Posted on 04/29/2013 6:40:36 PM PDT by equalator
The speed of light is constant, or so textbooks say. But some scientists are exploring the possibility that this cosmic speed limit changes, a consequence of the nature of the vacuum of space.
The definition of the speed of light has some broader implications for fields such as cosmology and astronomy, which assume a stable velocity for light over time. For instance, the speed of light comes up when measuring the fine structure constant (alpha), which defines the strength of the electromagnetic force. And a varying light speed would change the strengths of molecular bonds and the density of nuclear
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Well the object itself doesn’t really become 2-d, it just appears that way to outside observers.
No, the “missing mass” is most likely not missing at all, it’s just a plug they have used to make their faulty equations match up better with observed reality.
Basically, if reality behaved according to the way the math predicts, then the spiral arms of galaxies would rotate slower than the center of the galaxy. Instead, we see the arms rotating at the same speed. The physicists try to wallpaper over this problem by saying their could be a bunch of mass conveniently hidden just where they need it, in order to accelerate the spiral arms to just the right speed. The entire idea, though, is patently ludicrous.
ctdonath2 wrote:
Makes a lot of sense, solves a lot of problems.
And now seems we don’t know much about nothing...er...vacuums.
I can tell you that they suck. Does that warrant a grant of millions?
Hi Kevmo! Ultimately, isn't the speed of light a function of time? Our "human view" of time is that it is serial and linear, moving inexorably from past, to present, to future. Our concept of time is pretty "flat." Now we have these virtual particles that wink in and out of existence. These particles do not appear (to me) to be the sort of things that conform to our standard model of serial, linear time — which is essentially based on observation and convention. The idea of a universal vacuum field also does not comport with this model — for this vacuum is universal. Rather it seems the behavior of virtual particles points to anther temporal dimension that is not directly observable by humans, and is definitely not "flat."
I dunno. I'm reasoning as a philosopher, not a scientist. What I do know is that certain high-energy physicists/cosmologists — for example the distinguished Israeli physicist Avshalom Elitzur — have suggested that our current notions of time are very likely inadequate and are acting as a constraint on new breakthroughs in the physical understanding of our universe.
Just some thoughts, FWTW.
Thanks for the ping!
Ultimately, isn’t the speed of light a function of time?
***It could be a function of (dependent upon) something else as well. In Physics we see C all over the map in equations, and if it’s a function rather than a constant, then our universe is far more complicated.
Or perchance far more simple than we think???
It's a marvelous thing to wonder about.
Thank you so much for writing dear Kevmo!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2491839/posts?page=24#24
What if the speed of light is not a constant?
***Then many of these items have a better than average chance of being true.
SubQuantum Kinetics, wide ranging unifying cosmology theory by Dr. Paul LaViolette
Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:00:43 PM · by Kevmo · 68 replies · 1,683+ views
THE STARBURST FOUNDATION ^ | January 2007 | Dr. Paul LaViolette
Rethinking relativity: Is time out of joint?
Monday, November 02, 2009 9:29:43 PM · by Kevmo · 58 replies · 2,178+ views
New Scientist ^ | 21 October 2009 | Rachel Courtland
Re-Analysis of the Marinov Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment
Friday, June 12, 2009 11:25:41 PM · by Kevmo · 27 replies · 1,526+ views
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0612/0612201v2.pdf ^ | Reginald T. Cahill
Gamma-ray burst restricts ways to beat Einstein’s relativity
Thursday, October 29, 2009 6:58:41 PM · by SunkenCiv · 15 replies · 842+ views
Symmetry ^ | Thursday, October 29, 2009 | David Harris
Non-Gravitational Fifth Force? Research Could Change Most Widely Held Scientific Theories...
Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:26:53 AM · by bogusname · 25 replies · 990+ views
BCN ^ | Oct 28, 2009 | Teresa Neumann
Discovery of ‘magnetricity’ marks important advance in physics
Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:51:38 PM · by Free ThinkerNY · 35 replies · 1,611+ views
timesonline.co.uk ^ | Oct. 15, 2009 | Hannah Devlin
Anti-gravity propulsion comes ‘out of the closet’
Tuesday, July 30, 2002 8:22:27 AM · by Fitzcarraldo · 126 replies · 2,631+ views
Jane’s Data Service ^ | 29 July 2002 | Nick Cook
‘Lifters’ may change the world the way Segway didn’t
Monday, May 13, 2002 8:09:32 AM · by mhking · 35 replies · 2,193+ views
Wired News ^ | 5.11.02 | Michelle Delio
NASA’s Controversial Gravity Shield Experiment Fails to Produce
Wednesday, October 10, 2001 12:45:11 PM · by RightWhale · 111 replies · 746+ views
space.com ^ | 10 Oct 01 | Jack Lucentini
24 posted on 04/12/2010 11:05:33 PM PDT by Kevmo (So America gets what America deserves - the destruction of its Constitution. ~Leo Donofrio, 6/1/09)
Speed of light is constant... In a vacuum.
Why do people keep leaving that last part off?
Right, which is one of my fundamental disconnects (read: problems) with how objects at speed are discussed.
How it appears to an outside observer is completely inconsequential. The object itself is still the same size/shape it was at rest because the entirety of the object is moving at the given speed.
Which leads to another part of the discussion - the question over whether turning on a flash light at light speed would project light forward onto something likewise moving at the speed of light. Again without being one of the aforementioned mathematicians I say “yes, it does” because I can’t see why the flash light/filament/photons care that they’re already moving at the speed of light. The source and target are comparatively stationary.
If the target were moving away from the source at the “speed of light”, sure, the light never makes it to the target because “that’s how fast light goes”.
