How fast is the speed of light?

[check_status]

The speed of light in a vacuum, usually denoted by c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. The value is explained as 299,792,458 metres per second, or represented as 186,282.397 miles per second. From a perspective, this may appear correct but in actuality is incorrect. The photon does not travel in a straight line, it travels in a corkscrew, that 2-dimensionally we call a wave. Light does not travel at 186,282 miles per second, in actuality, the particle of light travels 3.41 times faster than we are lead to believe.

635,222.97377 miles per second is the true speed of light.

[cbeast]

Well, straight lines do not exist in nature either. The corkscrew analogy you give offers no explanation for that behavior. I believe you are almost right, but instead of a spiral, you are looking at fluid-dynamic vortices created by the density of the vacuum as a state of the gravitic temperature.

[Gladamas]

*Ahem* and what about the other eight spacial dimensions that photons travel through?

[Electricbees]

I'm not even going to start on this one... 

[realnowhereman]

The speed of light in a vacuum, usually denoted by c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. The value is explained as 299,792,458 metres per second, or represented as 186,282.397 miles per second. From a perspective, this may appear correct but in actuality is incorrect. The photon does not travel in a straight line, it travels in a corkscrew, that 2-dimensionally we call a wave. Light does not travel at 186,282 miles per second, in actuality, the particle of light travels 3.41 times faster than we are lead to believe.

On the scale you're talking about, there is no such thing as "the particle of light", and it certainly isn't corkscrewing.  We might perhaps think of the vector sum of the electromagnetic wave components (electric and magnetic waves at right angles) to be drawing out a corkscrew, but nothing is physically travelling along that path.

I think you're making the classic mistake of carrying the analogy we use to represent the physics of the universe to ourselves too far, and treating it as real.

There are no particles and there are no waves.  There is light; and we sometimes find it convenient to think of it as a TEM wave, sometimes as a packetised ball of energy we call a particle.  Neither of those is real -- there is only "light".


Edit: here's a picture that I find helpful:

[swissmate]

that 2-dimensionally we call a wave

OMG

also learn to Wave–particle duality

[cmg5461]

The 'speed' of light is different than the 'velocity' of light.

[cmg5461]

There are no particles and there are no waves.  There is light; and we sometimes find it convenient to think of it as a TEM wave, sometimes

Waves do exist.  Sound waves.  Sound moves through a medium by means of high and low pressure states. (analog)

Who's to say photons aren't prone to vibration?

[realnowhereman]

There are no particles and there are no waves.  There is light; and we sometimes find it convenient to think of it as a TEM wave, sometimes

Waves do exist.  Sound waves.  Sound moves through a medium by means of high and low pressure states. (analog)

Who's to say photons aren't prone to vibration?

I was talking in the context of light.  Light is neither a wave nor a particle, but sometimes behaves as one or the other.

I'm not even going to bother with your nonsense about vibrating photons.  Are you going to tell me about the ether that the waves can vibrate in next?

[cbeast]

Space-time can be compressed. In many ways it acts like a medium. Light bends around dense objects like water around a rock. If space-time is a medium, wouldn't it make sense for that medium to have differing states? Most space would be fluid. Black holes may be frozen. Planck-time may be plasma. Dark Matter may be the gaseous state of space-time. What we call matter is a suspension of remnant solid space-time as particles that decay based on the temperature of the gravity they exist in, kinda like floating ice.

[realnowhereman]

I don't know about all of that; but I do like the idea that from the point of view of the light, it only travels in straight lines, it's just that the space time we see is bent.  Even better, from the light's point of view it's everywhere along its path at once, at infinite speed.  I wonder what black holes are like from the point of view of light -- the infinite curvature of the black hole meets the infinite speed of the light.

[PatrickHarnett]

What is the height of the wave for the photon?  If it is less than the diameter of the energy quanta, is it actually travelling 3.41 times further or just wobbling around an interior point?  Also, what about particle spin, are you measuring a point on the surface as it s[ins on the wave trajectory?

(BTW - I have someone in my office who can answer these questions, but thought it would be better to see the results here.)

[swissmate]

What is the height of the wave for the photon?  If it is less than the diameter of the energy quanta, is it actually travelling 3.41 times further or just wobbling around an interior point?  Also, what about particle spin, are you measuring a point on the surface as it s[ins on the wave trajectory?

(BTW - I have someone in my office who can answer these questions, but thought it would be better to see the results here.)

height of the wave?
I'm assuming you mean wavelength, it's not a constant value the wavelength of the photon as it depends on how "energetic" that photon is. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

Energy quanta is a measure of energy. It has no diameter.

Also while talking about a particle spin you suppose that it's not a wave. Particles are not waves.
We separate both concepts particle and wave to understand better the physics phenomenons.

[Gladamas]

What is the height of the wave for the photon?  If it is less than the diameter of the energy quanta, is it actually travelling 3.41 times further or just wobbling around an interior point?  Also, what about particle spin, are you measuring a point on the surface as it s[ins on the wave trajectory?

(BTW - I have someone in my office who can answer these questions, but thought it would be better to see the results here.)

height of the wave?
I'm assuming you mean wavelength, it's not a constant value the wavelength of the photon as it depends on how "energetic" that photon is. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

I think he's asking what double the amplitude of a light ray is.

[swissmate]

I don't know about all of that; but I do like the idea that from the point of view of the light, it only travels in straight lines, it's just that the space time we see is bent.  Even better, from the light's point of view it's everywhere along its path at once, at infinite speed.  I wonder what black holes are like from the point of view of light -- the infinite curvature of the black hole meets the infinite speed of the light.

In the physics before Maxwell (to simplify this a bit) light is a transverse wave. It doesn't travel strictly in straight lines. That's why some materials are transparent and we can see through them. See this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens%E2%80%93Fresnel_principle

[PatrickHarnett]

I don't especially care about the wavelength, if it's x-ray or visible spectrum.  Unless the amplitude is linked to wavelength which is something I wasn't considering.

As for energy quanta having no diameter, photons are mainly energy, like electrons or protons, and are built on a nice assembly of quarks (I suppose) so there would be a size  associated with that.

How big is a photon?  I haven't checked recently.

[pazor]

2fast4you
 

[juggalodarkclow]

... hits light switch.... finds out the speed of light.......

[swissmate]

I don't especially care about the wavelength, if it's x-ray or visible spectrum.  Unless the amplitude is linked to wavelength which is something I wasn't considering.

As for energy quanta having no diameter, photons are mainly energy, like electrons or protons, and are built on a nice assembly of quarks (I suppose) so there would be a size  associated with that.

How big is a photon?  I haven't checked recently.

Well for a wave like a photon with a good defined wavelength and frequency,  you cannot spot it in space ( it occupies all of it).
When talking about a dense electromagnetic field we need to talk about a "package of photons", "many electromagnetic waves". In that case the efective wavelength of the package of photons gives us the size.

[PatrickHarnett]

No, I was talking about single photons and they have been experimenting with singles for decades.

The "well defined" frequency and wavelength is directly related (inverse) adjusted for density of the medium unless I've really forgotten all of my physics.