Do Physics Equations Disprove the Speed of Light as a Constant?
For the mathematically inclined, does the following manipulation of equations suggest that quantized matter lacks a speed limit traditionally gauged as the velocity of light?
(*Amended with the correct Planck's constant units in a following post, so you may want to skip this and go directly to that one. The change does not alter the final equation.)
1.
The units of Planck's constant are joule seconds or meters per kilogram per second. This essentially amounts to distance multiplied by mass and time, which I'll call "dmt".
2.
Wavelength equals Planck's constant divided by mass and velocity, which can be written as w=dmt/mv.
If we cancel mass, then translate the remaining variables into meters and seconds for the sake of demonstration, we get w=meters*second/(meters/second). This translates into seconds squared, which I'll call time (t) squared.
3.
Force equals mass times acceleration, F=ma, and energy equals mass times the squared speed of light, E=mc(squared).
If we solve for mass and then equate, we get F/a=E/c(squared), and cross multiplying yields Ea=Fc(squared).
If we again translate distance and time quantities into meters per second, we get:
E*m/s(squared)=F*meters(squared)/second(squared).
If we cancel terms, energy equals force multiplied by distance, E=Fd, which can be translated into energy equals mass multiplied by acceleration and distance, or E=mad (lol).
4.
Frequency equals energy divided by Planck's constant, f=E/P. P=dmt, and E=mad, so f=mad/dmt.
If we cancel mass and distance, f=a/t remains. Substituting meters and seconds again, we get
f=meters/seconds(squared)/seconds, which translates into meters/second(cubed) or distance divided by time(cubed), d/t(cubed).
5.
If we multiply w=t(squared) by t, we get wt=t(cubed). If we solve the frequency equation for t(cubed), we get d/f. This yields wt=d/f.
In this scenario, time has been completely disjuncted from distance, which seems to imply the absence of a velocity constant, whether of light or any kind. So are values of time, distance, frequency and wavelength completely without intrinsic parameterization in the context of current physics? Do basic equations intimate an absence of dimensional constants, whether of space, rate or acceleration?
(*Amended with the correct Planck's constant units in a following post, so you may want to skip this and go directly to that one. The change does not alter the final equation.)
1.
The units of Planck's constant are joule seconds or meters per kilogram per second. This essentially amounts to distance multiplied by mass and time, which I'll call "dmt".
2.
Wavelength equals Planck's constant divided by mass and velocity, which can be written as w=dmt/mv.
If we cancel mass, then translate the remaining variables into meters and seconds for the sake of demonstration, we get w=meters*second/(meters/second). This translates into seconds squared, which I'll call time (t) squared.
3.
Force equals mass times acceleration, F=ma, and energy equals mass times the squared speed of light, E=mc(squared).
If we solve for mass and then equate, we get F/a=E/c(squared), and cross multiplying yields Ea=Fc(squared).
If we again translate distance and time quantities into meters per second, we get:
E*m/s(squared)=F*meters(squared)/second(squared).
If we cancel terms, energy equals force multiplied by distance, E=Fd, which can be translated into energy equals mass multiplied by acceleration and distance, or E=mad (lol).
4.
Frequency equals energy divided by Planck's constant, f=E/P. P=dmt, and E=mad, so f=mad/dmt.
If we cancel mass and distance, f=a/t remains. Substituting meters and seconds again, we get
f=meters/seconds(squared)/seconds, which translates into meters/second(cubed) or distance divided by time(cubed), d/t(cubed).
5.
If we multiply w=t(squared) by t, we get wt=t(cubed). If we solve the frequency equation for t(cubed), we get d/f. This yields wt=d/f.
In this scenario, time has been completely disjuncted from distance, which seems to imply the absence of a velocity constant, whether of light or any kind. So are values of time, distance, frequency and wavelength completely without intrinsic parameterization in the context of current physics? Do basic equations intimate an absence of dimensional constants, whether of space, rate or acceleration?
Comments (140)
Quoting Enrique
LOL. So you got the wrong units for length, right in step 2. This is where one would go back to look for the mistake, but no, you forge ahead...
