Notices
Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: What’s so special about light?

  1. #1 What’s so special about light? 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Why is a cosmic speed limit determined by photons rather than any other of the multitudinous array of elementary particles? It seems that every particle has its place and its function but only one of them is allowed to lord it over the universe in such a unique and pervasive way as to appear in the most famous equation of all time: e = mc^2 and to apply an unbreakable limit to every single thing in the Universe. Physics should be democratic, not a monarchy.

    According to Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw in their book “why does E=mc^2” this is actually the wrong way to look at light. In spacetime everything travels at the same speed, c, including you and me, the Earth and distant galaxies. Everything shares its spacetime velocity between mass and motion. To quote: “Light just happens to use up all its spacetime quota on motion through space and in so doing travels at the cosmic speed limit: the apparent specialness of light is an artifact of our human tendency to think of time and space as different things.”

    I found this helpful, in that it settled a niggling puzzle about why photons were special: the answer is they aren’t.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: What’s so special about light? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Why is a cosmic speed limit determined by photons rather than any other of the multitudinous array of elementary particles? It seems that every particle has its place and its function but only one of them is allowed to lord it over the universe in such a unique and pervasive way as to appear in the most famous equation of all time: e = mc^2 and to apply an unbreakable limit to every single thing in the Universe. Physics should be democratic, not a monarchy.

    According to Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw in their book “why does E=mc^2” this is actually the wrong way to look at light. In spacetime everything travels at the same speed, c, including you and me, the Earth and distant galaxies. Everything shares its spacetime velocity between mass and motion. To quote: “Light just happens to use up all its spacetime quota on motion through space and in so doing travels at the cosmic speed limit: the apparent specialness of light is an artifact of our human tendency to think of time and space as different things.”

    I found this helpful, in that it settled a niggling puzzle about why photons were special: the answer is they aren’t.
    Light is really not unique.

    If you look carefully at the derivation of the Lorentz transformation of special relativity you will find that if you simply assume that there is some phenonema which propagates at a speed "x" in all inertial reference frames, then one derives a version of special relaitivity in which one has the Lorentz group of transformations with "x" in the role of "c". It follows that there can be only one such speed, and it must apply to any all phenomena that propagate at a constant speed in all inertial reference frames. One then simply notes the experimental fact that light propagates at "c" in all inertial reference frames, and voila, you have the conventional formulation of special relativity.

    Thus there is only one such universal speed, and it just happens to be the speed of light. If one now looks at the theory of elementary particles, it then turns out that any particle with zero rest mass has the same property as light and therefore moves at "c". This applies to photons and gluons. The graviton, if is exists as prediction will alos be massless and propagate at "c".


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Thanks for that Dr. Rocket.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    To what is in the posts above it may be useful to recall that every particle on Earth, everybody on Earth, Earth, Sun, Milky Way and a rather large amount of Galaxies around – all move with [practically] speed of light in time (along t-axis), and God bless, no extraordinary or surprising things happen.

    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    404
    if there is one thing physics has taught me is how extraordinary things happen TO us..............

    it has allowed me to quantify the limits of human knowledge to the extent that we would never be able to find out certain things basically because we cannot 'see' them either physically or otherwise.

    We have a thinking speed and only physically 'see' a tiny part of the EM spectrum, the light which we do manage to see (compared with c relative to the environment it is moving through) is so old by the time we think about it I sometimes wonder if I will ever catch a train on time! :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    The point is that it is misleading to think of light as the agent that sets the cosmic speed limit. As Dr. Rocket has pointed out, other particles might travel at c.

    Even more significant, perhaps, is that the idea that photons are massless, and therefore travel at c, is empirical; i.e. the mass of photons has been determined to the best of our ability by experiment and has been found to be zero, but there is no theoretical reason that it has to be zero. More sensitive measurements might conceivably find that photons do in fact possess some mass. This would mean that the speed of photons is actually less than c, and that the cosmic speed limit is not the same as the speed of light.

    In other words (borrowed from the book referenced above), the c in E = mc^2 has something to do with light only because of the experimental fact that photons just happen to be massless. If photons are found to have mass Einstein’s theory does not change, and c does not change, except we would have to stop calling it light speed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    404
    i agree.

    I also think in terms of theory that the cosmic speed limit might have to be considered to be infinite, just as the size of the universe could be measured so.

    In this case E=mc2 is very similar to Newtonian physics in that it can perform a correct calculation but is not the final answer.

    You raised a good point on our instrumentation that leads to the current conclusion that photons are massless - but that is a consideration to take into account rather than a hard fact, but an important one nonetheless!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    "The point is that it is misleading to think of light as the agent that sets the cosmic speed limit. As Dr. Rocket has pointed out, other particles might travel at c"

    and
    "More sensitive measurements might conceivably find that photons do in fact possess some mass. This would mean that the speed of photons is actually less than c, and that the cosmic speed limit is not the same as the speed of light."

    _____________

    (1) – The speed of light isn’t something fundamental; real speed of light isn’t even constant in inertial frames – the constant "c" is measured speed of light. Besides - the term “massless” (more correct “restmassless”) should be applied to both movement directions – along a space line and along the time line; and so there exist two kinds of restmassless particles – "space restmassless", i.e. photon, possibly neutrino, etc; and "time restmassless" – i.e. any "usual" particle - up to Galaxies.

    (2) - What is titled (and measured) as "speed of light" is the fundamental limit (thoug that is not totally correct, very probably c is a derived value) for motion (propagation) of any particle in spacetime; and this value is measured now rather correctly.

    (3) – At that photons indeed, fundamentally have zero "space rest masses" because they move in the space only. If a photon is impacted by a t-directed momentum then "usual restmassive" particles appears, e.g., - e+p pair.

    More – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 ; for this topic it’s enough the section 2.2.1; though to read all paper may be useful also.

    To: Apopohis Reject
    "...I'm not sure why you would invoke a delusion into such reality..."

    - Here is no any delusion. Delusion is standard SR 2-th postulate...

    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    (2) - What is titled (and measured) as "speed of light" is the fundamental limit (thoug that is not totally correct, very probably c is a derived value) for motion (propagation) of any particle in spacetime; and this value is measured now rather correctly.
    Well, c is derived from Maxwell’s electromagnetic field equations. The fact that the derived value of c turned out to be the same as the measured value of the speed of light was, as I understand it, a big surprise. So a fundamental limit was derived from theory, and an empirical measurement turned out to have the same value.

    (3) – At that photons indeed, fundamentally have zero "space rest masses" because they move in the space only. If a photon is impacted by a t-directed momentum then "usual restmassive" particles appears, e.g., - e+p pair.
    This part is not clear to me. Can you explain why it is a fundamental requirement for photons to have zero rest mass? If they travel at c then they must have zero rest mass, and if they have zero rest mass they must travel at c, but this is circular and does not prove anything fundamental. Light could travel at a very tiny fraction below Maxwell’s theoretical value of c without violating any fundamental principles.

    As I mentioned, physics is not my subject and I’m asking for clarification, not pontificating here. I hope that’s obvious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    4
    technically tachyons go faster than light right so there is no real limit right?
    EDITk so well are tachyons only hypothetical or can they be real?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    404
    as far as I am aware ONLY sting theory states all matter is made out of light.

    'Standard Model' is a more accurate term to what I was referring to.

    It would make sense I think to say that light HAS zero rest mass since it is SUPPOSED to be moving at c.

    there was an experiment a short while ago where light was slowed down so it could be seen - I think the idea is if you tried to slow light down you could but as soon as you let go it will always try to move back up to c - so in this way it is always moving at c just looks slower because it is passing through a denser medium.

    so the rule is light ALWAYS travels at c - if it were to EVER travel a 'very tiny fraction below Maxwell’s theoretical value of c' then that would be a very good question.

    please correct if you think I am wrong.............
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    The rest mass of a photon is a definition derived from the energy of the photon and the expression E=Mc^2. It is only used for calculations. A photon 'at rest' has no mass because the only way to stop it is by taking away all its energy ie. to infinite wavelength and zero frequency. Light only travels at the speed c.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    Light only travels at the speed c.
    Professor Cox writes: "as far as anyone can tell (my italics) they [photons] have zero mass."
    and:
    "there is no fundamental reason in particle physics that guarantees that the photon should be massless"
    and
    "if at some point in the future an experiment reveals that photons actually have a tiny mass....what changes is that we should no longer identify it [c] with the speed at which light travels."

    Is Cox mistaken?

