ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

speed of light question

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Oct. 18 2005, 1:02 pm

Quote (ZeframCochran @ Oct. 17 2005, 10:52 am)
I think you misunderstand my suggestion. The light leaving a quasar which is receding from us at 0.97c leaves the surface of said quasar at 0.03c, relative to Earth. At some point along the way, it must accellerate to 1.0c to be detected by us. When does it do this?

My suggestion is that it does this continuously, as it is influenced by the predominant matter around it. At emission, its principle influence is the matter in the quasar.

As it travels away, it is affected more by other matter and so conforms to its 'frame of reference'. When received here at Earth, whatever its velocity while coming to us, it must now conform to the detector's 'frame of reference'.

Will a beam of light from an emitter in motion relative to the earth, with little or no intervening matter to influence it (ie: in space), travel relative to the velocity of the earth (predominant mass) or to the detector (observer)?

I'm confident that in this experiment, we'd find a variance in the measured speed. The light would be emitted and detected at 1.0c relative to the emitter and detector, but would traverse much of the distance between them at 1.0c relative to Earth. :D

Light does not accelerate, it alway is at the velocity C when created, if the speed of the Quasar is at C it would never reach us, simple as that.

The Experiment you suggest has been conducted, using rapidly moving Pulsars and the result is still the same.

Relativity win out..

ZeframCochran

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 941

Report this Oct. 18 2005, 1:08 pm

It's not possible to measure the speed of light while it's travelling from a pulsar to us. We can only meaure the speed at which it is emitted/received.

Interestingly, there is one way the velocity of light from a quasar has been measured, that of observing the spectral absorption lines in the received light. As the light passes through hydrogen clouds on its merry way to earth, it changes velocity and hence its redshift value. We find absorption lines spread around the spectrum as would be expected if the light travelled, not at a constant velocity (and hence red-shift) but at a varying velocity.

Psycho-physics loses.

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Oct. 18 2005, 1:14 pm

Quote (ZeframCochran @ Oct. 17 2005, 11:08 am)
It's not possible to measure the speed of light while it's travelling from a pulsar to us. We can only meaure the speed at which it is emitted/received. Interestingly, there is one way it has been measured, that of observing the spectral absorption lines in the received light. As the light passes through hydrogen clouds on its merry way to earth, it changes velocity and hence its redshift value. We find absorption lines spread around the spectrum as would be expected if the light travelled, not at a constant velocity (and hence red-shift) but at a varying velocity.

Psycho-physics loses.

Wrong Redshift is not due to change in speed but a change in energy and Frequency.

Passing thru a cloud would be mark in spectral lines that the light possess, and this could slow up light due to scattering. Such and effect would be noticed , and has in the case Of Lymann Tree clouds of hydrogen gas found between Galaxies and gave astronomer evident that such clouds existed.

We can and have measure the speed of different frequencies of light and they all are the same as far as the limit of measurement.

IF Light velocity was different due the changing of Frequency the speed of radiowave would be slower than that of Xray and it is not.

Einstein win again.

ZeframCochran

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 941

Report this Oct. 18 2005, 1:24 pm

You still aren't comprehending. Redshift is due to the 'stretching' of wavelength of light. It's the same effect that we see in a train whistle changing pitch (frequency). It's the result of the emitter and the detector moving at different velocities. But sound is not limited to a particular velocity; light is.

The light MUST be emitted at 1.0c relative to the emitter.

The light MUST be received at 1.0c relative to the detector.

Therefore, if the emitter and detector are in motion relative to one another, the light must adjust its speed to match somewhere between the two. That is simple physics.

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Oct. 18 2005, 1:30 pm

Quote (ZeframCochran @ Oct. 17 2005, 11:24 am)
You still aren't comprehending. Redshift is due to the 'stretching' of wavelength of light. It's the same effect that we see in a train whistle changing pitch (frequency). It's the result of the emitter and the detector moving at different velocities. But sound is not limited to a particular velocity; light is.

The light MUST be emitted at 1.0c relative to the emitter.

The light MUST be received at 1.0c relative to the detector.

Therefore, if the emitter and detector are in motion relative to one another, the light must adjust its speed to match somewhere between the two. That is simple physics.

Actually sound is limited to velocity due to the air pressure and temperature that why it changes pitches. You donot see this in waves traveling less than there maxium velocity in a medium..

You are correct, light alway is recieved at 1.0 C that what Einstein Relativity is about, the fact is space and time is warp in order to do this. Duh...And it not simple Physics it Relativity....

