the state of motion of the emitting body", is nothing more than a proof
>by
>> >assertion.
>>
>> That's purely a straw man. The statement isn't any kind of proof.
>Correct. But it isn't a "straw man".
>
>> Rather
>> the axiom is the basis for the whole edifice of special relativity which
>> can be, and has been, subjected to numerous scientific tests. We can be
>> fairly confident the statement is correct because the theory derived
>> from it works pretty well.
>Sorry to say it, but that is utter nonsense. One can as easily support the
>Ptolemaic theory of crystal spheres because eclipses of the sun and moon
>work "pretty well".
I refer you to my post on the nature of the scientific process which is
clearly something you need to brush up on.
Sean T
leave it at that. Perhaps I'm missing something...?
Joseph Lazio <jla...@adams.patriot.net> wrote in message
news:llyadm4...@adams.patriot.net...
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>I refer the author to Richard Feynman's "Six Not-So-Easy Pieces" and I'll
>leave it at that.
The "Six Not-S0 Easy Pieces" has some flaws too. That's one of them.
Sean T
Not-So-Easy Pieces"? Are they errors on Feynman's part or theories that have
been modified since his lectures? Or are Feynman's statements merely
simplifications?
<me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message news:cy2K3.52$F3.656@uchinews...
Tuur Zonnenberg
reference. There is no escape from this, no matter how you put it in
physical terms. In mathematical terms, however, it is possible to reach
speeds higher than c. Consider a sheet of paper at an angle smaller than
arctg(1/c) with another sheet of paper in the same plane. Move the first
piece of paper down with a speed higher than 1 m/s, and you have a
cutting point moving to the right at a speed faster than c. But how
would you measure this? Correct, by perceiving it (frame of reference).
How would an apparatus measure it? Right, registering it from it's own
frame of reference.
Connected to the frame of reference are the Lorentz transformations,
which put the upper limit on c (ultimately measured by perception).
Jim Carr
... cross-post noted; followups to sci.physics.relativity ...
<me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote
in message news:cy2K3.52$F3.656@uchinews...
}
} In article <7t9rmh$3pi$1...@news.servint.com>, "Sean T"
} <Se...@yieldworks.com> writes:
} >I refer the author to Richard Feynman's "Six Not-So-Easy Pieces" and I'll
} >leave it at that.
}
} The "Six Not-S0 Easy Pieces" has some flaws too. That's one of them.
In article <7t9vev$482$1...@news.servint.com>
"Sean T" <Se...@yieldworks.com> writes:
>
>Could you direct me to a credible list of documented flaws in "Six
>Not-So-Easy Pieces"? Are they errors on Feynman's part or theories that have
>been modified since his lectures? Or are Feynman's statements merely
>simplifications?
The flaw in Not-So-Easy Pieces is that the original lectures used the
long-outdated "relativistic mass" to teach relativity. Feynman chose
to crib that approach from the 'modern physics' textbooks common at
that time rather than teach the methods he and everyone else actually
used when doing relativity for research purposes. He uses an invariant
mass in QED. I have thought about composing a rewrite of that section
in the notation he would have used if he had treated the subject the
way it is actually used by physicists.
In contrast, a contemporary (1962-1965) textbook that is volume 1 of the
Berkeley Physics Course ["Mechanics" by Kittel, Knight, and Ruderman]
presents relativity the way it was used at the time and is still used
today, relegating the "relativistic mass" to a paragraph although not
deprecating it as highly as many do today. The emphasis on invariants
is superb and very valuable.
Side note: IMO the Berkeley Physics Course was an example of an
approach that included relativity near the start -- so that it
could be used in the E+M presentation -- and the "modern" part
of that course (volume 4 on Quantum Mechanics) also included
references to QED and derivation of Yukawa's formula and how
a massless boson leads to Coulomb's Law (near the end). For a
project that is more than 30 years old, that is impressive. It
was not targeted at average students, however.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
Jim Carr
In article <7t9vev$482$1...@news.servint.com>
"Sean T" <Se...@yieldworks.com> writes:
>
... about the use of "relativistic mass" by Feynman ...
I forgot to mention that the Relativity FAQ covers this subject in
two areas "Does mass change with velocity" and "Does light have
mass". The Relativity FAQ is mirrored at many sites:
USA:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/relativity.html
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~physics/sci.physics/faq/relativity.html
http://www.weburbia.com/physics/relativity.html
http://www.corepower.com/~relfaq/relativity.html
UK:
http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/relativity.html
http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/relativity.html
Netherlands:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ/relativity.html
Germany:
http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/relativity.html
Australia:
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/physoc/physics_faq/relativity.html
Taiwan:
http://www.phy.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/relativity.html
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Could you direct me to a credible list of documented flaws in "Six
>Not-So-Easy Pieces"?
I don't know whether there is an authorized list like this.
>Are they errors on Feynman's part or theories that have been modified
>since his lectures?
In this specific case it is something Feynman was well aware of of.
>Or are Feynman's statements merely simplifications?
Iwould rather call it complexification:-)
Jim Carr already explained the issues and provided a list of
references and the topic is discussed in the FAQ. Still, I'll provide
few more words on the topic.
