It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Question Concerning Material Structure and the Speed of Light

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

So I stumbled onto an approximation of the truth purely via a crude and largely misinformed thought exercise? Hey, there might be hope for me yet. Thanks for clarifying that. I still don't understand it really, but I'm glad I'm nearly there. One of the kids I used to debate in high school worked at CERN. I think he's moved on to another university here in the states again, but I was really hoping for a long time there to read about some great breakthrough with his name attached to it, not that he hasn't lead an amazing life already.




posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Nechash

If you've had a bit of calculus, I strongly suggest you read the classic "Feynman Lectures on Physics". It gives the best physically and experimentally oriented intuitive explanation of physics.

Not the best for learning how to complete problem sets, but the best for understanding actual physics at the introductory level, and not just popularized descriptions which really don't make much sense.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: NorEaster

The speed of light in a vacuume travels 299,792,458 m/sec.

If the Source that gives of light is on a moving platform traveling at 6000 m/second. Light still travels 299,792,458m/sec.
And the platfrom travels at 6000 m/sec.

You can look at it this way. The platfrom is moving relative to the speed of light. This means that the platform is moving 6000m/sec relative to the speed of light. The platform is traveling 299,786,458 m/s slower than the speed of light.



edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Calculus. I loved being able to combine formulas so I could create statements that would allow me to determine obscure things about something given some other piece of information. For that, calculus was amazing, but I never got a real comfortable familiarity with it the way I did with algebra. I barely made it through integration and by the time I got to linear algebra, I just wanted to cry, honestly. Our linear algebra at my undergrad was taught by the engineering department and they made zero accommodations for biology majors.

I can recall with a slightly traumatized response figuring out the features a shock would need to have to absorb the impact from a given surface on a vehicle of a certain mass at a certain speed. I barely made it through that in one piece. I'm honestly surprised I passed the class with a B-. I don't see how that is possible, not even to this day where I've gained a bit of a larger perspective on things. I suspect witchcraft was involved.

If you asked me to do linear algebra now, you'd swear I knew nothing of the subject. I think I repressed all of that information into the lock box at the bottom of my file cabinet where I keep all the other memories that I never want to witness again.

I would be interested in taking a look at that at some point. Thank you for the recommendation.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: Korg Trinity

If a photon and an anti-photon collide, do they annihilate each other?


Yes and not just in theory we have observed it many many times in high energy collisions. Normally what happens when they collide is they produce other sub atomic particles such as electron-positron, quarks or other fleeting particles, all energies accounted for of course.

Korg.


I think you were thinking about 'proton and anti-proton'. A photon and anti-photon (which is the same particle) have almost no reaction cross section. I don't believe there has been any direct observation (which could only happen by rare QED effects, instantiating virtual electron/positron pairs and scattering off of them).


You would think so wouldn't you... but no I was thinking of a photon photon collision....

Scientists discover how to turn light into matter after 80-year quest


The new research, published in Nature Photonics, shows for the first time how Breit and Wheeler's theory could be proven in practice. This 'photon-photon collider', which would convert light directly into matter using technology that is already available, would be a new type of high-energy physics experiment. This experiment would recreate a process that was important in the first 100 seconds of the universe and that is also seen in gamma ray bursts, which are the biggest explosions in the universe and one of physics' greatest unsolved mysteries.

Breit and Wheeler suggested that it should be possible to turn light into matter by smashing together only two particles of light (photons), to create an electron and a positron – the simplest method of turning light into matter ever predicted. The calculation was found to be theoretically sound but Breit and Wheeler said that they never expected anybody to physically demonstrate their prediction. It has never been observed in the laboratory and past experiments to test it have required the addition of massive high-energy


Essentially it is It is e=mc2 in reverse.

Korg.
edit on 15-10-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

It dosent say that they have done the Experiment to prove the theory.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
So the energy that a photon has in Noreaster's example is expended on increasing wavelength, not increasing speed....is that correct?



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
So the energy that a photon has in Noreaster's example is expended on increasing wavelength, not increasing speed....is that correct?



Yes. Exactly.

Or decreasing it...

It's a Doppler effect.

Korg.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
So the energy that a photon has in Noreaster's example is expended on increasing wavelength, not increasing speed....is that correct?



I dont really understand Your question.

The Light from both the lazors will travel With the same speed "always". The rear light will travel behind the front light Equal to the distance they are situated on the platfrom traveling at 6000m/s.

If you travel at 6000m/s and measure the speed of light from the lazors on the platfrom you will read 299,792,458m/s

But if you travel at 6000m/s and measure the speed of light from a stationary lazor. You will read the speed of light minus the platform speed of 6000m/s.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Korg Trinity

It dosent say that they have done the Experiment to prove the theory.



It has happened already in the LHC and many many times, just by accident.

What Breit and Wheeler are talking about is building a specific photonic collider.

Korg.


edit on 15-10-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66


But if you travel at 6000m/s and measure the speed of light from a stationary lazor. You will read the speed of light minus the platform speed of 6000m/s.



This is not correct.

If you were to measure the speed of light from all frames of reference the speed would not change. only the frequency of the light would differ.

Do you see?

Korg.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Korg Trinity

It dosent say that they have done the Experiment to prove the theory.



It has happened already in the LHC and many many times, just by accident.

What Breit and Wheeler are talking about is building a specific photonic collider.

Korg.



Okay. I just read Your post, didnt think much past it sorry



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: spy66


But if you travel at 6000m/s and measure the speed of light from a stationary lazor. You will read the speed of light minus the platform speed of 6000m/s.



This is not correct.

If you were to measure the speed of light from all frames of reference the speed would not change. only the frequency of the light would differ.

Do you see?

Korg.


Correct, the speed of light would still travel at 299,792,458m/s. But since the platform where you measure the speed from is traveling at 6000m/s you will not read 299,792,458m/s.

The speed of light will seam slower by 6000m/s. That is if the messuring Device is callibrated as zero at 6000m/s.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: spy66


But if you travel at 6000m/s and measure the speed of light from a stationary lazor. You will read the speed of light minus the platform speed of 6000m/s.



This is not correct.

If you were to measure the speed of light from all frames of reference the speed would not change. only the frequency of the light would differ.

Do you see?

Korg.


Correct, the speed of light would still travel at 299,792,458m/s. But since the platform where you measure the speed from is traveling at 6000m/s you will not read 299,792,458m/s.

The speed of light will seam slower by 6000m/s. That is if the messuring Device is callibrated as zero at 6000m/s.


No it wouldn't... I know it's counter intuitive... but the speed of light would still measure 299,792,458m/s.

The speed of Light is Constant.

Korg.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 04:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: spy66


But if you travel at 6000m/s and measure the speed of light from a stationary lazor. You will read the speed of light minus the platform speed of 6000m/s.



This is not correct.

If you were to measure the speed of light from all frames of reference the speed would not change. only the frequency of the light would differ.

Do you see?

Korg.


Correct, the speed of light would still travel at 299,792,458m/s. But since the platform where you measure the speed from is traveling at 6000m/s you will not read 299,792,458m/s.

The speed of light will seam slower by 6000m/s. That is if the messuring Device is callibrated as zero at 6000m/s.


No it wouldn't... I know it's counter intuitive... but the speed of light would still measure 299,792,458m/s.

The speed of Light is Constant.

Korg.



Yes the speed of light is constant.

Lets say you travel in a car at 50km/h and beside you have an other car moving at 50km/h. If you look out the window you will observe the car as if it was satnding still. Even though both are moving at 50 km/h.

If you slow down to 48 km/h the care will pass you With a speed differential of 2 km/h. If the referance point of measurement is zero at 50km/h. The car passing you will pass you With the speed of 2 km/h. Not 50 km/h.


If the platfrom With the lazors speed up to almoste the speed of light. The distance between the light and the platform will become almoste constant becasue the light is constant as soon as it leaves its Source.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 04:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: spy66


But if you travel at 6000m/s and measure the speed of light from a stationary lazor. You will read the speed of light minus the platform speed of 6000m/s.



This is not correct.

If you were to measure the speed of light from all frames of reference the speed would not change. only the frequency of the light would differ.

Do you see?

Korg.


Correct, the speed of light would still travel at 299,792,458m/s. But since the platform where you measure the speed from is traveling at 6000m/s you will not read 299,792,458m/s.

The speed of light will seam slower by 6000m/s. That is if the messuring Device is callibrated as zero at 6000m/s.


No it wouldn't... I know it's counter intuitive... but the speed of light would still measure 299,792,458m/s.

The speed of Light is Constant.

Korg.



Yes the speed of light is constant.

Lets say you travel in a car at 50km/h and beside you have an other car moving at 50km/h. If you look out the window you will observe the car as if it was satnding still. Even though both are moving at 50 km/h.

If you slow down to 48 km/h the care will pass you With a speed differential of 2 km/h. If the referance point of measurement is zero at 50km/h. The car passing you will pass you With the speed of 2 km/h. Not 50 km/h.



That is true for matter but it is not true for light.

I have already explained this HERE

Please review the following.



Do you follow?

Korg.


edit on 16-10-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity



There is something in this video that are not true.HERE

Newton was not wrong about; if an even happeneds in the universe it happeneds for everybody.

Because, the nature/state of the univserse Depends on what perspective you take as the video state. Newton is only wrong when you use the perspective of the location of one or two observers relative to the event. A event can take Place within Our universe non the less if the observers observed the event or not. It is not like the event never happened. Its just that the observers didnt learn about it.

I liked the light cone perspective, that was informative. This also confirmes that Newton is right. A event can take Place without a observer knowing about it.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Korg Trinity



There is something in this video that are not true.HERE

Newton was not wrong about; if an even happeneds in the universe it happeneds for everybody.

Because, the nature/state of the univserse Depends on what perspective you take as the video state. Newton is only wrong when you use the perspective of the location of one or two observers relative to the event. A event can take Place within Our universe non the less if the observers observed the event or not. It is not like the event never happened. Its just that the observers didnt learn about it.

I liked the light cone perspective, that was informative. This also confirmes that Newton is right. A event can take Place without a observer knowing about it.






You are misunderstanding Special Relativity (SR).

Light speed is light speed from all frames of reference.

Have a look over the famous Michelson-Morley Experiment

Have a read about SR HERE


In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the accepted physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time. It is based on two postulates:

(1) that the laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference); and
(2) that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.

It was originally proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein in the paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".[1]

The inconsistency of Newtonian mechanics with Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism and the inability to discover Earth's motion through a luminiferous aether led to the development of special relativity, which corrects mechanics to handle situations involving motions nearing the speed of light.

As of today, special relativity is the most accurate model of motion at any speed. Even so, Newtonian mechanics is still useful (due to its simplicity and high accuracy) as an approximation at small velocities relative to the speed of light.


Korg.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
So the energy that a photon has in Noreaster's example is expended on increasing wavelength, not increasing speed....is that correct?



Nope. DEcreasing wavelength. You add energy to a photon, the wavelength gets shorter.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
So the energy that a photon has in Noreaster's example is expended on increasing wavelength, not increasing speed....is that correct?



Nope. DEcreasing wavelength. You add energy to a photon, the wavelength gets shorter.


already covered dude



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join