Is there a speed of light?

[Da Blob]

Okay, I never took Physics, so this might be a dumb question. Is there really such a thing as the 'Speed of Light"? I mean we express the speed of light in terms of distance divided by time, yet the concept of speed implies acceleration and light does not accelerate, but time does - relative to velocity(?). Is not the speed of light expressed as a constant actually the upmost value of the relativity of time? So it should be called the speed of Time to be more accurate?

Not to mention we identify and categorize light based upon variations of the dimensions of frequency and amplitude, which implies the existence of an additional dimension to light and therefore an 'unaccounted for' variable in the calculation of "the speed of light"?

 

[Ashenstar]

I'm not going to answer your question.

Don't ever call your genuine sincere questions "dumb".

Seeking knowledge and truth is never "dumb".

Now that I am done scolding you, someone feel free to answer.

 

[flow]

The 'speed of light' is the essentially how fast light travels. It has nothing to do with time. Sound also has a speed.

 

[Kidege]

The speed of light in a vacuum is presently defined to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s (about 186,282 miles per second). (...) Light always travels at a constant speed, even between particles of a substance through which it is shining

.

 

[asdfasdfasdfsdf]

The 'speed of light' is the essentially how fast light travels. It has nothing to do with time. Sound also has a speed.

i think you missed his main point.
he was saying if speed traveled, shouldnt it have some type of acceleration?

 

[asdfasdfasdfsdf]

.

if it ALWAYS travels at a constant speed..
doesnt that mean that it was ALWAYS travelling?

 

[Agent Intellect]

The speed of light is usually measured in a vacuum (it goes slower when it has to propagate through something like an atmosphere with a refractive index of 1 (although that's still very close to light speed in a vacuum)). It's been calculated to be 186,282 miles per second, or 299,792,458 meters per second. This may not exactly be the speed of light (or more precisely electromagnetic radiation) but it's the highest speed a massless particle can move (as far as anyone knows, a photon is as close to a massless particle as we can measure).

There is no acceleration to light, because it's energy (no mass = no intertia) - it's impossible for mass to accelerate to the speed of light; it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate mass that much.

When light is emitted from it's source, it is moving at exactly the speed of light, ie the velocity of it's place of origin will not be factored into the speed of light - if you were moving at 99% the speed of light and shot a beam of light ahead of you, that beam of light would be going 186,282 miles per second away from your inertial frame of reference, and if someone happened to be watching this, it would be traveling away from you at 186,282 miles per second from their inertial frame of reference as well (it would be going the same speed to both observers - a basic tenet of special relativity).

Special relativity - and the speed of light - have been tested time and again (shouldn't be difficult to find the tests online) so the accuracy of these claims is quite ubiquitous. EDIT: found this if anyone is interested.

YouTube- Visualization of Einstein's special relativity

 

[fullerene]

Speed doesn't imply acceleration any more than position implies having a speed. Acceleration is a change in speed, while speed is a change in position. If you've had calculus, acceleration is the derivative of speed. If the derivative of a function is always 0, then the function can be either 0 or a constant. Likewise with acceleration and speed.

Talking about the difference between space and time, when discussing light, is virtually meaningless. Newtonian mechanics (the stuff you think of every day) is basically "mechanics where the speed of light is infinite and plank's constant is 0." When you talk about light's speed, you automatically put yourself in Einstein's universe, where space and time are inseparable. There, the speed of light isn't simply the rate at which light travels, but it's seen as a natural conversion factor for the universe. If you ever want to know how many meters are in a second, the answer is (as best as we can tell) 299,792,458 of them. This conversion factor is used to convert between mass (units of kg), momentum (kg*m/s), and energy (units = kg*(m^2)/(s^2)). This is where Einstein's famous equation came from, E = m*c^2. The speed of light converts between quantities that people thought before were completely different.


Finally, the frequency/amplitude has nothing to do with "where" light travels... though I can completely see how it would look like that. When scientists talk about a frequency or amplitude of light, they are not talking about a "wave-path" that light travels along. The best way I can think to explain it is to say that while you're thinking of a wave of water, which goes physically higher and lower, you should be thinking of it like a slinky, if you spread it out really far, then compress one end of it, and let it loose. The "compressed" part will travel forward until it hits the other end, then reflect back at you, and otherwise do everything that the "normal" type of wave does, except that it doesn't travel any more distance than straight along the slinky itself. Light is made by a propagating electric field, just like the slinky-wave is made by a propagating "dense slinky section". The wave-like graph is not plotting the photon's position as a function of time, but it's plotting the strength of the electric field as a function of time. Just like the dense-slinky-section is closely followed by a sparse-slinky-section (because the total amount of slinky is constant), the high positive electric fields are closely followed by high-negative ones. Fire off many light pulses in a row, and you eventually have yourself a full wave.

