How much faster than light are we capable of measuring?
in [Relativity]
|
From: GogoJF on 23 May 2010 17:51 On May 23, 4:39 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 23, 7:32 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "GogoJF" <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:b3a81403-ba25-49d2-81ca-1dd00f8d1d4e(a)z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On May 18, 8:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> "GogoJF" <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:abe719f4-dc60-42ba-a33d-d211e6df2bfb(a)q8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com.... > > > >> > What is the meaning of c? Whether one believes that light is finite > > >> > and constant and travels at c- or whether light is to be believed to > > >> > be instant- > > > >> It isn't .. because we can measure that it isn't . > > > >> > is regardless- because the reason why the speed of light c > > >> > travels at 300,000 km/s and not 200,000 km/s, or 100,000 km/s is a > > >> > separate issue. > > > >> > Why this particular speed of c? > > > >> Because that is what it is. It doesn't need a reason to be that way. > > >> Its > > >> purely determined by human choice of units. In 'sensible' (or natural) > > >> units, c = 1. > > > >> > 1) Is this merely the limit of man's measurably? > > > >> Nope > > > >> > 2) Is there some indication of c on a planetary or stellar scale, in > > >> > terms of our inertia? > > > >> Nope > > > >> > 3) Is this speed human friendly? In other words, would we as humans > > >> > be different if c were a different constant speed? Would we be the > > >> > same if c were not constant? > > > >> The universe would be totally different is there were different 'laws' of > > >> physics .. but asking what people would be like in that case is pure > > >> guesswork. > > > > Whether one believes that light is finite > > >> > and constant and travels at c- or whether light is to be believed to > > >> > be instant- > > > >> It isn't .. because we can measure that it isn't . > > > > Just remember inertial, when you look up at the stars and believe that > > > you are looking at objects that are millions of years into the past- > > > that you are the one who believes in sante claws. > > > No .. I'm someone who understand the wealth of information that supports > > finite speed of light . there is no evidence that it is infinite. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light > Wiki says: > 1. The speed of light is the speed of all massless particles and > associated fields in vacuum, and it is believed to be the speed of > gravity and of gravitational waves and an upper bound on the speed at > which energy, matter, and information can travel. > > 2. For much of human history, it was debated whether light was > transmitted instantaneously or merely very quickly > > 3. More generally, it is normally impossible for any information or > energy to travel faster than c. One reason is that according to the > theory of special relativity, if something were travelling faster than > c relative to an inertial frame of reference, it would be travelling > backwards in time relative to another frame,[Note 5] and causality > would be violated.[Note 6][30] In such a frame of reference, an > "effect" could be observed before its "cause". Such a violation of > causality has never been recorded,[14] and would lead to paradoxes. > [Note 7][31] > > 4. In some interpretations of quantum mechanics, certain quantum > effects may seem to be transmitted faster than cand thus > instantaneously in some frameas in the EPR paradox. > > 5. If the particles are separated and one particle's quantum state is > observed, the other particle's quantum state is determined > instantaneously (i.e., faster than light could travel from one > particle to the other). > > 6. Another quantum effect that predicts the occurrence of faster-than- > light speeds is called the Hartman effect; under certain conditions > the time needed for a particle to tunnel through a barrier is constant. > [35][36] This could result in a particle crossing a large gap faster- > than-light. > > 7. As is discussed in the propagation of light in a medium section > below, many wave velocities can exceed c. For example, the phase > velocity of X-rays through most glasses can routinely exceed c,[38] > but such waves cannot convey any information.[39] > > 8.The rate of change in the distance between two objects in a frame of > reference with respect to which both are moving (their closing speed) > may have a value in excess of c. > > 9. So-called superluminal motion is seen in certain astronomical > objects,[40] such as the relativistic jets of radio galaxies and > quasars. Inertial 1 and 3 are in your favor, while 2, 4 through 9 are in mine.
From: GogoJF on 23 May 2010 18:38 On May 23, 7:32 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "GogoJF" <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:b3a81403-ba25-49d2-81ca-1dd00f8d1d4e(a)z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 18, 8:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "GogoJF" <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >>news:abe719f4-dc60-42ba-a33d-d211e6df2bfb(a)q8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > What is the meaning of c? Whether one believes that light is finite > >> > and constant and travels at c- or whether light is to be believed to > >> > be instant- > > >> It isn't .. because we can measure that it isn't . > > >> > is regardless- because the reason why the speed of light c > >> > travels at 300,000 km/s and not 200,000 km/s, or 100,000 km/s is a > >> > separate issue. > > >> > Why this particular speed of c? > > >> Because that is what it is. It doesn't need a reason to be that way.. > >> Its > >> purely determined by human choice of units. In 'sensible' (or natural) > >> units, c = 1. > > >> > 1) Is this merely the limit of man's measurably? > > >> Nope > > >> > 2) Is there some indication of c on a planetary or stellar scale, in > >> > terms of our inertia? > > >> Nope > > >> > 3) Is this speed human friendly? In other words, would we as humans > >> > be different if c were a different constant speed? Would we be the > >> > same if c were not constant? > > >> The universe would be totally different is there were different 'laws' of > >> physics .. but asking what people would be like in that case is pure > >> guesswork. > > > Whether one believes that light is finite > >> > and constant and travels at c- or whether light is to be believed to > >> > be instant- > > >> It isn't .. because we can measure that it isn't . > > > Just remember inertial, when you look up at the stars and believe that > > you are looking at objects that are millions of years into the past- > > that you are the one who believes in sante claws. > > No .. I'm someone who understand the wealth of information that supports > finite speed of light . there is no evidence that it is infinite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light Finite light 1. The finiteness of the speed of light has implications for various sciences and technologies. For some it creates challenges or limits: for example, c, being the upper limit of the speed with which signals can be sent, provides a theoretical upper limit for the operating speed of microprocessors. For others it creates opportunities, for example to measure distances. 2. Another consequence of the finite speed of light is that communications between the Earth and spacecraft are not instantaneous. There is a brief delay from the source to the receiver, which becomes more noticeable as distances increase. The communications delay between Earth and Mars is almost ten minutes. 3. Radar systems measure the distance to a target by the time it takes a radio-wave pulse to return to the radar antenna after being reflected by the target: the distance to the target is half the round- trip transit time multiplied by the speed of light. 4. The finite speed of light is important in astronomy. Due to the vast distances involved, it can take a very long time for light to travel from its source to Earth. For example, it has taken 13 billion (13 × 109) years for light to travel to Earth from the faraway galaxies viewed in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field images.[66][67] Those photographs, taken today, capture images of the galaxies as they appeared 13 billion years ago, when the universe was less than a billion years old.[66] . The fact that farther-away objects appear younger (due to the finite speed of light) allows astronomers to infer the evolution of stars, of galaxies, and of the universe itself. 5. In 1729, Bradley used the aberration of light method to derive that light travelled 10,210 times faster than the Earth in its orbit (the modern figure is 10,066 times faster) or, equivalently, that it would take light 8 minutes 12 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth. [73] 6. In his 1704 book Opticks, Isaac Newton reported Rømer's calculations of the finite speed of light and gave a value of "seven or eight minutes" for the time taken for light to travel from the Sun to the Earth (the modern value is 8 minutes 19 seconds).[108] Newton queried whether Rømer's eclipse shadows were coloured; hearing that they weren't, he concluded the different colours travelled at the same speed. 7. Isaac Newton died in 1727. GogoJf says: Number 5 would never occurred unless number 7 happened. Although, I am sure that Newton gave this calculation in number 6, I do not believe that number 6 is depicting the situation very well. Remember light was not generally accepted as being finite until 1729, some fifty years after Roemers measure.
From: GogoJF on 23 May 2010 19:32 On May 23, 5:38 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 23, 7:32 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "GogoJF" <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:b3a81403-ba25-49d2-81ca-1dd00f8d1d4e(a)z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On May 18, 8:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> "GogoJF" <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:abe719f4-dc60-42ba-a33d-d211e6df2bfb(a)q8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com.... > > > >> > What is the meaning of c? Whether one believes that light is finite > > >> > and constant and travels at c- or whether light is to be believed to > > >> > be instant- > > > >> It isn't .. because we can measure that it isn't . > > > >> > is regardless- because the reason why the speed of light c > > >> > travels at 300,000 km/s and not 200,000 km/s, or 100,000 km/s is a > > >> > separate issue. > > > >> > Why this particular speed of c? > > > >> Because that is what it is. It doesn't need a reason to be that way. > > >> Its > > >> purely determined by human choice of units. In 'sensible' (or natural) > > >> units, c = 1. > > > >> > 1) Is this merely the limit of man's measurably? > > > >> Nope > > > >> > 2) Is there some indication of c on a planetary or stellar scale, in > > >> > terms of our inertia? > > > >> Nope > > > >> > 3) Is this speed human friendly? In other words, would we as humans > > >> > be different if c were a different constant speed? Would we be the > > >> > same if c were not constant? > > > >> The universe would be totally different is there were different 'laws' of > > >> physics .. but asking what people would be like in that case is pure > > >> guesswork. > > > > Whether one believes that light is finite > > >> > and constant and travels at c- or whether light is to be believed to > > >> > be instant- > > > >> It isn't .. because we can measure that it isn't . > > > > Just remember inertial, when you look up at the stars and believe that > > > you are looking at objects that are millions of years into the past- > > > that you are the one who believes in sante claws. > > > No .. I'm someone who understand the wealth of information that supports > > finite speed of light . there is no evidence that it is infinite. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light > Finite light > > 1. The finiteness of the speed of light has implications for various > sciences and technologies. For some it creates challenges or limits: > for example, c, being the upper limit of the speed with which signals > can be sent, provides a theoretical upper limit for the operating > speed of microprocessors. For others it creates opportunities, for > example to measure distances. > > 2. Another consequence of the finite speed of light is that > communications between the Earth and spacecraft are not instantaneous. > There is a brief delay from the source to the receiver, which becomes > more noticeable as distances increase. The communications delay > between Earth and Mars is almost ten minutes. > > 3. Radar systems measure the distance to a target by the time it > takes a radio-wave pulse to return to the radar antenna after being > reflected by the target: the distance to the target is half the round- > trip transit time multiplied by the speed of light. > > 4. The finite speed of light is important in astronomy. Due to the > vast distances involved, it can take a very long time for light to > travel from its source to Earth. For example, it has taken 13 billion > (13 × 109) years for light to travel to Earth from the faraway > galaxies viewed in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field images.[66][67] Those > photographs, taken today, capture images of the galaxies as they > appeared 13 billion years ago, when the universe was less than a > billion years old.[66] . The fact that farther-away objects appear > younger (due to the finite speed of light) allows astronomers to infer > the evolution of stars, of galaxies, and of the universe itself. > > 5. In 1729, Bradley used the aberration of light method to derive that > light travelled 10,210 times faster than the Earth in its orbit (the > modern figure is 10,066 times faster) or, equivalently, that it would > take light 8 minutes 12 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth. > [73] > > 6. In his 1704 book Opticks, Isaac Newton reported Rømer's > calculations of the finite speed of light and gave a value of "seven > or eight minutes" for the time taken for light to travel from the Sun > to the Earth (the modern value is 8 minutes 19 seconds).[108] Newton > queried whether Rømer's eclipse shadows were coloured; hearing that > they weren't, he concluded the different colours travelled at the same > speed. > > 7. Isaac Newton died in 1727. > > GogoJf says: Number 5 would never occurred unless number 7 happened. > Although, I am sure that Newton gave this calculation in number 6, I > do not believe that number 6 is depicting the situation very well. > Remember light was not generally accepted as being finite until 1729, > some fifty years after Roemers measure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light Light 1. Light is electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength that is visible to the human eye (in a range from about 380 or 400 nanometres to about 760 or 780 nm).[1] 2. In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.[2][3] 3. Five primary properties of light are intensity, frequency or wavelength, polarization, phase and orbital angular momentum. 4. Light, which exists in tiny "packets" called photons, exhibits properties of both waves and particles. This property is referred to as the waveparticle duality. 5. The study of light, known as optics, is an important research area in modern physics. GogoJF says: Wow, five completely different subjects to study a single word.
From: GogoJF on 23 May 2010 19:39 On May 23, 6:32 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 23, 5:38 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 7:32 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "GogoJF" <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > >news:b3a81403-ba25-49d2-81ca-1dd00f8d1d4e(a)z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > On May 18, 8:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >> "GogoJF" <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > >>news:abe719f4-dc60-42ba-a33d-d211e6df2bfb(a)q8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> > What is the meaning of c? Whether one believes that light is finite > > > >> > and constant and travels at c- or whether light is to be believed to > > > >> > be instant- > > > > >> It isn't .. because we can measure that it isn't . > > > > >> > is regardless- because the reason why the speed of light c > > > >> > travels at 300,000 km/s and not 200,000 km/s, or 100,000 km/s is a > > > >> > separate issue. > > > > >> > Why this particular speed of c? > > > > >> Because that is what it is. It doesn't need a reason to be that way. > > > >> Its > > > >> purely determined by human choice of units. In 'sensible' (or natural) > > > >> units, c = 1. > > > > >> > 1) Is this merely the limit of man's measurably? > > > > >> Nope > > > > >> > 2) Is there some indication of c on a planetary or stellar scale, in > > > >> > terms of our inertia? > > > > >> Nope > > > > >> > 3) Is this speed human friendly? In other words, would we as humans > > > >> > be different if c were a different constant speed? Would we be the > > > >> > same if c were not constant? > > > > >> The universe would be totally different is there were different 'laws' of > > > >> physics .. but asking what people would be like in that case is pure > > > >> guesswork. > > > > > Whether one believes that light is finite > > > >> > and constant and travels at c- or whether light is to be believed to > > > >> > be instant- > > > > >> It isn't .. because we can measure that it isn't . > > > > > Just remember inertial, when you look up at the stars and believe that > > > > you are looking at objects that are millions of years into the past- > > > > that you are the one who believes in sante claws. > > > > No .. I'm someone who understand the wealth of information that supports > > > finite speed of light . there is no evidence that it is infinite. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light > > Finite light > > > 1. The finiteness of the speed of light has implications for various > > sciences and technologies. For some it creates challenges or limits: > > for example, c, being the upper limit of the speed with which signals > > can be sent, provides a theoretical upper limit for the operating > > speed of microprocessors. For others it creates opportunities, for > > example to measure distances. > > > 2. Another consequence of the finite speed of light is that > > communications between the Earth and spacecraft are not instantaneous. > > There is a brief delay from the source to the receiver, which becomes > > more noticeable as distances increase. The communications delay > > between Earth and Mars is almost ten minutes. > > > 3. Radar systems measure the distance to a target by the time it > > takes a radio-wave pulse to return to the radar antenna after being > > reflected by the target: the distance to the target is half the round- > > trip transit time multiplied by the speed of light. > > > 4. The finite speed of light is important in astronomy. Due to the > > vast distances involved, it can take a very long time for light to > > travel from its source to Earth. For example, it has taken 13 billion > > (13 × 109) years for light to travel to Earth from the faraway > > galaxies viewed in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field images.[66][67] Those > > photographs, taken today, capture images of the galaxies as they > > appeared 13 billion years ago, when the universe was less than a > > billion years old.[66] . The fact that farther-away objects appear > > younger (due to the finite speed of light) allows astronomers to infer > > the evolution of stars, of galaxies, and of the universe itself. > > > 5. In 1729, Bradley used the aberration of light method to derive that > > light travelled 10,210 times faster than the Earth in its orbit (the > > modern figure is 10,066 times faster) or, equivalently, that it would > > take light 8 minutes 12 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth. > > [73] > > > 6. In his 1704 book Opticks, Isaac Newton reported Rømer's > > calculations of the finite speed of light and gave a value of "seven > > or eight minutes" for the time taken for light to travel from the Sun > > to the Earth (the modern value is 8 minutes 19 seconds).[108] Newton > > queried whether Rømer's eclipse shadows were coloured; hearing that > > they weren't, he concluded the different colours travelled at the same > > speed. > > > 7. Isaac Newton died in 1727. > > > GogoJf says: Number 5 would never occurred unless number 7 happened. > > Although, I am sure that Newton gave this calculation in number 6, I > > do not believe that number 6 is depicting the situation very well. > > Remember light was not generally accepted as being finite until 1729, > > some fifty years after Roemers measure. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light > Light > > 1. Light is electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength that is visible > to the human eye (in a range from about 380 or 400 nanometres to about > 760 or 780 nm).[1] > > 2. In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic > radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.[2][3] > > 3. Five primary properties of light are intensity, frequency or > wavelength, polarization, phase and orbital angular momentum. > > 4. Light, which exists in tiny "packets" called photons, exhibits > properties of both waves and particles. This property is referred to > as the waveparticle duality. > > 5. The study of light, known as optics, is an important research area > in modern physics. > > GogoJF says: Wow, five completely different subjects to study a single > word. Statements 1-5 are basically the intro to wiki's subject "Light". Its the best and worst intro I've ever heard in my life.
From: GogoJF on 23 May 2010 21:39
On May 21, 9:59 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 21, 3:03 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > "Igor" <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote in message > > >news:58d440b8-92df-4599-866b-4669090c83f3(a)j27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com.... > > On May 18, 4:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > C is the speed limit. There is nothing faster to measure. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > Wrong, photon breath! There are things that can be "measured" to be > > moving faster than c. Phase velocity for one. But so far, no one has > > ever demonstrated that information can be transmitted faster than c. > > =============================================== > > Yes I have. You'll go on repeating your mantra with your head buried > > in the sand. > > I don't believe in phase velocity. That is made up. > > Mitch Raemsch Phase velocity has always confused me too. |