It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Of course the speed of light isn't constant.
How do you think it get's sucked into a black hole? It has to change it's speed flying outwards and turn inwards.
But however if we could observe light in a completely closed system perhaps it would maintain a consistent speed or behavior? I hate to refer to Newton and the First Law of Motion and the principal of inertia, but it was inevitable.
Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by Astyanax
"to take what scientific experts tell us on faith"
sounds like a cult,,of high Priests
Originally posted by DaveNorris
its a theory. many theories cant be tested doesnt mean they are wrong, doesnt mean they are right either, they are just theories
and IF he did get it wrong, that doesnt mean he was covering anything up.edit on 25/8/2011 by DaveNorris because: added txt
Originally posted by Astyanax
I don’t believe you can expect to understand relativity without such a course of academic study. Self-study won’t do it; you need to be taught. That’s because there are too many ways to get your ideas wrong and go off at a tangent – sometimes literally, as in this poster’s case.
Originally posted by CLPrime reply to post by Astyanax
I would be a perfect exception to that rule. But okay.
Originally posted by cplouffe
"Gamow, one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, tells us that in the mid-1920’s, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck discovered not only that electrons were orthorotating, but also that they were spinning at 1.37 times the speed of light. Gamow makes it clear that this discovery did not violate anything in quantum physics ...."
Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck discovered not only that electrons were orthorotating,
but also that they were spinning at 1.37 times the speed of light.
I will try my best to explain this, so hopefully it works.
In the beginning of quantum mechanics, there were 3 quantum numbers, n, l and m (from wikipedia) "These were identified as, respectively, the electron "shell" number, n, the "orbital" number, l, and the "orbital angular momentum" number m." This didn't however explain all of the observed phenomena.
The concept of spin, which gave would account for the electrons magnetic moment. This idea was introduced sort of ad hoc to non relativistic quantum mechanics (Schrodinger equation). The idea explained lots of previously unexplained phenomena.
But the electron, as far as we can tell is point like (at that point it was known it was very small). The magnetic moment was large enough that the spin causing it would mean that the electron would classically be spinning fast enough to have equatorial speeds faster than light.
Later Dirac developed a relativistic version of quantum mechanics, which included spin, and treated the electron as a point particle. This told us that electron spin is really a property of electrons and isn't actually the electron spinning. It just has such a name because of its historical development and classical analog.
The name spin is really misleading, as the electron isn't rotating.
Originally posted by hombero
Now don't take me wrong, I do not mean this in a condescending or rude way.. But the what OP is suggesting is just philosophical.. without proof and demonstration of proof this is all it could be at this point.
Also, again, not being rude.. but Einstein was a genius, how can you possibly say he is wrong and you are right??
Originally posted by philware
reply to post by 31Bravo
he is right i watched something about the speed of light
and they used what he said in that programme
speed 186,000mps but you can slow speed down in
some form of liquid that to was shown to
i think the mans name in said documentry
was a mr tyson (and no not iron mike tyson)
Originally posted by cplouffe
reply to post by CLPrime
How is the speed of information measured in quantum entanglement.
I am trying to grasp some saying "information" is not actually being sent, rather they are interconnected in an unseen way.
So the changes are instantaneous?
Or if they are not "connected" is information sent faster than the speed of light?
Originally posted by DarkSarcasm
Originally posted by Helious
I'm sure this has already been corrected, but, photons do have mass. Light is a form of matter with such small mass that it can behave both like a wave and as a particle.
No, it is impossible for photons to have any mass. I think you may be confused with neutrinos, which for a while were thought to be massless, but upon the discovery of neutron flavor oscillation was found to be necessarily massive (in the sense of having some mass, but very little.)
For a photon, if you ascribe any mass at all and then plug that into Hendrik Lorenz's transformation formulas, unallowable infinities (like dividing by zero) occur.
If you want to really want to intelligently discuss photons and light, it is first necessary to study and mathematically understand (not memorize) Lorentz's work on transformations, as well as that of Henri Poincare on symmetry transformation, and Hermann Minkowski's spacetime metrics. I would also highly recommend Richard Feynman's work on Quantum Electrodynamics.
It is also probably necessary to get one's hands on a good laser interferometer and actually DO the experiments which have unanimously verified Special Relativity.