Intergenuity
02-10-2005, 05:01 AM
Velocity of light VS velocity of mass – Are they different types of velocity.
It is the ambition of this thread to show why the velocity of light and the velocity of mass are different forms of velocity. Commonly when persons talk of velocity we refer to light [mass-less] and mass as having the same form of velocity. I aim to show that this is not the case. The difference is not in the velocity figure but how that velocity is applied.
In a few quick steps I will show how the velocity of light [velocityL = vL] when measured is taken out of context and inadvertently extrapolated onto a different velocity that being moving mass. [velocityM = vM]
It is with the belief that Albert Einstein’s inspiration about light and space time has been misinterpreted by mainstream science and even by himself. The full import of his inspiration lost to the confusing nature of the two aspects of time. How, in abandoning absolute time has created a logical paradox between these two aspects of time which co-exist as both absolute and relative quite harmoniously.
As I lack the full knowledge of not only the math involved but also the language needed to express my self adequately I will attempt to explain my thought in a way that most laymen could understand.
It is also worth noting that this article for me is just work in progress as I am learning all the time.
***********
To start this contention I asked this question:
Can an object with out mass specifically a photon be deemed to have the same form of velocity as an object deemed to have mass?The short answer is ; No.
As part of a multi step process of explaining this issue we start with the following premise description:
If we draw the following diagram that shows two objects. A photon’s line of transit and an object of mass at rest to itself. It’s relative vM [velocity for mass] is similar to that of our star the sun.
http://www.paygency.com/Diagrams/c1.jpg
If we take a closer look at the line drawn for our photon we can according to AE’s inspiration [Light cones – EM spacetime] know that at any point in the photons ‘travels’ it’s photonic event happens in the middle of time. That is to say specifically between the future and the past. At any point in the photons travels it can only be at this moment in time, that which is commonly referred to as the NOW.
The photonic event [Now] is changing it’s position at a rate of 299792 km per sec.
The following question comes to the fore:
As the photon is changing it’s location what is happening to our rest mass?
For our rest mass it is true that it has travelled through time by one second and as it travelled this one second where did it exist in time?
Answer: It’s position in time is identical to that of the photon, as always the masses event is in the middle between the future and past. Further to this, the space that the rest mass and the photon have changed within has also changed at the same rate as the photon.
So for all intents and purposes the center of time for the entire universe is the same absolute moment. This of course does not disallow relative time or more precisely the relative passage of time. The two aspects of time are quite distinctly different in dimension.
Arguably it could be stated further that the object of mass has also travelled the same distance as the photon even though it appears to be at rest.
As the rate of change for our photon is 299792 km per sec, so too is the change for our object of mass even as it appears to be at rest.
It may be suggested that there is no evidence to support the contention that Rest mass has vL = ‘c’ however I would argue that Albert Einstein’s famous formula states that E=mc^2 therefore Energy = Mass and mass = energy the only difference being the dimension time. If mass is only compressed energy and this energy is generically called light it must be travelling as light does at vL =’c’ however relative vM [velocity for mass] is zero.
So whilst the rest mass appears to be stationary for one second it has actually travelled as energy for 299792 kms.
The rest mass can be considered as having both mass and no mass simultaneously. Depending on which dimension you choose to consider it.
At this point it may be worth summarising my contentions thus far:
1] As a photon changes it’s position in space and time an object of mass and the space that surrounds it changes at exactly the same rate.
2] As a photonic event can only happen in the center of time and as this applies also to an object of mass then all objects events occur simultaneously at this same moment in the center of time.
3] Whilst an absolute passage of time is ruled out [time dilation] a common absolute center of time is maintained.
And this is I feel where mainstream thinking has gone astray in that in declaring absolute time abandoned this only refers to the passage of time and not the center of time. I feel even AE got lost in this vital distinction even though he discovered the relationship of light to this moment with his inspiration SRT and energy equation.
At the start of this discourse I asked the question is the velocity of the photon to be treated the same as the velocity of an object of mass? The answer can only be No.
In common terms velocity is used to describe the time it takes for an object of mass to change it’s position from one space time co-ordinate to another. Like thowing a stone from A to B.
It is an object of mass and we know that as it’s velocityM increases it’s tick rate slows [passage of time]. Of course this applies only to an object of mass and not to a mass-less object of energy [light].
So to treat the velocity of light and the velocity of an object of mass as the same sort of velocity would be an incorrect assessment.
When the velocity of light is measured it's velocity figure is out of context. As it is a measurement of universal rate of change that is inherent in all things with in that universe.
An object of mass already has a velocity of ‘c’ as it changes in synch with the photon.
So when we give a velocity to an object of mass it must include it’s inherent velocity of ‘c’ or vL * vM.
Note: At this stage I get the impression that as an object of mass is accelerated it inverts the equation E=mc^2 as it changes from mass to energy as it approaches vM of ‘c’. But of course it is no longer a vM figure but a vL figure as we know mass can not travel at an ordinary velocity of ‘c’.
http://www.paygency.com/Diagrams/c21.jpg
The contention being that E=mc^2 is being inverted by giving an object of mass ordinary velocity. After all when Mass is accelerated to c^2 it's energy potential is realised.
A Summary of contentions:
1] The velocity of light [energy] is not the same form as given to an object of mass.
2] The velocity of light is a constant velocity where as the velocity of mass is relative.
3] The middle of time is absolute for all space time co-ordinates. however the rate of change [tick rate ] is relative to that masses velocity relative to a position of absolute rest [ 'c'*1]
4] When we measure the velocity of mass we must include in our measurement the inherent velocity of light. So that E=mc^2 holds universally true.
5] When an object of mass is accelerated to ‘c’ it is actually travelling at a rate of c^2 thus at this Velocity it’s full energy potential is realised. [the entire universes energy potential]
6] E=mc^2 is a statement of energy potential of mass. M= E / c^2 is a statement of the mass potential of energy.
Conclusion:
I believe we have lost sight of the relationship of SRT and the energy equation and how both are part of the same inspiration.
When we talk of velocity what are we actually talking about?
When we measure the velocity of light we are measuring it out of context as the universe is changing at the same rate as the photon. Thus the photon and the universe are at rest relative to each other. Therefore light does not have velocity in the usual context of the word.
I am not sure of the ramifications to other areas of scientific endeavour and at this stage I am not all that concerned. As I am sure the above will take some time to refine and clarify.
Any comments that attempt to address the above would be appreciated. :D
It is the ambition of this thread to show why the velocity of light and the velocity of mass are different forms of velocity. Commonly when persons talk of velocity we refer to light [mass-less] and mass as having the same form of velocity. I aim to show that this is not the case. The difference is not in the velocity figure but how that velocity is applied.
In a few quick steps I will show how the velocity of light [velocityL = vL] when measured is taken out of context and inadvertently extrapolated onto a different velocity that being moving mass. [velocityM = vM]
It is with the belief that Albert Einstein’s inspiration about light and space time has been misinterpreted by mainstream science and even by himself. The full import of his inspiration lost to the confusing nature of the two aspects of time. How, in abandoning absolute time has created a logical paradox between these two aspects of time which co-exist as both absolute and relative quite harmoniously.
As I lack the full knowledge of not only the math involved but also the language needed to express my self adequately I will attempt to explain my thought in a way that most laymen could understand.
It is also worth noting that this article for me is just work in progress as I am learning all the time.
***********
To start this contention I asked this question:
Can an object with out mass specifically a photon be deemed to have the same form of velocity as an object deemed to have mass?The short answer is ; No.
As part of a multi step process of explaining this issue we start with the following premise description:
If we draw the following diagram that shows two objects. A photon’s line of transit and an object of mass at rest to itself. It’s relative vM [velocity for mass] is similar to that of our star the sun.
http://www.paygency.com/Diagrams/c1.jpg
If we take a closer look at the line drawn for our photon we can according to AE’s inspiration [Light cones – EM spacetime] know that at any point in the photons ‘travels’ it’s photonic event happens in the middle of time. That is to say specifically between the future and the past. At any point in the photons travels it can only be at this moment in time, that which is commonly referred to as the NOW.
The photonic event [Now] is changing it’s position at a rate of 299792 km per sec.
The following question comes to the fore:
As the photon is changing it’s location what is happening to our rest mass?
For our rest mass it is true that it has travelled through time by one second and as it travelled this one second where did it exist in time?
Answer: It’s position in time is identical to that of the photon, as always the masses event is in the middle between the future and past. Further to this, the space that the rest mass and the photon have changed within has also changed at the same rate as the photon.
So for all intents and purposes the center of time for the entire universe is the same absolute moment. This of course does not disallow relative time or more precisely the relative passage of time. The two aspects of time are quite distinctly different in dimension.
Arguably it could be stated further that the object of mass has also travelled the same distance as the photon even though it appears to be at rest.
As the rate of change for our photon is 299792 km per sec, so too is the change for our object of mass even as it appears to be at rest.
It may be suggested that there is no evidence to support the contention that Rest mass has vL = ‘c’ however I would argue that Albert Einstein’s famous formula states that E=mc^2 therefore Energy = Mass and mass = energy the only difference being the dimension time. If mass is only compressed energy and this energy is generically called light it must be travelling as light does at vL =’c’ however relative vM [velocity for mass] is zero.
So whilst the rest mass appears to be stationary for one second it has actually travelled as energy for 299792 kms.
The rest mass can be considered as having both mass and no mass simultaneously. Depending on which dimension you choose to consider it.
At this point it may be worth summarising my contentions thus far:
1] As a photon changes it’s position in space and time an object of mass and the space that surrounds it changes at exactly the same rate.
2] As a photonic event can only happen in the center of time and as this applies also to an object of mass then all objects events occur simultaneously at this same moment in the center of time.
3] Whilst an absolute passage of time is ruled out [time dilation] a common absolute center of time is maintained.
And this is I feel where mainstream thinking has gone astray in that in declaring absolute time abandoned this only refers to the passage of time and not the center of time. I feel even AE got lost in this vital distinction even though he discovered the relationship of light to this moment with his inspiration SRT and energy equation.
At the start of this discourse I asked the question is the velocity of the photon to be treated the same as the velocity of an object of mass? The answer can only be No.
In common terms velocity is used to describe the time it takes for an object of mass to change it’s position from one space time co-ordinate to another. Like thowing a stone from A to B.
It is an object of mass and we know that as it’s velocityM increases it’s tick rate slows [passage of time]. Of course this applies only to an object of mass and not to a mass-less object of energy [light].
So to treat the velocity of light and the velocity of an object of mass as the same sort of velocity would be an incorrect assessment.
When the velocity of light is measured it's velocity figure is out of context. As it is a measurement of universal rate of change that is inherent in all things with in that universe.
An object of mass already has a velocity of ‘c’ as it changes in synch with the photon.
So when we give a velocity to an object of mass it must include it’s inherent velocity of ‘c’ or vL * vM.
Note: At this stage I get the impression that as an object of mass is accelerated it inverts the equation E=mc^2 as it changes from mass to energy as it approaches vM of ‘c’. But of course it is no longer a vM figure but a vL figure as we know mass can not travel at an ordinary velocity of ‘c’.
http://www.paygency.com/Diagrams/c21.jpg
The contention being that E=mc^2 is being inverted by giving an object of mass ordinary velocity. After all when Mass is accelerated to c^2 it's energy potential is realised.
A Summary of contentions:
1] The velocity of light [energy] is not the same form as given to an object of mass.
2] The velocity of light is a constant velocity where as the velocity of mass is relative.
3] The middle of time is absolute for all space time co-ordinates. however the rate of change [tick rate ] is relative to that masses velocity relative to a position of absolute rest [ 'c'*1]
4] When we measure the velocity of mass we must include in our measurement the inherent velocity of light. So that E=mc^2 holds universally true.
5] When an object of mass is accelerated to ‘c’ it is actually travelling at a rate of c^2 thus at this Velocity it’s full energy potential is realised. [the entire universes energy potential]
6] E=mc^2 is a statement of energy potential of mass. M= E / c^2 is a statement of the mass potential of energy.
Conclusion:
I believe we have lost sight of the relationship of SRT and the energy equation and how both are part of the same inspiration.
When we talk of velocity what are we actually talking about?
When we measure the velocity of light we are measuring it out of context as the universe is changing at the same rate as the photon. Thus the photon and the universe are at rest relative to each other. Therefore light does not have velocity in the usual context of the word.
I am not sure of the ramifications to other areas of scientific endeavour and at this stage I am not all that concerned. As I am sure the above will take some time to refine and clarify.
Any comments that attempt to address the above would be appreciated. :D