Light Speed: Fixed... or Relative? Exploring Einstein's Relativity

I don't know

We all just want some simple equation like E=mc^2 that will unlock more secrets of the universe.

jrod
I don't know

We all just want some simple equation like E=mc^2 that will unlock more secrets of the universe.

If you're seeking truth, then you want to know how the universe really is.

If there is a simple equation that describes it, great.
But if Nature is more complex than that, we need to not be biased into forcing nature to be the way we'd like it to be, but rather we need to find out more about it and understand the way it really is, like the people who think relativity is strange and they just don't want nature to be that way. (Quantum mechanics seems even stranger). Richard Feynman discusses this topic in this video:



He doesn't mention vedic monks specifically, but I think what he says is probably also applicable to his view of their world view.

I'm glad to see you changed your post because nobody said you were talking about vedic monks, but the other guy was.

dragonridr

GargIndia
reply to post by jrod

 

Can a vacuum be perfect? I do not think it is achievable by any practical means. Even if air is totally absent, there will be metal particles in the container.

Deep space IS NOT a perfect vacuum.

No you can never achieve a perfect vacuum at least not in our universe but the vacuum of space is very close.Although in quantum physics a vacuum means something entirely different and you can. In quantum physics an area reaches zero energy its considered a vacuum. So i guess it depends on what kind of vacuum your talking about. Look science isnt something we just make up its tested i know you think these vedic monks knew some secrets of the universe but i assure you they dont. They came up with some theories and at the time had no way to test them. Well we do now and we have learned alot about the world around us.Let me give you some advice faith is applied to your beliefs but dont let faith dictate what you choose to learn. You can believe in the vedic gods if you like. Just understand they didnt impart any big secrets to mankind other than protection of your soul.I personally love the hindu religion it looks to bring inner peace but its not going to tell you how the universe works.

edit on 2/7/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

1. How much do you know about Vedic monks? If you are sure you know enough, you can give me some examples.

2. Your observations are limited to abilities of human body. A soul has abilities that are far greater than a human body. A liberated soul (in Sanskrit, it is called person who achieved 'samadhi') sees through eyes of the soul. These abilities are far better than any instrument you can build.

Why - because soul is the alive part in you. It is not your body. The soul can enter the nucleus ('garbh' in Sanskrit) of a star and get direct information of what happens there. Because soul cannot be burned by the heat. However neither your body nor your instruments can do that.

3. "Let me give you some advice faith is applied to your beliefs but don't let faith dictate what you choose to learn."

Everybody believes in something. Don't you.
You may not be believing my words, but you do believe in somebody else's words.
Human mind is always conditioned by what is taught to that person, and the reality that is built around that person.
Even in your society, a rich person 'sees' things differently from a poor person etc.

4. I see that any discussion on ATS turns into an attack on faith. I find it very weird. Can you tell me why it is so?

5. There is no perfect vacuum anywhere in the Universe. Maybe outside, but nobody knows.

The space is full of transiting particles as the stars throw out not only light but also particles (from hydrogen nuclei to iron nuclei are abundant). The space also contains clouds of gas in the interstellar and even intergalactic space. Your own science has observed some of these clouds which are dense, so can be observed.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


"If you're seeking truth, then you want to know how the universe really is."

This is a very wise statement. And experiments should be built to find, not to prove mathematical equations.

I hope you get my logic.

reply to post by GargIndia

I've watched a lot of Feynman lectures. I never saw him claim his models were any kind of ultimate truth, in fact he says in the video he's not absolutely sure about anything. He had the attitude that "if you've got a better model, or explanation for the observations, let me see it".

When people shared their thoughts with him on better models, more often than not he was disappointed that they just weren't as familiar with the observations and the topic as he was. I don't think his attitude is unique, as many scientists are curious to know the truth and if someone has a better explanation they'd sincerely like to know it.

The problem is, many people who think they have a better explanation, don't even know what they don't know about observations that have already been made. Also many people fail to realize that scientists try to prove whether their theories are right OR wrong, and sometimes they are proven wrong, as discussed here:

Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong)

One of the best aspects of science has always been its readiness to admit when it got something wrong. Theories are constantly being refigured, and new research frequently renders old ideas outdated or incomplete. But this hasn’t stopped some discoveries from being hailed as important, game-changing accomplishments a bit prematurely. Even in a field as rigorous and detail-oriented as science, theories get busted, mistakes are made, and hoaxes are perpetrated. The following are ten of the most groundbreaking of these scientific discoveries that turned out to be resting on some questionable data. It is worth noting that most of these concepts are not necessarily “wrong” in the traditional sense; rather, they have been replaced by other theories that are more complete and reliable.

#2 is about Einstein being proven wrong, and he was easily convinced he was wrong after looking at the observations collected. I don't think he was ever convinced that quantum mechanics was right, but even if it isn't, it makes accurate predictions and nobody has come up with a better model. I think he recognized that relativity was not a complete unified model and would have been pleased if someone could make observations to prove a better model, which people have tried to do but nobody has done so far, at least not in any convincing manner.

GargIndia

dragonridr

GargIndia
reply to post by jrod

 

Can a vacuum be perfect? I do not think it is achievable by any practical means. Even if air is totally absent, there will be metal particles in the container.

Deep space IS NOT a perfect vacuum.

No you can never achieve a perfect vacuum at least not in our universe but the vacuum of space is very close.Although in quantum physics a vacuum means something entirely different and you can. In quantum physics an area reaches zero energy its considered a vacuum. So i guess it depends on what kind of vacuum your talking about. Look science isnt something we just make up its tested i know you think these vedic monks knew some secrets of the universe but i assure you they dont. They came up with some theories and at the time had no way to test them. Well we do now and we have learned alot about the world around us.Let me give you some advice faith is applied to your beliefs but dont let faith dictate what you choose to learn. You can believe in the vedic gods if you like. Just understand they didnt impart any big secrets to mankind other than protection of your soul.I personally love the hindu religion it looks to bring inner peace but its not going to tell you how the universe works.

edit on 2/7/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

1. How much do you know about Vedic monks? If you are sure you know enough, you can give me some examples.

2. Your observations are limited to abilities of human body. A soul has abilities that are far greater than a human body. A liberated soul (in Sanskrit, it is called person who achieved 'samadhi') sees through eyes of the soul. These abilities are far better than any instrument you can build.

Why - because soul is the alive part in you. It is not your body. The soul can enter the nucleus ('garbh' in Sanskrit) of a star and get direct information of what happens there. Because soul cannot be burned by the heat. However neither your body nor your instruments can do that.

3. "Let me give you some advice faith is applied to your beliefs but don't let faith dictate what you choose to learn."

Everybody believes in something. Don't you.
You may not be believing my words, but you do believe in somebody else's words.
Human mind is always conditioned by what is taught to that person, and the reality that is built around that person.
Even in your society, a rich person 'sees' things differently from a poor person etc.

4. I see that any discussion on ATS turns into an attack on faith. I find it very weird. Can you tell me why it is so?

5. There is no perfect vacuum anywhere in the Universe. Maybe outside, but nobody knows.

The space is full of transiting particles as the stars throw out not only light but also particles (from hydrogen nuclei to iron nuclei are abundant). The space also contains clouds of gas in the interstellar and even intergalactic space. Your own science has observed some of these clouds which are dense, so can be observed.

edit on 8-2-2014 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)

You miss understood what i tried to say to you so ill put it another way. In a the world around you if you think you have all the answers youll usually find out your missing out on the real truths. Do not rely on any religion to tell you how the universe works keep an open mind and just experience. Religion is a belief and as i said i don't ever put down someones beliefs i meant to explain there is a place for religion and its isn't science. Just like science needs to stay out of religion. Science isnt a philosophical debate i noticed you seem to be looking to science to confirm your religious beliefs. Well speaking from someone whos been there you cant see let me explain i believe in god yet im a physicist yet i dont look for science to confirm my beliefs i cant .But in my heart i know them to be true but im not going to take religion and intermix it into science. The two are truly separate things and both require an open mind please realize in no way was i putting down you misunderstood my meaning.

Look this is what i mean when a religion is written it has to be written for the audience to comprehend so for example you are familiar with parmanu i could tell from your writings. Well in vedic teachings this would be energy and it takes sixty paramanus make one Anuu. And then to Anuu to make air and six for fire amd i think it was 10 for water. This is just generalizations this is what i meant by dont try to use religion in science. Religion is to spread ideas science is to uncover the secrets. as far a vedic teachings yes i looked into it heavily along with muslim christian and several others while searching for my own truths.At first i thought there was a conflict between religion and science but as i got older i found its not true i created the conflict.

"parmanu i could tell from your writings. Well in vedic teachings this would be energy and it takes sixty paramanus make one Anuu. And then to Anuu to make air and six for fire amd i think it was 10 for water."

It is not there in Veda.

All Sanskrit literature is not Vedic literature. Maybe some post-Vedic period writer came up with this.

I get your point though and I understand what you are saying.

And this is why it is so important for science to be accurate and not imagination. If imagination is treated as science, then how will it differentiate from faith?

This is the reason major discoveries should be published with detailed proof, so that anybody wanting to confirm can replicate the experiment.

"Tark shashtra" or the method of understanding something by applying logic systematically is a subject in Vedic education. If Veda preached rote learning, then why would this subject be there? Please note that no school in India teaches this subject today.

Whatever I said in this thread is by and large confirmed by your science. If there are gaps, your science will surely fill those. However many theories are sticking due to political reasons rather than real experimental results. One such theory is "expanding universe theory". The grounds of this theory are rather flimsy and experiments have not been designed till date to properly account for the properties of space that are known.

Speed of light
------------------

Light travels at, well, at the speed of light. This is proven by all experiments.
The medium that offers least resistance to light is vacuum. Space, which is close to vacuum, is thus the fastest medium.

If you fill a space with plasma - whatever this plasma is made of - hydrogen or cesium, will it increase the speed of light compared to vacuum? I see no reason why this should be the case, as matter always slows down light, not increase its speed. The energy state of matter has no effect on speed of light.

However an excited medium generates its own light. The medium can have a discharge which can come from the working of the device (which we do not know at this time) if the energy that is applied to the medium is coupled with the pulse that is sent through. As the excitation of the medium applies to the entire medium, it can so happen your detector sees a blip earlier than the transiting pulse reaches the end of chamber. In this case the blip will be due to plasma atoms nearest to the end of tube.

GargIndia
"parmanu i could tell from your writings. Well in vedic teachings this would be energy and it takes sixty paramanus make one Anuu. And then to Anuu to make air and six for fire amd i think it was 10 for water."

It is not there in Veda.

All Sanskrit literature is not Vedic literature. Maybe some post-Vedic period writer came up with this.

I get your point though and I understand what you are saying.

And this is why it is so important for science to be accurate and not imagination. If imagination is treated as science, then how will it differentiate from faith?

This is the reason major discoveries should be published with detailed proof, so that anybody wanting to confirm can replicate the experiment.

"Tark shashtra" or the method of understanding something by applying logic systematically is a subject in Vedic education. If Veda preached rote learning, then why would this subject be there? Please note that no school in India teaches this subject today.

Whatever I said in this thread is by and large confirmed by your science. If there are gaps, your science will surely fill those. However many theories are sticking due to political reasons rather than real experimental results. One such theory is "expanding universe theory". The grounds of this theory are rather flimsy and experiments have not been designed till date to properly account for the properties of space that are known.

Speed of light
------------------

Light travels at, well, at the speed of light. This is proven by all experiments.
The medium that offers least resistance to light is vacuum. Space, which is close to vacuum, is thus the fastest medium.

If you fill a space with plasma - whatever this plasma is made of - hydrogen or cesium, will it increase the speed of light compared to vacuum? I see no reason why this should be the case, as matter always slows down light, not increase its speed. The energy state of matter has no effect on speed of light.

However an excited medium generates its own light. The medium can have a discharge which can come from the working of the device (which we do not know at this time) if the energy that is applied to the medium is coupled with the pulse that is sent through. As the excitation of the medium applies to the entire medium, it can so happen your detector sees a blip earlier than the transiting pulse reaches the end of chamber. In this case the blip will be due to plasma atoms nearest to the end of tube.

Ok ill try to explain what happened in the experiment where they speed up light. Now mind you we couldnt find the paper i found one saying its under peer review and scientists dont like to release it until after that. But with our discussion heres what we think happened. Now this is a little complicated and difficult to explain but ill do my best.Now light can be adjusted so it looks like wave packets instead of individual photons. We discovered light can act as a wave or a particle for this experiment they need to make it a wave function. in this case the laser light actually have two important speeds the speed of the individual peaks and troughs of the light waves themselves, and the speed of the pulse or packet into which they are bunched. A pulse may contain billions or trillions of tiny peaks and troughs. Most of the time these peaks and troughs are exactly the same like in a vacuum or traveling through air. But in the right conditions like traveling through cesium can cause these packets to travel in both directions so picture when the laser hits it causes pulses forward along the beam and backward.the packet or pulse moving backward scan in effect borrow energy from the excited cesium atoms before giving it back a short time later. The overall result is an outgoing wave exactly the same in shape and intensity as the incoming wave; the outgoing wave just leaves early, before the peak of the incoming wave even arrives.

So imagine the laser pulse hits the cesium the next cesium atom takes it projects a pulse forward and backward. Then the pulse that moved forward again projects a pulse forward and backward. this means we litterally have light moving faster because it almost like the trough of a wave hitting a beach before the wave itself.Just in this case the trough keeps getting stretched forward dragging the wave with it. I hope this makes sense but lets just say this effect is well known in plasma or ionized gasses i believe it was phage that pointed this out. What is amazing is we are learning to play with light slow it down speed it up now mind you this only happens in a lab and only with light since it has no mass. The other problem is we cant transfer information because the light has to be specific to create this effect.

reply to post by dragonridr


Let us wait for the paper to be published. We shall revisit then. Hope the paper has enough detail of the experimental setup.

We can take another experiment related to speed of light.

Just to warm up the discussion somewhat:

1. Veda does not contain atomic structure of matter. And it makes no sense why a single book should contain everything, so it is not a problem. However there is a method to discover facts or truth about various entities which is covered in Veda.

2. The basic mechanical model of atom containing proton, neutron and electron is the best discovery of western science. This is a work of many scientists, and sound experimental methods. This model has been a dominant force in Chemistry and Physics which resulted in immense technological progress.

The Vedic civilization was in decline at the time of Mahabharat war 5300 years ago. There was a precipitous decline in Vedic knowledge after the war due to a breakdown in social systems. Most of the Vedic books are lost now, including ones that contain topics of science and technology that existed during Mahabharat war.

There are people who can resurrect the lost books, but that exercise seems pointless now, as very few people understand Sanskrit or have ability to learn Vedic Sanskrit.

Vedic teacher said once to me that light of some stars is yet to reach earth.

Means that during creation, the matter moved so fast that when stars formed, the elapsed time since then has not been sufficient for the light to travel to earth.

This statement shows two things:

a. No telescope can see the true extent of the universe.
b. Matter (particles) can travel faster than light.

So when we say FTL (faster than light), we should focus on particles.

However particle Physics is much more difficult to master than light. Light has only two parameters that are needed to be measured - bandwidth and intensity. Speed is fixed for a medium, so is a known.

Particles are complex. A particle has mass, velocity, charge, rotation, vibration etc. It is not so easy to decipher a particle.

GargIndia
This statement shows two things:

a. No telescope can see the true extent of the universe.
b. Matter (particles) can travel faster than light.

It shows a, but not b. See this:

Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe

We use standard general relativity to illustrate and clarify several common misconceptions about the expansion of the Universe. To show the abundance of these misconceptions we cite numerous misleading, or easily misinterpreted, statements in the literature. In the context of the new standard Lambda-CDM cosmology we point out confusions regarding the particle horizon, the event horizon, the ``observable universe'' and the Hubble sphere (distance at which recession velocity = c). We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests.

I'm not sure your source believes in ΛCDM cosmology and I'm not sure either is correct, but it does make sense there's stuff our telescopes can't see even if I consider alternatives. However to say that this means something is traveling faster than light is a non-sequitur, which doesn't seem logical. This can still be true even if things are traveling only at the speed of light or less.

Now if the model claims that some light from distant galaxies will NEVER EVER reach the earth even given an infinite amount of time, as the ΛCDM model claims, then yes something must be traveling faster than light for this claim to be true, but relativity doesn't forbid this because it's a non-local event.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


This theory of relativity is a web of lies, couched in terminology and mathematical equations.

When you get into something very big (like galaxy or bigger) or something very small (like fundamental particles), your senses of observation get overwhelmed. You just do not have the ability to measure.

It is not very difficult to understand the limits of observation. Tell me how you find the speed of a moving charged particle?

GargIndia
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

This theory of relativity is a web of lies, couched in terminology and mathematical equations.

When you get into something very big (like galaxy or bigger) or something very small (like fundamental particles), your senses of observation get overwhelmed. You just do not have the ability to measure.

It is not very difficult to understand the limits of observation. Tell me how you find the speed of a moving charged particle?

I don't see how someone telling you how to measure charged particle velocity is going to disprove relativity. If you want to support your claim then you can point out where the measurement errors lie in experiments supporting relativity, and how you know that.

I measured electron properties when they were not traveling at relativistic velocities, so I don't see what this question has to do with relativity. But anyway, here is the apparatus I used in my high school science project:

www.clemson.edu...


There are numerous equations shown explaining the interrelationships of the various parameters in the experiment. such as

eV = 1/2 x m x v²

where v is the velocity, so if you know the other variables you can solve for that. I ignored relativistic effects which were perhaps present but negligible. But if I accelerated the particles to higher velocities where relativistic effects were no longer negligible, I would consider them.

This is certainly the case at the LHC, where due to relativistic effects, each beam has about 362 MJ of stored energy which is like the energy content of about 100 kg of TNT, as described here:

Protection of the CERN Large Hadron Collider

Section 5.2 explains how they conducted damage tests which replicated simulations, which uses not just the velocity but the energy of the particles to confirm the relativity calculations used in the simulations. If relativity was false, why would the damage tests match the relativity based simulations? We are talking about orders of magnitude difference here, not something that is hard to measure.

GargIndia
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

This theory of relativity is a web of lies, couched in terminology and mathematical equations.

When you get into something very big (like galaxy or bigger) or something very small (like fundamental particles), your senses of observation get overwhelmed. You just do not have the ability to measure.

It is not very difficult to understand the limits of observation. Tell me how you find the speed of a moving charged particle?

Well whats wrong with relativity you cant say there lies if you dont have anything you can disprove. You can say you dont believe it personally thats fine. I tend to stay more on the QM side myself and there are slight differences. But nothing that violates relativity at least not yet.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The experiment quoted by you does not measure velocity of an incoming particle. It does not even measure the velocity achieved by the electrons in the experiment. It merely calculates it.

My question - I repeat - How do you measure the velocity of a charged particle. I am saying "measure", not "calculate".

dragonridr

GargIndia
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

This theory of relativity is a web of lies, couched in terminology and mathematical equations.

Well whats wrong with relativity you cant say there lies if you dont have anything you can disprove. You can say you dont believe it personally thats fine. I tend to stay more on the QM side myself and there are slight differences. But nothing that violates relativity at least not yet.

The answer will come in this thread if the discussion happens in a logical and thoughtful fashion.

You bring your mind around to the question I asked, and search experiments that measure the velocity of a charged particle. Assume that the particle is incoming into the experimental device, and this device is only measuring the velocity of the incoming particle, not generating the particle or accelerating it.

---------------------

We live in strange times. There is a certain political setup in the world. This political setup wants to promote certain theories.

Now assume I want to disprove one of the theories. I would naturally need a lab, certain equipment, manpower etc. It is unlikely that fundamental Physics laws can be proven or disproven in my backyard.

I know a certain scientist who tried to do something like this but the "scientific establishment" did not allow and even stole and misused his ideas.

You would think that I live in India which would be immune to influences of the Western power, but alas, it is not so.

GargIndia
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

The experiment quoted by you does not measure velocity of an incoming particle. It does not even measure the velocity achieved by the electrons in the experiment. It merely calculates it.

My question - I repeat - How do you measure the velocity of a charged particle. I am saying "measure", not "calculate".

The simple answer is measuring the time it takes to cross two detectors not sure what you are looking for here.

GargIndia

dragonridr

GargIndia
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

This theory of relativity is a web of lies, couched in terminology and mathematical equations.

Well whats wrong with relativity you cant say there lies if you dont have anything you can disprove. You can say you dont believe it personally thats fine. I tend to stay more on the QM side myself and there are slight differences. But nothing that violates relativity at least not yet.

The answer will come in this thread if the discussion happens in a logical and thoughtful fashion.

You bring your mind around to the question I asked, and search experiments that measure the velocity of a charged particle. Assume that the particle is incoming into the experimental device, and this device is only measuring the velocity of the incoming particle, not generating the particle or accelerating it.

---------------------

We live in strange times. There is a certain political setup in the world. This political setup wants to promote certain theories.

Now assume I want to disprove one of the theories. I would naturally need a lab, certain equipment, manpower etc. It is unlikely that fundamental Physics laws can be proven or disproven in my backyard.

I know a certain scientist who tried to do something like this but the "scientific establishment" did not allow and even stole and misused his ideas.

You would think that I live in India which would be immune to influences of the Western power, but alas, it is not so.

Sounds to me your confusing science and business. Scientists dont steal other science they may replicate the experiment. But cant really steal it since in order to do that it would have to be published meaning everyone knows its not your work. and physics can be disproven anywhere just takes math and some observation. Do you realize how many physics papers are shown to be wrong? As far as physics i dont think there is some big political plot because we have to any scientists all over the world. And they can research what ever they want.

GargIndia
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

The experiment quoted by you does not measure velocity of an incoming particle. It does not even measure the velocity achieved by the electrons in the experiment. It merely calculates it.

My question - I repeat - How do you measure the velocity of a charged particle. I am saying "measure", not "calculate".

I think you're making a false distinction. Velocity measurement involves some kind of calculation. In the simplest form a velocity is a distance divided by a time which is a calculation.

You can measure the distance and you can measure the time but when you divide distance by time, that's a calculation.

Even if you have a radar gun that is aimed at a moving car and displays the velocity of the moving car, it's still doing calculations internally, even if you can't see them on the display which only shows the result.