Thread: math on "speed of light".

suppose a foton travels on the longest side ab of a triangle abc from a to b.
I am at point c
If i suppose this I have information of departure from a as well as when it arrvives at b. Or it should be fundamentally possible to have this information.

The question I would like to throw up is how can I have that information ?

But the distance ab is always shorter then the sum of ac and bc. If I would detect the departure of the foton (have that information) the foton has allready travelled a similar distance (ac) towards b. Hence as soon as I detect it I am by definition (geometrical) at longer range of b then the foton and would have to travel to the future to catch up and withness the arrival of that particular foton.

Or I would have to travel to the past before departure and then be able to predict when the foton will depart.
I can,t if only if I have control about the moment of departure of the foton in some way. For instance in a scientific setting that is possible to an extend.
Off course I can look from c at the line a and b at the same time but still the distance for me to see it all is always longer and hence I would have to be able to observe faster then light ?

In stead of this triangle I can make a multitude of triangles by drawing lines from c to points at the line ab. The principle stays the same. It counts for any point at that line.
Hence it is geometrical impossible for me to "see a foton travel".

Maybe wrong forum but I am for-most interested if this is mathematical correct.

Originally Posted by Ghrasp

suppose a foton travels on the longest side ab of a triangle abc from a to b.
I am at point c
If i suppose this I have information of departure from a as well as when it arrvives at b. Or it should be fundamentally possible to have this information.

The question I would like to throw up is how can I have that information ?

But the distance ab is always shorter then the sum of ac and bc. If I would detect the departure of the foton (have that information) the foton has allready travelled a similar distance (ac) towards b. Hence as soon as I detect it I am by definition (geometrical) at longer range of b then the foton and would have to travel to the future to catch up and withness the arrival of that particular foton.

Or I would have to travel to the past before departure and then be able to predict when the foton will depart.
I can,t if only if I have control about the moment of departure of the foton in some way. For instance in a scientific setting that is possible to an extend.
Off course I can look from c at the line a and b at the same time but still the distance for me to see it all is always longer and hence I would have to be able to observe faster then light ?

In stead of this triangle I can make a multitude of triangles by drawing lines from c to points at the line ab. The principle stays the same. It counts for any point at that line.
Hence it is geometrical impossible for me to "see a foton travel".

Maybe wrong forum but I am for-most interested if this is mathematical correct.

You can't see the photon travel for a couple of reasons. One is the problem that you identified with information transfer.

The second is that sight is simply the detection of photons that impinge on the retna. You only "see" photons that enter your eye. You cannot see a photon from the side.

exact so c can only see it if c would be at the line ab. But how can c see the foton go from a to b then detecting between a and b would interfere between a and b and thus the foton never reaches b so how can c ever see a foton go from a to b. He can,t see it sideways and he can,t see it when he interferes and puts b in his shadow (the foton he sees then will not reach b)

Originally Posted by Ghrasp

exact so c can only see it if c would be at the line ab. But how can c see the foton go from a to b then detecting between a and b would interfere between a and b and thus the foton never reaches b so how can c ever see a foton go from a to b. He can,t see it sideways and he can,t see it when he interferes and puts b in his shadow (the foton he sees then will not reach b)

What in the hell are you talking about ?

Am I talking ? Do you hear voices ?

You can't see (proof) a foton that you say goes along the line ab from a to b. if you,re not on that line. That,s what you mention. So to see that foton you would at the same time intercept it and then its no more a foton between a and b but a foton from a to you as you put b in you,re shadow. Or can a foton - can light - go through you as if you,re a ghost ?

Originally Posted by Ghrasp

Am I talking ? Do you hear voices ?

You can't see (proof) a foton that you say goes along the line ab from a to b. if you,re not on that line. That,s what you mention. So to see that foton you would at the same time intercept it and then its no more a foton between a and b but a foton from a to you as you put b in you,re shadow. Or can a foton - can light - go through you as if you,re a ghost ?

You are back to your usual gibberish.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you say broadly what you are trying to achieve before delving into the detail.

Just asking questions to the idea of fotons travelling. In science things have to be observed or shown in experiments where you need observation also.

If the speed of light is a limit for the viewer and the foton has that speed then as I explained it is impossible to detect the departure and the arrival at any point on the line a-b.

As soon as you detect the depart a next detection is impossible from a distance of the line it would travel. If you look at it with geometry of triangles it is clear that for that you would have to travel in the future.

So for an observer who not sees the foton coming towards him it is impossible to detect that a foton travels (at lightspeed).

A detection where a foton comes towards you you also see no tavelling or you would have to see how it gets bigger when it comes closer (perspectively) for a geometrical point this doesn,t work offcourse so from such a standpoint it is also impossible.

So to detect it I need two observers. For instance me and a clock at b and c with some devices for registration.

That makes it never my or anothers observation or truth it is a truth derived from more observations -partly with instruments that make registrations) and calculated from that.

I can,t be at two places at one time so if someone tells me that a foton travels I apparently am supposed to do experiments and use registrating instruments ?

By the way it is not such big a problem.
For instance if you observe 30.000.000 meters and registrate 0,1 seconds as difference between two clocks
you can leave both as what the are. A measurement of two dimensions and not divide an amount of apples through an amount of pears even though they are both fruit you can,t divide them to one number and use that as "an observed speed" by one person (or a group of persons doing an experiment). as one person can,t be at two positions at one time.

Leaving it stand as two observations a photon doesn,t have to be a point (for the speed idea it has to be) it could be a contiouus secquence of lines or snares.

If you have a railroad with a train as long as the railroad and you add a traindepartment at one side the information travels to the other end much quicker then to push a traindepartment over the railroad when it is empty. speed of information stays the same but not the speed of the wagons.

Same idea (and we know it form water and electrons in electricity as well) could then apply for fotons.

But the initial math (this is a math forum I know) and the consecquence that the observer C would have to travel in the future for such an awareness as foton going from a to b from his point of view (C) has not been critisized yet not even by mr rocket .

To detect an event something must occur locallly to you.
Any distant event you detect will have occured in the past so you need to take into account the time for the information about th event to reach you.

You can't have information about a distant event immediately.

anyway if you are only concerned about the time it takes to travel you have not problem you can measure that.

Also if you detect the photon it has not traveled from A to B it will have traveled from A to C.

Thus you can't ever detect a photon traveling from A to B, you will only detect photons traveling to C unless you have a photon detector at B which sends you a signal when it detects a photon, it could send you a different photon which you could detect at C.

Also if you detect the photon it has not traveled from A to B it will have traveled from A to C.

Thus you can't ever detect a photon traveling from A to B, you will only detect photons traveling to C unless you have a photon detector at B which sends you a signal when it detects a photon, it could send you a different photon which you could detect at C.

But that will be a different foton. The statement is "a foton travels from a to b" made by a person lokated at c. A type of expression that is rather common although mostly made changing foton for a lightsignal but both are connected. So made by a person that can,t be at two places while making a statement, Allthough he is not fysically at two places the clock in a way functions as an extension and observes for him. Reading the clock (after c has walked to b) C could forget he walked a distance. when he would watch the clock as he reads it stopped a little earlier allready so C has not seen the foton/light travel from a to b (or from a to any point of the line ab) so C has not seen light travel must be the consecquence ? Mixing himself up with a clock.
Or you could say a clock maybe is in the same frame of reference of the person but a clock never meassures the own-time of a person as they will be at a distance of each other The clock is not the person and will meassure only it,s own time not that of who reads it. "Reading a clock you will always to late".

You don't need a person at C just clocks at A and B which can record the time.

A clock can,t speak out sentences like a foton travels from a to b someone must read it and interpret. But also only from b - one point of perspective it is imposible to determin wether a photon is a mathematical point moving with lightspeed or a continuous series of lines. If I point a stick straight to a camera it is allready impossible to see how long it is. It can be a coin or a stick at huge length. you can't base an idea on that perspective only.

But it makes huge difference for the idea of fotons. If a foton is a line (or you could call it a snare? or part of an electric fieldline)instead of a point it doesn,t need to travel. put a secquency of toy trains to a piece of railroad and if you put in another in between or add one at the end all the trains will move a distance that is same as the length. Speed of information being high but speed of each train not. it even has a waveidea to it, for instance traffic engineers use wavelike ideas for traffic jams.

The cars don,t have to travel as fast as the information goes. But if they had no length offcourse the same speed for the cars as the "information speed" would be the only way to explain the "speed of information".

For saying a foton travels you need the observer from the side also as well as that observer - obviously - needs the clock at b and an artificial observation there by a camera for instance. Thus the word observation (as if by one person) would always imply at least to standpoints in stead of one when it supposes the clock and an observer can have the same point of view.

Both observations then get combined as if one observation thus by one person neglecting the distance between that person and the clock.

To observe the clock at b it can be done after an experiment walking from c to b and reading it.
The time at the clock then for instance is 0,3 seconds.

But as the observer was at C at that time for his statement/observation madeas observed from that position he would have to correct that time with the distance between b and c and that is not usage, in experiments the distance maybe short and therefor neglected but it still is a distance. One can,t be where a clock is at the same time.

So not 0.3 but 0,3+ x as he saw the stopping of the clock only after it had actually restrated it for itself. So he only sees a registration of the past.

Other way to do it is he stays at c from where he can (real or theoretical) read the clock from that distance.

Now if there are two identical clocks at B one that stops as it registrates and another one that doesnt stop....The observer will read two different times.

The rigstration he will read as 0,3 and same time he reads the clock that was directly beside the other one at 0,3+ x.

For the first clock at A if a different foton is activ to c simultaneously with a foton towards B the same counts. If that clock registrates 0,0 (the signal is activated when the clock starts) C sees the signal at 0,0+2x

Thus C would see a time 0,3 - x for the signal between a and b instead of 0,3 based on meassured distance in meters and value for lightspeed.

Now combined with line ab you can draw a multitide of triangles with different positions for C and different relations in length for ac and bc.

Thus for all those observers the speed of light between a and b would be different if purely it was from the perspective they stand and make the statement that lightspeed is the same for every observer. If they really could see the clocks at a and b they all would see a different timedifference and as they all have meassured the distance ab with a ruler at forehand and in that dimension regard the distance the same for all they all would see a different lightspeed ?

The only way I see it to have an identicque view on the situation for a and b observers C would have to observe a difference in the physical dimension (meters) as well but as they meassured that at forehand using a ruler it is forgotten as possibility. You would need a sort of length contraction/expansion idea even in static situations.