The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is it only the speed of light in a vacuum that is constant for all observers?  (Read 8311 times)

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Arn't there really only two variables? Doesn't frequency always have to be consistent with wavelength?
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Yes, it will satisfy a dispersion relation, which is the relationship of frequency and wavelength to speed of the light, so if you know the dispersion relation and two of the three parameters, you can get the third.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1828
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: JP
The propagation of light in a vacuum is allowed by properties of the vacuum itself, which are different from those of matter.  This is why the speed of light in a vacuum ends up being constant for all observers, while in a medium it isn't.

Thanks JP.  Obviously, the trick is finding the kernels among all the nuts.  [^]
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
JP said, "The propagation of light in a vacuum is allowed by properties of the vacuum itself, which are different from those of matter.". Properties (vacuum) which are man made definitions. There is no way to directly look at those properties except by how radiation performs in it. In of words they don't have a clue as to what is space.
« Last Edit: 31/12/2010 03:07:00 by Ron Hughes »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
JP said, "The propagation of light in a vacuum is allowed by properties of the vacuum itself, which are different from those of matter.". Properties (vacuum) which are man made definitions. There is no way to directly look at those properties except by how radiation performs in it. In of words they don't have a clue as to what is space.

Ron, I don't think the definitions are intended to define what it "is" exactly. They are more a pretty accurate description of what it "does" based our observation of radiation, and possibly, other things. I think it's fair to say it is not a form of matter as matter is usually defined.

How space manages to do what it apparently does is quite fascinating to me. I hope I live long enough to get a better sense of how it works, although I'm not too optimistic about that.
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
If we define space as the electric field of every charged particle in the Universe would that be a fair description of it?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Not if you can't prove electricity getting 'stored' in it. To build an expression of a 'electromagnetic' space you will need to prove it existing. And as light only exist in a interaction?
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
yor-on, does the electron and proton have an electric field that has been expanding since their creation? Yes. Therefore I submit that space is that electric field.

You said, "And as light only exist in a interaction?", yes just as JJ Thompson showed that interaction as a change from where that field was to where it is now. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34333.0;topicseen
« Last Edit: 02/01/2011 04:41:53 by Ron Hughes »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums