Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 272

Thread: Why light speed?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,543

    Why light speed?

    I was going to post this as a question in Q&A on an ATM subject, but I also want to discuss some of the consequences of this idea, and I am interested in seeing if it is viable, as it seems to be to me so far, so it might be best to attempt to defend it here the best I can to see where it goes.

    Relativity postulates that physics is the same in any frame. Okay, so let's say we perform the M-M experiment again, but this time, instead of light, we use tennis balls with a speed of v'. Well, in the frame of the apparatus, the tennis balls will travel over the same distance in perpendicular directions and meet back in the middle in the same time, and that will occur regardless of which way we turn the apparatus. That much can be seen whether we use the theory of Relativity or ballistic theory, although ether theory might vary, so if we were to expect a different result depending upon our theory of an ether, we would be surprised in the same way we were with the original experiment. But then, what about an observer observing from another frame with the apparatus moving away at a speed of v? We would then have the same dilemma we had with the original experiment, and we would find that if the speeds are not ballistic and so do not add, and that the physics in every frame is the same, then it could be explained if there were a contraction in the line of motion of sqrt[1 - (v / v')^2], where again, v' is the speed of the tennis balls.

    So, we could build our theory of Relativity around tennis balls, the Lorentz contraction and time dilation being sqrt[1 - (v / v')^2], Relativistic Doppler is based upon the rate that the tennis balls bounce off of or are emitted by objects and we receive them, and nothing can travel faster than a tennis ball. Granted, at first glance, all of that sounds ridiculous, and you might think I have lost it, but is there really any difference between that and the original experiment? Okay, well, obviously tennis balls don't travel at the ultimate speed, but what about light then? The ultimate speed that is to be used in Relativistic equations can apparently be almost any speed, not necessarily just that of light, just because it was light that was used in the experiment. What if we had used electrons, for instance? Could we then be saying that electrons travel at the ultimate speed, even though the speed of electrons is variable, only to find out later that light travels faster?

    Okay, so, if not necessarily light, then what is the ultimate speed that Relativity uses? I am thinking it must just be some maximum universal speed, not directly associated to light or electrons or tennis balls at all. Light has been found to vary very little from c, however, so light must still travel very close to the universal speed, but perhaps not quite. Nothing in the universe can travel at or greater than the universal speed, including light. One consequence of this proposition is that light may have mass after all. Just a very, very small mass, so that any slightly significant amount of energy applied to an atom will cause a photon to be propelled away at very nearly the ultimate speed to an observer at the source. A mass for the photon with different energies applied will produce different speeds for different frequencies, as can already be observed when light travels through a material or medium. When using the Relativistic formula for energy, one finds that E = mc^2 = sqrt[(p c)^2 + m_0 c^4], where p = m_0 v / sqrt[1 - (v / c)^2] and m_0 is the rest mass, and if we also set E = hf, then we get

    E = hf = sqrt[(m_0 v c)^2 / (1 - (v/c)^2) + m_0 c^4]

    h f = m_0 c sqrt[v^2 / (1 - (v/c)^2) + c^2]

    h f / (m_0 c) = sqrt[v^2 / (1 - (v/c)^2 + c^2]

    (h f / (m_0 c))^2 = v^2 / (1 - (v/c)^2) + c^2

    = [v^2 + c^2 (1 - (v/c)^2)] / (1 - (v/c)^2)

    = [v^2 + (c^2 - v^2)) / (1 - (v/c)^2)

    = c^2 / (1 - (v/c)^2)

    Setting x = h f / (m_0 c), we find

    x^2 = c^2 / (1 - (v/c)^2)

    x^2 (1 - (v/c)^2) = c^2

    x^2 - (x / c)^2 v^2 = c^2

    (x / c)^2 v^2 = x^2 - c^2

    v^2 = (x^2 - c^2) (c / x)^2

    = (1 - (c / x)^2) c^2

    = c^2 - c^4 / x^2

    Since v < c, where v is the relative speed of the photon to the source and c is the ultimate universal speed, although very close to each other, then c^2 - c^4 / x^2 < c^2, and 1 - c^2 / x^2 < 1, so x > c, therefore h f / (m_0 c) > c, and finally m_0 < h f / c^2. That just gives an upper limit to the mass of a photon, though. For the frequency of the hydrogen atom, it must be many times less massive than the electron. The less massive the photon is, the closer its relative speed to an observer at the source will be to the universal speed.

    Experiments would still show light to be non-ballistic and very close to the universal speed with a small mass for the photon. For instance, let's say the speed of a photon at a particular frequency travels relative to the source at .999 of the ultimate universal speed. Now let's say an observer at the source accelerated to .1 of the universal speed. Ballistic theory says that the observer would now say that the photon is travelling away at only .899 of the universal speed. But since the same formulas apply to this speed as c did before, but only the value of c has increase slightly, so the new speed of the photon to the observer travelling at .1 c would be (.999 - .1) / [1 - (.999) (.1)] = .998778 c, the relative speed dropping by only .00022 c, or .022%, instead of the full .1 c.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,545
    Did you just use those equations to calculate the mass of a photon?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,543
    Quote Originally Posted by hhEb09'1 View Post
    Did you just use those equations to calculate the mass of a photon?
    I wish, but alas no, just the upper mass. According to this proposition, the upper rest mass of a photon must be m_0 < h f / c^2.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,543
    Another way of looking at it, if we set E = h f = m c^2 = m_0 c^2 / sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2], then since m_0 is always smaller than m, then m_0 < h f / c^2. The relative speed of the photon to the source is v = c sqrt[1 - (m_0 c^2 / (h f))^2].

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    of Greatest Eclipse, Aug. 21 2017 (Kentucky, USA)
    Posts
    4,552
    Quote Originally Posted by grav View Post
    [snip]When using the Relativistic formula for energy, one finds that E = mc^2 = sqrt[(p c)^2 + m_0 c^4], where p = m_0 v / sqrt[1 - (v / c)^2] and m_0 is the rest mass, and if we also set E = hf, then we get . . . .
    [snip again]
    Since v < c, where v is the relative speed of the photon to the source and c is the ultimate universal speed, although very close to each other, then c^2 - c^4 / x^2 < c^2, and 1 - c^2 / x^2 < 1, so x > c, therefore h f / (m_0 c) > c, and finally m_0 < h f / c^2. That just gives an upper limit to the mass of a photon, though. For the frequency of the hydrogen atom, it must be many times less massive than the electron. The less massive the photon is, the closer its relative speed to an observer at the source will be to the universal speed.
    You did all that to calculate E = m_0 c^2, since E = hf.

    m_0 < h f / c^2 => m_0 < E / c^2 => E > m_0 c^2

    For a moving massive particle, this is always true, since its total energy is the kinetic energy plus the rest energy. Your math really doesn't say anything new, grav. This is undergrad-level playing around that goes nowhere.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,058
    You are also looking at the problem backwards. c is not c because of the speed of light. c is the maximum speed of information. It just happens that massless particles travel at the maximum speed.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Tobin Dax View Post
    You did all that to calculate E = m_0 c^2, since E = hf.

    m_0 < h f / c^2 => m_0 < E / c^2 => E > m_0 c^2

    For a moving massive particle, this is always true, since its total energy is the kinetic energy plus the rest energy. Your math really doesn't say anything new, grav. This is undergrad-level playing around that goes nowhere.
    The original math is to find the speed of light relative to the source and depending upon frequency, which is v = c sqrt[1 - (m_0 c^2 / (h f))^2]. Finding the rest mass for a photon is something extra I did at the end, which only gives the upper limit, but I believe it is important. The main idea of this thread, however, is that the speed of light, although it must be close, is not necessarily the ultimate universal speed used in Relativity.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,543
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    You are also looking at the problem backwards. c is not c because of the speed of light. c is the maximum speed of information. It just happens that massless particles travel at the maximum speed.
    Yes, that's the idea. Even light doesn't necessarily travel at that speed, just very, very close because it cannot travel at or faster than the ultimate speed, no more than anything else that exists within the universe, assuming then that all that exists contains some mass. Protons and electrons, for example, can carry information in nearly the same way as light but require large amounts of energy to approach the ultimate speed due to their masses. A photon, then, is treated just like any other particle in this thread, and if even a small amount of energy is applied to it, its tiny mass will propel it close to the ultimate speed. But even if a thousand times more energy were supplied, it still couldn't go much faster than before because it is still limited to the ultimate universal speed, so will only creep closer to that speed with greater energy. So virtually all photons travel at nearly the same relative speed to their source, very near the universal speed.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,135
    Quote Originally Posted by grav View Post
    Yes, that's the idea. Even light doesn't necessarily travel at that speed, just very, very close because it cannot travel at or faster than the ultimate speed, no more than anything else that exists within the universe, assuming then that all that exists contains some mass. Protons and electrons, for example, can carry information in nearly the same way as light but require large amounts of energy to approach the ultimate speed due to their masses. A photon, then, is treated just like any other particle in this thread, and if even a small amount of energy is applied to it, its tiny mass will propel it close to the ultimate speed. But even if a thousand times more energy were supplied, it still couldn't go much faster than before because it is still limited to the ultimate universal speed, so will only creep closer to that speed with greater energy. So virtually all photons travel at nearly the same relative speed to their source, very near the universal speed.
    If photons have zero rest mass then they will all travel at c in a vacuum. (Rest mass is the mass that you would measure in the particle's rest frame.)
    Last edited by Fortis; 2009-Jul-26 at 10:43 AM. Reason: To clarify what rest mass is.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,076
    Maxwell's equations predict a constant velocity for electromagnetic waves from other measurements, and one not dependent on frequency.

    Astronomical observations do not support a speed of light that depends on the mothion of its emitter. Taking the 0.999 value as exact, the light of a binary companion moving at 30 km/s (0.0001c) relative to the other star in a 1 year orbit (I'm lazy and lack references for real binary stars) would be measured as 0.9990002 or 0.9989998. The faster light would overtake the slower light emitted half an orbit earlier in 40 years, smearing the image of the star out along its orbital path. Spectroscopic binaries, either closer and faster or much further away, would not be observed. There would be weird and easily noticeable effects on deep space radar as well.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,135
    Just in case RussT is reading this thread, I am not suggesting that we can measure the mass of a photon in its rest frame.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by grav View Post
    I was going to post this as a question in Q&A on an ATM subject, but I also want to discuss some of the consequences of this idea, and I am interested in seeing if it is viable, as it seems to be to me so far, so it might be best to attempt to defend it here the best I can to see where it goes.

    Relativity postulates that physics is the same in any frame. Okay, so let's say we perform the M-M experiment again, but this time, instead of light, we use tennis balls with a speed of v'.
    Light travels with the same speed in all directions, tennis balls don't. Also, tennis balls cannot produce any interference patterns so what will you observe?



    Well, in the frame of the apparatus, the tennis balls will travel over the same distance in perpendicular directions and meet back in the middle in the same time,
    No, they won't. The speed of the tennis balls in the perpendicular direction is different from the one in the longitudinal direction. Only light has the same speed in all directions.

    and that will occur regardless of which way we turn the apparatus.
    Wrong.


    That much can be seen whether we use the theory of Relativity or ballistic theory,
    Wrong again, only light has this property, tennis balls don't.



    So, we could build our theory of Relativity around tennis balls,
    No, you can't. Tennis balls have anisotropic speed, so you can't use them to build any consistent theory. This is why Einstein chose light.

    the Lorentz contraction and time dilation being sqrt[1 - (v / v')^2],

    No, it won't. You will not be able to descrive any phanomenon that travels faster than the speed of tennis balls because your new "Lorentz factor" will be imaginary for any v>v' where v' is the speed of tennis balls. You really need to use v'=c, there is no way around it.

