Speed of light is limited by what?

[Bobby]

Greetings,

 

Am new to this Forum business. Just signed on. This topic interests me - though for sure I'm not a highbrow. Was originally after some info on the on-line book "The Final Theory". Already looked at some of that thread.

 

As regards the "speed-of-light" item, I've had the same question on my simple mind for some years now - but leaning more towards an answer that might at least in part have been dependent on the properties that existed (were created) in the first few microseconds of creation - as pertaining to the 'big bang' theory.

 

In that sense, my reasoning here was analoguous to that pertaining to the creation of a complex organism, a human, for instance, from a single, miniscule cell wherein the even smaller genes determine the properties of the final whole. I keep thinking that the properties of everything which we can detect as existing, now, must have already been determined in toto, by factors existing at the very beginning - including anomalies due to probabilities - assuming that our present universe, or any other type, could have been created in the first place under any other than the precise, original conditions. If so, then that right there implies to me that 'C' could conceivably have been something altogether different.

 

It seems logical, also that, had the singularity (or whatever one might call it) been larger (or smaller), than what caused the 'big bang' and it's resultant properties, then the resultant Velocity constant for EMR, might have, again, been quite different. That's all assuming of course that the 'big bang' (if it ever occurred) could have occurred under any kind of other conditions (different original mass, etc.).

 

Or am I completely out in left field here?

 

Ted / tedoniman

 

( 1 ) I have seen speculations that time started at the Big Bang. I interpret this as meaning that T = 0 at the instant of the Big Bang. This cannot have been true if the Big thing that went Bang was energy. Energy comes in little packets consistent with Planck's constant. This constant is expressed in terms of distance and time, thus the total energy of the Big Bang was KE where K is an unknown constant and E is Planck's constant. We can calculate the minimum value for space and time by considering Planck's constant.

 

( 2 ) Everything I read suggests that the rate of time depends on gravity.

 

( 3 ) It appears to me that the starting rate for time was, as you suggest, determined at the instant of the Big Bang. Clock rates of today reflect this starting rate as modified by the present force of gravity.

[EWright]

I'm very pleased to see this discussion generating such a wealth of provocative thought. Now to address the issues at hand...

 

First, EWright, let me say I take no offense at your criticism of my reasoning, and find your positions interesting and insight-provoking, and your manner spirited yet polite. I hope that, thought exchanging ideas, we and the others on scienceforums can reach new insights and understandings.The critical point that I’m trying to make is that there is a property, unique to light (to be precise, unique to all fundamental, boson interaction forces, of which electromagnetic radiation is one), that causes this effect to happen. That quality is the one demonstrated by the Michelson-Morley experiment – its speed is independent of the motion of its source, or the motion of the device measuring its speed.

 

This quality is truly unique. Particles such as cannon balls and electrons – even ones moving close to the speed of light - don’t have it. Waves such as ocean waves and sound waves don’t either. Prior to the MM experiment, there was no reason to expect that light would have such a counterintuitive quality. Whether a particle or a wave (prior to around 1924, it was thought that light must be one or the other, but not both) – there was no reason to believe that light was different than either cannon balls or ocean waves, other than being much faster. It was entirely reasonable to believe that, given a sufficiently pure vacuum and a sufficiently powerful projectile-thrower, one could throw a projectile much faster than the speed of light.[/Quote]

 

This M^2 experiment did not prove any unique qualities about light as it relates to time dialation or lenth measurments. It proved that light is always measured at the same speed. Period. It is the fact that this measurement is always the same that caused Einstein and friends to related all measurments of speed and distance to it. ie, You can not accurately measure anything on your scale unless you zero it out first. You need a common point of reference to do so, such as zero or a constant. Without this you can not accurately measure anything. This is why all measurements are accurately REALATIVE to c. And for this reason Relativity perfectly describes the events it is used to measure. It is a TOOL to DESCRIBE reality, but it is not reality itself.

 

If light did not have this property, moving clock would not run slower than stationary ones. In the example I gave, observer B would just observe that the zig-zaging light moved faster. This is just what he observes if the reflecting clock in the example uses an “ordinary” particle, such as a perfectly elastic, friction-free ball (an ordinary, high-temper glass ball comes reasonably close to being one).Practically speaking, it’s hard to imagine any sort of observer without photons. Photons don’t just carry visible light – they carry the magnetic force that keeps the electrons in atoms from flying off into space. However, if the universe had no bosons of any kind, I believe effects like time dilation would still occur, because if a boson existed, it would have the motion-invariant speed quality.The postulate of SR – the equivalency principle – is supported by experimental evidence. Postulates strongly supported by evidence have an elevated status – one might even hazard to call them facts.

[/Quote]

 

Yes, faster moving clocks would still move slower relative to stationary ones, even if light did not have the properties it does. The postulates of SR are verified by experiment because, as I said above, it is a precise tool for DESCRIBING our universe and thus I would expect most (if not all) experiments to support it. But the fact is the physics of faster moving objects would still be true if there was no light where it is being conducted. If you fly an atomic clock at a higher rate of speed than a stationary one on earth and they're both locked in light tight cases, you'll still find the faster moving clock lost time. Thus, THERE ARE NO PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF LIGHT that are influencing the hands on the clock to move slower than the ones on the ground.

 

I sense that your discomfort with the speed of light arises because, unlike values such as Pi, e, and the golden ratio, which arise from fundamental arithmetic and geometry, it’s an arbitrary value. Though the nature of physical matter and its dynamics would be very different if the speed of light were one tenth or ten times its observed value, there still would be physical mater, space, and time, and, except for the constants, the laws of Physics would be unchanged. Many respectable theories even propose that the speed of light in a gravity-free vacuum has and is changing.

[/Quote]

I have absolutely no discomfort wtih the speed of light. I'm just saying science will never find its Grant Unified Theory until it can let go if the constraints of relativity. Relativity had a grip science like a swartzchild radius and no one who's been trained in it seems to be able to think outside of it. Asking what lies beyond relativity is like asking what lies beyond the edge of the universe: "nothing" they say.

 

Your comparison to pi shows you are on track in your thinking. And the following responses to that . The question physicists must answer is this: "Pi is to the the circle as lightspeed is to _________." I can fill in that blank.

 

The only thing I can think to say to this discomfort is that the actual value of c doesn’t, ultimately, mater. [/Quote]

This seems contradictory to your position regarding our discussion.

 

What’s important is that there’s only one such value. If there were 2 or more families of bosons, each with its own motion-invariant speed, Modern Physics would need to be fundamentally rewritten in ways I can barely imagine.

[/Quote]

 

The graviton is thought to travel at c as well. Although it is not 'its own' speed, in this case. But I will tell you that if you can measure its speed you will measure it at c as well. Why? Fill in the blank above, and you'll have your answer. (I know your first thought is that it must then relate to a physical quality of light, but this is not the case).

 

A suggestion, based on my own experience in striving to contribute to Science: before rejecting major parts of mainstream Physics, strive to attain unimpeachable expertise in it. In so doing, you may encounter great surprises, and ultimate come to accept much that you once were moved to reject. If not, the acquired expertise will enable you to state your theories in a powerful, compelling manner.

 

I am indeed striving to attain a better understanding of physics, and in part I am doing this with the help of you good people. Hopefully, I will not trap myself in Einstein's box in the process.

[EWright]

Great post, Craig.

 

Interesting thought:

 

Imagine that we stumbled across the value for Pi without having the faintest idea what its related to. We'd think it weird to have such an arbitrary number, until some time in the future someone says: "Hey, check it out - Pi fits nicely here with them circle thingys... what a coincidence!"

 

In that unlikely example, the result was discovered first. Okay - I know, stupid example - but say, for instance, the speed of light is related to something in relation to something else? Until we figure that out, the value for c will look arbitrary. I wonder...

 

 

You wonder correctly.

[Bobby]

 

You can not accurately measure anything on your scale unless you zero it out first. You need a common point of reference to do so, such as zero or a constant. Without this you can not accurately measure anything. This is why all measurements are accurately REALATIVE to c.

 

Thus, THERE ARE NO PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF LIGHT that are influencing the hands on the clock to move slower than the ones on the ground.

 

 

 

This appears to come close to having the speed of light as a preferred frame of reference.

I think there is a preferred frame of reference, and it isn't the speed of light, it is gravity.

 

If clock A is on the moon and clock B is on the earth and if the two clocks are later compared, the clock from the earth will have ticked off less time. WHY? Because it was in a more intense gravitational field.

[Bobby]

Great post, Craig.

 

Interesting thought:

 

Imagine that we stumbled across the value for Pi without having the faintest idea what its related to. We'd think it weird to have such an arbitrary number, until some time in the future someone says: "Hey, check it out - Pi fits nicely here with them circle thingys... what a coincidence!"

 

In that unlikely example, the result was discovered first. Okay - I know, stupid example - but say, for instance, the speed of light is related to something in relation to something else? Until we figure that out, the value for c will look arbitrary. I wonder...

 

 

Such as T1 = T2 (1 + gt/C^2) ?

[EWright]

This appears to come close to having the speed of light as a preferred frame of reference.

I think there is a preferred frame of reference, and it isn't the speed of light, it is gravity.

 

If clock A is on the moon and clock B is on the earth and if the two clocks are later compared, the clock from the earth will have ticked off less time. WHY? Because it was in a more intense gravitational field.

 

True. But, I believe it goes deeper. Like light, gravity is also a product of the universe. However, unlike light, gravity does have an identifiable force that could arguably cause such occurences more readily than light traveling at c. While gravity is not my answer, I would be much more open to an idea that made gravity "c". But this is touch because different gravitational sources produce different gravitational influences. Thus, even if gravity travels at the constant rate of "c", it makes it difficult to use as a constant means of measurement. Although, this would not mean that it could not be used as such. But it would not be the "simplest" way, which would be to use light speed.

[Bobby]

True. But, I believe it goes deeper. Like light, gravity is also a product of the universe. However, unlike light, gravity does have an identifiable force that could arguably cause such occurences more readily than light traveling at c. While gravity is not my answer, I would be much more open to an idea that made gravity "c". But this is touch because different gravitational sources produce different gravitational influences. Thus, even if gravity travels at the constant rate of "c", it makes it difficult to use as a constant means of measurement. Although, this would not mean that it could not be used as such. But it would not be the "simplest" way, which would be to use light speed.

 

 

While gravity is not my answer, I would be much more open to an idea that made gravity "c". =====> What an interesting idea. I've got to think about it, but this is probably what I have been saying all along and didn't know it.

 

 

Thus, even if gravity travels at the constant rate of "c", it makes it difficult to use as a constant means of measurement. =====> I read somewhere that the Global Positioning Satalites (sic) make an allowance for relativistic time dilation. I assume the correction is due to velocity. Wouldn't similar adjustments for gravity be necessary for a long space journey?

[Bobby]

Sorry Bobby, I apparently can not access the site via the link either, and now I am at home instead of at work where I was posting from throughout the day. I'll have to get back to that tomorrow at work as I have much more valuable things to do with my time when I am at home (This is why you get more posts from me on the weekends) :)

 

I do believe you are mistaken in your description of imaginary numbers. SQRT of -1 = i, but v/0 = 0. Generally equations that result in dividing by zero are ruled out by scientific folk. But apparently if Einstein says its OK in this one case, it must be OK. And it does, it seems to me, mean that the photon travels an infinite distance while experiencing zero time. LOL, what a crock. Again, this is because Einstein CHOSE to zero things out at c for simplicity's sake, it is NOT REALITY.

 

 

On the contrary, scientists are met with X/0 very often but they handle it in a calculus manner concerning limits. The idea of limits is as follows The LIMIT of (mathematical expression) approaches (answer) as (variable) approaches 0. Example. Since speed is an average distance divided by time, then the average speed approaches the true speed as time approaches zero.

 

Since one observer can never know what another observer sees, it is not correct to say that a photon would see itself as traveling an infinite distance.

[CraigD]

… I think there is a preferred frame of reference, and it isn't the speed of light, it is gravity.

 

If clock A is on the moon and clock B is on the earth and if the two clocks are later compared, the clock from the earth will have ticked off less time. WHY? Because it was in a more intense gravitational field.

True. But I suspect gravity and light are more related than you may think.

 

Though subtle and less widely understood than the practical formulae of Relativity, I think it’s important to note that, per the original 1916 paper, the relativistic effects of gravity predicted by the general theory are explained as a consequence of the special theory. In short – though it’s difficult to be much shorter or understandable than Einstein’s excellent writing – a gravitation field can be viewed as equivalent to the centrifugal force that would be present if the universe were spinning around a special point relative to the bodies involved. Time dilation, etc, are then the result of the relative motion of the stationary and moving observers, just as they would be in a universe in which gravity did not exist, and just as in the “light clock” example.

 

I can’t be too strong in my encouragement of everybody to really and completely read the 1916 paper. Though by no means an easy read, it’s purposefully written to be read by non-physicists, and can greatly help to cut through the haze of generations of physicists and non-physicists interpretation of what Relativity is really about.

 

That said, I personally believe (but can’t prove) that, though beautiful, Relativity, being a classical, not a quantum theory, is approximate and, ultimately, wrong. The only non-wrong alternative I can wrap my mind around is the Standard Model of Particle Physics, extended to include the graviton boson. In this model, all forces are due to bosons, and the photon and the graviton are simple 2 members of this family. Both have 0 mass, and move only at the speed of light.

 

Far smarter and better educated people than I will be required to extend the Standard Model into a true, complete theory of everything. My best reason and intuition tells me that this will someday happen, and that the Standard Model will provide a complete fundamental description or reality.

[CraigD]

... I read somewhere that the Global Positioning Satalites (sic) make an allowance for relativistic time dilation. I assume the correction is due to velocity. Wouldn't similar adjustments for gravity be necessary for a long space journey?

You read correctly.

 

Both adjustment you describe are necessary for ordinary, terrestrial GPS use. GPS electronics correct for the effects of both their velocity, and the difference in gravitational field strength at their orbital altitude and at the surface of the earth, by about .000038 sec/day. In principle, this factor would have to be slightly decreased to provide the most accurate possible navigation of fast-moving, high-moving aircraft – I don’t know if aircraft and weapon GPS systems actually do this, but suspect that the best ones do.

 

GPS is low-powered, and intended for use only in navigating on and over the surface of the Earth. If a similar system were implemented for interplanetary navigation, or navigation on the surface of the moon or another planet, the values used for these corrections would have to be recalculated and changed.

 

GPS is complicated, but good explanations, such as this wikipedia article, are easy to find.

[Bobby]

True. But I suspect gravity and light are more related than you may think.

 

Though subtle and less widely understood than the practical formulae of Relativity, I think it’s important to note that, per the original 1916 paper, the relativistic effects of gravity predicted by the general theory are explained as a consequence of the special theory. In short – though it’s difficult to be much shorter or understandable than Einstein’s excellent writing – a gravitation field can be viewed as equivalent to the centrifugal force that would be present if the universe were spinning around a special point relative to the bodies involved. Time dilation, etc, are then the result of the relative motion of the stationary and moving observers, just as they would be in a universe in which gravity did not exist, and just as in the “light clock” example.

 

I can’t be too strong in my encouragement of everybody to really and completely read the 1916 paper. Though by no means an easy read, it’s purposefully written to be read by non-physicists, and can greatly help to cut through the haze of generations of physicists and non-physicists interpretation of what Relativity is really about.

 

That said, I personally believe (but can’t prove) that, though beautiful, Relativity, being a classical, not a quantum theory, is approximate and, ultimately, wrong. The only non-wrong alternative I can wrap my mind around is the Standard Model of Particle Physics, extended to include the graviton boson. In this model, all forces are due to bosons, and the photon and the graviton are simple 2 members of this family. Both have 0 mass, and move only at the speed of light.

 

Far smarter and better educated people than I will be required to extend the Standard Model into a true, complete theory of everything. My best reason and intuition tells me that this will someday happen, and that the Standard Model will provide a complete fundamental description or reality.

 

 

I've saved your post so I can read it with the care it deserves. As far as gravity and light, I suspect that the only thing that is "real", whatever "real" means, is electric charge having some characteristics of mass.

[jerryo]

i know little about light

but am curious and learning

 

these guys have some light experiments going on

 

http://www.phy.duke.edu/research/photon/qelectron/proj/infv/

 

they entertain the 'fast light ' idea

[Little Bang]

An interesting site Jerryo.

[Tormod]

The only non-wrong alternative I can wrap my mind around is the Standard Model of Particle Physics, extended to include the graviton boson.

 

CraigD, how can any theory be "non-wrong"?

[CraigD]

CraigD, how can any theory be "non-wrong"?

By "non-wrong", I mean not yet falsified. I mean the term to seem weaker than “right” or “true”, reflecting the inherently provisional nature of scientific theories.

 

A theory that has been falsified experiments based on its own formalism is “wrong.”

 

A theory who’s formalism provides no experiment by which it can be falsified (even one beyond our experimental ability) is “not even good enough to be wrong” – that is, not a scientific theory.

 

The “standard” Standard Model is “non-wrong”, but incomplete due to its lack of a description of gravity. I hope that it can be extended to include gravity, and continue to prove “non-wrong”.

 

Many “wrong” theories are still very useful. For example, Universal Gravitation is falsified by its incorrect prediction of the precession of the orbit of Mercury, but it’s still very useful for performing practical spaceflight calculations and simulations.

[Southtown]

True. But, I believe it goes deeper. Like light, gravity is also a product of the universe. However, unlike light, gravity does have an identifiable force that could arguably cause such occurences more readily than light traveling at c. While gravity is not my answer, I would be much more open to an idea that made gravity "c". But this is touch because different gravitational sources produce different gravitational influences. Thus, even if gravity travels at the constant rate of "c", it makes it difficult to use as a constant means of measurement. Although, this would not mean that it could not be used as such. But it would not be the "simplest" way, which would be to use light speed.

I don't claim to know any answers, but it seems I've heard some news that may be relevent to gravity being a boson force.

 

“

Total eclipses of the Sun by the Moon reach maximum eclipse about 40 seconds before the Sun and Moon's gravitational forces align. If gravity is a propagating force, this 3-body (Sun-Moon-Earth) test implies that gravity propagates at least 20 times faster than light.

 

The Earth accelerates toward a point 20 arc seconds in front of the visible Sun, where the Sun will appear to be in 8.3 minutes. Thus, the acceleration now is toward the true, instantaneous direction of the Sun now, and is not parallel to the direction of the arriving solar photons now.

” — [The speed of gravity - what the experiments say. T. van Flandern,

Physics Letters A

. vol.250, no.1-3, Page: 1-11 (1998)] (

alternate PDF document

)

 

Found at this site from UncleAl: http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/ast12oct99_1.htm

[sinewave]

The speed of light is limited by the wave deformation rate of an infinitely-elastic, non-cavitating physically singular space.