ZeframCochran

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 941

Report this Oct. 18 2005, 1:45 pm

Spatial warping is not a viable option. It would imply that somehow a beam of light distorts space in extraordinary ways. The compression level of space around the quasar in our example would be a factor of 33x. It boggles the mind. Relativistic time-shifting is not sufficient to account for this either, if it even applies to light travelling from one 'system' to another.

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Oct. 18 2005, 2:04 pm

Quote (ZeframCochran @ Oct. 17 2005, 11:45 am)
Spatial warping is not a viable option. It would imply that somehow a beam of light distorts space in extraordinary ways. The compression level of space around the quasar in our example would be a factor of 33x. It boggles the mind. Relativistic time-shifting is not sufficient to account for this either, if it even applies to light travelling from one 'system' to another.

And what make you say this, we have massive warpage effect due to high speed of the Quasar!!!!

The fact that not only is space is warp but also time.

Take for example the Muon with an average halflife of 2.2 microsecond, just time dilation alone would not be sufficient for the Muon create at the edge of the atomosphere to reach the surface even at the speed it traveling. Also the distant that Muon travel is shorten allowing it to reach the surface of our planet to detected.

a simple chart to show this:

v (%c)   length            time
0          1.000             1.000
10         0.995             1.005
50         0.867             1.155
90         0.436             2.294
99         0.141             7.089
99.9      0.045              22.366
99.999   0.00448          224.658

As you see but time and space are effect by the Quasar high velocity. The combination of both is what has to be taken into effect.


If this was not the case Relativity would have been disproven a long time ago..

OperativeBob

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 49

Report this Oct. 19 2005, 10:43 pm

Quote
Tachyons could be seen since they would be detected before they are emitted, so any particle detector that got a big surge of data before a particle acccelerator is started would be a tachyon sighting. also Tachyons would emitted energy as they speed up, so photons being emitted from and area of space with for no apparent reason would be a tachyon sighting.

What would happen if the instant that the data surge was detected, the particle accelerator was turned off?
Also, if a body at the edge of the universe is moving away from us at the speed of light, does that mean that the light emitted from that body is stationary from our point of view?

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Oct. 20 2005, 8:56 am

Quote (OperativeBob @ Oct. 18 2005, 8:43 pm)
Quote
Tachyons could be seen since they would be detected before they are emitted, so any particle detector that got a big surge of data before a particle acccelerator is started would be a tachyon sighting. also Tachyons would emitted energy as they speed up, so photons being emitted from and area of space with for no apparent reason would be a tachyon sighting.

What would happen if the instant that the data surge was detected, the particle accelerator was turned off?
Also, if a body at the edge of the universe is moving away from us at the speed of light, does that mean that the light emitted from that body is stationary from our point of view?

Then it would never happen. Shut the accelerator off or never even start it and no sighting would ever occur. It sound weird but a similar events are seen with the Quantum eraser experiment, alternating the present negates the past. What this would look like on a macroscale would be interesting to observe. Would the scientist remember the detector going off, would all records of the events just dissappear, at best it gives me headaches just imagining the result...


As for the second question, if the body on the edge universe is moving at the speed of light, we never see the light. This is what expect to happen if the universe continue to expand, slowily galaxies will disappear out of view as the expansion increase their relative velocity to C and beyond.

Funny this doesnot Violate Einstein's speed limit, since space is not compose of either electromagnetic energy or matter. Space can travel ftl and according to Some physicist did so shortily after the big bang during a massive era of Inflation...

What also funny is that maxwell's equation ( which is where the speed of light is set), also predict a form of electromagnetic radiation called X waves ( not X ray) that would alway travel faster than light. Such waves would actually travel backward in time and according to Physicist John Cramer would be responible for weird quantum effects such as the collasp of the Quantum wave function, Quantum entanglement. The original theory by Born was called the Pilot wave theory but has been rename Transaction Quantum mechanics by Dr Cramer...

ZeframCochran

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 941

Report this Oct. 20 2005, 1:58 pm

Quote (lanceromega @ Oct. 20 2005, 5:56 am)
As for the second question, if the body on the edge universe is moving at the speed of light, we never see the light.

That seems to violate, not relativity, but common sense. Maybe I'm wrong, but at 0.97c, a quasar is as visible as any other object, just redshifted down. Why would there be a sudden transition to zero when the exact speed of light is reached?

I have wondered myself about quasars moving away from us at relativistic speeds, which are in turn emitting jets of matter away from us at high speed. The two added together equal more than light speed, yet we can still detect those jets, albeit at very high redshift values (I think the optical emission is shifted down to the 'radio' region).