The real question should be - “why is the speed of light...the speed of light?” There is so much we don’t know about this universe, and likely never will.
“How it appears to an outside observer is completely inconsequential.”
Well, no, it is consequential, because it effects simultaneity. So, because of the apparent length contraction, events can’t happen at the same time for the observer and the observed. Going back to the photon as an example, when one is emitted, we see that it takes a certain amount of time to traverse space. However, for the photon, it appears to take zero time to travel any distance. You can’t say that we are right and the photon is wrong, because in either frame of reference everything behaves as if your observations are correct. So, both of those things are true, even though it seems to be a contradiction.
“Which leads to another part of the discussion - the question over whether turning on a flash light at light speed would project light forward onto something likewise moving at the speed of light”
Well, theoretically, you should see the light project forward. However, that’s completely theoretical, because no physical object with mass that could emit photons will ever be able to reach c. The trickier question is whether an outside observer would see the light beam project forward or not.
“The real question should be - “why is the speed of light...the speed of light?””
Yes that is the real question, and I don’t have much clue as to the answer to that.
From your link, Kevmo!
FASCINATING! Thank you! (Wish you provided links to the other articles....)
I just realized that a simpler way is to use the ‘electrogravitics’ keyword
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/electrogravitics/index
Thanks so much Kevmo! Looks like I’ve got a lot of reading to do!
“it appears to take zero time to travel any distance”
Because time compresses as a result of traveling > 0? Does it in fact go to 0 at c? So what’s to say that in the instant the photon knew it was traveling some vast distance it raised its hand and waved. Would you not observe the hand wave at the fraction of the instant amidst the distance traveled? Not sure simultaneity is violated unless the time spent from the photons frame of reference is absolutely 0 which seems ... odd, and theoretical... and problematic the more I think about it.
“no physical object with mass that could emit photons will ever be able to reach c”
This is the result of not being able to propel something behind you at c+1 in order to fully reach c. Thus I believe it’s not impossible to go faster than c, it’s simply that we haven’t figured out a way to do it yet.
If you could harness the vacuum of space in front of your vehicle in order to pull yourself ahead, since space is always in front of you, this I believe would allow you to exceed c. There has been discussion in the theoretical lately that there may be a way to do this (since space/vacuums aren’t empty), but they’re at a loss as to “how” because we don’t know what space actually “is”.
Then again, if time compresses to 0 and you go c+1, the time spent in your reference should be negative, allowing you to arrive before you leave.
*sigh*
I like the vacuums that are empty. What other kinds are there?
“Because time compresses as a result of traveling > 0? Does it in fact go to 0 at c?”
Yes, at c, time dilation is infinite. However, the time dilation and length contraction are just expressions of the same phenomenon. So, you can say that the photon sees no time passing between leaving and arriving. Or, you can say that, to the photon, the outside world is flattened to 2 dimensions, perpendicular to the direction it is traveling. From that perspective, the photon traveling instantly is a given, since there exists no distance between any two points along the axis it is traveling.
“So what’s to say that in the instant the photon knew it was traveling some vast distance it raised its hand and waved. Would you not observe the hand wave at the fraction of the instant amidst the distance traveled?”
I think the problem with that is that the photon would never have any opportunity to wave at you. It can’t be aware of anything while it is moving at c, since time is basically frozen.
The way I like to look at it is to imagine that time really is a “fourth dimension” we can’t see. The rule seems to be that the total velocity of anything in ALL directions can’t exceed c, include your velocity through time. When you are at rest, you must be moving near the speed of light, but only in the direction of the time axis. When you start accelerating in the other directions, you must slow down in the direction of time, in order to stay under the maximum total velocity. If you reach the maximum velocity in any other direction, then your velocity through time must stop.
Now, the upshot of looking at things like that is you realize that, just like the physical direction the photon is traveling gets compressed to a single plane, it stands to reason that, if we are normally moving close to c in the time direction, then our perception of time would be very narrow too, because that dimension is compressed from our perspective. And that is exactly what we perceive, since we can only “see” a single moment, or point of time, and can’t look ahead or behind us.
“This is the result of not being able to propel something behind you at c+1 in order to fully reach c. Thus I believe it’s not impossible to go faster than c, it’s simply that we haven’t figured out a way to do it yet.”
Well, that’s a physical impediment but it’s not the root cause. Even if we used another system, like magnetic acceleration, we still couldn’t reach c, because matter just can’t achieve that velocity, only energy can. Even something with a very small mass, like an electron, just can’t reach c, no matter how energetic it gets.
“If you could harness the vacuum of space in front of your vehicle in order to pull yourself ahead, since space is always in front of you, this I believe would allow you to exceed c.”
I haven’t heard of that, but it sounds almost like a “warp drive”, which I think is the only feasible way, besides maybe wormholes, that we could travel faster than light. But, in either of those cases, we would never actually achieve the velocity of light, we’d just be shortening our distance of travel.
The ones where you forgot to empty the bag?
Thank you for the lengthy response; I like discussing and doing the mental exercises that topics like this require.
However, your explanation (and to date, the argument of those in the field) is based around the premise that “at c, time dilation is infinite”.
While this is shown mathematically, I can’t see how this makes sense in reality (which as you eluded to is a 2-dimensional view of the universe but wow let’s not go there today).
As far as I’m aware this premise can’t be proven empirically, so we’re left with the math - at which point I kinda wave my hands and step away. One because the math is beyond me, but also because they’ve discovered time and again that the math is incomplete at best and entirely misguided at worst.
In this case, the vacuum is actually cluttered with particles and anti-particles, which come into existence and then obliterate each other, but the light is being absorbed by these particles and then being re-transmitted, but with a slight delay.
At least, that is the claim in this paper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.