/sci/ - Science & Math

photons have tiny mass.

The length and time would be non-real.

>>1562979
photons have no mass

matter/forces can bend/stop light...

The problem is that you are trying to apply Newtonian kinematics to special relativity. That is wrong. In special relativity, anything with zero mass moves at lightspeed by simple application of <span class="math">E^2 - p^2 = m^2[/spoiler] and <span class="math">v = \frac{p}{E}[/spoiler] (units where c = 1).

Light has mass. Derp.

Light has relativistic mass from its momentum. Also, space isn't always a perfect vacuum (motherfucking offchance asteroids/virtual particles)

>>1563019
What are virtual particles?

>>1563010
ey faggot if you shine a rly powerful lazor on like a mirror it won't push teh mirrow at all cause photons cant mass

>>1562975
We are not sure

Every medium has a fixed speed of transference, the water does, the air does, the steel does have it

The space has this speed of transference for energy, we are not sure why, or what is the 'medium'

>>1563035
that's just because your laser i too weak.

>>1563042
The fabric of space-time itself I would assume.
Gravity waves also travel the speed of light I believe

>>1563035
That's wrong; photons don't have mass, but they do have momentum. The momentum of a laser beam is typically hard to measure by its effect on a mirror since it's the beams energy divided by c. But I know that an atom that absorbs photons from a laser gets a noticeable kick.

>>1563055 here,
and yes, I know >>1563035 is just reciting a meme, but it's worth saying anyway.

>>1562992
This. Haven't we proven that light from the Sun is bent by the Earth's gravity?

Because c is already the equivalent of infinite speed. c is infinite for the traveler, but 3e8 m/s for any observer.

>>1563069
Specifically, c is an infinite <span class="math">rapidity[/spoiler].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidity

>>1563069
Specifically, something with speed c has an infinite <span class="math">rapidity[/spoiler].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidity

>>1563069
This is like saying 340m/s is infinite speed

Depends on the medium

The 'fabric of the space' (something denied by the QFT) should be the medium, but this does not mean that energy or information could not travel faster in other mediums

Just look at the quantum entanglement effect

>>1563035
It WOULD move about 1/100 of a yoctometer. Learn Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, photons fuck up sub atomic matter by knocking them every where with their momentum.

>>1563086
not 340 m/s, but 3e8 m/s, which is 300,000,000 m/s.

This is essentially infinite speed through space. If you're talking about speed through something other than space, then maybe it's not essentially infinite, but I don't know what you would be measuring speed in other than space.

In space, once you are going 3e8 m/s, all of space in the direction you are traveling has constricted down to a point, making you at all places along that line (geodesic actually) simultaneously and instantly. Thus it is infinite speed.

>>1563111
>essentially infinite

not even 10000000000000000000000000 is close to infinite no finite number is anywhere proportional to infinite by definition, concept, and logic, shutup your face

>>1563132
I never said a finite number was essentially infinite. If I said something like that, I would be as retarded as a chemfag. I said speed is essentially infinite, which is because rapidity IS infinite, which you might understand if you read my post a little slower.

this thread is so 1700s

>>1563146
god man you contradict yourself

you literally said 300000000 m/s is a essentially infinite speed, in the post, ie, finite number being "essentially infinite"

the phrase "essentially infinite" when applied to anything besides the limits of functions is retarded

its either infinite, or its not, rapidity of light is infinite, but that does not make the speed of light "essentially infinite" speed of light will and always will be a finite quantity, which is the same reason why there will be a limit to communications through space, as well as space travel.

For a spaceship captain traveling arbitrarily close to c, his speed seems to be infinite. I mean from his perspective the time it takes to travel from Earth to the end of the observable universe approaches 0 as his speed approaches c. So, although it is sort of a perversion of special relativity to think of it this way, from the perspective of a photon no time passes between the moment it is emitted and the moment it hits an atom. So from its perspective, it moves infinitely fast.

For an observer watching the spaceship, he never sees the spaceship move faster than c. c represents basically what a stationary observer "sees" as the speed a traveler is moving at when, from the traveler's perspective, he is going infinitely fast.

As far as why this is the case, I am not a physicist so I can't really answer it conclusively. I think it has to do with the need for the laws of the universe to stay the same regardless of reference frame. But why exactly c is 2.98e8 m/s is a mystery as far as I know.

>>1563170
No, it is not the number that is essentially infinite, it is the speed that is essentially infinite. The speed is essentially infinite, because it means that you are instantly in all places along your trajectory.

The speed is "essentially" infinite, because speed doesn't specify exactly what you're talking about. It makes your velocity infinite from some perspectives and finite from other perspectives. When that is the case, speed is "essentially" infinite, because it is already infinite from some perspectives.

Because when massless light occupies empty space, it is still limited by the time part of the "space-time" fabric.

>>1563468
>>1563406
>>1563227
>>1563170
>>1563146
>>1563132
>>1563111
Anon is right, Chemfag is wrong. To the observer experiencing near c velocity, time dilation makes it seem like the person is traveling at an infinite speed due to distance traveled / time period. Anyone else still observes </= c speed. Jesus atleast learn special relativity before toasting on /sci/

>>1563468
It was reported that gravity is the same as acceleration which led scientists to believe that no one reference frame could describe better than another. So theorists devised a situation where an elevator moved close to c so that light itself looked like bent downward as it crossed the length of the elevator. Either the elevator was moving with respect to the light's straight path, or the light was bending with respect to the elevator. Which led scientists to believe that light could be affected by gravitational fields. anything at light speed always follows a geodesic, which was what ultimately led Einstein to theorizing Space-Time as being one. mmm Nostalgia gotta love it.