What is the excepted theory, to explain why light travels so fast.

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Nov 30, 2019
31
9
35
Ok to get the thread back on track, if light is not as consistent as once thought, if all these new experiments are proven as true, where light slows down or speeds up.
Taking into acount time as we measure it, is set at one rate going in only one direction, is possibly only because of our perspective or scale, or mass etc. And actually time as we know it is not real.

Is the light in the experiments at a consistent speed and we are having our perspective shifted or so like we are glimpsing light at another temporal rate, so light in a vacuumed is a set speed is not broken it’s just we see it shift into different flow rates of time?

Or are we seeing superconductors for light, where we see lights true speed, when traveling in what would be class as a super conductor something that offers no resistance, even less so than the vacuum of space?
I suppose the other way to look at it if not like a superconductor and lowering resistance would be if it’s actively accelerating the speed of light ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sward
Nov 20, 2019
13
3
515
We know light can be created with relatively little energy much less than it takes to get an electron up-to to close to light speed, ie a simple torch, what’s the excepted way that light gets to light speed from these very low power levels. What makes it travel so fast?
I was considering the options, the flow of time as we see it is relative, or it’s being pulled by something, the absence of light acts like a magnet, etc etc, I actual have no clue and have yet to see any explanation, so I just wondered what is sciences current thinking.
Not sure of being pulled but it is a very interesting question because as you say, it requires very little force . Just supposing we were able to build a ship that could travel at light speed, it would take it months, or even years to get up to that speed and it would need a planet sized energy tank to sustain it . Yet light from a single torch bulb can be technically seen a thousand miles away with the right telescope . I am a great believer that we tend to regard physics as the be all and end all . Everything has to have mass, and depth to it and it will be spaced mathematically distant or butted up to everything else, but that does not follow really it is only an illustration of what we don't know yet . With regard the pulling of light though I would imagine such as force would be pulling it from all directions, not only in front but behind and above and to the sides they they would probably cancel each other out . I rather fancy that it probably does not travel in this universe at all . In my books Dark Matter Transit and Dark Matter Transit 2, I postulate that because dark matter has no mass, no length, no depth and no height you do not travel through it, as in A though B . Dark matter has no dimensions so you enter at one point, relative to this universe, and leave at another . It would be instantaneous even though the two points might up billions of light years apart. Something similar may be happening to light and we see the wave it creates but not the light itself which is elsewhere . That unfortunately does not entirely tie in to my theory though because light is shed as it goes so that it is dimmer and dimmer from a distance . There are going to be some interesting answers too this question and I am looking forward to reading them .Regards
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave643
Nov 20, 2019
13
3
515
It is not just the power levels, there are factors which control light speed, such as refraction. Light changes it speed as it passes from one medium to another, this is evident by the change in its direction.

How does then "...the wave of the quantum..." sets the speed of light, say water. (I am looking for the general idea.)


Further, interesting news from this website:





"Scientists have apparently broken the universe’s speed limit.



For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum - a speed of 186,000 miles per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering.



The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum.

This seems to contradict not only common sense, but also a bedrock principle of Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which sets the speed of light in a vacuum, about 186,000 miles per second, as the fastest that anything can go.

But the findings--the long-awaited first clear evidence of faster-than-light motion--are "not at odds with Einstein," said Lijun Wang, who with colleagues at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton, N.J., report their results in today’s issue of the journal Nature.


Nothing with mass can exceed the light-speed limit. But physicists now believe that a pulse of light--which is a group of massless individual waves--can.

To demonstrate that, the researchers created a carefully doctored vapor of laser-irradiated atoms that twist, squeeze and ultimately boost the speed of light waves in such abnormal ways that a pulse shoots through the vapor in about 1/300th the time it would take the pulse to go the same distance in a vacuum.

As a general rule, light travels more slowly in any medium more dense than a vacuum (which, by definition, has no density at all). For example, in water, light travels at about three-fourths its vacuum speed; in glass, it’s around two-thirds.

The ratio between the speed of light in a vacuum and its speed in a material is called the refractive index. The index can be changed slightly by altering the chemical or physical structure of the medium. Ordinary glass has a refractive index around 1.5."



But by adding a bit of lead, it rises to 1.6.