    Relativistic Doppler is based upon the rate that the tennis balls bounce off of or are emitted by objects and we receive them, and nothing can travel faster than a tennis ball. Granted, at first glance, all of that sounds ridiculous,
    It not only sounds, it is.

    and you might think I have lost it, but is there really any difference between that and the original experiment?
    The original experiment made sense, yours doesn't for the reasons shown above.



    Okay, well, obviously tennis balls don't travel at the ultimate speed, but what about light then? The ultimate speed that is to be used in Relativistic equations can apparently be almost any speed, not necessarily just that of light, just because it was light that was used in the experiment. What if we had used electrons, for instance? Could we then be saying that electrons travel at the ultimate speed, even though the speed of electrons is variable, only to find out later that light travels faster?
    Using electrons is as wrong as using tennis balls. See above.


    Okay, so, if not necessarily light, then what is the ultimate speed that Relativity uses? I am thinking it must just be some maximum universal speed, not directly associated to light or electrons or tennis balls at all. Light has been found to vary very little from c, however, so light must still travel very close to the universal speed, but perhaps not quite.
    Light speed in vacuum is exactly c.

    Nothing in the universe can travel at or greater than the universal speed, including light. One consequence of this proposition is that light may have mass after all.
    Wrong again. If that were true, the equations of electromagnetism would fall apart. This is not the case.

    Just a very, very small mass, so that any slightly significant amount of energy applied to an atom will cause a photon to be propelled away at very nearly the ultimate speed to an observer at the source. A mass for the photon with different energies applied will produce different speeds for different frequencies, as can already be observed when light travels through a material or medium. When using the Relativistic formula for energy, one finds that E = mc^2

    E=mc^2 doe not apply to photons. I snipped the rest of your incorrect calculations.


    Since v < c, where v is the relative speed of the photon to the source

    Wrong. The photons travel at c relative to any source, not at v<c.

    and c is the ultimate universal speed, although very close to each other, then c^2 - c^4 / x^2 < c^2, and 1 - c^2 / x^2 < 1, so x > c, therefore h f / (m_0 c) > c, and finally m_0 < h f / c^2. That just gives an upper limit to the mass of a photon,
    Wrong again, there is ample experimental proof that the upper limit is
    << hf/c^2. You keep piling up mistakes on top of misunderstandings.
    Last edited by macaw; 2009-Jul-26 at 02:23 PM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by grav View Post
    I wish, but alas no, just the upper mass. According to this proposition, the upper rest mass of a photon must be m_0 < h f / c^2.
    No, it isn't, there is ample experimental proof that the upper limit is <<hf/c^2.
    Last edited by macaw; 2009-Jul-26 at 02:24 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,692
    I don't like calling it light speed. It is c. Photons travel at c. All particles with zero rest mass travel at c.

    We just discovered that light travels at that speed first.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,692
    Quote Originally Posted by fortis View Post
    just in case russt is reading this thread, i am not suggesting that we can measure the mass of a photon in its rest frame.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
    If photons have zero rest mass then they will all travel at c in a vacuum. (Rest mass is the mass that you would measure in the particle's rest frame.)
    Right, that is true. As part of this proposition, however, I am suggesting that since the ultimate universal speed is not necessarily the same as light speed, then photons may have mass and act the same as any other particle.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,135
    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    I don't like calling it light speed. It is c. Photons travel at c. All particles with zero rest mass travel at c.

    We just discovered that light travels at that speed first.
    I agree. People get hung up on c being the speed of light, when it is just the velocity-like constant that appears in SR.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,543
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    Maxwell's equations predict a constant velocity for electromagnetic waves from other measurements, and one not dependent on frequency.
    The index of refraction for different materials and mediums contains different permeabilities and permittivities that depend upon frequency and temperature, but they remain close, so most of the time we just round them to the same index of refraction for the same materials. For free space, photons would travel so close to 1 within visible and experimental capability that we can determine its value to be 1.

    Astronomical observations do not support a speed of light that depends on the mothion of its emitter. Taking the 0.999 value as exact, the light of a binary companion moving at 30 km/s (0.0001c) relative to the other star in a 1 year orbit (I'm lazy and lack references for real binary stars) would be measured as 0.9990002 or 0.9989998. The faster light would overtake the slower light emitted half an orbit earlier in 40 years, smearing the image of the star out along its orbital path. Spectroscopic binaries, either closer and faster or much further away, would not be observed. There would be weird and easily noticeable effects on deep space radar as well.
    Right, .999 was just an arbitrary value for demonstration. For instance, if the mass of the photon is just 1/1000 of its upper limit for mass, its speed will be .9999995 of the universal speed. But since we only have the upper limit, its mass might easily be a million or a billion times smaller or more.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,135
    Quote Originally Posted by grav View Post
    Right, that is true. As part of this proposition, however, I am suggesting that since the ultimate universal speed is not necessarily the same as light speed, then photons may have mass and act the same as any other particle.
    And there has been, and continues to be, a lot of work being carried to to investigate if the photon has a non-zero rest mass, and what the constraints on any rest mass might be. Have a look at this page.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,135

    Red face

    Quote Originally Posted by adsar View Post
    No, it isn't, there is ample experimental proof that the upper limit is <<hf/c^2.
    Oops, just spotted this, which is essentially the same as my later post. Mind you, grav seems to have missed it as well...

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,543
    Quote Originally Posted by adsar View Post
    Light travels with the same speed in all directions, tennis balls don't. Also, tennis balls cannot produce any interference patterns so what will you observe?
    Only due to their large mass when struck with normal energies, although they can be made to travel at the same speed in the apparatus for the experiment as far as that goes. All photons we have experimented with travel so close to the ultimate speed that we can assume them to have the same speed. However, if tennis balls or any other object were slammed with a tremendous enough energy, they would be propelled to nearly the ultimate universal speed also. Another tennis ball that is slammed with a thousand times the energy will not travel much faster than the first, only slightly closer to the universal speed, so we can assume them to have virtually the same speed, that of the universal speed. Also, tennis balls actually could produce an interference pattern using the de Broglie wavelength for matter, but would be too small compared to the size of the tennis balls to observe. It can be observed in massive particles such as electrons, though.

    No, they won't. The speed of the tennis balls in the perpendicular direction is different from the one in the longitudinal direction. Only light has the same speed in all directions.
    With the same energies applied in the same way, the tennis balls will be propelled with the same speed in any direction according to observers stationary with the apparatus.

    Wrong.

    Wrong again, only light has this property, tennis balls don't.
    In the frame of the apparatus, the tennis balls will be propelled the same with the energy applied in the same way, regardless of the direction of travel of the tennis balls. It is correct according to Relativity as well as ballistic theory.

    No, you can't. Tennis balls have anisotropic speed, so you can't use them to build any consistent theory. This is why Einstein chose light.
    Right. The point is that any particle and speed could have originally been used in the experiment and the same results found, but it wouldn't make sense unless the speed is isotropic, so just the ultimate universal speed that nothing that exists can attain is isotropic, and if particles can be used just as easily as light in the experiment, then perhaps light has an anisotropic speed as well.

    No, it won't. You will not be able to descrive any phanomenon that travels faster than the speed of tennis balls because your new "Lorentz factor" will be imaginary for any v>v' where v' is the speed of tennis balls. You really need to use v'=c, there is no way around it.
    Right also. I was just using the tennis balls as a demonstration that any speed can be used, but it must be isotropic to make sense, and of course, faster than anything we have observed.

    It not only sounds, it is.
    Right.

    The original experiment made sense, yours doesn't for the reasons shown above.
    The ridiculousness of using the tennis balls demonstrates that light speed might also be anisotropic like any other particle.

    Using electrons is as wrong as using tennis balls. See above.
    If electrons were propelled with enough energy in the experiment, they would be seen to travel with the same isotropic speed within experimental capabality. Or if the universal speed happened to be much lower, electrons would already be seen to travel at that speed with even a little energy applied, as would light and neutrinos and so forth due to their small masses also, and electrons would be considered to always travel at the speed of light as well if never observed to do otherwise.

    Light speed in vacuum is exactly c.
    How can you know that for sure?

    Wrong again. If that were true, the equations of electromagnetism would fall apart. This is not the case.
    Not necessarily, there is still much left to learn. They may just be the best we have so far.

    E=mc^2 doe not apply to photons. I snipped the rest of your incorrect calculations.
    Unless light is treated as a particle that just travels very close to the universal speed with enough energy applied.

    Wrong. The photons travel at c relative to any source, not at v<c.
    Only to within experimental capability.

    Wrong again, there is ample experimental proof that the upper limit is
    << hf/c^2. You keep piling up mistakes on top of misunderstandings.
    Well then, the formula is not wrong. Thanks for the link. It looks like the speed of light would be very close to the ultimate speed indeed.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,543
    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    I don't like calling it light speed. It is c. Photons travel at c. All particles with zero rest mass travel at c.

    We just discovered that light travels at that speed first.
    Yes. As I'm sure Ken G would also say, it is just the universal speed. However, since any extremely small mass particle will travel very close to that speed with even a little energy applied, and since light is not necessarily the only particle that could have been used in the M-M experiment but with the same results, then how do we know light is absolutely massless?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
    I agree. People get hung up on c being the speed of light, when it is just the velocity-like constant that appears in SR.
    Exactly.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,135
    Quote Originally Posted by grav View Post
    Exactly.
    The thing is that I don't think that you would find any working physicist that would disagree with this, i.e. that c just happens to be the same as the speed of light because that is the speed with which a massless particle travels.

    Regarding your view that photons may possess a non-zero rest mass, as I have indicated there are a lot of experiments than have examined this question. So far, all experiments are consistent with the hypothesis that the rest mass is zero. Likewise people have attempted to measure the charge of the photon, and again all experiments are consistent with the hypothesis that the charge is indeed zero. From our point of view, it is reasonable to continue to work with those hypotheses, both because they are consistent with all experimental results so far examined, and because the mathematics is easier.

    So, where are you trying to go with this?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
    The thing is that I don't think that you would find any working physicist that would disagree with this, i.e. that c just happens to be the same as the speed of light because that is the speed with which a massless particle travels.
    Right, that would be the speed of a massless particle. If the speed of light is not necessarily the same as the universal speed, however, then photons are not necessarily massless.

    Regarding your view that photons may possess a non-zero rest mass, as I have indicated there are a lot of experiments than have examined this question. So far, all experiments are consistent with the hypothesis that the rest mass is zero. Likewise people have attempted to measure the charge of the photon, and again all experiments are consistent with the hypothesis that the charge is indeed zero. From our point of view, it is reasonable to continue to work with those hypotheses, both because they are consistent with all experimental results so far examined, and because the mathematics is easier.
    The list you and adsar linked to shows that the mass of photons must be extremely small, but still not conclusively and absolutely zero. In a way, the list helps to support my argument, since the smaller the mass of the photon, the closer its speed will be to the ultimate speed when even the slightest energy is applied, and the less likely it will be that light will be observed to travel at any other speed. I do agree that the mathematics is easier if we just assume them to be one and the same speed, though.

    Toward the end of the paper at my website, I determine the mass of a neutrino to be 1.54775 * 10^(-68) kg. But that is done by using light that travels through the neutrino medium, and now I'm wondering if that might not be the mass of a photon itself. If so, then that would be the equivalent of 8.68 * 10^(-33) eV, which is smaller than any of the upper limits on the link you both provided. The galactic measurements come close, though, but still larger by an order of about a million.

    So, where are you trying to go with this?
    I was going to post this as a question in Q&A, since it borders on mainstream and ATM both, but I thought it might still be too ATMish, so here I am. I will continue to examine possibilities and answer questions the best I can.
    Last edited by grav; 2009-Jul-28 at 02:24 AM. Reason: changed 10^(-36) eV to 10^(-33) eV & billion to million

  26. #26
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,135
    Quote Originally Posted by grav View Post
    Toward the end of the paper at my website, I determine the mass of a neutrino to be 1.54775 * 10^(-68) kg.
    Which neutrino?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
    Which neutrino?
    I'm not sure. It might just be a "neutrino-like" particle, with the same qualities, and could just as well be discerned to be the mass of the photon itself with the way the mathematics is performed for that, so there you go if that helps at all.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,135
    Quote Originally Posted by grav View Post
    I'm not sure. It might just be a "neutrino-like" particle, with the same qualities, and could just as well be discerned to be the mass of the photon itself with the way the mathematics is performed for that, so there you go if that helps at all.
    A neutrino is a very different creature to a photon. One of them interacts very strongly with electrons, the other interacts very weakly. One of them is spin 1/2, the other is spin 1.

    Can you identify your "neutrino-like" particle using its other characteristics?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by grav View Post
    Only due to their large mass when struck with normal energies,
    This is also wrong. But I will give you an opportunity: prove it. With math.



    although they can be made to travel at the same speed in the apparatus for the experiment as far as that goes.
    No, you can't. Prove your statement. With math.

    Another tennis ball that is slammed with a thousand times the energy will not travel much faster than the first, only slightly closer to the universal speed, so we can assume them to have virtually the same speed,
    Your "assumption" is known to be wrong. I will give you the opportunity to prove your ATM statement. With math, please.


    that of the universal speed. Also, tennis balls actually could produce an interference pattern using the de Broglie wavelength for matter,
    Umm, no, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Since you opened the door, I will ask you, in the good BAUT tradition to prove your statement. With math, please.


    With the same energies applied in the same way, the tennis balls will be propelled with the same speed in any direction according to observers stationary with the apparatus.
    Another wrong statement. But, since you opened the door, I will ask you, in the good BAUT tradition to prove your statement. With math, please.

    In the frame of the apparatus, the tennis balls will be propelled the same with the energy applied in the same way, regardless of the direction of travel of the tennis balls.
    SR says that this is incorrect. But, since you opened the door, I will ask you, in the good BAUT tradition to prove your statement. With math, please.



    Right. The point is that any particle and speed could have originally been used in the experiment and the same results found, but it wouldn't make sense unless the speed is isotropic, so just the ultimate universal speed that nothing that exists can attain is isotropic, and if particles can be used just as easily as light in the experiment, then perhaps light has an anisotropic speed as well.
    Wrong again, light speed is isotropic. But, since you opened the door, I will ask you, in the good BAUT tradition to prove your statement. With math, please.


    The ridiculousness of using the tennis balls demonstrates that light speed might also be anisotropic like any other particle.
    Wrong again, light speed is isotropic. But, since you opened the door, I will ask you, in the good BAUT tradition to prove your statement. With math, please.


    If electrons were propelled with enough energy in the experiment, they would be seen to travel with the same isotropic speed within experimental capabality.

    Is this a fact or is this another belief of yours?

    Or if the universal speed happened to be much lower, electrons would already be seen to travel at that speed with even a little energy applied, as would light and neutrinos and so forth due to their small masses also, and electrons would be considered to always travel at the speed of light as well if never observed to do otherwise.
    Wrong again. Netrinos and electrons have mass, they cannot travel at c, only massless particles can travel at c. Since you "believe" the opposite I will give you the opportunity to prove it, with math.

    You have a lot of homework to do, according to BAUT rules you have to answer in a timely manner. Please do so.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
    Oops, just spotted this, which is essentially the same as my later post. Mind you, grav seems to have missed it as well...
    He didn't miss it,see the answer he gave me, he is just "whishing" it away. He has difficulty in dealing with the scientific truth. :-)

Similar Threads

  1. Does light that has been reflected still travel at the speed of light?
    By bunker9603 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2010-Jun-20, 01:23 PM
  2. Top Speed as a % of the Speed of Light
    By L_TRoc in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2008-Aug-18, 10:11 PM
  3. What is the wavelength of light as it receeds near the speed of light?
    By tommac in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-23, 08:31 PM
  4. Speed of Light, Speed of Source Question
    By BigDon in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2007-Mar-17, 06:29 PM
  5. Can there be a speed faster than the speed of light???
    By someguy44 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 2006-Dec-14, 12:43 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •