Jump to content

Question on light and speed


Recommended Posts

Why is it that the closer something gets to the speed of light, time begins to slow? What causes this? Thank you in advance.

 

According to the standard model, when we are closed to the speed of light, we suffer big resistance form the Higgs field, the repulsive force suppresses particles move freely.

We can explain this phenomena differently with other theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The speed of light is the same in any inertial reference frame (that is, no accelerating), so light's speed is unaffected. The frequency will change, so if you and the source are moving with respect to each other, there will be a Doppler shift in the frequency. One of the consequences of the invariant speed of light is that time is no longer an absolute, and neither is length.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Light always goes at the same speed, no matter what the (uniform) speed of the source of that light or the (uniform) speed of someone observing the light. This is Einstein's light postulate -- verified in countless experiments and tests.

 

Eisntein's light clock thought experiment shows that -- due to the light postulate -- time runs slower with relative motion. Take a look at this link:

 

http://galileoandein.../lightclock.swf

 

In the link, a photon (particle of light) in the left clock (Jack) goes up and down between the two mirrors of the light clock. Imagine that when the photon hits the top mirror, the clock goes tick. When it hits the bottom mirror, the clock goes tock. So we hear tick, tock, tick, tock.

 

Now set the speed dial above to say 0.87 c and press play button. The clock on the right (Jill) is now moving relative to you. But the photon in the right clock is unaffected by this uniform motion. So it goes at the same speed as the photon in the stationary clock on the left. But because the right clock is moving, the photon has to travel a longer diagonal path between the mirrors. Longer path at same speed means longer time. So the right moving clock goes tick . . . tock . . . tick . . . tock . . .

 

This is called time dilation. As you see it, time on the moving clock runs slower than time on the clock at rest. Numerous epxeriments and observations have verified this strange phenomenon. Time is relative!

Edited by IM Egdall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Albert Einstein considered the discovery by Hubble, that more distant galaxies are receeding at velocities closer to the speed of light, which lead Hubble to speculate that an explosion of some mysterious substance had caused this. Einstein considered the light reaching us from all these sources, and the strange fact that light seems unaffected. The Michelson-Morley experiment seemed to confirm this. So Einstein postulated that "light travels at a constant speed c regardless of the velocity of the source". This, of course, is contrary to the behaviour of material bodies.

 

It is my belief that ALL force propagates at the speed of light. Light itself is essentially electric fields vibrating, which will affect charged particles. This being so, the 'space' occupied by masses, and the 'time' taken for reactions to forces, are dependant on the speed of light c. Electric fields are not subject to relativistic change like time, space and mass are, apparently occupying an independent 'ether' frame which Einstein never contradicted in this context. Time and space would thus be an effect of electric fields, and these fields only seem to occupy time/space to material beings like us. Even magnetic fields are a relativistic effect. The permitivity and the permeability of free space are very simply related to c. This is because, even with the velocity of electrons much less than c, electric charges the order of a coulomb, passing in a second at one amp, are massive, and the relativistic factors become significant at ordinary velocities v, by the usual factor 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 or its inverse.

 

No material object can reach the speed c, so its RELATIVE second, accoring to the observer, can become as close to infinity as we please, by supplying energy accoringly closer to infinite in amount. This is exploited by cyclotrons. On the other hand, density has a limit at which time actually stops, and space dissapears, when Gm/rc^2 = 1. (This would appear to contradict Hubble's explosion theory.) Therefore matter seems to be unable to continue its existence,when electric forces can no longer continue to have an effect. Material seems to disappear at this event horizon, but that is contrary to the conservation laws (=) which ARE mathematics (eg. E = mc^2). MORE LIKELY, antiphotons form and are repelled, experiencing an opposite force under gravity. But we know little enough about ordinary photons and their fate. At the same time, we can not yet explain cosmic ray proton energies. Why antiphotons do not effect the charged particles making up ordinary matter should be an area of speculation and research. If the converse happens in antigalaxies, however, where antimatter crosses the event horizon of a WHITE HOLE, we have an explanation for the Gamma Ray Burst, which is still far from being understood. These seem to emit energy at the rate of the entire visible universe.

 

Again, if matter and antimatter are forced in opposite directions by gravity, we have an explanation for more than an expanding universe. The Nobel prize was recently awarded for proof that the expansion is accelerating. Galactic clusters are also explained, as is Hoag's Object and other celestial phenomena.

Edited by Pymander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Albert Einstein considered the discovery by Hubble, that more distant galaxies are receeding at velocities closer to the speed of light, which lead Hubble to speculate that an explosion of some mysterious substance had caused this. Einstein considered the light reaching us from all these sources, and the strange fact that light seems unaffected. The Michelson-Morley experiment seemed to confirm this. So Einstein postulated that "light travels at a constant speed c regardless of the velocity of the source". This, of course, is contrary to the behaviour of material bodies.

This is pretty much nonsense. Hubble's discoveries had absolutely no influence on Einstein's developments of his theory of special relativity or his theory of general relativity for the simple reason that this knowledge didn't exist at the time Einstein developed those theories. Einstein published his theory of special relativity in 1905. A bit more than a decade later he finally published his theory of general relativity in 1916. Up until the early 1920s, the Milky Way was assumed to be the universe. Edwin Hubble discovered that the Milky Way is one of many galaxies in the early 1920s. It wasn't until the late 1920s that Hubble also discovered that these remote galaxies are receding from ours, a decade after Einstein published his theory of general relativity.

 

It is my belief that ALL force propagates at the speed of light.

Also nonsense. The weak force is mediated by the W and Z bosons. The residual strong force, the force that binds neutrons and protons to form atom nuclei, is mediated by mesons. These weak bosons and mesons are massive; they cannot propagate at the speed of light.

 


 

Getting back to the original post, the speed of light is the same to all inertial observers. This is one of the two postulates (aka assumptions) that form the backbone of Einstein's theory of special relativity. So what in the world motivated Einstein to make such an apparently ridiculous assumption, one that is in direct conflict with Newtonian mechanics? The answer is Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's electrodynamics theory and Newtonian mechanics strongly disagreed with one another. This disagreement was the Great Schism of late 19th century physics. Other physicists of that time attempted to whitewash away this disagreement. Einstein's insight was to simply take Maxwell's equations at face value: The speed of light is the same to all observers. This means that time and distance are not the absolute quantities envisioned by Newton. Instead, time and distance must be relative to the observer. It also means that velocities don't add vectorially. They merely appear to do so when velocities are small.

 

The speed of the observer with respect to the source of an electromagnetic signal does come into play in that the frequency (and hence wavelength) of the observed signal is not necessarily that of the emitted signal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Pymander, speculative ideas belong in Speculation forum, and are not valid answers to mainstream-science discussions. Please refrain from putting your own ideas as mainstream science in these discussions, and stick to the original topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.