ZeframCochran

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 941

Report this Oct. 20 2005, 2:07 pm

Quote (lanceromega @ Oct. 20 2005, 5:56 am)
Then it would never happen. Shut the accelerator off or never even start it and no sighting would ever occur.

What if you hook up an automated particle accellerator to a detector, rigged so that it (not a human operator) shuts off the generation of tachyons when it detects tachyons?

Wouldn't it shut off as it detected the tachyons (before they were generated) and then turn on, then off, then on, ad infinitum? Maybe it would jam up the mechanism of time! :O

This sounds like a temporal paradox to me. For this reason, I don't believe in all this 'backwards time' stuff. It's all so far out in left field, so far extended by theorizing and mathematics, that it's not really reliable. In my opinion. Fun to think about, though.

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Oct. 20 2005, 2:16 pm

Quote (ZeframCochran @ Oct. 19 2005, 11:58 am)
Quote (lanceromega @ Oct. 20 2005, 5:56 am)
As for the second question, if the body on the edge universe is moving at the speed of light, we never see the light.

That seems to violate, not relativity, but common sense. Maybe I'm wrong, but at 0.97c, a quasar is as visible as any other object, just redshifted down. Why would there be a sudden transition to zero when the exact speed of light is reached?

I have wondered myself about quasars moving away from us at relativistic speeds, which are in turn emitting jets of matter away from us at high speed. The two added together equal more than light speed, yet we can still detect those jets, albeit at very high redshift values (I think the optical emission is shifted down to the 'radio' region).

Problem is what you call common sense does not apply, what apply is a series of Symmetrical relationships that are implied in the structure of Space time and the fields comprising the light.

They obey mathematical rules that go beyond Galilean's Relativity and Euclidian Geometry, sorry if you donot understand this.

Since the Jets are made of normal matter their action warp spacetime in the manner predicted by the laws of relativity.
simple as that..

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Oct. 20 2005, 2:21 pm

Quote (ZeframCochran @ Oct. 19 2005, 12:07 pm)
Quote (lanceromega @ Oct. 20 2005, 5:56 am)
Then it would never happen. Shut the accelerator off or never even start it and no sighting would ever occur.

What if you hook up an automated particle accellerator to a detector, rigged so that it (not a human operator) shuts off the generation of tachyons when it detects tachyons?

Wouldn't it shut off as it detected the tachyons (before they were generated) and then turn on, then off, then on, ad infinitum? Maybe it would jam up the mechanism of time! :O

This sounds like a temporal paradox to me. For this reason, I don't believe in all this 'backwards time' stuff. It's all so far out in left field, so far extended by theorizing and mathematics, that it's not really reliable. In my opinion. Fun to think about, though.

We can only go with what we know happen when such action are taken in similar situation.

According to result in the Quantum eraser experiment, the past can be alter as long as we donot detect the results, we can know what the result will be, but as long as no measurement is made it is possible to alter the past.

As it seem that if you can detect the tachyon, then you would somehow be unable to shut off the accelerator, but it would be interesting to see what happen if you do...

ZeframCochran

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 941

Report this Oct. 20 2005, 2:23 pm

Quote (lanceromega @ Oct. 20 2005, 11:21 am)
Quote (ZeframCochran @ Oct. 19 2005, 12:07 pm)
Quote (lanceromega @ Oct. 20 2005, 5:56 am)
Then it would never happen. Shut the accelerator off or never even start it and no sighting would ever occur.

What if you hook up an automated particle accellerator to a detector, rigged so that it (not a human operator) shuts off the generation of tachyons when it detects tachyons?

Wouldn't it shut off as it detected the tachyons (before they were generated) and then turn on, then off, then on, ad infinitum? Maybe it would jam up the mechanism of time! :O

This sounds like a temporal paradox to me. For this reason, I don't believe in all this 'backwards time' stuff. It's all so far out in left field, so far extended by theorizing and mathematics, that it's not really reliable. In my opinion. Fun to think about, though.

We can only go with what we know happen when such action are taken in similar situation.

According to result in the Quantum eraser experiment, the past can be alter as long as we donot detect the results, we can know what the result will be, but as long as no measurement is made it is possible to alter the past.

As it seem that if you can detect the tachyon, then you would somehow be unable to shut off the accelerator, but it would be interesting to see what happen if you do...

In a time-travel paradox story by Asimov, all hell broke loose!  :laugh:  :laugh:  :O

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum