Speed Of Light May Be Challenged?

[VillagePlank]

We know there is more than meets the eye since no unifying theory bringing together quantum mechanics and relativity currently exist; of course, there are some interesting candidates.

As an aside, Newton has been shown to be wrong - by reason of abstraction - but we still put men on moon using his work. We are talking about the (very fine) detail, here.

[full_frontal_occlusion]

We know there is more than meets the eye since no unifying theory bringing together quantum mechanics and relativity currently exist; of course, there are some interesting candidates.

As an aside, Newton has been shown to be wrong - by reason of abstraction - but we still put men on moon using his work. We are talking about the (very fine) detail, here.

Einstein does not make Newton wrong in the perjorative sense. Newtons model is simply a case of approximation which holds true for a limited set of conditions.

i.e. it's fine for objects within the realms of everyday human experience but does not explain all observations at the scale and velocities of cosmological objects or at the atomic scale.

New scientific theories spawn from attempts to describe anomalous observation not accounted for by the old model. But, that new theory must still hold true for the old observations nonetheless.

For example: the unification of optics (old world) and electrodynamics was the realisation that light is an electromagnetic wave. Later still, the wave theory of light did not explain the apparent contradictions shown when light displayed behaviour consistent with particles.

Similarly, the unification of electrodynamics and quantum-mechanics (both equally valid independent theories) were better described by quantum-electrodynamics (QED) which fit observations at both microscopic and macroscopic scales.

A new theory unifying quantum mechanics and relativity will not mean Einstein is wrong. But like Newton, it MAY show that relativity is also an approximation which holds true for a limited set of conditions. But as I said before, I believe we are still a long way from making that assertion - the measurements at CERN must be unambiguously proved correct first.

ffO.

Edited September 28, 2011 by full_frontal_occlusion

[Methuselah]

I suspect that there was an error in the measurement. It's rather more probable than no error having been detected in 100 or so years.

That is (just now) my thinking too, ray...Who still remembers the Cold Fusion fiasco?

[full_frontal_occlusion]

That is (just now) my thinking too, ray...Who still remembers the Cold Fusion fiasco?

Indeed.

Once bitten, twice shy. The CERN scientists have learned from others mistakes. Good on them.

ffO.

[knocker]

Indeed.

Once bitten, twice shy. The CERN scientists have learned from others mistakes. Good on them.

ffO.

Which is apparent by the last sentence in the report. A brief observation from a letter in the Time's today which again tends to support this cautious approach.

"It is my understanding that the reason for Einstein's assertion about not exceeding the speed of light arose from the view that it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a body with rest mass to that velocity. However, a neutrino has no rest mass and can travel at the speed of light as was shown by the work done on Super Nova 1987A. A neutrino is difficult to accelerate because it has no charge; but perhaps it can be caused to exceed the speed of light under some circumstances. Such an understanding of the CERN results would leave Einstein unsullied".

[full_frontal_occlusion]

".....................arose from the view that it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a body with rest mass to that velocity. However, a neutrino has no rest mass and can travel at the speed of light as was shown by the work done on Super Nova 1987A. A neutrino is difficult to accelerate because it has no charge; but perhaps it can be caused to exceed the speed of light under some circumstances. Such an understanding of the CERN results would leave Einstein unsullied".

Almost right:

Einsteins equation E=mc^2 is an abridged version of the original which is: E=mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Rearranging the equation gives: v=c/E*sqrt(E^2-m2*c^4)

Now set the mass to 0 and the two Energy terms will cancel and we are left with v=c/(1-0) which is just v=c.

In other words the equation tells us that a massless particle cannot travel LESS than the speed of light (nor for particles with -ve mass but that is another issue! Higgs Boson anyone? lol).

ffO.

[knocker]

In other words the equation tells us that a massless particle cannot travel LESS than the speed of light (nor for particles with -ve mass but that is another issue! Higgs Boson anyone? lol).

ffO.

I'm having nothing to do with God's particles.

[Alan Robinson]

Almost right:

Einsteins equation E=mc^2 is an abridged version of the original which is: E=mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Rearranging the equation gives: v=c/E*sqrt(E^2-m2*c^4)

Now set the mass to 0 and the two Energy terms will cancel and we are left with v=c/(1-0) which is just v=c.

In other words the equation tells us that a massless particle cannot travel LESS than the speed of light (nor for particles with -ve mass but that is another issue! Higgs Boson anyone? lol).

ffO.

Sorry, if v=c/E*sqrt(E^2-m2*c^4) and m = 0, then v = c / e**2. That is nothing more than GCSE maths.

