The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
  4. Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?

  • 24 Replies
  • 2199 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline geordief (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 435
  • Activity:
    7%
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?
« on: 18/05/2019 13:06:11 »
I have been told (forget the context) not to get fixated on light in relativity ,that It is more fundamental than that.

My question is whether we can show the union between space and time in other ways (physically ,perhaps rather than mathematically but that would be good too)

Do we have to go to the quantum realm to  find processes where em radiation  is not a consideration ?

Is spacetime an equally valid concept in quantum physics as it is in Classical physics?

Is it more or less assumed that the classical forces  are more or less branches of one same force?
Logged
 



Online Halc

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 2218
  • Activity:
    24%
  • Thanked: 173 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?
« Reply #1 on: 18/05/2019 13:54:27 »
The text of the post seemed pretty baffling to me, so I'll take a shot at the title question.

Spacetime is understood in relation to c, which is a constant speed.  It just happens that EM radiation propagates at that speed, as does several other things (like gravity waves), but the fundamental constant c is not particularly about light.

So when one does a Lorentz transformation to reorder a set of events to a different inertial frame, there is no EM radiation involved in this transformation.  It is simply a geometric exercise.

That is all a pretty classical description and I would not do a good job of trying to fit quantum physics into that description.

Three of the forces have been unified under one theory, but it is questionable if gravity is a force at all.  The inability to unite gravity with the others suggests that Einstein was on track in casting of it as curvature in spacetime rather than a force.
Logged
 

Offline geordief (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 435
  • Activity:
    7%
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?
« Reply #2 on: 18/05/2019 14:50:13 »
Quote from: Halc on 18/05/2019 13:54:27
The text of the post seemed pretty baffling to me, so I'll take a shot at the title question.

Spacetime is understood in relation to c, which is a constant speed.  It just happens that EM radiation propagates at that speed, as does several other things (like gravity waves), but the fundamental constant c is not particularly about light.

So when one does a Lorentz transformation to reorder a set of events to a different inertial frame, there is no EM radiation involved in this transformation.  It is simply a geometric exercise.

That is all a pretty classical description and I would not do a good job of trying to fit quantum physics into that description.

Three of the forces have been unified under one theory, but it is questionable if gravity is a force at all.  The inability to unite gravity with the others suggests that Einstein was on track in casting of it as curvature in spacetime rather than a force.
Sorry for being baffling (it probably is a reflection of my confused mind)-and thanks for your answer.

But why is "spacetime understood in relation to c" then if it is not in connection with the speed of light?

Was it just plucked out of the air as a speed of propagation (of what?)   of undetermined actual value that came to be associated with the actual measured speed of light (and massless objects) in a vacuum?

It was Einstein ,wasn't it who was responsible for this step if I have described it correctly  (or approximately correctly).

Or was it actually Lorentz  who was responsible ,drawing formal mathematical conclusions from Einstein's  idea?

Or was it some kind of a hybrid offspring between the two men?

ps I wasn't considering gravity as one of the forces,just the electro-weak and strong  forces
« Last Edit: 18/05/2019 14:54:04 by geordief »
Logged
 

Online Halc

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 2218
  • Activity:
    24%
  • Thanked: 173 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?
« Reply #3 on: 18/05/2019 15:46:01 »
Quote from: geordief on 18/05/2019 14:50:13
But why is "spacetime understood in relation to c" then if it is not in connection with the speed of light?
c seems to be one of those fundamental constants in our universe, and it got its name 'light speed' because light happens to be one of those things confined by this fundamental process. 

Quote
Was it just plucked out of the air as a speed of propagation (of what?)
It was probably first measured by observation of light, and hence the name applied to the constant.  You find a reliable and readable clock at a large distance that changes and observe (via EM radiation) how the time on the clock appears to read sooner or later depending on how far away it is.  That's how it was done in Newton's time.

Quote
of undetermined actual value that came to be associated with the actual measured speed of light (and massless objects) in a vacuum?
Nobody suspected any fundamental constant back then.  It was first measured as light speed just like they measured sound speed, without suggesting that it was a fundamental limit.  Only with Lorentz/Minkowski/Einstein came the fact that c was a fundamental constant related to many non-EM aspects of the universe.

Quote
It was Einstein ,wasn't it who was responsible for this step if I have described it correctly  (or approximately correctly).
And others, yes. Einstein put all the pieces together first to form a complete theory.

Quote
Or was it actually Lorentz  who was responsible ,drawing formal mathematical conclusions from Einstein's  idea?
They drew on each other, but it was often more Einstein drawing on Lorentz's conculsions.  It would have been called the Einstein transformation if he had thought of it first.

Quote
Or was it some kind of a hybrid offspring between the two men?
A combined effort of several physicists, not all of which I can rattle off without looking up,.

Quote
ps I wasn't considering gravity as one of the forces,just the electro-weak and strong  forces
I don't think the unification of those theories falls from Einstein's work.  That is more in the quantum realm, and QFT has never been unified with GFT, hence the lack of unified field theory.  They're working on it.

I've seen the unification of EM and strong via early work on octonian theory rather than through quantum field theory.  If that can be done, further study in this area might be the path to a unified theory.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-peculiar-math-that-could-underlie-the-laws-of-nature/
Logged
 

Offline Janus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 784
  • Activity:
    13.5%
  • Thanked: 186 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?
« Reply #4 on: 18/05/2019 16:04:47 »
Quote from: geordief on 18/05/2019 14:50:13
Quote from: Halc on 18/05/2019 13:54:27
The text of the post seemed pretty baffling to me, so I'll take a shot at the title question.

Spacetime is understood in relation to c, which is a constant speed.  It just happens that EM radiation propagates at that speed, as does several other things (like gravity waves), but the fundamental constant c is not particularly about light.

So when one does a Lorentz transformation to reorder a set of events to a different inertial frame, there is no EM radiation involved in this transformation.  It is simply a geometric exercise.

That is all a pretty classical description and I would not do a good job of trying to fit quantum physics into that description.

Three of the forces have been unified under one theory, but it is questionable if gravity is a force at all.  The inability to unite gravity with the others suggests that Einstein was on track in casting of it as curvature in spacetime rather than a force.
Sorry for being baffling (it probably is a reflection of my confused mind)-and thanks for your answer.

But why is "spacetime understood in relation to c" then if it is not in connection with the speed of light?

Was it just plucked out of the air as a speed of propagation (of what?)   of undetermined actual value that came to be associated with the actual measured speed of light (and massless objects) in a vacuum?

It was the behavior of light that led to the conclusion of the fundamental constant c. It was the clue that pointed us where we needed to go.  Even if this had not been the case, we would have eventually stumbled upon c as a limit as we learned to accelerate massive particles up to greater speeds. We would have found that they did not behave as expected by Newtonian Physics.  After enough experiments were performed, a pattern would have emerged that would have pointed us to c.
As to why we keep referring to c as "the speed of light", it just easier than constantly calling it " the fundamental invariant speed of the universe".      For much the same reason, people tend to use the term "Crescent wrench" when referring to any "open-ended adjustable wrench", even though "Crescent" is actually a just a brand name.
Logged
 



Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5272
  • Activity:
    10.5%
  • Thanked: 439 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?
« Reply #5 on: 18/05/2019 17:47:41 »
Just to add to what @Halc and @Janus said:
Quote from: geordief on 18/05/2019 13:06:11
I have been told (forget the context) not to get fixated on light in relativity ,that It is more fundamental than that.
This may be a reference to the fact that Einstein’s first paper to mention SR was on moving electric/magnetic fields, what is known as electrodynamics. The ‘more fundamental’ issue is that these fields are 2 sides of the same coin and relativity makes this obvious. Light came into it because it is a moving em field and Maxwell had shown it to have a speed independent of the source or receiver - although he didn’t realise it at the time - and Einstein took this as an assumption.
What is really interesting is that much our electronics would not work if relativity was wrong.

Quote from: geordief on 18/05/2019 13:06:11
Do we have to go to the quantum realm to find processes where em radiation  is not a consideration ?
no, em is just as important there, so is relativity. Quantum Field Theory is probably the most precise theory of natural phenomena ever developed and relativistic em fields are a very important part of it.

Quote from: geordief on 18/05/2019 13:06:11
Is spacetime an equally valid concept in quantum physics as it is in Classical physics?
Initially Schrodinger’s view of the atom didn’t consider where the atom is or whether it is moving so relativity and spacetime didn’t come into it. When particle accelerators started throwing atoms and parts of atoms around it soon became apparent that relativity applied to these very small items and it was essential to take it into account. Indeed, it is yet another indication that relativity is correct.
Logged
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6807
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?
« Reply #6 on: 18/05/2019 19:32:39 »
I have to disagree with the idea that gravity is not a force. Is there a force that draws opposite magnetic poles together or is it a curvature in the magnetic field? There is curl in the magnetic field so does that point to geometry over force?

Objects follow geodesics in a gravitational field. This can be thought of as a divergence from an inertial state. A change of direction is by default an acceleration. I can attach a rope to the side of a moving shopping trolley and pull on it to divert its path. That requires a force. Acceleration is always the result of a force. Geometry describes the effect of this force on objects. It is not the cause. Don't confuse the model with the observable phenomena.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
 

Online Halc

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 2218
  • Activity:
    24%
  • Thanked: 173 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?
« Reply #7 on: 19/05/2019 00:22:44 »
Quote from: jeffreyH on 18/05/2019 19:32:39
I have to disagree with the idea that gravity is not a force. Is there a force that draws opposite magnetic poles together or is it a curvature in the magnetic field? There is curl in the magnetic field so does that point to geometry over force?
I don't think that can be modeled as curvature since different (otherwise interial) particles will take different paths depending on their mass/charge.  Not so with gravity where an inertial mass always moves in straight lines (a geodesic) regardless of mass or velocity.
This allows a geometric interpretation of that motion rather than a description in terms of force. It does not prove one interpretation over the other, but some of the discussion above reinforces the bent-space interpretation.

Quote
Objects follow geodesics in a gravitational field. This can be thought of as a divergence from an inertial state.
Well no, that's the whole point.  It isn't a divergence from an inertial trajectory.  Any non-geodesic is such a divergence and requires an actual force.

Quote
A change of direction is by default an acceleration.
Not in the case of a geodesic, which is not a change in direction in the space being considered.  A airplane has but two geodesic paths between any two points on the surface of earth, and only on those two paths can the airplane get from here to there without ever turning left or right.  It doesn't change direction on the surface of Earth even if it appears to on a paper map.

Quote
Acceleration is always the result of a force.
Well, that's a pretty good point. Why does a dropped rock accelerate in the geometric interpretation of gravity? Does it?? If it isn't a force, then it isn't turning, but it certainly is trading potential for kinetic energy, and a force seems necessary for that.  Not sure if the geometric model considers changes in kinetic energy due to changes in depth of a gravity field to be the same sort of acceleration that you'd get from a more classic force like EM.  I'm sitting here on Earth and I have a classic force pushing me up from the floor.  If that's the only force, why am I not accelerating?  Well, actually I am since I'm certainly being diverted from the geodesic that I'd otherwise be following.
Logged
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6807
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?
« Reply #8 on: 19/05/2019 02:28:53 »
Einstein argued that if you were inside a box you would not be able to tell if you were in a freely falling frame in a gravitational field or in an inertial frame. In an accelerating frame an object would be emitting electromagnetic radiation. So does the free falling object in the box emit electromagnetic waves? Does the radiation increase with increasing speed? If it emits no radiation due to acceleration then it can be considered truly inertial. In which case Einstein is correct. Which is it?
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
 



Online Halc

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 2218
  • Activity:
    24%
  • Thanked: 173 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?
« Reply #9 on: 19/05/2019 13:26:46 »
Quote from: jeffreyH on 19/05/2019 02:28:53
Einstein argued that if you were inside a box you would not be able to tell if you were in a freely falling frame in a gravitational field or in an inertial frame. In an accelerating frame an object would be emitting electromagnetic radiation. So does the free falling object in the box emit electromagnetic waves? Does the radiation increase with increasing speed? If it emits no radiation due to acceleration then it can be considered truly inertial. In which case Einstein is correct. Which is it?
In an accelerating frame a charged object would emit EM radiation, which seems equivalent to an accelerating mass emitting gravity waves.  I'm not sure if either can be detected from inside a box accelerating with the object. Einstein pushed the whole bent-space interpretation (as opposed to force), and yet he predicted the gravity waves which emit from objects taking geodesic paths, which means yes, there is acceleration going on.  If that violated the equivalence principle, I think it would have been pointed out.  So I suspect such radiation cannot be detected from within the box accelerating with the charged mass.
I very much see your point though. You're looking for empirical differences between the two interpretations, which is far better than just asserting your opinion on the subject. I'm not sure if my response is correct.
Logged
 

Offline Janus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 784
  • Activity:
    13.5%
  • Thanked: 186 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?
« Reply #10 on: 19/05/2019 16:26:18 »
Quote from: jeffreyH on 19/05/2019 02:28:53
Einstein argued that if you were inside a box you would not be able to tell if you were in a freely falling frame in a gravitational field or in an inertial frame. In an accelerating frame an object would be emitting electromagnetic radiation. So does the free falling object in the box emit electromagnetic waves? Does the radiation increase with increasing speed? If it emits no radiation due to acceleration then it can be considered truly inertial. In which case Einstein is correct. Which is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_radiation_of_charged_particles_in_a_gravitational_field
Logged
 
The following users thanked this post: jeffreyH

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6807
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?
« Reply #11 on: 19/05/2019 19:44:10 »
The point about a charged particle radiating when falling freely is the most interesting. Since it would fall at a different rate to a neutral particle then a free falling frame must be equivalent to an inertial frame. Thanks for the link Janus. It clears up a lot of questions.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
 

Online Halc

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 2218
  • Activity:
    24%
  • Thanked: 173 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?
« Reply #12 on: 19/05/2019 20:11:57 »
Quote from: jeffreyH on 19/05/2019 19:44:10
The point about a charged particle radiating when falling freely is the most interesting. Since it would fall at a different rate to a neutral particle then a free falling frame must be equivalent to an inertial frame. Thanks for the link Janus. It clears up a lot of questions.
But it doesn't.  The paradox says that it would seem to at first consideration, but the paradox was resolved with:
Quote
Fritz Rohrlich (1965),[6] who shows that a charged particle and a neutral particle fall equally fast in a gravitational field
Thus showing that motion under gravity is not acceleration.  Gravity is bent space, not a force.  A pseudo-force at best, like centrifugal force.
Logged
 



Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6807
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?
« Reply #13 on: 19/05/2019 22:07:23 »
Quote from: Halc on 19/05/2019 20:11:57
Quote from: jeffreyH on 19/05/2019 19:44:10
The point about a charged particle radiating when falling freely is the most interesting. Since it would fall at a different rate to a neutral particle then a free falling frame must be equivalent to an inertial frame. Thanks for the link Janus. It clears up a lot of questions.
But it doesn't.  The paradox says that it would seem to at first consideration, but the paradox was resolved with:
Quote
Fritz Rohrlich (1965),[6] who shows that a charged particle and a neutral particle fall equally fast in a gravitational field
Thus showing that motion under gravity is not acceleration.  Gravity is bent space, not a force.  A pseudo-force at best, like centrifugal force.

You missed the point. It doesn't radiate therefore a freely falling frame is equivalent to an inertial frame. I see no paradox at all.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
 

Online Halc

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 2218
  • Activity:
    24%
  • Thanked: 173 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?
« Reply #14 on: 20/05/2019 02:38:58 »
I am basing my comment on this one, which is confusing.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 19/05/2019 19:44:10
Since it would fall at a different rate to a neutral particle then a free falling frame must be equivalent to an inertial frame.
It says 'since [the charged particle] would fall at a different rate to a neutral particle' which would lead one to the opposite conclusion: that the principle of locality is wrong and gravity is a force.  But the two particles don't in fact fall at at a different rate.  The above comment is mistaken.  Maybe you forgot a 'not' somewhere in that sentence.  It seemed to be taken from the statement of the paradox as presented before the paradox was resolved in the 60's.
Logged
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6807
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?
« Reply #15 on: 20/05/2019 16:00:03 »
It was my sloppy use of language. However, you still cannot say gravity isn't a force. I will explain my reasoning later.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
 

Offline westernira

  • First timers
  • *
  • 2
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?
« Reply #16 on: 20/05/2019 17:18:40 »
Your opinion also resolve my issue and it really very helpful for me.
Logged
 



Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6807
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?
« Reply #17 on: 22/05/2019 06:39:22 »
What is inertia? It is objects moving uniformly through space. If two objects collide then we have a force. What is gravity? It is objects uniformly accelerating through space. If objects collide in free fall we get a force. However, it is the uniform motion  that makes the force of gravity undetectable. An evenly distributed force causes no detectable stress. This breaks down in the case of extreme tidal forces, where a force would become apparent.

An undetectable force is still a force. It is an all encompassing one. Which is why it ultimately traps light in the densest objects.

This might manifest itself geometrically but that does not make it a 'ficticious' force.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 28522
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 65 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?
« Reply #18 on: 22/05/2019 12:04:21 »
I'd expect it to break down at Planck scale Geordie. That's a scale where light is presumed to take on Planck 'step' in one Planck 'time' as locally measured. It's such a ridiculously small unit that it doesn't even, ever, will be measurable for us.

Under that your guess is as good as mine.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
 

Online Halc

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 2218
  • Activity:
    24%
  • Thanked: 173 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is spacetime always understood in relation to the speed of light (em radiation)?
« Reply #19 on: 22/05/2019 12:39:14 »
Quote from: jeffreyH on 22/05/2019 06:39:22
What is inertia? It is objects moving uniformly through space.
That's inertial motion.  Inertia is something else, more or less equivalent to mass.
Two objects can have the same inertial motion but very different inertia, or they can have the same inertia but very different inertial motion.

Quote
What is gravity? It is objects uniformly accelerating through space.
Ouch...   No.  I can accelerate uniformly through space without involving gravity, and I can achieve non-uniform acceleration using only gravity.

I googled the question just to see what would come up, and found this interesting answer:
https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question30.html
Quote from: nasa apparently
And some scientists think that it is made up of particles called gravitons which travel at the speed of light.
No scientist thinks that. The statement is blatantly wrong. Gravity waves, sure, but not gravity.
I'm used to finding crap on the internet, but on a nasa.gov site?  It sort of recovers from that statement to say at least that we do not know what gravity "is" in any fundamental way - we only know how it behaves.
Quote
If objects collide in free fall we get a force.
Or even if not in free fall.
Quote
However, it is the uniform motion  that makes the force of gravity undetectable. An evenly distributed force causes no detectable stress. This breaks down in the case of extreme tidal forces, where a force would become apparent.
Free fall is locally indistinguishable from inertial motion, yes.  A tidal test is not a local test since it requires a separation to detect a non-uniform gravitational field.  The difference need not be extreme at all.  A simple tidal test is pretty trivial on the space station, if they have a place where the air currents don't overpower where gravity is pushing a couple objects.

Quote
An undetectable force is still a force.
...
This might manifest itself geometrically but that does not make it a 'ficticious' force.
Agree with this. It might be a matter of interpretation, but the 'accelerating charged particle' thing seems to be a test distinguishing between the two interpretations. If so, they're not really interpretations anymore.
« Last Edit: 22/05/2019 12:51:26 by Halc »
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 

Similar topics (5)

If we put a mirror millions of light years away and reflected earth, could we see what earth looked like millions of years ago?

Started by thedocBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 9
Views: 11535
Last post 20/05/2018 00:53:37
by raf21
What is "light" pressure?

Started by sorincosofretBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 34
Views: 27688
Last post 13/02/2018 19:46:54
by Bill S
What is a halogen light bulb? What halogen is used and why is this better?

Started by chrisBoard Technology

Replies: 4
Views: 9481
Last post 02/02/2010 11:17:45
by Mazurka
Is solar energy the same as light energy?

Started by FeliciaBoard Technology

Replies: 6
Views: 19743
Last post 19/03/2020 15:17:27
by Paul25
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?

Started by londounkmBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 291
Views: 100021
Last post 27/06/2020 13:55:35
by Bill S
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.172 seconds with 83 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.