[alpha2cen]

Why light speed is constant? Are there any reason? Intensity and wave length are changed. But, we have not detected a light of different speed yet.

This post has been edited by alpha2cen: 28 August 2011 - 04:31 AM

[DrRocket]

alpha2cen, on 28 August 2011 - 04:31 AM, said:

Why light speed is constant? Are there any reason? Intensity and wave length are changed. But, we have not detected a light of different speed yet.

Science attempts to determine and explain how nature works. The local speed of light has been found to be constant in a myriad of experiments, and that fact is reflected in the general and special theories of relativity. It is also consistent with Maxwell's classical theory of electrodynamics.

Why nature behaves as it is found to behave is a question for philosophers and theologians. As with all questions put to theologians and philosophers, you will not find a definitive answer.

[IM Egdall]

I don't know if this explains why light speed is constant, but from what I have read, this is how Einstein came up with this idea.

Per Maxwell, light is electromagnetic radiation. It is a wave of continuously changing electric fields and continually changing magnetic fields. Again per Maxwell, the changing electric field produces a magnetic field. And the changing magnetic field produces an electric field. They produce each other.

The key word here is changing. These fields must be continuously changing over time. So the light wave must be continuously moving.

Eisntein imagined what it would be like if he could travel at the same speed as light. Then the light wave would appear to be standing still from his point of view. But then the electric part and magnetic part would not be changing -- they would be static. So one would not create the other . Thus the electric and magnetic fields would cease to exist. In other words, light must move to exist. There is no such thing as a light beam at rest.

Form this conundrum, Einstein made a brilliant and counter-intuitive leap. If a light beam must move to exist, then it must always be moving no matter what speed you move at. So you can never catch up to a beam of light. No matter what speed you are moving at, the light beam is always traveling at the same speed relative to you. Light speed is constant!

Hope this helps.

[pantheory]

alpha2cen, on 28 August 2011 - 04:31 AM, said:

Why light speed is constant? Are there any reason? Intensity and wave length are changed. But, we have not detected a light of different speed yet.

Although the speed of light is presently thought to be constant in a vacuum, its speed varies greatly through different transparent mediums. In some solids it can move at a relatively slow speed. In air its speed is slower than through a vacuum but faster than through water. It is thought that the "slowing" of light is a function of the incidence of refraction. In the old aether model the speed of light was thought to be controlled by the density of a particulate aether which was thought to be generally constant at least in our solar system, and that the speed of light was relative to the motion of the aether which accordingly was the "carrier" of light.

With such new hypothesis as dark matter, gravitons, Higgs particles, quantum sand, quantum foam, field strings, etc. the idea of a particulate ZPF is back again and if such entities exist then their densities in space might control, influence or determine the speed of light. This might again involve a luminiferous aether even though Michelson and Morley and others seemingly could not find a significant difference in the speed of light with their equipment, more than a century ago.
..

This post has been edited by pantheory: 28 August 2011 - 07:02 PM

[DrRocket]

pantheory, on 28 August 2011 - 07:02 PM, said:

Although the speed of light is presently thought to be constant in a vacuum, its speed varies greatly through different transparent mediums. In some solids it can move at a relatively slow speed. In air its speed is slower than through a vacuum but faster than through water. It is thought that the "slowing" of light is a function of the incidence of refraction. In the old aether model the speed of light was thought to be controlled by the density of a particulate aether which was thought to be generally constant at least in our solar system, and that the speed of light was relative to the motion of the aether which accordingly was the "carrier" of light.

With such new hypothesis as dark matter, gravitons, Higgs particles, quantum sand, quantum foam, field strings, etc. the idea of a particulate ZPF is back again and if such entities exist then their densities in space might control, influence or determine the speed of light. This might again involve a luminiferous aether even though Michelson and Morley and others seemingly could not find a significant difference in the speed of light with their equipment, more than a century ago.
..

Where is the world did this come from ?

