Jump to content

Is the speed of light constant?


Rdivine

Recommended Posts

Too close is actually 3 Schwarzschild radii, which is well above event horizon. For a supermassive black hole, like A*, you can see entire stars moving along strange trajectories, impossible near any other type of a body. Again, gravity is not linear. Kepler Laws break down completely near a black hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is absolutely nothing preventing you from making the space englobing the ship move faster than light which we know about it.

There are some papers who find troubles with the stability of the bubble when its close to the speed of light. Also I keep reading each month a different explanation to negative matter.

Which may give us a clue that there is not much we can said for certain on negative matter or to describe its properties.

I even hear a theory that said it may be made from ordinary matter.

It's always within the limits of what we know, else we wouldn't be talking about it. And I believe you meant negative energy on this one, as negative matter (unless you mean antimatter) is not really a thing afaik. And yeah, negative energy is kinda weird. It theorically exists, but we don't really know how to create it or even how it might happen naturally, if it even does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We think, Casimir Effect produces the right conditions. It's not negative energy on the absolute scale, but that's sort of irrelevant. It's negative with respect to zero-point, which is the same thing for GR. What we don't know is how to make a lot of it, without putting in enough matter into the same place to completely offset it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kip Thorne in his book about the science behind Interstellar (movie) explain how millers planet has an stable orbit around a supermassive kerr blackhole at 2,5 radii and it also explain the complex eliptic orbit of man´s plannet, which goes from 600 radii to almost 5..

Of course this is a rare case were the black hole is spinning ultra fast, so you may be right in more general cases.

Edited by AngelLestat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always within the limits of what we know, else we wouldn't be talking about it. And I believe you meant negative energy on this one, as negative matter (unless you mean antimatter) is not really a thing afaik. And yeah, negative energy is kinda weird. It theorically exists, but we don't really know how to create it or even how it might happen naturally, if it even does.

yeah, I always mix the names.

And K2 explanation not always help, I find troubles linking sometimes the cassimir effect with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading the comments, i can't help but clarify.

1. My idea/theory is that ; is it possible for the speed of light to be dependent on the structure of space-time? If it is possible, that means that tachyons may exist, but travel backwards in time/only appear in a single time frame.

A single time frame, in my idea, is called a chronon. It is similar to planck distance, but it is now planck time.

Chronons are literal instances of everything in the universe. Since chronons are built into space-time, time exists differently throghout the cosmos.

Now, we don't compare time throughout the cosmos if everywhere is different. But, since several areas of the cosmos exist in an earlier state (due to the faster than light travel from primodial waves of the big bang, which causes negative time), that means there is no one exact chronon time.

This leads to another hypothesis that time is like a waterfall. It naturally flows from a higher state of time to a lower state of time ( earlier to later), causing time to pass. If tachyons were to exist in this state, they would have existed before the big bang happened.(Tachyons move faster than light, causing negative time).

Which means that if we saw tachyons, they would have been there forever before we saw them.

But, since tachyons do not interact with standard energy-mass particles, it will be very hard to study them. (This is because they are presumably travelling at different speeds than us, and we are constantly zipping around the sun, which is zipping around the milky way.)

-If light could travel faster in previous times, we literally can't tell. This is because the speed compensates distance-time, causing everything to seem normal. This leads us to conclude that c is constant, even though it's not.

-This theory fits both reasons why light is / is not constant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, essentially, you have created something that is cannot be proven nor disproven, because you have defined it too loosely.

It's merely a hypothesis. A theory would be an overstatement.

It begs the question, so what? If it cannot be determined as true or false, there really is no point to raising it as a question or even positing a hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading the comments, i can't help but clarify.

1. My idea/theory is that ; is it possible for the speed of light to be dependent on the structure of space-time? If it is possible, that means that tachyons may exist, but travel backwards in time/only appear in a single time frame.

A single time frame, in my idea, is called a chronon. It is similar to planck distance, but it is now planck time.

Chronons are literal instances of everything in the universe. Since chronons are built into space-time, time exists differently throghout the cosmos.

Now, we don't compare time throughout the cosmos if everywhere is different. But, since several areas of the cosmos exist in an earlier state (due to the faster than light travel from primodial waves of the big bang, which causes negative time), that means there is no one exact chronon time.

