The Logic challenge - light speed is instantaneous

MacM I think you have missread my request, I ask how relativity determines light to be invariant?
Or rephrase the question a little by asking: How Albert Einstein determined light to be invariant?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There may be more indepth answers but since you asked me, it is my understanding that the primary reason was the "Quote/UnQuote" ""Failure of the MM Experiment to detect an ether. Of course additional testing seems to agree. But unfortunately these tests do not exclude my view which is that it isn't invariant at all but a function of the production of light as stipulated in the above referenced post.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

QQ, I think you misunderstand what light-cones are.

Light cones are imaginary surfaces in space-time centered on an arbitrary event. They aren't real, they're a modeling tool. The purpose of light cones is to separate events with timelike separation to our arbitrary cetnral event from events with spacelike separation to our arbitrary central event.

Light cones really have little to do with photons, and much to do with spacetime. The fact that photons that pass through the arbitrary central event will follow a path on a light cone is incidental.


I'll address your reply to me in detail later, but it will be difficult because you seem to be working from some fundamental misconceptions of special relativity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no, still not

 

Thanks Pete, be assured I accept the possibility that I am indeed working from some fundemantal misconceptions.

Maybe it all comes down to one single question.

At what moment (part) of time does the photon exist?
Question to qualify the above question:
Does it exist in the future? the Past? or what?

 

I think Pete said this but...
At the center between the light cones is any event in spacetime. The cone itself is a 3-Dimensional (2 space, 1 time) representation of an (and I'm talking about the future light cone only) expanding 4 dimensional sphere. The cone represents the sphere, expanding at the speed of light, which can be affected by light emitted at the event. Inside the cone (sphere) is anything moving slower than the speed of light away from the event. Outside the cone (expanding sphere) is anything that is too far from the event to be affected by light travelling at 'c', for example: A certain photon emitted from the sun. For eight minutes (upwards on the time axis of the light cone) the earth lies outside the light cone of the event (light being emitted from the sun). Since the earth isn't getting further away from the sun, it traces out a line parallel to the axis of the cones but spatially separated from it (as in figure 2.6, a brief history of time. I'd post a MSPaint copy, but I don't know how to post images).
Similarly, past light cones represent a contracting sphere of where photons that are travelling in a straight line must be if they are to have an effect on the event. Inside the sphere are massive particles that can have an effect on the event, outside the sphere is light and particles that cannot affect the event.
Photons emitted at the event (future) or that will be at the event (past) lie on the cones.
That's what I interpreted light cones to be anyway. That's what I gathered from "A Brief History of Time", specifically pages 25-32ish.

I meant that with now being static, when we approach 'c', our rate of change (of position WRT time) approaches the universe's constant rate of change, so we should observe the relative change in the universe as less and therefore the relative speed of light changing (since it is instantaneous and we are measuring the universe changing as a result of the light).

That's what I thought, but you said MacM was wrong here, and it took 0.5 seconds for our eyes to interpret. That defies my understanding of your entire theory. I thought that your theory was that distance had an effect on the time it took anything to react to light, which travelled instantaneously.

Oooh, let's not open that can of worms.

I agree with Pete here. I think that it would be better to say somthing like "The universe or a fixed point in the universe changes at a certain rate which gives light, travelling instantaneously, an apparent speed of 'c'."

I initially that this was an excellent explanation for why the universe takes time to respond to instantaneous light, but then I thought about why the bell takes longer to respond. It's because of the time taken for the sound waves to travel the distance between the bells isn't it?

 

Possibly true becasue of atmosphere but one has to account for the time it takes the bell to change it's resonance as well.

cck thanks for the question and approach....I'll consider it more deeply and reply shortly.

 

The photon did exist in the past, exists now, and will exist in the future, so you could say that the range the photon exists for is all time, or at least for some finite period of time if it is generated and abosorbed.

 

and I ask at what moment is that regards future and past?

I would suggest that this is a later extrapolation of the lightcones whilst under the illusion that light travels. And not a part of Einteins original inspiration. ( my thoughts)

Similar response .......I find it amazing to what lengths science has tried to justify the syntax of light travelling.....

If one removes the traveling of light from the approach and allow the universe to do what it always does ( change according to the energy imparted by the light) then the science becomes incredibly more simple. ( my thoughts)

distance does effect the energy but not the traveling time ( instantaneous )

How does distance currently effect light energy and EM? (I don''t see this aspect needing to be altered.)

 

My angle is that the photon was in the now and becomes the "now" in the past.

In other words the photon becomes part of the past as does everything else.

But of course our photon is no longer an artifact to consider.....simply because we are back to refering to light rays instead.

The light form one object changes another object so that this object reflects that light. There is no particle, there is no object to discuss, the distance between the objects is only relevant if you want to travel, and if the light doesn't travel distance is not relevant.
Further light has no size except to say that its volumetric is the same as the entire universe. However it's strength is still subject to the sphere of it's influence.(distance) when talking about stars and their spherical light energy propagation. ( Not sure about lasers )

 

The energy is generated and absorbed in the "now" ( centre of time) and remains with the object into the past.

 

Any arbitrary moment of the event.

So the light cone becomes rather than the expanding sphere of where light from the event can reach, but where the universe has had time to change as a result of light that travelled instantaneously, which, because at greater distance from the event light has less energy and therefore takes greater time for the universe to change, acts as a sphere expanding at 'c'.