[ZONE 51]

I have been reading this thread not logged in(oh and that PWS dig thread ),

in this thread i can say the only word i understand is..light so complex all this stuff!!

Really though i do understand some of it and its very interesting, some ideas on here are amazing! maybe science forum would be a good idea for some, some views would go well on there, or maybe we should call some science forum scientists over to this thread!

Edited September 29, 2011 by ElectricSnowStorm

[Alan Robinson]

Almost right:

Einsteins equation E=mc^2 is an abridged version of the original which is: E=mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Rearranging the equation gives: v=c/E*sqrt(E^2-m2*c^4)

Now set the mass to 0 and the two Energy terms will cancel and we are left with v=c/(1-0) which is just v=c.

In other words the equation tells us that a massless particle cannot travel LESS than the speed of light (nor for particles with -ve mass but that is another issue! Higgs Boson anyone? lol).

ffO.

The more I look at that the more I scratch my head. I know I am a bit simple, but how does

E=mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) rearrange to v=c/E*sqrt(E^2-m2*c^4) ?

In any case, Einstein's derivation was shown to be faulty, because he ignored some higher derivatives and made approximations. People have since shown - using vectors I believe - that E = mc^2. Putting that E = mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is a bit like asking a loaded question, because that particlar equation has no solutions if v>c.

[full_frontal_occlusion]

The more I look at that the more I scratch my head. I know I am a bit simple, but how does

E=mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) rearrange to v=c/E*sqrt(E^2-m2*c^4) ?

In any case, Einstein's derivation was shown to be faulty, because he ignored some higher derivatives and made approximations. People have since shown - using vectors I believe - that E = mc^2. Putting that E = mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is a bit like asking a loaded question, because that particlar equation has no solutions if v>c.

You are of course correct, it is a loaded question as it omits the independent reference frames (vectors) and as such, my statement trivialises the original somewhat.

Einstein used Maxwells theories as a basis to explore the apparent lack of evidence of the so called 'luminiforius ether' as result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Maxwell used 2nd rank (anti-symmetric Euclidean space) tensor fields to combine the previously independent electric and magnetic fields to derive the electromagnetic unified theory. Einstein applied Lorentz transformations to explore what would happen to those results when comparing independent reference frames moving wrt to each other. In a futher paper he applied Reimman curvature tensors to explore the effects of gravity and thus derived his theory for General Relativity.

So in my example E is of course the relativistic energy of particles belonging to independent reference frames, themselves moving wrt to each other (which are ommited). The rewritten formula is therefore far more general than the original.

I'm glad someone stayed awake! lol.

ffO.

Edited September 29, 2011 by full_frontal_occlusion

[Alan Robinson]

You are of course correct, it is a loaded question as it omits the independent reference frames (vectors) and as such, my statement trivialises the original somewhat.

Einstein used Maxwells theories as a basis to explore the apparent lack of evidence of the so called 'luminiforius ether' as result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Maxwell used 2nd rank (anti-symmetric) tensor fields to combine the previously independent electric and magnetic fields to derive the electromagnetic unified theory. Einstein applied Lorentz transformations to explore what would happen to those results when comparing independent reference frames moving wrt to each other.

So in my example E is of course the relativistic energy of particles belonging to independent reference frames, themselves moving wrt to each other (which are ommited). The rewritten formula is therefore far more general than the original.

I'm glad someone stayed awake! lol.

ffO.

Thanks for that. I am like a dog with a bone sometimes, and I have carried on trying to rearrange E=mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) to v=c/E*sqrt(E^2-m2*c^4). I cannot. I gave up when I finally made a little spreadsheet that finds mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - that is E - and then using it and the same values of m and c to evaluate c/E*sqrt(E^2-m2*c^4), which is v, and should be the same value of v with which I started with tho find E. The figures do not agree.

I suggest that E=mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) does not rearrange to v=c/E*sqrt(E^2-m2*c^4).

[knocker]

Perhaps we should digress to "wormholes". Problem with that is the thread would end before it began. I was glancing through The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose on occasion today. What amuses me about this book is in the blurb it says it assumes no particular specialist knowledge on the part of the reader. Oh joke.

[full_frontal_occlusion]

I concur with your final equation v=(c² - (m²c⁶E^-2))^0.5

When m=0 the equation reduces to v=(c²)^0.5 or v=c.

However, the roots are complex for values of m²C⁶/E²>c² or v>c. i.e. -ve mass or -ve energy are the only real solutions.

