PDA

View Full Version : Faster than the speed of light



CWH
09-23-2011, 09:32 AM
Can anything be faster than the speed of light? Yes, Neutrinos. Einstein's e=mc2 needs a review. I have always believe that the speed of light is not the ultimate speed. I also believe that if the speed of light can be slowed, it can certainly also be speeded up. The Big Bang must be faster than the speed of light for it to blow stars billions of light years away.

http://xmedia.ex.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=114:faster-than-the-speed-of-light&catid=9:technology&Itemid=15

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2094623,00.html?iid=pf-main-mostpop1

Neutrinos may have traveled faster than the speed of light
By Elizabeth Flock
Scientists at CERN, the world’s largest physics lab, announced a startling finding yesterday that would be enough to make Albert Einstein roll over in his grave: Subatomic particles, called neutrinos, have been found to be traveling faster than the speed of light.

CERN (Anja Niedringhaus - AP) If true, this development would break a fundamental pillar of physics. Einstein’s special theory of relativity has always told us nothing is supposed to move faster than the speed of light, 299,792,458 meters per second.

CERN scientists are now asking others to verify the measurements before claiming the discovery to be true.


Albert Einstein. (AP) “The feeling that most people have is this can’t be right, this can’t be real,” said James Gillies, a spokesman for CERN.

Rob Plunkett, a scientist at Fermilab, one of only two labs in the world that can try to replicate CERN’s results, says he’s keeping an open mind, but “it’s dangerous to lay odds against Einstein. Einstein has been tested repeatedly over and over again.”

Post science writer Joel Achenbach says that he’s sticking with Einstein, at least for now, because:

Einstein’s theory... isn’t based primarily on measurements.
Einstein’s theory emerged from thought experiments. It was a deep insight into the nature of the universe. Subsequent experiments for more than a century have verified that he was right.
For the new finding to carry a lot of weight, it would need more than an instrumental measurement. It would need a theoretical foundation. Otherwise you have something that is enigmatic rather than revolutionary.
When CERN clocked the neutrino beam, it was traveling 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light. Scientists put the margin of error at just 10 nanoseconds, making the difference significant.

If the results are confirmed, they won’t change how we live or how the universe behaves. But it will shake the very foundation of what we believe.

lLt our light shnes forth to the world, Amen :pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
09-23-2011, 11:23 AM
Can anything be faster than the speed of light? Yes, Neutrinos. Einstein's e=mc2 needs a review. I have always believe that the speed of light is not the ultimate speed. I also believe that if the speed of light can be slowed, it can certainly also be speeded up. The Big Bang must be faster than the speed of light for it to blow stars billions of light years away.

Fascinating stuff CWH - thanks for sharing.

I thinks it's much too early to toss Relativity into the junk bin of false science. As the article mentioned, there could be a systematic error in their measurements and/or analysis of the data. And even if not, there could be some other explanation. The theoretical foundation of Relativity and it's experimental confirmation will not fall easily. But then again, it could be "wrong" (or better, "approximate") like the Newtonian theory that preceded. And even if neutrino could travel fast then light, it may be some sort of "special case" that is not applicable to "normal matter." There are just too many possibilities for any kind of conclusion at this time.

And where did you get the idea that light "can certainly also be speeded up"?

As for the inflationary cosmology implying that things can move faster than light - it appears you forgot that it is space-time itself that expanded "faster than light." None of the matter within that space-time manifold moved faster than light relative to other matter. See here (http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm).

I find it curious that you have "beliefs" about advanced topics in Physics. Do you know integral and differential calculus? Complex analysis? Statistical mechanics? How can you have "beliefs" about things of which you know so little?

CWH
11-04-2011, 08:05 AM
There is a question that I would like to ask the experts here. If something can travel faster than light, can we see it? Of course, it will be invisible as it will be too fast for the human eyes to see. But imagine it as traveling across or towards us in the vast distance of space or rotating stationary in space, can we see it with our naked eyes? This is taking into consideration that light cannot travel faster to "hit" this object traveling faster than the speed of light and reflect it back to our eyes. We are able to see things because light reflect them to our eyes. I have a deduction that since light cannot reflect an object traveling faster than the sped of light, it will then appear as a visible black object. It cannot be invisible. Can this be a possible explanation of the black holes and black matter? I do not believe in the explanation that black holes have such powerful gravity force that even light cannot escape. This is based on the strong gravity of the sun in which its gravity pull does not seem to have any effect in slowing down the speed of light and even the speed of meteors.

God Blessings to all.

Richard Amiel McGough
11-14-2011, 03:12 AM
There is a question that I would like to ask the experts here. If something can travel faster than light, can we see it? Of course, it will be invisible as it will be too fast for the human eyes to see. But imagine it as traveling across or towards us in the vast distance of space or rotating stationary in space, can we see it with our naked eyes? This is taking into consideration that light cannot travel faster to "hit" this object traveling faster than the speed of light and reflect it back to our eyes. We are able to see things because light reflect them to our eyes. I have a deduction that since light cannot reflect an object traveling faster than the sped of light, it will then appear as a visible black object. It cannot be invisible. Can this be a possible explanation of the black holes and black matter? I do not believe in the explanation that black holes have such powerful gravity force that even light cannot escape. This is based on the strong gravity of the sun in which its gravity pull does not seem to have any effect in slowing down the speed of light and even the speed of meteors.

God Blessings to all.
Hey there Cheow Wee, :yo:

Your question is an echo of Einstein's own question that led him to discover the theory of relativity. He conducted a gedanken (thought) experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment), asking himself what would happen to his reflection in a mirror as he passed the speed of light.

Why don't you believe that black holes cannot trap light?

Why do you say that the mass of the sun does not slow down the light emitting from it? Do you have a scientific paper in mind?

CWH
11-14-2011, 04:35 AM
[QUOTE=RAM;36813]Hey there Cheow Wee, :yo:

Your question is an echo of Einstein's own question that led him to discover the theory of relativity. He conducted a gedanken (thought) experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment), asking himself what would happen to his reflection in a mirror as he passed the speed of light.

That's exactly my hypothetical question:
What would happen to his reflection in a mirror as he passed faster than the speed of light? Will he still see himself in the mirror? No, because it is faster than the speed of light and light is just not fast enough to hit it and reflect back. In that case, what will he see in the mirror? Will he see an invisible image or a transparent image or a blank white image or a blank black image? I think it will be a blank black image because any image which light cannot reflect back to the eye will be seen as black.


Why don't you believe that black holes cannot trap light?
First, it will need tremendous amount of gravity to stop light from escaping. Secondly, It would also attract light around it and I would expect to see an aura of progressive level of darkness around the black hole as light is being slowed as it pulsl into the black hole. So far, no one has managed to measure the speed of gravity which I suspect to be faster than the speed of light. Now, if the speed of gravity is faster than the speed of light then hypothetically gravity will be seen as something black.....a black hole. Of course, there could be a possibility of both i.e. a very strong gravity and a gravity faster than the speed of light that caused us to see as a black hole.


Why do you say that the mass of the sun does not slow down the light emitting from it? Do you have a scientific paper in mind?
There are some papers that show the arching of light as it passed towards the sun or planets, but I am not convinced that it is due to the pull of gravity because the arch of light is not proportionate the the huge difference between the gravitational pull of the sun compared to the smaller gravitational pull of the planets. And is the arch of light due to gravitational pull or the magnetic effects of the sun and planets? It is a known fact that magnetism can affect light, but can gravity really affect light? Some say gravity and electro-magnetism are the same thing, I doubt so as their principles are different. Besides, photons which light is consists of is not affected by gravity.


Many God Blessings to you all. :pray:

jce
11-16-2011, 12:38 PM
Thanks Cheow for raising a thoughtful topic!

1st John 1:5 makes an interesting comment that "God is Light". Of course there are a number of ways to interpret that statement, but I did think it rather fascinating that time & space were determined to be the variables when it comes to the motion of light rather than light itself being flexible. If the theory is correct, it makes an interesting comparison in that the other elements within the universe yield to light and are subject to its attributes. Of course, gravity has been accused of bending/attracting light.

Ah yes gravity, we battle it our entire lives from the moment we first roll over in the crib, to the act of lifting our head, then onto the crawl, then pulling ourselves up to our feet, hanging on to steady ourselves in the erect position, then letting go in a gamble to take those first steps as we progress to the defiant, overcoming act of running & jumping.

But then, after many years of this temporary victory, we begin to succumb to its enduring rule. We begin to slouch in posture, endure back pain from years of stress, the skin begins to sag and the will to fight the ongoing battle begins to show signs of resignation. In the final years, if we live long enough, we walk with a cane to once again steady ourselves, and then concede to a wheel chair and ultimately we return to the crib, "bedridden", until finally, in the end, we return from whence we came, to the dust of the earth, our own grave. Gravity will conquer all newcomers... but, and yes... there is a "but", But God, in Christ, has through the resurrection of Christ, proven that even gravity is subject to His Almighty Power... unable to hold Him fast.

John

Richard Amiel McGough
11-16-2011, 01:39 PM
Thanks Cheow for raising a thoughtful topic!

1st John 1:5 makes an interesting comment that "God is Light". Of course there are a number of ways to interpret that statement, but I did think it rather fascinating that time & space were determined to be the variables when it comes to the motion of light rather than light itself being flexible. If the theory is correct, it makes an interesting comparison in that the other elements within the universe yield to light and are subject to its attributes. Of course, gravity has been accused of bending/attracting light.

This raises a few fascinating points. The "proper time" experienced by a photon is zero. In other words, it takes no time to go from point A to point B in the photon's frame of reference. Thus, light is "everywhere" at the same in its own reference frame.

Another thing about light - what if Light = Consciousness, literally? This would solve the whole "duality" of mind/matter or spirit/matter. The universe is really just modulated light/consciousness.

Of course, in most cases I would be inclined to think that the phrase "God is light" is a metaphor. But given the idea that light/energy is the "stuff of the universe" it may well be that God is literally "light." Very cool idea, anyway.



Ah yes gravity, we battle it our entire lives from the moment we first roll over in the crib, to the act of lifting our head, then onto the crawl, then pulling ourselves up to our feet, hanging on to steady ourselves in the erect position, then letting go in a gamble to take those first steps as we progress to the defiant, overcoming act of running & jumping.

But then, after many years of this temporary victory, we begin to succumb to its enduring rule. We begin to slouch in posture, endure back pain from years of stress, the skin begins to sag and the will to fight the ongoing battle begins to show signs of resignation. In the final years, if we live long enough, we walk with a cane to once again steady ourselves, and then concede to a wheel chair and ultimately we return to the crib, "bedridden", until finally, in the end, we return from whence we came, to the dust of the earth, our own grave. Gravity will conquer all newcomers... but, and yes... there is a "but", But God, in Christ, has through the resurrection of Christ, proven that even gravity is subject to His Almighty Power... unable to hold Him fast.

John
Gravity is a grave subject, is it not?

I am beginning to see the wisdom of death. Indeed, the Gospel is couched in the language of death/resurrection, which is the fundamental rhythm of life. It seems more than a coincidence that the death and resurrection of Christ happens near the Spring equinox when the whole northern hemisphere is experiencing its resurrection.

And this reveals the wisdom of death. I long to die and be reborn fresh like a new born babe. Only it would be nice if I could keep some of the hard-earned wisdom that comes with age and experience. But that's the wisdom of death. It is merely rebooting life.

Richard Amiel McGough
11-16-2011, 01:57 PM
That's exactly my hypothetical question:
What would happen to his reflection in a mirror as he passed faster than the speed of light? Will he still see himself in the mirror? No, because it is faster than the speed of light and light is just not fast enough to hit it and reflect back. In that case, what will he see in the mirror? Will he see an invisible image or a transparent image or a blank white image or a blank black image? I think it will be a blank black image because any image which light cannot reflect back to the eye will be seen as black.

In your experiment, it sounds like you are thinking of moving relative to the mirror. That's different than Einstein's thought experiment. He was thinking of holding a mirror in his hand, at rest in his reference frame, and then moving faster and faster. He concluded nothing should change, which would mean that the speed of light is independent of your frame of reference, i.e. constant.

Now you experiment is very different. As you move faster and faster relative to the mirror, the light would be red shifted more and more until it went dark as you approached the speed of light relative to the mirror. This is similar to the Doppler Effect in sound.



First, it will need tremendous amount of gravity to stop light from escaping.
But that's the whole point of a black hole. It has a singularity in the center which creates an event horizon so that anything that is inside cannot get outside.



Secondly, It would also attract light around it and I would expect to see an aura of progressive level of darkness around the black hole as light is being slowed as it pulsl into the black hole.

Yes, that is what you would see as matter is sucked in. It doesn't mean anything is getting out.



So far, no one has managed to measure the speed of gravity which I suspect to be faster than the speed of light.

Where do you get such "intuitions?" Do you understand the General Theory of Relativity? If not, what is the source of your guesses? Why would you think that gravity waves could travel faster than light?



Now, if the speed of gravity is faster than the speed of light then hypothetically gravity will be seen as something black.....a black hole. Of course, there could be a possibility of both i.e. a very strong gravity and a gravity faster than the speed of light that caused us to see as a black hole.

I don't follow this at all. The physics of black holes is based on general relativity. It has nothing to do with the "speed of gravity" and as far as I know, the physicists who invented the idea of black holes never talk like this. It's fun to speculate, but it's a lot more fun to base the speculations on known facts.



There are some papers that show the arching of light as it passed towards the sun or planets, but I am not convinced that it is due to the pull of gravity because the arch of light is not proportionate the the huge difference between the gravitational pull of the sun compared to the smaller gravitational pull of the planets.

