Bobby Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Hmmm... grreat posts so far Bobby. Relatively easy to understand and you actually address the issue at hand, unlike many responses. I am however, still not satisfied with the idea that there are properties of space that limit the speed of light. I understand that light travels at different speeds through water, glass or a gravitational field, but that is not the question at hand. The above statement comes about the closest I've heard to making sense. However, if light is determined by properties of its own electomagnetism, that has nothing to do with the permiability of empty space. I would have to say the same for restructuring of formulas pertaining to the Amphere or Coulomb's law (are we talking inverse square here?). Since physicists still don't know exactly what empty space is made of yet, it doesn't make sense to say that there is a property of space itself that limits the speed of light. If you had a compass and a friend turned an electromagnet on and off, your compass would not react instantly, it would take some time for the electromagnetic fields to flow from the electromagnet to your compass. Whatever the reasons were that the electromagnetic field took some time to get from the magnet to your compass is the same reason the speed of light has the value it does, because they are the same thing. Light is the electric and magnetic fields created by a moving electric charge. The actual value for the speed of light comes from measuring the force between two electric charges. As far as I know, the reason the charges have the force they do is not know. It appears to me that the thing you are calling properties of space is the same thing that causes the force of electric charge to have a finite value. In my opinion the answer in both cases is the same, namely the gravitational field associated with mass. Further, since mass and energy are so closely associated, I think it would not be incorrect to say that the properties of space are the properties of energy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWright Posted July 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 If you had a compass and a friend turned an electromagnet on and off, your compass would not react instantly, it would take some time for the electromagnetic fields to flow from the electromagnet to your compass. Whatever the reasons were that the electromagnetic field took some time to get from the magnet to your compass is the same reason the speed of light has the value it does, because they are the same thing. Light is the electric and magnetic fields created by a moving electric charge. The actual value for the speed of light comes from measuring the force between two electric charges. As far as I know, the reason the charges have the force they do is not know. It appears to me that the thing you are calling properties of space is the same thing that causes the force of electric charge to have a finite value. In my opinion the answer in both cases is the same, namely the gravitational field associated with mass. Further, since mass and energy are so closely associated, I think it would not be incorrect to say that the properties of space are the properties of energy. Perhaps the properties of space are that of an energy, but they are not that of light/electromagnetic energy. Light is a product of this universe; the universe is not a product of light or electromagnatism of any sort. ie, light is not the fabric of space and thus does not set limits of any sort in any way on any thing including the speed at which objects or energies can travel at. It happens to be the fastest thing we know of, so we use it as a reference as dictated by Einstein. But there is nothing about light as it relates to empty space that allows light to "set" this speed limit. It is just that there is nothing faster we know about. Permeability factors and everything else in physics is then based on the assumption/reference of light speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erasmus00 Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 It happens to be the fastest thing we know of, so we use it as a reference as dictated by Einstein. But there is nothing about light as it relates to empty space that allows light to "set" this speed limit. It is just that there is nothing faster we know about. Permeability factors and everything else in physics is then based on the assumption/reference of light speed. You are absolutely wrong. Light isn't simply the fastest thing we know about. It has a remarkable property of traveling the same in every reference frame (look at Michelson Morley experiment). Now as to "nothing about light allows light to "set" the speed limit." I suggest researching the Maxwell equations of electricity and magnetism. Thse equations predict the existance of E-M waves that travel at a speed c. These equations make no mention of a reference frame, and, indeed, hold valid in any inertial frame. EM waves, then, travel at the speed c in any inertial frame. This is what sets the "speed limit" of c. Permeability and permittivity are electric and magnetic properties of space. They are measured quantities. In some formulations of maxwells equation, instead of these fundamental aspects of nature being used, instead the strength ratio of the magnetic to the electric field is used. Either way, these are measured quantities, not "assumptions" based on Einstein's assumption. This is especially true as Maxwell developed his equations BEFORE Einstein, and before a "speed limit" of c was set. -Will CraigD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Perhaps the properties of space are that of an energy, but they are not that of light/electromagnetic energy. Light is a product