The slower speed, and greater bending, of light waves accounts for the more sprightly sparkle of lead crystal glass."
I think I would like Princetown to work a bit harder on that before they make such pronouncements
 
Jan 7, 2020
1
1
10
Yes, it is interesting to think about light creation. We think of it as instantaneous that electron leaving and light being created. But how fast does this happen? If light is a particle, which I disagree with, then it cant just be sitting there and then instantaneously be traveling at speed c or whatever. It should accelerate to that speed.

Anyway to me, light is a wave just like sound is. I have a lot of issues with quantum mechanics and the duality of light to me is just one thing we have made up to represent things. But it can't be, but a wave.

Perhaps one of the problems that led scientists to think of light as a particle is the problem of light traveling in vacuum, in empty space. You see, a wave travels as energy disturbing whatever is already there. A wave in the sea, moves water up and down and travels in a direction. Sound disturbs air molecules in air or water or solids. But if light is a wave, then what does it disturb in a vacuum or empty space, if its actually empty? So lets get around that and call light a particle. No. The answer to me is that light is a wave and empty space, is not really empty, which gets us back to age old theories about the fabric of the universe, ether and all that, which we never got to advance.

Furthermore, although I am not convinced that quantum entanglement is real, the fact that you read the characteristics of a particle and at that moment you know what the other particles characteristics are, does not mean they communicate. [Never mind that to me, the fact that we flip it when we measure it is not some profound physical wonder, rather, it is because of our inefficiency to measure, that small and that accurately, we just haven't bothered to go that small in measurement and we should; like you use a laser gun to measure the speed of a car, does that change the speed of the car? No or yes by a very small negligible amount; when we go down to particles its not unavoidable, we just haven't found a fine enough method of measurement to get information on them without changing them, like using a bulldozer to hammer a small nail on a thin plank of wood, you lose both the nail and the piece of wood ]

If we, anyway suppose that entanglement is true, like say two states a and b, we let two particles, which we consider paired go in opposite direction, we measure particle 1, its a, and we suppose it immediately flips to b, we also suppose that particle 2 was b and flipped to a. Then we let them go for a while and measure particle 2, we find out, know, its a and suppose it flips to b, (which supports some of our first measurement of particle 1) and also suppose that particle 1 was b (as expected) and we suppose it flips to a. Now if we go back to particle 1, after it has traveled some way still and measure it again and we do find, know, that it is a, then sure maybe then they do communicate. So you have to take more than one measurements, not always measuring the same particle, and make sure chance is not a factor.

Now if entanglement does work, it presents a problem. It says to us that there can be instantaneous connections in space regardless of what we understand as distance. So something separated from something else would instantaneously communicate regardless whether their distance is 10 feet or 10 miles. They have even tried to measure speeds that this happens and allegedly its 100,000's of the speed of light. But lets say its instantaneous for a moment we'll worry about speed later. To me, the only way that two points are exactly the same distance apart, regardless of some measure of distance that we have, is if they are on the circumference of a circle. Or the surface of a sphere. If what we understand as space is the surface of a sphere, then all points are equidistant from the center of the sphere. This is one way entanglement can be explained. Any two points on a circle can be some way apart on the circumference, but they will always be 2*r apart where r is the radius of the circle. Now since we understand our space to be 3d (that in itself, the 3 dimensions is something we made up, there is nothing in nature that is 2d or 1d, these are our own constructs, space is one thing we call it 3d, to make it easy to work with, so time is not really the 4th dimension, as much as its the second construct, space being the first one) so one way to visualize entanglement is if our universe is the 3d surface of a 4d sphere, like if it were 2d it would be the 2d surface of a regular (3d) sphere. Now there are two ways we can go about supposing entanglement works. It either alwasy goes through the center, in which case the speed will be constant regardless, or , it could cut in a straight line without going through the center. Like pick any two points in a circle and connect them in a straight line, going through the inside of the circle. The assumption, regardless of whether, entanglment has to go through the center or just connects going through the inside, in a straight line (perhaps it curves who knows), the asuumption, is that whatever is inside the circle, in our case the inside of the 4d sphere, is something even thinner than what we call empty space, in any case, it travels a hell of a lot faster, than on the 3d surface.
Thinking about our own space, what we call 3d space, I came upon an article some 20 years ago that talked about transport logistics, it was actually in The Economist where I picked it up from. The problem they wanted to solve was this. Lets say we want to put stuff in a container, like boxes. We have to stack them neatly inside the container so that we can fit as many as possible. That stacking takes energy and time. Now suppose we wanted to save on this time and energy and just picked some 3d shape for our boxes to go in the container and just threw those boxes randomly inside the container (so that we don't have to stack them, save time). What would that shape be? Not a sphere, coz you would always lose the corners between them. Its not a cube apparently. don't remember if there was some theoretical deduction or they just conducted experiments, anyway experimentaly after many tries they found out that the 3d shape that wastes the least space is the tetrahedron, (which also happens to be the most stable of all 3d shapes, difficult to topple, get it to rest on another of its sides). So it occurred to me, that if the tetrahedron is the shape that least wastes space, then its the shape that best describes space, or maybe even defines space. So maybe this shape has something to do with how or what we understand as empty space.
As for light and its speed the first time I found some clue as to deny the (to me ludicrous) assertion that nothing travels faster, was from the equation. E=mc^2. You can get to this equation with classical mechanics, elementary physics and its nothing special and whats more, it holds for any speed, i.e. E=mv^2 where v can be whatever you want, it doesn't have to stop at c

