[acecharly]

If light is a constant and is allways observed the same by every observer to take a certain amount of time to get anywhere why does it need to have a speed.

It seems to me that we measure a time for light to travel from an event to an observer and assume then that it has a particular speed the same as we would for a vehicle travelling down a road from a starting point to a destination but if that speed we believe is taking place then it should be the same for light as it is for everything else.

So is it possible that anything beyond the speed of light in reality doesnt have a speed anymore and that speed/velocity is only available to objects travelling below it?

Cheers

Ace

[Soul Surfer]

An interesting philosophical point acecharly. However we would require some sort of experimental evince that this might be true.

Funnily enough we have!  in the case of quantum mechanically entangled particles a pair of particles may be on one of two possible states and if one is in one state the other is in the other.  These particles may propagate for quite some distance before the state of one of the two particles is defined by an interaction (some say "observed" but the intervention of a human observer is not necessary) the state of the other particle is not defined until this instant and IS defined immediately after  (this can and has been proved) even though it was a significant length of time by light travel away.

This could mean that something has travelled between the particles at a speed much faster than that of light but I would tend to favour that it means that the universe is very small in the dimension of the property that has to change to define the state of the particle.

Most experts in fundamental particle physics think that there are several more dimensions that are needed to define properties like spin and charge in particles and that these are in fact very small so to define that property the change is almost instantaneous.

[acecharly]

I just read over what i wrote...if i could explain things as i see them in my mind things would be so much easier. Ive had to stop as its almost becoming if it hasnt gone beyond a new theory already.......


Its almost asthough a photon is more of a consequence than a particle like gravity is a consequence of mass. Im wondering if its possible not that i think it could be proved right now that when we see light were seeing the effect of something we cannot observe. Although it sounds ridiculus what makes us see light is on the otherside or behind our universe if that makes sense. If you imagined the universe as being on top of sheet of paper, something emits a photon at which point the underside of the paper then passes a signal to another point on the paper which pings a photon on the top side of the paper.

If you imagine we could see gravity as we see light the equivalent would be like not seeing the sun but feeling its gravity. 

Cheers

Ace

[Soul Surfer]

You are in some ways on the right track.  the electromagnetic field and the gravitational field are the only two long range fields that we are aware of.  Photons are excitations (the results of rapid changes)of the electromagnetic field a "consequence" of charge.  The higher the frequency they are the more energy they have.  The same is true for the gravitational field but no gravitational interactions are fast enough to produce high energy gravitons.