What is the real speed of Light?

I want to know what the "real speed of light" is.

Allow me to explain.

We are all taught that the speed of light is 2.998^8m/s.

Well what if an object is moving 2^5m/s.

That MUST make the speed of light 3.000^8m/s (if my math is right, but you get the idea).

How can light be different from anything else? Why is it that IT alone will not change its speed faster...though we can observe it slow down through mediums such as glass.

Well how about this? I would like to know why no one has thought of this as plausible (obviously they haven't or it'd be proved by now).

But I don't understand why it's not true.

Say an object is moving towards us...
this means that the speed of light is 2.998^8m/s + the speed of the object.

Now we don't observe a change in the speed because it's not passing through enough of a medium, just a vaccum...but we do observe a change in wave-length.

So what if that change in wave-length is proportional to the actual speed of light, such that it will make the observed speed of light just 2.998^8m/s

So the speed of light is travelling at say 3.00^8m/s not rounded...and we observe it accurately at 2.998^8m/s not because it is travelling that fast.

But because the wave-length is shorter, and therefore it must travel a greater distance.

Like-wise if the wave-length were longer, it would have to travel a shorter distance.

Hence why light from something travelling away from us, moves at 2.998^8m/s - objects speed, yet it seems to be travelling at just 2.998^8m/s as if the objects speed were 0.

Why? Because the wave-length changes accordingly to negate the change of the speed of the object.

Further questions would be...what effect would this have on the speed of "light"?

I'm think we still could not travel at 2.998^8m/s or faster because to do so your "wave-function" would be infinite, and thus you'd have to travel an infinite distance to go anywhere.

Or such..

Well first, can anyone possibly smarter in this, first explain to me why the Speed of Light is a "limited speed".

Please answer this question.

Does the speed of light just seem constant. Because of the change in wave-length, and thus distance that must be travelled to reach the observing object?

[Edited on 3-7-2003 by RobertBurns]

Robert,

When light travels through a medium it encounters two things: vacuum and molecules or atoms. When moving through the vacuum between the particles it travels at 'c', being massless. When it encounters the particles it is absorbed, and the particle's energy jumps to a new level as it incorporates a quantum of light energy.

The particle cannot remain at this higher energy so it soon drops down again to its ground state, and in this drop it emits a new quantum with the original energy, maintaining conservation of momentum so the new one travels in the same direction as the original.

All of this quantum jumping takes a little time and slows the light on its way, just if you were to stop on a road trip to eat a burger and allowed the eating time into your schedule.

OR

you can look at this way:

What happens is that when the so called assumed fictious relativistic speed is surpassed the photons become invisable to detections and even to any measurements relating their masses. It is here that scientist throw down the perverbial 'towel' and walk off to Dr. Einstein's refuge for mercy, a place where Einstein's Psychotherapy offers relief by telling them that the photon at this relativistic velocity became a spin 1 particle or atom or entity and as well it has become a ZERO mass known as a massless particle. This magical explanation worked well until present years, when the space-time curves kept them tied up to the rocks forever. But like some kid walks in and tells the guys to wake up from their hypnotic spells, and they start seeing photon originating from a charged particle, when a Faster-than-Light (FTL) particle, which is a component of missing Dark Matter encounters it, and undergoes into a holy matrimony to transform this naked charged particle of a spin of 1/2 into a sacred union with it, making a spin 1, and levitating it to neutralize the gravitational forces on it, imparting the masslessness characteristics, even changing its original name after the matrimony to what is legally called a PHOTON or a QUANTUM.

FTL's are highly energetic and extremely high frequency and being extremely short wave length particles or entities, which are everywhere.

So Speed of Light (C) depends on the dielectric constant (epsilon) and magnetic permeability (mu) and refractive indices of the medium. Thus we have:
C=1/(epsilon+mu)1/2)

If a photon is passing thru a medium which has a different refractive index, it will be bent. Dr. Einstein's interpretation was that it is space-time bending due to gravity, while the Optics and other interpretations lie saying that the bending could have been due to magnetic permeability as well dielectric constant or refractive indices differences. Current experiments are showing that one can STOP a photon in a speciallydesigned optical cavity. See this link for more inforamtion and/or a better over view of what I am trying to say.

mywebpage.netscape.com...

Also may want to read up on "Superluminal's"
scienceworld.wolfram.com...


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 3-7-2003 by Seekerof]

[Edited on 3-7-2003 by Seekerof]

Light is a wavelength. It may have particle properties, but Einstein has suggested ways as to why that is.

Anyhow, light can enter a medium (material) and either be absorbed or reflected completely or change frequencies. As it changes frequencies, the velocity changes. The speed of light in a vacuum is 2.998*10^8 m/s. Inside any other substance it slows down. If light enters a superheated barium or cesium (I forget which), then it actually gathers more energy and speeds up. This is the only case that we know the speed of light actually increases. Regardless, the speed of light in a vacuum is 2.998*10^8 m/s.

Originally posted by Protector
Light is a wavelength. It may have particle properties, but Einstein has suggested ways as to why that is.

Anyhow, light can enter a medium (material) and either be absorbed or reflected completely or change frequencies. As it changes frequencies, the velocity changes. The speed of light in a vacuum is 2.998*10^8 m/s. Inside any other substance it slows down. If light enters a superheated barium or cesium (I forget which), then it actually gathers more energy and speeds up. This is the only case that we know the speed of light actually increases. Regardless, the speed of light in a vacuum is 2.998*10^8 m/s.

Thanks Protector, I had been thinking of a better, shorter way to explain this but I don't think I could have said it in the way you have.

regards
seekerof

Einstein put forth the notion that Light actually rubs up against spacetime so that we are able to see it. This is similar to sound. If sound did not hit air molecultes, then we would not be able to hear it. The wave exists, but the interaction with the atmosphere makes it have sound. If light works the same way, we see it only because it is rubbing against something. After testing for the Aether (or ether), test results came back that no Aether existed. Therefore, the idea was dropped as being non-sense and other routes were explored. To this day, the idea of the Aether is still up in the air, but we will need a great amount of proof to bring back the concept as being valid. I happen to believe it exists.

My question about light is, how does the speed of light not follow laws of acceleration (as I know them). Once light leaves a medium it is instantaneously back to the speed of light in a vacuum. I don't believe light accelerates or decelerates. Does anyone know why this is?

Something funny to add is that the superheated atoms that were used to speed up the light speed above that of the vacuum actually caused the light to reach the final sensor before the light even had time to enter to superheated gas cloud. Because of this, the final results came through before the experiment technically started. This is what we call a Quantum Leap. They are real.

Well since this has mostly been answered, let's continue on the subject of Quantum Leaps.

I know of that, and yes I don't doubt it.

But there has to be a mechanism where the event is certain, where there is no probability that the measured system won't occur.

For instance, let's say they recorded the event microseconds before it actually had the time to enter the environment.

Then What would happen if between the recording and the actual event occuring, if we decided to not do it?

Or is this an example (as I do believe), that we have little control over our real futures, due to the fact that what happens will happen?

So there is no way in hell when the quantum leap is done, to actually stop the event, even though it hasn't begun.

??? well worth thinking more on Keep those brain cells ticking in all sorts of manners.

Isn't it typical for scientists to answer the easy questions, just so they have good conversation lines for parties and can pick up chicks with their superior knowledge.

When the really hard questions are asked scientists are nowhere to be seen.

If you know the speed of light, (which is easy) then what is the speed of Dark? It must be at least as fast ....

The speed of dark is 2 mph... or is it 2 kph? I forget.


"But there has to be a mechanism where the event is certain, where there is no probability that the measured system won't occur."

Well if you are talking about systems you might be touching on Chaos theory, which is the wrong road to travel at this juncture. The trick to the quantum leap is more a matter of how fast our instruments read an occurance. I don't believe an event can end before it starts, but it can end as it starts... if I am looking at this correctly. You can't have a child before you have the mother. Quantum leaps are when information is obtained before the speed of light has a chance to reach it. This means it has faster than light speed, but not really negative time speed.

Faster than Light Experiment from CNN

"For instance, let's say they recorded the event microseconds before it actually had the time to enter the environment."

I believe the article explains that the leading edge of the wave carries all of the information for the wave, therefore the cesium atoms replicate the information on an outgoing wave at the otherside, thus bipassing the need for the wave to actually go through the atoms. I'm guess this is a relicating effect of some sort.


"Then What would happen if between the recording and the actual event occuring, if we decided to not do it?"

It doesn't actually happen before the experiment, just before the experiment completes... again this is related to the information of the wave being carried by the front of the wave. Like, if you sent up a smoke signal and I see it 2 miles away, then I send one up so another guy two miles away from me can see it. The third guy doesn't have to wait to see your smoke travel far enough so he can see it on the horizon; he can see mine faster. It is considered a quantum leap because the information arrived faster than light speed in a vacuum.

"Or is this an example (as I do believe), that we have little control over our real futures, due to the fact that what happens will happen?"

That's a philosophy question. Ultimately we have a limited number of choices, but experiments like this prove that physics can be bent a little to add a few more choices.

"So there is no way in hell when the quantum leap is done, to actually stop the event, even though it hasn't begun."

The event must begin, but it can end before it completes the process. That is a quantum leap. I appologize if you have the belief that it is some man who stepped into a machine and was sent back in time... that's just a TV show.


P.S. I do pick up chicks, but rarely is it because of my "knowledge." Plus, when the science guy talks, you can't hear all the other crazy a$$ ideas that people have... and what's the fun in that?

well,
I am goat stink'in relatively intoxicated on July the Fourth, EXCUSE ME. However I can assure you that it is damned fast. The vibrations that normally occur in solid matter are so accellerated that movement can no longer be detected. Thus resulting in a bolt of energy that can only be interpreted as light that we can not convert to matter.
It is really a mental state and can be dealt with on that level, all that is required is a very open mind, freedom from perceptual reality and a I don't give a sheet attitude. I have been there and done that. You will not locate it on a www. site in GOD you must Trust

TUT

**Tut**

HA! 4th-goat-thingy....I was too! Hency my hissy fit on another thread

**Protector et. al.**

What if the ever-hiding aether is entropy? I considered your question as to why there is an apparent acceleration once light exits a media back into a vacuum. But then I also considered that light exhibits an apparent "perpetual motion" characteristic as well. That's kind of a dumbed-down lay-person statement, but I think you will understand what I'm getting at. So what if the vacuum is what fuels light, and a corporeal media retards it? So what if the vacuum is really NOT (as your comments suggest on the not-yet-discovered aether) and is instead, filled with the entropy which acts as an exciter to the light wave?

[Edited on 5-7-2003 by Valhall]

Tut:

"However I can assure you that it is damned fast."

Yes, light speed, even through a standard medium, is much faster than we can fully comprehend. By that I mean, we need detectors to measure anything about light, so our average senses only get a very small portion of the picture... and that means it is moving really "damned fast," as you put it.

"The vibrations that normally occur in solid matter are so accellerated that movement can no longer be detected."

What are you referring to? Natural frequencies of objects? Entropy or Enthalpy? Electromagnetic waves effecting solid objects?

"Thus resulting in a bolt of energy that can only be interpreted as light that we can not convert to matter."

I'm still lost on what topic you are hitting on exactly.

Energy can be converted into matter, but you have to have the right combination... as far as we understand.


Valhall:

Entropy is basically the idea of disorder. Disorder is a way to understand heat and excess energy causing that disorder. Aether is the idea that spacetime is a medium, like water, but that which we know as frictionless and set our standards at. Think of it as what we know of as "zero." You set your instruments to a standard, so you call that beginning point the point where you "zero" the instrument. Because of this, this is my opinion mind you, we cannot get outrageous readings because the aether is our standard of existence. Think of a fish saying, "there is no water." Water is just their standard of existence. Think how long it took humanity to understand what "air/oxygen" is. I believe the same goes for what is referred to as aether.

If you want further evidence, Aether as a theory was shot down, only to revive in the form of "virtual particles" in the last 10 years or so. This is the half-a$$ed theory that matter and antimatter exist together, but cannot be seen until they break apart. That tells you that we are attempting to believe once again in the aether.... but I suppose understanding it will be a step-by-step process.

I understand what you are saying. You believe that light is a perpetual machine that continues to have strength because of the "atmosphere/vacuum" it exists in. I would not link this to entropy, because entropy leads to heat release so that the matter can lose any excess energy (so it can be happy at a stable level). Now, matter does tend towards disorder, but that's probably a way to realize that matter wants its space as stable particles. This is getting into chemistry.

If light does feed on the vacuum, I'd say that gives even more reason to believe there is an aether... what you believe to be entropy. As far as exciting the wave, the wave is excited through all mediums until it comes to a halt (is absorbed). This means that the vacuum is a medium as well, hence the possibility of aether, from that statement. The problem with your assumption that is light needs an outside source for propulsion, but I believe science shows that light is a propellant, if you will. Photons are "energy particles." Even if you don't believe in the particle aspect of light, you can still believe that the wave aspect is an energy wave. In fact, we know that it is an electromagnetic wave. If you ask me, thats an energy in itself, therefore is propelled by its "being." It is kinetic by nature. What do you think?

Well, in the world of speculation, I think I haven't much right to disagree??/ No, seriously, what you are saying makes a great deal of sense. I want to focus, however, on your statements about entropy.

Yes, I understand what entropy is. And when I read your statements concerning it I felt that you were minimizing its importance (that might not have been your intention however). With entropy being the "lost energy" of all matter-based processes, this could very well be a "fueling aether" for the light wave. Do you see what I am trying to say? We have no idea where the lost energy goes, right? Of course, there are lots of hypotheses (universal boundary, etc.) but we really don't have any good idea. What if it goes nowhere? What if it is the water that we can't see because it is our norm? And what if it is the propulsive force for light?

Excuse me for this, but I hate ... I mean hate ... the laws of thermodynamics. I believe they are misconstruded too much. Thermodynamics is a touchy subject with me, so talking about entropy is where I tread lightly. In my opinion, most thermodynamics are just ways to give half-a$$ explanations for more important processes that are overlooked... or perhaps kept from the public, if you want to go the conspiracy route.

"Yes, I understand what entropy is. And when I read your statements concerning it I felt that you were minimizing its importance (that might not have been your intention however)."

Absolutely. Disorder is usually attached to a system, but I don't believe a single wave of light should be treated as a system... not at this point anyway. If it is a system, we will need much better technology to deal with its underlying components.

"With entropy being the "lost energy" of all matter-based processes, this could very well be a "fueling aether" for the light wave. Do you see what I am trying to say?"

The only way I would agree with that is to say that the aether itself is dynamicly in motion at all times and that lightwaves are using that motion to move. That is reasonable, because energy does move throughout spacetime constantly (hence why blackholes can swallow light). Entropy relaxes over excited particles as far as energy loss (as I understand it). If entropy refers to energy loss, then I doubt you would say that it increases the energy of a light wave. See my point? Also, how does one add energy to energy? That seems rather odd. If you ask me, energy is just the wave-like motion of spacetime, anyhow. You can increase the amplitude, but you are making superenergy... whatever that is. The more disorder inside of a wave, like all things, the less uniform the motion becomes... .... ... I don't know where I'm going with that statement .

Well, this is all food for thought. If you still have more ideas on entropy, feel free to throw those this way. I'd be happy to field the ideas.... even if I don't like thermodynamics.

We have no idea where the lost energy goes, right? Of course, there are lots of hypotheses (universal boundary, etc.) but we really don't have any good idea. What if it goes nowhere? What if it is the water that we can't see because it is our norm? And what if it is the propulsive force for light?"

I wouldn't want to bend my noodle on this one. We can only calculate the speed of light in relation to our current speed traveling through the universe, throwing our estimate off. Since we haven't yet found a reference point by which to measure our current velocity, I find it pointless to speculate a number that could have a difference of limitless proportions. Sorry, I hope I didn't spoil this thread.

You didn't spoil it as far as I'm concerned. I feel the same way as you.

"We can only calculate the speed of light in relation to our current speed traveling through the universe, throwing our estimate off."

That's not true. We have calculated the speed of a wavelength of light. We first bounced it off of mirrors around a mountain, but not measure it with very exact instruments. We can force a lightwave to be produced and then measure how fast it is moving from the position we start it at. The science is quite exact. At most, we are probably off by millimeters per hours... and I doubt even by that much. We are probably close enough to accurately know what time it is on a hill on Pluto to the picosecond.

"Since we haven't yet found a reference point by which to measure our current velocity, I find it pointless to speculate a number that could have a difference of limitless proportions."

The reference point is wherever you want to start measuring from. Since relativity works, wherever you choose the starting point is the point where acceleration begins. This is all that matters. The threshold of acceleration is the speed of light (as far as we know). Acceleration is the key to having accurate results. Acceleration does exist, can be calculated, and yields accurate results, mathematically.

"Sorry, I hope I didn't spoil this thread."

Nope, you are just making a call on the validity of information. I hope I have made the subject valid once again.

this is by far
the funniest thread
I've read
its meaning
is gleaming
long live light
well into the night

LOL TUT

I'm going to ask a favor of you.

I surmise from your statements concerning the Laws of Thermodynamics, that we may have some issues here deriving from some idealistic hierarchy between theoretical (pure) science and applied (practical) science.

I would like to understand your comments concerning the thermodynamic laws. Just because they were derived via practical applications does not diminish their worth, nor invalidate them (which pure science has not done to date).

I will state the context from whence I speak so that you understand my biases a little more, and then, if you don't mind, please state yours either here or in u2u. I don't need details, just a "label".

I am an aerospace engineer, so YES I fall on the practical science side.

[Edited on 6-7-2003 by Valhall]

Thanks for the correction. Now I'm going to send an e-mail to my old high school physics teacher and call him stupid. America... public education is the devil.