Likewise, the frequency of light is not just dependent on its speed. That's pretty counter-intuitive, because frequency could basically be defined by "ok, I'm looking straight ahead at a really narrow sliver of this passing light wave. Every time a point of highest-electric field passes, I'm going to click my counter here. The frequency is going to be the number of highest points that pass by in a second."

Everyone's first instinct is to think "well, clearly, the faster light is going, the more bumps you're going to see, and so the frequency will be higher..." but that's only one part of the equation (literally). The other way that it can happen is that the points of highest electric field follow each other much closer together. If two waves are moving the same speed, and the distance between "crests" is shorter than the other, then you will count more crests in that wave than the other.

The claim is that light always travels at the same constant speed, but the distance from one high-electric-field point to the nearest one (if you could take a freeze-frame of the light) can be varying lengths.


Hope that helps.

 

[del]

It actuallly pops out of Maxwell's equations as a constant.

c = 1 / Sqrt(με)

where c = speed of light, μ = magnetic permeability of free space, and ε = electric permittivity of free space.

 

[Da Blob]

Okay two more questions then.

If the speed of light is a valid concept even though it is a constant, what is the uppermost value of the relativity of time. Time varies, it is a variable than can be used in Calculations. In fact E = mc squared can be express as E/m = (d x t) squared where t is the variable that determines the E/m ratio when d = 1....(?)

Electric field without electrons (?) I thought the neutron had the smallest possible electrical charge(?) what are the poles of such a field and what is it that is circulated within the field in a continual manner?

 

[Toad]

LoL are u doing homework?

 

[Da Blob]

LoL are u doing homework?

No, I have just had the idea in my head that since light is constant and a barrier to interstellar travel, that such travel would have to address the concept of the speed of time. It seems from my perspective that time fields are interlaced with the electro-magnetic fields of celestial bodies and the 'portal' out of this solar system would be via the poles of the sun through the manipulation of the variable of Time...

However, that train of thought has been derailed by the thought that those who state with some certainty that they are observing the creation of the universe by observing very,very long, very,very thin fields of energy that have existed since the beginning of time and have traveled trillions of miles in complete and utter vacuum the entire space and time without the remotest possibility that there is an unknown or unknowable variable that effected that field in all that time and/or space. That the big bang occurred in a completely and utterly static environment that has not varied in the slightest since day one...

And I am the one who gets laughed at for having faith and belief...

 

[fullerene]

blob is soooo much too old for homework, toad, lol.

so... first, E/m = (d/t)^2, not (d x t)^2. As to which time determines the E/m ratio if d=1, that's what I mean by calling c a "natural conversion factor." It's determined, like all natural constants, by running experiments and seeing how fast the light actually travels. The analogy would be to hypothesize "I think the force of gravity is proportional to mM/(r^2), where m and M are the masses of the objects, and r is the distance between them." There's no way, without experiment, to find out which constant converts between the two. So scientists run the experiments, find which value gives the proper result, and say "the constant is [whatever], so let's call that G." Then they vary the masses, vary the distances, find that the same value of G always predicts the force, and it becomes a scientific law.

The same could sort of be said for the speed of light. The theory is that light always travels at the same rate. So they set up a distance, pull out stopwatches, and run the experiment. Lo and behold, we find that light always does travel at that speed, and its speed is the proper conversion between mass and Energy. So to answer your question "which time fills out that equation?" the answer is "whatever time it takes for light to travel the given distance."

Electric field without electrons (?) I thought the neutron had the smallest possible electrical charge(?)

strange, eh? Er... well, it's actually the electron that had the smallest possible electrical charge. Neutrons have none. That's a bit of a lie, though, because the quarks that make up protons, neutrons, and electrons have smaller charges yet (down to 1/3 the charge of the electron). For virtually any practical purpose, though, the charge of the electron is the smallest charge you'll ever find.

But no. While electrons are needed to produce electric charge, they are not needed to produce electric fields. Electric charge is only one thing that produces and electric field... although it is the one that gets all the publicity, for sure, because it's easier to understand. The other thing that creates a changing electric field is a changing magnetic one.

So for instance, if you move a magnet around, you're actually creating an electric field, since the strength of the field in space around the magnet is changing. The faster the magnetic field moves, the greater the strength of the electric field is produced.

The real kicker is that changing electric fields also create magnetic fields. So when you move a magnet, you're actually creating a (temporary) electric field, which then creates a magnetic field as it dies, which then creates an electric field as it dies, etc.

The only reason that this is not an infinite chain is because the magnitude of the induced field is tiny compared to the magnitude of the original--in most cases. Maxwell's equations (which del mentioned) are the four fundamental ones describing how electricity and magnetism work. They're the "F=ma" for E&M classes... but they don't usually get talked about 'til college just because the math is nasty. It turns out, though, that the only way that the electric/magnetic chain (where one causes the next, which causes the first, etc) is if the chain as a whole is moving very, very fast. Otherwise, you get hit with diminishing effects and both fields die out. In the end, the speed of light is the only speed able to produce a self-sustaining electromagnetic wave. So... yeah. Electric field, but no electrons.

