The Logic challenge - light speed is instantaneous

Hi guys, just though I'd through a little logic puzzle for you to tear apart. (maybe it will be really easy to do.....maybe it wont be so easy)

It has been the holy grail of relativity that light travells at the speed of 'c' in fact this is the most agreed upon concept and is seemingly demonstratable by many experiments and ongoing measurements namely the lunar distance measure.

Now I have always held the belief that light is instantaneous but the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming, so I tried to find out why I felt it a contradiction to what I felt intuitively.

SO I put forward this logic for you to analyse and play with.

According to Einstein the uiniverse travels through time in continuum at the rate of 'c'. change occurs at this rate. the future becomes the past at the rate of 'c'.

The light cones were the very premise of relativity and it's famous postulates.

<img src=http://www.paygency.com/light%20cones.jpg>
http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/minkowski.html

Now if we accept that the universe is changing at the rate of 'c' then if light travels at the speed of 'c' and the reflector is also traveling at the rate of 'c' then our measurement must include both rates the time of travel and the time it takes for the reflector to reflect the change that the light creates.

Light travel 'c' plus mirror travel 'c' = 'c'+'c'.

clearly all evidence suggest that the rate is 'c' not 'c'/2

Now if we accept that the photons velocity causes a length contraction to zero (v='c' d=zero) and we take note of our speed problem we can infer that light is in fact instantaneous and not 'c' and the mirror changes 'c' thus giving the impression that light travels at 'c' when in fact it is the mirror that changes at 'c' and not the light.


If light travels at 'c' then how do we accomodate the time it takes for the mirror or reflector to change (which is also 'c') ????

Is it worth a thought?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think you can have a mirror travelling at c according to Special Relativity...

Now, here are some vague but possibly relevant thoughts... ignore at will

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You run into nasty problems when considering things from a speed-of-light point of view. At the speed of light, the concepts of length and time disappear into mathematical singularities... events are still separated by a well defined space-time interval, but may have zero proper length and zero proper time.

What this means is that you could say that a light beam thinks that it reaches its destination instantaneously, having travelled no distance at all... but this is really an artefact of what I think of as spacetime "perspective". It's kind of like looking at a sheet of paper edge on. You can draw two separate dots on a sheet of paper, then put them in the same place by looking at the paper edge on. The separation is real, but you can't see it. In the same way, a light beam can't see the time or space intervals between its source and destination - it thinks it travels instantaneously.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

now this is a salient point, the mirror is not travelling at 'c' but changing at 'c'

A big difference in interpretation......

The mirror or reflective surface is changing at 'c' future to past.

so any effect that happens to change the mirror more so than would normally happen is at theh rate of 'c'.

so the reflection takes 'c' to reflect.......

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

although to be more precise it could be said that the mirror is travelling at 'c' on the spot. like jogging on the spot so the total distance (on the spot) is at the rate of 'c'

 

Where did you get this idea?

 

The Einstein-Minkowski Spacetime
Introducing The Light Cone
The characteristic feature of this spacetime is the Light Cone, a double-cone centered at each event in Spacetime. (By the conventional choice of units used in relativity, the sides of the cone are sloped at 45 degrees. This corresponds to choosing units where time is measured in seconds and distances in light-seconds. A light-second is the distance light travels in one second.)

The upper-cone (called the future light-cone) represents the future history of a light-flash emitted at that event.
The lower-cone (called the past light-cone) represents all directions from which light-flashes can be received at that event.
The Light Cone represents the idea that "the direction of the light-flash does not depend on the motion of the source---but just on the event at which the light-flash is emitted." In addition, by the Einstein Principle of Relativity, all observers, regardless of their motions, must (because of Maxwell's Laws) measure the speed of light to be the same constant, in all directions. That is to say, "all observers will universally agree on the Light Cones at each event." This means that each observer drawing a spacetime diagram in which he is at rest must have the worldlines of light-flashes at the same angle of 45 degrees from his worldline (his time axis), and 45 degrees from his plane of simultaneity (his space axes)."

Care of
http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modu.../minkowski.html

this clearly states that our photonchanges at the rate of 'c'....ok not news right?

however because the photons velocity is the rate the future can become the past ands because of this time reversal woudl occur if the speed was exceeded. The rate of universal change is also the same rate as the photon changes.

thus the rate of change is also a universal constant of 'c'

 

have is misinterpreted the extension of the light cone logic?

 

the strength of the signal is weaker so whilst change occurs a 'c' it takes longer than 'c' for the reciever to change and reflect the signal. but change is still occuring at the rate of 'c' but it takes time for the change to occur. the weaker the signal the longer the change takes. But the signal is instantaneous.......the time it takes to change whist at the rate of 'c' is 1.28 seconds The closer the source the quicker it takes.


