• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

the speed of light

Migrated topic.

DeMenTed

Barry
OG Pioneer
I was thinking about the speed of light and this is probably a stupid observation but ah well :)

So the speed of light is the fastest that anything can travel?

If you place a torch end to end with the bulb facing away from each other and turn both torches on then the speed at which both beams of light travel away from each other is twice the speed of light :) have i just made a scientific breakthrough? :p
 
Well there are many other effects that come with approaching the speed of the light. Such as mass increase. Mass -> Infinity as velocity -> Speed of light. So it's not realistic to accelerate an object with non-zero mass to speed of light. In general, common sense breaks down with velocities that high. See special relativity.

edit: lol I didn't read the topic carefully that's not what you're talking about :?

But still in relativistic sense I don't know, since light doesn't follow same sense of logic of relative speeds. Such as when you throw a ball in the same direction as your car is moving the speed is added(ie 100km/h car + 10km/h ball = 110 km/h ball) but an object thats travelling at 0.9c emitting light in front of it will not make the light emitted from it travel faster than 1.0c. Perhaps someone with stronger physics background can chime in.
 
Cheers John. I was watching a programme the other night there and its been proven that the speed of light isn't constant as einstein says. Scientists have been observing photons that have travelled billions of light years from quasars and some of the photons are slower, taking 5 seconds more to reach their equipment.

They reckon it's something to do with what the fabric of space is made of. I'll try and find a link for ya.
 
DeMenTed said:
I was thinking about the speed of light and this is probably a stupid observation but ah well :)

So the speed of light is the fastest that anything can travel?
Yes, according to the currently accepted views of physics.

DeMenTed said:
If you place a torch end to end with the bulb facing away from each other and turn both torches on then the speed at which both beams of light travel away from each other is twice the speed of light :) have i just made a scientific breakthrough? :p
No, according to the theory of Relativity. In contrast to the Newtonian physics dictate (and to which your proposal is inspired from), the speed of light is independent from the observer. This is very awkward to accept indeed. If you're travelling at the speed of light, you will observe a beam of light traveling next to you not travelling the same speed of you, but with the speed of light. Why is that, go figure. I'd also like to see a layman's explanation on that, if it exists.
 
The lay version is the train and track analogy Einstein uses in his book on relativity and it is still not easy to follow.

Don't think of it like a velocity in the ordinary sense.

 
AlbertKLloyd said:
The lay version is the train and track analogy Einstein uses in his book on relativity and it is still not easy to follow.

Don't think of it like a velocity in the ordinary sense.

Relativity

Yeah, as with the whole wave/particle thing it will bend the intellect back in on itself. It doesn't make 'sense' but from all observations available it seems to be the way things are. Crazy stuff...
 
We might like to concern ourselves with the speed of propagation of information.


Essentially when you peer into General Relativity, you will find that light travels along paths called geodesics, which are straight lines along curved space. In fact, a geodesic can be reverse-defined as those paths that light travels along. A simple way to understand geodesics is to look at a map of the Earth.

500px-Spherical_triangle.svg.png


Draw a straight line on the 2D map, and when the same line is drawn on the 3D spherical globe, it is curved. Draw a straight line on the sphere (e.g. the Equator, or every line of longitude/latitude, every Great Circle) and vice versa, it is curved on the 2D projection. The true straight line is the Equatorial line. In fact airlines make specific use of this phenomenon to save a lot of money on fuel.


Now when we look at time dilation effects in relativity, we see that the faster you travel through space, the slower through time. If you go X m/s in space, then 1/X m/s is what you will go through in time so to speak (Lorentz factor).

Going absolutely fastest through space, time freezes and becomes non-existent, exactly as if stretching a triangle to infinity turns it into a straight line of sorts. The angles that disappeared of the triangle would be what we see as the "time" dimension.


Velocity is less meaningful here than a term called 'Rapidity'. Rapidity is really what we call colloquially as "speed". When we say "that is fast" or "that is slow", we really mean that it has high or low rapidity. The speed of light c, is infinite when considered as rapidity. This is elegant.


In fact, the usage of "velocity" is totally misleading and a fatal flaw of science's attempt to explain itself to the layman. We should have been looking at 'rapidity' all along. When we say the "speed of light is 299792458m/s", this poses a question "why 299792458?", to which the answer is merely that someone made it up on the spot. But when someone is told that the rapidity of light is infinite, then all questioning ceases, their bellies are satiated.


Now what relevance does this have? Well, to say that the speed of light is the fastest speed, becomes clear in rapidity terms. The path traced by a lightspeed entity is a true straight line, a geodesic through spacetime. The higher in rapidity you go, the "straighter" your path, until you reach perfect straightness at infinite rapidity. So the idea that anything can go faster than light is like the idea that there can be something straighter than a straight line, an idea which dissolves itself as inherently meaningless.


As regards those photons which have been "delayed" a few split seconds, such questions are meaningless. People need to get it into their head that the "speed of light" is not going to change. It is invariant because it is the very fabric of space, not because something called a photon "travels" "in space". You can't go faster or slower than space itself, so more appropriately we should call it the speed of spacetime, or the speed of information. I can promise you that even if the speed of light appears to change, the speed of information will never be altered; because questions of its "speed" are meaningless.

Hope this helps.
 
Thanks embracethevoid, excellent post! Yeah my thinking is that the speed of light is the speed of spacetime.

The science behind the slower photons is pretty relevant though. The scientists who discovered this anomaly are actually looking for what spacetime is made from. It's not smooth like how einstein predicted but rather its like a lumpy gravel path. They are trying to find evidence for planck length space fabric or something. My lay mind can't quite elaborate what i'm trying to say but thank's all who contributed to the thread :)
 
For anyone who is interested in exploring further i've just started an excellent book called "Why does E=Mc^2" by Brian Cox. It explains spacetime from first principles and shows how Pythagoras' theorem and some simple thought experiments can demonstrate that time and space are one thing and that neither space nor time are absolute.

It really is mind bending stuff and it explains why an object moving extremely fast shrinks (i.e. if you wanted to park a 4.0m car in a 3.9m garage you would have to drive at close to the speed of light so that the size of the car shrank) and why if you were able to discover a propulsion method that could propel you at close to the speed of light you would be able to cover vast distances across the universe without aging whilst millions of years would pass on the planet earth.

I think as psychonauts we are all fascinated with the nature of "reality" and special relativity really is helping me understand that everything is not as commonsense says it should be.
 
When we say the "speed of light is 299792458m/s", this poses a question "why 299792458?", to which the answer is merely that someone made it up on the spot.
I'm gonna have to disagree with that statement.

Historical findings:
1972: c = 299,792.4562±0.0011
1983: c = 299,792.458 (exact)

It doesn't look like the currently defined value for the speed of light was chosen arbitrarily. The Lorentz factor is not 1/v either. I'll stop there.

In response to the original post, the measured speed at which a photon travels in vacuum is the same in all reference frames. The original torch example is no exception. If you measure a photon from either torch, it will be travelling at the speed of c.
 
Back
Top Bottom