New Theory?

[Lowemack]

How would it affect Special Relativity if the speed of light was not a constant.

What if everything in the universe had a maximum relative velocity of C. This is because as an objects velocity increases, so does its kinetic energy(which has mass), so does its total mass. This extra mass is relative to the observers velocity, so this explains the limit of relative velocity.

 

Light also is limited to C by the same rules.

 

But it would always appear the same to all observers because it is very close to C and when you do the reletivistic velocity additions it would appear the same.

 

Depending how close to C lightspeed is depends how many decimal places we have to measure light to. It could be that light travels at exactly this limiting velocity so we could never measure it any differently.

[ydoaPs]

what would your "theory" predict?

[goodyhi11]

i disagree

[Lowemack]

i disagree

 

Why?

[Lowemack]

Surley it makes more sense to say that there is a maximum velocity for everything, than say that light is different from everything else in the universe.

[atinymonkey]

To what level of physics are you trained?

[swansont]

Surley it makes more sense to say that there is a maximum velocity for everything, than say that light is different from everything else in the universe.

 

How about both?

[Mart]

Surley it makes more sense to say that there is a maximum velocity for everything, than say that light is different from everything else in the universe.

I think there is one way in which light is different from anything else in the universe. Everything, apart from light, can be "seen" in motion.

[atinymonkey]

What do you mean?

[Lowemack]

To what level of physics are you trained?

 

Grade B 'O' level, and 1 year of 'A' level studies. (20 years ago)

 

Why does it show?

[Lowemack]

I think there is one way in which light is different from anything else in the universe. Everything, apart from light, can be "seen" in motion.

 

Yes, we see things by light being emitted from them and travelling to our eyes. So really light is the only thing we see.

 

But light still should obey all the laws of physics and not have its own one. It makes more sense, surely.

[Lowemack]

what would your "theory" predict?

 

I predict we can calculate C.

 

If we can generate a formula for velocity of particle against the time that a constant force is applied to it (the graph of it would look like the text book, velocity sharply increasing and leveling of at C). If we then diferentiate this and solve for a gradient of 0, this should give C.

 

I think the formula would be very complicated because it would have to include the reletivistic mass additions, and at the moment I think we need to use C to calculate them.

 

Catch 22? Not sure, but interested.

[J.C.MacSwell]

How would it affect Special Relativity if the speed of light was not a constant.

What if everything in the universe had a maximum relative velocity of C. This is because as an objects velocity increases' date=' so does its kinetic energy(which has mass), so does its total mass. This extra mass is relative to the observers velocity, so this explains the limit of relative velocity.

 

Light also is limited to C by the same rules.

 

But it would always appear the same to all observers because it is very close to C and when you do the reletivistic velocity additions it would appear the same.

 

Depending how close to C lightspeed is depends how many decimal places we have to measure light to. It could be that light travels at exactly this limiting velocity so we could never measure it any differently.[/quote']

 

Would your photon have have a very small rest mass and would it be possible in theory (the proposed theory) to catch up to it? Would there be a preferred rest frame?

[Lowemack]

Would your photon have have a very small rest mass and would it be possible in theory (the proposed theory) to catch up to it? Would there be a preferred rest frame?

 

I think it would have a very small (if any) rest mass, and you could in theory catch it up.

 

Not sure what you meen by preferred rest frame but all freely moving frames of reference observe the same laws of physics.

[Mart]

Yes, we see things by light being emitted from them and travelling to our eyes. So really light is the only thing we see.

We use light to see with. We see colors, we have the concepts we use to describe light. Do we see light? I'm not doubting the convenience of a way of thinking about our experiences but to assert that is how things are is premature.

 

But light still should obey all the laws of physics and not have its own one. It makes more sense, surely.

There are two (at least) possible interpretations of the laws of physics. One is that we get closer and closer to Nature's laws with our laws. The other is that Nature has no laws and that our laws are convenient and necessary explanations.

If Nature does have it's laws how does matter/energy interact with those laws. Where are the laws? When did those laws start to exist - were they prior to the existance of matter/energy or were they concurrent with it? What type of entity is a law of Nature or any law?

[Lowemack]

We use light to see with. We see colors' date=' we have the concepts we use to describe light. Do we [b']see[/b] light? I'm not doubting the convenience of a way of thinking about our experiences but to assert that is how things are is premature.

 

 

There are two (at least) possible interpretations of the laws of physics. One is that we get closer and closer to Nature's laws with our laws. The other is that Nature has no laws and that our laws are convenient and necessary explanations.

If Nature does have it's laws how does matter/energy interact with those laws. Where are the laws? When did those laws start to exist - were they prior to the existance of matter/energy or were they concurrent with it? What type of entity is a law of Nature or any law?

 

I think we are deviating slightly, but what I meant was that everything in the universe has its own uniqueness, but should still follow the laws of phisics. We could for example say that water is different from everything else, because everything else can get wet.

[Sayonara]

You can expect to deviate consistently if you respond to Mart's tangential questions.

[Mart]

I think we are deviating slightly, but what I meant was that everything in the universe has its own uniqueness, but should still follow the laws of phisics. We could for example say that water is different from everything else, because everything else can get wet.

I agree that everything in the universe has its own uniqueness but I don't think I mentioned that in my post and I was not thinking along those lines anyway. I did ask some questions which I believe are relevant. Can you supply answers or at least tell me what makes my questions irrelevant.

