Can the Speed of Light be Exceeded?

Faster-than-the-speed-of-light

Reference: Speed of Light Essays

I can understand that velocity of light is a universal constant. I can see that from a constant “wavelength to period” ratio even when the frequency of light changes. But I do not understand why the relative velocity of light should also be constant and not exceed the velocity of light.

Isn’t that an assumption by Einstein? What is the logic underlying Einstein’s conclusion?

The Dutch astronomer De Sitter showed that the velocity of light does not depend on the velocity of the source of light. This is similar to the fact that the velocity of sound does not depend on the velocity of the source of sound.

Sound is a disturbance in a physical medium. Similarly, we may look at light as a disturbance in a physical medium. That physical medium is not aether, but space itself. Space has definite physical properties, such as, permittivity and permeability. The only difference is that space does not consist of mass. Instead space consists of a more fundamental substance called “field”.

When there is no sound, its medium of air may be considered to have a frequency of zero. Similarly, when there is no light (electromagnetic wave), the medium of space may be considered to have a frequency of zero. It is the postulate of Disturbance Theory that

Space is the theoretical state of electromagnetic field at zero frequency.

We cannot compare the velocity of the disturbance in a physical medium (sound) to the velocity of the physical medium (air) itself. This is like comparing apples to oranges. When a plane is moving at supersonic speed in air and sound is moving as a disturbance in air, that does not mean that air itself is moving at supersonic speed.

Air as a medium is flexible. That is how it allows sound wave to move through it. Similarly, space has to be flexible to allow light wave to move through it. We cannot assume space to be rigid, just like we cannot assume air to be rigid.

When a source of sound is moving relative to air, it only changes the frequency of sound and not the speed of sound. Similarly, when a source of light is moving relative to space, it only changes the frequency of light and not the speed of light.

What happens when the source of sound is moving at the speed of sound? The frequency of sound would increase until it collapses into rigidity because sound cannot advance any faster. The medium of air would appear inflexible and rigid to the source of sound. Similarly, when a source of light moves in space at the speed of light, the medium of space would appear inflexible and rigid to the source of light.

We recognize this rigid condition of space as the Euclidean space.

So, when we assume space to be totally rigid as Euclid does, it is as if we are looking at it relative to a source of light moving at the speed of light. However we don’t observe that directly. We only know that we become aware of objects when light reflects or scatters off them.

Could it be that high frequency electromagnetic waves collapse into mass that makes up the objects?

This conjecture is in line with the Disturbance Theory, but it is yet to be demonstrated.

.

This article establishes an uncanny parallel between sound and light waves. We know that the velocity of sound can be exceeded both in relative and actual sense. So, what made Einstein assert that the velocity of light could not be exceeded even in a relative sense?

To answer this question we look at Section V of Einstein’s Book “Relativity: The Special and General Theory”. In this section Einstein establishes the Principle of Relativity (in the restricted sense).

Einstein takes up the case where a railway carriage is undergoing uniform translation without rotation. Using this example Einstein shows that the mechanical laws hold good for uniform translatory motion of Galilean co-ordinate system. This co-ordinate system applies to bodies with mass changing their position in space with time. It is valid for Newtonian mechanics.

Einstein then makes the assumption that all natural laws shall hold good for uniform translatory motion of Galilean co-ordinate system. But the natural laws of electrodynamic and optics move beyond classical mechanics.

We know now that light is a disturbance in electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic field is more basic than mass and it is devoid of inertia. It is the concept of frequency that is more applicable to electromagnetic field than the concept of velocity because we cannot use the concept of rigid space for light. The Galilean co-ordinate system assumes space to be rigid.

Therefore, Einstein’s principle of relativity when restricted to uniform translatory motion of Galilean co-ordinate system, does not apply to light.

Therefore, the conclusion that the velocity of light cannot be exceeded, even relatively, comes under question.

The theory of relativity needs to be reviewed thoroughly because the assumption that Einstein made has now come under question.

.

January 9, 2016 – 4:40 PM Categories: Uncategorized | Comments (19)

Time in Theory of Relativity

st_equation_gps_f

There is really no conflict between the constant velocity of light, the principle of relativity and the theorem of the addition of velocities employed in classical mechanics.

The key discovery by Dutch Astronomer De Sitter was that the velocity of propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity of motion of the body emitting the light. That means the relative velocities among masses within the Mass Coordinate System (MCS) have no bearing on the velocity of light in the Field Coordinate System (FCS).

Velocity of light is constant in terms of “wavelength to period” ratio in FCS. So the concept of “frequency”, being a variable, is more useful in terms of relativity in FCS. On the other hand, the concept of “velocity” is more useful in terms of relativity in MCS.

Thus, light seems to form a uniform background in which objects move relative to one other. Light does not move relative to objects. Light takes time to reach an object in space according to the distance between that object and another object, which is the source of light.

Physical awareness of an object at a physical location takes place when light from the object reaches that physical location. This is local awareness which depends on the physical location. This local awareness determines TIME locally by establishing the order in which it perceives various objects or events.

Objective awareness in universal terms comes about by piecing together all local observation logically. This is what we know as scientific awareness. This scientific awareness determines time objectively by establishing order within the parts of the universe.

Explaining time in terms of local awareness, which is limited by finite “velocity of light”, simply offers a subjective view of time. Objective view of time comes from a scientific (logical) view that does not depend on the “velocity of light”.

The theory of relativity deals only with local (subjective) idea of time, and not with the universal (objective) idea of time.

Objective time is established by looking at sequences from a universal viewpoint. In a universal viewpoint one can logically visualize the whole universe at once.

When one looks at two light waves passing each other in opposite directions from a universal viewpoint, one shall find their relative velocity to be 2c.

.

January 7, 2016 – 10:07 AM Categories: Science | Post a comment

Einstein’s Unfinished Work

tumblr_m9mnbdc1LX1rqpa8po1_1280

I asked on Quora the following question, which led to an interesting exchange.

If two sound waves passed each other in opposite directions, would they be traveling at relatively twice the speed of sound for that medium?

 

Mathematically, this answer to this question should not change whether we talk about sound waves or light waves for the following reason.

The speed of a wave depends entirely on the property of the medium. As long as the properties of the medium do not change, the speed of the wave remains the same. This fact is observable for sound as well as for light. There was no question about the medium for sound as it is obviously understood to be material. However, in late 19th century, question arose about the medium of light because it could not be identified with any material.

But that question was settled when no material-based ether was found and electromagnetism (light) was established as a physical reality in its own right. Electromagnetic field demonstrably became a substance that was more basic than matter.

We may postulate space as electromagnetic field of zero frequency. This space breaks into electric and magnetic fields the moment it is disturbed. Thus it has definite physical properties in terms of permittivity and permeability. This makes space a physical medium. Light then travels as a disturbance in a physical medium.

Mathematically, light is a disturbance in a physical medium just like sound.

To repeat, the speed of a wave depends entirely on the property of the medium. Speed may be expressed as the ratio of “wave length to period”. This ratio shall then be constant regardless of the frequency of the wave. When we use uniform vibratory motion of frequency as the frame of reference we automatically satisfy the requirement of the principle of relativity.

We see space as rigid to account for the motion of matter in an”inertial” frame of reference. But space cannot be rigid when we consider the electromagnetic wave propagating through it. Therefore, for light we need  a “non-inertial” frame of reference that sees space as flexible.

The principle of relativity is not violated when we consider uniform translatory motion of material objects in an inertial frame of reference, and uniform vibratory motion of frequency waves in a non-inertial frame of reference.

Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity was intended to solve the erroneous view of Newtonian mechanics that space and time were absolute and independent. This view came under question when electromagnetic phenomenon was discovered. Einstein actually solved this problem by simply postulating that light travels at a constant speed, thus setting up a dependence between space and time.

Einstein’s postulate of constant “speed of light” implies that it must depend on certain physical properties. This confirms the view of space as a physical medium.

Space is rigid for matter but flexible for light. We cannot, therefore, use the same rigid frame of reference to compare the translatory motion of rigid objects with the vibratory motion of light. This means that,

Lorentz transformation, which assumes space to be rigid, cannot be used to determine transformation between space and time.

We need to determine the relationship between the inertial frame of reference applied to mass, and the non-inertial frame of reference applied to frequency.

This seems to be the work left unfinished by Einstein.

.

 

 

January 4, 2016 – 3:41 PM Categories: Science | Comments (2)

THE SCIENCE OF VIEWPOINT

iris scan security

  1. Einstein’s observer from the Theory of Relativity has inspired me to contemplate on a possible SCIENCE OF VIEWPOINT”.

  2. There are two kinds of viewpoints. The first kind is based on agreement (let’s call it A-Viewpoint); and the other kind is based on context (let’s call it C-viewpoint).

  3. A famous example of agreement-based viewpoint (A-viewpoint) is, “Earth is at the center of the universe.” During the 17th century many people agreed upon this idea such that it became “truth” to them even when there were no physical facts to support it. It was just a subjective belief. The Christian Church even put Galileo under house arrest till his death, because on the basis of physical observations he proclaimed otherwise. It took the Catholic Church 350 years to finally admit in 1992 that Galileo was right.

  4. The A-viewpoint simply looks for agreement with what it already believes. It just becomes more rigid with agreement. Thus it stays the way it is without changing.

  5. A ubiquitous example of context-based viewpoint (C-viewpoint) is a viewpoint that looks and thinks within the context of “self” only. It is guided by self-interest. Many people in today’s world look at everything in the narrow context of self. Today’s Church of Scientology heavily indoctrinates its parishioners into self-oriented beliefs and practices, and then tells them, “What is true for you is true.” It secures willing obedience of its followers this way.

  6. A C-viewpoint that is “self-centric” (as described in the above example) is limited by a belief that every person is a unique “soul” that continues to exist even after the body dies.

  7. The idea of “soul” is merely a subjective belief. By observations every person has unique feelings and ideas just like they have a unique body. These feelings and ideas disintegrate with the body upon death. Thus the idea of “soul” is an A-viewpoint.

  8. The A-viewpoint of “soul” brings about the “self-centric” C-viewpoint by acting as a “filter” through which one looks. Thus, we find that a C-viewpoint may be constrained by one or more A-viewpoints.

  9. A situation that is not resolving may be resolved simply by looking at it in a wider context. But to broaden a viewpoint, one may have to find and resolve many agreement-based viewpoints.

  10. A viewpoint becomes totally objective when it uses a context as wide as the whole universe. Any lesser context makes the viewpoint subjective to that degree (Ref: Viewpoint & Objectivity).

  11. Some of the limitations that make a viewpoint subjective are: Self-centric. human-centric, religion-centric, culture-centric, matter-centric, etc.

  12. When people attack an objective viewpoint, they are doing so from a narrow viewpoint. They may look at another’s objective observation as a subjective belief because they can’t examine it objectively.

  13. When a person is asking for “evidence” he is using an agreement-based system. He is using agreement as the criterion for “truth” because he can’t look objectively.

  14. Good logical sense depends on the broadening of a single viewpoint than on hundreds of narrow viewpoints agreeing with each other and using that agreement as “evidence”.

.

January 2, 2016 – 8:16 PM Categories: Uncategorized | Comments (9)

Speed of Light, Correct Interpretation

Reference: Speed of Light Essays

The following was provided as an answer to this question of Quora.

If everything in the universe expands n times (say 10) then will the velocity of light in vacuum change?

.

Let’s look at the history of this idea called “velocity of light.” The idea of velocity comes from the concept of observer that is attached to an inertial frame of reference. Einstein used this concept in describing his special theory of relativity. But then there was this discovery of inertia-less field.

Earlier ideas of “temperature field” and “flow field” relayed material conditions at various coördinate points. Scientists assumed that the electromagnetic field relayed material conditions of an invisible substance called aether. Therefore, when light was established to be an electromagnetic phenomenon, it was postulated that light traveled as a disturbance in this invisible material substance known as aether.

Experimental evidence backed by theoretical calculations from Maxwell equations made Einstein conclude that there was no such thing as material aether, and that electromagnetic field itself was a fundamental substance more basic than matter. Compared to the inertia of matter, the electromagnetic field was practically inertia-less.

Apparently, the idea of an observer attached to an inertial frame of reference never got updated for electromagnetic phenomenon. The idea of velocity cannot be applied to an inertia-less frame of reference required for electromagnetic field.

The constant “c” used for the “velocity of light” is, however, a valid constant. It is still required per the principle of relativity. Only it has to be interpreted differently in an inertia-less frame of reference. The constant “c” is now to be interpreted as the “wavelength to period” ratio that does not change throughout the frequency spectrum.

So, the answer to the above question is that “c” as wavelength to period ratio for the electromagnetic disturbance does not change with expansion of the universe because “c” is based on spatial and not material characteristics.

.

January 2, 2016 – 8:59 AM Categories: Science | Comments (1)