Playing with E=m.c^2

Dear Ollie B Bimmol:

On Aug 28, 11:18*am, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 28 Aug 2011 11:23:31 -0400) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in :

On 28/08/2011 7:45 AM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
If E=m.c^2
then can we say that if lightspeed was to decrease,
and energy in the universe was neither added nor
removed, so constant, that then mass HAS to be
created?

I don't see how a decrease in light speed would lead
to mass being created. What has one got to do with
the other?

In the above formula, for E is constant, and m increasing,
then c must decrease.

The formula equates energy and matter at one time, not over changes in
c. The derivation of the equation required that c be constant in time
(or at least not be a function of velocity).

Or expanding on that, could it be that the redshift we see,
comes from a decreasing speed of light,
creating mass for the objects in the universe?

A decrease (or an increase for that matter) cannot be detected
by us. The speed of light is what determines both time and
distance for us. If light speed was changing, then time and
distance would change equally for us, and it would look like
the exact same speed to us all over again. We cannot detect
light speed changing while we're inside the universe itself, we
could only detect it if we were outside of the universe looking
in somehow.

Could you elaborate a bit on why that is so?

He covered that in the beginning of the paragraph. He and our
instruments have a size (and calibration) based on c-moderated
forces. If you decrease c, everything gets smaller than before, so
that light can make it "there and back again" to maintain stability.
So it looks to us like light from the old Universe has the same energy
of emission than before, but is anomalously large (as compared to
before the change).

David A. Smith

dlzc wrote: in

Dear Ollie B Bimmol:

On Aug 28, 11:18*am, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 28 Aug 2011 11:23:31 -0400) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in :

On 28/08/2011 7:45 AM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
If E=m.c^2
then can we say that if lightspeed was to decrease,
and energy in the universe was neither added nor
removed, so constant, that then mass HAS to be
created?

I don't see how a decrease in light speed would lead
to mass being created. What has one got to do with
the other?

In the above formula, for E is constant, and m increasing,
then c must decrease.

The formula equates energy and matter at one time, not over changes in
c. The derivation of the equation required that c be constant in time
(or at least not be a function of velocity).

Or expanding on that, could it be that the redshift we see,
comes from a decreasing speed of light,
creating mass for the objects in the universe?

A decrease (or an increase for that matter) cannot be detected
by us. The speed of light is what determines both time and
distance for us. If light speed was changing, then time and
distance would change equally for us, and it would look like
the exact same speed to us all over again. We cannot detect
light speed changing while we're inside the universe itself, we
could only detect it if we were outside of the universe looking
in somehow.

Could you elaborate a bit on why that is so?

He covered that in the beginning of the paragraph. He and our
instruments have a size (and calibration) based on c-moderated
forces. If you decrease c, everything gets smaller than before, so
that light can make it "there and back again" to maintain stability.
So it looks to us like light from the old Universe has the same energy
of emission than before, but is anomalously large (as compared to
before the change).

David A. Smith

Thank you, this is very interesting, and I see you know a lot about it.
The other poster mentioned aether, and my question was if light would speed up if we removed the aether.
Then I thought of an experiment to remove the aether.
Michelson and Morley at one pint assumed their null result was due to the aether moving with earth.
So, if it is moving with the observer, then how about this:
Use a transparent vacuum rotating cylinder.
Shine a laser through the middle. Speed it up, the aether will be centrifuged to the sides,
then shine the laser through the center and via a mirror through also the side.
Combine the recieved pulses and see if there is a time difference from
the centre where the aether has been a little removed,
Would this work?

Ollie

On 28/08/2011 2:18 PM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 28 Aug 2011 11:23:31 -0400) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote :

On 28/08/2011 7:45 AM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
If E=m.c^2
then can we say that if lightspeed was to decrease,
and energy in the universe was neither added nor removed, so constant,
that then mass HAS to be created?

I don't see how a decrease in light speed would lead to mass being
created. What has one got to do with the other?

In the above formula, for E is constant, and m increasing, then c must decrease.

That's not what the formula means. The formula simply shows that mass
and energy are the same things. Specifically, mass is a very special
form of energy. Think of all of the particles that make up your body and
keep it together. Each one of those particles is actually a form of
locked up energy. Each particle is really a knot or a string of energy
trapped into the shape of that particle, endlessly flowing around inside
that knot unable to escape. On the other hand free-flowing energy is
what we traditionally think of as energy, it is what flows from particle
to particle across distances of space. The most common form of
free-flowing energy we think of is the electromagnetic energy, which is
represented by the photons.

So if we were able to completely dismantle the particles in your body,
and let all of their energy flow out freely, then that's how much energy
you'd have released.

A decrease (or an increase for that matter) cannot be detected by us.
The speed of light is what determines both time and distance for us. If
light speed was changing, then time and distance would change equally
for us, and it would look like the exact same speed to us all over
again. We cannot detect light speed changing while we're inside the
universe itself, we could only detect it if we were outside of the
universe looking in somehow.

