The Butterfly Effect

[Xordan]

The proof is axiomic.

No it isn't. Brane theory (a leading theory by the way) says that there's plenty of dimensions 'outside' our universe which lives on a brane of 11D stuff.

I can give the math for this if anyone wants.

Your math is worthless if photon has non-zero mass . BTW: If You are talking about Lorentz transformation - small change in formula can make a big difference, althoug it is unnoticable until you reach (and exceed) light speed.

The speed of light isn't the maximum, but a speed that can never be reached.

It wasn't proved, that light speed can't be reached. We only haven't source of energy powerfull enough to test it. Light speed would be ureachable, if it was infinite. Light speed is not infinite, it is around 300000 km/s. Why should it be maximum possible speed ? (eh, that question was asked so many times...).

The math doesn't rely on the mass of a photon and the 'proof' is in these formula. As you can see, as your speed increases towards the speed of light, your mass also increases, increasing to infinity as you reach light speed. Which means that you need an infinite amount of energy to reach light speed, and so is impossible. According to these (famous) formula



Note that this equation can = E = mc^2 if you multiply both sides by c^2




t - the time measured for a mover by a stationary frame.
to - the time measured for a mover by a mover.
v - the velocity of the mover relative to the stationary observer.
m  - the mass of an ojbect as perceived for a mover by a stationary frame.
mo - the mass of an object as percieved by a mover for the mover.
c - the speed of light in a vacuum which is a constant value of 300,000,000 meters/second or 186,000 miles/second. This value is constant as viewed by all observers.
L - the length of an object as viewed for a mover by a stationary frame.
Lo - the length of an object as viewed by a mover for the mover.

I'll correct my previous statement too... time becomes imaginary, not negative when you exceed light speeds. All these formula are part of special relativity. Go argue with Einstein if you disagree.

[zanzibar]

No it isn't. Brane theory (a leading theory by the way) says that there's plenty of dimensions 'outside' our universe which lives on a brane of 11D stuff.

If that's anything like the 11D universe described by string theory, then all of those additional dimensions are a part of this universe.  It is not the same as "other dimensions" in the sense of other worlds, other universes, other time lines, etcetera.

[Xordan]

No it isn't. Brane theory (a leading theory by the way) says that there's plenty of dimensions 'outside' our universe which lives on a brane of 11D stuff.

If that's anything like the 11D universe described by string theory, then all of those additional dimensions are a part of this universe.  It is not the same as "other dimensions" in the sense of other worlds, other universes, other time lines, etcetera.

It isn't exactly like string theory, more of a extension.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory_%28simplified%29

In this, the universe sits in 4D on a 11D 'membrane'.

[zanzibar]

I hate explaning physics to people who haven't taken the time to properly educate themselves.

light is affected by gravity, therefor some say it has mass and can be measured. the way light reacts as it goes through a prism shows that the speed of light is not infinite

No.  No one is saying that the speed of light is infinite.  It takes something like eight minutes for light to reach Earth from the sun for instance.  What we ARE saying though is that the speed of light is a constant.  The speed of light never changes relative to the observer, and all observers record equal speeds for all particles of light relative to themselves.

In a prism, light does not slow down.  What does happen though is something along the lines of drag as a function of wavelength.  From particle to particle, light travels at speed c without deviation, but light "stays" at each particle it hits for a certain period of time.  So, while it takes more or less time for light to travel a certain distance given what obstacles there may be, the speed of light never changes while it's actually moving.

[Xordan]

I hate explaning physics to people who haven't taken the time to properly educate themselves.

light is affected by gravity, therefor some say it has mass and can be measured. the way light reacts as it goes through a prism shows that the speed of light is not infinite

No.  No one is saying that the speed of light is infinite.  It takes something like eight minutes for light to reach Earth from the sun for instance.  What we ARE saying though is that the speed of light is a constant.  The speed of light never changes relative to the observer, and all observers record equal speeds for all particles of light relative to themselves.

In a prism, light does not slow down.  What does happen though is something along the lines of drag as a function of wavelength.  From particle to particle, light travels at speed c without deviation, but light "stays" at each particle it hits for a certain period of time.  So, while it takes more or less time for light to travel a certain distance given what obstacles there may be, the speed of light never changes while it's actually moving.

Actually, that's not correct. Light doesn't travel at a constant speed. It changes when it passes through a medium.

c = speed of light in a vacuum = maximum speed of light. Feel free to google around to check this. (Just google for 'speed of light in water' or something).

[zanzibar]

Actually, that's not correct. Light doesn't travel at a constant speed. It changes when it passes through a medium.

That's a common misconception.


When light passes through a medium, it is abstractly passing through fields representing particles and space.  As a light particle passes through a medium, it 'stays' at each particle it hits for a period of time, then moves on at speed c until it hits something else.  While it is 'moving', it always moves at speed c, but the sum of all this is to give the appearance of the photon slowing down.

The thing is, the photon is always moving because it never actually stays.  What happens as a photon hits a particle is that the photon stops being a particle and instead becomes part of the sum energy of the particle it hit.  It's as if the photon is destroyed and the energy level of the particle it collided with increases.  Then the energy level of the particle normalizes and a "new" photon particle is created and sent on its way.

[Xordan]

No, that's wrong, and a common misconception . When light enters a medium its frequency stays constant, but its wavelength changes (decreases). You have to think of light as a wave in this situation, not as a particle.

Plug this into the formula v = fλ and you see a change in speed. This was discovered by Jean Foucault.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index and http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html for two of millions of pages saying so...

[zanzibar]

If you say so.

[Annah]

He's actually right zanzibar. Same things go for the sound speed for example. It's affected by the type of environment it passes through. Basic information you learn in high school though.

[Baldur]

The main issue is, is light a particle or a wavelength? We know wavelengths can travel at the speed of light, mircrowaves have proven that, but what about particles. What is your opinion, zanzibar. What particles are able, except the theoretical photon, to travel at the speed of light?

[Wired_Crawler]

The math doesn't rely on the mass of a photon

But the theory does. And formulas are based on some assumptions, then they are checked empirically. If experiments show, that formula is correct, we assume, that it is correct. But measurements are not 100% accurate, so we can miss many effects at energy levels we are able to produce.
Maybe E = mc² + <something extremely small> ?

and the 'proof' is in these formula. As you can see, as your speed increases towards the speed of light, your mass also increases, increasing to infinity as you reach light speed. Which means that you need an infinite amount of energy to reach light speed, and so is impossible. According to these (famous) formula

I won't trust it, until You show me, how it was created (maybe start with E=mc² )

Look at the following, not so famous, one:



What will happen now, when a object reaches, and then exceeds the speed of light ?

As a light particle passes through a medium, it 'stays' at each particle it hits for a period of time, then moves on at speed c until it hits something else.

Can You give me a link to a movie showing this, filmed through some kind of microscope ? It is just another theory, which tries to explain changes in speed of light in material medium. Theory, which is probably supported by complicated (and mathematically correct) formulas...

What happens as a photon hits a particle is that the photon stops being a particle and instead becomes part of the sum energy of the particle it hit.

Heh, and what would happen, if photon stopped in pure vacuum ? Would it just... vanished ? If it has no rest mass (no rest energy), it simply does not exist... Right ?

The main issue is, is light a particle or a wavelength?

Both. As are ANY moving particles (for example electrons).

What particles are able, except the theoretical photon, to travel at the speed of light?

... theoretically - none.

Edit: Ah, I forgot about Tachyons

[Xordan]

Right, nobody has proved that special relativity is correct so it might be wrong

E = mc^2
E = mc ^2 = (mo)c^2 / (rt (1 - v^2 / c^2))
E/c^2 = m = (mo) / (sqrt (1 - v^2 / c^2))

There

Probably if I'd have done a degree in particle physics I'd be able to give more accurate stuff, I've never seen that other formula with the extra E on the end. But hey, no human alive can give us an exact explaination of how everything ticks, we've just got to go by what works most of the time for us right now.

[steuben]

actually only photons can travel at the speed of light. tachyons are created moving faster then the speed of light. it is an odd loophole in the theories. strictly nothing can cross the speed of light. it does not preclude any thing moving faster than c. it was a loophole that worried einstein as he worked on the math.

[zanzibar]

He's actually right zanzibar. Same things go for the sound speed for example. It's affected by the type of environment it passes through. Basic information you learn in high school though.

Try rereading my posts.

If you're too lazy to do that, then just read this:

i) Light takes a longer time to move through a medium than a vacuum.
ii) However, light does not really slow down.
iii) This is because light "stays" at each particle it collides with for a measure of time.
iv) While in motion, light always moves at speed c.

Xordan started to get into wave-particle duality here, but it's not relevant in this case.  There's no question that light has the properties of a wave and that these properties determine its behaviour while passing through a medium or from one medium to another.  That's beside the point though - it's irrelevant.

The main issue is, is light a particle or a wavelength? We know wavelengths can travel at the speed of light, mircrowaves have proven that, but what about particles. What is your opinion, zanzibar. What particles are able, except the theoretical photon, to travel at the speed of light?

Light is both a particle and a wave at the same time.

Waves can move at the speed of light because a wave is an abstract representation of the movement of energy through a medium.  Photons are what communicate certain waves, therefore the wave moves at the speed of light since it is light at play.  Other particles that move at the speed of light include the gluon and theoretically the graviton, should a particle be discovered in connection to gravitational fields.  We're getting into the difference between leptons and bosons and force carrying particles versus massive particles.

Can You give me a link to a movie showing this, filmed through some kind of microscope?

I doubt you could observe such behaviours using conventional microscopes.

Heh, and what would happen, if photon stopped in pure vacuum ? Would it just... vanished ? If it has no rest mass (no rest energy), it simply does not exist... Right ?

Your comment has the same value as the sentence "Purple monkey dishwasher".  Photons exist and have energy.  They do not stop in a pure vacuum.

Tachyons may exist if their starting conditions allowed them to have such properties.  If something started off existence moving faster than the speed of light, then it would still be moving faster than the speed of light today - and theoretically backwards through time as well.

actually only photons can travel at the speed of light.

No.  Any particle that "makes up" a force carrying field travels at the speed of light.  Gluons, the graviton.

[Datruth]

These are awesome posts, and i am really overwhelmed at the moment, because i've never actually been this deep into physics.

Rather than argueing about the speed of light, why not change it to something juicier though .

I've heard that time can be relative and can be described as a river that flows through our universe. That time isn't entirely constant everywhere.

I've also heard about black holes and how they exhist at the center of every galaxy.

Basically i just wanted everyones input on these subjects and i also had some questions.

When i see a black hole, in my mind, i think of destruction, but now we see them at the center of every galaxy.

What role do you think these black holes play? What stops a black hole from taking in mass, because i've heard of dormant black holes that no longer take in large amounts of mass.

Where do you think a black hole would take you? Basically, you have this huge blob that is sucking in mass because of it's gravity and it's becoming denser and denser. Could it actually take you somewhere or would you be smushes like a glob on top of all the other matter that's in it.

What evidence is out there that black holes even exhist?

Be sure to fix any errors if you see any and answer as many questions as you can.

Don't B.S me though, if you have a good opinion fine, but don't go guessing in the dark lol.

Can't wait to see everyone's answers, sorry if they some seem simple, haven't been in college as long as some of you, and i'm still studying, hopefully we got some Ph.d's in here that can help answer our questions.

~~Datruth