P=power
E=energy
t=time
F=force
v=velocity
u=momentum
m=mass

(1) P=E/t => E=Pt (2)
(3) P=Fv
(2)->(3) E=Fvt (4)

(5) u=mv
(6) F=u/t
(5)->(6) F=mv/t (7)

(7)->(4) E=(mv/t)vt => E=mv^2


I can go on, on how the fact that einstein had to put a limit on speed, that meant that something else had to change so he said lets change time and that's why we believe that time changes, i.e. because we believe speed has a limit. Yes we have observed differences in how we measure time, but we have to be really careful in our assumption, and there can always be more than one answer. And there is a difference between a clock and a biological clock too, but that's a whole other discussion.
So i believe we can go faster than light, even by conventional means, but perhaps there is a way to travel faster by skipping through, like inside this assumed 4d sphere. Like the principle of the airplane wing is that it creates a gap of air above and a concentration of air below it, hence lift. What if we could make something that created a gap of what we call empty space in front of it, and a concentration of empty space below it, it would just jump through forward, by a little bit, going through what we understand as space, for as long as whatever created the differential was on. What lies in there. Well, we do not know, but whatever it is there is no reason we have to be adamant that we would not survive in it, cause, consider, we can go through all the states of matter that we know. We can travel through empty space, we can travel through air, through water, borrow through solids, why would we not be able to travel through whatever that is? And the laws of physics change but do not change by that much as we change mediums. They are mostly the same. Why would they be different there. And really if we can get to that, then going to Mars is a joke, we'd be there in 15 minutes, all those exoplanets we have detected we could actually go there. We have gone from 2 billion to 7 billion sould on this planet rather fast. People think its the environment but I beg to differ. We need to get out. since about half a milemium ago we now know how big our Earth is. Its finite. we are not. And our world is not the Earth. the minute we went in space, we walked on the Moon, that is our world now. Its a pity we chose to stay here and not explore more and try more out there for the last 50 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jem
Jan 9, 2020
7
0
10
Just because. That's how it is. In the end, it's turtles all the way down and there is no reason why.
 
Jan 9, 2020
7
0
10
Yes, it is interesting to think about light creation. We think of it as instantaneous that electron leaving and light being created. But how fast does this happen? If light is a particle, which I disagree with, then it cant just be sitting there and then instantaneously be traveling at speed c or whatever. It should accelerate to that speed.

Anyway to me, light is a wave just like sound is. I have a lot of issues with quantum mechanics and the duality of light to me is just one thing we have made up to represent things. But it can't be, but a wave.

Perhaps one of the problems that led scientists to think of light as a particle is the problem of light traveling in vacuum, in empty space. You see, a wave travels as energy disturbing whatever is already there. A wave in the sea, moves water up and down and travels in a direction. Sound disturbs air molecules in air or water or solids. But if light is a wave, then what does it disturb in a vacuum or empty space, if its actually empty? So lets get around that and call light a particle. No. The answer to me is that light is a wave and empty space, is not really empty, which gets us back to age old theories about the fabric of the universe, ether and all that, which we never got to advance.

