Here is a kicker also.

We don't really know what the speed of light is.

We have never been able to measure a single photon traveling from point A to point B unimpeded by the environment.

All the experiments for determining the Speed of Light use mirrors (or other frequency reflectors) and lenses (or other refracting media).

A mirror does not reflect light.

A mirror absorbs a photon; resulting in a flux of energy inside the mirror material. The material then emits a different photon according to the geometry of the reflecting surface. This absorption, flux, and emission is not instantaneous and there is a tiny amount of energy loss. There is a delay. A pretty fricking short delay but when measuring the speed of light any delay is a significant delay. These delays can add up when you are using 32 mirrors (which was used in an early experiment).

Can we measure these delays? We can pretty close but not exactly as the recording devices will have error in them also.

Lenses also do not transmit the same photon either.

A photon is absorbed at one side of the lens and there is an energy flux inside the lens material. A separate photon is emitted on the other side according to the geometry of the material. There is a significant delay in this absorption, flux transfer, and emission. Just as with mirrors we can measure this delay pretty close.

The Speed of light is designated by agreement at exactly 299,792,458 metres per second in a free and perfect vacuum. This is actually a circular-logic measurement.

In 1983 an agreement was made that the "metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second."
http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochur...2-1/metre.html

Working backward we can calculate the 299...million meters per second figure. But this is based on international agreement not by direct measurement of one photon traveling freely in a vacuum between point A and point B.

Our experiments can determine that the speed of the effect of light is 299...Million meters per second but that is not the same as the actual speed of light.

Our experiments can demonstrate that whatever the speed of light is, it is a constant in a specified environment. This was documented in the Einstein one-way two-way postulate.

So before we get all excited about speeds faster than light, we might want to work on the technology that will allows us to actually measure the speed of a photon.

So the speed of light is pretty close to 299,792,458 metres per second in a free and perfect vacuum, but how close we still don't really know.

The good news is that for all practical purposes the 299... Million metres per second is good enough....for now.

The bad news is that if we start formulating more and more theories that rely on the speed of light being 299...Million metres per second, they may, just may, be a little off.

Aint that a kick in the head?

please enlighten me, fast thinker!

Oh don't even get me started on time. :damn: :damn: :damn:

For Baggygreen above - Seee Platapus's statement here. Beer is already going o me head for the night. If you have problem with that, come over, I will feed you 9.0% abv beer constant, and we shall see how fast your photons travel. :p:D

-S

Here is a teaser

Not only can we not measure time but we can't even detect time. :know:

Snicker

How can you not only measure, but detect something that you can't even define oh wise one? :D :p <...High Alc currently Destroying Submans Brain cells and he will not be able to help you till after the effect is gone tomorrow!...>

-S

Ding we have a winner! :up:

How can we measure time when we don't even know what it is?

One of our space alien scientists we keep locked up in the basement gave me the closest answer

Time is the perception of the comparison of the observations of at least two separate set of physical changes.

Now you know why we don't let these people out much. :yep:

What is a second? It is defined by agreement as

"The duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom."

http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochur...-1/second.html

But just like the speed of light, this definition is based solely on an international agreement as opposed to any direct observation of the "something" called "time".

You better lock me back up then.

-S

Well the most accurate description I've ever heard came from one of my old physics professors: Time=Change

As far as we're concerned, we don't even know what time really is and it may not even exist at all as a few professors have found that when you remove time from the equasion, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics nestle nicely into each other. I've read several books on that subject.

The thing with the universe that we also have to take into account is our observations. When something is being observed by anything, it appears to be doing one thing, but when it's not being observed, it's in every possible state. This is especially true in the particle world.

There is a famous experiment that proved that observation changes what particles do and it's said that if you could figure out what's truely going on, we'd understand Quantum Mechanics.

Take a photon gun that fires a single particle. Put a wall with one hole in it in front of it. Put a wall with two holes behind that. Then put detector screens behind the holes.

If we put a particle detector in one of the holes in the wall with two holes, this happens:
The particle will fire from the gun.. go through the first hole.. and then go through either one or the other of the two holes in the next wall and hit one of the detectors behind one of the holes.

However... if we remove the detector from one of those holes and fire the particle through... (We aren't observing which of the two holes the particle is going through), both the detectors behind each of the holes will register being hit. The single particle will go through both holes at the same time and hit both detectors.
Boggles the mind. :D

Anyway.. back to time. The theory about time not existing is a very interesting one. In it, each instant of the universe exists in separate slices, each slightly different from the one before it and they all exist frozen together at the same time. So each moment is like a frame of a film, comepletely timeless but together as a unit. The human mind is known to have some kind of innate logic in it where it puts things in a logical cronological order. Our perception of time could be our mind simply becomeing aware of each of these frames and putting them in cronological order. This is what we percieve as time moving relentlessly forward. It's a very interesting theory.

Hahahahaha! How? Good attempt, but you Pro was not doing so good.

-S

Ok let me try that one.

Yes, people can think and even react faster than others, but everyone has a virtually identical threshold for the transmission of electrical impulses along neurons. As such, while some may seem to think and act faster than others, this is more a matter of conditioning of the nervous system than an actual acceleration neurological processes.



Was that close?

Let me fully absorb that one when the alc wears off, but I must admit you process of thought is not bad!!!

Preliminary of course - Someone that thinks in shorter terms and slower in responses lives not as long in their on mind, though the question is, is it even measurable?

Is 10 years measurable to a turtles 200 yr/ old brain as the same as our own? It's chemical process is similar to your own.

Big question. One that may never be answered.

-S

bloody hell....

well i guess it all gives credence to the adage "you're only as young as you feel".

if time doesnt really exist, then who can say if someone is old or not! if they feel young, they are young. simple! or maybe not??:doh:

Thought processes for humans, animals and insects are pretty much all the same speed. The difference is reaction times which is usually based on how efficiently the brain is wired up to the muscles in the rest of the body as the signals have to travel through the nerves to get to the muscles. I believe that a housefly has the fastest reaction time (though don't quote me on it.. there may be faster but it's one of the fastest). Then again, it has 10000000 eyes, a massive field of vision, and the signals from the brain which is pretty much just a reflex, not really a thought, doesn't have to travel that far to tell the muscles to move.
This is why hitting that damn annoying fly is so hard !

I was studying house flies while I had to kill two last week! There is a flaw in their programming! :D Sitting on a surface, you will never be able to catch them/kill them if you move fast. However, if an object starts out slow, they don't treat it as a threat, allowing you to speed up said object to fast while they only lazily try and get away. This allows one to catch or kill a housefly as needed with nothing more than a piece of paper towel, or even ones hand for that matter! :p

-S