New Theory (breakthrough?)

[arkain101]

I dont know much about relativity compared to einstien or people of that level but I get my way around. I dont know if I have ever read anywhere about this concept so it may be an intirely new theoretical idea.

 

I was reading something interesting that another member posted and it sparked my imagination.. Please prove me wrong cause it scares me.

 

"In the other experiment, a pulse of light that enters a transparent chamber filled with caesium gas reaches speeds 300 times the normal speed of light.

 

According to the researchers, the main part of the light pulse leaves the far side of the chamber even before it enters at the near side! "

 

I thought about it for awhile and came up with some idea.

 

Since space is literally not there, im talking about the area between the clusters of particles. Then it can not really be used in cirtain equations since it is mearly a word for somthing that isnt there.

 

Okay so to us on earth we say that light travels around 300,000km/s or something like that, but if you were able to site on the light wave at the very front and go for a ride wouldnt you have time dialation and space contraction? And there for your measurement of how fast light travels would be a different reading?

 

Getting to the point, they claimed the light traveled 300times faster than C.. but if the light is in a different realm because of its intense speed that maybe thats how fast it really is and somehow they were able through that experiment to realize that? If light can act like matter then it would in fact follow the same laws..

So im saying that when we shoot a ray of light it is infact already infact lightyears ahead of where we would interpret it to be? causing it to seem that the light passed through the tank before it even started.

To us it just started but in the world of the light it was already done because of the time dilation and space contraction, but because of our relative persepective we can not detect with conventional experiements?

 

Im starting to think that light is actually infinite, I mean the speed. but depending on your perspective it will apear to be at a given velocity.

 

WHich makes sense.. maybe the universe is actually just as close to us as it is far away.. because of the light dilations..

 

Im still feeling like im not getting the concept properly put into words.. Its like If i turned on a flash light and pointed it at mars, the light is traveling at speed of light and because it can act like matter then it would have such a space contraction that mars would be like 1mm away to the light but at our perspective somehow it takes 3mins or whatever and works out to 70million miles...

 

If this were true it would be insane.. it would mean the universe is actually pin size and infantly apart..

 

Some expert please! give me some thoughts on this before it tears my mind apart.

[CPL.Luke]

that experiment just reshaped the light pulse so that the leading edge of the wave became the peak. Its called anomalous dispersion I believe.

[arkain101]

Okay but here is my point.

 

In theory If you were in a space going C and your drove by earth, earth would appear in fast forward Correct? Because you are slowing down in time apparently. And people on earth that saw the ship would see it speeding through time so to speak.

If light acts like matter in the way that it can be affect by gravity and cause a pushing force on an object then would it not undergo some of the same laws that matter would undergo when experiencing high speed.

 

When we fire a lazer at the moon and bounced it back and time it and make a measuremeant of how far it traveled and how fast. We are watching somthing going at the speed of light which would appear like the ship going in slow motion. Wouldnt the light under go time dialation and space contraction in its relative space time realm so to speak?

 

If we could make an object travel at the speed of light wouldnt time dialation and distance contraction be infinate? how extreme of a change would things undergo if you could go 100% the speed of light? Because If light experienced these laws, and say for example that contraction was 100% and time dialtion caused time to stop then light would be infinate and instantanious. If not infinate and instananious it would be the next closest thing when undergoing those laws..

 

Why does light get excluded from the laws of all these high speed travel differences!?!?!

[Janus]

Okay but here is my point.

 

In theory If you were in a space going C and your drove by earth' date=' earth would appear in fast forward Correct? [/quote']

 

Incorrect. Earth would appear in slow motion.

[arkain101]

Even if that was wrong it doesnt have to do with the main thought.

 

But if earth was in slow motion you wouldnt be very successful at traveling into time by going fast and that is how its supposed to work. So are you sure about that.

[swansont]

Even if that was wrong it doesnt have to do with the main thought.

 

But if earth was in slow motion you wouldnt be very successful at traveling into time by going fast and that is how its supposed to work. So are you sure about that.

 

Causality isn't violated just by travelling fast, it's violated by travelling faster than c. The previous response was in the context of travelling slightly slower than c, since travelling at c is physically impossible.

[Saint]

Causality isn't violated just by travelling fast, it's violated by travelling faster than c. The previous response was in the context of travelling slightly slower than c, since travelling at c is physically impossible.

 

You mean it's mathematically impossible, don't you?

 

And causality isn't violated by travelling faster than c, unless you have to deal with time dilation, correct? I mean, velocity alone doesn't change causality, right? It's the relativistic time dilation/length contraction stuff that does it.

[Locrian]

No, traveling faster than forces travel creates causation issues all by its lonesome.

 

Also, swansont didn't say that traveling faster than the speed of light is mathematically impossible because that makes no sense at all. Mathematics don't determine how the universe operates; instead, we use how the universe operates to produce mathematics that predict observation. The special theory of relativity is well-tested and known to correspond to physical results. This includes the limitation on relative velocity.

[Saint]

No' date=' traveling faster than forces travel creates causation issues all by its lonesome.

 

Also, swansont didn't say that traveling faster than the speed of light is mathematically impossible because that makes no sense at all. Mathematics don't determine how the universe operates; instead, we use how the universe operates to produce mathematics that predict observation. The special theory of relativity is well-tested and known to correspond to physical results. This includes the limitation on relative velocity.[/quote']

 

What's a force, and why can't it travel faster than light?

 

F=ma is well tested as well (as Swansont pointed out in another thread). How far does it's curve fit reach? Is it applicable in all regimes?

[Tom Mattson]

You mean it's mathematically impossible' date=' don't you?

[/quote']

 

It's deemed impossible because of the trillions upon trillions of data points from particle accelerators that have failed to get massive bodies to break the light speed barrier, despite the fact that they have been given enough energy to travel at many times the speed of light according to the classical theory.

 

And causality isn't violated by travelling faster than c, unless you have to deal with time dilation, correct? I mean, velocity alone doesn't change causality, right? It's the relativistic time dilation/length contraction stuff that does it.

 

Causality is violated by faster-than-light travel in a relativisitic universe. And since we live in a relativistic universe, well you can take it from there.

 

What's a force, and why can't it travel faster than light?

 

Ultimately forces are interactions that are mediated by gauge bosons. We know a enough about the EM, strong, and weak interactions to know that they do not exceed the light speed barrier. That leaves one force: gravity. Efforts are currently underway to measure the speed of gravity and analyze the results. If it is found that gravity travels at the speed of light, then my reply to your question would be this:

 

We say that forces can't travel faster than light because they don't travel faster than light.

[arkain101]

Still, my question has been ignored.

 

Why does light get excluded from the laws of all these high speed travel differences!?!?!

 

See I am taking the theorys based upon mathimatics and puting it into real world logic thought which I am very good at and trying to put simple logic behind these speed limits and such.

 

If time travel is possible, than to me it would seem that light is living at a constant future. heck i dunno, pls answer my first question.

[Tom Mattson]

Still' date=' my question has been ignored.

[/quote']

 

Sorry about that.

 

Why does light get excluded from the laws of all these high speed travel differences!?!?!

 

Light doesn't get excluded at all. Light is described by the same relativity that describes massive bodies.

[arkain101]

not to be anoying but I am so confused.

 

When a body of mass travels at the speed of light or very close to it its molecular half life is extended and its distance that it travels at that speed is increased over the estimated measurement, if so it is a decaying type of molecule. So proves the theory that time dialation and length contraction exists.

 

Now that you have just explained to me that light is not excluded by the laws of these dilations and such then.

 

An energy wave in the form of visible light traveling at the speed of light © is and will experience time dilation and length contraction from the observers static point of reference. And through the models I have examined they show how and what happens if you were to fly through space at the speed of light. They show that you infact travel faster than the static observer witnesses. And your time is slown. So if light follows these rules then, it would infact always be traveling into the future compared to us, giving us the idea that it takes time for it to go to point a to point b because of our slower observing point..??

 

I think im gonna give up on this.. if I get corrected again. people dont seem to understand the concept im trying to explain

[swansont]

not to be anoying but I am so confused.

 

When a body of mass travels at the speed of light or very close to it its molecular half life is extended and its distance that it travels at that speed is increased over the estimated measurement' date=' if so it is a decaying type of molecule. So proves the theory that time dialation and length contraction exists.[/quote']

 

Relativity des that to people.

 

The body does not see its time dilated, but sees the length contracted. The outside observer sees the time dilation of the body, which is how they can reconcile what happened.

 

 

 

Now that you have just explained to me that light is not excluded by the laws of these dilations and such then.

 

An energy wave in the form of visible light traveling at the speed of light © is and will experience time dilation and length contraction from the observers static point of reference. And through the models I have examined they show how and what happens if you were to fly through space at the speed of light. They show that you infact travel faster than the static observer witnesses. And your time is slown. So if light follows these rules then' date=' it would infact always be traveling into the future compared to us, giving us the idea that it takes time for it to go to point a to point b because of our slower observing point..??

 

I think im gonna give up on this.. if I get corrected again. people dont seem to understand the concept im trying to explain [/quote']

 

You'll have to show where you read that you "travel faster than the static observer witnesses" because, absent any context, this sounds wrong.

[arkain101]

well are you not covering more distance in a shorter time when you are at speed C?

[CPL.Luke]

the laws of physics don't cover objects moving faster than the speed of light. To our knowledge they don't exist.

 

electromagnetic radiation travels at c because thats the way our universe works, the constants are what they are and they lead to light traveling at c.

 

I think where your getting confused is that your trying to apply the equations of special relativity to light (time dilation, length contraction ec.) this is pretty meaningless because of two reasons, a: special relativity does not apply to objects travelling at or above c, b: even if they did it would still be meaningless as the speed of light is the same for all observers, and is thus lorentz invariant.

[Janus]

well are you not covering more distance in a shorter time when you are at speed C?

 

I'm going to take a stab at trying to interpret what you are trying to say here.

I'll use an example of a ship passing the Earth at .99c (We will avoid moving at c, because no physical object can move at c.)

 

Okay, let's say that this ship is moving towards a planet 7 light years away from the Earth as measured by form the Earth. Assume that the ship sets his clock to read zero the instant he passes the Earth.

 

Now, according to Relativity, An observer on the Earth(or on our hypothetical planet) will determine that the clock on the ship will run slow by a factor of 7, and thus will read a little over 1 yr when it passes our planet.

 

Now what I think you are asking is:

Doesn't this mean that an observer riding on the ship will see himself travel 7 light years in a little over 1 year and thus see himself as traveling at almost 7c?

 

The answer is no. And here is why:

 

As far as the observer in the ship is concerned it is not him that is moving; It is the Earth and the Planet that is moving past him at .99c. Another thing that happens according to Relativity is that objects moving Relative to you will be measured by you as length contracted. Is this case, this means that the ship observer will measure the distance between Earth and the Planet as a only 1 ly. And since the relative speed between himself and these two planets is .99c, the time that passes on his clock between the time the Earth passes him and the planet passes him will be a little over 1yr. And thus he sees his velocity relative to the Earth as .99c, Just like the Earth sees their relative velocity as .99c.

[arkain101]

Okay I totally and completely understand that, thanks alot.

 

Now I can use your explaination to finally explain what I have been trying to get at this whole time. I just replaced a few words from the ship to light to try to explain my thinking.

 

I'm going to take a stab at trying to interpret what you are trying to say here.

I'll use an example of a beam of light passing the Earth at .99c

 

Okay, let's say that this light is moving towards a planet 7 light years away from the Earth as measured by from the Earth. Assume that the light is containing data of a clock reading zero just as it passes earth.

 

Now, according to Relativity, An observer on the Earth(or on our hypothetical planet) will determine that the lights data will run slow by a factor of 7, and thus will read a little over 1 yr when it passes our planet.

 

Now what I think you are asking is:

Doesn't this mean that an observer riding on the light will see himself travel 7 light years in a little over 1 year and thus see himself as traveling at almost 7c?

 

The answer is no. And here is why:

 

As far as the light is concerned it is not it that is moving; It is the Earth and the Planet that is moving past it at .99c. Another thing that happens according to Relativity is that objects moving Relative to you will be measured by you as length contracted. Is this case, this means that the light will measure the distance between Earth and the Planet as a only 1 ly. And since the relative speed between it and these two planets is .99c, the time that passes on this light between the time the Earth passes it and the planet passes it will be a little over 1yr. And thus the lights velocity relative to the Earth as .99c, Just like the Earth sees the lights relative velocity as .99c.

[X facter]

I'll use an example of a beam of light passing the Earth at .99c

 

Light does not travel at .99c.

[arkain101]

i know that.. sheesh.. lets say c then. close enough.. and for crying out loud that isnt the point. no offense but people keep overlooking things

 

I am starting to consider that my concept is worth letting go for now..

 

it seems no one here is following me very acuratly .. so ill have take some time to put things together in a more understandable manner.

[CPL.Luke]

I understand fine, its just that your misaplying special relativity. assuming your clock is sitting stationary WRT the earth then there is no time dilation between it and the earth, therefore the earth would not read from the light (because thats all we have to know that the clock is there) that there was time dilation ie. that the clock was running at 1/7th (or whatever time dilation you want, the equation doesn't work for a velocity of c anyway) the rate at which clocks run on the earth.

 

so, light can not be dilated, it merely carries information from 1 point to anouther.

 

If your idea is different then this, then, if it does work, you would have to build it up off of a different maxwell's equations, as your idea is not part of special relativity and by extension does not mesh directly with maxwell's equations.

 

 

In other words, you would have to find some fundamental innacurracy or missing term in said equations in order for your idea to work.