Could you elaborate a bit on why that is so?

Don't think of the speed of light in terms of miles/second or km/sec.
Another way to look at the speed of light is that it represents the time
it takes energy to flow within the smallest unit of space in universe,
within the smallest unit of time in the universe. The smallest unit of
space is called a Planck Length, and the smallest unit of time is called
a Planck Time. There is no length smaller than a Planck Length, or a
time shorter than a Planck Time. The speed of light is 1 Planck
Length/Planck Time. When you look at it this way, you notice that the
speed of light is equal to exactly 1! Nothing can be simpler. And when
you look at it this way, you understand why the speed of light is what
it is.

Yousuf Khan

On 29/08/2011 4:35 AM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
Byron wrote:
Quite simply, if it's not traveling at c then it's not light, it's mass.

No no, they have slowed down light, and also light travels slower if not in a vacuum.

When light is travelling through something other than a vacuum, it's
simply being captured and re-emitted by particles in the medium that it
is travelling through, which causes a delay in its travel time. The
denser the medium, the more slowdown there is, as there are more
particles in the way capturing and releasing the photons. So light is
progressively slowed down more and more by air, water, and glass;
dependent on their density.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 29/08/2011 4:35 AM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
Byron wrote:
Quite simply, if it's not traveling at c then it's not light, it's mass.

No no, they have slowed down light, and also light travels slower if not in a vacuum.

When light is travelling through something other than a vacuum, it's
simply being captured and re-emitted by particles in the medium that it
is travelling through, which causes a delay in its travel time. The
denser the medium, the more slowdown there is, as there are more
particles in the way capturing and releasing the photons. So light is
progressively slowed down more and more by air, water, and glass;
dependent on their density.

So if light is re-emitted by the medium, then it is not the same light that came in.
Then this also goes for reflection from a mirror right?
So if it was to arrive at a speed faster than c, because the object was moving towards the source for example,
then it would be re-emitted locally at c, and any measurement using lenses or mirrors would always detect a speed c,
but a different wavelength due to Doppler of the incoming light.
This is what is observed.
So basically Michelson and Morley always measures c for just that reason, and light speed is not constant at all?


Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 28/08/2011 2:18 PM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 28 Aug 2011 11:23:31 -0400) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote :

On 28/08/2011 7:45 AM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
If E=m.c^2
then can we say that if lightspeed was to decrease,
and energy in the universe was neither added nor removed, so constant,
that then mass HAS to be created?

I don't see how a decrease in light speed would lead to mass being
created. What has one got to do with the other?

In the above formula, for E is constant, and m increasing, then c must decrease.

That's not what the formula means. The formula simply shows that mass
and energy are the same things. Specifically, mass is a very special
form of energy. Think of all of the particles that make up your body and
keep it together. Each one of those particles is actually a form of
locked up energy. Each particle is really a knot or a string of energy
trapped into the shape of that particle, endlessly flowing around inside
that knot unable to escape. On the other hand free-flowing energy is
what we traditionally think of as energy, it is what flows from particle
to particle across distances of space. The most common form of
free-flowing energy we think of is the electromagnetic energy, which is
represented by the photons.

So if we were able to completely dismantle the particles in your body,
and let all of their energy flow out freely, then that's how much energy
you'd have released.

Ah, so you say we are made of energy, just in a different form, called 'mass'?


A decrease (or an increase for that matter) cannot be detected by us.
The speed of light is what determines both time and distance for us. If
light speed was changing, then time and distance would change equally
for us, and it would look like the exact same speed to us all over
again. We cannot detect light speed changing while we're inside the
universe itself, we could only detect it if we were outside of the
universe looking in somehow.

Could you elaborate a bit on why that is so?

Don't think of the speed of light in terms of miles/second or km/sec.
Another way to look at the speed of light is that it represents the time
it takes energy to flow within the smallest unit of space in universe,
within the smallest unit of time in the universe. The smallest unit of
space is called a Planck Length, and the smallest unit of time is called
a Planck Time. There is no length smaller than a Planck Length, or a
time shorter than a Planck Time. The speed of light is 1 Planck
Length/Planck Time. When you look at it this way, you notice that the
speed of light is equal to exactly 1! Nothing can be simpler. And when
you look at it this way, you understand why the speed of light is what
it is.

That sounds very simple, but how do you find a Planck length or time?
For the length did you simply divide the meter unit by some number
so it fits nicely?
Should we make new rulers and clocks?
Seems much simpler with those units.
How many cm is a Planck?

And why cannot you break the ruler at 1 Planck into say half a Planck?
What is stopping it? We can break the atom into pieces?
or is Planck length and Planck time just ad hoc?



Yousuf Khan

In article , says...

Byron Forbes wrote:

In article , says...

If E=m.c^2
then can we say that if lightspeed was to decrease,
and energy in the universe was neither added nor removed, so constant,
that then mass HAS to be created?


Quite simply, if it's not traveling at c then it's not light, it's mass.

No no, they have slowed down light, and also light travels slower if not in a vacuum.


Or expanding on that, could it be that the redshift we see,
comes from a decreasing speed of light,
creating mass for the objects in the universe?

Ollie


Yeah, I like slow light but it speeds up and is all observed at c when it gets here. The redshift meant it was once
slower relative to us and gained wavelength as it sped up in the aether.

Then if we remove the aether then light can move faster?


Light is energy traveling in a particulate aether. No aether, no light.

Same as no matter (like air or water), no sound.


Ollie

Byron Forbes wrote:

In article , says...

Byron Forbes wrote:

In article , says...

If E=m.c^2
then can we say that if lightspeed was to decrease,
and energy in the universe was neither added nor removed, so constant,
that then mass HAS to be created?


Quite simply, if it's not traveling at c then it's not light, it's mass.

No no, they have slowed down light, and also light travels slower if not in a vacuum.


Or expanding on that, could it be that the redshift we see,
comes from a decreasing speed of light,
creating mass for the objects in the universe?

Ollie


Yeah, I like slow light but it speeds up and is all observed at c when it gets here. The redshift meant it was once
slower relative to us and gained wavelength as it sped up in the aether.

Then if we remove the aether then light can move faster?


Light is energy traveling in a particulate aether. No aether, no light.

Same as no matter (like air or water), no sound.


Ollie

But the other poster said that they got rid of the aether?

Dear Ollie B Bimmol:

On Aug 29, 11:12*am, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
....
The other poster mentioned aether, and my question was if light
would speed up if we removed the aether. Then I thought of an
experiment to remove the aether. Michelson and Morley at one
pint assumed their null result was due to the aether moving with
earth.

What they succeeded in showing was that an aether that ignored the
Earth, but propagated light, did not work. That left a dragged
aether, the Lorentz aether (which propagates the Earth and light
similarly), and no aether.

So, if it is moving with the observer, then how about this:

Dragged aether has been obviated by high speed stellar motions. The
light passing "behind" fast moiving stars or planets is not "dragged"
out of position.

The Lorentz aether does not survive gravitation, or at the least has
some observability problems (which may just be the mathematics
applied).

Ultimately Nature does not care about the mental crutches we use in
our attempts to describe Her. Whatever tools we use, is a matter of
taste, until we get wrong answers.

David A. Smith

On Aug 30, 4:25*am, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:
Don't think of the speed of light in terms of miles/second or km/sec.
Another way to look at the speed of light is that it represents the time
it takes energy to flow within the smallest unit of space in universe,
within the smallest unit of time in the universe. The smallest unit of
space is called a Planck Length, and the smallest unit of time is called
a Planck Time. There is no length smaller than a Planck Length, or a
time shorter than a Planck Time. The speed of light is 1 Planck
Length/Planck Time. When you look at it this way, you notice that the
speed of light is equal to exactly 1! Nothing can be simpler. And when
you look at it this way, you understand why the speed of light is what
it is.

That sounds very simple, but how do you find a Planck length or time?
For the length did you simply divide the meter unit by some number
so it fits nicely?

I was hoping you would go look up the numbers yourself: Google,
Wikipedia, & Wolfram Alpha are your friends here. I'll give you the
approximate number, you can go look it up with more precision
yourself.

Planck Length = 1.6E-35 m
Planck Time = 5.4E-44 s

These were the natural constant numbers of the universe, as discovered
by Max Planck at the turn of the last century. This was one of the
first discoveries that began the field of Quantum Mechanics.

And why cannot you break the ruler at 1 Planck into say half a Planck?
What is stopping it? We can break the atom into pieces?
or is Planck length and Planck time just ad hoc?

You can go down to whatever scale you like, but below the Planck
scale, measurements become superfluous. It's like as if you were
working in a sugar cube factory, and you measured the size of your
boxes by how many sugar cubes you can stack in them. What does it
matter how many fractional sugar cube units the box can hold, since
you'll never get a fractional sugar cube? You should note that these
Planck units are extremely small, they are as far below the atomic
scale as the atomic scale is below the galactic scale!

Is the Planck Length & Time ad hoc? No, they were determined by
previously known constants of nature such as the speed of light,
Coulomb Constant, Gravitational Constant, Boltzmann Constant, etc. All
of these constants reduce down to exactly 1 in Planck units. Planck
Units are also sometimes known as "Natural Units". It is assumed that
should we ever meet aliens in space and we needed to explain our
system of measurements to them, they wouldn't understand cm, km,
miles, inches, etc., but they should understand these Natural Units.

Now there is a debate raging about what exactly the significance of
these Planck units represent. There's two camps of physicists. One
camp thinks that space is a continuum, and that it goes forever down
below this scale. Another group thinks this represents a fundamental
boundary on the scale of space, that these represent discrete space-
time "atoms", i.e. the smallest units of space and time possible. We
probably won't have a definitive answer until the end of this century
if even that early.

Yousuf Khan