Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: JMLCarter on 23/03/2011 22:55:05
-
Sure the equivalence principal implies a universal speed limit; but why is it not higher or lower than it is.
c^2= 1/sqrt( permittivity * permeability )
doesn't immediately provide the answer. Understanding why free space resists motion might explain why it has permittivity and permeability at all. This could help understand why are they not higher or lower? Perhaps it is something to do with the density of virtual particles in a vacuum? What would determine this density?
Another possible explanation, if it were higher or lower would we notice? If not why not?
-
Hi.
My thought is that space can have speed more that that under 300000km/s,,, made image and i think that light speed is mayby not constant,,i mean long travell distance. I dont know if light speed has measured nowadays,,example through lightcabel,,or etc,,what is the speed change (m/s)/m,,if there is speed change?
-
If your question about why light speed is constant and the fastest thing in the universe, or why it has that particular numerical value? Regarding the latter question, the meter was actually redefined so that it is now based on the speed of light. That means that light speed has exactly that value simply because we've chosen a definition of meter to give it that value.
-
Thanks to respondants...
Heikki, not sure I follow you, but lightspeed has certainly been measured to death, I don't think there is much evidence to support its variation through space. You seem to be questioning the equivalence principal (which I think is reasonable to do, but its a different question froim the one I am trying to ask.).
JP: my question is not either of those things. I understand why c is a universal speed limit and I understand that the the meter was re-calibrated infinitesimally against it so light travels an integer number of meters each second.
What am I asking then? Why did c turn out to be 299792458 m/s and not 154675322m/s. Why is the universal speed limit set at the level it is? Why does light take 8ish minutes to get here from the sun, not 15ish minutes, or 4ish minutes? It doesn't matter to this question what units c is measured in.
-
As you pointed out in your first question the speed of light as would be the speed of any wave motion comes directly from the properties of the medium (vacuum) in which the light travels. So your question is really why does a vacuum have these elastic properties. The easy get out is to say that's the way it is but a question as good as this is worthy of a bit of thought.
The quantum mechanical vacuum is considered to contain a whole array of particles appearing and disappearing according to the limits set by the uncertainty principle. this can include photons (which are their own anti particles as well as things like electrons and positrons etc) the net result is that there is nothing there in the long term but this does result in it having a certain sort of elasticity that allows electromagnetic waves to be generated and propagate.
The question then arises, if like a gas we could "compress" the vacuum in some way we might be able to change the velocity of light.
Now all calculations of the energy density in this vacuum suggest that it is absolutely enormous, maybe around 10^120 times the sort of energy densities we find in normal matter so it seems very unlikely that anything that we could do could affect the speed of light in any significant way.
-
I'm sorry JM but that question is impossible to answer. Light is a constant, it makes no sense to ask it why it is so, it just 'is', as proven repeatedly in experiments. It's us calling it 'speed', and it's us deciding how to measure that 'speed'. We are the ones defining things giving them 'values', the universe just 'is' and make it perfectly well without our measurements.
What you seem to wondering is if the specific speed has a connection to the rest of the universe though? And absolutely, it has. A lot of things would be different with different 'speed' as measured by us. Red shift, blue shift, 'potential energy' etc. Einstein called it SpaceTime, not Space alone, and he was right.
==
If you trust in that a Lorentz contraction is a real experience, actually shrinking SpaceTime from the travelers frame of reference, then you can look at muons and ask yourself if they see light coming at them as being of some other 'speed', as they themselves are at a very high speed relative us. But they don't, as far as I know they only see a blue shift, well, if they could see :)
-
My thought is so that every motion thing has own speed-curve,,of cource example photon-particle start to go very fast ant accelerate speed to it's maximum speed,,but of cource it has also decceleration and when this traveller has going so long that there is no pushing power it stop,,speed is 0.
There is no different if motion thing is matter wave-vibration or matter-particle motion.
Car can go constant speed if cars engine has fuel and it work.
Do light-particle or wave has engine inside it?
-
Why is the universal speed limit set at the level it is?
Hmm,,perhaps,,because universal,,space is not empty,,it is full of invisible (see through) space-matter,,and when some matter-particles or wave-vibration travel in this space-matter this matter cause brake-friction.
-
If the density or energy of space sets the speed limit of C one would surmise that C may have been very much faster at the BB and is slowing down as the Universe becomes less dense as opposed to a hypothetical inflationary period?
-
Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
For two essential reasons:
1. light speed is finite.
2. because a speed has dimensions, so its value depends on the units; with other units it would have another value.
That's all.
(I know, difficult answer...)
-
We came up with that odd number because we originally defined the meter and second in terms of Earth's size and rotation speed. Having measured the speed of light in meters per second, we changed the definition in terms of wavelengths of a particular atomic emission line.
In the standard model, c may be calculated in terms of permeability and permittivity of free space; c = √(1/ε₀μ₀). I suspect that is a truism. I think permeability and permittivity are defined in terms of light, so the defintions are circular. (I could be wrong about that, though.)
I don't like the standard model. I prefer to explain the speed of light as acoustic shear (transverse) waves in the solid medium of the ether. The formula from acoustics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Speed_of_sound_in_solids) is c = √(G/ρ), where G is the shear modulus and ρ is the density. I like density and shear modulus because, unlike permeability and permittivity, I have an intuitive grasp of what they are.
Note the similarity of the two equations; c = √(1/ε₀μ₀) = √(G/ρ). This suggests to me that permeability and permittivity are closely related to density and shear modulus of the ether.
If we knew the inertial density (I don't believe the ether has any gravitational density) and shear modulus of the ether, then we could calulate the speed of light from those. Conversely, if we know density or modulus, we could calculate the other from the speed of light. I suspect both are incredibly high values. The density might be a googol times that of a white dwarf.
-
Phractality
Like me you hanker for a simpler universe, pre Lorenz, pre Einstein but it ain't like that we must live with facts that have been discovered no æther, no fairies or ghosts or spirits.
-
Zero point energy, or vacuum potential, which are driven by the spontaneous appearance and annihilation of particles in quantum field theory seems to provide a kind of "aether like" property to free space?
...presumably one that would not be detectable by Michelson-Morley or its clones (not sure why, perhaps their even momentum distribution would make them relativistically identical regardless of the speed of the experiment [what is the momentum distribution of the particles in a vacuum potential?]).
Could there be a link between vacuum potential and c?
-
[:)]
---
Like me you hanker for a simpler universe, pre Lorenz, pre Einstein but it ain't like that we must live with facts that have been discovered no æther, no fairies or ghosts or spirits.
---
Fairies or ghosts or spirits,,no comments,, [:)]
Ether,,one question.
If round of moon dont have any matter, only empty, how it can goes any direction?
I havent seen yet engine in the moon [:)]
-
The generally accepted theory for the creation of the Moon is that it was created as the result of a Mars sized body colliding with the Earth in the early days of the Solar system.
Basically the materiel blasted off the Earth would have acquired a certain momentum and would have continued away in a straight line but for the influence of the Earths gravitational field.
The best theory that we have how a gravitational field operates is covered by the theory of General relativity which states that massive bodies like the Earth make a well like depression in the fabric of space/time and the materiel from the collision would lie in this depression.
Now although this materiel that collased into the Moon would in empty space tend to move in a straight line it would now be moving in a region of space/time distorted by the Earth and can be visualised as moving around the periphery of the depression hence orbiting the Earth as though is was attracted to it.
-
:)
---
The generally accepted theory for the creation of the Moon is that it was created as the result of a Mars sized body colliding with the Earth in the early days of the Solar system.
---
Or it's start to growing small size,,or comes out of space,,or perhaps it's size is get smaller,,,do we accepted what,,how,,evidence,,do we have?
---
Basically the materiel blasted off the Earth would have acquired a certain momentum and would have continued away in a straight line but for the influence of the Earths gravitational field.
---
What exis-thing is that gravitational field,,ether?
---
The best theory that we have how a gravitational field operates is covered by the theory of General relativity which states that massive bodies like the Earth make a well like depression in the fabric of space/time and the materiel from the collision would lie in this depression.
---
Time is not existing matter-particle,,only measuring unit time=s.
So fabric of space,,
---
Now although this materiel that collased into the Moon would in empty space tend to move in a straight line it would now be moving in a region of space/time distorted by the Earth and can be visualised as moving around the periphery of the depression hence orbiting the Earth as though is was attracted to it.
---
If round of space-station dont have any matter, only empty, how it can goes any direction?
If it goes,,it goes in that fabric,,that is my thought,,when i look the space and observ.
-
If round of space-station dont have any matter, only empty, how it can goes any direction?
If it goes,,it goes in that fabric,,that is my thought,,when i look the space and observ.
So you are one of those (many) people who don't believe in General Relativity? If you don't want to simply "believe", you have only one solution: to study physics. Then you will be able to say which theory is better. Before you know physics well, you can't say a lot...
-
That the universe sort of still moves seems to indicate that there is no resistance in a vacuum. At some point there should have been a almost 'flat' SpaceTime, when we only had radiation, probably fluctuating with gravity depending on if radiation can/will bend the Space fabric. Before radiation we might have had an instant of 'pure energy', maybe? And energy, seems to be able to create gravity, doesn't it? That gravity should have been directed only one way though, shouldn't it? Inwards towards that point of energy, unless we imagine it to have been a 'white hole' that created the radiation. White holes are time reversed black holes, spewing out 'energy' and radiation. In a black hole the singularity is in its past, if I understood it right, but in a white hole the singularity still awaits it in the future. Weird stuff :)
But there should have been a state of 'energy' before the radiation at least? But then again, if we imagine that times arrow needs gravity to express itself? Then we had one state that definitely had gravity before radiation, that in its turn may or may not have been expressed in 'gravity'. Maybe?
==
Radiation :)
Ouch, there was no state of pure radiation at all, was there?
Well in the plasma maybe.
But how the ** did 'energy' turn into a plasma?
And why?
Someone that remembers?
-
Phractality
Like me you hanker for a simpler universe, pre Lorenz, pre Einstein but it ain't like that we must live with facts that have been discovered no æther, no fairies or ghosts or spirits.
Einstein reluctantly went along with the crowd for lack of evidence that the ether has the property which he called "immovability". Without that property, there is no way to distinguish between the reference frame of the ether and any other inertial reference frame. If recent successes with so called "quantum teleportation" are verified, they will prove that the ether does have immovability.
Instantaneous communication means that sending and receiving are simultaneous events at different locations. Events which are simultaneous in the reference frame of the ether are not sumultaneous in reference frames with motion relative to the ether. So "quantum teleportation", if proven, will provide a direct measure of our velocity relative to the ether. For faster than light phenomena, there has to be a preferred reference frame, and that has to be the ether.
It's a good guess that the ether is stationary relative to the CMB. The CMB is blueshifted in the direction of Virgo, suggesting velocity of the Solar system toward Virgo of about 627 km/s, which translates to a relativistic gamma of 1.0000022. So clocks closer to Virgo in Earth's reference frame should indicate earlier times at a rate of about 9 ns/km.
The Chinese team, last May, (http://www.google.com/search?q=quantum+entanglement+chinese&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GWYE) claimed that their quantum data was receive before it was sent in the reference frame of Earth. If they sent it 16 km directly toward Virgo, and it was instantaneous in the reference frame of the ether, then we should expect it to arrive about 9 x 16 = 151 144 ns before it was sent, according to Earth clocks. [The math corner of my brain had gone to sleep. How come nobody corrected me?]
This in no way violates causality, and there is no paradox, because a signal sent in the opposite direction would be delayed by the same amount according to Earth clocks. A 2-way communication which is instantaneous in the ether frame is instantaneous in all reference frames. In other words, A may send a question to B, receive B's answer and acknowledge the answer, all in the time it takes to respond locally. A and B may record the exchange at different times, but neither will perceive any propagation delay.
-
Ah but your are wrong yor-on, the vacuum does have resistance it's called inertia.
-
:)
---
So you are one of those (many) people who don't believe in General Relativity? If you don't want to simply "believe", you have only one solution: to study physics. Then you will be able to say which theory is better. Before you know physics well, you can't say a lot...
---
I'm sorry,,but i dont have read 18-19centuryes physics,,do i have?,,i can tell my thoughts what i have observe this world,,without knowing some mathematical formulaes,hmm,,i make image what i meant, hope that it help this conversation.
-
Yes Ron, good point. Inertia is weird :)
And it's a form of resistance.
I see it as a proof of 'gravity' myself though, and as 'gravity' is no force then it's not what we mean by 'resistance' as some form of 'particles' retarding your system.
-
Phractality, I'm not sure what you are talking about there?
'Instantaneous transmission' of what? And using the name ether might make people think that it is a accepted description. It's not, and for the same reason that we don't find any 'resistance' to lights propagation, as tested uncountable times. A 'entanglement' is about something being 'identical' and somehow connected outside the boundaries light puts on the rest of us. And one of the really big premises it still follows is that there is no way to use it for sending usable information. If that one would be shown to be wrong though? But I don't think it has, as far as I know?
It would be interesting if you could inject 'energy' in a entanglement though by 'observing' its state. Then we would have to discuss if you could see that as information. And to me it would be :) as you might find a way to utilize that 'new energy'. As well as it would make some problems for the conservation laws I think, as we then actually would have 'doubled' the 'energy' by our way of observing.
-
Phractality, I'm not sure what you are talking about there?
'Instantaneous transmission' of what?
As far as I can tell, the Chinese experiment is only supposed to have transmitted an effect across 16 km. A pair of entangled photons went in opposite directions from a point approximately midway between the sender and the receiver (but slightly closer to the sender). When the quantum states of photons were detected at the slightly nearer end, the quantum state of their twins at the other end were determined instantaneously, before being measured. The act of detection at one end instantaneously affected the measurement at the other end.
I appreciate the problems with using that to communicate information, but to prove the existence of ether, you only need to prove afterward (at sub-light speed) that the effect was transmitted instantaneously in one reference frame. Special relativity proves that simultaneous events (sending and receiving) in one reference frame cannot be simultaneous in other reference frames (with relative motion not perpendicular to the line between the two events). There can be only one reference frame in which quantum entanglement transmits effects instantaneously regardless of direction.
And using the name ether might make people think that it is a accepted description.
The Chinese experimenters refered to it as "the quantum ether". I believe they distinguished it from the "luminiferous ether" in order to shield themselves from disbelief due to pervasive prejudice against the existence of any form of ether.
It's not, and for the same reason that we don't find any 'resistance' to lights propagation, as tested uncountable times.
I assume you are referring to experiments like Michelson-Morley. Their null result is perfectly explained by special relativity, and it has nothing to do with resistance. Where the speed of light is the limit, you can't detect any difference among reference frames (except in the Doppler shift of the CMB). That is because of the length contraction and time dilation of the measuring aparatus; it has nothing to do with resistance or ether dragging. Einstein explained that perfectly, soon after the original experiment, but the message still hasn't sunk in with those who think Michelson-Morley disproved the existence of ether. Whether ether exists or not, the result is the same. You need a faster-than-light phenomenon to detect any difference in reference frames. If any such phenomenon had been discovered in Einstein's day, he would have said, "Told you so! There is an ether."
A 'entanglement' is about something being 'identical' and somehow connected outside the boundaries light puts on the rest of us. And one of the really big premises it still follows is that there is no way to use it for sending usable information. If that one would be shown to be wrong though? But I don't think it has, as far as I know?
There's more to the method than what I know. I think it has something to do with interference patters. When a measurement is made at one end, the interference pattern instantaneously disappears at both ends. Or something like that.
It would be interesting if you could inject 'energy' in a entanglement though by 'observing' its state. Then we would have to discuss if you could see that as information. And to me it would be :) as you might find a way to utilize that 'new energy'. As well as it would make some problems for the conservation laws I think, as we then actually would have 'doubled' the 'energy' by our way of observing.
I don't expect that energy will ever be transmitted faster than light. Information is not energy. As long as only information is transmitted, I don't see any violation of the conservation laws.
-
:)
---
So you are one of those (many) people who don't believe in General Relativity? If you don't want to simply "believe", you have only one solution: to study physics. Then you will be able to say which theory is better. Before you know physics well, you can't say a lot...
---
I'm sorry,,but i dont have read 18-19centuryes physics,,do i have?,,i can tell my thoughts what i have observe this world,,without knowing some mathematical formulaes,hmm,,i make image what i meant, hope that it help this conversation.
And what that picture should mean?
-
:)
---
So you are one of those (many) people who don't believe in General Relativity? If you don't want to simply "believe", you have only one solution: to study physics. Then you will be able to say which theory is better. Before you know physics well, you can't say a lot...
---
I'm sorry,,but i dont have read 18-19centuryes physics,,do i have?,,i can tell my thoughts what i have observe this world,,without knowing some mathematical formulaes,hmm,,i make image what i meant, hope that it help this conversation.
And what that picture should mean?
Hi.
It means to say that
If room where is no any matter then in that room cannot
- exist radiowaves
- exist forces, like gravitation
Means that room where is basic-matter in that room then can
- exist radiowaves, matter-vibration
- exist forces, matter motion
In this basic-matter can then planets, satellites, travell, and also we can send radiowaves, etc, and also example sun heat so that it can send photos, etc ,particles round on it.
-
It means to say that
If room where is no any matter then in that room cannot
- exist radiowaves
- exist forces, like gravitation
Means that room where is basic-matter in that room then can
- exist radiowaves, matter-vibration
- exist forces, matter motion
In this basic-matter can then planets, satellites, travell, and also we can send radiowaves, etc, and also example sun heat so that it can send photos, etc ,particles round on it.
Since Heikki obviously is not fluent in English, and since I think I agree with him, I'll try to translate. I think he's saying that neither matter nor waves can move without having a medium in which to exist. I call that medium ether.
For me, e/m waves (photons) propagate like acoustic shear waves in the ether, which is an ultra-dense, ultra-stiff solid. And for me, fundamental particles of matter consists of orbiting pairs of photons. So both e/m waves and particles cannot exist, let alone move, without a medium.
-
Perhaps we could ask correspondents whose native language is not English to add a version in their native language so that we could use the excellent 'Bing' translation service to give another insight into their post
-
You know Phractality. I know that Einstein used the word 'ether' but, as I understands it, more in the sense you assume those Chinese guys might have used it? Do you have a link to where he explains how he saw the Michelson-Morley experiment as failing in testing for a aether?
When Einstein was 16, in 1895, he asked himself an interesting question:
"If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c I should observe such a beam of light as a spatially oscillatory electromagnetic field at rest. However, there seems to be no such thing, whether on the basis of experience or according to [the theory of electricity and magnetism]. From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how, otherwise, should the first observer know, i.e.. be able to determine, that he is in a state of uniform motion?" -- As later written by Einstein in "Autobiographical Notes", in Schilpp, ed., Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist.
He continued to work on this question for 10 years with the mixture of concentration and determination that characterised much of his work. He published his answer in 1905:
"... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of [relative] motion of the emitting body .... The introduction of a `luminiferous ether' will be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an `absolutely stationary space' provided with special properties." -- Annalen Physik 17 (1905).
Put another way, the speed of light is 1,079,253,000 km/hr with respect to all observers."
It would be nice to see how he thought of it, if you have a different information? and the entanglement, Is this what you meant? About proving that 'distance' is no hindrance for a entanglement Quantum teleportation achieved over 16 km. (http://www.physorg.com/news193551675.html) I think the Chinese has a very practicable interest in that experiment, :) as most governments do. It will make it impossible to 'snoop' at classified information, at least without tampering with the quantum state of it, and that will be noticed. A little ridiculous in a way, as long as we don't have quantum computers though, as with asymmetric encryption (Open and private keys) over 2048 bits you should be secure enough, as I see it. But a very cool experiment indeed.
-
Hi.
It means to say that
If room where is no any matter then in that room cannot
- exist radiowaves
- exist forces, like gravitation
Means that room where is basic-matter in that room then can
- exist radiowaves, matter-vibration
- exist forces, matter motion
In this basic-matter can then planets, satellites, travell, and also we can send radiowaves, etc, and also example sun heat so that it can send photos, etc ,particles round on it.
If this was a little more sofisticated, it could go in the "New Theories" section, but in this way it's nothing more than meaningless words.
-
Since Heikki obviously is not fluent in English, and since I think I agree with him, I'll try to translate. I think he's saying that neither matter nor waves can move without having a medium in which to exist. I call that medium ether.
For me, e/m waves (photons) propagate like acoustic shear waves in the ether
For me, there are emerald green angels with blue wings...
For physics, instead, it's all another story.
-
---
I think he's saying that neither matter nor waves can move without having a medium in which to exist. I call that medium ether.
---
Hmm,, i wrote clear,,and simple words.
If is place where is no matter, there cannot exist anything.
- No water, no wave.
- No air, no voice-wave.
- No space-ether, no radiowaves.
Hmm,,cannot write my thought more clear. :)
-
Some summary points regards progress on the question so far
vvvvvvvvvv THE QUESTION vvvvvvvvvv
1) It remains unanswered why the universal speed limit, c, has the magnitude it has and is not a little higher or lower (or even a lot).
^^^^^^^^^^ THE QUESTION ^^^^^^^^^^
2) the question is not about the units used to measure c, but the magnitude of the value itself.
3) c is known to be related to the permeability and permitivity of free space, but this only begs the question what defines these?
3) Some discussion is that the magnitude of c may relate to a property of free space called vacuum potential.
4) A recent chinese experiment was cited which is leading to some talk of a "quantum ether".
5) The use of the word "ether" is noted to elicit negative skepticism in many. However it was noted that even Einstein did not see the famed Michelson-Morley experiment as disproving the existence of ether. Also that relativity would have prevented that experiment from detecting ether (as the speed of the photons is unaffected by the change in speed of the physical equipment).
6) quantum teleportation MAY in some way (I don;t understand myself) provide evidence of a kind for a "free space property" that relates to c, possibly also constituting an "quantum ether".
also
7) some people with their own theories trying to communicate them.
8) some speculation about the moon... ...not sure what's going on there :-)
I also add that
a) the speed of light is limited by (non vacuum) mediums through which it travels, and thus understanding causes of refraction may provide further clues about the properties of vacuum?
b) The Casimir experiment may be explained by vacuum potential, pairs of particles forming and anihilating within the limits of HUP.
c) this may also be linked to a question on entanlglement I have raised separately
-
Heikki, what you are saying there is that with nothing there it shouldn't be able to express itself in 'distances'. Am I right assuming that? A 'real' nothing shouldn't be measurable, sort of. Maybe? I don't know. I'm halfway to your statement in that I differ between matter and light.
For matter the nothing (space) will be traversable, but for light? I don't think it is needed. So for light our definitions of distance has no meaning as I see it now. What we think us know, is that we have found no 'resistance' in space. So if you want to give it a property, what would it be? I give it 'distance', but only as coupled to invariant mass (and energy too, I think?)
==
Photons seems to be able to communicate inside our arrow, and they have energy, so maybe? But on the other hand I deem all interactions as defined by their surroundings and so a photon or a wave could be localized effects on a quantum plane whilst we macroscopically will express motion, as well as notice the result of interactions, including the photons. That would make different 'reality's' meeting in our observations but only in their finalization. Hope that made some sense :) You could also choose to see the idea of 'energy' as something always localized in interactions, and as a expression of the same. That makes me able to ignore 'energy' for this, and only have to bind 'space & distance' to invariant mass, with motion as its macroscopic expression. Well, it makes sense to me :)
-
Some summary points regards progress on the question so far
vvvvvvvvvv THE QUESTION vvvvvvvvvv
1) It remains unanswered why the universal speed limit, c, has the magnitude it has and is not a little higher or lower (or even a lot).
^^^^^^^^^^ THE QUESTION ^^^^^^^^^^
2) the question is not about the units used to measure c, but the magnitude of the value itself.
3) c is known to be related to the permeability and permitivity of free space, but this only begs the question what defines these?
3) Some discussion is that the magnitude of c may relate to a property of free space called vacuum potential.
4) A recent chinese experiment was cited which is leading to some talk of a "quantum ether".
5) The use of the word "ether" is noted to elicit negative skepticism in many. However it was noted that even Einstein did not see the famed Michelson-Morley experiment as disproving the existence of ether. Also that relativity would have prevented that experiment from detecting ether (as the speed of the photons is unaffected by the change in speed of the physical equipment).
6) quantum teleportation MAY in some way (I don;t understand myself) provide evidence of a kind for a "free space property" that relates to c, possibly also constituting an "quantum ether".
also
7) some people with their own theories trying to communicate them.
8) some speculation about the moon... ...not sure what's going on there :-)
I also add that
a) the speed of light is limited by (non vacuum) mediums through which it travels, and thus understanding causes of refraction may provide further clues about the properties of vacuum?
b) The Casimir experiment may be explained by vacuum potential, pairs of particles forming and anihilating within the limits of HUP.
c) this may also be linked to a question on entanlglement I have raised separately
1) this is not the sort of question physics answers - why c is a universal speed limit is a good one, how c can be calculated and predicted is another good one; why the universal constants are tuned to give a certain magnitude is very difficult to answer in a meaningful way.
2) the magnitude of c in isolation and without units is a number, just go ahead and pick one. It is only with units and comparision with other seemingly unrelated physical constants that we start to understand
3) now we are getting there. tuning is a mystery - and it will become clearer, it might be removed as a problem, or it might remain; we just don't know, we work to lower the number of universal constants.
4) would have to read in more detail - but the misunderstanding of ether is almost as terrible as the misunderstanding of quantum entanglement, the combination of the two ... wow!
5) 6) ditto
7) 8) frustrating isnt it?
a) light actually travels between interactions in ALL media at c - in non-vacuo it is absorb and re-emitted on a regular basis as it moves through the object. It is these interactions that cause the speed to be lower than c in vacuo
b) yeah - it is one explanation of many - I cannot see anything other than a handwavy link tho
c) ok
OK tried my best
-
---
It remains unanswered why the universal speed limit, c, has the magnitude it has and is not a little higher or lower (or even a lot).
---
Few my thoughts.
Space is not vacuum, empty, it is full of matter, space-matter, ether says old days, dark matter says somebody, but matter.
That is the reason why light-particles has own maximum speed. Of cource if we think what can influence particle-speed, there is several things;
- matter thickness where particles travell (space-matter, air, water, wood-plate, light-cable, etc.)
- sender power, means that starting power,
- all reflect particles, like other light sources,, etc,,
Simple observation to notice when light speed is 0m/s is mirror. Light goes fast to mirror, bounce to back,,meand hit the mirror and start to travel that coming direction;
- That hitting point light speed is 0m/s when it change travell-direction.
My thought is that light have that near 300000km/s speed near earth, but we dont know what is the speed near sun,,,or is the light particles get maximun speed near earth, or what is the speed about 1 000 000 000 km from sun.
- One interesting test is if we put light-impuls to travell long light-cabel and measure what is that m/s/s-change.
-
2) the question is not about the units used to measure c, but the magnitude of the value itself.
It's an electromagnetic property of the void. It's like to ask why an electron's mass is 9.1*10-31 kg or Plank's constant is 6.63*10-34 J*s. You can construct theories as Electrodynamics and Quantum Mechanics, but they won't tell you those values.
Future unknown theories could be able to determine those values, but at the moment we can't.
3) c is known to be related to the permeability and permitivity of free space, but this only begs the question what defines these?
ε0 is defined by the electrostatic force between two charges in the void, which is defined from the Coulomb, the unit of charge, which is defined with the Ampère, which is defined by the magnetic force between two conductors. At the end of the story you discover that both ε0 and μ0 are just another way of writing c.
3) Some discussion is that the magnitude of c may relate to a property of free space called vacuum potential.
4) A recent chinese experiment was cited which is leading to some talk of a "quantum ether".
5) The use of the word "ether" is noted to elicit negative skepticism in many. However it was noted that even Einstein did not see the famed Michelson-Morley experiment as disproving the existence of ether. Also that relativity would have prevented that experiment from detecting ether (as the speed of the photons is unaffected by the change in speed of the physical equipment).
6) quantum teleportation MAY in some way (I don;t understand myself) provide evidence of a kind for a "free space property" that relates to c, possibly also constituting an "quantum ether".
Whatever "ether" you consider, you will be faced with the incontrovertible fact that it is co-moving with whatever frame of reference you will choose. For example it would be co-moving with the Earth, co-moving with the Sun, co-moving with a spaceship which is moving in whatever direction at whatever speed. Do you find it possible?
I also add that
a) the speed of light is limited by (non vacuum) mediums through which it travels, and thus understanding causes of refraction may provide further clues about the properties of vacuum?
Maybe, who knows. But in matter, for example a glass' crystal, you have a difference: you does have a privileged frame of reference now, it's the one co-moving with the crystal. In the void you have none.
b) The Casimir experiment may be explained by vacuum potential, pairs of particles forming and anihilating within the limits of HUP.
Sorry to tell you but:
1. virtual particles doesn't exist and
2. Casimir force can be explained without.
-
Yes, we do know Heikki. You just need to study how light bends around suns to know if it gives the value of 'C', as different speeds should give it a different 'bending' relative us (no longer a 'null geodesic'). General relativity states that light always move at 'C' in any inertial frame. And as far as I know all astronomical light measured by us on earth always comes with that same speed, only blue or red shifted, depending on strength and the sources motion, toward (blue,) or from (red) us.
Space is a vacuum, that there may be particle 'floating' in it doesn't change that. You can very easily create your own vacuum on Earth to test if it exist. there is one thing though. You might question how a nothing gets that 'distance' I talked about before. That one is weird but rather simple. Gravity is what creates the 'distance', well, as I see it. Without 'gravity' our vacuum should cease to exist as I expect. It measures out the 'distances', and as it was you that made me realize it Heikki, thnx for that one. :) I started to think of boxes of vacuum, and suddenly I realized that a vacuum in one box is the same as any other box. As a unit they are all equally 'large' if you like. So what defines the distances is gravity, not the vacuum.
I really like that one.
==
'And da*n my keyboard :)
==
So how do a expansion come to be if that was right? :)
Simple, gravity must do it.
And what happens when/where our 'SpaceTime' ends?
Simple, nothing..
We live inside distances, those depends on Gravity. Without gravity 'distances' should disappear, the rest becomes a question of how gravity will behave, form itself into a 'ball' making it appear as there is no 'end' for us? Or 'bend' SpaceTime in some other manner that we never notice the 'wall'. Pick your choice. I do not think 'SpaceTime' allows for us to see a 'nothing', furthermore I expect us to be ill equipped to recognize it, even if we were standing in front of it. We're creatures of distance.
-
For those of you that want to argue that the 'zero energy' intrinsic to a quantum foam should differ with the area of 'Space' I will just point to the fact that you can superimpose all energy there is into one size less 'center'. It's not me being wrong here, it's you not questioning the right things :) It might also be wise to consider the Bekenstein bound.
I have other arguments for it too, but those can wait. It's so phreakinly simple, even though the 'expansion', if true, still is weird although I now defined 'gravity' as involved. And our 3D will then be 'points' of 3D, not 'three dimensions' criss-crossing each other in a 'nothing' creating a 'space'.
==
Or maybe I'm all wrong. But I don't think so, yet, that is. Consider emptying a plastic bag, it doesn't inflate with any 'distances' does it? Well, no, not on earth, here the resistance/pressure of fermions always will compress that without structural integrity. but in 'space' then? Should it expand there as the air is emptied out? No, the bag is made of fermions, they 'attract' each other and distort the 'space' around them. But the overall gravitational potential of SpaceTime will decide how noticeable such a distortion can become where they are in our Minkowski space ("or Minkowski SpaceTime (named after the mathematician Hermann Minkowski) is the mathematical setting in which Einstein's theory of special relativity is most conveniently formulated. In this setting the three ordinary dimensions of space are combined with a single dimension of time to form a four-dimensional manifold for representing a spacetime") I still like it :)
-
Re reading us all, we're tripping all over what's considered to be mainstream science here, myself just as happy as you :)
Would anyone mind if we moved this to 'New Theories'? Heikki?
I'll wait and see what you think, but if you agree I think that's the proper place for what we're discussing. that as it might become progressively 'worse' or as I see it, more 'interesting' as the debate goes on? :)
-
Would anyone mind if we moved this to 'New Theories'? Heikki?
Ok,,can move.
You are right,,this conversation is new theory,, hmm,,still old,, [:)]
---
Of cource we use today some mathematical constant so we can calculate things,,and i mean that these constant are enough accurace to short period,,or short time,,but long period or long time is different.
I means light-years and many many years,,
Hmm,,made image where is explain my thought.
Same behaviour( 1.fast acceleration, maximum speed, deceleration,) even if traveller is matter-particle or matter-vibration.
-
Ok cool :)
==
I will really need to think about if gravity could be the perpetrator of distances (Space).
I like it, and when I got the idea it felt like some bits finally were falling in place for me, but :)
I don't know, I still want it to be true though. It would simplify a lot of things for me.
-
Ok, some progress (well, if I am understanding)
1) c, μ and ε are most probably set by a property of vacuum / free space
2) mainstream physics hasn't determined a cause yet though. So what follows is "new theory"
3) If we were to observe a spatial variation in c the need for an explanation would be evident. So far no such variation has been measured.
4) the speed may be related to the presence of a density of matter even in a vacuum; either
4a) due to matter having gravity and gravity impact light speed according to GR. Although it feels like we might need a very high density of matter to achieve this (Do we need the matter to get the gravity, perhaps not?)
OR
4b) due to matter absorbing and re-emitting light (which takes time) as per accepted theory of light propagation in a medium. Although I might add I'm not sure how this accepted theory is supposed to explain the change in direction at the medium boundary - it seems a bit rough around the edges?
some counters
1) "This is not the sort of question that physics can answer" - ...pause ...does not compute (which is pretty unusual), care to explain and substantiate? Is the anthropic principle not "a theory". See also scientific method.
2) does the length of my arm actually change depending on what units I measure it in, or whether I choose it to be my base unit of measure. (If yours does please attach video :-) ).
3) virtual particles don't exist... true if anything is (although "exist" becomes a bit ill defined under scrutiny). However, spontaneously appearing and disappearing particle/anti-particle pairs are not virtual. The force carriers in feynman diagrams are virtual, I don't think we are talking about those?
-
There is no such thing as "mainstream science". There is scientific theory (usually involving a lot of tedious math) that can be can be confirmed by scientific experiment. Usually, that is referred to as "science".
That's about it.
-
There is no need for a 3 dimensional ether, space and time can't be separated in the 4 dimensions we perceive, that is why C is invariant. We just need one more dimension that replaces time for photons, instead of spacetime, it could be spacefrequency, x, y, z, 1/Δt... Spacetime itself is a medium. Quite convenient for quantum entanglement... SpaceFrequency could be named Fourier's dimensions... Schrodinger and Dirac would have liked it...
Even more interesting, a particle in spacetime would interact as a wave in spacefrequency and a particle in spacefrequency would interact as a wave in spacetime. Since everything is made of photons, there is a duality...
-
:)
Time is measuring unit.
Space is existing matter thing.
If space is without ether-matter, space-matter, objects cannot move point to point.
That is my thought. :)
-
There is no such thing as "mainstream science". There is scientific theory (usually involving a lot of tedious math) that can be can be confirmed by scientific experiment. Usually, that is referred to as "science".
That's about it.
Ask the local censors if there is a mainstream. Try posting your new theory in the mainstream section of this board and see how long it takes to be booted out. There was a time when Einstein was not mainstream, and he would have been booted out of most mainstream discussions of his day.
The mainstream is the crowd that gets taught in universities, published in peer-review journals and funded by the government. It is the religious establishment; anyone who disagrees with it is a heretic. It is an industry driven by book sales, and perpetuated by a powerful lobby in the halls of legislative power.
A handful of today's many heretics are tomorrows gods, but most are just crackpots; so, if you're not mainstream, you're presumed to be a crackpot.
-
There is no such thing as "mainstream science". There is scientific theory (usually involving a lot of tedious math) that can be can be confirmed by scientific experiment. Usually, that is referred to as "science".
That's about it.
Ask the local censors if there is a mainstream. Try posting your new theory in the mainstream section of this board and see how long it takes to be booted out. There was a time when Einstein was not mainstream, and he would have been booted out of most mainstream discussions of his day.
The mainstream is the crowd that gets taught in universities, published in peer-review journals and funded by the government. It is the religious establishment; anyone who disagrees with it is a heretic. It is an industry driven by book sales, and perpetuated by a powerful lobby in the halls of legislative power.
A handful of today's many heretics are tomorrows gods, but most are just crackpots; so, if you're not mainstream, you're presumed to be a crackpot.
What's wrong with discussing new theories in New Theories? That is hardly censorship. The reason for the demarcation is to avoid confusing people who have a limited scientific background.
I doubt if Einstein would have been very upset if his ideas had been posted in New Theories. Until a theory makes predictions and those predictions are verified, it's a new theory, although, strictly speaking, it shouldn't really be called a theory on that basis.
-
“A man does not attain the status of Galileo merely because he is persecuted; he must also be right.”
Stephen Jay Gould
-
Hello JML Carter,
Maybe this is what you wanted to hear: My assertion is supported by the very weak electric component we observe at the beginning of the process (high frequency oscillations) and by the tiny, very tiny indeed, magnetic component we observe at the opposite end (low frequency oscillations). The magnetic component would, therefore, lose its strength, as the oscillating frequency becomes lower. When the frequency becomes very low; that is to say, the cycles are fewer for each second of time; the electric component becomes the stronger of the two and takes control.
From this continuous loss of magnetic strength all along the expanding and/or extending process, one may conclude that the finite speed of 299.792.458 cycles and/or metres per second is due to the inability, at the end of the run, of the already very weak magnetic component to generate a further and new electric component.
To give my statement life and colour, allow me to say that if we were silly enough to put a finger into an ordinary power point, we would feel a lot of electricity and negligible magnetism. If we open our eyes and make contact with the visible spectrum, we will experience the equilibrium reached by electric and magnetic forces and fields with the end result that we can endure the situation indefinitely. If, on the other hand, we find ourselves in the line of fire of X-rays radiation, we are subjected to strong magnetic forces and negligible electric forces; and even though we do not feel the immediate consequences, we are, if I am allowed the crude expression, cooking ourselves. In all of these three instances we have been dealing with the electromagnetic wave oscillating respectively at 50/60 cycles per second, 4000 million cycles per second, and 700 thousand million million cycles per second.
Please note. I started off by saying: My assertion is supported etc. Here is my assertion which is also the 1st axiom of my theory: time and space are physically created by an electromagnetic process in expansion and/or extension to be identified with the existing electromagnetic spectrum.
-
Heh.
Hmm, yep, we're all over the map I think. Some, most? Seeing it a as a EM universe if I get it right. Not that its a strange view. Those are the forces we know best I think? And me suspecting that 'gravity' can stand on its own, even though not being any 'force'. As for calling the accepted views for 'mainstream', I think its okay myself to do so. It also helps those that know very little about physics when we do so, it's hard enough understanding the 'mainstream' views I think. Those not mainstream are usually from those knowing some physics, but happily disagreeing :)
And we come in all colors and shapes I'm afraid. Myself I have no real problems with what I know. More than it becomes weirder and weirder the more I wonder about it of course. Alice would have called us all 'Mad Hatters', mainstream or not methinks :)
-
Check this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment
http://www.analogsf.com/0410/altview2.shtml
-
Cpt, very good post. Thank you.
-
:)
More this issue.
-
I started to answer this question but in answering it I realised what I had written was a short theory of time. It is in new theories under the name of "The Speed of Light is Infinite". yor_on, I don't think you are going to like this.