Guest guest Posted November 27, 2000 Report Share Posted November 27, 2000 Here is adding to Jay’s contribution of light and its uniqueness Newtonian physics - theory predicting behavior of matter works well at speeds well below the speed at which light travels. However it is an approximation sufficient for our most day to activities, design of machines, aeroplanes etc. This is because we encounter speeds that are of the order of 120km per hour -1000 /2000 km per hour (ie a maximum speed of 278 metres in 1 second). In contrast light travels at the rate of 300 million metres in 1 second. Our maximum speeds as a fraction of the speed of light is a tiny 0.000093% The analogy here is illustrative : When we try to “know” God we want to “see” him with our own eyes “hear” him speak etc – (ie) we want proof for the senses that GOD exists– Unfortunately our senses are a rather primitive instrument to even comprehend reality at speeds approaching 1000 kilometres per hour. Our biological instruments disintegrate at the forces generated at these speeds. But almost every religion equates/includes/describes an experience with GOD as something connected with light. Thus trying to “know” God using the biological body and not accepting GOD until physical proof for the senses is given is folly to say the least. Light again has this curious behavior – it behaves as a collection of massless corpuscles called photons in certain experiments (if you shine light on certain crystals it generates current – science’s reasonable conclusion is that particles from light hit the surface of crystals to generate the current). At the same time light also behaves as waves (bending of light around the corners can be explained if one postulates light as a wave). This inherent duality of light is inescapable to science. An interesting parallel is the duality of our world as we see it (both phenomenal and noumenal) in Advaita, sometimes referred to as Maya.(not illusion) Coming back to the speed of light being a constant – We try to fit facts that agree with our biological senses. In this world view it is counter intuitive that light from a rocket speeding towards us is the same as light from a rocket speeding away from us both traveling at the speed of light. However carefully done physical experiments at the end of last century (the celebrated Michelson Morley experiment) and astronomical expeditions (Arthur Eddington’s expedition in 1918 to study planet Mercury’s eclipse by proceeding to Africa) have indeed confirmed what the great Sage Einstein “knew” and “saw” – a great modern day Rishi. In sum we have to abandon our necessity of proof that satisfies the physical senses to gain this intuition. However one of the tenets of this theory is also that speed of light is the “ABSOLUTE” limit in nature. However this is being seriously questioned by a series of experiments late last year. For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Whether this a “serious” and “credible” attack on the speed limit of light is yet unknown. As the ancient tamil saying goes “Those who know and see can’t tell. Those who tell don’t know and can’t see!” With love, sreedhar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2000 Report Share Posted November 29, 2000 Whew! Thanks Sreedhar...i suppose it would be true to say then that the properties of Light are the one aspect *in* this Relative World but not *of* it...it seems to be the One 'phenomenon' that we 'know' of that has transcended the laws of the relative world?? i have no background in science...but i would be very grateful if i could touch on a few more thoughts that i have read about and have trouble comprehending... i learnt that the 'string theory' states that 'strings' are the most elemental 'thing' that make up this world...these strings are 'fluctuations of energy' every single entity, living and non-living is permeated by these strings...the difference between a table and me is just that the frequency of fluctuations of this energy varies...or so goes my understanding... in any event, if that is so, (and do correct me if i am wrong) then where do photons fit into all this...if light is made up of " massless corpuscles " which are photons. are photons too strings in greater or lesser frequencies and are merely called photons because they 'belong'to light? Are photons a 'characteristic' of any other 'phenomenon'? thanks you for your explanation...it does help... jairam >Here is adding to Jay’s contribution of light and its uniqueness > >Newtonian physics - theory predicting behavior of matter works well at >speeds well below the speed at which light travels. However it is an >approximation sufficient for our most day to activities, design of >machines, aeroplanes etc. This is because we encounter speeds that are of >the order of 120km per hour >-1000 /2000 km per hour (ie a maximum speed of 278 metres in 1 second). In >contrast light travels at the rate of 300 million metres in 1 second. Our >maximum speeds as a fraction of the speed of light is a tiny >0.000093% > >The analogy here is illustrative : When we try to “know” God we want to >“see” him with our own eyes >“hear” him speak etc – (ie) we want proof for the senses that GOD exists– >Unfortunately our senses are a rather primitive instrument to even >comprehend reality at speeds approaching 1000 kilometres per hour. >Our biological instruments disintegrate at the forces generated at these >speeds. But almost every religion equates/includes/describes an experience >with GOD as something connected with light. Thus trying to “know” God >using the biological body and not accepting GOD until physical proof for >the senses is given is folly to say the least. > >Light again has this curious behavior – it behaves as a collection of >massless corpuscles called photons in certain experiments (if you shine >light on certain crystals it generates current – science’s reasonable >conclusion is that particles from light hit the surface of crystals to >generate the current). At the same time light also behaves as waves >(bending of light around the corners can be explained if one postulates >light as a wave). This inherent duality of light is inescapable to science. > >An interesting parallel is the duality of our world as we see it (both >phenomenal and noumenal) in Advaita, sometimes referred to as Maya.(not >illusion) > >Coming back to the speed of light being a constant – We try to fit facts >that agree with our biological senses. In this world view it is counter >intuitive that light from a rocket speeding towards us is the same as light >from a rocket speeding away from us both traveling at the speed of light. >However carefully done physical experiments at the end of last century (the >celebrated Michelson Morley experiment) and astronomical expeditions >(Arthur Eddington’s expedition in 1918 to study planet Mercury’s eclipse >by proceeding to Africa) have indeed confirmed what the great Sage Einstein >“knew” and “saw” – a great modern day Rishi. In sum we have to abandon our >necessity of proof that satisfies the physical senses >to gain this intuition. > >However one of the tenets of this theory is also that speed of light is the >“ABSOLUTE” limit in nature. >However this is being seriously questioned by a series of experiments late >last year. For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster >than light moving through a vacuum. But in an experiment in Princeton, >N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so >quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The >pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would >have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Whether this a >“serious” and “credible” attack on >the speed limit of light is yet unknown. > >As the ancient tamil saying goes “Those who know and see can’t tell. Those >who tell don’t know and can’t see!” > >With love, >sreedhar ______________________________\ _____ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.