Relativity of light - light at light speed

chat · 2003-10-29 05:13:36

dicktice,

This is a great thought for you.

The universe being a finite size and not expanding at light speed, but light traveling faster than the universe is expanding.
What happens to the light at the edge of the universe?
When outside the universe does not exist.

Does The light bunch up? Does it cease to exist? Does it convert into a shock wave that we haven't seen yet?.
Is this the mechanism that eventually stops the expansion?

I've thought many times on this puzzle.
And i always come to the same conclusion.
I have no clue what happens *lol*

dicktice · 2003-10-29 09:15:39

Chat: No time to respond thoughtfully to your last two posts, but my hangup along the same lines as your second one has always been: "Looking into the past" by observing objects with the most redshift, approaching 10-billon years ago, when to get to "the edge of the observable universe" they must have got there at less than lightspeed. Shaun called my attention to "fusion" occuring during the initial expansion after the "Big Bang" to account for this more rapid than now rate of expansion. The trouble with this is: From the first, before the "BB" was postulated in the 1920's--long before the "fusion" explaination--the redshift result of the Theory if the Expanding Universe, of Hubble, was being used to "see into the past." No-one ever explained to me, how the edge of the visible universe back then, got out there faster than the light we see. Why don't the professionals ever explain these "little things"? Do they even think along these lines?
I'll get back to you later, it's great to run across an enthusiast who's still on the conceptual learning curve, I assume, as I am. (Let the "good times roll" while the arguments are still fun, and the mathematical proofs'll catch up in due course!)

chat · 2003-10-30 06:08:23

dicktice,

That darn math is sure to rule in the end

I agree, it's great to find someone that is willing to think outside conventional thought about light and time and space.
It seems so many theories have quirky details that allow them to fit the math now.

And i want to be on the learning curve always.

Just a few short years ago the universe was well understood.
Gravity was slowing down the expansion, but now maybe not.
The math fit so well on that idea also.

Just a small follow up on the edge of the universe idea.

If the universe is clumpy at the edge. (just a hunch)
Wouldn't it now contain an awful lot of matter, light, radiation and gravity after 15 or so billion years?
Maybe the missing matter everyone is looking for.
And a reason the universe can only get so big before collapsing.

Maybe the universe isn't being pushed apart faster, but pulled faster towards the edge.
No dark matter need apply for the job *lol*

It seems an easier solution than undetectable dark matter with push properties, cosmological constants and missing mass.

dicktice · 2003-10-30 16:47:03

Chat: I'm still a bit rushed, but as long as you don't delete any of your posts, let's try tackling 'em one by one. So as not to leave you wanting, here're two more of my connundrums--

How to go about conceiving "the edge of the universe" without "being outside, looking in" the way my mind tends to do? There's got to be a way.

Photons trapped in a black hole ie. "beneath the event horizon" (my expression of the moment): Mustn't they (those whose spins don't allow escape as Hawking radiation), where their paths are parallel with the black hole's axis, reverse direction--at lightspeed?

I'd hate to bother Hawking et al, with such elementary concept queries . . . but isn't there someone out there who's just starting out to be brilliant in astrophysics, to explain to us fans who only wish to have our hang-ups resolved (or at least recognized as real) and not simply passed over for the math?

chat · 2003-10-30 17:48:12

dicktice,

No worry on you being rushed.
We've all been there many many times

Yeah outside the universe is a tough concept.

Someone explained it to me like this.

Think of no space, no time, no energy, no anything.
Simply a void with no properties.

Now think of a balloon being blown up in the above medium or lack of it.
The universe is the balloon.

Outside simply doesn't exist.
But more balloons might

Ahh the great black hole shrinking theory.

I'm not extremely familiar with this theory.
But if I'm correct its about Stephen Hawkins idea that even black holes eventually evaporate. ?
Black holes evaporating to outside the event horizon seems plausible over very long times.

But anything escaping into a non existent void beyond the edge of the universe?
As soon as it gets to the edge time and space stop, so nothing can escape.
A great zone for clumpyness

dicktice · 2003-10-31 21:40:26

Chat: Just before logging out, I decided to google search "time dilation," and look what I found--

The object shown as M31 is the Andromeda galaxy, and is rather like our Milky Way. On a clear night you can see it as a faint chalk-like smudge on the sky, and it is the furthest object we can see with the naked eye. Pictures taken with powerful telescopes show it to be composed of millions and millions of stars, many of which are just like our own Sun. The Andromeda galaxy is so far away that it takes the light from it, as measured with our Earth-bound clocks, over two million years to reach us. However, a photon emitted from a star in Andromeda and heading out towards the Earth travels in a vacuum and, because it is a photon, travels at the speed of light. Because the photon is moving at the speed of light it has a 100% time dilation factor. To the photon time does not exist until it strikes the upper atmosphere of our planet and even then is only slowed down by a tiny fraction. According to a photon in free space, time has no meaning whatsoever, and it gets from wherever it is to wherever it is going instantly!