[kotake]

How would it affect Special Relativity if the speed of light was not a constant.

What if everything in the universe had a maximum relative velocity of C. This is because as an objects velocity increases' date=' so does its kinetic energy(which has mass), so does its total mass. This extra mass is relative to the observers velocity, so this explains the limit of relative velocity.

 

Light also is limited to C by the same rules.

 

But it would always appear the same to all observers because it is very close to C and when you do the reletivistic velocity additions it would appear the same.

 

Depending how close to C lightspeed is depends how many decimal places we have to measure light to. It could be that light travels at exactly this limiting velocity so we could never measure it any differently.[/quote']I may be ignorant, but I can't fully see what you mean by your "new theory".

Do you mean that everything, including light, must have a velocity v < c?

[Lowemack]

I may be ignorant' date=' but I can't fully see what you mean by your "new theory".

Do you mean that everything, including light, must have a velocity v < c?[/quote']

 

No, what I mean is that the speed of light is NOT a constant, as previously assumed, it just obeys a "new theory" that says that everything has a maximum RELATIVE velocity of C, and light is not an exception.

 

We always measure light speed to be C because if we were travelling towards a light beam @ 0.5C and light was travelling at 0.9999999999C we would not measure its velocity to be 0.499999999999C because relativistic velocity additions are different (any one know the exact calculation?)

[kotake]

No' date=' what I mean is that the speed of light is NOT a constant, as previously assumed, it just obeys a "new theory" that says that everything has a maximum RELATIVE velocity of C, and light is not an exception.

 

We always measure light speed to be C because if we were travelling towards a light beam @ 0.5C and light was travelling at 0.9999999999C we would not measure its velocity to be 0.499999999999C because relativistic velocity additions are different (any one know the exact calculation?)[/quote']

The formula for relativistic velocity additions is v = (v₁ + v₂)/(1 + v₁v₂/c²)

 

As for the first part of the new theory, which values -- according to it -- determine the relative speed of light for a given time and reference frame, if its speed is not a constant? How does the relative speed of light vary?

 

I am sorry, but I don't see what in the second part of your theory is different from special relativity. In however way and velocity an observer moves relative to a beam of light, the relative velocity of the beam will always be c.

 

For an observer who watches the whole scene while standing still relative to both the first observer and the light beam, the speed of light would also be c, whereas the first observer's velocity would appear lower.

 

What experiments support this "new theory"?

[Lowemack]

All experiments to measure the speed of light came to the same value, C. So Einstien used this 'fact' to make his Special Theory of Relativity. This then gave us a new way of calculating relative velocities.

 

If you use the formulae to calculate the relative velocity of a light beam when you are travelling towards it at 0.5C, the answer will be still be C, which is what we actually measure.

 

Obvously the formulaes are correct, but what if the speed of light is always measured to be C, because of the formulaes.

 

I believe that C is the maximum possible Relative velocity for everything in the universe INCLUDING light.

 

It is slightly different from saying the "speed of light is a constant" and everything else in the universe has a maximum relative velocity.

 

If an object was travelling towards you at C and you accelerated towards it at 0.5C you would still measure its velocity to be C, just like we do with a light beam.

 

I think that light can reach C (or very close) because it has no mass.

 

Also what happens to light when it is absorbed? Does it stop, slow down? This isn't constant velocity.

 

P.S. I know an object can't travell at C, but hyperthetically.

[kotake]

Obvously the formulaes are correct, but what if the speed of light is always measured to be C, because of the formulaes.

So you are saying that the speed if light isn't constant, yet that the formulas say that it is constant, ergo there is something fishy about them?

 

An object cannot obtain a velocity of c if it has a mass, isn't that so? Therefore, photons (if we consider them to be mass-less) are the only ones that can reach c and the only ones that have a relative velocity of c whatever the reference frame.

 

Thus your new theory states that c is the theoretical maximum velocity for all matter? But isn't that what Special Relativity says? Or is the difference that according to this new theory light can have any velocity, and a maximum of c?

 

Also what happens to light when it is absorbed? Does it stop, slow down? This isn't constant velocity.

You mean, when light is transmitted through a medium such as glass, it has a velocity slightly below c, and thus cannot be said to have a constant speed? This is a good point. I have been wondering about it too. But I think that light doesn't really slow down, it only gets delayed, because the photons (all travelling at c) are absorbed into the atoms in the glass and then re-emitted. When the beam leaves the medium and proceeds in vacuum, its speed is again c.

 

Sorry if I ask so much, but I want to be reassured about whether I am following along. I am little slow.

[Lowemack]

I think that the formulas are correct, but when they say that C is the speed of light, I think it is more accurate to say that it is the maximum relative velocity of a body. In reality the numbers might be exactly the same but on the other hand they may be very very slightly less. I think that light is limited to the velocity C, just like everything else in the universe and for the same reasons.

 

When photons are absorbed by glass molecules, do they decelerate? Do they stop insantly? When Photons are emitted do they Start at velocity C or do they accelerate from 0m/sec to C?

[fuhrerkeebs]

Obvously the formulaes are correct, but what if the speed of light is always measured to be C, because of the formulaes.

 

I believe it was the Michelson-Morley experiment that seemed to show that the speed of light was constant, and this experiment was performed a few years before Lorentz or Einstein introduced the famous theory of SR.