For the other questions:

Electric fields don't have poles. Magnetic ones do. This can be seen in the standard, electron-based electric field too. A single negative charge, in free space and surrounded by nothing, causes an electric field that terminates nowhere. In the equations, we say "it terminates at infinity distance away", but "infinity away" isn't exactly a "real" place. It just gets steadily weaker as you go away from the electron.

I have no idea what you mean by "what is it that is circulated within the field in a continual manner?"

 

[Agent Intellect]

If the speed of light is a valid concept even though it is a constant, what is the uppermost value of the relativity of time. Time varies, it is a variable than can be used in Calculations. In fact E = mc squared can be express as E/m = (d x t) squared where t is the variable that determines the E/m ratio when d = 1....(?)

Time is constant from ones inertial frame of reference, because from your inertial frame of reference, you are always sitting still (in space), which means the rest of the world is moving around you. Your speed through spacetime is always 186,282 miles per second from any inertial frame of reference (the property of invariance), so that means if you are moving through space, even though you are not the one moving from your frame of reference, your speed through time must slow down in order to move through space.

If "s" is constant (invariant), then s^2 = (ct)^2 - x^2, where "t" is time, "c" is speed of light, and "x" is speed through space; from your frame of reference, only time is passing, so s = ct, where t = 2 hours (arbitrary time) because the distance measured by you would be x = 0. But from the frame of reference of someone else, let's say you traveled in a car at v = 100 miles per hour (easy number to use) the other person would say that you traveled a distance of X = vT (capital letters for the other person). According to the observer, you traveled a spacetime distance "s" given by s^2 = (cT)^2 - (vT)^2.

Both you and the observer must agree on the spacetime distance traveled (you say you traveled x = 0 and t = 2 hours, while he says you traveled vT = 100 mph at some time T). this would mean that T for the observer would have to be higher in order for s^2 = (ct)^2 to equal s^2 = (cT)^ - (vT)^2. T would be equal to ct / sqt(c^2 - v^2); so although to you your car drive lasted 2 hours, according to the observer your ride lasted a little longer, with the enhancement factor being equal to c / sgt(c^2 - v^2) = 1 / sqt(1-v^2/c^2).

Electric field without electrons (?) I thought the neutron had the smallest possible electrical charge(?) what are the poles of such a field and what is it that is circulated within the field in a continual manner?

A neutron has no net charge, having 1 up quark and 2 down quarks, with the up quark having a positive charge of 2/3 and a down quark having a charge of -1/3. An electrice field does not require electrons (which are leptons) but uses "packets" called bosons, with electromagnetism being communicated using photons.

 

[Toad]

And I am the one who gets laughed at for having faith and belief...

Who laughs at you? I never laughed at you. I have however lost respect for you. Don't try turning a question about science into a debate about beliefs. You shouldn't try to trick people into wasting their time answering your OP when you have underlying motives for asking. Be honest and straightforward about what you are trying to point out.

 

[fullerene]

Don't feel too bad. I wasn't tricked into answering. Everyone knows blob doesn't respect science very much. Some of it's justified doubt, and a lot just ignorance, but explaining how things are can't really hurt anything, and will at least push it away from ignorance and into justified doubt.

Plus, anyone else who was wondering may come across this thread too.

 

[Kidege]

Plus, anyone else who was wondering may come across this thread too.

*nods*

That was nice of you and AI. I got the speed of light drilled into my head in school, but the part about quarks and Maxwell's ecuations not so much, and they were interesting.

 

[Toad]

Ok, so I read in a paper a couple months back that they have proved gravity is faster than the speed of light. Don't ask me how they found that out. Some math guys proved it. So my theory is: because gravity is faster than light and anything that goes faster than light affects time, anything that is affected by gravity therefore moves forward in time. So because there is less gravity on the moon...theoretically we would age slower...or faster? Haha...I came up with that idea while I was dreaming. Figured it was kind of relevant to this thread...if not, I'm sorry

 

[fullerene]

yeah... Maxwell's equations really take 3D calc to make any sense of, so they're not discussed at all really unless you're a physics major. You can use them in very specialized cases with algebra, but they're the sort of equations that make you go "wtf? Why would this work?"

That is one of the really unfortunate consequences of the way science is taught. In an effort to make classes more interesting/relevant/whatever to kids, all the hard math and the scenarios with indirect arguments for what's going on are simply not taught. Then you get a year or two older, your math education catches up so that they can go into more interesting problems, and professors say "I know we told you things worked like [this] last year, but really a lot of systems break those rules. When scientists ran these experiments years ago, they got [these nonsensical results], which confused them for a long time. But it's ok, because this guy came along and said that [this more mathematically complicated model, which reduces to the old equations when proper assumptions are made] is what's really going on, and it makes sense of [these nonsensical results]." Rinse and repeat, year after year.

