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.

Light speed nonrelative

page: 1
0
share:

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 07:01 AM
I think I just found a reason why the light has the same speed no matter which frame of reference you measure it in. Infact any object travelling at c should have the same speed ( c ) viewed in any frame of reference.
It has to be the same because of the law of the conservation of Action.
If a photon is viewed, it should have a length of zero because of relative length contraction. We would see the photon to have 0 length. This means its hyper rectangular area or Action is also 0. If anyone saw a photon from his ref frame to have a different speed and not c. This would violate the law of the conservation of action, because now he would see the photon to have a actual length, and therefore it will have a hyper rectangular Area, and will have action. But the action is the same in every ref frame, so this would violate the law. In order to obey the law, objects at light speed like the photon, should have light speed measured in any ref frame, just like observations prove.

What do you think, does it work theoretically ?

[edit on 20-5-2006 by siddharthsma]

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 09:10 AM

Originally posted by siddharthsma
I think I just found a reason why the light has the same speed no matter which frame of reference you measure it in. Infact any object travelling at c should have the same speed ( c ) viewed in any frame of reference.
It has to be the same because of the law of the conservation of Action.
If a photon is viewed, it should have a length of zero because of relative length contraction. We would see the photon to have 0 length. This means its hyper rectangular area or Action is also 0. If anyone saw a photon from his ref frame to have a different speed and not c. This would violate the law of the conservation of action, because now he would see the photon to have a actual length...

But a photon, being a point particle, has no length by definition. So it cannot possibly follow that a violation of the "Law of Action" results from viewing a photon with length, there's no such thing as a "photon" with an "actual length."

Harte

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 12:36 AM
Ok, I've thought of something that proves that there is something fishy about the Law of the conservation of Action ( Energy *Time). Tell me what you think about it.
Click on the link below :

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 05:22 AM
siddharthsma, your external image is in a terrible format. Change it from a .bmp (bitmap, which is very inefficient) to something like a .jpg .gif or .png (something of that sort).

As far as the content of the picture, I can't really say that I'm that interested in problems concerning 'light'. I'm not particularly convinced that we have a good handle on the concept, seeing that we are still arguing over photons and wavelengths and electron emission and lepton properties and possible links with string theory and so on.

So my general view is that relativity should probably be discussed AFTER the scientific community can come to a better understand of the whole subject. The old two slit experiment that most physicists use to understand the properties of light is probably not the best way to get a concrete understanding of it. Maybe that's just my opinion.

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 06:30 AM
You said.

So my general view is that relativity should probably be discussed AFTER the scientific community can come to a better understand of the whole subject.

I say, WE ARE THE FUTURE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. It is we who must strive to come to a better understanding of the subject. I therefore, see that is is only beneficial to us that we discuss such issues. Don't you want to be part of the people who come up with an answer to these problems ? Don't you want to be part of the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY that will eventually solve the problems of Physics and come up with a final theory of the Universe once and for all ? Or do you want to wait for somebody else to come up with an answer. It would be pointless discussing the subject once everybody knows about it. The excitement of the dicussions would be gone.

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 09:08 AM

Originally posted by siddharthsma
Ok, I've thought of something that proves that there is something fishy about the Law of the conservation of Action ( Energy *Time). Tell me what you think about it.
Click on the link below :

img157.imageshack.us...

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 03:39 PM

Originally posted by siddharthsma
You said.

So my general view is that relativity should probably be discussed AFTER the scientific community can come to a better understand of the whole subject.

I say, WE ARE THE FUTURE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. It is we who must strive to come to a better understanding of the subject. I therefore, see that is is only beneficial to us that we discuss such issues. Don't you want to be part of the people who come up with an answer to these problems ? Don't you want to be part of the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY that will eventually solve the problems of Physics and come up with a final theory of the Universe once and for all ? Or do you want to wait for somebody else to come up with an answer. It would be pointless discussing the subject once everybody knows about it. The excitement of the dicussions would be gone.

Being an (ex)member of the scientific community, I'd recommend understanding science before trying to advance it or creating a theory from the ground up.

In your claim, what is your hypothesis? What data have you collected? Have you run this through the existing theories (Mathematically)?

Also, "because it violates a law" is never a reason for something. That is circular logic. A "Law" is created because something never happens.

In other words, the Conservation of Action is supported by your observation. Rather than your observation being explain by the law.

Conservation laws are supported by nearly every observation, including this one.

You are on the right path, and clearly curious and willing to read. Keep that up, but wait til you have a lot under your belt before you try to revolutionize anything.

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:17 AM

I'd recommend understanding science before trying to advance it or creating a theory from the ground up.

but wait til you have a lot under your belt before you try to revolutionize anything.

Yes, you're right. I don't want to sound arrogant. I am not trying to say that Einstein is wrong and that my diagram proves it. What I am presenting in my diagram, is just a thought that came into my mind.

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 03:59 AM
Einstein is not wrong, the hydrogen/atomic bomb worked didn't it? Light is the cosmic speed limit so to speak. An object's mass increases as it approaches the speed of light meaning more and more energy are required to achieve that speed, but it never can because lightspeed is absolute so an object's mass would become absolute, meaning, it could not be moved at that speed; it would become immoveable. Photons have no mass, hence it seems logical that a particle travelling with no mass would have the highest velocity.

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 04:22 AM
Okay I have a question:

Why and how does an object's mass increase? I'm sure it might mathematically, but it still has it's original mass.

Explain it to me...I've never understood it.

Without knowing, I don't see how an apple traveling at lightspeed will have more mass than the same apple at rest.

Where does the extra mass come from and where does it go when it slows down.

You're talking about actual physical changes right? Then if it becomes so massive in it's same shape, then would't it cause an anomoly? Or create it's own gravity?

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 06:51 AM
Thats a good question.

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 07:13 AM
Antu54

My diagram has got nothing to do with light speed. I am talking here about frequency and Energy.

Let me try to explain my diagram again.

There is a source of light and there are two observers.
Observer 1 is moving with a speed ( v) towards the light source.
Observer 2 is moving with a speed ( v) away from the light source.
Both observers decide to measure the frequency of the light reaching them.
Observer 1 will measure a higher frequency than Observer 2. This is due to the Doppler shift effect and the fact that the wavelength of light is shorter measured by Observer 1 because he is moving towards the light source.
Now both observers have collected a reading for the frequency of light reaching them from the source.
They both decide to find the energy of the photons reaching them by using the formula E = hf, where E is Energy, h is planck's constant and f is frequency.
Now, Observer 1 calculates that the photons reaching him are of higher Energy than the Photons reaching Observer 2. Even though the photons are coming from the same light source.

Now I said that this result violates the Law of the conservation of Action. Becuase I thought :
1. Action = Energy * Time
2. Special relativity states that the Action of an object is the same for every observer.
3. I realised that Observer 1 measured photons to have a higher Energy than Observer 2.
4. Now since both Observers travel at the same speed. They will both experience the same time dialtion, no matter what speed they are both travelling at. This means they both experience the same rate of time flow.
5. I decided to use the Action formula : ( Remembering that Time is the same for both of them)

For Observer 1 : Action = Higher Energy * Time (t)
For Observer 2 : Action = Lower Energy * Time (t)

Now it is clear that according to Observer 1, the photons have more Action. But Observer 2 says the photons have less Action than Observer 1 said.
Conflict !
Because the Law states that Action is the same from every Frame of Reference. This is not the case over here.

Now I hope you can see what I was tring to say.

top topics

0