Again, it seems your skepticism has no foundation. The curvature of light is very precisely proportionate to the masses involved. Indeed, physicists estimate the mass of black holes by measuring how much the deflect light (gravitational lens effect).



And is the arch of light due to gravitational pull or the magnetic effects of the sun and planets?
It is a known fact that magnetism can affect light, but can gravity really affect light? Some say gravity and electro-magnetism are the same thing, I doubt so as their principles are different. Besides, photons which light is consists of is not affected by gravity.

Yes, you can affect the polarization of light with a magnetic field (Farraday effect) but you can't bend light with magnetic fields. And the reason for the gravitational effect is because gravity curves the space-time through with the light moves. It doesn't effect the light at all. It affects the space-time through which the light moves.

Great chatting, my Physicist Phriend!

Richard

CWH
11-19-2011, 05:26 PM
Repeated tests still show neutrinos faster than the speed of light:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-11/repetition-controversial-experiment-neutrinos-beat-light-speed-once-again

Remember in September when neutrinos were observed moving faster than the speed of light, potentially overturning everything we thought we knew about physics? It was met with all sorts of skepticism and dubiety, so the physicists decided to replicate their experiment and take new measurements.
Well, the new results are in, and they confirm the original findings. The improved version of the experiment, which fired bunches of neutrinos in three-nanosecond bursts through 450 miles of solid rock, was repeated 20 times and reinforced the controversial result.
The next step is for other labs, such as Japan's T2K, to repeat the experiment. Only then can we start rewriting the textbooks.

God's Blessings to all. :pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
11-19-2011, 05:47 PM
Repeated tests still show neutrinos faster than the speed of light:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-11/repetition-controversial-experiment-neutrinos-beat-light-speed-once-again

Remember in September when neutrinos were observed moving faster than the speed of light, potentially overturning everything we thought we knew about physics? It was met with all sorts of skepticism and dubiety, so the physicists decided to replicate their experiment and take new measurements.
Well, the new results are in, and they confirm the original findings. The improved version of the experiment, which fired bunches of neutrinos in three-nanosecond bursts through 450 miles of solid rock, was repeated 20 times and reinforced the controversial result.
The next step is for other labs, such as Japan's T2K, to repeat the experiment. Only then can we start rewriting the textbooks.

God's Blessings to all. :pray:
Thanks Cheow Wee. I'm gonna have to look at this some more.

CWH
05-04-2012, 03:33 AM
It is said that the error that neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light was due to a faulty wire. I have yet to receive confirmation from other testings in other places to validate the result.

Anyway, even if the speed of light cannot be broken, there are ways to force the speed of light to travel faster:

http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2012-05/fed-sluggish-neutrinos-scientists-force-light-move-faster-its-own-speed-limit

Four-Wave Mixing In four-wave mixing, researchers send "seed" pulses of laser light into a heated cell containing atomic rubidium vapor along with a separate "pump" beam at a different frequency. The vapor amplifies the seed pulse and shifts its peak forward, making it superluminal. NIST
Our nation’s official keepers of time and other standards are breaking one of the cardinal rules: They have figured out how to make superluminal light pulses. This paradoxical sentence — faster-than-light light — is from a new paper explaining how to make the sine wave of light hunch in on itself and arrive a few nanoseconds earlier than it would if it had moved at light speed.

Nothing can move faster than light, as neutrinos coldly reminded us earlier this year. Einstein’s constant C, for the speed of light in a vacuum, is a universal constant. But researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology are playing some tricks with physics.

A short burst of light can be expressed as a curvy wave, with the hump representing the peak of the burst. The whole wave cannot exceed the speed of light, but apparently you can do some physical manipulation to that hump and make it arrive earlier or later than it’s supposed to. Ryan T. Glasser, Ulrich Vogl, and Paul D. Lett at NIST and the Joint Quantum Institute manipulated the hump using a technique called four-wave mixing. It re-arranges the light waves that comprise the pulse of light and makes the hump move forward.
The researchers pulsed ultra-short (200 nanosecond) laser pulses into a cloud of rubidium vapor, according to NIST. Next to this seed pulse, they pumped in a second laser beam at a different frequency. The rubidium amplified the seed light, so its hump hunched forward. While this was happening, photons — because light is a wave and a particle — interacted with the vapor and formed a second pulse, which could also be tuned to travel faster or slower than it is supposed to. The peaks of these light waves arrived at their targets 50 nanoseconds earlier than they would have if they were traveling at the constant C.

Aside from proving that it’s possible to bend the rules, the NIST team could use this breakthrough to study some strange quantum effects of this fast light, which could be useful in quantum information processing.

Could God have forced light to travel much faster than its speed causing the error that the earth and universe are billion of years old?

God creation always amazes me.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
05-04-2012, 10:39 AM
Could God have forced light to travel much faster than its speed causing the error that the earth and universe are billion of years old?

That won't work because there are too many independent ways to estimate the age of the universe.

And why would anyone invent the idea that God would do a miracle that makes the universe falsely appear to be very old? What is your motivation? Oh yeah, I remember. You want to believe that a book written by pre-scientific people is consistent with modern science. Good luck with that! :lol:

CWH
05-20-2012, 05:00 PM
That won't work because there are too many independent ways to estimate the age of the universe.

And why would anyone invent the idea that God would do a miracle that makes the universe falsely appear to be very old? What is your motivation? Oh yeah, I remember. You want to believe that a book written by pre-scientific people is consistent with modern science. Good luck with that! :lol:

You got me wrong, I was thinking in terms of the theory of the Big Bang in which the big explosion could have caused the fragments to travel much faster than light. And it is not just one Big Bang but thousands and perhaps millions of Big Bangs that created the galaxies, stars and planets that we see in the universe today. This may have caused the illusion that the universe is several billions of years old. Just imagine a firework, the lights from the hundreds of fireworks would have reach us at about the same time.

http://www.manchester-fireworks.com/Displays/images/displays3.jpg


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/may/05/spaceexploration.universe


News

One Big Bang, or were there many?
· New theory tries to solve problem Einstein raised
· Universe may be much older, say cosmologists

The Guardian, Friday 5 May 2006
The universe is at least 986 billion years older than physicists thought and is probably much older still, according to a radical new theory.

The revolutionary study suggests that time did not begin with the big bang 14 billion years ago. This mammoth explosion which created all the matter we see around us, was just the most recent of many.

The standard big bang theory says the universe began with a massive explosion, but the new theory suggests it is a cyclic event that consists of repeating big bangs.

"People have inferred that time began then, but there really wasn't any reason for that inference," said Neil Turok, a theoretical physicist at the University of Cambridge, "What we are proposing is very radical. It's saying there was time before the big bang."