I definitely don't think it's done on purpose. Most likely teachers just don't want to confuse students, try to make their classes interesting, and don't want to appear like they don't know the answers... but it's an unfortunate consequence that anyone who stops taking science classes "early" will leave them thinking that scientists really know what they're talking about, and have all the answers--unless they're bright enough to fit pieces together, or have the fortune of experiencing things that don't gel with the things they're taught, or whatever.

Quarks I still can't really talk about at all. I know basically what AI said and no more--that many combinations of 3 different quarks make up all the larger particles, that they have charge of +/- 1/3 or 2/3, and that you never see one quark alone. I also know that the force trying to draw the quarks together increases linearly with distance (so they're only found close together). Why scientists think that things such as individual quarks exist is still several years beyond me, though, and I don't think I'll be in school long enough to find out much about it.

 

[Da Blob]

I'm sorry, I am genuinely curious about such things. However, I do get dismayed when people do not separate theory from fact. I mean everything stated above was stated as if there where no theoretical aspects to anything talked about, it is all 100% proven scientific fact?

I just feel sad that so many people think we know everything of importance about the universe we live in. We know how everything was created (?) so we know the future does not offer any real hope. There are no great mysteries, nothing of real interest, except maybe a few little details to clarify, before we declare our species to be omniscient, for all practical purposes.

Alas, after all, how can hope exists for a bunch of randomly assembled chemicals whose only 'purpose' is to reproduce the pattern of molecules in its genome?

Bleh!

EDIT: you know there really is not any need for 'Pure" Scientists anymore. Everything has been explained according to their own standards, except for a few minor details. It seems like a waste of time and effort to continue to fund such. We tend to switch funding to Applied Science, Engineering and Technology...

 

[Latro]

yeah... Maxwell's equations really take 3D calc to make any sense of, so they're not discussed at all really unless you're a physics major. You can use them in very specialized cases with algebra, but they're the sort of equations that make you go "wtf? Why would this work?"

That is one of the really unfortunate consequences of the way science is taught. In an effort to make classes more interesting/relevant/whatever to kids, all the hard math and the scenarios with indirect arguments for what's going on are simply not taught. Then you get a year or two older, your math education catches up so that they can go into more interesting problems, and professors say "I know we told you things worked like [this] last year, but really a lot of systems break those rules. When scientists ran these experiments years ago, they got [these nonsensical results], which confused them for a long time. But it's ok, because this guy came along and said that [this more mathematically complicated model, which reduces to the old equations when proper assumptions are made] is what's really going on, and it makes sense of [these nonsensical results]." Rinse and repeat, year after year.

I definitely don't think it's done on purpose. Most likely teachers just don't want to confuse students, try to make their classes interesting, and don't want to appear like they don't know the answers... but it's an unfortunate consequence that anyone who stops taking science classes "early" will leave them thinking that scientists really know what they're talking about, and have all the answers--unless they're bright enough to fit pieces together, or have the fortune of experiencing things that don't gel with the things they're taught, or whatever.

Quarks I still can't really talk about at all. I know basically what AI said and no more--that many combinations of 3 different quarks make up all the larger particles, that they have charge of +/- 1/3 or 2/3, and that you never see one quark alone. I also know that the force trying to draw the quarks together increases linearly with distance (so they're only found close together). Why scientists think that things such as individual quarks exist is still several years beyond me, though, and I don't think I'll be in school long enough to find out much about it.

This is how my mechanics class is working right now. It's pretty funny, actually. We got to the chapter on Newton's Laws, the professor established that we were going to be using these for the rest of the semester, and then flat out said that these have been thoroughly tested like all physics situations and have been thoroughly proven to be wrong. He then went into a little bit about how physicists are practical people and how Newtonian physics is easily a good enough approximation of everyday life.

But yeah, I'm seeing that when I get to physical chemistry (I'm a chemistry major, not a physics major) there is going to be an "everything you know is wrong" moment from a guy that is taking it right now. "A substance has a specific heat capacity"? No it doesn't. It has a function that models its specific heat capacity as temperature varies. Things like that.

 

[fullerene]

Actually... to be fair, everyone who pushes far enough into physics is filled with wonder for the universe. Time and time again, every scientist who's said something along the lines of "things are pretty much all figured out" has been burnt. Badly. My favorite is... sigh... I can't even remember enough of the quote to find it on google, but something about how "we pretty much understand how the world works, in it's entirety, once we run some great experiment in the aether and some other little detail"--which turned out to be fundamental observations leading to Special Relativity (the thing AI's video described) and Quantum Mechanics.

There are tons of things where scientists don't really know what's going on... especially on the particle end of things. It's really generally the people who don't know much about science (the ones who took only high school classes, or intro college ones, from my last post) who think of it as if there were only a few minor details to be worked out.

