A Question Concerning Material Structure and the Speed of Light

a reply to: NorEaster

The sub-atomic world is a strange one and the only thing we know is that we think these strange properties are there. Where these properties come from is anyones guess. The other day I did watch a docu about a new science called quantum-biology. I order to make a cell work a certain sub-atomic particle is used by nature to make the growth of a cell posible. The nature of this particle is that it can be everywhere at the same time.

Incredible isn't it? I am sure there is still a lot discover about light and its applications... just like an other thing in nature which is around us in plenty.. water.

A flag for your interesting thread (couldn't resist)

according to scientists research on the BIG BANG the universe in it creation moved faster than the speed of light and continues to accelerate even now over 13 billion years later.

So yeah I think the entire universe must be hustling way faster than light at the moment.

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: NorEaster

The sub-atomic world is a strange one and the only thing we know is that we think these strange properties are there. Where these properties come from is anyones guess. The other day I did watch a docu about a new science called quantum-biology. I order to make a cell work a certain sub-atomic particle is used by nature to make the growth of a cell posible. The nature of this particle is that it can be everywhere at the same time.

Incredible isn't it? I am sure there is still a lot discover about light and its applications... just like an other thing in nature which is around us in plenty.. water.

A flag for your interesting thread (couldn't resist)

One of the reasons for the strangeness of the sub atomic world imo, is the preturbations in ambient time due to changes in gravity( cos everything in the universe is moving all the time resulting in gravity changes at any point in the universe)

originally posted by: NorEaster
Einstein's Relativity theories insist that something has to give (speed equals distance divided by time) and it cannot be the speed of light, since that speed is immutable.

Time has to give. It flows slower for the laser pen than for the stationary observer (all speed is relative, so you _have_ to have a frame of reference).

The laser pen will "see" light travelling from it at "c", but because the laser pen's internal clock is slowed down, the actual speed of light remains the same for a stationary observer.

I hope that makes sense.

Time dilation is the key.

it would turn into a sausage.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
it would turn into a sausage.

A time-dilated sausage.

a reply to: NorEaster

the object would gain mass and slow down, as the photons leaving the one end would be traveling the same speed as the the pointer, unless of course the beam from the trailing end could some how produce enough thrust to continue the object at it's initial speed.

I still see this leading beam essentially creating mass and slowing the pointer to below the speed of light as photons amass at the leading end of the pointer.

originally posted by: NorEaster

originally posted by: mbkennel

He uses the words 'clocks' because that emphasizes the specifics of measurement of time from physical principles, and that is essential because prior to relativity, the universal assumption among physicists since Aristotle was that time was global, and universal, and needn't be examined further.

It is not.

Clocks are material systems and, as such, are vulnerable to the influences of the material systems that they exist as integral to. Take the gravity-time dilation claim. In this claim, relative field strength "slows down time" (which Einstein then transfers to acceleration as also slowing down time, since to a human observer acceleration and gravity can feel similar), but since Einstein uses the term "clock" instead of "time" his assertion cannot be truthfully said to violate the fundamental requirement of system coherence - which is a basic staple of reality that trumps indication regardless of what that indication is. What that means is that while gravitational field strength can certainly affect the dynamic properties of a mechanical clock - especially the extremely delicate mechanical properties of those clocks that have measured time progression since the first caesium standard went on line - time itself cannot be vulnerable to gravitational field strength and certainly not to the intermittent whims of simple acceleration. If that were the case, air travel would feature a lot more change on this planet than bringing people closer together, when one considers the scattered and relentless impact on the universal quantum of Now (or Planck Time) - as the quantized basis of ongoing progressive development within this or any other universal reality confine - of such burps and halts and skids that would be the result of so many violations of that quantized structure.

Then again, if you feel justified in embracing a solipsistic philosophy and declare reality to be your own little construct, then I've got nothing.

By "clock" he means anything used to measure time. It could be a heartbeat or any internal biological system along with any external device.

The Special Relativity paper proved that light is quantized into photons, it showed that energy and mass are equivalent and the relativistic nature of space and time. That has been used to calculate the exact rate that atomic clocks will slow down when flying along with the Earth's rotation and how long fast moving cosmic particles will exist when hitting the atmosphere. Particles that should decay in a picosecond but are time-dialated to exist for several seconds.

The mass/energy equations cannot be denied even if one doesn't accept relativity.

The tensor equations of General Relativity can be used to predict Newtons laws and in more extreme cases go go beyond that and predict the precession of the perihelion of Mercury and galactic lensing which Newtons math cannot predict. It describes gravity as a geometry and obviously effort is now being made to describe it as a field with a messenger particle. But both theories have been proven by experiment, outside of the lab.

General Relativity isn't wrong, it's a way to describe gravity with geometry. But a new theory could come along and extend what we know about gravity and make further testable predictions and show another mathematical framework to understand gravity. It would further our understanding of it just like GR did with Newton's ideas.