Snarkiness as anticipated lol I corrected the Planck's constant value, yielding d(squared)*m/t. It still works: d=w, d=acceleration*time/f. The assumption is usually made that the speed of light is a constant maximum, which this shows can only be justified empirically if at all, not in principle. The equations don't support it. I recall reading that Einstein himself never claimed the speed of light as an absolute maximum anyways, but I've demonstrated that it is radically hypothetical based on fundamental equations. You can quote me on that!
What's conceptually interesting to me about the wt=d/f formula is that the perceptual and structural unity of intuitive spatiotemporality is completely dissolved, with both space and time being equivalent to something like pressure, temperature and volume in Boyle's gas law equation (PV=nRT): purely definitions of emergent properties in substance, and only real by analogy with macroscopic structure.
If you think of spacetime as not the fabric of reality but instead a pair of descriptive variables only real by analogy, this suggests that motion is not essentially either spatial or temporal, though it is hard to imagine logically. Space and time are direct and inverse correlations that don't exceed the constraints of modeling formulas in which they are utilized, not in any way essences.
If motion is fundamentally supraspatiotemporal, it seems plausible that light can be part of a large spectrum that extends in the direction of more rapid speeds, while the acceleration of massive bodies towards light speed constitutes a very narrow range of material occurrence. Velocity and acceleration as we have thus far measured them could be like a sliver of the motion spectrum. Atomic orbital shifts in response to photon/electron interactions might occur faster than light, advanced waves may propagate such that slower events are affected by backwards in time causal reactions, quantum entanglement becomes explicable, and the existence of tachyons may be not improbable.
I wonder if physicists and mathematicians popularize their ideas just to set the public up for a mocking lol You dismiss my analysis just because I didn't utilize decimals? We all can comprehend the basic concepts of physics without a calculator. I've taken calculus and quantitative chemical analysis, I know some stuff.
Not a decimal person myself. But equations do not determine reality.
What about the effects of spatial expansion? When spatial expansion increases as time passes, and things start speeding away from each other faster than the speed of light, does this not qualify as acceleration?
I think my equation might be getting at something relatively fundamental though, at least in the context of current physics. Does wt=d/f imply that time dilation is directly proportional to distance or dimensional extension and inversely proportional to wavelength and frequency, while distance is directly proportional to wavelength and inversely proportional to frequency or energy?
Is the classical scale categorically disjuncted from the quantum scale because of time dilation? Is energy directly proportional to time contraction?
Subatomic phenomena of the quantum scale as traditionally construed might behave so differently than objects at the classical scale because of an exponentially compressed distance accompanied by likewise contracted time, giving them almost instantaneous rates. The more energy that is contained in a system at the quantum scale, the more time contracted its causal effects, all else being equal. The sun generates relatively non-time contracted effects because most of its energy is dissipated into kinetic energy of the classical scale. Brains by contrast, with the elaborate quantum machinery of their unique biochemistry, are like quantum suns, radiating entanglement effects on a large scale while overriding classical time dilation. Maybe this accounts for the introspective perceptions which lead to a panpsychist impression of the way consciousness works, the "all is mind" illusion.
A reference in this regard would be nice. I know very little about the quantum world.
Try reading three threads I posted awhile back at this site to get a feel for the concepts, which seem to be unprecedented:
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics, The Sequel
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics, the Reality Possibly
Uniting spirituality, psychology and physics, how can your interest flag?
According to this equation, wt=d/f, time is completely unlike a constant, but rather a conditional variable, inversely correlated with wavelength and frequency, and directly correlated with distance. This means that, all else being equal, increasing frequency (energy) causes time contraction, and decreasing distances faster than energy (per what units?) decreases will cause time contraction as well.
In electromagnetic radiation, wavelength and frequency are inversely correlated in a linear relationship, so the d/t or rate value stays effectively stable, leading to the famed constant speed of light across all of its wavelengths. But in an atom, frequency is more like energy concentration and wavelength a configuration of these energy concentrations, together varying in an extremely nonlinear way as obviously manifest by the heterogeneity of atomic structure. Distances are also nonlinear since a peak of the wave function or equivalently the core of a wavicle’s position is much smaller in diameter than the entire range encompassing its less probable and thus less concentrated locations.