of this universe; the universe is not a product of light or electromagnatism of any sort. ie, light is not the fabric of space and thus does not set limits of any sort in any way on any thing including the speed at which objects or energies can travel at. It happens to be the fastest thing we know of, so we use it as a reference as dictated by Einstein. But there is nothing about light as it relates to empty space that allows light to "set" this speed limit. It is just that there is nothing faster we know about. Permeability factors and everything else in physics is then based on the assumption/reference of light speed. I agree with you on both points. As you say, electromagnetic energy is the result of electric charge, and electric charge sets the limit on the speed of electromagnetic propagation only. However, if you consider that all mass that we know of can be converted in EM energy, then there isn't much left as an explanation for nature's limits. As for something we don't know about, I agree here also. I suspect many people would say that there isn't anything that we don't know about, but they (scientists) were saying the same thing before Relativity and QM upset their neat little view. Regards, BP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWright Posted July 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 I agree with you on both points. As you say, electromagnetic energy is the result of electric charge, and electric charge sets the limit on the speed of electromagnetic propagation only. However, if you consider that all mass that we know of can be converted in EM energy, then there isn't much left as an explanation for nature's limits. As for something we don't know about, I agree here also. I suspect many people would say that there isn't anything that we don't know about, but they (scientists) were saying the same thing before Relativity and QM upset their neat little view. Regards, BP Wow, hear that everyone? He agrees with me :shrug: . Perhaps there is hope for my theory yet; which does describe the physical property of the universe that limits the speed speed of light as well as gravity. But somehow I feel others in the forum will not agree with my statement that bobby supported, so let's hear other opinions... yay or nay... and the reasoning behind them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Wow, hear that everyone? He agrees with me :shrug: . Perhaps there is hope for my theory yet; which does describe the physical property of the universe that limits the speed speed of light as well as gravity. But somehow I feel others in the forum will not agree with my statement that bobby supported, so let's hear other opinions... yay or nay... and the reasoning behind them. Why should I not agree with what you said? Light is an electromagnetic wave and is a result of a vibrating electric charge. How does this prove that electric charge is the only thing that is possible in our Universe? Velocity is a distance over a time. If there is some question about why the force of electrcic charge is finite, it appears to me that the question is more of "what is distance" and "what is speed". Everthing that I read seems to tie time and space and gravity together so tightly that it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to separate the components, thus I SPECULATE that the limiting factor is gravity. But is this everything????? I pose another question. During the formation of a Black Hole, mass goes through various stages such as that similar to a neutron star, and perhaps a quark star. Supposedly there is no further restriction? IMO this is ABSOLUTELY an assumption. Where is the evidence the quarks are the ultimate in matter? I try to stick to the facts as I know them and identify the assumptions if I make them. Southtown 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleph-Null Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 What an excellent thread, and an excellent question. I have no answer for you, but I do believe that the answer might be learned from an intensive study of quantum entanglement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleph-Null Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Also, for those arguing, I believe the thread starter is asking what "force" is acting upon "the universe" defining 'c' as what it is. To answer this, we need to go beyond Maxwell and into String Theory. Let us take as a theory that "instantaneous" speed is possible as observed through Entanglement. How do we get from that "freedom" to the restrictions imposed upon by 'c' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWright Posted July 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Why should I not agree with what you said? Light is an electromagnetic wave and is a result of a vibrating electric charge. How does this prove that electric charge is the only thing that is possible in our Universe? Velocity is a distance over a time. If there is some question about why the force of electrcic charge is finite, it appears to me that the question is more of "what is distance" and "what is speed". Everthing that I read seems to tie time and space and gravity together so tightly that it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to separate the components, thus I SPECULATE that the limiting factor is gravity. But is this everything????? I pose another question. During the formation of a Black Hole, mass goes through various stages such as that similar to a neutron star, and perhaps a quark star. Supposedly there is no further restriction? IMO this is ABSOLUTELY an assumption. Where is the evidence the quarks are the ultimate in matter? I try to stick to the facts as I know them and identify the assumptions if I make them. Bobby, I hope you realize I was not in anyway ridiculing your previous response. Your insight is some of the best I've received from this forum so far. Your thoughts are on track, but I will say that gravity (according to my own theory) is not the source that limits the speed of light. Keep in mind that relativity (conveniently but without explanation) assigns gravity the same speed as light. I will say that the same factor limits both c and g. Bobby, you are very knowledgable. What is your background and what do you do? If anyone else is well versed enough in physics and is interested in applying formulas to prove my theory from this perspective, I will consider working with you. Private message me if you're begining to take me seriously. But first you must be able to step outside of Einstien's box and be able to agree that: There are simply no physical properties of light that cause clocks of faster moving objects to run slower. Therefore, the notion of the speed of light as a determining factor as to why this happens is irrelevant and must be abandoned along with other notions of special relativity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Bobby, I hope you realize I was not in anyway ridiculing your previous response. Your insight is some of the best I've received from this forum so far. Your thoughts are on track, but I will say that gravity (according to my own theory) is not the source that limits the speed of light. Keep in mind that relativity (conveniently but without explanation) assigns gravity the same speed as light. I will say that the same factor limits both c and g. Apparently recent tests have shown that gravity propagates at C. I have heard that there is a physical basis for this, but have not heard what the explanation is. As far as Relativity is concerned, I understand that Einstein did not consider it sacred, so why I? However, it does seem to work pretty well as long as you stay in the realm for which it was intended. Bobby, you are very knowledgable. What is your background and what do you do? If anyone else is well versed enough in physics and is interested in applying formulas to prove my theory from this perspective, I will consider working with you. Private message me if you're begining to take me seriously. But first you must be able to step outside of Einstien's box and be able to agree that: There are simply no physical properties of light that cause clocks of faster moving objects to run slower. Therefore, the notion of the speed of light as a determining factor as to why this happens is irrelevant and must be abandoned along with other notions of special relativity. I am a retired ex-weather observer instructor for Uncle Sam and a retired computer programmer/scientist/developer/analyst who has wondered for more than 45 years how the hare caught the tortoise in the Hare snd Tortoise Race. As far as a private exchange of E-mail, fill free [email protected]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Also, for those arguing, I believe the thread starter is asking what "force" is acting upon "the universe" defining 'c' as what it is. To answer this, we need to go beyond Maxwell and into String Theory. Let us take as a theory that "instantaneous" speed is possible as observed through Entanglement. How do we get from that "freedom" to the restrictions imposed upon by 'c' I have a friend who is very interested in entanglement. I don't know of anyone in my circle who claims to understand String Theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bang Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Aleph, the information is instantaneous, I'm not sure we can call that speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bang Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 How about this the speed of light is limited by C = square root of E / M ? It does seem strange that the speed of light is related to the amount of energy contained in any given piece of matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 How about this the speed of light is limited by C = square root of E / M ? It does seem strange that the speed of light is related to the amount of energy contained in any given piece of matter. Things tend to get a little messy when mixing difference things such as Velocity, Energy, and Mass. If you keep in mind that E = MC^2 shows the amount of energy in mass, then you can substitute Energy for Mass and the three things of Velocity, Energy, and Mass are reducded to only two things, Energy and Velocity. E = MC^2M = E / C^2 so E = [ E / C^2) ] C^2 =====> E = E Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWright Posted July 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2005 Things tend to get a little messy when mixing difference things such as Velocity, Energy, and Mass. If you keep in mind that E = MC^2 shows the amount of energy in mass, then you can substitute Energy for Mass and the three things of Velocity, Energy, and Mass are reducded to only two things, Energy and Velocity. E = MC^2M = E / C^2 so E = [ E / C^2) ] C^2 =====> E = E So, E = E... damn, that Einstein really was a genious! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Posted July 22, 2005 Report Share Posted July 22, 2005 So, E = E... damn, that Einstein really was a genious! LOL. Sure was. In my sometimes weird way, I was trying to show that Mass can be considered as Energy, thus E = MC^2 is the same thing as E = E. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted July 22, 2005 Report Share Posted July 22, 2005 The thing to understand is tha c isn't just the speed of light it is a property of space-time. Light doesn't "just happen to be the fastest thing we know", light is just one of the massless things we know of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.