Say we have a light source 300000 ks away in a vacuum.....normally we say that it takes 1 second for this light to travel. however what i am saying is that it takes 1 second for the reflector to show the reflected change that the light requires.

The vibrational rate of the reflector has to take time to change (increase) to reflect
the light.

There are two dimensions involved.......time over change that we measure and time that the universe changes that we move with whilst measuring.

excuse me if I mix things up a little as I am thinking on the run here.....

 

actually my mistake......strength has nothing to do with it.....

the reflecting surface ( including our eyes) takes time to reflect at the frequency required by the signal. and until it is at that frequency it can't reflect it.
This suggests that the time the surface takes to change it's frequency determines the delay......hmmmmm but always the change is happening at the rate of 'c'........ a mirror would take less time to change than say a piece of wood, but the difference would be very small indeed.
I think we have what's called a reflective index of surfaces and if the math were done it should prove correct.....

 

or put it this way, the energy transfer occurs instantaneously but it takes time for the reflector to be charged at the frequency needed. to emit a reflection.

 

Once AGAIN, you assert "universe is changing at the rate of 'c' " and I have asked you WHAT it was that was changing. NOW, you include the statement "According to Einstein the uiniverse travels through time in continuum at the rate of 'c'. " No, Einstein never said any such thing. Einstein said "The universe is a 4 dimensional space-time continuum". Time is PART of the universe, the universe does not "travel through time" and certainly does not "change" at the rate of 'c'.

 

Just a quick diagram to show the light cones in a different way

<img src=http://www.paygency.com/Now.jpg>


The light cones clearly indicate that the rate of change from future to past of a beam of light is always 'c'. This was the founding inspiration for his theories. And I happen to agree.
Hallsov,
Do you fully understand what the light cones mean?

 

I suppose it is always good to know your limitations hey?
What makes you thnik that this is not a part of the scientific method....you know...form the hyposthesis test the hypothesis then test the theory etc etc......and if you can't see what I am talking about and argue appropriately then it is your smartness in question not mine........

 

an important point is that the Rate of change is a different measurement to the time taken to change. a bit like comparing the voltage with ampheres, two distinctly different measurements
or
the strength of gravity with the time it takes to fall

 

I see this issue along simular lines but more of a composite result.

That is I do believe that there is an underlying energy propagating "Virtually" instaneously - perhaps c^c for example.

It is the means of particle entanglement, gravity and the source of the apparent light invariance.

a - Particles traveling faster than the speed of light in a medium - i.e. water - not vacuum, generate light called Cerenkov Radiation. (0.75 c)

b - Electrons change energy status and jump from one condition to another at FTL and results in the production of a photon.

c - If (as I suspect) light is a form of dimensional binding energy, standard light appears to be invariant at v = c because it is produced as a function of quantum energy increments through the underlying carrier medium and the observers relative velocity to the light source.

You aren't seeing the same photon or it is the same photon with delayed or expidited production.

While the above examples are of different conditions they have a common function. "Light" at the Lorentz Contraction point (Dimensional Collapse).

That is light being produced at c in any medium including a vacuum.

 

Of course this hypothesis is a part of a bigger hypothesis for me. My focus is primarilly about putting time in proper perspective.
According to relativity the photon exists only in the center of time, betweeen the future and the past.

As I have posed in another thread the centre of time is actually nothing or in some oher ways a singularity of nothing.......( I know this is raising feathers)

light can "propagate" instantaneously simply because distance doesn't exist for it as it travels in a void of nothing ( space with out time) Gavity or should I say the pull of gravity also does not propagate and is also instantaneous in it's effect for the same reason. IN that distance is non existent. Distance is only discerned because of reflective mass. Mass is only reflective because it exists over time. No time = no mass...
Lorenzian maths actually achieved a zero distance result but actually shows us that a dimension of nothing exists.....as well............( by default)

The space between the earth and the sun is in effect nothing.....but because it has time ( past and future) it is greater than the nothing or singularity that creates matter.

If one considers electrical charges as space time imbalances the whole picture starts to make sense.

However for the purposes of this thread I just wanted to show that as I am not familiar with the science you referr to (MacM) I will leave the ramifications of the logic for someone else to work through.

The biggest problem that physics has had is in the understanding of time and how important time is ( future/Past) to it's research.

Time in seconds is not so much the issue but time regards future and past is.

 

No, the light cone does not indicate that the rate of change from future to past is c (whatever this means).
It shows that space is divided into three different region

I. The region where everything is slower than light.

II. The region where everything moves at the speed of light.

III. The region where everything goes faster than light.

You cannot move from one region to another

 

What does that mean?
It sounds like an awful misinterpretation of the terms timelike, lightlike, and spacelike.

 

1100f, from what i have read there is never any reference to anything other than light and the nature of light with the cones, how do you get light travellling slower than light. or goes faster than light.....where does this light cone theory show these things?

 

how do you get