It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# The Faster Than Light Issue

page: 6
17
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 02:21 PM

originally posted by: TheRedneck

I am impressed.

However, you fail to mention that momentum is a function of mass multiplied by velocity. A particle with no mass also has no momentum (which light demonstrably does).

TheRedneck

The equation P=M*V

(P)Momentum, (M)Mass, (V)Velocity

is useful but not a straight plug and chug for all circumstances.

In the case of light, it's "Duality" as both particle and wave expresses it's momentum in a different equation.

P = h/lamda

to account for the duality.

h = Plank's constant (Energy of photon divided by Freq) 6.62607004 × 10-34 m2 kg / s

lamda = Wavelength (Specifically "de Brogile" measurement which has to do with probabilities/quantum mechanics that I haven't taken the time to investigate and fully understand)

So P (momentum) is measured with light as a function of Energy, Frequency and Wavelength, but not mass.

So we have:

E^2 = P^2C^2 + M^2C^4

Where P (momentum) = h/lamda

Simplified we can express the energy of light as E=hf

E = Energy
h = Plank's Constant
f = Frequency
edit on 21-9-2019 by Extorris because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 05:56 PM

Nice explanation. I am familiar with the derivation.

Now, let us look at the implications.

Suppose a light beam of energy 1 unit and wavelength of 300 nm is traveling through space (I used one "unit" because I'm tired of tedious calculations for today). The source is sitting still with respect to the observer, so the observer sees the light as having one unit of energy based on E-hf. Now suppose the same observer begins moving away from the source at a substantial speed. The light is still moving at velocity c relative to the observer, but the frequency is now red-shifted. The observer now sees the exact same beam of light as having a wavelength longer than 300 nm and thus an energy of less than 1 unit.

Now assume the observer can move at the speed of light relative to the source. He will now see the light beam moving at velocity c, but with a frequency and thus energy of zero. In other words, the light will cease to exist.

Whether one looks at the light as having a mass equivalent or being pure energy (my position), there is no logical explanation for the exact same beam of light to contain different energy based on the velocity of the observer. Yet, it will. We have evidence from observations of other galaxies that light will tend to red-shift or blue-shift in frequency based on relative velocity, and of course E= hf is in wide use in solar power and has been proven quite accurate.

My point being, the equations are incomplete. They work for us thus far, but they also make implications which do not make sense.

TheRedneck

posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 10:58 PM

That one's a thinker. I appreciate the riddle and am hoping there is no easy answer.

Will have to get back to you when my neurons have the requisite energy and speed. I am tired and wet after a long night in the rain.

posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 11:16 PM

Yes, it is a thinker.

In reality, everything we think we know about speed of light travel is hypothesis only. We have some information from indirect sources (observations made concerning EM radiation, like the fact that GPS satellites require a relativity-based compensation to their internal clocks to stay aligned with surface time), but no one has ever actually come close to experiencing velocities where relativity matters.

In 1687 Isaac Newton published his Laws of Motion. For over two centuries science progressed based on Newton. In 1905, Albert Einstein developed his Special Theory of Relativity that showed Newton was incomplete; his equations did not work at velocities close to c. Since then, science has progressed based on both Newton and Einstein. I postulate that Einstein's equations as well are incomplete... not wrong, but also unable to answer questions concerning some situations.

Take your time. I have literally spent decades trying to understand how light actually works, and I'm still not completely there.

TheRedneck

posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 11:56 PM

I am familiar with the search for a unified theory and have off and on dabbled in some deep thought on the matter when leisure time has afforded.

The book that helped me most on relativity:

www.amazon.com...

And I HIGHLY recommend it. It comes at relativity from an intuitive, visual perspective not found in virtually any other texts that sometimes delight in over complicating explanations. Light on math, heavy on conceptualizing.

I am also a fan of Richard Feynman and recommend his books and writing. He too had no patience for explanations that were more complicated than they needed to be. He has an almost "street" or "heretic" vibe to how plainly he explains concepts combined with an indisputable brilliance.

I have always believed we are all scientists and often the scientific community behaves like Church of old who only published the bible in Latin so that the commoner would have to bow to the priest to hear and know God's will. I have no patience for overly exotic language employed in explanations when not necessary. Knowledge hoarding for petty ego while pretending to be explaining things...or something like that.

"Relativity Visualized" is a fun book. Packed full of deep insights explained very simply.
edit on 21-9-2019 by Extorris because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 22 2019 @ 12:03 AM

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Take your time. I have literally spent decades trying to understand how light actually works, and I'm still not completely there.

TheRedneck

Catch me late enough, and tired enough, like now and I will go spiritual on you with relativity.

When we are alive we have mass, when we are not, we are light. Sometimes we have faint glimmers of memories of when we were light and call that God.

I might be half asleep now. Signing off.

And look into the Higgs Boson and Higgs Field.

I suspect clues there to a unified theory.
edit on 22-9-2019 by Extorris because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 22 2019 @ 07:25 PM

That does sound like an interesting book. I may have to look into getting a copy.

I have always believed we are all scientists and often the scientific community behaves like Church of old who only published the bible in Latin so that the commoner would have to bow to the priest to hear and know God's will. I have no patience for overly exotic language employed in explanations when not necessary. Knowledge hoarding for petty ego while pretending to be explaining things...or something like that.

In this, you speak the truth.

I came at the problem from a slightly different perspective. I carried Einstein's "space elevator" thought experiment forward and found a contradiction. From there I began to question what gravity really is, which led me to what actually constitutes mass. And of course, all that led into the study of light and Relativity. My conclusions thus far would already fill a decent sized book, so I'll not go into the boring details here... suffice it to say I have found insight into everything from quantum entanglement to dark matter/energy.

Perhaps someday I'll consider it sufficient to publish...

TheRedneck

posted on Sep, 22 2019 @ 08:22 PM

Two different measurements for energy depending on frames of reference.

Relativity and such.

Like two different measurements of time in Einsteins thought experiments.

One man on a train with a watch speeding by another on the platform standing still. The train rider's watch hand moves not only one second forward but the distance the train has traveled. The man on the train only takes one step forward in one second, but to the observer on the platform the man on the train covered a long distance in the one step as the train sped by.

The Doppler effect is worth thinking about here as it is sound waves compressed as the motorcycle approaches you and sound waves stretched once past and receding away. For the the motorcycle the sound is consistent.

Red shift and blue shift are compression and expansions of light waves or frequency dependent on the motion of the observer. Thus "energy" that reaches the observer is dependent on their motion or "frame of reference".

My explanation deserves to be thought out better. It is off the top of my head, but I haven't had time to think deeply or research my answer for flaws and wanted to offer you an answer of some sort.
edit on 22-9-2019 by Extorris because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 02:20 PM
Photons from a turned-on flashlight exhibit thrust...therefore photon propulsion is feasible.

posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 02:29 PM

Yes, that is a good description of the Doppler effect and the frequency shifting of light. And I have no problem waiting for an answer on this. As I stated, I have spent decades on it. It would be hypocritical to expect someone else to come up with what took me decades in mere moments.

Your explanation mirrors my thinking, however. Relativity applies to mass, but I believe there is a similar relativity equivalent for energy as well. More specifically, Relativity describes the effect of speeds approaching c, not the cause of the effects. That cause is what I search for, since when we understand the cause we will be more able to understand the full range of the effects.

TheRedneck

posted on Sep, 25 2019 @ 03:52 AM

I think its all dependent on gravitational wells and celestialbodies( stars, planets) can be linked or used to jump from one part of space to another. I've seen the paper example. Where you have two dots on a sheet of paper and want to go from one to another. Instead of goint from one to another linearly, you fold the paper so that the dots are touching one another. I've never thought of time as more than a measurement of change of matter. You fry an egg on a stove and it goes from raw to done to burned. You measure the time it takes to go from one state to another, time really isn't much different than a scale weighing something. But I'm no physicist.

posted on Sep, 25 2019 @ 03:54 AM

Instead of goint from one to another linearly, you fold the paper so that the dots are touching one another.

Yeah. A Wrinkle In Time just might be the story that got me into science fiction. I remember my 2nd grade teacher reading it to us.

posted on Sep, 25 2019 @ 04:02 AM

Relativity describes the effect of speeds approaching c, not the cause of the effects.

Actually it does.
The cause is that everything, except the speed of light, is relative. It's implicit.

edit on 9/25/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 25 2019 @ 04:45 AM

originally posted by: Phage

Relativity describes the effect of speeds approaching c, not the cause of the effects.

Actually it does.
The cause is that everything, except the speed of light, is relative. It's implicit.

The problem is, excluding the speed of light because it is a postulate of the theory does not allow the theory to explain why light has the same speed for everyone. It's a given. True, but still unexplained by Special Relativity because it assumes it as an experimentally established fact.

What we need is a deeper theory that predicts the results of measurements, not assumes them as postulates.

posted on Sep, 25 2019 @ 07:29 AM

Imho the maximum speed arises implicitly from spacetime. With unlimited speed space/distance and time/duration have no meaning. So for a spacetime to exist, there has to be a speed limit (to the propagation of actions/events). Light is simply matter interacting with other matter at maximum speed.

posted on Sep, 26 2019 @ 08:06 PM

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Phage

Relativity describes the effect of speeds approaching c, not the cause of the effects.

Actually it does.
The cause is that everything, except the speed of light, is relative. It's implicit.

The problem is, excluding the speed of light because it is a postulate of the theory does not allow the theory to explain why light has the same speed for everyone. It's a given. True, but still unexplained by Special Relativity because it assumes it as an experimentally established fact.

What we need is a deeper theory that predicts the results of measurements, not assumes them as postulates.

If there were a theory that explained why light speed is constant in every reference frame, that theory would have it's own assumptions. That's how theories are in Physics.
Would you accept those assumptions?
I mean, this is infinite regression of "incomplete" theories otherwise.

Harte

posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 02:58 PM
I've been enjoying this thread. Keep going. Its fascinating.

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 08:41 PM
8300 times the speed of light is still not fast enough.

Even considering the fastest "transwarp" (or "beyond warp") speed achieved by the Enterprise, which is about 8,323 times light speed, according to "Star Trek: The Next Generation — Technical Manual," a transgalactic voyage would take 24 years. A transwarp voyage to Andromeda, which is the nearest galaxy to ours at about 2.5 million light-years away, would last about 300 years.

Source

Harte
edit on 10/9/2019 by Harte because: of the wonderful things he does!

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 09:09 PM
My mind always wanders to black holes when we talk about light speed.

And heres what boggles my mind. Light speed is supposed to be the fastest observable movement in the known universe, until said light meets event horizon of mister black hole. Then gravity wins, and if light is unable to escape, then my meager little mind says that the opposite force must be equal to or even greater to not only stop light, but reverse its speed enough that it would be unable to escape the grasps of the black hole.

So which is actually faster? The Speed of Light or the momentum of gravity at a black hole? I would say the black hole wins, simply because we observe just that effect!

Dont know if theres anything to that, but I cant help but always going there when I hear talks of FTL Travel.
edit on 9-10-2019 by phishfriar47 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:10 AM

Light doesn't stop beyond the event horizon.

Look at it like this: when escape velocity exceeds the speed of light it means that light has gone into orbit around the center of gravity. At the speed of light.

edit on 10/10/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

17