    BTW he is professor of particle physics at the U. of Manchester in case anyone's wondering. Apparently he also does pop science on British TV.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Quote:
    (3) – At that photons indeed, fundamentally have zero "space rest masses" because they move in the space only. If a photon is impacted by a t-directed momentum then "usual restmassive" particles appears, e.g., - e+p pair.


    This part is not clear to me. Can you explain why it is a fundamental requirement for photons to have zero rest mass? If they travel at c then they must have zero rest mass, and if they have zero rest mass they must travel at c, but this is circular and does not prove anything fundamental.

    Professor Cox writes: "as far as anyone can tell (my italics) they [photons] have zero mass."
    and:
    "there is no fundamental reason in particle physics that guarantees that the photon should be massless" and
    "if at some point in the future an experiment reveals that photons actually have a tiny mass....what changes is that we should no longer identify it [c] with the speed at which light travels."


    ____________________________________

    [(1) To some another posts also:
    - the light travels with the speed "c" only in the vacuum;
    - the inference that the light must move with c and hence it must zero rest mass – and so something "circular" appears – isn’t fully correct. In standard SRT the requirement for the speed of light be as a fundamental limit is a postulate to obtain Lorentz transformations. Further all SRT is deduced from these transformations, something like all geometry in Cartesian coordinates is deduced from a few Euclidean axioms; including the mass – speed dependence.]

    (2) On the Professor Cox quotes: "there is no fundamental reason …that the photon should be massless"
    – now there is no fundamental reason for the photon be massive. Though this statement seems as something interesting for pop science on British TV-?


    (3) “This part is not clear to me. Can you explain why it is a fundamental requirement for photons to have zero rest mass?”
    - in the SSDZ post of Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:59 am is pointed out: “(3) – At that photons indeed, fundamentally have zero "space rest masses" because they move in the space only.”

    To understand this statement is desirable to read the arXiv link pointed in this post.
    Some comments (though that was in the paper and SSDZ posts above in the thread):

    (i) - "restmasslessity"isn’t something surprising – any particle is restmassless: "usual' – or "massive" particles are resmassless in the time direction when the photon is resmassless in a space direction. And conversely – these particles have masses in complementary directions, i.e. – photon has mass in the time direction when massive ones – in a space direction.

    (ii) – it seems as rather probable that the directions (coordinates) are similar in some points – e.g. the fundamental step lengths in the time and the space are equal, but the directions aren’t totally symmetrical. Including – when a "space massive" particle can move in the time and the space, photon can move in a space only.

    (iii) – (And that is important) Any indeed new knowledge can be obtained only at some experiment - see also http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 . So there is no sense to assert on something that hasn’tr an experimental evidence, or isn’t deduced from some experimentally confirmed theory; or if this something cannot be verified experimentally at all.

    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    OK thanks. I'll review and respond later at home.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    To SSDZ: I glanced at the paper you recommended and sad to say I don't believe it's going to help me in any way at all, judging from this from the intro:

    In the Refs. [1] - [4] it was rigorously logically shown that the entity/ concept “Information” is utmost general and fundamental when all/anything what exist is/are some realizations of the information – all/anything what exist is/are “the words”, some elements of utmost general and fundamental infinite Set “Information”.
    This may mean something to some others here, but to me, not so much.

    I still haven't seen a straightforward explanation of why it is "fundamental" that light travels at c, or indeed what does fundamental mean in this context.

    And still another circularity appears from reading about elementary particles: mass is the result of the Higgs field. The Higgs field is mediated by the (postulated) Higgs boson, which the LHC will either find or not; but Higgs bosons, if they exist, are massive particles. How can they be both massive and responsible for mass? Isn't this a classic chicken and egg conundrum?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,152
    Mod Note: Several posts have been split off and moved to "New Ideas and Hypotheses", as these posts dealt with off-topic speculation.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    To: Bunbury.
    (1) Quote:
    In the Refs. [1] - [4] it was rigorously logically shown that the entity/ concept “Information” is utmost general and fundamental when all/anything what exist is/are some realizations of the information – all/anything what exist is/are “the words”, some elements of utmost general and fundamental infinite Set “Information”.
    _____
    (i) – The entity/ concept "Information" indeed is utmost general and fundamental when all/anything what exist is/are some realizations of the information – all/anything what exist is/are "the words", some elements of utmost general and fundamental infinite Set "Information" - therefore Matter is an informational system (IS) also; and that is indeed rigorously proven – see http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 .

    (ii) – besides - from existent physics follows rather plausible hypothesis that the IS “Matter” is rather simple dynamical logical IS –something what is rather similar to a computer.

    (2) "To SSDZ: I glanced at the paper you recommended (http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819-?) and sad to say I don't believe it's going to help me in any way at all… This may mean something to some others here, but to me, not so much.”

    - Indeed the approach is nonstandard and requires some work to understand, so "to glance the introduction" isn’t sufficient to make any conclusion.

    (3) "…And still another circularity appears from reading about elementary particles: mass is the result of the Higgs field…

    - that is outside the topic; because of, for example, that the notion "mass" appeared far before Standard Model (SM). Moreover - this notion till now has at least two sides – there are "inertial" and "gravitational" masses, when in the SM only the inertial one is considered – the gravity remains be outside the SM.

    In http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 it is shown why both masses are identical.

    (4) "I still haven't seen a straightforward explanation of why it is "fundamental" that light travels at c, or indeed what does fundamental mean in this context"

    - see (2)

    (5) – (Offtopic) "…Isn't this a classic chicken and egg conundrum…?"

    - that is a kitchen conundrum. In reality it is well known now that the egg is always first – only after a change in an egg’s genome a new chicken appears..

    To: Janus - thanks.

    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    404
    i absolutely agree - I concluded this myself a short while ago..........

    the egg is ALWAYS first............... :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    404
    Quote Originally Posted by SSDZ
    To: Bunbury.

    (ii) – besides - from existent physics follows rather plausible hypothesis that the IS “Matter” is rather simple dynamical logical IS –something what is rather similar to a computer.
    I like this - a good point on the theory of knowledge and philosophy of physics.

    Is this a 'known' academic writer who wrote the article?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by fatman57
    i absolutely agree - I concluded this myself a short while ago..........

    the egg is ALWAYS first............... :P
    Yes, very enlightening. Nevertheless, avian humor aside, there is, or seems to be, a causality problem with the Higgs particle. How can a thing be the cause of itself? This is not a philosophical question; it's a physics question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    To: fatman57 "I like this - a good point on the theory of knowledge and philosophy of physics."

    - That is too bold statement! For example – the paper in http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 (without a couple of last sentences, of course; though those sentences follow directly from the main text) was rejected by two philosophical journals - after 6 months and 1 week "considerations" - before it was placed in arXiv. Such a situation sometimes is a rather good compliment for any scientific work, but, regrettably leads also to a cumbersome travelling through Net forums to introduce people with the conception…

    To: Bunbury "How can a thing be the cause of itself?"

    - there isn’t "a thing be the cause of itself". Higgs boson isn’t a source of the mass, it is necessary to complete the Standard Model, where – as some people think – the notion "mass" becomes be understandable. Though (again; see SSDZ post of Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:03 am) at that they forget about the gravitational mass.

    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    The simple response to my question is this: There could be a Higgs mechanism, and a Higgs field throughout our Universe, without there being a Higgs boson.

    So the Higgs field causes mass, not the Higgs boson, so there is no circularity. I gleaned this from this mildy amusing explanation:

    A quasi-political Explanation of the Higgs Boson; for Mr Waldegrave, UK Science Minister 1993.

    http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/~djm/higgsa.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    404
    Quote Originally Posted by SSDZ
    To: fatman57 "I like this - a good point on the theory of knowledge and philosophy of physics."

    - That is too bold statement! For example – the paper in http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 (without a couple of last sentences, of course; though those sentences follow directly from the main text) was rejected by two philosophical journals - after 6 months and 1 week "considerations" - before it was placed in arXiv. Such a situation sometimes is a rather good compliment for any scientific work, but, regrettably leads also to a cumbersome travelling through Net forums to introduce people with the conception…
    I agree and think you are coming from the same direction as it IS a rather radical statement and bold in its own right.

    I think it would need much consideration and see if anyone agrees as I am unaware of much currently in the field but I do not follow it very closely. It is not such an extreme idea though to compare the workings of the human brain with a computer as one of the founding fathers of computer science Alan Turing postulated.

    but I think the idea that 'physics follows rather plausible hypothesis' and that it is a 'rather simple dynamical logical [IS]' (taken out of context) is a good one to help explain the limitations of a calculation and that it is in essence a prediction that isn't too dissimilar in more ways than one to a computer print out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by fatman57
    Quote Originally Posted by SSDZ
    To: fatman57 "I like this - a good point on the theory of knowledge and philosophy of physics."

    - That is too bold statement! For example – the paper in http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 (without a couple of last sentences, of course; though those sentences follow directly from the main text) was rejected by two philosophical journals - after 6 months and 1 week "considerations" - before it was placed in arXiv. Such a situation sometimes is a rather good compliment for any scientific work, but, regrettably leads also to a cumbersome travelling through Net forums to introduce people with the conception…
    I agree and think you are coming from the same direction as it IS a rather radical statement and bold in its own right.
    - "That is too bold statement! " - that is a joke, of course.
    ---
    Now the paper with a description of some experiments aimed at a testing of the informational model in physics appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 v2.

    Three experiments are considered – two relating to the gravity randomness and one – relating to the SRT test.

    Though in this thread the SRT problems were discussed and seems be made rather clear, a number of threads appeared later where the same problems were touched again. All the problems arise from non-selfconsistence of standard ("axiomatized") SRT version. First of all – it leads to the twin paradox. The resolutions of the paradox as, e.g., "… Special relativity, by its very formulation, applies only in inertial reference frames…Therefore on cannon apply the equations that describe time dilation in the reference frame of the traveling twin by only in reference frame of the non-traveling twin.." Or "…Actually acceleration, and acceleration and gravity are equivalent (see the "equivalence principle" of general relativity) is the key to the resolution of the twin "paradox"… " – seem as rather non- satisfactory.

    Indeed – the main contraction of elapsed time for the traveller occurs just in the inertial path of the way, when the contribution of the acceleration/deceleration intervals is comparatively small and is lesser with increase of the inertial path. On another hand – if the masses of the twins are let – 70 kg (even 700 kg) – such masses aren’t so large to recall about GR – here we have practically purely flat spacetime and purely SRT problem.

    Another SSRT flaw is the assertion that all "inertial frames" are equivalent, where any frame relates to whole spacetime in Universe. From this follows rather questionable implication that, e.g., every moving particle (which, of course, "have its reference frame") transforms whole spacetime.
    Besides – because of relating to this particle all Matter in Universe "moves with [practically] the same (-)speed", from SSRT follows that the particle enlarges the energy of whole Matter - for some protons in the spacetime that is equivalent 10^17 of initial mass,
    etc.

    So the first SRT version that was developed by Vogt, FitzGerald and Lorentz basing on the experiment (M-M experiment) and the relativity principle (Maxwell equation must be invariant in inertial frames) seems as was more adequate.

    The informational model haven’t the flows that are pointed above. The acceleration indeed have a role, but in SRT it only indicate that the traveller’s momentum rises/ decreases with corresponding rising / decreasing the traveller’s “own (individual, proper) time”. When homebody’s momentum and the time are the same – to save some years is necessary to spend some energy.

    On another hand – what is the mechanism that leads to changing of a FLE state at some impact (at acceleration)? – that is very important problem; and its solving possibly will allow to widen the informational model into "GR region".

    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    17
    You bring up a good post. We do not know what lies out in the universe beyond light as this is all we cab see. Remeber we are just beings with perceptions of what our five snese can give us. We have no idea at this moent in time what else there is beyond our perceptions.

    For all we know we may be sharing the same space/time with 10 dimensional beings who are here right now with us and we do not even know. They may know of our existense, but we cannot see theirs. Also, what if other dimensions do exist in our space/time? Then what happens in relation to their physics rules? Do ours even apply anymore? we do not know. I truly believe that mankind has so far to go with understanding the universe and we haven't even chipped away at it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Now a little changed version of the paper with a description of some experiments aimed at a testing of the informational model in physics appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979, v3.


    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Now in other forum some discussion relating to this thread’s topic appeared – see More Relativity Questions - Science Forums

    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    It took a little bit of effort to dig this up:

    Is it Possible the radio waves move faster than Light?
    .
    .

