## Speed of Light (old)

Reference: Speed of Light Essays

The speed of light seems to be a property of space, but then space itself is not absolute. It appears that the constancy of speed of light is only a working assumption at the moment. This assumption may be improved in the future.

Here are some arguments:

(1) When we are moving in space we measure our velocity with respect to some fix coordinates of space. We then measure the velocity of another body with respect to the same fixed coordinates of space. These two objects, when they approach each other.with the same velocity, have a relative velocity of twice that value.

(2) When we measure the velocity of light it is always at a constant rate, regardless of how fast we move towards or away from a source of light. This means that light is not something that is moving with respect to some fixed coordinates of space. Light itself is a property of space, just as those fixed coordinates are.

(3) Thus, electromagnetic energy seems to be a phenomenon of space. Looking at the wave/particle properties being demonstrated by most things, particles may then be considered to be a phenomenon of space as well. Particles popping out of space and then disappearing back would then make sense. Mass being formed out of space would also make sense.

(4) In short, we may be looking at a phenomenon of which space, energy, and mass are simply different aspects. The transitions among space-energy-mass seem to be accounted by the aspect of time.

(5) Thus, space, energy, mass and time are all interrelated. The dimensions of space and time are not independent of energy and mass.

(6) Light energy is represented by a transverse wave having the properties of wavelength, period and frequency. Wavelength and period are defined by the dimensions of space and time respectively. Space and time are related to energy through the wave function.

(7) The characteristic of light is best described by its frequency. The frequency spectrum extends to all types of electromagnetic radiation. Using de Broglie’s hypothesis we may extend this spectrum to mass particles as well.

(8) The frequency of gamma rays appears at the upper end of the electromagnetic spectrum, and it is of the order of 10^19 (or 2^64.7) Hz. The de Broglie frequency of  220,000 eV electron moving at 0.9c is 2^65.4 Hz. NOTE: It is convenient to express frequency on a logarithmic scale as a power of 2, and prefix it with DL (disturbance level). On this logarithmic scale, the frequency of gamma ray and electron will appear at DL64.7 and DL65.4 respectively.

(9) We are making our observations of light from a frame of reference defined by earth. The frequency of visible light is at about DL49, whereas the de Broglie “frequency” associated with earth is at about DL182. These two frequency levels are so far apart that if there are any variations in the speed of light due to its frequency, it would be practically imperceptible in the frame of reference of earth.

(10) The wavelength and period of light may appear different in different frames of reference. The time-space-energy-mass phenomenon may best be described by frequency on the DL scale.

Hopefully these ideas provide a new basis from which to look at the phenomena of Space, Time, Energy and Mass.

.

• Chris Thompson  On December 11, 2014 at 6:30 PM

“The speed of light seems to be a property of space, but then space itself is not absolute.”

Yes! Space has not been addressed because of the asumption that nothing was there. But if we’ve learned anything at all, I believe we should not realize there is no such thing as nothing!

• vinaire  On December 11, 2014 at 7:06 PM

Argument in (5) seems to hold some key I have yet to discover. There is some mechanism through which frequency or energy generates inertia.

• Chris Thompson  On December 11, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Space is not simple. And Space-Time is the Mother of matter, energy, space, time, and All. Beyond this may be another mother but my feeble metaphors are outmatched by the questions to hand. For example, because there probably was a Big Bang, there arises the assumption that something came from nothing. This is an unnecessary and I believe an incorrect assumption on many levels. It assumes the Big Bang as a beginning of everything when our observation can only be that it may have been the beginning of this expanding universe. There is also an assumption that we know what is nothing with respect to space-time., etc.,

• vinaire  On December 11, 2014 at 7:19 PM

May be the key lies in frequency. When you combine space-time, one cannot simply say that frequency is the inverse of period, because the period is mixed up with the wave-length. The consideration of relativity makes it more complicated. I have to somehow work out the math here.

• vinaire  On December 12, 2014 at 6:49 AM

Big Bang may simply be a transition from non-awareness to awareness.

• vinaire  On December 11, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Speed has traditionally been used as a parameter because it is a function of space and time. A more accurate parameter will be something that is relativistically a function of “space-time.”

Since “wavelength-period” of light shall be in the dimension of space-time, its frequency cannot be described as a simple inverse of period. The frequency is more likely to be a function of “space-time.” It seems that, from relativistic viewpoint, frequency is a more appropriate parameter than speed.

So all the math for relativity needs to worked out with frequency as the key parameter rather than the questionable constant ‘c’. The speed of light ‘c’ is determined from earth as the frame of reference. This frame of reference is arbitrary.

On the logarithmic DL scale of frequency, earth appears at DL182. To me, a more appropriate frame of reference shall be DL0.

• vinaire  On December 11, 2014 at 9:03 PM

Interestingly, Newton referred to momentum as “quantity of motion.”

The motion (momentum) of photon is a function of its frequency, whereas, the motion (momentum) of matter is a function of its mass. Thus, it seems that mass is somehow related to the frequency through motion. This relationship needs to be worked out in relativistic terms.

• vinaire  On December 12, 2014 at 8:32 AM

In Lorentz transformation the observer is assumed to be a fixed point in space, where as, speed of light is assumed to be a property of space.

The observer as a fixed point may move relative to other fixed points in space, but it is still “fixed” relative to the properties of space. “Motion of fixed points” is insignificant relative to the proprties of space.

This is because the observer is being identified with “matter” such as earth. The de Broglie frequency of earth is 2^182 (DL182), From this reference frame the frequency of light is observed at DL50.

The motion at DL182 is mostly compressed into mass. Changes in motion at DL182 would be practically imperceptible from DL50 and vice versa.

Thus, from the reference frame of light, the “material observer” shall appear as practically fixed or frozen. And, from the reference frame of the “material observer,” light would appear to have an invariable velocity.
.

• vinaire  On December 12, 2014 at 8:52 AM

The wavelenths in the reference frames of the observer and light shall be in the ratio DL182 to DL50 = 2^182/2^50 = 2^132 (10^40).

If the awareness is tied to the wavelength, then to the observer 1 unit of space will appear magnified 10^40 times for light. Any small variations in the speed of light shall be imperceptible at the level of the observer.

On the other hand, from the reference frame of light, 1 unit of space will appear shrunk 10^40 times at the observer. Even large variations in the speed of observer shall be imperceptible. The observer shall appear as static from the perspective of light.
.

• vinaire  On December 12, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Science talks about observation but not awareness. One cannot observe without awareness. How does awareness play a part in observation?