Question about the maximum speed of light and 'weight'

**GT250** · 07-07-11, 07:41 PM

Took me a fair while to get in my head around about the 'fact' that the speed of light is constant. {As far as we know}.

IE: If i 'putt' a golf ball on the ground it goes at 10kph. On a plane (1000kph), the same 'putt' is now going 1010kph.
Lets not at this moment, get into symantics about the speed of rotation of the Earth, Solar System, Galaxy etc (as of course from the point of the observer).

BUT HOWEVER; If i shine a torch the light moves away at 300K kmps and according to Einstein, if i am already moving at 150K kmps and turn on, the light will NOT be 450K kmps- it will still be at 300K kmps. [Constant].

But i can't 'see' why the weight increases?
I understand the mass increasing. But why weight?

The theory says that we can't achive full light speed, as the weight outlays the power required - and the faster you go - the heavier it gets and more power required, ad infinitum.

Years ago i read that most 'educated' university types and other tests have (from 10 years ago), shown/proved that light is not the fastest thing and they have conducted tests (From memory), 14 times faster.

Also (not wanting to draw an off topic debate from my original post question). The speed of light is far to small/low for moving around this universe. If we were visited from 'elsewhere', then the speed of light just doesn't cut it.

So why does the weight increase? The LHC, is spec'd to be well below the T'volts to detect this Higgs particle (maybe after a few 'upgrades'!!!), it might!
Would the reversal of the 'mass' particle, remove the weight?

**viewer** · 07-07-11, 07:56 PM

The weight of light is very heavy in the early hours when I get up.

**porkop** · 07-07-11, 08:17 PM

I do believe that the photon is a massless particle and as such can not have weight so it can easily travel at the speed of light.

I do not know the reason why the mass increases as one approaches the speed of light, the dimention in the direction of travel shrinks and time has the apperance of slowing down to the outside observer.

Personally, i believe that the speed of light is a purpose barrier to prevent interstellar travel. The only communication between stars will only be via transmission means.

Time for trash to step in.

**Seymour Butts** · 07-07-11, 08:47 PM

E=MC squared perhaps.

Sorry, I don't mean to be a smartarse, but this does go some way to explaining it I feel.

**trash** · 07-07-11, 09:20 PM

Actually E=mc^2 is the simplified version

the "m" is actually a generalisation of a more complex part of the formula.
M(r)=m(0)/SQRT(1-[(v^2)/(c^2)])

Relativistic mass.
So you can see that M(r) does change if you change "v".

Porkop has highlighted something a bit odd about photons.
They appear to have a rest mass "m(0)" of zero. So one might think they have no need to obey any cosmic speed limit. Yet they do just that.

Photons would appear to be a carrier of mass yet not possess it themselves.

They have mass only while they are in motion, and that motion appears to be constant.
One will notice if a photo passes by a large mass, the gravity of that large mass effects the small relativistic mass of the photon and it bends it's path.

Now, imagine a photon moving towards a large mass like a black hole.
As it gets close and closer to the black hole, light doesn't speed up... it's the same velocity all the way down.

If we consider a photon, gravity effects it on two axis.
A bit like a magnetic field. It interacts with an electric field but only on two axis.

Everybody is waiting to see what the LHC can spit out. It literally could be almost any answer. Either a nice big fat higgs... simple answer, or a family of higgs particles... complex answer. Or... find nothing at all which is going to be just as interesting.

There's still plenty of other particles waiting for discovery or confirmation.

Nothing is faster than light is open to exceptions. Quantum entanglement is one example, but as they say, you don't get something for nothing. There's always a catch

oh, I forgot. there's a bit on relativistic mass here ...

**porkop** · 07-07-11, 10:23 PM

Maybe a photon was once like any other particle, had mass, zipped around at sub light speeds then something happened to it as it approached C, its almost infinite mass and some yet undiscovered thing flipped it across into the C field where it had to give up this previous almost infinate mass an then imprisoned forever to zip around the universe at the constant speed. The "yet unknown" thing could have been the irresitable force that met the unmovable object????

**GT250** · 07-07-11, 10:42 PM

Trust Trash to pop up E=MC²

Yes it's a simplified formula...

Am i supposed to work out where my answer to weight comes from that?

But further holes continuing...
If a photon has no mass (unless moving), could you put two photons in the same place?

The Neutrino was thought to have no mass - and big engrained theorys - were made on that (even the Neut'tral'rino name, was based on that). But now we know it has mass.

All mass attracts.
Black holes are still theroy.
Quanta: Energy is not released in waves but packets of; Mass?

Late at night for me. Will click on links tomorrow

and let my sub conchus, coshinos, conschusnous, brain think it over whilst i sleep...

**loopyloo** · 08-07-11, 12:16 AM

I don’t know about the weight part but I can offer this :

When you say the speed of light is constant, do you mean that it only has one speed and will always travel at that speed ?

The generally said speed of light is measured in a vacuum

Light travels at different speeds depending on the media it’s travelling through, it’s called the refractive index.

Also, from the first post : BUT HOWEVER; If i shine a torch the light moves away at 300K kmps and according to Einstein, if i am already moving at 150K kmps and turn on, the light will NOT be 450K kmps- it will still be at 300K kmps. [Constant].

Light can be a victim of the Doppler effect. Which means, the light from your torch will be travelling more than 300k kmps providing it is pointed in the same direction you are travelling.
The Doppler effect is used by astronomers to measure the movement of distant galaxies and stars etc.

Loopy

**loopyloo** · 08-07-11, 12:31 AM

"All mass attracts."

I think you're wrong.
My wife has mass and it doesn't work.

**trash** · 08-07-11, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by loopyloo

When you say the speed of light is constant, do you mean that it only has one speed and will always travel at that speed ?

Yes... only that speed.

[quote[ Light travels at different speeds depending on the media it’s travelling through, it’s called the refractive index. [/quote]
Don't confuse the velocity of light and "the speed of light"

Which means, the light from your torch will be travelling more than 300k kmps providing it is pointed in the same direction you are travelling.

small mistake there.... the light isn't travelling faster. See you previous statement. It is constant regardless of the motion of the source or the observer.

**GT250** · 08-07-11, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by trash

They appear to have a rest mass "m(0)" of zero. So one might think they have no need to obey any cosmic speed limit. Yet they do just that.

Photons would appear to be a carrier of mass yet not possess it themselves.

They have mass only while they are in motion, and that motion appears to be constant.

So the theory is saying that a photon has zero mass at rest, so it's able to travel at the speed of light.

As from The Special Theory of Relativity; "One of the consequences of the theory is that it is impossible for any particle that has rest mass to be accelerated to the speed of light".

And we are talking of (in a vacuume).

Actually, i might have got this wrong. I was under the impression the 'object' gained weight, whereas it's mass that it gains...

So a photon has no mass (at rest). I thought that nothing was ever at rest.
Doesn't sound right to me.
Wasn't that part of the uncertainty principle?

Going off topic now. Guess there are many other brains out there everyday still nutting these things out

**loopyloo** · 08-07-11, 09:25 AM

[quote[ Light travels at different speeds depending on the media it’s travelling through, it’s called the refractive index. [/quote]
Don't confuse the velocity of light and "the speed of light"

I'm not.
Although the velocity is also affected by the medium.

Quote :
E = mc2. The speed at which light propagates through , such as glass or air, is less than c. The ratio between c and the speed v at which light travels in a material is called the n of the material (n = c / v). For example, for the refractive index of glass is typically around 1.5, meaning that light in glass travels at c / 1.5 ≈ 200,000 km/s; the for visible light is about 1.0003, so the speed of light in air is about 90 km/s slower than c.

**BrAdAsS** · 08-07-11, 01:07 PM

if it has energy it has mass.

**trash** · 08-07-11, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by GT250

Going off topic now. Guess there are many other brains out there everyday still nutting these things out

Nar, not really off topic at all. It's all related.

Yes, the uncertainty principle does come into it. Nothing is truely at rest, unless it's at absolute zero.

But when it comes to photons, it might actually pay to consider that they don't actually exist. They're more just an expression. Waves and particles are interchangeable. The properties of one function can't exist while the other does. Yet they both exist in the same instance. Each partially explains the observation of electromagnetic radiation.

But photons aren't just about light, radio or gamma rays. They're carriers of mass or was that force? We can look at the interaction of two particles and express their collision with the exchange of photons using a Feynman diagram.

So a photon is created and destroyed during the exchange, or collision of particles. Again, the photon never actually existed, but if we were to stop time and look at the collision frame by frame, we would see the photon with respect to each time frame.

It's not just photons, it's any particle or wave.
We can express a hydrogen atom in wave form.
We can express a neutron as a wave.
We can demonstrate the strong and weak nuclear forces as a wave or by the exchange of particles. Gluons and Neutrinos.

Now comes a real tricky one.
We can demonstrate how gravitation fields work in a number of ways and we can with those demonstrate how changes in the gravitations field can cause gravitational waves.
And as we know, where we have waves, we can also express them in the terms of particles. For terms of gravity, if either is possible, such a particle would be a graviton. Something even more bizarre than a photon, and there are already some really weird particles in the zoo.

**GT250** · 09-07-11, 07:42 PM

Got back in a few ticks ago...

Read your reply Trash, great stuff there to talk about,,, but don't have the time to put together a constructive reply at the moment.

Tomorrow...

**trash** · 09-07-11, 08:25 PM

Nar that's ok. I'm still scratching my head too.

It may be that there is something about photons that contributes to a grand unification theory.
How mass is bestowed upon it E^2 = p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4 and how this relates to gravity.

**Arbiter** · 09-07-11, 08:25 PM

OK, I'm going to stuff it all up.
Einstein's theory of relativity, in essence, means all things are related to all things.
Fair enough.
So if photons have an alleged "constrained" speed of roughly 186,000 miles per second, I have to ask: From what reference point is this speed measured as a comparison?
We exist (maybe) on a speck in a galaxy we call "The Milky Way" which is also travelling when compared to other galaxies.
At what speed is our galaxy travelling and what is this speed compared against?
What/where is the reference point?
Speed means nothing without a comparison or reference point.
e.g. I can pull 300 MPH+ in a Top Fuel dragster - but only when compared to my point of origin aka my start point (Christmas tree lights).
However, my Christmas tree lights are fixed to a surface (Earth) which may be traveling at 200 billion MPH when compared to say, another object in the galaxy - or beyond.
Therefore there is no fixed/maximum speed my dragster can achieve when compared in this manner - except to Earth and it's point of relative origin.
Same can be said for photons (aka light).
It all depends on the relationship to a specific point of origin reference point.
As far as "weight" is concerned: Are we measuring relative weight i.e. mass X speed?
If so, again, what is the reference point upon which the measurement is calibrated?

**porkop** · 09-07-11, 10:15 PM

The speed of light is relativie to the person observing the speed, hence the name relativity!

**trash** · 10-07-11, 01:41 AM

Originally Posted by porkop

the speed of light is relativie to the person observing the speed, hence the name relativity!

+1

**GT250** · 10-07-11, 08:10 AM

Ok.
Lets not let science get in the way of a good argument!

Trash, ya got me with the "But when it comes to photons, it might actually pay to consider that they don't actually exist. They're more just an expression. Waves and particles are interchangeable".

But if a photon has no mass at rest. One assume it has mass when not at rest.
So if it has mass how can it travel at the speed of light?

Second: If it is now "They're carriers of mass or was that force?". If a wave, then what hits the eye?
It's known (as far as the tools we have!), that the human eye can detect 1 (ONE), photon.
2a) If it has energy then it has to have mass, no?

And what about these Neutrinos - now found out that they have mass? The founding of all this quantum stuff was that the Neutrino was to have no mass...

Who said (might have been Feynman), "If you can explain Quantum Mechanics, then you don't understand Quantum Mechanics".

Was it the double slit experiment that demonstrates Partical and Wave? WILL HUNT FOR IT....
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc]YouTube - ‪Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment‬&rlm;[/ame]

I managed to hack into Trashes account! I found that out of the 2,507,903 views on that link 2,476,873 are from Trashes IP...