    Basing off of the references is the above linked thread, it appears that possibly light waves that have higher energy move at an ever-so-slightly (almost imperceptibly) slower speed than light waves that have lower energy levels. That would match the OP's statement pretty well, I think, wouldn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury View Post
    W

    According to Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw in their book “why does E=mc^2” this is actually the wrong way to look at light. In spacetime everything travels at the same speed, c, including you and me, the Earth and distant galaxies. Everything shares its spacetime velocity between mass and motion. To quote: “Light just happens to use up all its spacetime quota on motion through space and in so doing travels at the cosmic speed limit: the apparent specialness of light is an artifact of our human tendency to think of time and space as different things.”

    I found this helpful, in that it settled a niggling puzzle about why photons were special: the answer is they aren’t.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It took a little bit of effort to dig this up:

    Is it Possible the radio waves move faster than Light?
    .
    .

    Basing off of the references is the above linked thread, it appears that possibly light waves that have higher energy move at an ever-so-slightly (almost imperceptibly) slower speed than light waves that have lower energy levels. That would match the OP's statement pretty well, I think, wouldn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury View Post
    W

    According to Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw in their book “why does E=mc^2” this is actually the wrong way to look at light. In spacetime everything travels at the same speed, c, including you and me, the Earth and distant galaxies. Everything shares its spacetime velocity between mass and motion. To quote: “Light just happens to use up all its spacetime quota on motion through space and in so doing travels at the cosmic speed limit: the apparent specialness of light is an artifact of our human tendency to think of time and space as different things.”

    I found this helpful, in that it settled a niggling puzzle about why photons were special: the answer is they aren’t.
    Sorry, English isn’t my native language, so sometimes I don’t understand some statings – here what is "OP's" -?.
    As to the EM waves speed dependence on their wavelength – the Universe today link [you pointed] refers to an experiment with the waves being radiated rather far away from Earth. Seems nobody can now tell seriously at what processes the gamma and light photons were produced in this case and what happened with the photons on the way 500 million light-years.

    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    OP means Original Poster, or sometimes Original Post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It took a little bit of effort to dig this up:

    Is it Possible the radio waves move faster than Light?
    .
    .

    Basing off of the references is the above linked thread, it appears that possibly light waves that have higher energy move at an ever-so-slightly (almost imperceptibly) slower speed than light waves that have lower energy levels. That would match the OP's statement pretty well, I think, wouldn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury View Post
    W

    According to Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw in their book “why does E=mc^2” this is actually the wrong way to look at light. In spacetime everything travels at the same speed, c, including you and me, the Earth and distant galaxies. Everything shares its spacetime velocity between mass and motion. To quote: “Light just happens to use up all its spacetime quota on motion through space and in so doing travels at the cosmic speed limit: the apparent specialness of light is an artifact of our human tendency to think of time and space as different things.”

    I found this helpful, in that it settled a niggling puzzle about why photons were special: the answer is they aren’t.

    Contrary to popular belief, radio waves do move faster than the speed of light. The electromagnetic wave of an antenna moves outward radially at the speed of light, c. However there are two vectors in the wave, and the transverse wave exceeds the speed of light in the far field without limit. The measurements of radio waves show this to be the case.

    Theoretical results are contrary, but then theory does not compare to measurements when it comes to reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by sharpsword View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It took a little bit of effort to dig this up:

    Is it Possible the radio waves move faster than Light?
    .
    .

    Basing off of the references is the above linked thread, it appears that possibly light waves that have higher energy move at an ever-so-slightly (almost imperceptibly) slower speed than light waves that have lower energy levels. That would match the OP's statement pretty well, I think, wouldn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury View Post
    W

    According to Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw in their book “why does E=mc^2” this is actually the wrong way to look at light. In spacetime everything travels at the same speed, c, including you and me, the Earth and distant galaxies. Everything shares its spacetime velocity between mass and motion. To quote: “Light just happens to use up all its spacetime quota on motion through space and in so doing travels at the cosmic speed limit: the apparent specialness of light is an artifact of our human tendency to think of time and space as different things.”

    I found this helpful, in that it settled a niggling puzzle about why photons were special: the answer is they aren’t.

    Contrary to popular belief, radio waves do move faster than the speed of light. The electromagnetic wave of an antenna moves outward radially at the speed of light, c. However there are two vectors in the wave, and the transverse wave exceeds the speed of light in the far field without limit. The measurements of radio waves show this to be the case.