When you consider mass in classical physics you notice that it has the
following properties:
1) It is an invariant property of any particle (or, more generally,
any mechanical system)
2) It is the proportionality coefficient tying force to acceleration.
In addition there is also
3) It is the coupling constant for gravitational interaction. I'm
mentioning this separately since gravitation belongs with general
relativity, not SR. Still, I'll mention it again, below.
Now, when generating a new physical theory, you should expect that
even if it contains a notion of mass, this won't be quite identical to
the old notion and you won't be able to maintain all the properties of
the classical mass. The best you can do is define something which
maintains at least some of the properties rigorously and which
converges asymptotically to the old notion at the limit at which the
new theory converges to the old one.
When Einstein came with SR, he thought that it is a good idea to
define "relativistic mass" using the relationship you wrote, i.e.
m_rel = gamma*m_0
where
gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
This appeared to provide a convenient bridge between classical
mechanics and relativity, as some relativistic relationship appear
superficially the same as classical ones, only with m_rel substituted
for m. Also, this definition does asymptotically converge to the
classical one, in the limit of v -> 0. However, this m_rel does not
satisfy (1) above (i.e. it is not invariant). It also doesn't satisfy
(2) except in special cases. In fact it turns out that the
relativistic relationship between acceleration and force depends on
the relative direction between the force and the direction of motion
of the body. Thus no scalar coefficient relating the two is possible.
Last but not the least, when Einstein got to GR it turned out that no,
you can't get a relativistic theory of gravity simply by substituting
m_rel for m in Newtonian gravity.
Thus, m_rel fails to satisfy any of (1-3) above. Moreover, it serves no
useful purpose whatsoever. All it is, is the systems energy, scaled
by a constant. It makes little sense to use two different names for the
same physical property, within the same theory.
So, is there any other, more useful ways in which we can define mass.
Well, we can't maintain (2) and (3) above, no scalar will do there.
As for (1), on the other hand, yes, it is possible. Energy and
momentum taken together give us the 4-vector (E,pc) and the lenght of
a four vector is invariant. Turns out that, appropriately scaled,
this invarioant corresponds to the classical mass for anything for
which classical mass can be defined. So we've the relationship
E^2 - (pc)^2 = m^2*c^4
And this serves as the definition of mass.
Now, Feynman knew all this and (as Jim wrote) that's the masshe used
in his professonal work. At the time he wrote "Six easy pieces" the
concept of "relativistic mass" was already obsolete. Why did he opt
to use it? No good answer.
William L. Bahn
Udi Shpirer wrote in message <37F7D76D...@ort.org.il>...
>Did they really manage to make particles approach the speed of light
>asimtotically ?
>Is there a strong enough accelerator ?
<snip>
REALLY close to the speed of light. I don't know what the current limits
are, but I remember reading about some experiments a decade or more back
where they accelerated electrons to 0.999999+ the speed of light (<1ppm
difference between the velocity and the speed of light). And that was just
what they used for that particular set of experiments - it wasn't a record
of any kind.
William L. Bahn
Androcles wrote in message ...
>
>news:is31N9VmIpgJF9exv=o2e9h...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 02 Oct 1999 05:24:09 GMT, "Androcles" <andr...@home.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Actually, all we can say is that Einstein's bold statement "light is
>always
>> >propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent
>of
>> >the state of motion of the emitting body", is nothing more than a proof
>by
>> >assertion.
>>
>> That's purely a straw man. The statement isn't any kind of proof.
>Correct. But it isn't a "straw man".
But it is a straw man. You are claiming that Einstein made that statement as
a purely arbitrary assumption. That was not the case.
>
>> Rather
>> the axiom is the basis for the whole edifice of special relativity which
>> can be, and has been, subjected to numerous scientific tests. We can be
>> fairly confident the statement is correct because the theory derived
>> from it works pretty well.
>Sorry to say it, but that is utter nonsense. One can as easily support the
>Ptolemaic theory of crystal spheres because eclipses of the sun and moon
>work "pretty well".
>
And there is a whole host of evidence that shows that said theory does not
work pretty well for lots of other things.
>> Of course the notion of the constancy of light follows logically from
>> the presumption that the luminiferous eather doesn't exist.
>No, it certainly does not. The notion of the constancy of the speed of
light
>follows from the inate concept that what we see is what is to be believed.
>The "invention" of luminiferous aether
>was a direct consequence of the idea that the speed of light is constant,
>analogous to sound in air.
You are confusing a couple of concepts here. The aether was proposed because
it was felt that, like sound in air, that a medium had to exist within which
light propogated. Like sound, the velocity of propogation would be constant
(under a given set of conditions) relative to that medium. If a sender or
receiver were in motion relative to that medium, then the speed of light
that they would measure would be different.
But the fundamental equations that became known collectively as Maxwell's
equations permit you to derive the speed of light without any dependence on
any medium or the motion of the sender and/or the receiver relative to that
medium or each other. This is the basis for Einstein's postulate that the
speed of light is a universal constant the value of which is independent of
the reference frame from which it is measured..
The claim of a universally constant speed of light is in direct conflict
with the presence of an aether and, despite many, many attempts to
demonstrate that an aether exists no credible evidence has ever been
documented.
>> In the
>> absence of the aether then the speed of light is a property of empty
>> space.
>A property of empty space which perfectly obeys the rules that aether
>provides.
No it does not. If it did, then the speed of light as measured by two
parties moving relative to each other (and therefore having difference
velocities relative to the eather) would be different. This is NOT the case.
>> Since empty space cannot reasonably have any kind of measurable
>> velocity then the speed of light ought to be a universal constant.
>Not a logical conclusion. Of course empty space has no velocity, and of
>course light does. And since there is no aether, then light is not bound by
>any properties empty space may have. The only logical conclusion is that
>light is DEPENDENT on the RELATIVE velocity between source and observer,
>with nothing in between to affect it.
Whether this conclusion is logical or not (which it is not) is really moot.
The fact remains that the speed of light is INDEPENDENT of the relative
velocity between source and observer and that this independence has been
tested and verified repeatedly in many different ways. Therefore you
conclusion is in direct contradiction of the evidence provided by the real
world.
William L. Bahn
David Smyth wrote in message <37f5fc67...@news.uq.edu.au>...
>
>The nature of science is to develop models to explain natural
>phenomena and the simplest model is considered the most desirable.
>The simplest component a model can have is a constant. C, the speed
>of light, is a constant which arises from the relativistic model.
>
>AFAIK, all experiments used to measure c within the framework of the
>relativistic model have produced consistent results.
>
>The above of course does not answer the question as to "why" c is a
>constant.
>
Because it is a constraint imposed by the conditions required for
alternating magnetic and electric fields to be self-propogating per
Maxwell's equations.
Sean T
Feynman's book ought to come with a warning label!
Jim Carr <j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu> wrote in message
news:7tafo7$7v6$1...@news.fsu.edu...
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
William L. Bahn
Androcles wrote in message ...
>
>> >
>> >news:Pine.GSO.3.95.99093...@esther.rad.tju.edu...
>> >> > Just a question, How can we be so positive that nothing can travel
>> >faster
>> >> > than the speed of light if we have no instruments to measure such an
>> >object
>> >> > if it did?
>> >>
>> >> All we can say is that the cumulative evidence of all experiments
>> >> is that nothing travels faster than the speed of light, and that
>> >> our current best theoretical understanding indicates that
>> >> if things were to travel faster than the speed of light,
>> >> there would be some truly bizarre consequences.
>always
>> >propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent
>> of
>> >the state of motion of the emitting body", is nothing more than a proof
>by
>> >assertion.
>>
>It is nothing more than a proof by assertion! Einstein's statement is clear
>enough, and offers no proof.
>
>
>> that an electromagnetic wave must propogate with in order to be
>> self-sustaining - it is simply 1/sqrt(mu*epsilon).
>This is nothing more than assumption to support the orginal claim, and
>circular. Indeed, it assumes properties of aether, he powers of which are
to
>comonly asserted (without proof) in this forum.
>
Please support this claim. Start with Maxwell's equations and walk through
the derivation of the speed of light and specifically point out where the
false assumption is or where any properties of any aether are used.
>> While mu and epsilon are
>> both medium dependent,
>(If there is a medium)
It does not require a medium. But if a medium exists, then that medium
determines these properties. If there is no medium, then you have the free
space paramaters.
> > neither is dependent on reference frame nor the state
>> of motion of the emitting source (which is basically saying the same
>thing).
>> If neither is dependent on reference frame, then that means that the
>> required velocity of propagation is independent of reference frame.
>> Therefore, Einstein's "bold statement" is merely a statement of the
direct
>> consequences of Maxwell's Equations.
>(Which assumes a medium)
>> It is always possible that Maxwell's Equations are incorrect or not
>> complete -
>Good point. Maxwell's equations assume light is a wave in a medium, whereas
>we now know from the photo-electric effect that light is corpuscular as
>Newton guessed. The point is that light is propagated in EMPTY space,
>INDEPENDENT of the motion of the source. This is nothing more than
>assertion, and certainly not proof.
Maxwell's Equations assume light is a wave in a medium? Really? Do you even
know what Maxwell's Equations are? Have you ever seen them? Have you ever
worked with them? If you have, then you would know that they do not deal
with light at all. They do not deal with anything as being a wave.
And congratulations, you have now directly contradicted yourself. You have
previously claimed that ligh is DEPENDENT on the motion of the source and
the observer - now you are claiming that it is independent of the motion of
the source. Which is it? You not only don't know what you are saying, but
you can't even keep track of what you have said.
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Lets say that this statement is accurate, Would not the
> "real" particle that moves away, take some extra energy
> with it, away from the horizon ( surface boundary object).
> In a process that can be described simply as cooling by
> evaporation.
> > He's probably talking about Hawkins radiation. But the
> particles aren't really particles that
> > escape. They are particles which materialise just outside
> the event horizon. You get a virtual
> > particle pair which would normally exist only for an
> incredibly bried time but one of the pair is
> > swallowed by the black hole so they can't anihilate and
> the other particle becomes "real".
>
I don't know why this appears in my newsreader as a response
to my posting. My posting ignored Hawking radiation and
just pointed out that observable black holes should be
observed via light emitted outside the event horizon
by stuff falling in that gets compressed and heated,
and accelerated by the gravitational field.
John Anderson
Andrew Thomas Wilson
mad...@myremarq.com wrote:
> But someone said that light could only tell you where
> something "was" and nothing at all about where something
> "is"? How come you can have it both ways?
> > Actually your question contains its own answer. What
> physicists mean by "nothing can travel
> > faster than the speed of light" is that nothing
> detectable can go faster than the speed of light.
> > This is a consequence of Einstein's theory of relativity.
> More directly, you can not detect
> > anything that outruns the information that gives away the
> position of where the object is.
I have to admit that I really don't understand what you are asking. Relativity
is about events. So when we ask where an object is/was when we observe it, then
implicitly we have, that time of observation is equal to time of observed
position. Until we observe the object, we really can not know anything about it.
My point was that if the object is going faster than light, then it is
impossible to observe the object. Thus we really can never know about any object
going faster than light.
An example of this is M1. At the center is a pulsar that spins 30 times per
second. The pulsar is about 3500 lightyears (3.3*10^16 km) away. This means that
the beam sweeps across Earth at 2.3*10^10 times the speed of light. Naturally,
we just see a microwave pulse when the beam sweeps across. During the time the
beam is seen, we can deduce what the pulsar is doing. In between pulses, we
actually don't have a clue, unless we deduce it from the surrounding gas. If
someone were to argue that the pulsar is going off to have a Blizzard at the
local Diary Queen in between pulses, no one could prove him wrong, except that
it wouldn't make any sense. In that sense, in between pulses, the pulsar at M1
leaves "our universe."
Andrew Thomas Wilson
EL wrote:
> In article <37F56779...@HiWAAY.net>,
> Andrew Thomas Wilson <atwi...@HiWAAY.net> wrote:
> > Are you sure? Einstein showed conclusively that light is a particle,
> > even though Young showed conclusively that it is a wave.
> > As strange as it seems,
> > the experimental data shows that both are right.
> --
> If light was a particle trajectory the speed of the source MUST be
> added to the speed of light.
This same argument can be made for the wave hypothesis. Under the wave
hypothesis, the wave travels in a medium which is either at rest to the
emitter, the receiver or deep space. In all three cases you get
contradictions to experimental data.
> This is not what is observed in Laboratory or in Cosmology.
> Light speed is constant in vacuum regardless of the speed of the
> source.
... or the receiver or deep space. Thus this light "wave" can not have a
medium. Since all waves must have a medium to propagate in, light can not
be a wave. Nevertheless, Young proved by diffraction that light must be a
wave. It's precisely this contradiction in experiment that demands that
light be BOTH particle and wave. Besides, there is NO wave explanation for
light momentum quantization and momentum transfer from light to electron
as in Compton scattering. Those are ENTIRELY particle effects.
> Therefore the propagating light MUST be a wave and consequently vacuum
> MUST be a propagation medium.
A vacuum is defined as to not have a medium. If it had a medium, then the
space would not be empty, thus not a vacuum.
Light is BOTH particle and wave, as are electrons and neutrons and...
Accept it! Resistance is futile. I know, I tried. :)
Andrew Thomas Wilson
Slavek Krepelka wrote:
> Most likely missinterpretations of experimental results. It is hard to make head
> and tails from an experiment which does not have the exact setup and exact
> observations thoroughly described. It leads to eithjer parroting or arguing
> missinterpretations.
I agree, but I enjoy the hunt after facts and truth nevertheless. :)
Take care.
Andrew Thomas Wilson
> The above of course does not answer the question as to "why" c is a
> constant.
This is a bit of a handwaving answer and a lot of physics professors
give it 1
grunt on the Pearson Grunt Scale. Anyway, James Clerk Maxwell showed
that
epsilon0 * mu0 * c^2 = 1
epsilon0 = electric permittivity
mu0 = magnetic permittivity
Since epsilon0 and mu0 are constants, c must be a constant. My idea is
that
epsilon0 and mu0 are actually reflective of the structure of space, thus
c is
constant if the space that light propagates in is nonperturbed. Like I
say, many
professor are unimpressed about this idea.
BTW the Pearson Grunt Scale is named after the nuclear physicist Dr John
Pearson.
It goes as follows:
1 grunt = "I doubt it."
2 grunts = "You're full of ----."
3 grunts = "The ---- is so deep, I've got a meeting with the chair."
(Double
meaning: Chair of the Department.)
:)
Take care.
EL
Slavek Krepelka <slavek....@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> What stands against a proposition that particle (photon) does posess
> function of a wave, and that its wave is the reason for its
> propagation?
>
> Regards Troll.
>
Nothing stands against playing word games. : )
The particular materialization of a wave is what makes us say this or
that.
Insisting on calling it particle makes me insist on using trajectory
laws.
The consequences of the fact of photons being waves are critical to the
proof of vacuum being an active medium and not just a dumb emptiness.
That is what stands against particulating photons as if they were
independent of the background of existence while in propagation.
A standing wave photon is not light any more but an integrated particle
of a system that is impossible to behave as a trajectory until it is
dissociated again and propagated as a wave, which is also not a
trajectory.
Therefore all EM radiation when propagating, are waves in an active
vacuum background medium.
A closed loop wave systems that form particles at rest, behave as
trajectories external to their topology but as a wave internal to their
topology.
Slavek Krepelka
EL wrote:
> In article <37F83038...@sympatico.ca>,
> Slavek Krepelka <slavek....@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > What stands against a proposition that particle (photon) does posess
> > function of a wave, and that its wave is the reason for its
> > propagation?
> >
> > Regards Troll.
> >
> --
> Nothing stands against playing word games. : )
> The particular materialization of a wave is what makes us say this or
> that.
> Insisting on calling it particle makes me insist on using trajectory
> laws.
That is inertia of standard education. What trajectory would you assign to
a fish?
> The consequences of the fact of photons being waves are critical to the
> proof of vacuum being an active medium and not just a dumb emptiness.
My very question suggests that the photon is a wave, only in a different
perception. That perception constitutes if not smart (mean inteligent),
then definitely energetic vacuum.
> That is what stands against particulating photons as if they were
> independent of the background of existence while in propagation.
> A standing wave photon is not light any more but an integrated particle
> of a system that is impossible to behave as a trajectory until it is
> dissociated again and propagated as a wave, which is also not a
> trajectory.
Dead wrong. Integrate a snake and the wave is twisting and curling etc.
> Therefore all EM radiation when propagating, are waves in an active
> vacuum background medium.
Almost agreed. EM radiations, el. force radiations, magnetic field and
gravitation can be perceived as the background medium. It could be their
mutual constant ressisted acceleration and redirection, which constitutes
aether.
> A closed loop wave systems that form particles at rest, behave as
> trajectories external to their topology but as a wave internal to their
> topology.
You lost me here.
Regards Troll.
Dale Dugal
parallel
plates of a capacitor that MAY yeild velocities in excess of the accepted
values of c. I cannot, at this time, cite sources for this contention but,
if my
memory of the article is correct, it was a special solution of Maxwell's
equations.
The article cited some experimental evidence of this contention.
I would appreciate any comments and elaborations that are available. In the
interim, I will try to find the source of this assertion.
Dale Dugal
William L. Bahn <wb...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:rvia7b...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> David Smyth wrote in message <37f5fc67...@news.uq.edu.au>...
> >
> >The nature of science is to develop models to explain natural
> >phenomena and the simplest model is considered the most desirable.
> >The simplest component a model can have is a constant. C, the speed
> >of light, is a constant which arises from the relativistic model.
> >
> >AFAIK, all experiments used to measure c within the framework of the
> >relativistic model have produced consistent results.
> >
> >The above of course does not answer the question as to "why" c is a
> >constant.
> >
>
EL
Read my web pages on Quantology and TKTODO.
I think from your response that we are in agreement.
It is only a matter of visualizing vocabulary.
Kind regards.
Slavek Krepelka
Thanks Troll.
Louis Savain
"Steve Bostedor" <ste...@nospam.modempool.com> wrote:
> Just a question, How can we be so positive that nothing can travel
> faster than the speed of light if we have no instruments to measure
> such an object if it did?
Unless one understands that the speed of light (c) is the only speed
that exists at the microscopic level, one will never understand motion
and/or why our instruments cannot measure speeds greater than c at the
macroscopic level. As soon as one accepts that the universe is
discrete, one can only conclude that there is only one speed and that
any measured speed that appears to be less than c is really a series of
minute and discrete stops and gos. The interval durations between
stops and gos are chosen randomly. An extreme case of this randomness
can be seen in the half life of certain particles. Indeed, even though
modern physics continues to assume (wrongly) that motion is acausal,
motion is nevertheless the result of interactions. It's all
absorptions and decays. Just one man's opinion.
Louis Savain
-Nothing moves without cause.
Phil Carmody
>
> This has nothing to do with that chicken madras I had last night.
>
> ----------
> In article <938819389.256.0....@news.demon.co.uk>, Ian Stirling
> <ro...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In sci.physics Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >>Padraig Columb <pad...@mcolumb.iol.ie> writes:
> >
> >>: PS: A particle without mass was sent faster than the speed of light inside
> >>: a particle accelerator. It had the effect of hitting its target before it
> >>: was sent. Thus it went back in time.
There is the experiment where a huge pulse of energy is sent down a wave
guide (erk, probably in vacuo for it to have a chance of working), and
the very front edge of the quanta were detected slightly before they
would be expected according to the normal value of the speed of light.
This is simply because quanta aren't point-like, but it did represent a
fractionally faster-than light speed.
This is not what you're saying though, which I hold to be unsupportable.
Anyway, when I learnt special relativity at university, the _very_
_first_ assumtion we made was "let us define measurement of time as
blah, blah, blah", where the blahs were not axiomic, merely postulates,
dependent on traditional electromagnetic particles/devices. If we could
find something faster than things inside our QED model to measure
'time', we'd end up with a different "speed of
not-really-light-anymore".
Gedanken experiment: close your eyes, pretent there's no such thing as
light, communicate only using sound. two people whose eyes are open can
communicate faster than you, and there's nothing you can do to stop them
nor to understand how they do it. In your speed-of-sound-relativity,
they have super-sonic communication. Their communication doesn't break
your laws of sound though, it's your assumtion that things like time and
distance should be measured using sonar devices that has limited you to
your blind conclusions.
Remember, they are all just models, they aren't "the truth" or anything.
> >>You are, of course, pulling this story entirely out of your ass.
> >
> > Which is, of course, a very powerfull particle accellerator.
I had a chicken vindaloo (bottled out of the Phal, as I'd never been to
the curry house before). So is my partacle accelerator more powerful
than yours? Will I discover more strange and charged particles?
Phil
--
Phil Carmody
Not speaking for or on behalf of Nokia Telecommunications
Tom Roberts
> I have read that there is some sort of unusual condition between two
> parallel
> plates of a capacitor that MAY yeild velocities in excess of the accepted
> values of c. I cannot, at this time, cite sources for this contention but,
> if my
> memory of the article is correct, it was a special solution of Maxwell's
> equations.
This is known as the Casimir effect, and is a purely quantum-mechanical
phenomenon, not directly related to Maxwell's equations.
> The article cited some experimental evidence of this contention.
I believe an experiment has measured the force between the plates. I
know of no experiments which measured the speed of light between the
plates.
Tom Roberts tjro...@ucent.com
Jan Panteltje
>David Smyth wrote in message <37f5fc67...@news.uq.edu.au>...
>>
>>The nature of science is to develop models to explain natural
>>phenomena and the simplest model is considered the most desirable.
>>The simplest component a model can have is a constant. C, the speed
>>of light, is a constant which arises from the relativistic model.
>>
>>AFAIK, all experiments used to measure c within the framework of the
>>relativistic model have produced consistent results.
>>
>>The above of course does not answer the question as to "why" c is a
>>constant.
>>
>
>Because it is a constraint imposed by the conditions required for
>alternating magnetic and electric fields to be self-propogating per
>Maxwell's equations.
>
>
>
>
I find this way of looking at it very interesting.
Jan
William L. Bahn
wouldn't be surprised to find such a claim put forth by a sci-fi writer or a
Tesla-ite or Free-Energy wacko, though.
As far as Maxwell's Equations and parallel plate capacitors, you can use
them develop the Displacement Current - which is Maxwell's only actual
contribution to the four equations (Gauss's Law for electric fields, Gauss's
Law for magnetic fields, Faraday's Law and Ampere's Law) - other than
bringing them together as a related set of governing equations which is why
they, as a group, are deservedly named after him.
Dale Dugal wrote in message
<7tch6b$100o$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>I have read that there is some sort of unusual condition between two
>parallel
>plates of a capacitor that MAY yeild velocities in excess of the accepted
>values of c. I cannot, at this time, cite sources for this contention but,
>if my
>memory of the article is correct, it was a special solution of Maxwell's
>equations.
>
>The article cited some experimental evidence of this contention.
>
>I would appreciate any comments and elaborations that are available. In
the
>interim, I will try to find the source of this assertion.
>
>Dale Dugal
>
>William L. Bahn <wb...@uswest.net> wrote in message
>news:rvia7b...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
David Redmond
wrote:
>>
>>David Smyth wrote in message <37f5fc67...@news.uq.edu.au>...
>>>
>>>The nature of science is to develop models to explain natural
>>>phenomena and the simplest model is considered the most desirable.
>>>The simplest component a model can have is a constant. C, the speed
>>>of light, is a constant which arises from the relativistic model.
>>>
>>>AFAIK, all experiments used to measure c within the framework of the
>>>relativistic model have produced consistent results.
>>>
>>>The above of course does not answer the question as to "why" c is a
>>>constant.
>>>
>>
>>Because it is a constraint imposed by the conditions required for
>>alternating magnetic and electric fields to be self-propogating per
>>Maxwell's equations.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Could you, or would you be willing to show that here with perhaps a little math?
>I find this way of looking at it very interesting.
>Jan
Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic fields in a vacuum have as a
solution propagating waves travelling with a velocity depending on the
permeability and suceptibility of the vacuum. The numerical value of
this velocity from the measured values of epsilon0 and mu0 is the
measured speed of light in a vacuum. The p and s are constants in
Maxwell's equations.
It is also true that Maxwell's equations are invariant under Lorentz
transformation of the space and time coordinates provided that the
field strengths are suitably transformed. (I'm quoting from Jackson's
Classical Electrodynamics here, qv.) Note that Lorentz transformation
is concerned with how to transform physical parameters as seen by
observers moving in reference frames at constant velocity relative to
each other and that the speed of light appears as a constant in that
transformation.
If one want's to meet Einstein's Postulate of Relativity (a
metapostulate, I suppose) that the laws of physics must be the same
for all observers in states of constant translational motion relative
to each other, and if one does that for the laws of E&M using Lorentz
transformationn invariance then the speed of light needs to be the
same constant for all observers.
Actually Einstein in his 1905 paper (qv for a good read -- I think
there is a copy is some Dover paperback) followed the logical path of
the Postulate of Relativity and constancy of the speed of light and
ended up with the Lorentz transformation which gives the famous time
dilation and space distortion everyone hears about.
The close connection to Maxwell's equations is found in the title of
the Einstein paper, ie On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, and in
reading the paper motivation is found in Einstein's concern that the
conventional treatment of the electromagnetic fields seemed to
involve "asymmetries not inherent in the equations." The problem
related to the difference in the classical treatment of a charge
moving in the view of an observer fixed in space vis-a-vis the
treatment of a charge fixed in space viewed by a moving observer. The
result is that the fixed space defined by the Aether had to be
discarded in favor of a different principle, namely the Postulate of
Relativity. There is a reasonable historical case that Einstein was
not as much influenced in his thinking by experimental results
regarding measurements of the speed of light as by his philosophy
regarding the structure of the electromagnetic theory, but I will
leave that analysis to the historians of science.
Anyone with elaborations or corrections to my understanding of this
situation please jump in.
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
William L. Bahn
Jan Panteltje wrote in message
<939155471.26184....@news.demon.nl>...
>>
>>David Smyth wrote in message <37f5fc67...@news.uq.edu.au>...
>>>
>>>The nature of science is to develop models to explain natural
>>>phenomena and the simplest model is considered the most desirable.
>>>The simplest component a model can have is a constant. C, the speed
>>>of light, is a constant which arises from the relativistic model.
>>>
>>>AFAIK, all experiments used to measure c within the framework of the
>>>relativistic model have produced consistent results.
>>>
>>>The above of course does not answer the question as to "why" c is a
>>>constant.
>>>
>>
>>Because it is a constraint imposed by the conditions required for
>>alternating magnetic and electric fields to be self-propogating per
>>Maxwell's equations.
>>
>Could you, or would you be willing to show that here with perhaps a little
math?
>I find this way of looking at it very interesting.
>Jan
>
You messed up the attributions - it was actually me that wrote the part
about the constraints.
It's a pretty simple calculation - I don't have time right now to walk
through the whole thing. Perhaps in a day or two - ask again if you want me
to walk through it explicitly. I'm sure LOTS of others in this forum can
spit it out before I get around to it as well.
The basic idea is this: You have Faraday's Law which relates an electric
field to the time-rate-of-change of the magnetic flux. You also have
Ampere's Law which, when augmented by Maxwell's Displacement Current,
relates a magnetic field to the time-rate-of-change of the electric flux.
What you do is impose the constraint that you need the magnetic and electric
fields to be such that they exactly produce each other according to the
above laws. What you get out of it is a result that in order for those
constraints to be met, the resulting coupled electric and magnetic fields
must orthogonal to each other, must propagate in a direction mutually
orthogonal to the both of them and must propagate at a velocity of
c=1/sqrt(mu*epsilon).
Ken and Brenda
EL <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:7t189b$3vd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> [EL]
> Please understand that light propagates as a wave, not as a particle.
> Hence, the velocity of light depends on the medium of propagation.
> We logically expect that the velocity of light to be constant within a
> constant environment.
> Vacuum seems to be such a constant environment that would allow a
> maximum speed of EM waves.
> To exceed that limit you need to find a more "active" medium than
> vacuum or disprove QM.
> N.B. The speed of light is not a constant, it is medium dependant.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In article <37f3f...@news.modempool.com>,
> "Steve Bostedor" <ste...@nospam.modempool.com> wrote:
> > Just a question, How can we be so positive that nothing can travel
> faster
> > than the speed of light if we have no instruments to measure such an
> object
> > if it did?
> > Also, could it be possible that light only has a finite speed when
> making an
> > initial travel through space? What I'm saying is that after light
> has made
> > a path for other light to follow, can light, then, travel faster
> through
> > that space? I am likening this to a stream of water forming down the
> window
> > of your car. The first portion of the water travels slower until a
> path is
> > made, then water can travel much faster down the newly defined path.
> Is
> > there anything that proves this or disproves this yet?
> >
> > Just a though, I don't claim to be a great physicist.
> >
> > Steve Bostedor
> >
> > Malcolm McMahon <mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:35f77168...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
> I am the most ignorant, by touching the unknown.
> A humble science monk, whose brain is made of stone.
> Yet, wisdom is my kingdom and knowledge my throne.
> http://www.freeyellow.com/members8/hemetis/
>
>
Andrew Thomas Wilson
Slavek Krepelka wrote:
> Andrew Thomas Wilson wrote:
[...]
> > position. Until we observe the object, we really can not know anything about it.
> > My point was that if the object is going faster than light, then it is
> > impossible to observe the object. Thus we really can never know about any object
> > going faster than light.
>
> How come we can hear supersonic jets? From what you say, we should not.
If the jet is going faster than Mach 1, we can't hear them until the shock wave passes
over us. This is a wonderful example of exactly what I am talking about.
> > An example of this is M1. At the center is a pulsar that spins 30 times per
> > second. The pulsar is about 3500 lightyears (3.3*10^16 km) away. This means that
> > the beam sweeps across Earth at 2.3*10^10 times the speed of light. Naturally,
> > we just see a microwave pulse when the beam sweeps across. During the time the
> > beam is seen, we can deduce what the pulsar is doing. In between pulses, we
> > actually don't have a clue, unless we deduce it from the surrounding gas. If
> > someone were to argue that the pulsar is going off to have a Blizzard at the
> > local Diary Queen in between pulses, no one could prove him wrong, except that
> > it wouldn't make any sense.
>
> > In that sense, in between pulses, the pulsar at M1
> > leaves "our universe."
>
> And this does?
Only "in a sense." Of course we assume that no spooky things are happening between
pulses. In the jet analogy, we assume that the jet isn't doing some strange motion,
when we can't detect it. We assume that, because it reasonable to assume.
Andrew Thomas Wilson
Slavek Krepelka wrote:
> Andrew Thomas Wilson wrote:
[...]
> > A vacuum is defined as to not have a medium.
>
> That definition is obviously incorrect. It has light and gravitation in it if
> nothing else.
Ok, in every physics course I've taken and every colleague I've spoken to, a
vacuum is defined as having no matter in it. Since light and gravity do not
consist of matter, space that contains only them is still a vacuum. However, in
the derivation of wave theory, there is the hypothesis that there is matter that
makes the medium. So it stands to reason that if light were only a wave then it
could not propagate through a vacuum just like water waves can't propagate in a
jar with no water and sound can't propagate in a vacuum.
> The only solution is Constant Speed particulate with the wave function
> belonging to that particulate. Then the particulate is the medium to itself.
So you are agreeing with me (sort of). My point was that you need both the wave
theory and the particle theory of light since light is both wave and particle.
Which of the theories you apply depends on the particular experiment that you are
trying to calculate for.
Luc Bourhis
> Actually, all we can say is that Einstein's bold statement "light is always
> propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of
> the state of motion of the emitting body", is nothing more than a proof by
> assertion.
No ! There are nice experimental results that shows that the light
propagates at a speed that does not depend on the speed of the emitter
One of them was made at CERN : they measured the speed of photons coming
from the decay of pions moving at a speed close to c and they did not
find any correlation between photons and pions speeds. Have a look at
the Jackson (Classical Electrodynamics), 11.2 for references.
--
Luc Bourhis
Center for Particle Physics / University of Durham
United Kingdom
Luc Bourhis
> > Rather
> > the axiom is the basis for the whole edifice of special relativity which
> > can be, and has been, subjected to numerous scientific tests. We can be
> > fairly confident the statement is correct because the theory derived
> > from it works pretty well.
> Sorry to say it, but that is utter nonsense. One can as easily support the
> Ptolemaic theory of crystal spheres because eclipses of the sun and moon
> work "pretty well".
Surely but on the contrary Aether theory as LET are incompatible with
several experimental results. Lorentz was able to save the Aether for
the Michelson-Morley experiment but there are modern experiments that
are definitively conclusive. Well, not so modern because it was done by
in 1963 [1]
In this experiment, a source of gamma rays and an absorber are placed on
the circumference of a rotating wheel. If there is a frequency shift
during the propagation of light from the source to the absorber then the
gamma radiation will not be absorbed by the latter and will be detected.
The experiment is very precise (because the Mössbauer effect is used)
and it showed no frequency shift (the gamma are totally absorbed) with a
precision of a few percents. This means that if there is an ether, the
speed of Earth relatively to it is compatible with 0 within the
experimental errors.
There is also an experiment of the same type using masers cavities
instead of the Mössbauer effect. With the same conclusions [2].
Then it seems to me that because this is a one-way experiment with a
varying angle between the direction of propagation and the Earth's speed
in Aether, the Lorentz contraction cannot explain the results.
[1] A good description of them are given in the Jackson (Classical
Electrodynamics), chap 11.2 The complete references are :
- D.C. Champeney, G.R. Isaak, A.M. Khan, Phys. Letters 7, 241 (1963)
- G.R. Isaak, Phys. Bull. 21, 255 (1970)
[2] Again cited in the Jackson. References :
C.J. Cedarholm et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 1, 342 (1958)
Slavek Krepelka
Andrew Thomas Wilson wrote:
> mad...@myremarq.com wrote:
>
> > But someone said that light could only tell you where
> > something "was" and nothing at all about where something
> > "is"? How come you can have it both ways?
> > > Actually your question contains its own answer. What
> > physicists mean by "nothing can travel
> > > faster than the speed of light" is that nothing
> > detectable can go faster than the speed of light.
> > > This is a consequence of Einstein's theory of relativity.
> > More directly, you can not detect
> > > anything that outruns the information that gives away the
> > position of where the object is.
>
> I have to admit that I really don't understand what you are asking. Relativity
> is about events. So when we ask where an object is/was when we observe it, then
> implicitly we have, that time of observation is equal to time of observed
> position. Until we observe the object, we really can not know anything about it.
> My point was that if the object is going faster than light, then it is
> impossible to observe the object. Thus we really can never know about any object
> going faster than light.
How come we can hear supersonic jets? From what you say, we should not.
> An example of this is M1. At the center is a pulsar that spins 30 times per
> second. The pulsar is about 3500 lightyears (3.3*10^16 km) away. This means that
> the beam sweeps across Earth at 2.3*10^10 times the speed of light. Naturally,
> we just see a microwave pulse when the beam sweeps across. During the time the
> beam is seen, we can deduce what the pulsar is doing. In between pulses, we
> actually don't have a clue, unless we deduce it from the surrounding gas. If
> someone were to argue that the pulsar is going off to have a Blizzard at the
> local Diary Queen in between pulses, no one could prove him wrong, except that
> it wouldn't make any sense.
> In that sense, in between pulses, the pulsar at M1
> leaves "our universe."
And this does?
Regards Troll.