There is all sorts of evidence for the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum. Not the least of it is the fact that it is a fundamental axiom which underlies the Special Theory of Relativity. There is a mountain of evidence supporting SR, including direct measurements of c.

Moreover, the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum falls out of Maxwell's classical theory of electrodynamics.

No number of irrelevant buzz words and allusions to rank speculation changes any of this.

[csmyth3025]

pantheory, on 28 August 2011 - 07:02 PM, said:

...With such new hypothesis as dark matter, gravitons, Higgs particles, quantum sand, quantum foam, field strings, etc. the idea of a particulate ZPF is back again and if such entities exist then their densities in space might control, influence or determine the speed of light. This might again involve a luminiferous aether even though Michelson and Morley and others seemingly could not find a significant difference in the speed of light with their equipment, more than a century ago.
..

The sophistication of the equipment and the quality of the results have improved considerably over the years:

Quote

...It was thought at the time that empty space was filled with a background medium called the luminiferous aether in which the electromagnetic field existed. Some physicists thought that this aether acted as an absolute reference frame for all physics and therefore it should be possible to measure the motion of the Earth with respect to this medium. Beginning in the 1880s several experiments were performed to try to detect this motion, the most famous of which is the experiment performed by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley in 1887.^[123] The detected motion was always less than the observational error. Modern experiments indicate that the two-way speed of light is isotropic (the same in every direction) to within 6 nanometres per second.

(ref. http://en.wikipedia....ly_20th_century )

The complete article cited goes into considerable detail on the subject of the speed of light, its measurement, and the history behind it all. It also contains many references for the technically-minded.

Chris

Edited to correct spelling errors

This post has been edited by csmyth3025: 29 August 2011 - 05:46 AM

[alpha2cen]

Are we in the fixed frame? Are we in the hologram Universe? Is the Universe a phantasm? If not, why light speed is constant?

[swansont]

alpha2cen, on 3 September 2011 - 12:29 AM, said:

why light speed is constant?

It's not a question science can (currently) address. If there comes a time science can answer it, it will because another general concept has been discovered, and attached to it is another "why" question that science can't answer.

[alpha2cen]

Is the speed of light always constant at the beginning of our Universe? Can we find any difference between past measured data and present data? If there are some deviations, we can find new phenomena about our Universe. The problem is how accuate the past data is.

[ajb]

alpha2cen, on 21 September 2011 - 08:13 AM, said:

Is the speed of light always constant at the beginning of our Universe?

People have considered models in which the speed of light is not constant in time. One problem such models could potentially solve is the horizon problem and thus remove the need for inflation.

Petit I believe was the first to build such cosmological models [1]. Before this Dirac proposed the idea that physical constant could vary in time.


References

[1] J.P. Petit. "Cosmological model with variable light velocity: the interpretation of red shifts". Mod. Phys. Lett. A 3 (18), 1988.

[alpha2cen]

Yesterday CERN scientists found new particles which are faster than the speed of light.

And this is my opinion

"How to find the undetected waves? I think the speed is very fast. After Big Bang Inflation spread in a few second, and the Dark Universe spread to entire Universe.
In order to detect such fast wave, I suppose, using the very high energy state. One of the method is using Black Hole. There would be some waves which escape from the Black Hole. High gravity of the Black Hole might delay the speed of the unknown high speed waves, like attracts light waves."


Reference
yoctosecond, Sunday, July 31, 2011 7:05 PM http://www.myspace.c...x=2&SortOrder=0

This post has been edited by alpha2cen: 23 September 2011 - 01:12 AM

[tachyon]

DrRocket, on 28 August 2011 - 05:28 AM, said:

Science attempts to determine and explain how nature works. The local speed of light has been found to be constant in a myriad of experiments, and that fact is reflected in the general and special theories of relativity. It is also consistent with Maxwell's classical theory of electrodynamics.

Why nature behaves as it is found to behave is a question for philosophers and theologians. As with all questions put to theologians and philosophers, you will not find a definitive answer.