Which seems to imply that objects with -ve mass (if such a thing exists or is even postulated) would travel very much faster than light.

Is this where the concepts for Warp-Drives came from? An anti-Higgs Boson would look very enticing indeed. Either way, the experiments at CERN and the LHC will open up a new chapter for the annals of physics.

ffO.

Edited September 30, 2011 by full_frontal_occlusion

[Alan Robinson]

Perhaps we should digress to "wormholes". Problem with that is the thread would end before it began. I was glancing through The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose on occasion today. What amuses me about this book is in the blurb it says it assumes no particular specialist knowledge on the part of the reader. Oh joke.

Maybe you should take up wormholes with full frontal occlusion. See above about negative mass. That stuff is beyond my simple imagination.

[Alan Robinson]

I concur with your final equation v=(c² - (m²c⁶E^-2))^0.5

When m=0 the equation reduces to v=(c²)^0.5 or v=c.

However, the roots are complex for values of m²C⁶/E²>c² or v>c. i.e. -ve mass or -ve energy are the only real solutions.

Which seems to imply that objects with -ve mass (if such a thing exists or is even postulated) would travel very much faster than light.

Is this where the concepts for Warp-Drives came from? An anti-Higgs Boson would look very enticing indeed. Either way, the experiments at CERN and the LHC will open up a new chapter for the annals of physics.

ffO.

Good stuff, and I am pleased you brought up the question of the function's domain.

I was prepared to let this thread rest, but woke up this morning with something niggling me. It is this; perhaps some readers will not grasp the significance of “roots are complex”. That means quite simply that we have to invent numbers in order to solve the equation. That might sound silly, but it is the case. There is no real number, which when multiplied by itself, results in a negative number. All real numbers squared give a positive number. Mathematicians in their wisdom therefore invented the concept of a number i, which simply put has the value of the square root of -1. It is an imagined number, not a real one. Numbers using i are called complex numbers, and it is these that full_frontal_occlusion refers to. Moreover, how anything can weigh less than nothing is beyond me, and I thought the lowest possible temperature - the state of zero energy - is 0 degrees K.

Now that is all well and good, and I know electrical engineers find practical applications for complex numbers; except this is where my own skepsis begins. I have heard it said that philosophy is the father of all science. Metaphysics, by its very nature, concerns issues that cannot be verified by the use of our physical senses, and what constitutes metaphysical proof is quite dubious. Philosophy has debated the value of metaphysics ever since Plato pointed to the sky, while Aristotle exhorted him to keep both feet on the ground. I became embroiled in a long debate with my son – who has studied such things in considerable depth – and as I flatter myself I rather got the better of him , his final tactic was to bring Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason to his defence of metaphysics.

I do not recommend anyone read Kant. Understanding Kant is a specialist task in its own right, and takes years of deep study to become proficient at it. I can simply conclude that Kant’s ideas – once considered the epitome of human thought – has fallen out of vogue again. Instead, I recommend scientists read A J Ayer’s Language, Truth and Logic, even if it was the work of a zealous young man who later toned down his enthusiasm for refuting speculative ideas.

For my part, I do not consider it science to postulate ideas that cannot somehow be verified empirically. Complex roots of Einsten’s equation are very likey a path to science-fiction.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[full_frontal_occlusion]

A minor point and not meant to be pedantic: Alan is correct in saying mathematicians use the symbol i to denote the square root of a -ve number. Engineers use the symbol j when writing equations in order to avoid confusion with the symbol for current which is also i and, is itself used (not A for Amperes which would otherwise be logical) since mathematicians use A to denote arbitrary variables.

But I digress.

Regarding the observation of 'weighing' less than nothing?

Terminology is critical here: Weight is simply the acceleration force a body feels due the the exertion of gravity. It is utterly different to the Mass of an object which is the amount of physical matter in that object. Mass and gravity are however the components from which weight is calculated.

-ve mass?

We should start with an explanation of how imaginary numbers give rise to real-world solutions and applications:

Electrical/electronic engineering in particular would be impossible without recourse to imaginary numbers (square roots of -ve numbers) and in that context is simply a way of demarking the physical domains between the electric and magnetic fields which are themselves inseperable.

The manifestation of the equations using complex numbers (i.e. numbers which have both a real and imaginary part) is evident in the technology which pervades everyday life and is the probably the most relevant example of how seemingly arbitrary (and bizarre) mathematic concepts work in the real world.

Complex numbers give rise to real-world soultions in many ways:

• j = sqr root (-1) = (-1)^0.5: an imaginary number;
  

• j² = j x j = (-1)^0.5 x (-1)^0.5 = -1 ; a real number;
  

• j³ = j x j x j = j x j^{2 =} -(j) : an imaginary number;
  

• j⁴ = j² x j² = -1 x -1 = 1 : a real number.
  

Equations of the form (a + b ) x (a - b ) litter engineering. When b is replaced with an imaginary number i.e. (a+jb)(a-jb) the equation is known as a complex conjugate and always gives rise to real answers.

(a+jb)(a-jb) = a²-ajb +ajb - j²b² = a²+b²

There are many other examples.

So what is mass?

Einsteins eqautions point to the source of gravitational fields. Which is simpy a way of saying the force experienced by a particle constrained to follow the curvature of space-time when near the presence of another particle or object.

In Quantum Electro Dymamic theory, sub-atomic particles all have anti-particles: the electron has the anti-electron or positron; neutrino's have anti-neutrino's etc. These are not imaginary particles but very real. However they exist for such short times and decay rapidly to the longer lived particles of which our everyday universe is made. Incedentally, anti-matter is produced and captured in the experiments at CERN and can be held in stasis for the current record of 16 minutes.

Magnetic fields both exhibit repulsive and attractive forces.

I know one cannot say in the quantum world that because of event a it follows that event b is certain - that is disproved many times over. I therefore cannot be assume that -ve mass or energy is an impossibility and neither can one say it is a given awaiting to be proven.

Indeed the difficulty with combining quantum theory with Einsteins theories is that they both give rise to either infinities or singularities and mathematicians hate both. They create boundaries which cannot be crossed in the convetional sense. i.e. black-holes or spontaneous existences etc.

Particle and astro physicists look ever more closely and closer to those events in order to gain clues which may point them towards an answer.

I am not worthy to breath their names let alone postulate with any authority on whether Einsteins equations point to a reality or even a solution. It does seem to me though, that no doors should be closed in that search.

And of course I find it great fun to try.

ffO.

Edited October 4, 2011 by full_frontal_occlusion

[Radiating Dendrite]

Good stuff, and I am pleased you brought up the question of the function's domain.

I was prepared to let this thread rest, but woke up this morning with something niggling me. It is this; perhaps some readers will not grasp the significance of “roots are complex”. That means quite simply that we have to invent numbers in order to solve the equation. That might sound silly, but it is the case. There is no real number, which when multiplied by itself, results in a negative number. All real numbers squared give a positive number. Mathematicians in their wisdom therefore invented the concept of a number i, which simply put has the value of the square root of -1. It is an imagined number, not a real one. Numbers using i are called complex numbers, and it is these that full_frontal_occlusion refers to. Moreover, how anything can weigh less than nothing is beyond me, and I thought the lowest possible temperature - the state of zero energy - is 0 degrees K.

Now that is all well and good, and I know electrical engineers find practical applications for complex numbers; except this is where my own skepsis begins. I have heard it said that philosophy is the father of all science. Metaphysics, by its very nature, concerns issues that cannot be verified by the use of our physical senses, and what constitutes metaphysical proof is quite dubious. Philosophy has debated the value of metaphysics ever since Plato pointed to the sky, while Aristotle exhorted him to keep both feet on the ground. I became embroiled in a long debate with my son – who has studied such things in considerable depth – and as I flatter myself I rather got the better of him , his final tactic was to bring Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason to his defence of metaphysics.

I do not recommend anyone read Kant. Understanding Kant is a specialist task in its own right, and takes years of deep study to become proficient at it. I can simply conclude that Kant’s ideas – once considered the epitome of human thought – has fallen out of vogue again. Instead, I recommend scientists read A J Ayer’s Language, Truth and Logic, even if it was the work of a zealous young man who later toned down his enthusiasm for refuting speculative ideas.

For my part, I do not consider it science to postulate ideas that cannot somehow be verified empirically. Complex roots of Einsten’s equation are very likey a path to science-fiction.

Yes Kant is a bit of a mind bender.

I was always lucky enough to avoid him at Uni! Hume, Locke, Moore, Erasmus etc kept me entertained!

[Alan Robinson]

Yes Kant is a bit of a mind bender.

I was always lucky enough to avoid him at Uni! Hume, Locke, Moore, Erasmus etc kept me entertained!

I think I put in the A levels thread that I don't like progressing with a subject leaving gaps in my comprehension. With respect to philosophy, I remain stuck with Socrates.

[Alan Robinson]

I am not worthy to breath their names let alone postulate with any authority on whether Einsteins equations point to a reality or even a solution. It does seem to me though, that no doors should be closed in that search.

And of course I find it great fun to try.

ffO.

You do yourself an injustice I suspect, and there is absolutely no harm in studying these matters.

I'd like however to take a different tack, and being stuck with Socrates, perhaps I should use his sort of down-to-earth symbolism. Take pigs for example.

Pigs are very intelligent beasts, yet there can be little doubt that they have their own particular piggy way of viewing life. Take a look at a field where pigs have been left to roam about for a while, and there can be no doubt that pigs think almost everything is there to be eaten. This is their starting point in just about everything they do; is this food? The field is just mud, with no roots in the ground, because the pigs have dug up everything thinking it might be food.

It seems to me, that Homo sapiens have all in common that they start off with everything they come across thinking it can be explained. We have explanations for just about everything under the sun, and if our explanations are implausible, we invent justifications. I mean, I am doing it right now as I type.

Now I have no idea if there exist alien races that exceed us in intellect, but it is reasonable to assume that if there do, then they possess senses additional to ours. Perhaps they are telepathic. Pehaps they do like some American indians and go into a sweat lodge for three days, after which they emerge enlightened. Who knows? But if they have abilities that exceed ours, then surely their science is based on more than our 5 senses, assuming they have our senses too.

Back here on earth, the only tool a philosopher has is intellect. If my toolbox has only one tool in it - lets say a hammer - and someone asks me to make them a hammer, then I only have a hammer to make a hammer with and the result would be a very poor hammer I'd say. So where does that leave philosophy? In my view, nowhere, and those that have made a difference in this world were not philosophers.

I'm sticking with my 5 senses, because I do not always trust the workings of my mind, or anyone else's come to think of it. Maybe psychology is a more valuable branch of science in these times, and as Alexander Pope wrote, presume not God to scan, the proper study of mankind, is man.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[Alan Robinson]

This business of imaginary numbers must have affected me mentally. I do not normally dream much, or perhaps if I do, I don’t remember it. The other morning I woke up with the niggling feeling I described above, and again today I woke up with yet a new thought on imaginary numbers.

I must have dreamed I met Pythagoras, and had scolded him for all his mumbo-jumbo number speculations; about male and female numbers, 4 meaning justice, 5 meaning marriage, how numbers and music relate to the cosmos. Pythagoras replied (in my dream) that I needn’t take his word for all these things, because the brilliant Euler would be born in the future, whose greatest discovery is Euler’s Identity. Then I would see my mistake.

I have to say that Euler’s Identity is hailed by some mathematicians as the most beautiful and intriguing mathematical expression ever. If anyone likes, I shall scribble down on paper how it is derived so they can share in this awesome show of numbers. Simply put, f(x) = e^x is mimicked using Maclaurin’s power series. That can be extended by using f(x) = e^ix, and it turns out that e^ix = cosine(x) + i*sin (x).

If you put x = Π, then you get that e^iΠ= 1. This is Euler’s identity, the mathematical expression of profound meaning. It combines e, a constant that occurs again and again in the mathematics of populations, Newton’s laws of cooling, radioactive decay, economics, and many other topics. It contains sines and cosines, fundamental properties of triangles, and Π, the mysterious basic relationship between the diameter and circumference of a circle. It contains i, the likewise strange number which cannot be found among the real numbers. Then consider that the combination of these numbers is equal to the fundamental number 1. Surely, here we have something deeply profound, tantalizing and begging us know there is something about the universe we do not yet entirely grasp, and therefore we must not give up our quest for knowledge.

**************

Then I woke up. The first thing that occurred to me as I collected my senses was this….

e^iΠ= 1 → iΠ Ln(e) = Ln(1) → iΠ = 0

In other words, just one more simple algebraic operation on Euler’s famed and esoteric Identity, and the truth is revealed in all its nakedness. i is nothing.

My immediate reaction to this is that as I am not all that bright, mathematicians and clever people must have been having us on, for they must know what I just discovered. That electrical engineers manage to put i to practical use suggests to me that empiricism is more valuable than metaphysical speculation, and that if something works, who cares why? There might be things eternally beyond our comprehension, and perhaps it is best that way.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[Methuselah]

An interesting piece?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/47427

[Alan Robinson]

An interesting piece?

http://physicsworld....icle/news/47427

It reads as though they are reluctant to hang out their dirty laundry.

[Snowyowl9]

Faster than the speed of light wednesday on BBC2 9pm.

[knocker]

If anyone is interested and may have missed this 2100 on BBC2.