Considering string theories, quantum mechanics, extra dimensions and the like, yeah, I guess this is a lot more simple. That may just be because I haven't seen any maths though

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Higher energy I assume in relation to your theory means that it changes a reflector or object in the universe at a faster rate, meaning that light with higher energy (shorter distance of travel) affects things faster while light with less energy (larger distance) takes more time to produce an observable effect. This right?

So light sort of jumps around from star to reflector, sits there for a while as energy until the reflector can change enough to reflect it, then jumps off to the next reflector and sits there until that reflector can change enough to reflect it, etc.?

 

cck ...your quick I'll give you that.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

let's see:

yep you got it so 'c' is easilly being misinterpreted and yet maintains integrity as a number or value only that it has no bearing on travel time in the usual use of the word travel.

The energy causes the surface to charge up and generate it's own light. The use of the word "reflect" is to say immitate or resonate in this context.

 

so if you wanted to write my hypothesis how would you write it?

 

I did a little research on the scientist/ astromoner, Olaf Roemer who in 1676 published hiw thesis on light speed involving measurements of one of the moovns of Jupiter. At first I thought I had found the 'glitch' but becasue his evidence relys on light itself his finding doesn't necessarilly invalidate my hypothesis.......However ( and ther always is a however)

If we are able to use a similar process we should be able to prove that light is instantaneous. I'm just not sure how this could be done.....at present.

Suffice to say that simply playing with logic to me is not enough.......

 

someone mentioned awhile ago something to do with Mercuries Orbit.....hmmmmm

 

Thank you.

'Tis falling into place.

Is this like normal reflection, or does your theory work on a different method?

Well, it needs to be testable before it's really a hypothesis. But to summarise your theory, I'd say:
Light travels between two points instantaneously. When light interacts with matter it takes the matter a certain amount of time (we can call it Tr for reaction time?) for the energy to be transferred from light to resonation in the matter (reflector) and then re-generated into light. [This next equation is just assumed from your use of it in calculations before, v=d/t) This time can be given by Tr = d/c where Tr is the reaction time of the reflector in seconds, d is the distance in meters between the reflector and the light source (or previous reflector as the case may be) and c is a constant 300,000km/s [does that work?]----
I've just had an idea. Consider De Broglie's matter waves, where wavelength = h/mv. And Einstein's E=mc^2. There must be something to the equivalence of energy and matter. What consequences does your theory have for fast moving matter particles?
---
Because the constant rate of change in the universe is c, (any given particle vibrates or rotates at c) as an observer approaches c their relative rate of change of position with respect to the universe becomes less and so apparent time becomes slower (time dilation).
That's what I've got so far from your theory.

I haven't thought much about what consequences your theory has for length contraction (probably because I don't know the reasoning behind it in conventional relativity), mass dilation (same), or simultaneity (I understand that, I just haven't thought about it yet.)

I have another question: using a conventional light cone, what happens for say a reflector that lies outside the future light cone? In conventional relativity, this cannot be affected by light from an event. In your theory the light would be at this reflector instantly.

*edit* Of course it would take time for the reflector to be energised, the exact amount of time it would have taken to enter the light cone.

 

the reflector and the light ray exist only in the centre between the light cones.

I am not able to see how something can exist beyong the centre. The future cone and past cones suggest how time collapses to the centre....

If the reflectoris in the future it can not be effected by the light because the light energy exists only in the now or the centre. remembering that our ray of light only exists in the centre between future and past.

so issues beyond the now are not relevant to this issue.

If you take the future cone and superimpose it over the past cone so that the null point or centre of time is at the top you have an understanding of how the past and the future ( determined by the past) create space time.

Space time which is the combination of both and not separate as shown by the einstein light cones.

and if you go to my other thread about "space time and the value of nothing" you can see a three dimensional version of those light superimposed light cones in three dimensional form. I'll show the image here. ( I drew this about 3 years ago using CAD software - before I had even heard of Light cones)

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

Spacetime in 3 dimensional form....each cone shown is both past and future leading to the centre which in matter is a singularity of nothing ( centre of time)

Now I am mixing two hypothesis's here so I don't want to overly confuse the issue.....

 

time dilation is in effect matter vibrating slower so that it's change is slower than that of a relative frame of reference.

so as velocity of matter inceases it's vibratory rate slows thus it changes at a rate less than 'c'.......the time cones or light cones flatten instead of 45 degrees as showen in einsteins cones they flatten to less than 45 degrees. but the centre of time stays the same..........the same occurs with the threedimensional version except tha initial angle is already less than 45 degrees ...if I remember correctly closer to 30 degrees.

I'm sure some one who can do the math will be able to work out the angles......afterall it is equalateral cones within a sphere.....

 

there is an issue in the delay to reflect and this is needs to be included

light is instantaneous so that the first impact of change is also but the surface does not reflect until it reaches the appropriate energy state.

Delayed time before reflection is at the rate of 'c'

say we assume a curve that goes upward to the point where actual reflecytion takes place.

energy impacts.....the time taken for the surface to start emitting as a reflection. then the time it stays reflecting.....keeping in mind that th energy is never flat or absolutely stable and fluctuates whilst still reflecting.

IN other word the light energy is always changing.

The time taken for the surface to start to emit the reflection is at the rate of 'c' this time say for a distance of 300000 kms is 1 second. so in effect this time could be referred to as a reflection delay of 1 second.
Which I think you were saying any way........I would I think, prefer to call it a reflection delay simply becasue the surface is always reacting but the start of and the end of the reflection is subject to 'c'

so how would you calculate say in formula a distance of say 3,000,000 kms of white light.......it should show the same as per relativity values but using a different premise?