Furthermore, although I am not convinced that quantum entanglement is real, the fact that you read the characteristics of a particle and at that moment you know what the other particles characteristics are, does not mean they communicate. [Never mind that to me, the fact that we flip it when we measure it is not some profound physical wonder, rather, it is because of our inefficiency to measure, that small and that accurately, we just haven't bothered to go that small in measurement and we should; like you use a laser gun to measure the speed of a car, does that change the speed of the car? No or yes by a very small negligible amount; when we go down to particles its not unavoidable, we just haven't found a fine enough method of measurement to get information on them without changing them, like using a bulldozer to hammer a small nail on a thin plank of wood, you lose both the nail and the piece of wood ]

If we, anyway suppose that entanglement is true, like say two states a and b, we let two particles, which we consider paired go in opposite direction, we measure particle 1, its a, and we suppose it immediately flips to b, we also suppose that particle 2 was b and flipped to a. Then we let them go for a while and measure particle 2, we find out, know, its a and suppose it flips to b, (which supports some of our first measurement of particle 1) and also suppose that particle 1 was b (as expected) and we suppose it flips to a. Now if we go back to particle 1, after it has traveled some way still and measure it again and we do find, know, that it is a, then sure maybe then they do communicate. So you have to take more than one measurements, not always measuring the same particle, and make sure chance is not a factor.

Now if entanglement does work, it presents a problem. It says to us that there can be instantaneous connections in space regardless of what we understand as distance. So something separated from something else would instantaneously communicate regardless whether their distance is 10 feet or 10 miles. They have even tried to measure speeds that this happens and allegedly its 100,000's of the speed of light. But lets say its instantaneous for a moment we'll worry about speed later. To me, the only way that two points are exactly the same distance apart, regardless of some measure of distance that we have, is if they are on the circumference of a circle. Or the surface of a sphere. If what we understand as space is the surface of a sphere, then all points are equidistant from the center of the sphere. This is one way entanglement can be explained. Any two points on a circle can be some way apart on the circumference, but they will always be 2*r apart where r is the radius of the circle. Now since we understand our space to be 3d (that in itself, the 3 dimensions is something we made up, there is nothing in nature that is 2d or 1d, these are our own constructs, space is one thing we call it 3d, to make it easy to work with, so time is not really the 4th dimension, as much as its the second construct, space being the first one) so one way to visualize entanglement is if our universe is the 3d surface of a 4d sphere, like if it were 2d it would be the 2d surface of a regular (3d) sphere. Now there are two ways we can go about supposing entanglement works. It either alwasy goes through the center, in which case the speed will be constant regardless, or , it could cut in a straight line without going through the center. Like pick any two points in a circle and connect them in a straight line, going through the inside of the circle. The assumption, regardless of whether, entanglment has to go through the center or just connects going through the inside, in a straight line (perhaps it curves who knows), the asuumption, is that whatever is inside the circle, in our case the inside of the 4d sphere, is something even thinner than what we call empty space, in any case, it travels a hell of a lot faster, than on the 3d surface.
Thinking about our own space, what we call 3d space, I came upon an article some 20 years ago that talked about transport logistics, it was actually in The Economist where I picked it up from. The problem they wanted to solve was this. Lets say we want to put stuff in a container, like boxes. We have to stack them neatly inside the container so that we can fit as many as possible. That stacking takes energy and time. Now suppose we wanted to save on this time and energy and just picked some 3d shape for our boxes to go in the container and just threw those boxes randomly inside the container (so that we don't have to stack them, save time). What would that shape be? Not a sphere, coz you would always lose the corners between them. Its not a cube apparently. don't remember if there was some theoretical deduction or they just conducted experiments, anyway experimentaly after many tries they found out that the 3d shape that wastes the least space is the tetrahedron, (which also happens to be the most stable of all 3d shapes, difficult to topple, get it to rest on another of its sides). So it occurred to me, that if the tetrahedron is the shape that least wastes space, then its the shape that best describes space, or maybe even defines space. So maybe this shape has something to do with how or what we understand as empty space.
As for light and its speed the first time I found some clue as to deny the (to me ludicrous) assertion that nothing travels faster, was from the equation. E=mc^2. You can get to this equation with classical mechanics, elementary physics and its nothing special and whats more, it holds for any speed, i.e. E=mv^2 where v can be whatever you want, it doesn't have to stop at c

P=power
E=energy
t=time
F=force
v=velocity
u=momentum
m=mass

(1) P=E/t => E=Pt (2)
(3) P=Fv
(2)->(3) E=Fvt (4)

(5) u=mv
(6) F=u/t
(5)->(6) F=mv/t (7)

(7)->(4) E=(mv/t)vt => E=mv^2


I can go on, on how the fact that einstein had to put a limit on speed, that meant that something else had to change so he said lets change time and that's why we believe that time changes, i.e. because we believe speed has a limit. Yes we have observed differences in how we measure time, but we have to be really careful in our assumption, and there can always be more than one answer. And there is a difference between a clock and a biological clock too, but that's a whole other discussion.
So i believe we can go faster than light, even by conventional means, but perhaps there is a way to travel faster by skipping through, like inside this assumed 4d sphere. Like the principle of the airplane wing is that it creates a gap of air above and a concentration of air below it, hence lift. What if we could make something that created a gap of what we call empty space in front of it, and a concentration of empty space below it, it would just jump through forward, by a little bit, going through what we understand as space, for as long as whatever created the differential was on. What lies in there. Well, we do not know, but whatever it is there is no reason we have to be adamant that we would not survive in it, cause, consider, we can go through all the states of matter that we know. We can travel through empty space, we can travel through air, through water, borrow through solids, why would we not be able to travel through whatever that is? And the laws of physics change but do not change by that much as we change mediums. They are mostly the same. Why would they be different there. And really if we can get to that, then going to Mars is a joke, we'd be there in 15 minutes, all those exoplanets we have detected we could actually go there. We have gone from 2 billion to 7 billion sould on this planet rather fast. People think its the environment but I beg to differ. We need to get out. since about half a milemium ago we now know how big our Earth is. Its finite. we are not. And our world is not the Earth. the minute we went in space, we walked on the Moon, that is our world now. Its a pity we chose to stay here and not explore more and try more out there for the last 50 years.
Prove that light has to be accelerated. Also, what makes you think it is fast? I think it is slow.
 
Jan 9, 2020
25
4
35
Light is a dual form of energy that still features a finite speed. It behaves both as particle & wave. Photons have no mass. This is strictly a form of energy. It has a certain speed in a vacuum no different than soundwaves have a certain speed.
 
Light is a dual form of energy that still features a finite speed. It behaves both as particle & wave. Photons have no mass. This is strictly a form of energy. It has a certain speed in a vacuum no different than soundwaves have a certain speed.
A bit different to sound waves. how do you account for the constant speed of light regardless of observer speed, whereas the speed of sound waves is dependant on observer speed?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jan 9, 2020
25
4
35
Well in the cosmos, light is traveling largely in a vacuum. We are in the era of a mass-deficient universe but energy strong universe. Oh but there lots of galaxies out there-that is a lot of mass but they moving away. Of course once light hits something like a planet-it may be reflected, refracted, absorbed, or diffracted. Also note that the assessed temp of out space is 2.7kelvin that this light is traveling thru. What may appear as just empty black space is clothed in heavy lethal cosmic radiation (light of different frequencies).
 
Nov 30, 2019
31
9
35
Light is a dual form of energy that still features a finite speed. It behaves both as particle & wave. Photons have no mass. This is strictly a form of energy. It has a certain speed in a vacuum no different than soundwaves have a certain speed.
Certain speed. . . your correct, but what dictates those certain speeds it’s one thing measuring those speeds but another to be explaining them.

Ok radio waves can also travel at the speed of light in a vacuum, but they struggle far more than light in planetary atmosphere, which we know is interference and bending etc, would that then indicate that light, Is far less effected by our environment than other waves, but yet know one has explained why light or other waves are so fast natively.
the difference being measuring something tells you it’s speed working out what slows it down tells you what effects it, but nothing so far tells you why it is traveling so fast.

ok maybe just maybe the why it’s traveling at x is very important. And It’s a clue to other things.

ok I am going to throw this out there, can quantum entanglement at any level be involved?
ok to just explain my very strange thinking, light on our planet has traveled from the farthest reaches of our universe including from the Big Bang or at least close, we know energy only transforms what if we are transforming things that were at one time light or particle that transformed that were quantum entangled so when we recreate them as light even if they started as a particle they naturally fly back to there entangled mate?

yes that’s unlikely but just throwing it at the wall. And it doesn’t explain why the speed of light is the speed of light but my brain just keeps asking random questions so feel free to not reply. :)
 
Nov 30, 2019
31
9
35
Yes, it is interesting to think about light creation. We think of it as instantaneous that electron leaving and light being created. But how fast does this happen? If light is a particle, which I disagree with, then it cant just be sitting there and then instantaneously be traveling at speed c or whatever. It should accelerate to that speed.

Anyway to me, light is a wave just like sound is. I have a lot of issues with quantum mechanics and the duality of light to me is just one thing we have made up to represent things. But it can't be, but a wave.

Perhaps one of the problems that led scientists to think of light as a particle is the problem of light traveling in vacuum, in empty space. You see, a wave travels as energy disturbing whatever is already there. A wave in the sea, moves water up and down and travels in a direction. Sound disturbs air molecules in air or water or solids. But if light is a wave, then what does it disturb in a vacuum or empty space, if its actually empty? So lets get around that and call light a particle. No. The answer to me is that light is a wave and empty space, is not really empty, which gets us back to age old theories about the fabric of the universe, ether and all that, which we never got to advance.

Furthermore, although I am not convinced that quantum entanglement is real, the fact that you read the characteristics of a particle and at that moment you know what the other particles characteristics are, does not mean they communicate. [Never mind that to me, the fact that we flip it when we measure it is not some profound physical wonder, rather, it is because of our inefficiency to measure, that small and that accurately, we just haven't bothered to go that small in measurement and we should; like you use a laser gun to measure the speed of a car, does that change the speed of the car? No or yes by a very small negligible amount; when we go down to particles its not unavoidable, we just haven't found a fine enough method of measurement to get information on them without changing them, like using a bulldozer to hammer a small nail on a thin plank of wood, you lose both the nail and the piece of wood ]

If we, anyway suppose that entanglement is true, like say two states a and b, we let two particles, which we consider paired go in opposite direction, we measure particle 1, its a, and we suppose it immediately flips to b, we also suppose that particle 2 was b and flipped to a. Then we let them go for a while and measure particle 2, we find out, know, its a and suppose it flips to b, (which supports some of our first measurement of particle 1) and also suppose that particle 1 was b (as expected) and we suppose it flips to a. Now if we go back to particle 1, after it has traveled some way still and measure it again and we do find, know, that it is a, then sure maybe then they do communicate. So you have to take more than one measurements, not always measuring the same particle, and make sure chance is not a factor.

Now if entanglement does work, it presents a problem. It says to us that there can be instantaneous connections in space regardless of what we understand as distance. So something separated from something else would instantaneously communicate regardless whether their distance is 10 feet or 10 miles. They have even tried to measure speeds that this happens and allegedly its 100,000's of the speed of light. But lets say its instantaneous for a moment we'll worry about speed later. To me, the only way that two points are exactly the same distance apart, regardless of some measure of distance that we have, is if they are on the circumference of a circle. Or the surface of a sphere. If what we understand as space is the surface of a sphere, then all points are equidistant from the center of the sphere. This is one way entanglement can be explained. Any two points on a circle can be some way apart on the circumference, but they will always be 2*r apart where r is the radius of the circle. Now since we understand our space to be 3d (that in itself, the 3 dimensions is something we made up, there is nothing in nature that is 2d or 1d, these are our own constructs, space is one thing we call it 3d, to make it easy to work with, so time is not really the 4th dimension, as much as its the second construct, space being the first one) so one way to visualize entanglement is if our universe is the 3d surface of a 4d sphere, like if it were 2d it would be the 2d surface of a regular (3d) sphere. Now there are two ways we can go about supposing entanglement works. It either alwasy goes through the center, in which case the speed will be constant regardless, or , it could cut in a straight line without going through the center. Like pick any two points in a circle and connect them in a straight line, going through the inside of the circle. The assumption, regardless of whether, entanglment has to go through the center or just connects going through the inside, in a straight line (perhaps it curves who knows), the asuumption, is that whatever is inside the circle, in our case the inside of the 4d sphere, is something even thinner than what we call empty space, in any case, it travels a hell of a lot faster, than on the 3d surface.
Thinking about our own space, what we call 3d space, I came upon an article some 20 years ago that talked about transport logistics, it was actually in The Economist where I picked it up from. The problem they wanted to solve was this. Lets say we want to put stuff in a container, like boxes. We have to stack them neatly inside the container so that we can fit as many as possible. That stacking takes energy and time. Now suppose we wanted to save on this time and energy and just picked some 3d shape for our boxes to go in the container and just threw those boxes randomly inside the container (so that we don't have to stack them, save time). What would that shape be? Not a sphere, coz you would always lose the corners between them. Its not a cube apparently. don't remember if there was some theoretical deduction or they just conducted experiments, anyway experimentaly after many tries they found out that the 3d shape that wastes the least space is the tetrahedron, (which also happens to be the most stable of all 3d shapes, difficult to topple, get it to rest on another of its sides). So it occurred to me, that if the tetrahedron is the shape that least wastes space, then its the shape that best describes space, or maybe even defines space. So maybe this shape has something to do with how or what we understand as empty space.
As for light and its speed the first time I found some clue as to deny the (to me ludicrous) assertion that nothing travels faster, was from the equation. E=mc^2. You can get to this equation with classical mechanics, elementary physics and its nothing special and whats more, it holds for any speed, i.e. E=mv^2 where v can be whatever you want, it doesn't have to stop at c

P=power
E=energy
t=time
F=force
v=velocity
u=momentum
m=mass

(1) P=E/t => E=Pt (2)
(3) P=Fv
(2)->(3) E=Fvt (4)

(5) u=mv
(6) F=u/t
(5)->(6) F=mv/t (7)

(7)->(4) E=(mv/t)vt => E=mv^2


I can go on, on how the fact that einstein had to put a limit on speed, that meant that something else had to change so he said lets change time and that's why we believe that time changes, i.e. because we believe speed has a limit. Yes we have observed differences in how we measure time, but we have to be really careful in our assumption, and there can always be more than one answer. And there is a difference between a clock and a biological clock too, but that's a whole other discussion.
So i believe we can go faster than light, even by conventional means, but perhaps there is a way to travel faster by skipping through, like inside this assumed 4d sphere. Like the principle of the airplane wing is that it creates a gap of air above and a concentration of air below it, hence lift. What if we could make something that created a gap of what we call empty space in front of it, and a concentration of empty space below it, it would just jump through forward, by a little bit, going through what we understand as space, for as long as whatever created the differential was on. What lies in there. Well, we do not know, but whatever it is there is no reason we have to be adamant that we would not survive in it, cause, consider, we can go through all the states of matter that we know. We can travel through empty space, we can travel through air, through water, borrow through solids, why would we not be able to travel through whatever that is? And the laws of physics change but do not change by that much as we change mediums. They are mostly the same. Why would they be different there. And really if we can get to that, then going to Mars is a joke, we'd be there in 15 minutes, all those exoplanets we have detected we could actually go there. We have gone from 2 billion to 7 billion sould on this planet rather fast. People think its the environment but I beg to differ. We need to get out. since about half a milemium ago we now know how big our Earth is. Its finite. we are not. And our world is not the Earth. the minute we went in space, we walked on the Moon, that is our world now. Its a pity we chose to stay here and not explore more and try more out there for the last 50 years.
Ok I get your thinking, I have no clue if your right or not, but I think about entanglement and the speed of light experiment, where even if your traveling at half the speed of light light still travels away from you at the speed of light from your perspective.
I think both are hinting that time is fluid, if we travel at half the speed of light that time as we measure it slows down so light which is Unaffected by our time frame, so still appears to travel away at its normal speed, this for me hints that despite the unlikeliness of instant changes via entanglement it may not be.
If we assume instant is possible that says time is just a property of the universe that under some circumstances can be ignored. And that time is relative very much so.
if we take entanglement that means when 2 things become entangled they are interacting over Multiple simultaneous timeframes which says it’s possible to do so. My guess is we are simultaneously experiencing all time frames all the time and it’s just about our ability to understand that.
We can then argue that light is experiencing a fast time frame that makes it appear to travel at the speed of light as we call it.
While all this on my part is just my speculation it does seem the the obvious solution and it’s neat and simple which is natures way.
 

Jem

Feb 18, 2020
13
5
1,515
what if we have this all wrong and time is a thing that is interpreted differently throughout the different species of living things. for example, you have dog years and human years which the dog could be 7 but he's really 49 and for light speed what even really would be a second for light because of light moving so fast maybe it sees time differently and certain animals see time faster too instead of spin cycles on earth and going off of the sun why don't we do it off of light just like light years like whats 1 second for light (sorry if you don't get what I'm saying it just boggles me)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Now who has been reading "The Serial Universe" or other works by J W Dunne?
He looked at the consequences of dividing time intervals into smaller and smaller portions, vide ever decreasing series, and argued that this conferred his "New Immortality".
Those not convinced might argue that it showed that you never quite finished dying and hence lived forever.
Ring any bells? ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: dfjchem721
May 1, 2020
4
1
15
What is time, or more precisely, does time exist.

Time is like numbers, in fact, it is a subset of numbers, or better still, it belongs to the concept of numbers, or numbering system, it describes events.

Do numbers exist. The answer is a big NO with capital letters.

Yet, we use numbers every day, at school, shopping, etc. They are an invention of the human mind as they do not exist in nature, an invention that became necessary, initially, to communicate quantity, 1 sheep, 2 sheep, 3 sheep ..... etc.

As the use of numbers grew, they became more complex, developed its own logic structure, and generally, it was called mathematics, the study of numbers.

Because of certain events, the sun rises every day, the day yesterday is not the same as today or the day tomorrow. Living organisms, are born, stay alive for a certain period and then die, the human mind was forced to invent the concept of time, just like numbers.

However, later, tried to define it, more precisely. That is, which moment is past, which moment is now and which moment is future. And how about in between moments, is there really a time lapse - time ceases to exist, before it begins again.

To the point, including Albert Einstein, as some ancient Greeks, came to the conclusion, the past, present and future exist at the same time. The concept of time is an illusion but necessary to explain timely events.

...all of the above, in relation to your statement "I was considering the options, the flow of time as we see it is relative ....."

...and to be more succinct. An illusion just like the co-ordinates of an object's position.

As you were, probably, taught at school, we need three co-ordinates: xyz to define position, other argue the time as well.

If you were in space, how any combination of the above co-ordinates would identify, your position in space. Can you tell the position of the earth, say, an hour ago, in space. The space co-ordinates, in other words.
The concept of time......time is a concept.it does exist....no it does not.we all have a concept of time,so yes,it does exist.i think.it exist to us and that's all that really matters,I think
 
May 11, 2020
7
1
10
time is just a measurable quantity or just numbers used to measure nature of processes or events going around us which totally dependent on how events are performing their motion
 

IG2007

"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Apr 5, 2020
756
881
2,760
No mazhar ali,
time is just a stubborn illusion said by einstien
Einstein didn't say that. Einstein said that time is the 4th dimension. And, time does exist. We humans have just divided it into different unots and given it magnitudes and numbers. Most people do not understand this. Time is not numbers, we have given it the magnitudes and nothing else. We have divided it. Otherwise, in an universal scale, it is ONE. Unbreakable, indivisible, and relative. This is what Einstein said.
 

IG2007

"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Apr 5, 2020
756
881
2,760
I think IG has hit it on the head. A great answer!
I thought it was my duty to correct others. There are many conspiracy theories against Einstein, like the above. Like, Einstein got 0 in Maths when he was a child, that is absolutely false. Like, it has been proven that Relativity is false, no one has yet said that it is wrong, instead every day new data cones and proves it right.
 

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
I thought it was my duty to correct others. There are many conspiracy theories against Einstein, like the above. Like, Einstein got 0 in Maths when he was a child, that is absolutely false. Like, it has been proven that Relativity is false, no one has yet said that it is wrong, instead every day new data cones and proves it right.
I think you did the right thing. :)
 

IG2007

"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Apr 5, 2020
756
881
2,760
what if we have this all wrong and time is a thing that is interpreted differently throughout the different species of living things. for example, you have dog years and human years which the dog could be 7 but he's really 49 and for light speed what even really would be a second for light because of light moving so fast maybe it sees time differently and certain animals see time faster too instead of spin cycles on earth and going off of the sun why don't we do it off of light just like light years like whats 1 second for light (sorry if you don't get what I'm saying it just boggles me)
Look, a dog at an age 7 (to us) is biologically 49 not physically. Try to understand that. A dog is just about 3 feet below our head, it depends on the dog's height. And now, if a dog is taller than us (there is one as far as I remember, but I don't remember the name), then time will go faster inside his head than ours, according to Relativity. That is the reason our hand nails grow faster than our toe nails. Try to understand.

I think you did the right thing. :)
Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Jun 1, 2020
13
11
15
When discussing the speed of light in matter you must distinguish between the ray and the wave front. In double refracting crystals the ray and the wave front travel at different speeds (ordinary ray and extraordinary ray)

The speed of light is inherent in light. What surprises me is that it doesn't go faster!

You can tell time has passed because entropy has increased. When there is no increase in entropy I very much doubt time passes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007

ASK THE COMMUNITY