FINALLY

[JML]

After all some astronomical events are dated and thus linked to the calendar, e.g. a solar eclipse or the Bethlehem star from the bible (although thats most likely a star going super nova, making it a bit hard to 'get the point in time').

Even more than this, most calendars, if not all, are based on astronomical cycles (earth-solar cycles, earth-moon cycles, etc.) and that's where lies the deception. Because, nonetheless, their starting point is usually purely human based

You're perfectly right on all the time zones differences. Especially since Einstein told us there's nothing like absolute time

[wolph42]

You're perfectly right on all the time zones differences. Especially since Einstein told us there's nothing like absolute time

there is actually more merit to this then Einstein initially intended. I once had a discussion with my Quantum Mechenics teacher who also lectured us in general relativity. I suggested to him that time actually doesn't 'exist' at all on a more abstract level but that its solely a 'by product' of a certain state that energy can take, being: 'mass'.

According to einsteins special relativity each 'object with mass' has its own relative clock in respect to other masses. The relative speed this clock ticks with in regard to other clocks depends on its velocity: the faster an object travels in respect to another object, the slower its clock will tick (in respect to that other object) aka the time dilitation effect.
Now the interesting part is that as your speed gets closer to the speed of light your actual mass increases, going to an asymptoot which lies on the c (speed of light) velocity. Hence no object can EVER reach that velocity as it would require infinitive enerrgy to accomplish.
However 'light' ALWAYS travels with the speed of light (kind of a 'duh' here) and can never travel any slower. Light thus also does not have any mass. Its internal clock ticks with 0 speed or as my Quantum teacher said: 'time is not defined for light' My initial question was how 'light' would perceive the universe as on its path it would alway be everywhere at the same time on its trajectory. To which he replied that to 'perceive you require a conscious and to have a conscious you require mass, hence its an invalid question' .
This got me thinking... Time is undefined for light and light is energy. We also know the famous equation e=mc2 (which is actually a bit more complex but serve its purpose here). This forumal basically states that e(energy) =(equals) m(donkey) * some constant. In math constants can be negated so it basically sais: mass == energy. In other words mass is a form or state which energy can be in. Other forms are heat, kinetic, acceleration, applied force etc.
So mass is a form of energy, if energy takes its more abstract form e.g. light then time is undefined, in other words it does not exist.
To that he eventually agreed.

[JML]

[wolph42]

Funny, this forum thinks that mass == mdonkey

[CoveredInFish]

Glorious swear word censoring

[patnodewf]

Hrm. Perhaps we could be doomed after all...

[Azhrei]

Congrats, CiF, on your recent ascension!

However 'light' ALWAYS travels with the speed of light (kind of a 'duh' here) and can never travel any slower.

Well, never say never.

You're thinking that the speed of light in a vacuum cannot go any slower. But there are well documented exceptions to this. The easiest one to picture is the speed of light through glass, e.g. a prism. Light existing the prism creates a multicolor rainbow effect because the speed of light through the prism is changed and it is separated as it exits.

The speed of light is also affected by gravity. Otherwise black holes wouldn't be, um, "black."

[wolph42]

Well, the diffrence in speed through other mediums is measured by the observer, by the way theres also the dopler effect aka red shift of lighttrsvelling towards a moving observer in the opposite direction and gravity is a bit of a pickle it's not that light has mass but it's space that is curved by the mass which makes it appear that the light travels in a curve which travels in a 'straight' line through curved space. It's actually this effect that Einstein predicted for a solar eclipse right after WO 1 which made so famous.

[Xaelvaen]

All this giving far too much weight to the theory that light is both a particle and a wavelength; bah humbug.

(P.S. Weight in relation to gravity affecting the speed of light is intentional).

[wolph42]

All this giving far too much weight to the theory that light is both a particle and a wavelength; bah humbug.

no, this is a common misconception. Light is NOT both a particle and a wavelength it has the CHARACTERISTICS of a particle or a wavelength, depending on its energy state. Its basically the lack of our understanding of what it actually is. We try to 'trap' the characteristics of light in mathematical functions and with that we tend to use what we now, in this case de mathematical description of a fast moving particle or a wave. It would be like asking the mayans to describe a circular object (aka the Wheel) which they don't know as such. They may say if its in a horizontal position it has the characteristics of a table without legs and if its in the vertical position its a wall ornament.

[Bone White]

Why do we always view the "speed of light" as being the potential maximum speed for an object the traditional three dimensions? Why does no-one seem to argue that particles, objects or rays of em radiation (light) could surpass this supposed maximum?

On the other side of the board of what you say is true wolph, that if light had a conciousness it would perceive itself as being everywhere instantaneously, and only our own mass causes the inter-time dilation, assuming a black hole has an infinite mass, then the black hole cannot perceive the passage of time, and is both nowhere and everything appears stationary? Following this, is true stasis only achieved by super-massive objects?

Also assuming this to be true, that cryo-stasis is achieved by slowing molecules' temperatures I theorise that the act of molecules vibrating is movement itself, and causes those objects to have an effective time-existance, then can we draw conjecture that black-holes are at both an "absolute zero" (or below) temperature?

I am by all accounts and means a rank amateur at physics, having never studied it. I just have a very passive job with a very active brain. This topic does fascinate me though.

[tiorthan]

Why do we always view the "speed of light" as being the potential maximum speed for an object the traditional three dimensions?

Einstein's theory basically says that any object that moves to any point on its way instantaneously, is perceived as having a speed of c by everyone moving slower than that. Light seems to travel at that speed c which is why we call it the speed of light.

Why does no-one seem to argue that particles, objects or rays of em radiation (light) could surpass this supposed maximum?

On the other side of the board of what you say is true wolph, that if light had a conciousness it would perceive itself as being everywhere instantaneously, and only our own mass causes the inter-time dilation,

Assuming Einstein was right, which seems to be the case, you have just answered your question. Nothing can move faster than instantaneously (from its own perspective) without violating causality.

assuming a black hole has an infinite mass, then the black hole cannot perceive the passage of time, and is both nowhere and everything appears stationary?

An object of infinite mass would have infinite gravity which would mean the event horizon would be infinite. So unless our universe really is just the inside of a black hole this is impossible.

Following this, is true stasis only achieved by super-massive objects?

Any black hole's event horizon will do.

Also assuming this to be true, that cryo-stasis is achieved by slowing molecules' temperatures I theorise that the act of molecules vibrating is movement itself, and causes those objects to have an effective time-existance, then can we draw conjecture that black-holes are at both an "absolute zero" (or below) temperature?

I don't think that temperature (being defined as the average speed of the atoms of a body) can be applied to something that does not consist of atoms.

[wolph42]

to clarify: mass curves space and as stated before light will always travel in a straight line and thus for the observer it will 'look' like it 'curves' around a mass.
A black hole has such a great mass (but certainly not infinite) that it curves space into itself effectively creating a 'hole' in space. This means that light travelling from the black hole will curve back and where there's no light...its black hence the name. The 'event' horizon is the edge of this curved space where light cannot escape from, beyond that horizon light can escape and within it can't. Actually no 'event' can escape from that border, hence the name.

about the 'stasis' thing when someone goes into cryo. The fact that your decaying stops does not mean that time stops. So 'slowing down' molecules does not 'slow down time'. As for your conscious not registering any passage of time while in cryo: to put it in other words, if you go into narcosis or are knocked out you have the feeling that 'no time or little time has passed' when you awake while hours may have passed. This does not mean that a drug (or brain damage) slows down time.
And I did not say that light had a conscious, I was asking on a hypothesis: how would light perceive its being/surrounding/space/time when it *would* have a conscious, pure for the sake of philosophising about it.

[Bone White]

Thankyou for the answers and clarifications both of you; I am more a philosopher than a physicist wolph

One thing eludes me though, if light travelling is supposed to be the fastest "thing" we can measure, why are we able to calculate its speed? If it could not be theoretically surpassed, shouldn't its travel time be instantaneous?

[Lee]

We can by virtue of relativity. What seems instantaneous to an observer at the incident point is not so to someone observing a distance beyond what light can travel in an instant. Thus, the debate on whether light possessed infinite speed or one that is finite and constant, was resolved.

It took a lot of fine tuning to get to the figure we now use today. But I imagine early measurements were able to be made because we are recipients of traveling light and thus, can use reference points to ascertain its actual speed. In all likelihood, the transit time of sunlight along with other heavenly objects played a part in getting the figure in the past.