Is Speed of light really the fastest?

redracer02 · Dec 15, 2004

The reason I ask is I am curious. I know light is just energy at a different wave length. Sound is energy at a different wavelength and so are gamma rays, x-rays and ultraviolet light to name a few. Ok, so we know sound waves travel at different speeds depending on their surroundings, so does light we have found. As you go up the energy spectrum the energy goes faster. But why does it stop at light? And is it visible light? If so, what color? Shouldn't x-rays travel at a faster speed? Or does all energy travel at the same speed in space?

farmerman · Dec 15, 2004

no, how a woman can change her moods is faster.

pizzaguy · Dec 15, 2004

And to add to farmerman... Remember: What is the shortest possible unit of time? The amount of time between the light going green and the dumb blonde behind you beeping her horn! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Note to Dr. Henry: The testosterone shots are working! </div>

fangsheath · Dec 15, 2004

The energy of a photon is a function not of its speed, but its frequency. If this seems counterintuitive, keep in mind that photons are not billiard balls. They do not accelerate, they do not have inertia, and they do not transfer their momentum to particles with mass by bouncing off them. It is not often appreciated, even by those who have taken a physics class, that when light "reflects" off glass, it does so in this manner: An incoming photon is absorbed by an electron, the electron bumps up to a higher energy level, it almost immediately "falls" to its former energy level and in the process emits another photon. No accleration occurs on the part of either photon. They travel at whatever the speed of light is in the medium, period.

redracer02 · Dec 15, 2004

Thanks, it makes more sense now.

Maddad · Dec 16, 2004

Welcome back farmer.

fangsheath · Dec 17, 2004

The line spectra emphasized in elementary physics are the exception rather than the rule. They are produced mainly by rarefied gases of simple chemistry. Solids, liquids, and dense gases generally emit and reflect continuous spectra. The reason is that when you crowd atoms together, the electron energy levels overlap and virtually any energy transition becomes possible. A continuous spectrum is the result. Keep in mind that although electrons are said to occupy "shells" or "levels," there is uncertainty in the energy and different levels will often smear together in solids and liquids.

Saiph · Dec 28, 2004

Mik16: 1) Light being a transverse wave is not the reason it can travel without a medium. Surface water waves are transverse, and they require a medium. Light doesn't need it due to the coupling of electro and magnetic fields. 2) Mirrors reflect light by a process different than atomic transitions. As stated, discrete atomic transitions exist for gases, not solids or even liquids. Reflection on the atomic scale is caused by an incident light ray oscilating large numbers of electrons, which do not change states, and maintain their bond to the atomic nucleus. THey merely vibrate in place, at the frequency of the incident light. This is akin to the way a cork in water bobs up and down with the waves, however it doesn't have any net motion. It always remains in the same general location (the cork actually moves in a circle). Electrons will just vibrate in place. Since visible light vibrates large numbers of electrons (a single wave front spans hundreds of atoms) they all vibrate. The electrons emit the same color light in all directions. However, only light that is sent along the reflectance angle (same distance from vertical as the incoming light ray) survives the interference caused by all the other nearby electrons. Light sent in other ways suffers from destructive interference from light emitted by the other electrons. And so the incident angle for the light, is also the reflected angle (a fundamental concept of geometric optics) Now, this vibrationary reflection doesn't depend on wavelength to any real extent. To high, and the photon will only excite a few electrons, meaning weak reflection. Or it may pass straight through, without interacting (high energy means small cross section) or it may ionize the atom...which doesn't aid in reflection. <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>

newtonian · Dec 29, 2004

Redracer02- Hi! Dark energy may be faster than light. I don't know if we know the speed of dark energy yet.

jatslo · Apr 8, 2005

Dark Energy travels at exactely C, whatever C is, I think C can be infinite speed, when there is infinite mass, and infinite energy, because infinite speed squared is infinite speed. That's what I think, and I am not stating this as a fact.

maxtheknife · Apr 8, 2005

While you're asking great questions, don't stop there! www.metaresearch.org

Saiph · Apr 10, 2005

well, if we measured the vibrations of the electrons, we'd actually steal energy from them, and lower the reflectivity of the mirror. But you could, in principle, do it that way (how you do it, is a different matter entirely). The best way to do it is to send a known amount of light onto the mirror, and monitor the reflected light for changes. <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>

alokmohan · Apr 12, 2005

Correct .c has a specific value. .

