[Craigo]

Hi Guys,
I am working on a humble idea of my own and at the moment I am missing a mechanism to increase the energy of the electromagnetic spectrum (light) to the point that it will effect the shape of space (gain mass). If, as a particle has more and more energy poured into it to make it go faster it begins to change the shape of space around it in order to maintain the speed limit. It gains mass in short, and thus gravity comes into play compacting its relative and local space to prevent it going any faster. Is this a fair statement of what is happening?

If so then if light is given the urge to go faster (more energy) then will it not begin to compact space, gain mass and gravity to distort space to prevent the speed increase. Basically the extra energy begins to create matter instead of speed. My thought is that in the begining there was no lump of impossibly dense stuff just lying around waiting to go off, just a sudden energy burst that was of sufficient intensity to compact space until we got the creation of matter and all this untidy universe came into being. But, how could you possibly increase the energy in this wonderfully exciting and random place enough to create the matter. Is it probable enough that an intense enough source could produce enough energy to start intensifying the exsisting light by compacting the wavelength of light to the point it becomes a lump? I like the phrase "let there be light"

Ideas any one?
P.S. I am using the word 'light' here to define the electromagnetic spectrum and in this case I am talking about gamma and shorter wavelength energies Not visible light.

[subversion]

I think light gains energy by increasing frequency not speed

[Bob Campbell]

Hi,
There is another way to see the whole problem that has never been investigated before and that answers some of your concerns. There is an article on my website that should interest you, and an academic book on Science & Cosmic Order if you want to go further. Have a look at www.cosmic-mindreach.com.

Good luck,
Bob

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by subversion

I think light gains energy by increasing frequency not speed

Absolutely correct my friend.frequency matters!


kind regards michael.

[SimpleKid18]

Why are you even discussing what the ultimate speed of light is? We already know from Einsteins famous equation that E=mc2, so the value of c has to be right. The speed of light is around 330,000 m/s. If this is wrong, as you seem to think it is, then the equation would have no validity.... but it does because the measurements for the atomic bomb were precise.

[baudrunner]

I will take a look the site, Bob, but first let me clarify a few things. A lot of the theory that we ponder today are the result of high energy particle physics experiments, ie acellerator experiments. The fact is that we cannot pump more energy into a particle than it will allow, in other words: the energy that goes in is coming out in some form or another once its velocity threshold, given the limitations imposed upon it by the experiment in question, are reached and a lot of misconstruence results from this including radiation creating new scenarios etc. It is virtually impossible to control those quantum threshold boundaries at the macro level, thank you Werner Von Heisenberg. The speed of light as given, ie 3x10^10 cm/sec is approximate, and negligable variations at the macro level translate into phenominally huge variations at the quantum level.

[davidgow77]

Philosophically speaking, I think that seeing the speed of light as an actual "speed" is a flawed concept. If you look at the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it would make sense to see the speed of light as actually a "lack of location". In this sense, the less we know about something's location, the more we can know about its speed, which in turn is why we can say that the speed of light can be measured very acurately as being just below 300,000 m/s.

This gives rise to the question "does light accelerate". I beleive it does not.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by davidgow77

Philosophically speaking, I think that seeing the speed of light as an actual "speed" is a flawed concept. If you look at the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it would make sense to see the speed of light as actually a "lack of location". In this sense, the less we know about something's location, the more we can know about its speed, which in turn is why we can say that the speed of light can be measured very acurately as being just below 300,000 m/s.

This gives rise to the question "does light accelerate". I beleive it does not.

That is an excellent point!But the next one is where are we now?
Andwhat is Really being measured?

kind regards michael.

[davidgow77]

I wouldn't have a clue where we are now. I believe that the questions concerning matter accelerating to the speed of light are completely irrelevant given Einstein's assertion on the amount of energy it would take to do this. Light is not matter... it should simply be seen as energy. If we could find out how space is actually structured, then maybe we could find out why the speed of light is 300,000 m/s. I have a few hair-brained ideas on this but nothing solid.

I also don't think that the curvature of space dictates gravity, as general relativity asserts. However, the bending of light near gravitational objects seems to suggest that matter does curve space to a certain extent, but until we can find out exactly what is being curved (a bundle of planck-lengths???), theories on why light travels at a particular speed will only ever be conjectural. We should all stop theorising on what light is, and focus more on the medium through which it travels (i.e. space).... i think this will give us more answers.

DG

[mkirkpatrick]

I would like to quote Davidgow77,"quote,"We should all stop theorising on what
light is,and focus more on the medium through which it travels,(ie space)".
That is a very good question!Here is an idea as to what space could be.
Suppose
Please
And
Consider
Ether.
The ether or aether to me is much like a liquid and has a universal flow,and
much like a river,or creek,there are eddies,whorls,ebbs and flows,as well as
floods!There are also places of slack water?Just a little notion of mine.

kind regards michael.