Oh. And biologists. They're like that too . I think that the mindset you describe hardly exists in physics, though, above a certain level.

 

[fullerene]

This is how my mechanics class is working right now. It's pretty funny, actually. We got to the chapter on Newton's Laws, the professor established that we were going to be using these for the rest of the semester, and then flat out said that these have been thoroughly tested like all physics situations and have been thoroughly proven to be wrong. He then went into a little bit about how physicists are practical people and how Newtonian physics is easily a good enough approximation of everyday life.

yeah, lol. Actually... this is about half of what I was talking about. He's good in the way that he's realistic about their scope--and I think that's been catching on recently, as physicists realize that they need to be up front with people about everything (they're pretty honest, on the whole). The interesting thing is that he still portrays Newton's laws as if they were used to calculate things in everyday life. I'm in my upper-class mechanics course this semester, and we just had our test on Lagrangian Mechanics.

They're mathematically equivalent to (and only valid for) the same situations as Newton's laws, require much nastier math to solve, but are far more viable to use in most complicated situations. Or at least, they very easily put things in terms of differential equations for you.... solving them is, of course, always a bitch.

It's the same sort of thing, though. "Newton's laws are always false... but a pretty good approximation for every day life" masks the fact that there are still better ways to get the same approximations out there.

 

[Madoness]

I just feel sad that so many people think we know everything of importance about the universe we live in. We know how everything was created (?) so we know the future does not offer any real hope. There are no great mysteries, nothing of real interest, except maybe a few little details to clarify, before we declare our species to be omniscient, for all practical purposes.

Where in the Hell do you get this idea from? There is no end stop when it would be declared we know everything, the one who does must not really understand how science works in principle.

Alas, after all, how can hope exists for a bunch of randomly assembled chemicals whose only 'purpose' is to reproduce the pattern of molecules in its genome?

Bleh!

Do not put emotions in your understanding of the world. (Just because I may find gravitational pull towards earth not so much amusing when, (lets say) drunk. My emotions about it have no point as gravitation is emotionless, it is I, who puts my subjective emotions to it but, it would invalid to make assumptions based on my feelings on the subject.)

EDIT: you know there really is not any need for 'Pure" Scientists anymore. Everything has been explained according to their own standards, except for a few minor details. It seems like a waste of time and effort to continue to fund such. We tend to switch funding to Applied Science, Engineering and Technology...

Close down CERN as it is dealing with fundamental science, if all is explained, there would be no use of it.

 

[morricone]

I'm sorry, I am genuinely curious about such things. However, I do get dismayed when people do not separate theory from fact. I mean everything stated above was stated as if there where no theoretical aspects to anything talked about, it is all 100% proven scientific fact?

You should recognize that there is no such thing as 100% proven scientific fact.
Everything scientists do is observe, try to find patterns and create theories which explain the things they saw. And as soon someone observes something which doesn't fit into the old theory, a new one has to be found. Which is actually happening right now, with people trying to fit Quantum Mechanics and the Relativity Theory into one theory.

So if we talk about a scientific theory it just means we still haven't found anything which contradicts it.

 

[Da Blob]

Where in the Hell do you get this idea from? There is no end stop when it would be declared we know everything, the one who does must not really understand how science works in principle.

According to the textbooks on the subject 'real' "science works in principle" by the manipulation of a single variable in a controlled environment, anything else is speculation 'validated' by the adjective, scientific.
However, what great mysteries are there left to solve? According to those to the 'Evolutionary' POV, there is a timeline established by science from the beginning of time until the present day. They explain everything that has happened in the universe in their own 'scientific' terms, so what is left to investigate, they have left no gaps?


Do not put emotions in your understanding of the world. (Just because I may find gravitational pull towards earth not so much amusing when, (lets say) drunk. My emotions about it have no point as gravitation is emotionless, it is I, who puts my subjective emotions to it but, it would invalid to make assumptions based on my feelings on the subject.)

I did not mean to make an emotional appeal, I thought I was making an observation. Here we are, as a species, currently destroying one of the four planets in our galaxy that supports life. There is no possibility of traveling to one of these other planets to start anew. We are, for all practical purposes alone in our galaxy, according to all 'scientific' observations. We are according to some, not unique at all, just a species of primates that share 97% of our genes with chimpanzees. So we are 97% Chimp and only 3% something else. The majority of that 3% difference is due to differences in our physical appearance. The only purpose we have, according to this evolutionary POV, is to replicate our genome to fuel the engine of evolution of chemicals.

Where is the Hope in that?

Close down CERN as it is dealing with fundamental science, if all is explained, there would be no use of it.

Exactly!
What is the value of CERN if all it does is verify some minor detail about all the established scientific facts? Again the premise is that Evolution has explained everything is embraced by virtually every scientist, They just continue their current pursuits as an expensive hobby to find out about some minor details. They, themselves, do not expect to make any really significant discovery about reality, reality has been explained by evolution... There are no Great Mysteries left to solve...

If there are I would be very, very, interested in obtaining a list of such mysteries....

.

 

[Cogwulf]

Going back to the OP, the best way to answer your questions is explain what we think light actually is.
Photons of light are the smallest units of energy that can exist. They have essentially no mass which causes equations using acceleration to break down, and is also the reason why nothing else can travel as fast as light as when you do the maths, nothing with mass can logically travel faster than something with no mass. The speed of light is a fundamental property of the universe, how this came about I don't know and I don't think even the worlds best physicists know.
Light has properties of both particles and waves, this causes further odd effects, amplitude isn't really used when talking about light, as it's impossible to have two photons with the same wavelength but different energy levels.

Gravity acts possibly instantaneously across distance, but this is probably because gravity doesn't operate in our dimensions. Gravity in the traditional sense is expressed as a unit of acceleration, so traditional gravity is not a force, it is the effect of another force which we have not been able to observe directly

 

[morricone]

If there are I would be very, very, interested in obtaining a list of such mysteries....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics

They, themselves, do not expect to make any really significant discovery about reality

Please, don't speak for others. At least quote them.

 

[fullerene]

They, themselves, do not expect to make any really significant discovery about reality, reality has been explained by evolution... There are no Great Mysteries left to solve...

If there are I would be very, very, interested in obtaining a list of such mysteries....

This is... so incredibly wrong, I can hardly believe I'm hearing it. I've heard high-energy particle physicists say, before, that they both expect and hope that CERN does not find the Higgs Boson, but instead churns out data that nobody could have possibly expected. This sentiment came from a Professor Briere, who spoke as if the whole field of high energy particle physicists held the same sentiment--that they would rather find nothing at all than the new particles that they had predicted, simply because it would give them something else to try to explain (although, he admitted, it's hard to go to the government and funding agencies and get them to understand "can we have another many-millions of dollars for research? We didn't find anything! This is incredible!")


You would probably know the psychological causes for this better than I, blob, but it sounds a bit like you've made a conceptual enemy out of an unknown (to you) field, for one reason or another. I dunno why that would happen, but your mind might be a lot less troubled if you investigated these things more fully for yourself.

 

[Da Blob]

Thanks everyone for the positive responses above. I have, seemingly, not been able to communicate my attitude towards science effectively. I love science and I always have.

It is that I just get so sick of hypocrisy. In my mind, people who are pretending to be scientists are exactly the same kind of person that pretends to be a Christian.
I do not how many times, I have attempted to address the issue of pseudo-science being generated and used for the purposes of propaganda - seemingly not often enough.

Thanks for the list!

 

[Anthile]

There is a voice in my head that tells me that the course this thread took was intended...

 

[Da Blob]

There is a voice in my head that tells me that the course this thread took was intended...

Alas, I have perhaps earned the reputation of a dimwitted fool with obsolete opinions.

However, I try to limit my discussions to God and philosophy to the sub-forum that is intended for such. An objective person might observe that when I do address an issue in a different sub-forum, such as Psychology I am, surprisingly, pretty much able to stick to the topic of that sub-forum

However, since you brought the topic up. How do others discriminate 'pure' and 'true' science, from "science, falsely called so" ?

I think I have been rather redundant in stating my definition. That if it is not the product of an application of the scientific method or the product of engineering then it is not science...

What are the alternative definitions, then, if I am so mistaken in this?

 

[Agent Intellect]

I saw it coming... it's why I posted this.

EDIT: here is another one. And this
and this
and this
and this

 

[morricone]

However, since you brought the topic up. How do others discriminate 'pure' and 'true' science, from "science, falsely called so" ?

I think I have been rather redundant in stating my definition. That if it is not the product of an application of the scientific method or the product of engineering then it is not science...

What are the alternative definitions, then, if I am so mistaken in this?

I agree with you. Everything not based on the scientific method does not deserve to be called science.

I fail to see your problem. Can you elaborate on that point?

 

[Kidege]

I fail to see your problem. Can you elaborate on that point?

You're going to regret this. When you do, come over to the zombie thread.

 

[Da Blob]

I saw it coming... it's why I posted this.

EDIT: here is another one. And this
and this
and this
and this

Thanks, this time I did read the links... However, I have no real problems with relativity and if I am not mistaken there have been several devices that have been engineered based on Einstein's work. So this example, fits within my own definition of science(?)

 

[Da Blob]

I agree with you. Everything not based on the scientific method does not deserve to be called science.

I fail to see your problem. Can you elaborate on that point?

Well, my disdain for pseudo-science originates from my education in psychology. It seems to be a particular desire on the parts of some of those involved in the Humanities, to seek the exalted status of being considered 'Scientists". I am referring to the 'soft' sciences, (as if there could be such a thing) of Sociology and Psychology.

Generally these two philosophical schools of thought employ an unethical use of statistics (re: self-reports etc) as the justification for considering both to be sciences, simply because until very recently there have not actually been any appropriate tools to investigate that which is the focus of these disciplines, the individual human's behavior and groups of humans.

It is this pretense on the part of academicians in the humanities that fuels my ire, and spills over a bit into my attitude about some contemporary issues in the real sciences (hard science). There are just to many political activists that are getting degrees in the soft sciences to disguise their political agendas - this is being tolerated if not encouraged by the high priests of the Ivory Towers in America... I do not know about the rest of the world. American Psychology has long been dominated by the internal politics of the APA organization and I have found most really interesting work in Psychology does not come from 'researchers' in the US...

I hope that helps explain my 'hostile' attitude towards pseudo- science a bit

 

[lightspeed]

Speed of light in different units
metres per second 299,792,458 (exact)
kilometres per second ≈ 300 thousand
kilometres per hour ≈ 1,079 million
miles per second ≈ 186 thousand
miles per hour ≈ 671 million
astronomical units per day 173.144632674(3)
natural units 1
Approximate length of time for light to travel:
One foot 1.0 nanoseconds
One metre 3.3 nanoseconds
One kilometre 3.3 microseconds
One mile 5.4 microseconds
To Earth from geostationary orbit 0.12 seconds
The length of Earth's equator 0.13 seconds
To Earth from the Moon 1.3 seconds
To Earth from the Sun 8.3 minutes
To Earth from Alpha Centauri 4.4 years
Across the Milky Way 100,000 years
To Earth from the Andromeda Galaxy 2,500,000 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

 

[morricone]

...

That's exactly the reason why at first I didn't like MBTI at all. And only through thorough analysis on my own I acknowledge (most of) it.

I do not know about the rest of the world.

I'd say at least in Germany the real science pretty much dominates.

I hope that helps explain my 'hostile' attitude towards pseudo- science a bit

Absolutely, but it also seems that you are 'hostile' towards real science like the LHC.

I'm afraid I'm hijacking this thread, but I'd like to add the following to the discussion about faith and science:

Physics can only ever explain what happens, but never why. Those questions a physicist can never answer.

 

[Aiss]

I think part of the problem in this discussion is that the statement "we know everything but a few minor details" is a kind of pseudo-science in itself, so saying this and claiming to hate pseudo-science has self-abusing implications...

Physics can only ever explain what happens, but never why. Those questions a physicist can never answer.

So true. When I realized it it became clear why I was never any good at it - I didn't understand why, but when I asked I only got a repetition of how, and then was told off for being dumb. Although I still find physics interesting, just not in the way I prefer.

 

[Latro]

Physics can only ever explain what happens, but never why. Those questions a physicist can never answer.

As far as I know this isn't QUITE right. It can explain why things happen in terms of how smaller things happen. In terms of formal logic, if you took the small phenomena and took them as axioms, you could demonstrate why large phenomena occur based on those axioms. You would probably not succeed at showing why the small phenomena occur, but you could show how they occur.

Then again arguably the distinction between these small and large phenomena is meaningless in terms of epistemology, but as a practical matter it certainly isn't.

 

[walfin]

The best way I can think to explain it is to say that while you're thinking of a wave of water, which goes physically higher and lower, you should be thinking of it like a slinky, if you spread it out really far, then compress one end of it, and let it loose. The "compressed" part will travel forward until it hits the other end, then reflect back at you, and otherwise do everything that the "normal" type of wave does, except that it doesn't travel any more distance than straight along the slinky itself.

Just a quick correction - this is wrong. Light is a transverse wave, not a longitudinal wave. It does go up and down (when you think of it as a wave), but it is not the photons that exhibit wave motion; it's the electric and magnetic fields that do. You can look at light as a wave or a particle but not as both at the same time (at least AFAIK nobody knows how to do that given current scientific knowledge).

It may be hard to understand as it is impossible to "see" light move (common sense should tell you why).

Cryptonia's description is of how sound travels.

It's determined, like all natural constants, by running experiments and seeing how fast the light actually travels.

I think it was measured by treating light as a wave and measuring the wavelength instead, think wiki says that too (I think it could be measured by using something that detects light like LDRs as well but that would probably be inaccurate because of electronic lag time, since electrons move slower, I believe).

Not that I think you don't understand but your explanations might be misleading.

The speed of light does change, by the way, because of refraction. Which means that measuring the speed of light on earth is inaccurate except in a vacuum chamber.

The ironic thing is that the metre is now defined by the speed of light, which means that the speed of light in a vacuum can't change, but the distance from my house to yours can

But you can probably glean all of that from Agent Intellect's articles.

 

[fullerene]

Not that I think you don't understand but your explanations might be misleading.

nope, lol. I said what I meant. Thanks for leaving me a way out, but if my explanations were wrong, then I really don't understand .

Although, the bit about how light's speed was measured is iffy, because the experiment has been done many times. The first time it was done, someone (forget who) shined light at a mirror really far away, sending it through a rotating wheel with a tunnel through it, and set the frequency of the wheel so that it rotated a half-turn between the light's outbound and inbound trip.

I think you're right, though. The speed of light in a vacuum isn't measured. Obviously it can't be, because perfect vacuums are hard to come by...


I did look it up a bit, and found that you're also right that light is a transverse wave. That I really didn't know, as all the diagrams that I've seen just measured electric field intensity as a function of either distance or time. How strange... but I suppose that's (one of the reasons) why we can't treat light as both particle and wave at the same time That makes considerably less sense to me.


As for light moving different speeds through materials, I don't think that's strictly true. I'm going by high school information now, though, lol, so it might just be faulty. Anyway, I'd heard that light always does travel the exact same speed as speed of light in a vacuum (which makes sense, otherwise, like I said, the electromagnetic field wouldn't be self-sustaining unless it traveled at that speed), but when traveling through materials it interacts with the atoms and things causing it to pause, while it does things like excite nearby electrons, before starting to travel again. The "different speeds" were only different because of the average time of those many interactions, but the light itself traveled at the same speed between those atoms. Like I said, though: high school teacher.

Thanks for the corrections, though . I learned some things

 

[Agent Intellect]

As for light moving different speeds through materials, I don't think that's strictly true. I'm going by high school information now, though, lol, so it might just be faulty. Anyway, I'd heard that light always does travel the exact same speed as speed of light in a vacuum (which makes sense, otherwise, like I said, the electromagnetic field wouldn't be self-sustaining unless it traveled at that speed), but when traveling through materials it interacts with the atoms and things causing it to pause, while it does things like excite nearby electrons, before starting to travel again. The "different speeds" were only different because of the average time of those many interactions, but the light itself traveled at the same speed between those atoms. Like I said, though: high school teacher.

I've heard that, too. Because of light scattering, it's calculated that it takes an average of 6000 years for light to get from the core of the sun to the surface - so the light we are seeing from the sun was generated around the time young earth creationists think the world was created.

 

[walfin]

How strange... but I suppose that's (one of the reasons) why we can't treat light as both particle and wave at the same time That makes considerably less sense to me.

I used to think the photon created the wave in the electromagnetic field as it moved, but that somehow didn't make sense as well because as far as all my teachers told me the photon is the wave just as an electron is a wave as well (which also didn't make sense but was one of the things that made me think that the trinity in Christianity makes sense).

I've just realised, too, that the photon is the electromagnetic force carrier, not the electron. Perhaps one day we'll have photon chips in computers?

I've heard that, too. Because of light scattering, it's calculated that it takes an average of 6000 years for light to get from the core of the sun to the surface - so the light we are seeing from the sun was generated around the time young earth creationists think the world was created.

I've always wondered if an anti-photon existed, which we could use to create a black hole by reacting it with ambient light.

 

[Cassandra]

There is such a thing as a "speed of light"...but "speed of time" sounds fun too

Light has actually been slowed in a lab so they could study it. Lene Vestergaard Hau at Harvard.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/01.24/01-stoplight.html

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/01.24/01-stoplight.html

 

[ld50]

No, I have just had the idea in my head that since light is constant and a barrier to interstellar travel, ... that time fields are interlaced with the electro-magnetic fields of celestial bodies and the 'portal' out of this solar system would be via the poles of the sun through the manipulation of the variable of Time...

Can I buy some pot from you?

 

[ashitaria]

Hm....

I've only just started taking chemistry, and my knowledge of light is extremely limited, but I don't think light is a constant of the highest velocity that man can ever measure (at least thats how I see it) or time for this instance.

And no, I don't think wavelengths of frequency affect how fast light travels, in just affects the intensity of it (and once again, I must emphasize, I'm just taking a venture into the unknown).

 

[Latro]

Hm....

I've only just started taking chemistry, and my knowledge of light is extremely limited, but I don't think light is a constant of the highest velocity that man can ever measure (at least thats how I see it) or time for this instance.

c is involved in a lot of really fundamental things, and is indeed the fastest speed that anything can ever travel at according to special relativity. Reaching it from below c as an object with mass would require infinite energy, and exceeding it would then somehow have to require more-than-infinite energy, which would also create the bizarre effect of making your mass a complex number.

And no, I don't think wavelengths of frequency affect how fast light travels, in just affects the intensity of it (and once again, I must emphasize, I'm just taking a venture into the unknown).

Frequency doesn't affect speed, no.

 

[ashitaria]

c is involved in a lot of really fundamental things, and is indeed the fastest speed that anything can ever travel at according to special relativity.


Frequency doesn't affect speed, no.

Sorry if I seem ignorant XP