Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I found this: Theory challenging Einstein's view on speed of light could soon be testedI read up on relativity today, and am wondering if there is extra theory behind why the speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 m/s and not some other value? Or is this simply a measured phenomena with no further explanation right now? Thanks!
I think it's something like what nowhere man implies here. Simply put it would take every inkling of energy to propel something to go the speed of light, at which point there appears to be some sort of max potential but I'm not entirely sure.I'm thinking it has something to do with the principles regarding potential.
I read up on relativity today, and am wondering if there is extra theory behind why the speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 m/s and not some other value? Or is this simply a measured phenomena with no further explanation right now? Thanks!
Question~~~~
If I am standing in the train conductor's front wheel house & I point a flashlight in the direction the train is going while the train is traveling 100 mph down the track, IS THE BEAM I AM SHINNING AHEAD TRAVELING THE SPEED OF LIGHT + THE SPEED OF THE TRAIN-?
Ans: no. This is basic in the theory of relativity.
Both you (on the train) and someone on the ground (off the train) measure the light to be going the same speed.
Obviously, I have no clue.I read up on relativity today, and am wondering if there is extra theory behind why the speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 m/s and not some other value? Or is this simply a measured phenomena with no further explanation right now? Thanks!
Arghchgch!I'm not sure there is a ready answer to your question. The specific number, 299,792,458 is how we *define* the concept of a meter: by defining the speed of light to be this many meters per second, and from having a definition of a second, we get how long a meter is. We use the oscillations of a particular wavelength of light from Cesium atoms to define a second.
So, in one sense, the value is determined solely from our definitions.
On the other hand, we *could* define our notions of meter and second some other way and then ask why the speed of light turns out to have the specific value it has. For example, we might define the second as 1/86400 of a day and a meter as 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the equator of the Earth to the pole (both definitions have been used in the past). The problem is, of course, that those definitions don't get to any fundamental aspect of reality, as opposed to accidental aspects of this specific planet we call the Earth.
So, a different tact: define the meter in terms of, say, the distance across a hydrogen atom and a second as, say, the time it takes to go across some number of hydrogen atoms. But, if you think about that, this is just again defining a specific number as the speed of light.
The problem here is that by changing our definition of meter or second, we change the numerical value of the speed of light. What we really need to do is find a number that *doesn't* change simply because of our definitions of silly things like meters and seconds.
And there *is* a good number for that: it compares the speed of light and Planck's constant and so relates the speed of light and the size of quantum events. it is called the fine structure constant and has a value of 1/137 (approximately) no matter how meters and seconds are defined. it is *this* number, more than the speed of light, which defines the structure of things like atoms and the relative sizes of things.
So why is the fine structure constant what it is? Good question. Nobody knows and it isn't even clear that it *could* be a different value.
It turns out that most of physics is based on a very few 'universal constants' like the fine structure constant that then determine the relative scale of everything else. Why they have the values they do is anyone's guess. Whether they even *could* be different values is anyone's guess. Since they seem to be fixed, we don't know how or if they could be different than they are.
Did you know that the speed of light you quote is the unfettered speed.
It does not seem to be unfettered because it has limitations, unless the vacuum of space itself exerts some form of resistance against it.
This is from Physics 200 level: Experiments indicate it is due to a time adjustment. Velocity is how far you travel in an amount of time, but experience of time changes when you reach higher velocities. As you approach light speed your own time is slowing compared to that of slower objects (as the theory suggests). This is true for photons, too. So when you are on that vehicle shining your flashlight, the time that the photons experience adjusts so that the photons from both your flashlight and a stationary flashlight will only travel at the same maximum velocity.I am ignorant to the theory of relativity. Can you lay this out in layman’s terms.,., explaining why the flashlight beam is not traveling faster than light-?
Thanks in advance
-
I am ignorant to the theory of relativity. Can you lay this out in layman’s terms.,., explaining why the flashlight beam is not traveling faster than light-?
Thanks in advance
-
This is from Physics 200 level: Experiments indicate it is due to a time adjustment. Velocity is how far you travel in an amount of time, but experience of time changes when you reach higher velocities. As you approach light speed your own time is slowing compared to that of slower objects (as the theory suggests). This is true for photons, too. So when you are on that vehicle shining your flashlight, the time that the photons experience adjusts so that the photons from both your flashlight and a stationary flashlight will only travel at the same maximum velocity. This velocity is always the same, so that if you could stand on a car traveling at 1/2 the speed of light, and there were a stationary flashlight nearby, the speed of the photons would be the same. Not only that, but your car would never exceed the speed of light, as time would adjust precisely enough to prevent that. It would effectively stop for you, perhaps. Currently we have every reason to think that there is no way for matter to go faster than light.
I was trying to describe its normal speed that doesn't cause a loss of speed. I already mentioned that since it has to traverse the space-time field that this would most likely have its inherent control, a balance of sorts.It does not seem to be unfettered because it has limitations, unless the vacuum of space itself exerts some form of resistance against it.
You should have stopped with the first sentence.Obviously, I have no clue.
Did you know that the speed of light you quote is the unfettered speed. Light has been slowed down in several experiments to a fair crawl.
I would speculate that when we have about 10 or 11 dimensions of space once we go into the scientific theories, string, and all those quarks that have to keep interacting to hold together our matter, and the quantum void of probability particles in the space-time field, that perhaps the speed has an upper limit pertaining to these matters. Light does need to travel through the space-time field in which these interactions occur. Since things are taking place there, I see light as a ship sailing through water which has resistance, and the faster you go, the harder the going gets. With light, a balance would then happen to create a speed limit when passing through this space-time field.
Ups! Just my ruminations. Nothing but assumptions.