Does light-speed exist

siarad · Apr 10, 2005

Abandon hope, all ye who enter here - Above the gates of Hell in Dante's The Divine Comedy I was brought up using the fps/cgs view of the Universe. This said parallel lines were a part of a circle of infinite radius (er now what of diameter & infinity). This caused pi to be all over calculations & pi isn't a number but a definition. We did our best to cancel pi whenever possible being an unknown number. The more we try to calculate it the further away the end becomes. Calculating the capacity of a two plate capacitor meant two different infinities were used <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> However we did get the correct answers even if weird things like area squared were used occasionally. After years of shuffling with metrication things seem to have settled with the speed of light being assigned a number, for short C, & other dimensions related to it. e/m = CxC. Now this is just a ratio & I've used it as that for years. C is really a conversion factor so why not call it 1. The square root would now be 1 too <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> Of course this would entail correcting our present dimensions to account for it. This correction may give us an entirely different view of the Universe & throw up new things, like C isn't a speed at all but a definition like pi. After all M theory showed up Branes previously unknown. Well should I enter the gates of Hell or is the above reasonable <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

emperor_of_localgroup · Apr 10, 2005

Nice thinking though, but I dont see why do you want to set c=1? Are you saying c is dimensionless? or c=1(m/sec)^2? Which also implies energy=mass. but we already use mass=MeV=energy. From the top of my head, a few places where we'll encounter troubles if c is set to 1 are a) length contraction and time dialation b) index of refraction of materials c) permittivity and permeability of free space. And i'm sure there are many other areas of physics where major changes would be required. Do you have any specific changes in your mind that you need to do? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

najab · Apr 10, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />After years of shuffling with metrication things seem to have settled with the speed of light being assigned a number, for short C, & other dimensions related to it.<hr /></blockquote>The speed of light wasn't just "assigned a number" - it is an actual physical parameter which has been experimentally measured with great precision. It's true that other SI units are derived from the speed of light, but it's precisely the fundamental nature of light's propagation velocity which allows us to do so. If the second was longer, then metres would be longer, and kilograms would be more massive - but that wouldn't "give us an entirely different view of the Universe", it would just mean that it would take fewer metres to get from here to the fridge for a glass of Coca Cola. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />Changing our units of measurement wouldn't have any impact on the Universe - remember the Universe predates metric!

drwayne · Apr 10, 2005

In my last graduate physics course, "Selected Topics in Quantum Mechanics", we frequently worked in systems in which c (and some other constants) were normalized to 1. Damn, I hated that course. 8:00, with a professor who talked in monotones and was no good at giving you hints on the homework (he had to do it for you to help you, which was not really helpful). Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

siarad · Apr 10, 2005

The metre is immaterial, perhaps you misunderstood my lead-in, we had feet so any measurement could be assigned. However it's those other weird things I just don't believe in that I wish to change. Nature is logical but they aren't. I've put several posts on diverse subjects but keep getting stock answers which just don't tie up. I've never had the brains for this sort of thing & now being old my concentration is way too low to attempt it. I was hoping brainy guys here would give it some time. I don't know if C is dimensionless it's what I thought may come from a new view as the present view is so weird & I don't think Nature is. Perhaps we're mixing up the speed of transmission of light with the speed of light which maybe a ratio like pi & not a number. This is not a rehash of existing theory but an attempt to get a different perspective from which something may show just as Branes jumped out of M theory. We aren't locked into one view as my lead-in showed

siarad · Apr 10, 2005

You say it won't give a new view of the Universe because you're using the old view in translation. My lead-in showed there is more than one view. How do you know the speed of transmission is the speed of light, 'cos someone says time alters to make it so & what is time, oh something related to C, it's circular. What if we're making a mistake in saying the speed of transmission is the same as the speed of light. They could be two different things but the current view hides this, just as the fps system had pi so something similar may appear.

Saiph · Apr 10, 2005

C = 1 / sqrt (epsilon * mu) In a vacuum those are the constants epsilon sub naugh (Eo) and mu sub naught (~Uo). These are the electrical and magnetic constants (akin to gravity's "big G"). Whatever units you express those in will tell you the final units of C, but it will be a velocity (distance/time). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · Apr 10, 2005

@Siarad: Dont feel bad. A lot of grad and undersgrad students hang around this SDC forum. That's why you'll see a lot of text book answers. I also joined this forum to find out other original thinkers, original thinking may be a little wacky, but must be logical. But textbook answers, which are accepted and verfied, are also ok, to remind us not to let our imagination go wild. I agree with you on the point that nature is not weird, but some of the mathematical theory lead us to a weird nature. I'll go with this theorists for the time being until something more reasonable come up. Do you have any specific case where you want to use c=1 and see what happens? As a poster of Saiph pointed out c can be 1 only if 'epsilon' (electric) and 'mu' (magnetic) cancel each other out. My other grief is, computer programmers have so far done amazing thing, but they yet to give us a messaging software where we can type math equations in real math forms. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

i_think · Apr 10, 2005

Siarad, ditto what the emporor said. I don't trust math that makes nature look weird. Life has taken me away from science for many years unfortunately, and I was surprised to see how much reliance is being placed on mathematics to describe nature today. I think it was Bohr who said that science must strive to describe the nature of the universe in words. For words and language are what we understand and reason with. Mathematicians may create expressions that describe a universe with 11 dimensions and explain everything, but no one can understand 11 dimensions and we would be no further along in our understanding of the universe, so what's the point.

drwayne · Apr 10, 2005

I look at some math, in particular math such as Quantum Mechanics as describing our understanding of a system, not neccessarily the way in which the system actually works. But that is my mental model, heristic to be sure. Others may reasonably differ. It keeps me off drugs and off the streets anyway. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

Saiph · Apr 11, 2005

nature isn't weird....really? Take a closer look: No matter how fast you go, light goes faster than you, and it never changes speed. The faster you go, the less distance you have to travel. The faster you go, the less you age. Thus people disagree on how long a trip takes, or how far you went...depending entirely on how fast you say you went. Everybody's right about how long and how far you traveled. Nature creates objects which you will never see something enter (BH's) despite falling into them. Not only are particles never exactly where you put them, they can't be. particles can get through barriers, despite not having enough energy. You can transmute lead to gold. and many more. Those are observed phenomena, not mathematical constructs, and don't even delve in to the philosophy of who's an observer or other such things. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

najab · Apr 11, 2005

>particles can get through barriers, despite not having enough energy.Worse than that, they don't even go through the barrier - they just appear on the other side!

siarad · Apr 11, 2005

Einstein was hung-up on god so could only conceive of one result. "God doesn't play dice" he famously said but Nature does. Designers go way better & use The Monte Carlo method just as Nature. This is totally logical & gives results for apparently equal starting points, note results. A designer then choses which is most suitable but Nature can choose them all. The Tunnel-diode switch is an instance of which you speak, that particular result is chosen as being most useful at the time whereas a blocking diode can be chosen another time.

siarad · Apr 11, 2005

Yes speed has to have those units it's the definition. However e/m is a ratio being constant so surely constants don't have dimensions. What's speed squared anyway it's like we had area squared in fps, got the result but was mind-boggling.

Saiph · Apr 11, 2005

kinetic energy is: 1/2 * mass *velocity^2 Energy to mass conversion is: mass*c^2 where C is a velocity, and the constant (as opposed to 1/2). So you have velocity squared in both cases. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · Apr 11, 2005

first, einstein wasn't hung up on god, though he did have his own mental construct of what the universe should be (which is odd, considering how he overthrew the last bunch of preconceptions). Then, what are youtalking about with the monte-carlo simulation? Nature, btw, isn't always random (which is what monte-carlo does, uses random numbers). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

drwayne · Apr 11, 2005

"However e/m is a ratio being constant so surely constants don't have dimensions." Most constants do have dimensions. (e/m most certainly does) The only thing that is required of a constant is that it be ... constant. Note that the speed of light is not a constant, but the speed of light in a medium (such as a vacuum) is. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

drwayne · Apr 11, 2005

Pretty good table of constants, with their common units: http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/chemistry/general/constants_en.html Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

siarad · Apr 12, 2005

The reason I started was to remove the square by saying C = 1. I put no units 'cos it would be a choice depending on possible conversion factors. It was the possible emergence of such a conversion factor I thought may give us a 'new view' of the Universe.

siarad · Apr 12, 2005

Nice table <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> Sorry about my poor wording. I was thinking more upon the lines of gravity, where F/N = co-efficient of friction, constant for a given system but see that the dimensions cancel. e/m is likewise a ratio equalling a constant for a given system. Therefore that formula, to me, seemed to contain a paradox. I have used it as a ratio on many occasions to obtain correct results. Doubling e doubles m no other dimensions are used.

emperor_of_localgroup · Apr 12, 2005

@siarad, Saiph, najaB, I_Think, drwayne: If I remember it right, e=mc^2 is an approximation, it is only the rest energy. There are more terms with mc^2 for total energy. Therefore, saying e/m=constant (c^2) wouldn't be very accurate. Nonetheless, there may be other ways c can be set to 1. Things would be interesting and simpler but I dont see any immediate catastrophic changes in theories. What do I know? And about that famous quantum tunneling. Could it be that quantum math isn't sufficient to discover what happens during the particles journey from inside the potential barrier to outside? So the probability comes to the rescue. Does empty space has something to do with it? The particle sure gets some energy from somewhere. That's why WE say nature isn't weird. We just dont know everything yet. BTW, they say a picture is worth 1000 words. I have to say a math equation is also worth 1000 words. A theory agrees with what we see, but doesn't tell us why we see that way. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

Saiph · Apr 12, 2005

can't change the underlying units (distance/time), but you can change the number value, by picking the right unit system. But that can only make the math simpler, as the overall ratio's must remain in order to comply with observation. But hey, I've often said let C=1 in my classes, cause it doesn't matter a lot (If I'm investigating how matter changes give energy, the value of C doesn't change that relationship for instance) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

drwayne · Apr 12, 2005

There are also ways in advanced Quatum Mechanics in which various and sundry infinities in probels are normalized away. Imagine wrapping your mind around that at 8:00 in the morning. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

siarad · Apr 14, 2005

Yes it's just a matter of taking a different starting point. Just maybe in so doing something new appears making the theory more relevant to normal life. e/m = C^2 is a rest mass formula but I'm nagged with the feeling C is doing two things but I can't think why though. C is not a discovery but an assigned number & dimensions for its speed i.e. distance & time. That light moves is the discovery & that it affects both distance & time is a worry. No energy, mass or information can exceed C. Both distance & time are information. Therefore C^2 can only equal C, huh! or the numeric value of C i.e. dimensionless. Therefore we can assign any number so why not 1. There are enough Atomic power stations running around the World to measure the energy equivalent of mass to start a new dimension system. So m = e & e = m, well algebraically but is Nature algebraic, has energy ever been turned into mass? What has the removal of the square done? What is missing?

siarad · Apr 16, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Then, what are youtalking about with the monte-carlo simulation? Nature, btw, isn't always random (which is what monte-carlo does, uses random numbers). <hr /></blockquote> Not sure what you imply. If I infer you mean random numbers produce random results then no. Random numbers produce random order of results. An electron may be on different sides of a barrier, when or by how the tunnelling happens isn't known but possibly may be discovered. The results may be very well known but the way they arrive are not, which may be required. When I designed fruit machines the results were known, in fact the UK & USA gaming commissions needed proof the way of arrival was random. Anyone playing a fruit machine knows all the results just not when they'll win. Interestingly I've told people gambling on the UK lottery that to be the only winner of the big win they should use consecutive numbers. I've yet to find anyone who believes me which just shows how little they understand random numbers <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> Some even choose numbers 'cos they've come up most often :rolling eyes:

Does light-speed exist

siarad

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

najab

Guest

drwayne

Guest

siarad

Guest

siarad

Guest

Saiph

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

i_think

Guest

drwayne

Guest

Saiph

Guest

najab

Guest

siarad

Guest

siarad

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

drwayne

Guest

drwayne

Guest

siarad

Guest

siarad

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

Saiph

Guest

drwayne

Guest

siarad

Guest

siarad

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page