Faster than the speed of light (?

Cloud chamber

The following discussion is about the possibility of a faster than the speed of light
propagation of a signal. If we consider a ‘signal’ as a material object, it is impossible. But
if on the other hand we regard ‘velocity’ as a calculation we make by dividing ‘space
over time’ then a signal is an ‘intervening medium,’ as Aristotle would say, and there is
no limitation concerning the ‘speed of light.’

Could something run faster than light? Somebody could say ‘why not?’ Physically
however this is impossible. It would violate the principle of causality which states that
each cause precedes the corresponding result otherwise a future event could happen
before the event that made it happen. In essence the principle of causality (equivalently
the principle of locality) has been identified with the limit of the speed of light. In other
words the principle says that nothing can propagate with a speed greater than the speed of
light. Otherwise we would have to face all the paradoxes that have to do with both space
and time.

The inviolability of the speed of light was tested by the Michelson-Morley experiment,
was set as an axiom in Einstein’s theory of relativity, and the mathematical formula that
expresses this inviolability is Einstein’s formula for the equivalence of mass and energy

E = mc2

where E the energy of an object, m its mass, and c (a constant) the speed of light. From
the previous equation we see that if c becomes infinite so does E, which is meaningless.
In any case we should stress the strong relationship between the principle of causality and
the equivalence principle as the last one is expressed by the previous equation. However,
there is not any deeper cause that prohibits us to run faster than light since there is just a
principle (that of causality) expressed through a relation (that of the equivalence between
mass and energy) which is simply not normalized. (Moreover Einstein never proved why
the speed of light has to be a constant).
 Black body radiation curves
In order to show what normalization means (i.e. to make a mathematical expression
finite) we can give a classical as much as instructive example: the ultraviolet catastrophe
problem. It was a calculus problem of classical mechanics concerning the radiation
transmitted from a black body the solution of which led to the birth of quantum theory.
As we can see in the previous figure the classical theory predicted that the radiation
would become infinite for small wavelengths (reversely for high frequencies) according
to a relation of the form

E = kT

where E the energy of the black body, T its temperature, and k Boltzmann’s constant.
What interests us here is not how to derive the formula for the black body radiation (the
classical relation of Rayleigh- Jeans) from the previous formula. The point is that this
relation becomes infinite for high frequencies in the same way that the previous classical
formula for the energy of a black body becomes infinite for high temperatures.

The paradigm shift took place when Plank ‘playing’ with statistics found a formula for
the energy of a black body that gave a finite result even for high frequencies. For the sake
of the argument and for reasons of comparison I will write down Plank’s relation for the
energy of a black body

The key difference with the classical formula is that the energy also depends on
frequency (f). As the temperature gets higher so does the frequency and the energy
remains within acceptable limits so that the ultraviolet catastrophe is avoided. On the
other hand at low frequencies the formula just reproduces the classical one of Rayleigh-
Jeans. Consequently the relation is bounded, normalized as we would say in mathematics,
both for high and for low values of temperature.
I would like to remind here that this little change to the formula that gave the energy of a
black body led from classical physics to quantum physics. Could Einstein’s formula
E=mc2 in an analogous way lead us from quantum physics and the theory of relativity to
a new theory where causality will be understood in a different way? The turning point
was once made through the thermodynamics of the black body. Could the successor of
the present quantum theory also emerge through the thermodynamics of another black
body- a black hole? (As Steven Hawking has recently found black holes radiate energy).

It is true that quantum gravity theories try to unify quantum theory and general relativity
using principles and relations that have to do with the thermodynamics of black holes.
One of these is the holographic principle. This principle gives us a simple way to describe
a black hole from what is happening on its ‘walls’ (the event horizon) without entering
the interior (which would be fatal). How could the behavior of light be described
precisely at the time that it slips or it is radiated from the event horizon of a black hole?
How much time passes from the moment we send a pulse of light to a black hole till this
pulse just manages to be reemitted and come back to us? (Let’s remember that black
holes do radiate) If this time interval becomes infinite and provided that the light just
escapes from the black hole and returns to us does this mean that it will come back to us
instantaneously?

If the above simple reasoning with regard to the behavior of light near a black body (such
as a black hole) is extended to all objects (in fact a black body is any object that absorbs
and reemits radiation being in a thermodynamic equilibrium) then we should wonder if
light is reflected (that is reemitted) from the surface of objects instantaneously or in due
time. In other words if an object needs some time to react (an inertial time we could say)
in order to absorb and reemit (that is reflect) the light that we sent, then we should add to
the speed of light this inertial time of the object. If this time is null then the speed of light
is c. But if this time is not null then the speed of light should be recalculated, in which
case it may become infinite if the inertial time goes to infinity (as for example near a
black hole).
The notion of an inertial time during the exchange of information (as a light signal is) of
interacting objects is absent from modern bibliography. As an exception I mention a site
that I found on the internet that deals with what is called relational quantum gravity [1].
Furthermore in the mathematical appendix that follows I present a typical calculation of
my own concerning the speed of light taking into account inertial time. This notion of an
inertial time perhaps is a little personal discovery and it may be subject to corrections.
Anyway it could cover a huge void in modern physics concerning the principle of
causality without the latter being abolished. My mathematical and mental powers
abandon me right now. I believe that one way or another we will sooner or later exceed
the limit that is related with the speed of light since there is neither any speed sign in the
universe nor a policeman to give as a ticket if we ignore it. Because the limits are those
we set ourselves!

***
MATHEMATICAL APPENDIX

How do we really measure the speed of light? Light is fundamentally different from all
other ‘objects:’ we cannot see it. (This is of course the reason why light is more like an
‘effect’ of the intervening medium or vacuum than a ‘real object’). All ‘observable
objects’ can be traced as ‘material spots moving on the background.’ So by defining a
measure of length and a measure of time we determine the measure of velocity by just
dividing the distance travelled over the time elapsed.

Let’s suppose that we have a light source and a clock. As soon as we produce a
‘quantum’ of light the clock starts to tick. Then the light is reflected upon an object (let’s
suppose a mirror) and as soon as it comes back the clock stops. We have measured the
distance s between the source and the object, we measure the time interval on the clock t,
so the speed of light will be c = s/t. We repeat the experiment again and again to make
sure this speed is constant whatever the distance or the orientation and relative motion of
the light source and the object. That’s why after all we have concluded that the speed of
light is a universal constant.

However this constancy of the speed of light should not be surprising at all. The same
holds for the speed of sound and so does for all kinds of propagating waves (remember
the assumption that light is not an object but a ‘link’ between objects.) In any case the
speed of a wave depends merely on the properties of the medium (even if we call this
medium a ‘vacuum.’) Furthermore we should have noticed that the speed of light appears
(as a universal constant) in many other phenomena that have nothing to do with light.
This fact should have already raised suspicions about the interpretation of ‘c’ as the speed
of light.

Is there something that we forgot to take into account when measuring the speed of light?
We’ve already said that light is an imaginary particle (that’s why it hasn’t got any mass).
But if light is massless then how come it doesn’t travel instantaneously? The reason must
be that objects have mass so they have inertia. What we have omitted is that the
‘reflection’ of light hides a process: Objects absorb a photon and then emit it back. Since
objects have inertia this ‘reaction’ could not happen instantaneously.

So let’s define the time of the absorption- emission interval and let’s call it inertial time,
ti. And let’s call ‘light time’ tc the time that the photon takes to reach our instrument after
it has been reemitted by the object. The total time for this procedure (from the light
source and back) will be
t = ti + tc →
tc = t - ti →
s/tc = s/(t - ti),

where s is the distance between the light source and the reflecting object.

If we define as ¢ the net speed of light (in connection with tc after the reemission) then
 ¢ = s/tc = s/(t - ti) = (s/t)/(1-ti/t).

The fraction s/t just equals c (a constant), what we assume as the ‘speed of light.’ So

¢ = c/(1-ti/t).

This is the speed of light.

We can now draw the following graph:

We assumed c=1 and ti/t = x for simplicity. (The function g=1 is just a straight line used
for comparison). Note that 0<ti/t<1. When ti/t → 0 (i.e. when we don’t take into account ti
or we consider it very small) ¢ = c. On the other hand, when ti → t then ¢ → ∞. This is
the implication that interest us here: The ‘heavier’ the object, i.e. the greater its mass, the
bigger the inertial time becomes, and the faster the light signal will have to travel in order
to be on time back to the source.

I am quite sure that if an experiment is held observing a massive object like a black hole
this effect would be more than obvious. The speed of light can grow to infinity while the
‘speed’ including both inertial time and ‘light time’ may remain constant. We are used to
regard the speed of light as a constant and time as a variable but in fact we can do the
opposite as well. In the syllogism presented above time remains constant and the speed of
light varies.

In our previous discussion we didn’t mention the relative ‘observer effect.’ Both the light
source and the clock (not to mention ourselves) have inertial times. They are all material
‘objects’ so they need some time to react. This would add more accuracy but more
complexity to our calculations. Nevertheless the more inertial times we add, the faster the
speed of light we will measure. So we can suppose another infinite regress problem that
its sum will be constant c.

---

P.S. There is still an important point that shouldn’t pass without notice. We have argued
that a photon hurries to be on time. How come a photon ‘knows’ this task? In fact this is
an old question not a new one. The double-slit experiment leaves exactly this question
hanging. How does the photon know where to shot the target? What is the physical
property behind the probability distribution that describes the process? But this is another
story. I will just mention here how important the notion of the tautochrone may become.

[1] Relational Quantum Gravity: http://rqgravity.net/OriginOfCurvature