(To be continued. . . .)

dicktice · 2003-11-01 10:04:06

Chat: (Continuing) I had a time relocating the source of my last post. Turns out, I had google searched, viz.
photon dialation . . . SR3 . . . Time Dilation
These are the product of Jim Doyle in Edinborough, who is with Napier University. Have a go, at: photon dilation

chat · 2003-11-01 14:44:45

Dicktice,

Some great ideas about the strangeness of photons traveling at light speed here.

Great reading (aspirins not included). *lol*

http://nothing-that-matters.blogspot.com/

dicktice · 2003-11-02 14:44:18

Chat: Yes I read that too. Makes you wonder why scientists don't use photon timelessness (my terminology) to explain all this "action at a distance" and "simultaneous events" (or whatever the current jargon is) attributed to quantum mechanics in terms of time as we experience. I think I'm beginning to get it. Have to watch out for the cranks, though. Worse yet: avoid becoming one myself! (Quite fun, this forum.)

chat · 2003-11-02 15:50:21

dicktice,

My two favorite sayings are... Nothing lasts forever, not even nothing..
And
All theories are 100% wrong, someone seemingly smarter will be just as wrong when they prove that.

I do understand why most scientist are unwilling to publish anything that isn't supported by the math.
Just look back at the cold fusion inquisition for proof of what happens if you don't do the math.

I bet most scientists are probably working on 5 theories with unsupported math, for every one supported by the math,
You will just never get them to say they are until the math is correct.

I agree about this message board, it's a great place to sounds ideas and see if they float.
And a great place to talk about the most bizarre to the most common ideas, and sometimes even get a better idea of why the current theory won't allow that idea

My personal pet theory and no 1 interest was figuring a way to get to the stars with current technology.
It's been a long work in progress, and i have had the idea rejected once for no apparent reason about 12 years ago.
But as soon as i saw deep space 1 using a similar idea i knew it was time get some input on mine once again.

So far the response has been pretty good to the idea.
I've had a few contacts from respected scientists about the idea.
And so far not a single critical input.
So this message board has been a giant help to me

Although i bet now that deep space 1 is a working craft, eventually they would have put together the idea of a larger power plant and a trapped controlled circle for the acceleration.
I'm just not willing to wait another 20 years for that *lol*

But as for talking about the strangeness of the universe it's got to be a close 2nd.
In the end I'm sure the universe is quite normal, and the strangeness is the understanding. *lol*

dicktice · 2003-11-04 15:23:07

Chat: I received a very nice reply from Jim Doyle, which I've copied, and reproduce below:

From: j.k.doyle@talk21.com
Subject: Relativity Guestbook
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 20:37:27 GMT+01:00
Hi Dick,
Thanks for your kind message in my guest book. However, I think there may be a slight misunderstanding and I would hate to give that impression.
Indeed, photons in a vacuum such as space do not experience time, but that?s only part of the picture (no pun intended!). The main reason that astronomical images retain their resolution has more to do with Newton. His first law of motion states that a body will continue in a straight line unless acted on by an external force. The photons in space will, by and large, not encounter any forces that can alter their paths (there are some exceptions of course). Even a small light source will give off a few trillion photons a second, and we don?t need many to be able to form a picture So if even a relatively small percentage make it all the way across space can still detect them and form a clear picture.
Having said that, a photon is a fundamental particle, i.e. it can?t be split and doesn?t decay. If this wasn?t the case we wouldn?t see much in space because even though the photon doesn?t experience time we would still see it taking time
to get to us (hence relativity). By the time it reached us it would have changed and we wouldn?t know what its source looked like.
However, I still find it astounding that a free photon has no ?concept? of time. It can travel from one end of the universe to the other and arrive at precisely the same time that it left! I wish I could get to work in the same way!
Thanks again.
Jim

chat · 2003-11-06 09:06:02

dicktice,

Sorry for not posting for a couple of days but I've been very busy doing calculations and answering email about my particle engine.

It's cool that light feels no time or space.
And as soon as you realize that, you start to realize that all the strangeness of the universe is our perception.
Our relativity makes the universe seem strange.

I wonder how bad the universe is skewed in our relativity compared to time?

If you could travel at the speed of light, then you could travel from anywhere to anywhere with no perception of time or space.
At light speed the universe would appear to be of no size and no space, and the big bang would have just started.

I bet the light perception is correct, and ours is skewed.

Also just a footnote from your friends email.
Empty space in our universe is not totally empty and not a total vacuum.
So i think some time dilation does occur for light.
It might be a very tiny dilation but any dilation would make light itself strange and skewed.

Nick

dicktice · 2003-11-09 15:39:19

Chat: I'm afraid your " tiny dilation" for light doesn't occur. He was emphatic that photons are "primary particles" which don't deteriorate with distance and inherently "travel" at lightspeed "in vacuum." Let's try to think a bit more, when I'm sure he will be pleased to counter-argue. Gotta go, back later though--now that I'm able to log-in again....

chat · 2003-11-10 04:54:54

Dictice,

Light can go slower than the speed of light and it's easy to prove

I bet your friend will have fun trying to answer this one.

Light created inside our star takes about 1 million years to escape the star.
It bounces around in random paths until it escapes the star.

In 1 million years a photon is almost sure to make a direct straight hit on a hydrogen atom and bounce back at an exact 90 degree angle ?

If so the photon is stopped for a tiny amount of time on the bounce off the atom.

Also black holes can stop light and bend light, both alter the speed of light and it's dilation.

If you think of light speed as a measure of time, then the above puzzles are easy to answer, but if not then they are very hard to explain.

Speed limit 55 most of the time
Nick

dicktice · 2003-11-10 16:00:18

Chat: I'm in a quandry as well--some fun, at this stage in the illusidation, eh? Soon as I get around to it, I'll cut-and-past your post in an e-mail to him--that's if you don't do it first (hint, for you to go to his address a few posts earlier). Back soon as I get (I hesitate to even mention the word) time....

JoshNH4H · 2008-04-27 14:48:12

This (veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery old ) thread brings up some interesting questions. Say space ship A is traveling a .5c in one direction, and sppaceship b is standing still. A sends out a radio signal. A scout 1 light month ahead of A, but going at the same speed will recieve it in 1 month. But B will measure the speed of light going to SSA to be 1.5c. ????????? :?: :?: :?: :?:

Terraformer · 2008-05-03 15:42:57

If Einstien was right, no. Light goes at the same speed for all observers.

JoshNH4H · 2008-05-03 18:36:03

but then the information would take different times for the info to get different places for different observers :oops:

I guess it's one of those confusing quantum phenomena on a larger scale.

Terraformer · 2008-05-04 03:30:23

Here's an intruiging thought experiment.

Imagine a ship that was, say, 5 light minutes long going at near light speed. Now imagine shining a torch from the front of the ship to the back. The question is, would it take five minutes for the light to get from the front to the back?

JoshNH4H · 2008-05-04 15:05:40

or even more interesting, back to front. But who knows. to a 'stationary' observer, probably.

dicktice · 2008-05-04 19:04:44

Five minutes inside the ship, in both directions, since "speed" outside the ship has no relevance to anything inside.

Terraformer · 2008-05-05 05:26:31

If light is the same for all observers, then it'll be going at different speeds in different parts of the universe. Or it'll have to keep changing speeds.

JoshNH4H · 2008-05-05 14:44:46

like I said, a quantum phenomenon at the macroscale.

bobunf · 2008-05-06 07:42:18

This phenomenon is entirely explained by special relatively and has nothing at all to do with quantum theory. This is the same problem presented by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley in 1887. Michelson was the first American to win a Nobel prize (1907) and he did so primarily based on this experimental work.

But it was left to the genius of Albert Einstein to explain and make sense of the fact, which Michelson and Morley had experimentally demonstrated in 1887, that the speed of light is the same for all observers. The Theory of Special Relativity, published by Einstein in 1905, presented the explanation as it is still understood today.

Einstein explained the phenomenon for lay people in his book of 1916 entitled “Relativity, The Special and General Theory. A Clear Explanation that Anyone Can Understand.” The book is inexpensive and readily available: try Amazon, Borders, even eBay may have it.

Highly recommended, but it does require some work, as opposed to off-the-cuff silliness.

Bob

noosfractal · 2008-05-06 08:45:29

The Wikipedia article isn't too bad either

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introducti … relativity

Basically you have to use the Lorenz transform to answer questions about what one reference frame looks like from another reference frame. The math isn't too bad. Intuitively, it just makes c into infinity and bends everything else accordingly. The hard part is understanding that there is _not_ an absolute reference frame - no reference frame is preferred over any other.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-10-29 05:13:36

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#27 2003-10-29 09:15:39

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#28 2003-10-30 06:08:23

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#29 2003-10-30 16:47:03

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#30 2003-10-30 17:48:12

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#31 2003-10-31 21:40:26

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#32 2003-11-01 10:04:06

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#33 2003-11-01 14:44:45

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#34 2003-11-02 14:44:18

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#35 2003-11-02 15:50:21

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#36 2003-11-04 15:23:07

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#37 2003-11-06 09:06:02

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#38 2003-11-09 15:39:19

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#39 2003-11-10 04:54:54

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#40 2003-11-10 16:00:18

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#41 2008-04-27 14:48:12

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#42 2008-05-03 15:42:57

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#43 2008-05-03 18:36:03

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#44 2008-05-04 03:30:23

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#45 2008-05-04 15:05:40

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#46 2008-05-04 19:04:44

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#47 2008-05-05 05:26:31

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#48 2008-05-05 14:44:46

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#49 2008-05-06 07:42:18

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

#50 2008-05-06 08:45:29

Re: Relativity of light - light at light speed

Board footer