Aussies rewrite Einstein.......

Discussion in 'Community' started by iGav, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. iGav macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #1
  2. kiwi_the_iwik macrumors 65816

    kiwi_the_iwik

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #2
    How can the speed of light slow...

    ...in a vacuum? Duh!

    :p
     
  3. mac15 macrumors 68040

    mac15

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2001
    Location:
    Sydney
  4. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #4
    what does this mean to the rest of us non astrophysicists?

    not really a whole hell of a lot.......

    we can't go back it time to go faster, we can't even go fast now, relativistically speaking. :rolleyes:
     
  5. eyelikeart Moderator emeritus

    eyelikeart

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Location:
    Metairie, LA
    #5
    ok...so my question is...if the speed of light actually has the ability to slow down over an extended period of time...

    could this mean that our daytime hours will eventually shift over the course of the next several billion years?
     
  6. iGav thread starter macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #6
    They're really on something aren't they the Aussies...... first off they manage to 'teleport' a couple of months ago...... no they're saying Einstein was wrong.... How long until they invent time travel as well?? and change world history...... they'll take over the world...... and we'll all be called Bruce or Sheila........ :eek: :eek: :eek:

    Somebody stop them....... :p :p :p
     
  7. saint macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    Sydney
    #7
    Does this mean that the speed at which electrons move is also decreasing over time?
    So my cable internet is getting slower.:p
    And if Apple doesn't lift their game, the processors in the powermacs are also going to get slower, not faster.:D
     
  8. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #8
    well, if you could measure the speed of time over 1 billion years, you might see a difference (so they seem to imply). But in 1 billion years, if Apple is still around, I don't think speed will be much of an issue......
     
  9. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #9
    I think they're hinting at something I've suspected for some time:

    Entropy is universal.

    Even Photons and Electrons lose velocity with distance. It's always bugged me that modern physicists just assumed that if it was small enough than it was too slight to measure so why bother. Glad to see that Newtonian physics are seeing a comeback.:D Newton always made more sense anyway.;)
     
  10. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #10
    In order to understand this concept we need to explain the basics in theory.

    From the experiment of the CRT we know that light is really matter and energy. The matter in light, consisting of these electrons, can be altered if there is a vaccuum of infinite density nearby, in which case, would either alter the course of the electrons or suck them in. However, the theory of which certain objects/quasars to have given off light at a decreasing speed would depend on if the deflection of this matter has been affected. An example would be the common black hole. If all light emitted from a source that far away has reached Earth and has been, in a matter of fact, been redirected by a black hole within the path from the source to Earth, the the light has not moved straight and has been "curved" in another direction. If such a curve occured, then the force of the curve would alter the direction of light and the force used to "pull" the light would decrease the speed of light. If this were the case, the word "between" would become as useful as a pop-up advertisement. It becomes useless and false.

    However, if what is being said in the article remarks that light over time has slowed in general, that cannot be proved without certain verifications, as in the passage stated above. IF in a matter of fact there is ZERO pull on light whatsoever as it travels from the source to here in 10 billion years then the light will have continued its EXACT constant speed forever.

    But, theoretically, it is impossible for light to have maintained its EXACT speed from one point to another if there is any nearby obstacle, because there are extremely miniscule "pulls" on light (so little we can't even tell) from the source that would alter the speed of light in one way or the other by, maybe, a billionth of a mile per hour (for our metric fans, a billionth of a kilometer per hour). These pulls include the G-forces of any nearby asteroids, planets, stars. Mostly, though, these would be the absolute largest objects, such as stars or giants. These give off such a pull over such a huge span of distance that it would be impossible for light to remain the same speed if it entered the G-forces of these stars, as previously described.

    So what the article has mentioned about light not being 100 percent consistent is accurate.
     
  11. Ensign Paris macrumors 68000

    Ensign Paris

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Europe
    #11
    This will effect you mere mortals but not me, muhmuhmuhmuhaaa. ok, maybe not. but if we ending up with a 22 or a 26 hour day it would effect use quite a lot, even though I don't think that the human race will stay on earth that long.

    Ensign
     
  12. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #12
    oh, now that's a good one.....are you thinking of an absolute vacuum? or is a vaccuum something I've not heard of before?

    you're neglecting the duality of light as a particle and a wave. This is one reason Newtonian Physics fails in accurately defining what happens as you get closer to the speed of light. Its not a simple matter of conservation of energy in collisions of photons and other matter.

    Have you ever used polarized glasses? Have you ever done the interferrometry test with light waves? I think what these physicists are talking about is something more than just Newtonian ideas.

    D
     
  13. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #13
    >oh, now that's a good one.....are you thinking of an absolute vacuum? or is a vaccuum something I've not heard of before?

    Remember what happens when black holes form? Theoretically, it's a star that has become so dense and has so much energy that outer material explodes in a supernova and whatever is left becomes a neutron star or black hole. If the remnants are even more condensed and squashed together because of the intense heat and G-force it collapses on itself and what is left is basically a hole where the matter was. Some say that the matter is so condensed that the black hole has infinite density. But, of course, that is impossible. If it were, all matter that resulted in forming the black hole would be nonexistant. Therefore, this would break the law of convervation of matter, and we know that matter cannot just vanish like that. But, in theory, the matter does become so condensed that the [what was] "material" would become too small to even see. And we know this because even light gets absorbed.

    I'm well aware of the fact of duality of light, and your point is well taken. But there has been photographic proof of the light emitted from a blue star actually forming a circular formation around a small hole in the center of it. Only black holes have enough force to pull light like that. This adds to the theory that even light waves cannot escape black holes.

    In the duality of light, we cannot see the particles light gives off. So there is no point in examining the particles if what we can see in this whole situation is the energy of light.

    >Have you ever used polarized glasses? Have you ever done the interferrometry test with light waves? I think what these physicists are talking about is something more than just Newtonian ideas.

    No, I have not experimented with any of these. I have not gotten to Physics yet. But this year I will be taking Honors Physics. So I should eventually be able to explore with these devices and theories.
     
  14. topicolo macrumors 68000

    topicolo

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    #14
    OK, first, light is NOT composed of electrons. Light is caused by the energy packets given off by electrons settling back down to a reduced energy state. These packets, or quanta of energy, are called photons, which, like dukestreet said, have the properties of waves as well as properties of solids.

    By CRT, if you mean cathode ray tube, I would have to say that that does not prove that light is made out of electrons at all. THe electrons accelerated by the magnetic coils at the back of the tube are directed at a phosphor coating on the screen, which excites the electrons of the phosphorus atoms to certain energy levels, causing them to give off photons when they settle back down to their standard energy state.

    Gravity does not "deflect" mass, it always attracts it.

    That has already been proven. This is called a Doppler Shift. It changes the frequency of the light waves so that the light is a different color. But the speed of light does not change.
     
  15. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #15
    Entropy most certainly applies to waves.

    Ever thrown rocks in a pond?

    On the extremely large scales we're talking about, the physical characteristics of light become less exotic. The whole "Warticle" model of light assumes ligh to be an emination separate from it's source.... like smoke from a fire. I tend to think of light more like a fractal algorythm that expands, decays and resonates in a pattern of infinitessimal points of potential arrayed in an ever expanding wave such that when it is viewed at 90 degrees to the plane of expansion (through the origin) it behaves like a particle, when in actuality it is a WAVE of potential.... like a holographic echo of the original lightsource travelling outward with rediculous velocity. ;)
     
  16. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #16
    >OK, first, light is NOT composed of electrons. Light is caused by the energy packets given off by electrons settling back down to a reduced energy state....causing them to give off photons when they settle back down to their standard energy state.

    You are referring to relaxation and excitement. Those statements are correct.

    >Gravity does not "deflect" mass, it always attracts it.

    What I meant was as light energy approaches a source of gravity, the energy does take a curve. I used the wrong word.
     
  17. topicolo macrumors 68000

    topicolo

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    #17
    There's an equation that lets you calculate the change in frequency of a wave depending on the relative speed of the observer and the source, lemme see if i can remember it correctly...

    oh yeah. f2 = f1[(1-u/c)/(1+v/c)]^(1/2)

    f2 is the final frequency
    f1 is the initial frequency
    u is the speed of the observer
    v is the speed of the source
    c is the propagation speed of the signal in the medium (ie light)

    the non-relativistic version just omits the square root.

    You can actually use this to calculate the change in pitch of sound waves as the source moves towards you and then recedes into the distance. Nerdy? yes. Cool? maybe. Boring? hell yes!

    Just don't ask me to prove it


    :D
     
  18. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #18
    Well, that will help me to get me closer to my dream carreer (actually, I have a few, just one requires a heavy education :D) in being a Physics major or Astronomer.

    BTW, for confirmation, is this the equation?
     

    Attached Files:

  19. sneed macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #19
    No.

    A. We are too close to the sun for this to be a factor. They are talking about 10 billion years.

    B. It wouldn't matter anyway. How many daylight hours we have has nothing to do with the speed of light.

    C. Daylight hours will certainly shift over several billion years due to unpredictable irregularities, and that the earth's rotation is slowing down.
     
  20. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #20
    So you'll be a Physics major as a career? Nice goals you set for yourself. :D And if you take this route, what do you plan on after you graduate?

    Physics, Astro Physics and Astronomy are fields that greatly benefit from advanced degrees. I would recommend Doctorate if you really want to get anywhere. If you're only interested in technological applications, look to engineering.

    D
     
  21. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #21
    You mentioned a 'vacuum of infinite density' - my response obviously wasn't explained well enough :rolleyes:

    a vacuum is an absence of matter - therefore its impossible to have a vacuum of infinite density

    maybe after you take your physics class come and talk to me.........
     
  22. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #22
    >So you'll be a Physics major as a career? Nice goals you set for yourself. :D

    Hey, man. I really appreciate the support. :)

    >And if you take this route, what do you plan on after you graduate? Physics, Astro Physics and Astronomy are fields that greatly benefit from advanced degrees. I would recommend Doctorate if you really want to get anywhere.

    I would like to try and get my Doctorate. And I am going to push as hard as I can to get the Masters first. My father keeps telling me something like 'once you get a masters/Ph. D. you can easily earn another one, 'cause you can keep going earning them.' If I feel that the first Ph. D. I earn was easy enough I MIGHT go for 2. But right now I am just looking forward to earning the Ph. D. and going into Physics/Astronomy.

    The University of Southern Maine is up around the area I am now, so paying for an education won't be TOO much of a problem. I'll be looking forward to it in a year from now, when I move up here.

    >If you're only interested in technological applications, look to engineering.

    Nah. I grew up receiving an abundance of Astronomy books/magazines/whatever when I was young. And since then I have thought Astronomy was so cool.

    I also have been able to excel (sp) in Math, so applying mathematics to any laws of science shouldn't be much of a problem. I know I'll enjoy the carreer, though. :cool:
     
  23. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #23
    >>Remember what happens when black holes form?

    >>Some say that the matter is so condensed that the black hole has infinite density.

    >>No, I have not experimented with any of these. I have not gotten to Physics yet. But this year I will be taking Honors Physics. So I should eventually be able to explore with these devices and theories.

    >a vacuum is an absence of matter - therefore its impossible to have a vacuum of infinite density

    I didn't use "vaccuum" anywhere you happened to quote me (see ">>" section).

    >maybe after you take your physics class come and talk to me.........

    Easy, big guy. Just because someone words it wrong doesn't mean you have to expect a lack of response from someone. Settle down. :rolleyes:
     
  24. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #24
    look here, 3 line from the top

    as a rule, its best not to spout off on stuff you don't know that much about, I was being nice and taunting you - if Alpha had been in here you'd have been left on the floor, shredded, to be used for cat litter.

    and there is only 1 c in vacuum, its the second time you misspelled it-just thought you'd like to know

    D :D
     
  25. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #25
    >look here, 3 line from the top

    I was referring to the ">>" part. There I did not use "vacuum" (mispelled earlier as well), but I did earlier.

    >as a rule, its best not to spout off on stuff you don't know that much about, I was being nice and taunting you - if Alpha had been in here you'd have been left on the floor, shredded, to be used for cat litter.

    See I was trying to give out [what I thought was] information I knew about, based on what I've read and seen. Where do you get your "information" from?
     

Share This Page