Under his theory, published today in the journal Science with Paul Steinhardt at Princeton University in New Jersey, the universe must be at least a trillion years old with many big bangs happening before our own. With each bang, the theory predicts that matter keeps on expanding and dissipating into infinite space before another horrendous blast of radiation and matter replenishes it. "I think it is much more likely to be far older than a trillion years though," said Prof Turok. "There doesn't have to be a beginning of time. According to our theory, the universe may be infinitely old and infinitely large."

Today most cosmologists believe the universe will carry on expanding until all the stars burn out, leaving nothing but their cold dead remains. But there is an inherent problem with this picture. The Cosmological Constant - a mysterious force first postulated by Albert Einstein that appears to be driving the galaxies apart - is much too small to fit the theory. Einstein later renounced it as his "biggest blunder".

The Cosmological Constant is a mathematical representation of the energy of empty space, also known as "dark energy", which exerts a kind of anti-gravity force pushing galaxies apart at an accelerating rate.

It happens to be a googol (1 followed by 100 zeroes) times smaller than would be expected if the universe was created in a single Big Bang. But its value could be explained if the universe was much, much older than most experts believe.

Mechanisms exist that would allow the Constant to decrease incrementally through time. But these processes would take so long that, according to the standard theory, all matter in the universe would totally dissipate in the meantime.

Turok and Steinhardt's theory is an alternative to another explanation called the "anthropic principle", which argues that the constant can have a range of values in different parts of the universe but that we happen to live in a region conducive to life.

"The anthropic explanations are very controversial and many people do not like them," said Alexander Vilenkin a professor of theoretical physics at Tufts University in Massachusetts. Rather than making precise predictions for features of the universe the anthropic principle gives a vague range of values so it is difficult for physicists to test, he added.

"It's absolutely terrible, it really is giving up," said Prof Turok, "It's saying that we are never going to understand the state of the universe. It just has to be that way for us to exist." His explanation by contrast is built up from first principles.

But if he's right, how long have we got until the next big bang? "We can't predict when it will happen with any precision - all we can say is it won't be within the next 10 billion years." Good job, because if we were around we would instantly disintegrate into massless particles of light.


God Bless the Universe. :pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
05-20-2012, 05:14 PM
You got me wrong, I was thinking in terms of the theory of the Big Bang in which the big explosion could have caused the fragments to travel much faster than light. And it is not just one Big Bang but thousands and perhaps millions of Big Bangs that created the galaxies, stars and planets that we see in the universe today. This may have caused the illusion that the universe is several billions of years old. Just imagine a firework, the lights from the hundreds of fireworks would have reach us at about the same time.

Hi Cheow,

I'm glad you brought this up. It's fun to talk physics.

I get the impression you don't understand the concept of the Big Bang when you say "perhaps millions of Big Bangs that created the galaxies, stars and planets that we see in the universe today." That's now how the theory works. The idea is that ALL MATTER of the entire universe appeared in a single Big Bang event when the universe exploded from a singularity. It doesn't make any sense to talk about many "Big Bangs" within an existing universe. It is the universe itself - the entire space-time continuum that contains all matter - that began as a singularity which "exploded." The galaxies, stars, and planets formed a long time after the Big Bang. Here's how the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) describes it:

After its initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. While protons and neutrons combined to form the first atomic nuclei only a few minutes after the Big Bang, it would take thousands of years for electrons to combine with them and create electrically neutral atoms. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements would coalesce through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements would be synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.

It's fun to speculate about modern physics, but we should start with a solid understanding of what the theories actually state.

Great chatting! :yo:

David M
05-21-2012, 06:35 AM
Thanks Cheow Wee. I'm gonnato look at this some more.

Hello Richard and Cheow

I also find this a fascinating subject. Will man ever find the basic particle(s) making up all matter and be able to define the basic force(s) making up all forces? What makes up a force?

How many subatomic particles are there? Does the tens of subatomic particles that I was once informed of exist in scientific thinking or have these been replaced by the "quark". I think there are four basic types of quark. Maybe you are more informed as to the latest thinking on this is.

As I consider God to have made all things, I regard God as not being made of the same substance as that which He created, otherwise God could create another God and we are told that there is no other God. Maybe we can conclude that God is not able to create another God and that God is ONE. This would also mean that God could not have created Jesus to be of the same substance as Himself, hence Jesus cannot be God.

For God to have created matter (as we understand it) it would seem reasonable that God must be greater in all respects than the substance He has created. Therefore, being greater means in one respect being faster than anything God has created, or else God could create something that could go faster than Himself. The only way we can explain God's omnipresence is to say that God is outside time and space in which everything else is restricted. This would mean that God can mover faster than light.

As we move up the electromagnetic spectrum which is a scale of frequency we pass through the frequencies/wavelength representing light and we go though the ultraviolet, to X-rays and Gamma rays. This is at the topmost range of the scale with a frequency of 1020. Is there anything beyond Gamma rays that we do not know about? Does God have a resonant frequency? Whether we go to the outer limits of space or to the inner limits of space we are talking + or - powers of 10 which represent incredibly large or small numbers (to us) and yet these numbers might be as nothing to God who works on a scale we cannot comprehend.

I was looking at the scale of the universe a couple of weeks ago and the Hubble space telescope has reached the limit it is able to look into space and where nothing was thought to exist, thousands of galaxies have been observed. Nasa has produced a photograph which they say is the single most important photograph to man, it is this picture of thousands of galaxies in nothing. My question is; if the light is coming to the Hubble telescope representing hundreds of billions of light years from us, then the universe will have expanded even more in that time and what of the light travelling away from the edges of the universe. Does that light keep going outwards towards infinity or is space curved, and is Einstein wrong in this? Such imponderables I doubt will ever be known. As it is Einstein was a genius and a great thinker, but in the end we are dealing with mathematical models to try to explain what we cannot see. Man uses mathematical models to add meaning to what is observed. Mathematics lies at the root of science.

If particles or waves can move faster than the speed of light, this might mean that man has a lot more to find out than he thought. As knowledge has increased science has produced more questions than answers. Is there a limit to what man can find out? I heard it said some time ago that there was not much else for man to find out. He has practically found out all there is to know. Now we have the question; can anything move faster than the speed of light? And now, if the answer is "yes", this opens the doors to asking a bunch of new questions.

Great chatting

David

CWH
05-21-2012, 07:56 AM
I think RAM is not aware of the multiple Big Bang theory. This theory could mean that the universe is much older or much younger if the combine powers of the Big Bangs are so huge that its fragments travel many times faster than the speed of light. And since its speed is much faster than the speed of light, they are invisible to the human eyes until its speed is reduced to the speed of light as its energy is used up. The multiple Big Bangs theory could answer many problems faced by the Single Big Bang theory:

Multiple Big Bang Theory


The Multiple Big Bang Theory is just like The Big bang Theory but millions of big bangs taking place simentaneouslyat different points in space. Some may be billions of years back, some in near past and if believed, even somewhereanother big bang is still in a process to create another universe. The 3K cosmic radiology results showed the faint radiation of the big bang, believed that created the universe 4000 billion years ago. This radiation was dated as theoldest and so it was considered to be of the Big Bang. But along with that millions of other strong and faintradiations were obtained and observed. Some of them were form distant galaxies, black holes, supernova,etc. Manywere considered to be the radiations form the quasars and many more were unexplained. These radiations according tothje MBBT are from different Big Bangs some small or some as huge explosions as ours.To explain this, consider a hypothetical situation that our Milky Way is a part of a big bang and the galaxyAnderomeda is the part of other big bang very near to the first one(near means of the order of billion ly). Both ofthese galaxies are now in a different universe which according to BBT, are expanding. At a point of time both theseuniverse will expand and coincide(one universe merging into another).The Milky way and Anderomeda thus also willpossibly collide(we know that both these galaxies are going to collide according to the NASA). This is just one factthat can be possibly explained in a different view with MBBT. This theory just like every other theory BBT, SteadyState, Big Crunch, String Theory,etc., is a belief and a POSSIBLE, not necessarily correct, concept about the birth of the universe.This theory can also explain some mystries behind the formation of balck holes, wormholes.......
This theory is just a conceptual imagination based on my own research and still certainly need to be more polished. Though many astronomers do somehow believe in this concept..i will highly appreciate your opinions to increase my understandings and help in my researches....

God Blessed.

Richard Amiel McGough
05-21-2012, 08:23 AM
I think RAM is not aware of the multiple Big Bang theory. This theory could mean that the universe is much older or much younger if the combine powers of the Big Bangs are so huge that its fragments travel many times faster than the speed of light. And since its speed is much faster than the speed of light, they are invisible to the human eyes until its speed is reduced to the speed of light as its energy is used up. The multiple Big Bangs theory could answer many problems faced by the Single Big Bang theory:

Multiple Big Bang Theory


The Multiple Big Bang Theory is just like The Big bang Theory but millions of big bangs taking place simentaneouslyat different points in space. Some may be billions of years back, some in near past and if believed, even somewhereanother big bang is still in a process to create another universe. The 3K cosmic radiology results showed the faint radiation of the big bang, believed that created the universe 4000 billion years ago. This radiation was dated as theoldest and so it was considered to be of the Big Bang. But along with that millions of other strong and faintradiations were obtained and observed. Some of them were form distant galaxies, black holes, supernova,etc. Manywere considered to be the radiations form the quasars and many more were unexplained. These radiations according tothje MBBT are from different Big Bangs some small or some as huge explosions as ours.To explain this, consider a hypothetical situation that our Milky Way is a part of a big bang and the galaxyAnderomeda is the part of other big bang very near to the first one(near means of the order of billion ly). Both ofthese galaxies are now in a different universe which according to BBT, are expanding. At a point of time both theseuniverse will expand and coincide(one universe merging into another).The Milky way and Anderomeda thus also willpossibly collide(we know that both these galaxies are going to collide according to the NASA). This is just one factthat can be possibly explained in a different view with MBBT. This theory just like every other theory BBT, SteadyState, Big Crunch, String Theory,etc., is a belief and a POSSIBLE, not necessarily correct, concept about the birth of the universe.This theory can also explain some mystries behind the formation of balck holes, wormholes.......
This theory is just a conceptual imagination based on my own research and still certainly need to be more polished. Though many astronomers do somehow believe in this concept..i will highly appreciate your opinions to increase my understandings and help in my researches....

God Blessed.

That's right Cheow, I am "not aware" of a Multiple Big Bang Theory. And do you know why that is? Let me tell you - it is because there is on such theory proposed by real scientists. The text you quoted is from an anonymous FaceBook page (http://www.facebook.com/groups/40930212334/)! And when you read it, it is clear that the author didn't know what he/she was talking about. Just look at what is written - the author claims that the universe is 4000 billion years old, whereas the science says it's about 13.75 billion years old. And then the person says that "the radiation is the oldest and so is considered to be of the Big Bang." That indicates total ignorance of the background radiation. You can't measure the "age" of radiation! It is considered to be a remnant of the Big Bang because of it's uniform distribution. Then the article goes on to assert that different galaxies are in different "universes" which is totally absurd because a universe is defined as the entire set of objects in a space-time manifold. Anything we can see is, by definition, in our universe. The FaceBook article is totally ridiculous.

I think it's great to talk about science, but there is a difference between real science and pseudo-science and half-baked speculations based on ignorance.

Richard Amiel McGough
05-21-2012, 09:48 AM
Hello Richard and Cheow

I also find this a fascinating subject. Will man ever find the basic particle(s) making up all matter and be able to define the basic force(s) making up all forces? What makes up a force?

How many subatomic particles are there? Does the tens of subatomic particles that I was once informed of exist in scientific thinking or have these been replaced by the "quark". I think there are four basic types of quark. Maybe you are more informed as to the latest thinking on this is.

Hey there David,

Yes, indeed, this is a fascinating subject. So interesting in fact that I spent a number of years getting educated in it. I have degrees in Mathematics and Physics and was working towards a Ph.D. in Quantum Physics but never finished my dissertation because I got side-tracked by "life issues."

Particles in modern physics are more like "resonate patterns" or "excitations" in a Quantum Field. They represent packets of energy that can move up and down through various states. Each different state is a different particle. That's why particles can collide and convert into other particles. The "things" that exist are really the energy and the Quantum Field - the specific particles that happen to exist at any moment are in a constant state of flux though some particles are extremely stable (e.g. protons have a half-life of about 1036 years). It is the QF that provides the "structure" that defines the set of possible elementary particles (6 kinds of quarks, 6 kinds of leptons). The quarks combine in various ways to make protons, neutrons, and and many other particles.



As I consider God to have made all things, I regard God as not being made of the same substance as that which He created, otherwise God could create another God and we are told that there is no other God. Maybe we can conclude that God is not able to create another God and that God is ONE. This would also mean that God could not have created Jesus to be of the same substance as Himself, hence Jesus cannot be God.

I agree that God is not a "thing" made of matter. But your statement that "God could not have created Jesus to be of the same substance as Himself" doesn't make any sense to me. Nobody has ever said that the man Jesus was of the "same substance" as God and the Doctrine of the Trinity explicitly denies that Jesus was created. That's the whole point - it says that God always has been a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God never "created" the Second Person.



For God to have created matter (as we understand it) it would seem reasonable that God must be greater in all respects than the substance He has created. Therefore, being greater means in one respect being faster than anything God has created, or else God could create something that could go faster than Himself. The only way we can explain God's omnipresence is to say that God is outside time and space in which everything else is restricted. This would mean that God can mover faster than light.

God doesn't need to move if he is already everywhere, does he? Indeed, he would be incapable of movement if he was already there!

But I don't know what it means to say that something "is" outside of space and time. For example, if God is outside of time, then he couldn't ever do anything like create a universe because any action implies change and change implies time. So it's just word salad to me. (Yes, a very popular salad, but salad none the less!). :p



As we move up the electromagnetic spectrum which is a scale of frequency we pass through the frequencies/wavelength representing light and we go though the ultraviolet, to X-rays and Gamma rays. This is at the topmost range of the scale with a frequency of 1020. Is there anything beyond Gamma rays that we do not know about? Does God have a resonant frequency? Whether we go to the outer limits of space or to the inner limits of space we are talking + or - powers of 10 which represent incredibly large or small numbers (to us) and yet these numbers might be as nothing to God who works on a scale we cannot comprehend.

There is no theoretical limit to the frequency of electromagnetic radiation (light, x-rays, etc.).



I was looking at the scale of the universe a couple of weeks ago and the Hubble space telescope has reached the limit it is able to look into space and where nothing was thought to exist, thousands of galaxies have been observed. Nasa has produced a photograph which they say is the single most important photograph to man, it is this picture of thousands of galaxies in nothing. My question is; if the light is coming to the Hubble telescope representing hundreds of billions of light years from us, then the universe will have expanded even more in that time and what of the light travelling away from the edges of the universe. Does that light keep going outwards towards infinity or is space curved, and is Einstein wrong in this? Such imponderables I doubt will ever be known. As it is Einstein was a genius and a great thinker, but in the end we are dealing with mathematical models to try to explain what we cannot see. Man uses mathematical models to add meaning to what is observed. Mathematics lies at the root of science.

I love those "scale 10" movies that zoom you in or out by factors of ten. Really gives a perspective on where we are at.

Do you have a link to the pic that NASA produced? It sounds fascinating.

There is no "edge" to the universe. Think of the 2D surface of a ball. It has a finite size, but there is no edge because it is curved. This is the idea of curved space-time. We don't know if it is closed (finite) or open (infinite).

Most of what we think of as "objects" in modern physics are really just mathematical constructs inferred from things we can see with our eyes. It's very abstract. Sir James Jeans said that the universe looks more like a grand idea than a thing. I tend to agree with him.



If particles or waves can move faster than the speed of light, this might mean that man has a lot more to find out than he thought. As knowledge has increased science has produced more questions than answers. Is there a limit to what man can find out? I heard it said some time ago that there was not much else for man to find out. He has practically found out all there is to know. Now we have the question; can anything move faster than the speed of light? And now, if the answer is "yes", this opens the doors to asking a bunch of new questions.

Great chatting

David
I don't think there is any limit to what we can learn. The fundamental premise of Einstein's Special Relativity is that no signals can travel faster than light. But there are all sorts of other possibilities that folks like to speculate about, such as wormholes that connect two points, like drawing dots on two points on a piece of paper and then folding the paper to connect the points so they don't have to traverse the distance on the surface of the paper.

This is a great topic! I'm glad Cheow brought it up.

Richard

David M
05-22-2012, 01:18 AM
Hey there David,

Particles in modern physics are more like "resonate patterns" or "excitations" in a Quantum Field. They represent packets of energy that can move up and down through various states. Each different state is a different particle. That's why particles can collide and convert into other particles. The "things" that exist are really the energy and the Quantum Field - the specific particles that happen to exist at any moment are in a constant state of flux though some particles are extremely stable (e.g. protons have a half-life of about 1036 years). It is the QF that provides the "structure" that defines the set of possible elementary particles (6 kinds of quarks, 6 kinds of leptons). The quarks combine in various ways to make protons, neutrons, and and many other particles.

Thanks for this update Richard on quarks and leptons. Also in this "constant state of flux" I can see why there can be shortly lived particles. How can the half-life of a proton be measured? This raises a bunch more questions.



I agree that God is not a "thing" made of matter. But your statement that "God could not have created Jesus to be of the same substance as Himself" doesn't make any sense to me. Nobody has ever said that the man Jesus was of the "same substance" as God and the Doctrine of the Trinity explicitly denies that Jesus was created. That's the whole point - it says that God always has been a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God never "created" the Second Person.
It was a thought that came into mind as I was writing. With the exception of a verse or two in the NT, which I do not have to interpret as the Trinity, I would never have personally come to the conclusion of a Trinity. There is no denying now that Jesus, the Son of God exists. God has given him eternal life. That means Jesus will live to infinity. Therefore, even as Jesus was born 2,000 years ago make very little difference from now on. On a timeline from minus infinity to plus infinity, it does not make much difference where you begin. We all have a beginning except God. In keeping with the majority of scritpure that states "God is One" and there is none beside Him, that is what I will stick with and I will reconcile other passages of scripture to be harmonious with this.. As you say; "what scripture clearly states".
God and His power (Holy Spirit) are indivisible, one without the other would not make sense. God is ONE which includes His power.


God doesn't need to move if he is already everywhere, does he? Indeed, he would be incapable of movement if he was already there!
We could liken this to our brain. The brain is a single organ yet the brain is made up of multiple parts all interacting and with no central processing unit controlling everything. If as you say, God is everywhere, is the brain of God as large as the Universe and therefore is the Universe is inside the mind of God?


But I don't know what it means to say that something "is" outside of space and time. For example, if God is outside of time, then he couldn't ever do anything like create a universe because any action implies change and change implies time. So it's just word salad to me. (Yes, a very popular salad, but salad none the less!). :p
By outside I mean not restricted to time as we are limited by time. Although God is not limited by time and God can create anything He wants to, I do not think God goes backwards (in time). Once an event has passed, it is not revisited. I never understood how God (as thought by some) could go into the future and come back. God knowing the future does not mean God travels into the future and comes back to the present. We only have a present and a past to my way of thinking. The future has yet to happen and we can never revisit the past.



There is no theoretical limit to the frequency of electromagnetic radiation (light, x-rays, etc.).
If you could construct a computer to operate at such high frequencies, we can begin to understandable how God can process so much information that He must be acquiring while monitoring what is happening in the world. Also what is involved with the storage and reuniting of the spirit with an incorruptible body after death and at the resurrection. What ever is the highest detectable frequency man can detect, God operates at a higher frequencey. Scientists say that our brains operate at slow speed (a few hundered hertz per second), but because of the parallel processing power of the brain, the computational speed is better than any supercomputer.


I love those "scale 10" movies that zoom you in or out by factors of ten. Really gives a perspective on where we are at.

Do you have a link to the pic that NASA produced? It sounds fascinating.
The only image I can find is that shown in the video. Here is the link to the video (the non-hijacked edition); http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRwpAQbiv7A (I like the intro music (Pink Floyd))


Most of what we think of as "objects" in modern physics are really just mathematical constructs inferred from things we can see with our eyes. It's very abstract. Sir James Jeans said that the universe looks more like a grand idea than a thing. I tend to agree with him.
Hence my thought that the Universe is inside the mind of God. The Universe is the thought in the mind of God. Let's hope God holds on to that thought..



I don't think there is any limit to what we can learn. The fundamental premise of Einstein's Special Relativity is that no signals can travel faster than light. But there are all sorts of other possibilities that folks like to speculate about, such as wormholes that connect two points, like drawing dots on two points on a piece of paper and then folding the paper to connect the points so they don't have to traverse the distance on the surface of the paper.
I agree that we can potentially learn much more about lots of things, but there has to be a limit to how much knowledge our brains can store and a limit to what our brain can process purely from the fact that our brain is a finite size. The unanswerable question at the moment is knowing how far we are from reaching the limit to what we can know and understand.


This is a great topic! I'm glad Cheow brought it up.
Yes, a great subject for speculation though it does not change the here and now.

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough
06-12-2012, 08:28 AM
The experiment that suggested neutrinos travel faster than light (CWH's opening post) has been repeated with negative results.

Neutrinos Sent from CERN to Gran Sasso Respect the Cosmic Speed Limit, Experiments Confirm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120608152339.htm)


ScienceDaily (June 8, 2012) — At the 25th International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics in Kyoto today (June 8, 2012), CERN Research Director Sergio Bertolucci presented results on the time of flight of neutrinos from CERN to the INFN Gran Sasso Laboratory on behalf of four experiments situated at Gran Sasso. The four, Borexino, ICARUS, LVD and OPERA all measure a neutrino time of flight consistent with the speed of light.

This is at odds with a measurement that the OPERA collaboration put up for scrutiny last September, indicating that the original OPERA measurement can be attributed to a faulty element of the experiment’s fibre optic timing system.

“Although this result isn’t as exciting as some would have liked,” said Bertolucci, “it is what we all expected deep down. The story captured the public imagination, and has given people the opportunity to see the scientific method in action – an unexpected result was put up for scrutiny, thoroughly investigated and resolved in part thanks to collaboration between normally competing experiments. That’s how science moves forward.”

In another development reported in Kyoto, the OPERA experiment showed evidence for the appearance of a second tau-neutrino in the CERN muon-neutrino beam, this is an important step towards understanding the science of neutrino oscillations.

phinine
07-17-2012, 12:41 AM
An experiment to repeat testing the speed of subatomic particles known as neutrinos has found that they do not upend Einstein’s theory of relativity but rather travel precisely at the speed of light.

http://www.cabalisticnews.com/2012/03/the-cabala-of-time-2/



The Zohar-Book of Secret describes, In the beginning of creation light traveled without color until stopped to measure the universe; the stopping of the light caused reverberation resulting in the sign-wave producing visible light – the light of creation, called Chochavim/Stars.

Scientists use the color spectrum of light to make astronomical calculations of time assuming, the speed of light is constant but the Talmud-Book of Law considers this constant, that nothing exceeds, to be Halchim/Walking. Where there is walking there is also running.

The distance between the sun and the earth, the Midrash-Book of Metaphor says, is 500 years walking – 500 times the speed of light renders the approximate distance between Earth and Sun. The neutrinos, the smallest known sub-atomic particle, can not exceed the speed of light.

The Cabala explains, Creation was engrave from the Hard Light, which had been threaded together without space, movement or time. What to creation is an inescapable constant to God is but a walk in the park, as the Torah exclaims, And man heard God walking in Gan Aden/Garden of Eden.

David M
07-17-2012, 02:15 AM
There is no theoretical limit to the frequency of electromagnetic radiation (light, x-rays, etc.).

Hello Richard

I think the theory might be wrong and there might be a limit to the frequency.


From Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Experimental checks on photon massThe photon is currently understood to be strictly massless, but this is an experimental question. If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum, c. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain in space-time.[21] Thus, it would still be the speed of space-time ripples (gravitational waves and gravitons), but it would not be the speed of photons.

A massive photon would have other effects as well. Coulomb's law would be modified and the electromagnetic field would have an extra physical degree of freedom. These effects yield more sensitive experimental probes of the photon mass than the frequency dependence of the speed of light. If Coulomb's law is not exactly valid, then that would cause the presence of an electric field inside a hollow conductor when it is subjected to an external electric field. This thus allows one to test Coulomb's law to very high precision.[22] A null result of such an experiment has set a limit of m ≲ 10−14 eV/c2.[23]

Sharper upper limits have been obtained in experiments designed to detect effects caused by the galactic vector potential. Although the galactic vector potential is very large because the galactic magnetic field exists on very long length scales, only the magnetic field is observable if the photon is massless. In case of a massive photon, the mass term would affect the galactic plasma. The fact that no such effects are seen implies an upper bound on the photon mass of m < 3×10−27 eV/c2.[24] The galactic vector potential can also be probed directly by measuring the torque exerted on a magnetized ring.[25] Such methods were used to obtain the sharper upper limit of 10−18eV/c2 (the equivalent of 1.07×10−27 atomic mass units) given by the Particle Data Group.[26]

These sharp limits from the non-observation of the effects caused by the galactic vector potential have been shown to be model dependent.[27] If the photon mass is generated via the Higgs mechanism then the upper limit of m≲10−14 eV/c2 from the test of Coulomb's law is valid.

According to the quote from Wikipedia the photon might have an upper limit of mass, therefore, if this is the case, there must be an upper limit to the frequency. If the photon has any sort of relativistic mass, there must come a point where the frequency is so high that photons would interfere with each other and this would be observed as the upper frequency limit.

What do you think?


David

Richard Amiel McGough
07-17-2012, 11:01 AM
Hello Richard

I think the theory might be wrong and there might be a limit to the frequency.


According to the quote from Wikipedia the photon might have an upper limit of mass, therefore, if this is the case, there must be an upper limit to the frequency. If the photon has any sort of relativistic mass, there must come a point where the frequency is so high that photons would interfere with each other and this would be observed as the upper frequency limit.

What do you think?


David
Good morning David, :tea:

Thanks for posting that fascinating information. I think you may have misinterpreted the article. It was talking about the upper limit of the possible rest mass of the photon (m0 < 10−18eV/c2), not any limit on its frequency. In relativity, the relation between the rest mass (m0), momentum (p), and relativistic energy Er given by this equation:

522

This equation can be rearranged by defining the relativisitic mass (mrel) as follows:

523

So we arrive at Einstein's famous equation (where mrel is represented by m for simplicity):

E = mc2

We get the same equation for particles that have no rest mass (m0 = 0) and move at the speed of light (v = c).

Now we can see why there is no upper limit on the frequency even if the photon has mass. As you can see by the equation for mrel, as the velocity v approaches c, the denominator gets closer to zero and so there is no upper limit to the relativistic mass. And the mass is directly proportional to the energy E and the energy is directly proportional to the frequency (nu), so there is no upper limit to the frequency:

524

This is a great topic! I love physics.

Richard

David M
07-17-2012, 12:10 PM
Good morning David, :tea:

Thanks for posting that fascinating information. I think you may have misinterpreted the article. It was talking about the upper limit of the possible rest mass of the photon (m0 < 10−18eV/c2), not any limit on its frequency. In relativity, the relation between the rest mass (m0), momentum (p), and relativistic energy Er given by this equation:




Hey Richard

I would have though that if the mass at rest is (m0), the photon would have got heavier i.e. gained mass as it approached the speed of light. Otherwise, why have an (m0) at all? If you say that the photon has zero mass at the speed of light, then I can see that there is no upper frequency limit.

It has an extremely strange property the photon. I am beginning to think that free space is like a medium and is not "nothing". I know that space was thought to be a sort of ether but I don't think they could prove that experimentally. If space was a uniform ether that has no mass, then photons could be like ripples in the ether; photons might be a point source disturbing the ether and sending out loss-less ripples.

Maybe this ether is the basis of all matter. Maybe the change in electron orbits cause the ripples we identify as photons and these ripples radiate in all directions. So a point source of light still radiates in all directions as would the individual ripples we call photons.

I expect Einstein had all these thoughts before he came up with his theory of relativity, but could an ether/medium of some kind representing empty space between all atomic particles still exist and is waiting to be discovered?

I will leave that to the fundamental scientists to work out.

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough
07-17-2012, 12:41 PM
Hey Richard

I would have though that if the mass at rest is (m0), the photon would have got heavier i.e. gained mass as it approached the speed of light. Otherwise, why have an (m0) at all? If you say that the photon has zero mass at the speed of light, then I can see that there is no upper frequency limit.

Hi David,

You are correct that the relativistic mass of any particle with m0 > 0 would increase as the velocity increases. This means that if a photon has mass, it could never travel at the speed of light. But there is still would be no upper limit to its frequency because it's frequency is directly proportional to its energy which is given by E = mc2 and there is no limit to m (the relativistic mass) given by this equation:

525

It's not really correct to say that the photon has "zero mass at the speed of light." The photon either has zero rest mass or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it always travels at the speed of light. If it does, then it can never attain the speed of light.



It has an extremely strange property the photon. I am beginning to think that free space is like a medium and is not "nothing". I know that space was thought to be a sort of ether but I don't think they could prove that experimentally. If space was a uniform ether that has no mass, then photons could be like ripples in the ether; photons might be a point source disturbing the ether and sending out loss-less ripples.

Maybe this ether is the basis of all matter. Maybe the change in electron orbits cause the ripples we identify as photons and these ripples radiate in all directions. So a point sourde of light still radiates in all directions as would the individual ripples. Only the ripples exist which we call photons.

I expect Einstein had all these thoughts before he came up with his theory of relativity, but could an ether/medium of some kind representing empty space between all atom particles still exist and is waiting to be discovered?

I will leave that to the fundamental scientists to work out.

All the best,

David
I would agree that space-time is "not nothing" but I wouldn't use any words like "ether" since that concept was shown to be inadequate by the Michaelson-Morley experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment).

In classical physics, four dimensional space-time is simply the "vector space" described by coordinates (x,y,z,t). The electromagnetic field (which describes light) is a vector field that has a value at each point of the vector space (x,y,z,t). This conception was modified with the advent of the Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics) which posits a quantum field that describes the interaction between massive particles and photons. Particles are "excitations" in the quantum field. They can be annihilated or created. They are described by wave functions that have a value at each point of space-time, though in most places the value is very close to zero (which means it's unlikely to find the particle there).

The quantum field is somewhat like the ether you suggest, but it is not a physical "thing" and the particles do not move relative to it. It's really just a mathematical abstraction that describes reality, but it is not itself a "thing" like water or air that transmits waves by oscillations.

Great chatting!

Richard

David M
07-17-2012, 01:47 PM
Hi David,

You are correct that the relativistic mass of any particle with m0 > 0 would increase as the velocity increases. This means that if a photon has mass, it could never travel at the speed of light. But there is still would be no upper limit to its frequency because it's frequency is directly proportional to its energy which is given by E = mc2 and there is no limit to m (the relativistic mass) given by this equation:

It's not really correct to say that the photon has "zero mass at the speed of light." The photon either has zero rest mass or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it always travels at the speed of light. If it does, then it can never attain the speed of light.
I still think that if the photon has mass and does not travel at the speed of light, while the frequency will increase with energy , there has to come a point where the masses interfere. If the photon has mass, it must have a physical dimension. It is that physical dimension that is the barrier to the upper frequency. i.e when the wavelength equals or would be less than the diameter of the mass.


I would agree that space-time is "not nothing" but I wouldn't use any words like "ether" since that concept was shown to be inadequate by the Michaelson-Morley experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment).
That was the experiment I was thinking of. Maybe the experiment was at fault and what they set out to prove remained illusive.


In classical physics, four dimensional space-time is simply the "vector space" described by coordinates (x,y,z,t). The electromagnetic field (which describes light) is a vector field that has a value at each point of the vector space (x,y,z,t). This conception was modified with the advent of the Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics) which posits a quantum field that describes the interaction between massive particles and photons. Particles are "excitations" in the quantum field. They can be annihilated or created. They are described by wave functions that have a value at each point of space-time, though in most places the value is very close to zero (which means it's unlikely to find the particle there).

The quantum field is somewhat like the ether you suggest, but it is not a physical "thing" and the particles do not move relative to it. It's really just a mathematical abstraction that describes reality, but it is not itself a "thing" like water or air that transmits waves by oscillations.

You will lose me in the higher mathematics associated with quantum physics. I am trying to keep things simple. In the case of the photon, if it has no mass and is just a ripple in this unknown medium that might be a uniform force-field and not particle by nature, then the relativity of movement between particles does not come into it. I am not suggesting this undiscovered medium is like water. Water is molecular and what I am suggesting is something like your quantum field, but which is not abstract. Who knows until a thing is discovered?


All the best,

David

Rose
07-17-2012, 03:06 PM
Here is a couple short videos on why things have mass.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Uh5mTxRQcg&amp;feature=relmfu


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASRpIym_jFM&amp;feature=em-subs_digest

David M
07-18-2012, 02:26 AM
Here is a couple short videos on why things have mass.

Thank you Rose for bringing these videos to our attention.. Looks like we have to wait for part III to come. This leads to an interesting set of videos on Youtube. I like the way that these videos simplify the subject and give us an overview.

I guess what I was thinking of is somthing like the Higgs field. I was forgetting the unexplained force of gravity. It looks like it will be a difficult job to unite all the forces into one unified theory. How close is man to getting to know everything there is to know? Shouldn't man be a little more humble till he can say he knows everything? Whatever we believe, while there are things which cannot be explained, faith is required.

Talking of explanations, where does the neutrino fit in as a particle with mass? Is it just made up of quarks? The short video I watched entitled; What is a neutrino did not explain what a neutrino was made of; only that is is part of nuclear decay. Are we anymore enlightened as to what a neutrino is made of? The video describes neutrinos as the "vampires of physics".

All the best,

David