Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: namaan on 04/11/2010 17:48:34
-
Hey folks,
As I've said before I'm no physics guru, it's just a hobby of mine so most of this post is gonna involve a bit of visualization rather than hard math of any sort.
One common visualization of course is that of spheres on a fabric representing objects in space-time. So I was wondering, if the speed of wave traversal increases with increasing tension of a string (1D) / fabric (2D), then shouldn't the cosmic speed limit, and hence the speed of light, increase with increasing tension of space-time?
I ask this considering the fact that the universe is expanding: if space-time it self was created in the big bang, then that along with the effects of dark energy (with both expanding the universe) should be increasing the tension on the fabric of space-time, no?
And if it is, then shouldn't the speed of light be increasing slightly with the expansion of the universe and, specifically, space-time?
-
I don't mean to bring this back from the dead, but if not an explicit response, could someone suggest how I should interpret the lack of response? Bad title? Ridiculous or confusing question?
-
Space-time is often visualized as a rubber sheet, but this is a rough analogy at best. Stretching a rubber sheet adds tension to it, but I don't think this is how space-time works. When it comes to an expanding Universe, it might be more appropriate to think of new space being created instead of existing space simply stretching. If space-time were like a material fabric with increasing tension over time, we would probably see evidence for it. Gravitational field strengths (and consequently, orbits) might change with time, for example, since it is directly related to the properties of space-time.
-
Hi, namaan, I,too, am a visualiser (but being on the other side of the Atlantic, I spell it with an "s").
I have spent quite a lot of time thinking about rubber sheets, gravity and expansion of the Universe, and I think Supercryptid is right; it is a lot easier if you think in terms of the continual creation of new spacetime.
You mention spacetime being created in the B B, but in the same way that we have to think of the B B as having happened everywhere in the Universe, we also need to think of it as happening "everywhen" in terms of the creation aspect. The B B was not a one-off explosion, it is an on-going event. I don't know if that conflicts with accepted science, but it's one of the points I have reached in my attempts to visualise cosmology. [:-\]
-
Nam, use the razor to define it. It might be wrong and the universe may have a vastly different way of defining things but using the razor we will at least be consecutive and consequent. Doing so you will now have to decide where you stand. Do you think 'strings and 'loops' may be the answer? Well, then you need to adapt them to where we are.
Einstein did a great job there, and his definition circulate around one 'constant'. That one is 'c'. It's not variable, have never been proved to 'fluctuate' in any experiment done where 'you are'. And why you can interpret it otherwise he explained by 'frames of reference'. So his is the gold standard of this universe, and all other theories that want to make sense will have to answer his equations.
-
Well, I've needed to for a while now, so I finally took the productive step of getting a math book to begin revisiting my foundations so hopefully I can work with these ideas in a more formal context in the (hopefully) near future.
-
Hey folks,
As I've said before I'm no physics guru, it's just a hobby of mine so most of this post is gonna involve a bit of visualization rather than hard math of any sort.
One common visualization of course is that of spheres on a fabric representing objects in space-time. So I was wondering, if the speed of wave traversal increases with increasing tension of a string (1D) / fabric (2D), then shouldn't the cosmic speed limit, and hence the speed of light, increase with increasing tension of space-time?
I ask this considering the fact that the universe is expanding: if space-time it self was created in the big bang, then that along with the effects of dark energy (with both expanding the universe) should be increasing the tension on the fabric of space-time, no?
And if it is, then shouldn't the speed of light be increasing slightly with the expansion of the universe and, specifically, space-time?
If you consider the depressions in the fabric as gravity wells then it is not the speed of light that changes but time dilates the deeper within the gravity well. (Clocks run slower)
-
The speed of light, in meters per second, is fixed by definition. The only way it can change is to change its definition.
-
The speed of light, in meters per second, is fixed by definition. The only way it can change is to change its definition.
True, but it was given this definition because it was checked and as far as we can tell it's constant. If it started varying wildly over space and time, we should notice effects in our observations and would probably change definitions.
There have been results that suggest that certain fundamental parameters of the universe which were though to be unchanging might actually change with time, and these changes would change the speed of light. But this is pretty controversial currently.
-
There have been results that suggest that certain fundamental parameters of the universe which were though to be unchanging might actually change with time, and these changes would change the speed of light. But this is pretty controversial currently.
Interesting, and there's another interesting thought experiment that goes along with this idea. If all the galaxies are moving away from each other due to dark energy, yet the speed of light is increasing in a proportional manner to this expansion, then we might not be looking as far back into the past as we might be imagining?
-
Warped fields and frame dragging are actually just the ether-like field of flux particle strings in space (not the string theory type).
Of course there is an Ether.
It is the field of strings encompassing space. The basis for everything. The flux particle field (not the string theory type though).
Mass… for instance something that has a proton, is a particle with strings balled up.
It doesn’t actually convert into energy… it releases what can be considered its energy by un-balling.
The particle is still there but now its shape has changed into the regular particle (un-balled) 10 strings with common center (or 20 radii).
The energy contained in the nucleus of an atom is actually only potential energy
It is the same as a balled of group of proton strings with other field strings pulling tension on them from multiple directions. When something like a reaction happens and the balled up proton strings can unwind… the field strings will pull (actually snap) all of the proton strings to their full length (that’s the same length as the field strings) going from the size of a proton to commandeering the volumetric size an atom takes up in space. This instantly creates the massive disruption (instant extra field particle strings) in the particle field in one spot and the electro-magnetic pulse.
Note: this is not the same as accelerating protons in the LHC. There, the protons actually do have energy because they are moving and smashing together.
====
Of course the filed is being dragged…
Michelson-Morley sent everyone down the wrong tracks.
They didn't create an experiment to detect the Ether... they created one to detect if the Earth is rushing through it.
It is a field like any other field, connected to everything… in this case the Earth or Sun or whatever.
It you do an experiment… make sure you test for every contingency.
====
Dark Energy — Everything is pulled on equally from all directions by the field.
Gravity — When 2 masses are introduced into the field they form endpoints and pull together.
Dark Matter — That's the field itself… it is made from the same particles as everything else, it has mass but can't be seen (it is what is used to convey light and pull objects together).
Here is the one inch equation everyone talks about…
Mechanical reason for c in E=mc^2
E = TL = mc^2
It's one inch :-)
Incorporates string tension and length, mass, speed of light.
Equation itself explains their correlation and gives understanding of the way things work.
Ether is what they called they conveyance of light or what is filling space.
The strings are actually how light is propagating.
So the strings are what Newton and everyone else thought the ether was.
The math was easy, actually serendipity…
My equation…
E = TL = mc^2
looks like I was trying to copy Einstein or something… that is not the case. I was actually trying to find the tension of space…
I know there is a field of strings encompassing space and the reason for energy is just vibrations caused by tension on the strings.
Protons, neutrons, etc. everything is inert.
Everyone knows the speed of light. That would be the speed the vibrations travel along the strings.
So I found the formula for tension…
Tension = velocity squared x mass / length.
I needed to find a mass and a string length, so I used the neutron mass minus the proton mass (what should be the mass of one string).
The length of the string would be the atomic width or one angstrom.
neutron- proton = 2.30565497 *10^-30 kilograms
And plugged everything in…
Tension = c^2 x (neutron mass – proton mass) / angstrom
So this formula is now T = c^2 * m / L
Then I multiplied both sides by “L”
Formula is now TL = mc^2
Both sides of the equation are in joules or energy… equivalent to “E”.
I was completely amazed.
It means the Tension of the strings in space times their length is equal to their energy.
I arrived at this completely independently.
This is why the speed of light is involved in Einsteins mass energy equivalence equation… E=mc^2
I always wondered why… now I know :-)
It had to be something mechanical… tension and string lengths!
So, you can arrive at the same formula from completely different directions.
You can think energy is contained in mass and released.
E=mc^2
Or you can think there is a field of strings and mass is inert, the energy is only potential… released (actually pulled) by tension on the strings
E = TL = mc^2
The only thing that has changed is I think the electron mass…
electron mass = 9.10938188 × 10^-31 kilograms
is a better number to use for mass of one particle string… actually 1/10 electron mass.
Tension of Space
((the speed of light^2) * .1 * electron mass) / (1 angstrom) = 8.18710414 × 10^-5 newtons
-
There is just a simple easy to explain flux particle field with tension on it.
If the tension goes up… gravity goes up, and so does the speed of light and everything else with it. That includes any type of measuring device and the speed your brain is working.
Increase or decrease tension and it changes everything along with it.
Net effect… you might not notice anything.
It’s like being a character in a movie and you don’t know the speed the projector is running… fast, slow, stop, start… you don’t know.
-
There is just a simple easy to explain flux particle field with tension on it.
If the tension goes up… gravity goes up, and so does the speed of light and everything else with it. That includes any type of measuring device and the speed your brain is working.
Increase or decrease tension and it changes everything along with it.
Net effect… you might not notice anything.
It’s like being a character in a movie and you don’t know the speed the projector is running… fast, slow, stop, start… you don’t know.
But as gravity goes up time dilates which is the opposite of what you are saying if I understand you correctly.
-
Myself I do not expect 'c' to be a variable though? Neither does Special Relativity. In General Relativity you have the fact that space (the sun) can 'curve' a light beam as observed from earth, through gravity. That I define as 'c' too, only 'varying' if you use clocks and rulers, ignoring how space warps by gravity.
The simplest definition, and one that never will give you a different answer is measuring it where you are, without comparing with other 'frames of reference'. Then 'c' must be 'c' if the theory of relativity is correct. And as far as I know nobody have found 'c' to be any different locally, if measured in a space.
-
The speed of light will not increase unless the permittivity and the permeability of space vary.
-
The speed of light will not increase unless the permittivity and the permeability of space vary.
But would it?
Surely time would dilate/contract in response to a change in the permittivity and permeability of space and the speed of light would still remain constant?
-
classically c - the speed of light pops out of maxwell's equations and is related to the inverse of the root of the product of permittivity and permeability. I cannot see a reason for c not to vary if one of those quantities changed. How either of those quantities could change is another question entirely
-
classically c - the speed of light pops out of maxwell's equations and is related to the inverse of the root of the product of permittivity and permeability. I cannot see a reason for c not to vary if one of those quantities changed. How either of those quantities could change is another question entirely
"The ampere defines vacuum permeability
The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross section, and placed 1 meter apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2×10−7 newton per meter of length."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability
"Vacuum permeability is derived from production of a magnetic field by an electric current"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability
In both permittivity and permeability, it would seem the ampere is important. The ampere is defined by the quantity of electrons passing a certain point in a second and as the passage of time is variable so it seems probable to me that the speed of light remains a constant because of a variable time factor. It just seems logical, I haven't really studied it.