mental_avenger · Apr 12, 2005

Fangsheath says: An incoming photon is absorbed by an electron, the electron bumps up to a higher energy level, it almost immediately "falls" to its former energy level and in the process emits another photon. Thank you for your concise, yet accurate explanation. One more detail. The frequency of the photon and the direction of its travel, are stored temporarily in the spin of the electron. This is true whether the photon is "reflected" or "transmitted" through. They found that this information is stored in the electron's spin, even when the electron is slowed down, as in Bose-Einstein Condensate. This brings up an interesting point. While "light" travels at only one velocity, the stored information travels at whatever velocity is dictated by the medium. Therefore, "light" does not actually travel at anything other than one constant velocity, and that is 'c'. However, it also means that light is "absorbed" (for lack of a better term) and re-emitted, each time it encounters any mass in it's path. Now, the kicker. The velocity of a particular photon must be relative to something. The logical conclusion is that it would be relative to the last object which absorbed and re-emitted it, and therefore not relative to it's original source. If there is a velocity difference between the original source and the encountered object, the velocity of light cannot be 'c' relative to both. Note that I am not referring here to the "perceived" velocity, but rather to the actual velocity. It might be possible to measure this difference, but it will very difficult. The reason is that any light that is reaching us from a great distance has probably passed through (been absorbed and re-emitted) by gas and dust particles along the way, and most recently by those particles that are in our general vicinity (within the heliosphere), and therefore traveling at a velocity virtually the same as we are. Not <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

jurgens · Apr 12, 2005

"This brings up an interesting point. While "light" travels at only one velocity, the stored information travels at whatever velocity is dictated by the medium. Therefore, "light" does not actually travel at anything other than one constant velocity, and that is 'c'. However, it also means that light is "absorbed" (for lack of a better term) and re-emitted, each time it encounters any mass in it's path." Cool, I was wondering about how that happened.

wceviper · Apr 13, 2005

I dont think its the fastest. I think its the fastest form of energy we know about, and know how to measure it. We discover new things everyday of human existance. The Speed is based on distance traveled over time. Someday we will figure out how to shorten that distance and and beat the light everytime! That is just imagination at work.

mental_avenger · Apr 24, 2005

The Speed is based on distance traveled over time. Someday we will figure out how to shorten that distance and and beat the light everytime! What you allude to is a misconception created by the poorly conceived model of the universe as a flat sheet that can be folded to create shortcuts. Such models were intended to be used as tools to investigate gravitational interaction, but were never intended to be taken literally. I am surprised and somewhat dismayed at how many people have bought into the "Star Trek" style "sub-space" and "warp drive" movie gimmicks. These were created to allow story lines to occur within a small section of a character's lifetime. The reality is much simpler. To get from point A to point B, you must travel the entire distance at a velocity that is consistent with your fuel supply and the specific impulse of your propulsion system. Shortcuts are not imagination, they are fantasy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

termite · Apr 24, 2005

I dont think the s.ol. can be an absolute, we are taught that the universe is expanding at the s.o.l. yet astronomical observation shows the outer gallaxies eccelerating away from us. Maybe its only constant between two observed fixed points and does what it damn well feels like when your not looking.

Saiph · Apr 24, 2005

mental: I see no reason why manipulation of spacetime is impossible. Difficult, oh my yes, likely impractical (i.e. more energy required than the same gain via normal engines...) almost definetly. However physics does allow some things to exist, like wormholes. Granted, you can't really use them, as any attempt to do so closes the bloody thing (and there's no reason to believe they'll be big enough or long enough to matter...) but they can exist. As for the speed of light being the fastest form of energy, that's true. But that's now why we have it as the cosmic speed limit. We have it there, because no matter how you move, how fast you go, you always measure the speed of light to move the same speed. You will always measure it going at 3x10^8 m/s. This is unlike anything else. Say a friend takes off running across the yard. He is now moving pretty fast, you are still. Then, you take off after him. If you go fast enough, it will look like he isn't moving, he will be stationary, compared to you, and the world will zip on by. Light does't do that. You go faster, and light still seems to go...3x10^8 m/s. Even if you leave earth at 2x10^8 m/s you will still measure it at...you guessed it...3x10^8 m/s (which is C, or close enough, I don't want to write 2.997...). The only way for you, at that speed, to measure it at C, and for earth, going much slower, to measure it at C, at the exact same time, is if you and earth are experiencing time and distance differently. And thus arises: Special Relativity. <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>

termite · Apr 26, 2005

Saiph Are you saying,in laymens terms, that the universe dropped a clanger and only built a speedometer that reads up to 3x10^8 m/s. even though you could be going faster? Somebody should check the warranty, see if we can get our money back.

siarad · Apr 26, 2005

Saiph · Apr 26, 2005

actually it built three speedometers. One goes up to but doesn't exceed C Another reads only C And a third reads only faster than C. <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 26, 2005

relativity only forbids objects with mass to move between the three regimes. The objects going faster than C, are tachyons, and have not been observed. As such they remain hypothetical possibilities only. <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>

termite · Apr 26, 2005

a third reads only faster than Cee I think we're still waiting for the manual to be translated, bloody foriegn universe dealerships for you.

termite · Apr 26, 2005

As I thought. Tachyons do not exist. Thats Quatum Physics for you, come up with an imaginary particle and then invent a way to make it exist.

Is Speed of light really the fastest?

redracer02

Guest

farmerman

Guest

pizzaguy

Guest

fangsheath

Guest

redracer02

Guest

Maddad

Guest

fangsheath

Guest

Saiph

Guest

newtonian

Guest

jatslo

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

Saiph

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

jurgens

Guest

wceviper

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

termite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

termite

Guest

siarad

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

termite

Guest

termite

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page