04-21-2019, 10:56 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-21-2019, 10:58 AM by Have at ye.)
Apparently, at the "speed of light in a vacuum", there is no such thing as time. Velocity is an observation from at "lower than speed of light in a vacuum" relative speed. Some postulate that there do exist things that can move faster than light, and for some it's literally "nothingness" (space itself), and space is constantly expanding faster than light can travel through it (because otherwise it'd be, I guess, stationary? But empirically, it isn't).
From a relativity point of reference, of course.
I guess if we postulated the existence of a dimension above spacetime, it'd be stationary together with everything else that's "slower" than light. But funnily enough some stuff appears to be moving faster-than-light (with emphasis on "appears": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion)
For us, light is observable because it does not exist in a vacuum, is all I've gathered. Can't say I'm an expert. But, as you've mentioned, all attempts at testing this empirically are providing evidence that it is indeed so.
As far as I know, nobody really knows yet why that is. We've got mathematical speculations, though.
You are not the first to ponder this, though: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/5995...ary-light/ Try googling "stationary light", there's tons of various theories and explanations as far as I can tell. Maybe some other forumite would be able to expand on this.
According to the Lorentz factor, as far as I can tell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor), the observable t gets really, really close to 0, but never does indeed reach 0. I may be mistaken on this though.
The trouble with the theory of relativity, and the special theory of relativity, as far as I can tell, is that they do become illogical when you start thinking about them.
Fascinating subject, though. If I run into someone who has studied quantum physics extensively (I used to now a guy who worked at the LHC for CERN), I'll be sure to ask them.
From a relativity point of reference, of course.
I guess if we postulated the existence of a dimension above spacetime, it'd be stationary together with everything else that's "slower" than light. But funnily enough some stuff appears to be moving faster-than-light (with emphasis on "appears": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion)
For us, light is observable because it does not exist in a vacuum, is all I've gathered. Can't say I'm an expert. But, as you've mentioned, all attempts at testing this empirically are providing evidence that it is indeed so.
As far as I know, nobody really knows yet why that is. We've got mathematical speculations, though.
You are not the first to ponder this, though: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/5995...ary-light/ Try googling "stationary light", there's tons of various theories and explanations as far as I can tell. Maybe some other forumite would be able to expand on this.
According to the Lorentz factor, as far as I can tell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor), the observable t gets really, really close to 0, but never does indeed reach 0. I may be mistaken on this though.
The trouble with the theory of relativity, and the special theory of relativity, as far as I can tell, is that they do become illogical when you start thinking about them.
Fascinating subject, though. If I run into someone who has studied quantum physics extensively (I used to now a guy who worked at the LHC for CERN), I'll be sure to ask them.
"A man who is doing his True Will has the inertia of the Universe to assist him." - A. Crowley