This leads to another hypothesis that time is like a waterfall. It naturally flows from a higher state of time to a lower state of time ( earlier to later), causing time to pass. If tachyons were to exist in this state, they would have existed before the big bang happened.(Tachyons move faster than light, causing negative time).

Which means that if we saw tachyons, they would have been there forever before we saw them.

But, since tachyons do not interact with standard energy-mass particles, it will be very hard to study them. (This is because they are presumably travelling at different speeds than us, and we are constantly zipping around the sun, which is zipping around the milky way.)

-If light could travel faster in previous times, we literally can't tell. This is because the speed compensates distance-time, causing everything to seem normal. This leads us to conclude that c is constant, even though it's not.

-This theory fits both reasons why light is / is not constant.

As I said, the strenght of a theory comes from it's ability to predict things. Show me evidence and I'll believe you, but for now I'll stick to the theory which has been solid like a concrete wall for over a century :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading the comments, i can't help but clarify.

1. My idea/theory is that ; is it possible for the speed of light to be dependent on the structure of space-time? If it is possible, that means that tachyons may exist, but travel backwards in time/only appear in a single time frame.

A single time frame, in my idea, is called a chronon. It is similar to planck distance, but it is now planck time.

Chronons are literal instances of everything in the universe. Since chronons are built into space-time, time exists differently throghout the cosmos.

Now, we don't compare time throughout the cosmos if everywhere is different. But, since several areas of the cosmos exist in an earlier state (due to the faster than light travel from primodial waves of the big bang, which causes negative time), that means there is no one exact chronon time.

This leads to another hypothesis that time is like a waterfall. It naturally flows from a higher state of time to a lower state of time ( earlier to later), causing time to pass. If tachyons were to exist in this state, they would have existed before the big bang happened.(Tachyons move faster than light, causing negative time).

Which means that if we saw tachyons, they would have been there forever before we saw them.

But, since tachyons do not interact with standard energy-mass particles, it will be very hard to study them. (This is because they are presumably travelling at different speeds than us, and we are constantly zipping around the sun, which is zipping around the milky way.)

-If light could travel faster in previous times, we literally can't tell. This is because the speed compensates distance-time, causing everything to seem normal. This leads us to conclude that c is constant, even though it's not.

-This theory fits both reasons why light is / is not constant.

Now Mr. Rdivine, I do apologize if I have missed one of your replies, regarding what I am going to write. By no means is my goal to be condescending nor is it to appear superior. I say this, since I have already mentioned this in my first post where I pointed out the power of mathematics. Essentially, I am going to ask you, to provide the mathematical framework for us to investigate. If you do not have one, I suggest reading the text below.

Physics is formulated through the language of mathematics and not the everyday language of humans. A lot of confusion, especially in quantum mechanics, stems from abstracting or even "translating" complex mathematical language to everyday linguistical language. A lot of confusion arises in that transition. I am by no means saying, that you are confused, ignorant and have no knowledge of physics. You clearly have great knowledge and passion for the subject. My question would be if you have mathematically investigated what you are proposing? Or, have all of your work been done through, well, the English language?

Once a mathematical framework is provided for a hypothesis the most interesting part of the story begins. Falsification. Within a mathematical framework, it is allowed to explore that framework thoroughly to find its consequences. Once that has happened a prediction can be made and through that prediction an observation or measurement can be done. That would be the way to test your "theory".

Without that, without falsification, your "theory" is worth nothing. The most powerful theories in science will tell you exactly what you will need to observe or measure to prove them wrong - and therein lies the beauty.

EDIT:

I just remembered two beautiful quotes from Feynman, both of which applies to science inquiry in general:

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself  and you are the easiest person to fool." - Feynman, from the lecture "What is and What Should be the Role of Scientific Culture in Modern Society", given at the Galileo Symposium in Italy in the year of 1964.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Feynman, chapter 7, “Seeking New Laws,†p. 156 (it's not the exact quote, but the quote I presented is basically what Feynman was saying.)

___________________________________________________________________________

Again, I do apologize if you have already seen this, because it essentially reformulates what I wrote in my first post. May you have a good day Sir.

//NB

Edited by NielsBohr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...