Speed of light?

[pioneer0333]

If were possible to travel faster than the speed of light, would it be possible to see the individual particles of light in a beam of light? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">If were possible to travel faster than the speed of light, would it be possible to see the individual particles of light in a beam of light?</font><br /><br />Why not? Why so? I don't know.<br /><br />Before you decide to think of an experiment to manipulate the speed of light barrier, consider this:<br /><br />The electric and magentic fields change as time changes. Time is actual the rate of change of this flux. As you speed up, your electric and magnetic fields travel through space time. The transformation of these fluxes occurs at a slower pace as a result of motion though a field (of which is symmetric to a mass/charge particle). The vacuum has a certain conductance and permittivity which determines the maximum speed you can go. Your speed is really the distance you travel for every one of your <i>predefined</i> electric flux cycles or magnetic flux cycles - we laypeople call this a <i>second</i>. Electric permittivity and magnetic permeability are all relative to the medium, field density, to which gravitational and electrical potential are related. Gravitational time dilation and gravitational potential are related to each other in Einstein equations. Time can be manipulated by increasing or decreasing the strength of the gravitational field, or by lowering or increasing the gravitational potential. And where there is gravity, there is mass-energy, which means you will be also increasing or lowering an electric field and magnetic field, even if it eventually cancels itself out with its surroundings.

 

[xmo1]

My guess as an additional comment and question:<br />For massive things, I think you get chaos (entropy) at the speed of light. For massless things you detect either a wave front or a photon particle. Whichever you detect causes the other to collapse. Am I about on course?<br /><br />Search this site for "What is light?" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>DenniSys.com</p> </div>

 

[pioneer0333]

How about this question? Since a blackhole can actually draw in light "itself", why would it not be possible to use an extreme gravity field to isolate and suspend the individual particles of light in a beam of light?What would happen if such an element was suspended? What would it look like? Could there be any way to harness the power of every particle, instead of only harnessing a single digit percentage of the light (solar panels)?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[plutocrass]

Black holes spit out as much light as they draw in. The c is constant.<br /><br />The only conclusion I could reach, is that gravity affects the frequency of light, because you could shine ultraviolet light into a blackhole, and it would spit out gamma light. <br /><br />I thought that this might also mean, that the further light would travel away from the black hole, its would drop its relative frequency compared to that of when it exited...which could explain the Doppler shift.<br />

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">The only conclusion I could reach, is that gravity affects the frequency of light, because you could shine ultraviolet light into a blackhole, and it would spit out gamma light.</font><br /><br />Not really, except if the amount of gamma ray photons were less than the amount of UV photons that went in. Note also that the redshift of the black hole has an effect on this light that eventually reaches earth. There's a delay going in, and a delay going out relative to earth-based time. This time delay is probably just an effect of ultra strong electromagnetic fields (like those of a neutron star, magnetar, quark star, etc) affecting weaker electromagnetic fields (causing their observed temperature to be reduced than with this "time" delay, according to very distant and unaffected observers). Time delay of a photon's travel also occurs at short distances from an electron, where light tends to be affected by strong electromagnetic fields, causing propogating delay.

 

[spayss]

We are aware of the speed of light, the implications, etc.<br /><br />I'm curious, however, is there a reason in the nature of matter or energy that makes the speed of light 'the speed' that it is? Is there a reason it's not 10% slower or faster or some other speed?...or is it just a constant that 'is'. <br /><br />

 

[toothferry]

Yeah, I think the reason C speed "is what it", is simply the manifestation of" time dilation". If you could go infinitely fast to anywhere in the universe then "time" would be warped by the amount of "time" it takes for light to travel between those two points. Any observer not also traveling infinitely fast would see you traveling very fast, and clock you as going C.<br /><br />BTW it has been hypothesized that C changes as the universe ages.

 

[spayss]

Thanks. A good explanation. The only issue is that the logic is a bit circular. The speed of light is determined by the time dilation tied to the speed of light...<br /><br /> A variation of the speed according to the age of the universe is an interesting concept. It brings up the age old question in physics if time exists or is just a manifestation of other variables. Perhaps speed doesn't vary because there is no time and other variables change just giving light the appearance of speed (tied to time).

 

[Saiph]

well, we just went over this in a similar thread:<br /><br />The fixed speed has to do with they way electricity and magnetism interact. Change the way they interact (by changing the associated force constants Mu and Epsilon) and the speed changes.<br /><br />Time dilation is <i>not</i> why the speed is fixed, especially not why it's fixed at 3x10^8 m/s. Time dilation is a consequence of the speed of light being absolute, it isn't relative to anything (like the speed of other waves). You can't calculate the speed of light by knowing that time dilation occurs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[siarad]

The formula to which Saiph eludes & the other discussion<br /><br />velocity(light)² = _{_permittivity}1_{_{* permeability}}

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">velocity(light)² = _permittivity1* _permeability</font><br /><br />Just to make it look right:<br />v_light²=1/(permittivity*permeability)<br /><br />Interestingly:<br />1/(v_light)² * m² = __ s² = __ (henry * farad)<br />1/c^2 * m² = 1/299792458² s² = 1/299792458² (henry * farad)<br /><br />Thus, the inductance (measured in henries) and capacitance (measured in farads) of the medium determines the speed of light. Greater inductance and capacitance means slower speed of light and implies the presence and proximity of matter.<br /><br />Therefore, in a vacuum:<br />second²/(inductance * capacitance) = 299792458²

 

[alkalin]

<font color="yellow">Just to make it look right: <br />vlight2=1/(permittivity*permeability) <br /><br />Interestingly: <br />1/(vlight)2 * m2 = __ s2 = __ (henry * farad) <br />1/c^2 * m2 = 1/2997924582 s2 = 1/2997924582 (henry * farad) <br /><br />Thus, the inductance (measured in henries) and capacitance (measured in farads) of the medium determines the speed of light. Greater inductance and capacitance means slower speed of light and implies the presence and proximity of matter. <br /><br />Therefore, in a vacuum: <br />second2/(inductance * capacitance) = 2997924582</font><br /><br />Therefore there should be no surprise that light has a fixed speed relative to a test bench. I feel there is an interrelationship with these ideas with light and its surroundings, which include test benches, and the very atoms light comes from. We yet do not know how the spin of the EM wave becomes like a gear with other basic matter.<br />

 

[toothferry]

<font color="yellow">"well, we just went over this in a similar thread: <br /><br />The fixed speed has to do with they way electricity and magnetism interact. Change the way they interact (by changing the associated force constants Mu and Epsilon) and the speed changes. <br /><br />Time dilation is not why the speed is fixed, especially not why it's fixed at 3x10^8 m/s. Time dilation is a consequence of the speed of light being absolute, it isn't relative to anything (like the speed of other waves). You can't calculate the speed of light by knowing that time dilation occurs. "</font><br /><br />and so we did, therefore I will copy a portion of my last post which hasn't received a reply. ...since reaching c requires an infinite amount of energy and hypothetically if you did reach it you would have an infinite amount of kinetic energy, even a little neutrino .. and so if you could accelerate enough to reach your target infinitely fast. c is infinite, but the outside observer always measures the constant. c We measure C at 300,000 KM per sec ALWAYS because of time dilation on something that without "time dilation" would actually be speed infinity.<br /><br />But ultimately I'm sure you know better than I. And so, as for electricity and magnetism causing the fixed speed, is that mentioned in General Relativity? I'm just trying to learn a little more. and thanks for your help.

 

[harmonicaman]

<i>"The fixed speed (of "c") has to do with they way electricity and magnetism interact."</i><br /><br />Or; the interactions of electricity and magnetism are a characteristic of the fixed speed of "c".<br /><br />Einstein toyed with the idea that electromagnetic waves are actually "Time Waves". The virtual photons from a magnet (or any electromagnetic wave source) follow the magnetic lines of force because this is the path of least time, or so he tried to put into theory. Unfortunately; the solution to this puzzle will have to wait until we have a unified field or quantum theory of everything...<br /><br />In Kip Thorne's <i>"Black Holes and Time Warps",</i> he explains that electromagnetic fields of an object contribute to the objects gravity because mass and energy are equivalent. <br /><br />In <i>"The Elegant Universe",</i> Brian Greene explains that Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field are relativistic. This implies that an electromagnetic or magnetic field changes the rate at which time flows. <br /><br />The combined ideas of fields, quantum particles, and relativity produce what is known as relativistic quantum field theory. I think we'll need to understand the quantum universe to solve the time conundrum...<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[toothferry]

thanks harmonicaman, so to tie electricity and magnetism to relativity requires a GUT?<br /><br />btw, would constant centrifugal force be equal to constant acceleration, thereby changing the flow of time for two atomic clocks tied to the end of a tether in space and spun around very very fast for years on end, plus another atomic clock in the center not undergoing the same forces.<br /><br />Would the center clock keep the same time as the spinning ones tied at the end? In short, is centrifugal force the same as acceleration as far as relativity is concerned?

 

[Saiph]

ahh....no. Electricity and magnetism are already tied to relativity. The equation for light is, as harm said, already a relativistic equation (even if Maxwell didn't know that when he derived it!) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[search]

Speed of light is constant in vacuum otherwise it depends on the medium.<br /><br />Your question has more to do with the framework of science. Meaning that because we have certain framework (theories) to view the Universe and the Quantum we are restricted to them. Explore more on that:<br /><br />http://homepage.sunrise.ch/homepage/schatzer/space-time.html

 

[thespeculator]

But isn't speed relative to something else? <br /><br />Say if you were already traveling at 300,000 kilometers per second but you thought you were stationary, would light still be traveling at 300,000 kilometers per second relative to you?

 

[SpeedFreek]

Yes it would. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />If you are moving at 0.5c and shine a light in front of you, it still looks to you like it is travelling at c. Ouch! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[harmonicaman]

At relativistic velocities, (at or approaching "c"), you have to deal with the Lorentz Transformation and this awe inspiring formula:<br /><br /><b>w = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c²)</b><br /><br />which simply indicates that you cannot exceed "c" no matter how hard you try and why "c" is "c" no matter what your perspective.