I find your answer interesting but to tell somebody that you can't find an answer is not something you should really say in theoretical physics. You have to know why the universe works the way i does, to really find out how it works...Like cause and effect... And I strongly believe that we some day physicaly can explain how and why the universe acts the way it does. And to quote the great Stephen Hawking "There is no need for god in M-Theory", so "why" is a good question in theoretical physics, maybe the best one?

Best regards

This post has been edited by tachyon: 5 October 2011 - 11:18 PM

[michel123456]

IM Egdall, on 28 August 2011 - 03:06 PM, said:

I don't know if this explains why light speed is constant, but from what I have read, this is how Einstein came up with this idea.

Per Maxwell, light is electromagnetic radiation. It is a wave of continuously changing electric fields and continually changing magnetic fields. Again per Maxwell, the changing electric field produces a magnetic field. And the changing magnetic field produces an electric field. They produce each other.

The key word here is changing. These fields must be continuously changing over time. So the light wave must be continuously moving.

Eisntein imagined what it would be like if he could travel at the same speed as light. Then the light wave would appear to be standing still from his point of view. But then the electric part and magnetic part would not be changing -- they would be static. So one would not create the other . Thus the electric and magnetic fields would cease to exist. In other words, light must move to exist. There is no such thing as a light beam at rest.

Form this conundrum, Einstein made a brilliant and counter-intuitive leap. If a light beam must move to exist, then it must always be moving no matter what speed you move at. So you can never catch up to a beam of light. No matter what speed you are moving at, the light beam is always traveling at the same speed relative to you. Light speed is constant!
Hope this helps.

Bolded mine.
Right. I suppose everyone must agree on your statements. So do I.

What does it mean?

1. the light beam is always traveling at the same speed relative to you.
That means Speed of Light is relative. (you wrote it, not me, I simply agree with you).Not absolute as you may find several times in litterature and on the Web.

2. As a matter of consequence, the observed fact that SOL is constant means that it has something to do with the relation between the observer and the observed phenomena. That is another way to say that SOL is relative.

My interpretation of the above is that SOL is a kind of horizon.

This post has been edited by michel123456: 6 October 2011 - 06:52 AM

[swansont]

michel123456, on 6 October 2011 - 06:51 AM, said:

1. the light beam is always traveling at the same speed relative to you.
That means Speed of Light is relative. (you wrote it, not me, I simply agree with you).Not absolute as you may find several times in litterature and on the Web.

In this context relative means it is frame-dependent. c is not frame-dependent.

tachyon, on 5 October 2011 - 11:12 PM, said:

I find your answer interesting but to tell somebody that you can't find an answer is not something you should really say in theoretical physics. You have to know why the universe works the way i does, to really find out how it works...Like cause and effect... And I strongly believe that we some day physicaly can explain how and why the universe acts the way it does. And to quote the great Stephen Hawking "There is no need for god in M-Theory", so "why" is a good question in theoretical physics, maybe the best one?

Best regards

I agree with DrRocket. Theories address what happens, but not the underlying why. Newton never understood why masses attract, and yet we have Newton's law of gravitation. Kepler determined orbital behavior without even knowing Newton's law of gravitation. The history of physics is rife with examples of behavior discovered without knowing why, so it would seem pretty clear that you don't have to know why in order to discover how.

[36grit]

my philisophical yet slightly scientific point of view:
Massless particles exist inside of infinite fields. The interactions between these fields is relativity.
An infinite field requires infinite exansion at an infinite rate.
Pie is the infinite number, but when you divide it, you get the same string of numbers.
If the positive field originated first than it will always be expanding slightly faster than the negative field
The speed of light is the velocity between these two expanding fields.
Therefore these two fields are relative to each other via, the speed of light.

I wish I could think of an experiment to prove or disprove the theory. Or predict something as yet unknown.