    Theoretical results are contrary, but then theory does not compare to measurements when it comes to reality.
    Balony. Show some evidence to support it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sharpsword View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It took a little bit of effort to dig this up:

    Is it Possible the radio waves move faster than Light?
    .
    .

    Basing off of the references is the above linked thread, it appears that possibly light waves that have higher energy move at an ever-so-slightly (almost imperceptibly) slower speed than light waves that have lower energy levels. That would match the OP's statement pretty well, I think, wouldn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury View Post
    W

    According to Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw in their book “why does E=mc^2” this is actually the wrong way to look at light. In spacetime everything travels at the same speed, c, including you and me, the Earth and distant galaxies. Everything shares its spacetime velocity between mass and motion. To quote: “Light just happens to use up all its spacetime quota on motion through space and in so doing travels at the cosmic speed limit: the apparent specialness of light is an artifact of our human tendency to think of time and space as different things.”

    I found this helpful, in that it settled a niggling puzzle about why photons were special: the answer is they aren’t.

    Contrary to popular belief, radio waves do move faster than the speed of light. The electromagnetic wave of an antenna moves outward radially at the speed of light, c. However there are two vectors in the wave, and the transverse wave exceeds the speed of light in the far field without limit. The measurements of radio waves show this to be the case.

    Theoretical results are contrary, but then theory does not compare to measurements when it comes to reality.
    Balony. Show some evidence to support it.

    I think you meant "baloney".

    Electromagnetic waves do not propagate spherically. That, incidentally, was one of the fundamental premises of Einstein's relativity theory. Although some have a different point of view, my experience in measuring coherent light radiation shows no difference from electromagnetic radiation. The countless measurements of dipole radiation show waves that do propagate outward at the speed of light. However, these waves also have a transverse component that moves at ever increasing velocity as the radius increases. The radiation equation shows that they reach the speed of light at the edge of the antenna. How did I prove this? I first plotted the waves to show the waveshapes. Then the radiation equation was re-written in the form of eigenvectors. It is interesting that the Minkowski equation shows up as an eigenvalue! This paper was presented at the IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium 2003. I was surprised to find that most physicists that I have talked to seem not to be familiar with the near and far field properties of a radiating antenna.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Care to put a name to that? Nothing in the list of papers from that symposium stands out as obviously matching your description.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster View Post
    Care to put a name to that? Nothing in the list of papers from that symposium stands out as obviously matching your description.
    The name of the paper is "A Different Picture of Radiation". Check again. I could supply a reference where you can read the paper, but I hesitate to do this here. I could send it to you directly, though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    That would make you W Vlasak? Well, I can't say I fully understand what you wrote, so I can't actually comment on it. It's not cited much either (the only citation is a very brief mention) so I can't judge based on that either. (BTW, the paper is easily accessible on Google Scholar for anyone else interested.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster View Post
    That would make you W Vlasak? Well, I can't say I fully understand what you wrote, so I can't actually comment on it. It's not cited much either (the only citation is a very brief mention) so I can't judge based on that either. (BTW, the paper is easily accessible on Google Scholar for anyone else interested.)
    You found me out. I was trying to leave my name out of it. You can view a copy of the paper at http://www.science-site.net/RadiationArticle.pdf.

    Sorry you don't have the background in math to understand the paper. All I did was to rewrite the well know antenna radiation equation in terms of eigenvectors. Note that the Minkowski equation appears in the eigenvalue of the eigenvectors. That has enormous implications.

    However, the curves are not mathematical. They show that the wavefront of an electromagnetic wave actually bends! It is this bending that produces the speed of light in the radial direction, which is the imaginary term in the exponent of the eigenvector. It is the Minkowski equation that appears in the exponent that determines the bending of the wave. Therefore it is not space that changes with velocity. it is the compression of the wave that produces the illusions of light that we interpret as Einstein's theory of relativity. No, I don't expect many scientists will believe in this new electromagnetic vision of time and space. So be it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Well, if you can use it to make a prediction that'd differ from GR, then perform and record that experiment, they'd have to pay more attention (or you might end up discrediting your own theory, which is an acceptable risk in science). If you can't make any new predictions, then it probably doesn't make much difference anyway and might just be an issue interpretation. (Very rarely, such an idea can later lead to new, testable ideas, but often they're just forgotten and rediscovered instead.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •