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.

 

The 'Controversial' Speed of Light-Phenomenon

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
TN1

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Dear Friends,

I have noticed that there is an extensive interest about the nature, properties, and origin, of the speed of light, but lets make things as simple as possible.

Indeed, the concept of light is not the easiest to understand, despite the fact that we experience light & its properties every single day of our lives, and without doubt, light is the most importnant element of our existence.

Let's start with the most basics, before the so called 'Big-Bang' or the Big explosion in scientific terms, matter and radiation were trapped together in a state we don't really understand. Try now to think how matter can exist together with radiation, it is amazing!!! I am trying hard but i don't know if what i am thinking is correct.

Anyway, the light as you probably know is just one form of radiation, as the matter of fact visible radiation. The invisible part consists of UV, Infrared, Microwaves, X-rays, gamma-rays, television & Radio waves. Therefore different frequencies & wavelengths apply for all the above.

The most important for all the above is that they do travel with the standard speed of light C. Something else, when for example light passes though mediums its speed is decreasing, the denser the medium the more the refraction, so it is not a mystery that the speed of light changes when it interacts with matter.

What you probably want to know is mainly related to the fact that the speed of light is assumed to be a constant in nature (i.e never changes)

After the big explosion the speed of light was different from what is today, greater than it is today. After the passage of time, imagine that the universe have had 'states of phase', like the gas, liguid, and solid state. At the beginning it was very hot, and the formation of particles were not that easy, especially the heavy particles, after some time the universe became cooler, and then heavier particles appeared.

Therefore as time goes on, the universe becomes cooler and cooler, and it is more likely in the future to observe heavier particles. The speed of light is indeed accossiated with the speed of light, and it is likely that in the future (not near of course) the universe will become more cool, this will have an effect on the speed of light.

For the time being the speed of light is constant and there is no doubt about that.

If the universe continues to cool down then the speed will definitely change, but we are talking about a very long period of time.

On the light of the above statements, the speed of light is a constant of nature because nothing can exceed this particular speed (* there are plenty of SCIENTIFIC DOUBTS ONLY), even in billions of years from now it will be a constant (but with a different value), since it is unilkely something to exceed its speed.

As for the whormhole theory, as a scientist i am open-minded, but i am very skeptic about it since there is no much evidence (i.e mathematical proof) but yoy never know in physics........

Thanks for listening,

TN1



TN1

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Dear All,

I have made a mistake when i am saying that the speed of light is accossiated with....

I mean with the state of the universe, i.e how hot or cold the universe is



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Hi TN1,

Is it reduction of the speed of light due to the reduction of the temperature in the universe alone or due to the amount of heavier and denser "stuff" being formed as a result of the universe cooling?



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Hubble's constant is predicated on the "fact" that the speed of light is 167,000 mps, and that is key to observational analysis of the red shift spectrology method of estimating the age of the universe, and that the rate of expansion is speeding up.
I think your question is valid; that conditions we are incapable of viewing or the time scale or gravitatonal effects may have an effect on light speed that we can not comprehend.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   
good post!

Realist mmm maybe not as C is actually usually stated as 186,000 mps

The whole principles of mechanistic 'constants' of the universe is being veiwed differantly since quantum theory has entered our understanding.

Where, in what form, and the ability or not to measure any true all emcompassing materialisticaly divisible phenominum that is a fixed constant will be of much debate and shifts in understanding in the near future. When we measure this velocity of the photons we cant really say where in space and time it is, and when we measure exactly where in space and time that photon is we cant measure its speed.

Anyhow that being that there is much we dont really understand and there seems to be much more going on in the backround than we ever imagined, but as this merging of understanding takes place in science all we can do at the moment is look at from those too viewpoints i.e. Traditional Physics or The Quantum World. The first has many provable, observable, quantifiable phenominum that we have used to build our knowledge of the Universe, The second door of understanding our Universe has only just been opened and we are only just peeking through it ajar slighlty but it is closer to reality and the true goal of physics than the traditional models and theories.

Some things to ponder then for you....Scientists recently seperated a pair of protons from a atomic necleus, one was sent to the USA. Now the important thing to rember is that they were like twins created together bound together until they were seperated. Then they effected a change on one of the protons, immediately with no delay at all the other proton in the USA reacted to that change. well this has brought u some questions about our understanding of the Universe as 1, how could that one event in one place effect something else at a distance with no known communication messenger e.g. another particle or wave zipping across the atlantic and telling it about the change.... how does it know? And of course secondly as no measurable time was observed between the effects on both protons whatever that messenger or communication that went on between the two particles certainly was travelling faster than the speed of light. It seems instantaneous.

Right so running away scared from the quantum room back into our perception, slamming the door behind me feeling reasured that it feels heavy and solid and safe as it shuts (though knowing that there is really nothing solid, its all space man
and positive and negative charges and waves of energy just organised well lol)

...well back here yep things do affect C really you cant talk about C without relativity but thats a whole new thread, ultimately though realtivity brings in gravity and time which both affect C and yes you are correct that it seems to be changing from the observations over the past 200 yrs.

Something interesting here though about the whole thread focus



Dr. Hau, with Dr. Steve E. Harris of Stanford University and two of Dr. Hau's Harvard students, reported the results of their experiment in which a beam of laser light was slowed to the astonishingly low speed of 38 miles an hour. (By comparison, light in a vacuum travels about 186,000 miles per second.) Dr. Hau's laboratory at the Rowland Institute for Science in Cambridge (where she conducts research with the help of her graduate and post-doctoral students from Harvard) ) is one of a handful of organizations studying the interactions of lasers with a very peculiar kind of matter called a Bose-Einstein condensate. It was by shining precisely tuned lasers on such a condensate, or cloud, of ultra-cold sodium atoms that Dr. Hau and her team reduced the speed of a light beam to a pace slower than her bicycle.

Nature

As you may be aware the above as using the bose-einstien condensate which was created at as near as possible to absolute zero increased the Uncertainty Principle (quantum effects) of the locational possibility/probability of the sodium atoms and their constituents. As the Sodium atoms are so cold they loose their velocity to nearly zero, however this means that the probability of where the sodium atoms and constituents are increase. Therefore when the Laser is fired through this area which ive tried to describe properly above there is more probabilty over a larger area of the loaction of the sodium constiuents, this slows down the photons by defraction and quantum magenetic,electric and probaly gravititational (though minute g) effects.

Think ive maybe covered some of your initial questions now ive stepped back into this room lol, hope so.



Infact all of the constants that affected by or interact with C are changing!! which is to say the least a tad worrying!



The fine structure constant determines what kind of light atoms absorb and emit and how well they hold together. Its current value of roughly 1/137 can’t have changed too much in the past six million years or we wouldn’t be here to talk about it: a variation of the constant by as little as a factor of 10 would render carbon atoms, the building blocks of life, unstable


Source

Right im getting out of here back into that alice in wonderland room of the Quantum Universe

MischeviouslyLightingACandle



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
What kind of scientist are you? Where do you work, and what are you researching right now? (just out of curiosity, I don't usually call myself a scientist, but that's what I'm labeled as I suppose).


TN1

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Dear Friend,

You have asked me a few questions regarding my background in physics and maths.

I am very open to all questions and very pleased to answer.

I did a first four-year course in physics and astrophysics, and then i embarked in a series of programs, like a diploma in mathematics, a master in mathematical physics, a master in education, and finally i am preparing my thesis in the field of mathematical analysis, but also i am very interested in quentum mechanics, and quantum field theory.

Any other questions are very welcome.

TN1



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
You did a four year course in Astrophysics and Physics with Mathematical courses too, and it takes a layman to explain to you that C is not constant....and even to mention Quantum Mechanics or theory mmm doubt it.... however I will give you one chance to prove your knowledge again there is one key event/thing that you failed to mention about the beginning of the universe, probably the most important event/time...

what is it Dr Spock?

ps people with Masters in the Sciences dont usually make statments like:




light is the most importnant element of our existence.


Is light an Element? IMHO No person with Higher Education in these subjects would describe light as elemental.

The challenge is presented... if you will?


MischeviouslyDefendingReality



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Interesting material- about the beginning of time, before the big bang- how and why would you even try to comprehend what there "was" before the big bang- it is impossible. Also "matter" and "radiation" probably were not in existence before the big bang and a real mathematician or scientists wouldn't have said "matter co-existing with radiation" (an absurd and stupid statement) To the person who talked about the two protons reacting continents apart- can i see the article, and it probably had to do with quantum mechanics. And since this discussion is about light.... if light is a wave how come it can move across a space that is filled with nothing?????? One of the classic questions of light. Also one person said that it is impossible to actually "see" and "know" where protons or electrons are- that is called "wave probablility" scientists can only PREDICT where an electron or proton might be, but they can never actually "know" where it will be or "see" it.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TN1
What you probably want to know is mainly related to the fact that the speed of light is assumed to be a constant in nature (i.e never changes)

After the big explosion the speed of light was different from what is today, greater than it is today. After the passage of time, imagine that the universe have had 'states of phase', like the gas, liguid, and solid state. At the beginning it was very hot, and the formation of particles were not that easy, especially the heavy particles, after some time the universe became cooler, and then heavier particles appeared.

Therefore as time goes on, the universe becomes cooler and cooler, and it is more likely in the future to observe heavier particles. The speed of light is indeed accossiated with the speed of light, and it is likely that in the future (not near of course) the universe will become more cool, this will have an effect on the speed of light.

For the time being the speed of light is constant and there is no doubt about that.

If the universe continues to cool down then the speed will definitely change, but we are talking about a very long period of time.


The only people making this claim that the speed of light has not been constant throughout the entire age of the universe are the creationists trying to explain what we see out there in context with their ridiculous claim that the universe is only 6,000 years old.

There has never been any evidence presented by any scientist that would indicate that the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant for all time. On the contrary, all of the Theory of Relativity is based on this fact.


Originally posted by MischeviousElf...When we measure this velocity of the photons we cant really say where in space and time it is, and when we measure exactly where in space and time that photon is we cant measure its speed.


It is certainly true that we cannot measure the momentum and position of a photon simultaneously. This absolutely does not mean that we cannot measure the speed of a beam of photons. It is the close examination that fails, not the examination in the macro world.

Harte



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   
TN1 Well no reply so I will say 'Inflation' was what I was thinking



Approximately 10-35 seconds after the Planck epoch, a phase transition caused the universe to experience exponential growth during a period called cosmic inflation.

Source

This is seen as a very important part of the early stages of the Universe, ultimately in a nutshell the original Big Bang was awe imspiring impressive and liberated massive amounts of energy but it was a damp squib in comparison to what happened during inflation. mmm imagine now lighting a match imagine all its heat and energy.... now imagine a Nuke going of in your hand.... thats a suitable anology. The stuff (cosmic backround radiation) that scientists have measured is mainly the signature of the inflation period rather than the time between the Big Bang and Inflation. The way the energy was distributed and amounts therein during the Inflation phase is what eventually cooled and coalesed into matter into the very first Stars and eventually Galaxies. Im sure you will agree that this was an important time in the early universe?

TN1 dont get dispondant now on your ability or knowledge of these matters, visit some links below take what you find to be true and add to your knowledge. It is very interesting and attempts to understand both the big questions of where everything came from the Cosmic Questions and also helps us to make sense of the insanely undescribable nature of reality and how we percieve it.

Hey feel free to U2U me with if I can help you on anything really.

You dont need to have a diploma, qualification, in addition age, race or your socio economic situation none of these things make anyones thoughts or ideas have more meaning than someone who dosent, listen dont loose who you are have pride in yourself not what you think other people ar impressed by or will bow too.

TN1 if you are 100% honest with yourself if you would have posted some of your theories and ideas on Light and asked for discussion then you would have gained the very thing you were trying to get from your false persona.... respect and maybe some admiration for your thoughts and who you are too.... dont like to mention it TN1 but dont think thats happened here eh?

As said visit the links below:
TheWickedWikipea
HubbleDeepField & BigBang EDU
Imperial Science College - Varying Speeds of Light not a Constant! PDF FILE
Brilliant Site Visit This One Loads of Good Info on Light Relativity and Quantum stuff

Njoy

Elf
MischeviouslyDefendingReality



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   
There is no way this guy is a scientist with the academic qualifications claimed.

He sounds like a teenager who has just read an elementary physics book and has understood the first page.




The invisible part consists of UV, Infrared, Microwaves, X-rays, gamma-rays, television & Radio waves


Television waves?!!



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DonkeyPlopPlop



The invisible part consists of UV, Infrared, Microwaves, X-rays, gamma-rays, television & Radio waves


Television waves?!!



TBH I am still chortling about that after 10 minutes of reading it, just due to that being my almost exact same reaction



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DonkeyPlopPlop


Television waves?!!


Actually, before you guys make a donkey out of yourself, you should know that a television signal is transmitted on FM and an AM band. So YES, television signals ARE waves. What did you think they were? Dots?

TN1 may have been just reading from a book, but at least he is trying to enlighten some dullards around here instead of kicking someone in the gut for misspelling.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Yes, televisions signals are waves - radio waves.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Very true all thats the interesting thing underlying the whole of reality both physical and consciousness, waves of energy, divide an atom or particle and keep dividing the 'matter' that you think is appearing/manifesting and you find waves of energy, thats all there really is guys... infact the whole of the reality that we experiance and manipulate is nothing more than space and waves of energy.... but hey I know it dont feel or look like that when a hammer hits your thumb, its hard, solid and heavy.. but really?

TV signals are indeed waves very much soo. Other things we eat and cuddle and drive and mine that appear solid are in reality just waves too.

MischeviouslySurfingWaves:-)


TN1

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Dear Friends,

Thanks for your replies, they are very interesting & some of them really challenging!!!

Let's start with the most simple argument: Waves!!!

Yes, indeed radiation consists of the invisible & visible part, and in the invisible part we can have: radio & tv waves, UV, infrared, microwaves, x-rays, and gamma rays.

As for my educational background, i leave this to your own discretion...

As for the speed of light, you must search a lot to find out what is true, what it might be true, and what is not true at all.

I refered to 'element' for the speed of light, not with the usual meaning of the word, i.e chemical element for example, and by the way it is still the most important 'characteristic' of our existence.

The other equally important characteristic is the fact that there is more matter than antimatter in the universe, that's why we experience a 'materialistic' world & universe.

As for the speed of light, indeed it is always constant in the vacuum
(300,000km/s) but what about in a long period of time?? is it going to have the same value as it has today?? I leave this to you.

Thanks for your replies

TN1



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Um, the speed of light is a constant, and it is understood to be in a vacuum, that should not have to be clarified. I also have been through a 4-year physics and mathematics program.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I am fully aware that TV signals are transmitted using radio waves. They are not, however, called 'television waves'!

I made the point because anyone with the academic qualification this person claimed would not use such obviously incorrect terminology.

The guy lied about his academic qualifications. What's wrong with anyone pointing this out?


TN1

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Dear Friends,

A person with no academic qualifications, and furthermore knowledge, in a sense, since no-one is able to know everything and express his/her opinion about anything will not know some things like: (whatever it comes to my mind right now, which is difficult to dublicate from a book or read from several books and just copy them)

Heat Equation
Wave Equation
Laplace Equation
Tricomi Equation
Bernouli Equation
Burger's Equation

Abelian Groups
Isomorphic Groups
Cyclic Groups
Fourier Series
Laplace & Fourier Transforms
Monte Carlo Simulation
Power Series

Convergence & Divergence of a field
Grad-Curl-Div
Scalars & Vectors
E = c B
E = 3/2 KT
E = - dv/dt (and others)

Method of Differences for Solution of Series
Newton-Rapson Approximation
Linear Interpolation
Iterative Methods/Numerical Analysis
Simpson & Trapezium Rule
Numerov Aproach ( Very rare, not even in the books)

Ricci Tensor
Affine Structure
Cosmological Constant
Curvature of spacetime
Inflation

1 st order differential equations
2 nd order differential equations
Separation of variables
Exact differential-Non Exact Differentials
Homogeneous differential equation
Non Homogeneous differential equation & Particular Integral
Euler Cauchy Differerential equation

A particle in a box
A particle in a sphere
Differential operators
Norm of a vector
Dim of a system of homogeneous equations (algebra)
Momentum & Energy operators

Momentum operator = - i h d/dx
Energy operator = ( I don't remember!!!)
Uncertainty principle DpDx = h/2 (or almost equal to h/2)

And many others.....

But for last i have a very good question for you, and those who are interested in maths:

Evaluate the integral between 0 (zero) and 1 (one) of the function

F(x) = ln x ln (1-x)

There are four different ways you can deal with the problem but there must be others as well as the four i have suggested.

Yours,

TN1




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join