[Ophiolite]

@36grit
I imagine you made the post in order to share an idea that is important to you. Just as a reference point for you, I found it totally incomprehensible. It has the apperance of word salad, though lacking the nutrition value of a true salad. Perhaps the failure is mine and others will grasp your meaning at once. Perhaps not.

[Dovada]

It seems the energy structure itself of space-time must be the underlying aether that Michelson Morley failed to detect.

So If Michelson Morley failed to detect the aether then there must be a good reason for the failure.

If any so called aether existed it must be considered to have electrical properties so as to be successfully modulated by charged atomic particles. If this is the case then any electrical aether would have to have the same electromagnetic frame of reference as the atomic structure that moved with it to avoid electromagnetic conflicts.

This same electromagnetic frame of reference concept means that space-time actually needs to be physically moving at the same velocity with atomic matter within it, which would then make sense.

Such movement of space-time with atomic matter would explain why the speed of light is consistent in all directions, because we would then be just modulating our moving space-time environment.

Do not ignore the existence of the energy flow of time itself, as it is also a property of space and time is flowing.

Consider speed of light (square root) pi = 499.178456 which provides the basis for our time energy structure.

This means energy may also be expressed as a property of time, thus

E = m * 499.178456^2pi

and the speed of light becomes a property of time

Speed of light = 499.178456^pi

The time energy flow of 499.178456 suggests we have an energy environment that is moving at about c/499.178456 = 600571 meters/sec which is very close to our galactic speed.

As has been expressed before in earlier posts we need to keep an open mind to get at the truth and much of what is presented in these posts is pure speculation based on our limited knowledge of the workings of the cosmos.

If physicists cannot find the answer they are looking for it does not mean the answer does not exist, It just means we may lack the information or experience to find it.

This post has been edited by Dovada: 6 October 2011 - 01:33 PM

[IM Egdall]

michel123456, on 6 October 2011 - 06:51 AM, said:

Bolded mine.
Right. I suppose everyone must agree on your statements. So do I.

What does it mean?

1. the light beam is always traveling at the same speed relative to you.
That means Speed of Light is relative. (you wrote it, not me, I simply agree with you).Not absolute as you may find several times in litterature and on the Web.

2. As a matter of consequence, the observed fact that SOL is constant means that it has something to do with the relation between the observer and the observed phenomena. That is another way to say that SOL is relative.

My interpretation of the above is that SOL is a kind of horizon.

I think we are getting into semantics here.

No matter what your uniform motion with respect to a beam of light, you will always measure that light's speed (in a vacuum) as the same value, c. This is what is meant by the speed of light is absolute. (If the speed of light were relative, then observers moving at different speeds would measure different values for the speed of light. )

[Dovada]

Often theories can be filled with mysticism; meaning if people do not understand what causes a phenomena like the speed of light they quite easily delude themselves with claims that are unrealistic and cannot confirmed by others. This includes the common statement that the speed of light is always the same no matter what speed you are traveling at.

Who has traveled at half the speed of light and tested the theoretical statement.

You are better to visualize the speed of light to be a resultant of the energy structure of the environment rather than the creation of the environment. This means we should be looking at what creates the conditions that result in the speed of light being what it is, rather than the speed of light being the environment itself.

[michel123456]

IM Egdall, on 6 October 2011 - 11:11 PM, said:

I think we are getting into semantics here.

No matter what your uniform motion with respect to a beam of light, you will always measure that light's speed (in a vacuum) as the same value, c. This is what is meant by the speed of light is absolute. (If the speed of light were relative, then observers moving at different speeds would measure different values for the speed of light. )

No this is not semantics.

The distance between your eyes and your nose will always be the same no matter your state of motion. The carrot at the end of the stick will always be at the same distance of the donkey, but there is nothing absolute in this. The distance between you and the horizon will always be 11 kilometers, no matter you speed at the surface of the Earth. Again there is nothing absolute. It is relative through geometry (between your height and the radius of the Earth).
When someone correctly states that "the light beam is always traveling at the same speed relative to you.", it means what it says: Relative. Point.