Thread: Faster than the speed of light

1. Junior Member
Join Date
Jun 2012
Location
oceanside
Posts
19

THE CABALA OF TIME

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/2012/0...ala-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.

2. Senior Member
Join Date
Jan 2012
Posts
2,564
Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
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
Last edited by David M; 07-17-2012 at 02:19 AM.

3. Originally Posted by David M
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,

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:

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

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:

This is a great topic! I love physics.

Richard

4. Senior Member
Join Date
Jan 2012
Posts
2,564
Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Good morning David,

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
Last edited by David M; 07-17-2012 at 12:20 PM.

5. Originally Posted by David M
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:

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.

Originally Posted by David M
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.

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) 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

6. Senior Member
Join Date
Jan 2012
Posts
2,564
Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
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.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
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.
That was the experiment I was thinking of. Maybe the experiment was at fault and what they set out to prove remained illusive.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
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) 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

7. Here is a couple short videos on why things have mass.

8. Senior Member
Join Date
Jan 2012
Posts
2,564
Originally Posted by Rose
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

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may edit your posts
•