Vast difference between quantum and classical phenomena can be explained by the deep disjunct between subatomic and macroatomic scales. The subatomic scale contains all the energy of the classical scale, but the relatively tiny diameter of its highest probability concentrations compared to the total probability wave means that a huge time contraction is in effect, making the relative motions of subatomic matter almost instantaneous. This can be contrasted with the greater continuity of macroatomic to macroscopically Earthlike scales that produces dynamics of classical physics.
A solar system has similarly large disjuncts between stars, planets and what surrounds them, causing a time contraction which makes their movements coordinated in an effectively instantaneous way.
What insights can we gain from the fact that increases in energy at constant distance will result in time contraction? If subatomic wavicle cores contain almost as much energy as the macroatomic structures they comprise, this means that time contraction is not simply a nanoscale phenomenon but permeates nature. Earthlike matter consists of dual timescales: a quantum layer in which the interactions of high energy wavicles are time contracted enough to happen almost instantaneously even on the macroscopic scale, while the classical layer is time dilated such that events unfold much more slowly by comparison.
Causation at the quantum scale happens almost instantaneously, and the elapsed time is faster the more high energy the matter is. Some of the highest energy matter on Earth is electricity, for it is made up of maximally compacted electrons. This high energy means that it conveys quantum entanglement effects more robustly than probably any alternate form of Earthbound matter.
The brain with its one hundred trillion synaptic connections is an extremely powerful electric field, and so radiates quantum causation like an electron differential or electrical potential sun, seemingly entangled with surrounding matter in an instantaneous way that defies the laws of classical physics. This can perhaps explain the mystical experiences such as synchronicity that many have, and the philosophical doctrine of “all is mind” which we see surfacing throughout history.
That's what I'm hoping for. Gotta get all my variables accurately correlated, this is a challenge. Its all derived from deep thinking about books by renowned physicists, so I'm not b.s.ing you.
1.
The units of Planck's constant are joule seconds or (meters^squared) * kilograms / seconds. This essentially amounts to distance squared multiplied by mass and divided by time, which I'll call
"(d^squared)m/t".
2.
Wavelength equals Planck's constant divided by mass and velocity, which can be written as
w=((d^squared)m/t)/mv.
If we cancel mass, then translate the remaining variables into meters and seconds for the sake of demonstration, we get w=((meters^squared)/second)/(meters/second). This translates into meters or distance (d).
3.
Force equals mass times acceleration, F=ma, and energy equals mass times the squared speed of light, E=m(c^squared).
If we solve for mass and then equate, F/a=E/(c^squared), and cross multiplying yields Ea=F(c^squared).
If we again translate distance and time quantities into meters per second, we get:
E*m/(s^squared)=F*(meters^squared)/(seconds^squared).
Cancel terms and energy equals force multiplied by distance, E=Fd, which can be translated into energy equals mass multiplied by acceleration and distance, or E=mad.
4.
Frequency equals energy divided by Planck's constant, f=E/P. P=(d^squared)*m/t, and E=mad, so f=mad/(d^squared)m/t.
If we cancel mass and distance, f=at/d remains, which can be translated into d=at/f. Substituting meters and seconds again, we get d=meters/(seconds^squared)*seconds/f, which translates into (meters/second)/f or d=d/ft: ft must equal 1, perhaps in conjunction with as of yet unspecified variables, which at any rate is an intermediate step in this context so that the complications can be disregarded.
5.
d=w and d=d/ft, yielding wt=d/f.
For those knowledgeable about physics, what is the significance of ft=1? It seems that as energy increases, time contraction occurs, and if the energy increase is nonlinear by whatever measure, time will contract nonlinearly, perhaps exponentially. Maybe a constant would be necessary to scale this properly. Distance and wavelength probably need to be defined with more precision, even though the equation in this crude form does capture the essence of correlations being considered.
Maybe w/t=df is a valid equation also, from a different perspective? Does w/d have to equal 1, and if so what are the implications?.
No, equations to not tend to prove anything. Equations merely try to describe what is observed.
They may provide a theoretical explanation at best, but the only thing which acts as proof is evidence and examples in the real world.
The two basic examples which break the principle that the speed of light is the fastest speed that anything can travel are:-
1 - the size of the universe, which on current estimates is more than 98bn light years across - and therefore more than 4 times the widest spread that could be achieved by an exploding singularity at the speed of light.
2 - the faster than light experiments conducted by Nicolas Gisin across lake Geneva which demonstrated that particles of light travelling away from each other in opposite directions (twice the speed of light) were still able to communicate instantly - (or technically, at least 10,000 times the speed of light).
The fact that your equations can't cope with this means that they are not proof of reality.
1 Doesn't really break the "no object faster than the speed of light" principle: as per my post above, the speed that galaxies appear to be receding at is a function of both the velocity of the galaxy which is sublight and the expansion rate of space, which is not a speed at all.
2 New one to me, I'll have to look it up. Is it yet another case where QM and relativity clash?
Quoting Enrique
This is terribly unprincipled. F=MA is a Newtonian approximation, that disintegrates in special-relativistic (or for that matter, general-relativistic) contexts - from which the latter formulation stems. You can't interchange the two, without discounting the argument of relativistic mass (which is inextricably associated with the work encompassed by a body). F = dp/dt, with an updated Lorentz factor, may be an appropriate substitute. Physics isn't so exoteric, such that it lends itself to a mindless coalescence of equations, with an approach bereft of a priori significance.
https://qr.ae/pGX0v5
Quoting Enrique
What, on Earth, is 'supraspatiotemporal'?
Quoting Enrique
Time contraction, in special-relativistic contexts, is engendered by a local constancy of the speed of light in (presumed) Minkowski Spaces; that is to say, c remains intractable to inertial reference frames.
You can't passively adhere to that idea, whilst simultaneously espousing tachyons - or variable lightspeeds.
Quoting Enrique
Why is it, that there seems to exist an unrelenting fixation on integrating QM with metaphysical ideas? Quantum Mechanics is the hallmark of Mathematical Physics; it entails Wavefunction Collapses, Hilbert Spaces, PDFs, Dirac Matrices and Path Integrals; Qualia, on the contrary, pertains to human consciousness. In what fictitious universe, are the two intertwined with one another?
Quoting Enrique
With all due respect, are you not being dishonest to yourself? You're sermonizing in a manner quintessential of fraudulent proponents of Quantum Mysticism, such as Deepak Chopra. What does the term 'quantum causation' convey, precisely? Why would you bring 'synchronicity', to the fore? What's an 'electron differential'? I'm not a Physicist, but you're demonstrating an utter apathy, to the overarching subject that you're sourcing fragmentary ideas from.
Quoting Enrique
Are you referring, in part, to the probabilistic nature of Schrodinger's Wavefunction? If so, can you elucidate the nature of the time contraction you're interpreting? For instance, are the notions of 'energy' you've readily apprehended, conceptually attached to the Hamiltonian Operators and Time-Evolution of a model particle? What formalism are you construing them in, from a mathematical perspective?
If you're undertaking an epistemic pursuit inside a rarefied framework (Physics inclusive), then do so in a manner that is adherent, and respectful of that framework. If you don't, you appeal neither to the scientific method - nor a purely nonscientific one. You're entrapped instead, in a pseudoscientific paradigm.
Quoting jkg20
That's an exemplary clarification - and simultaneously what I was pensive over, having read the comment. Universal expansion isn't characterized by a velocity; it's empirically derived by an (approximately) linear gradient mapping of the Hubble Constant, onto observed recessionary velocities against their distances from Earth.
Quoting jgill
That's an affirmative stance, but is it necessarily wise to accord a benefit of doubt, prior to witnessing an even partial demonstration of an argument's veracity?
The benefit of doubt in the context of babble is inconsequential.
Hi Both
the video which Tim provided is, I think, flawed, because it mixes concepts and ignores the basics.
Firstly, the guy talks about space expanding, when space is probably not expanding - but the objects within it are just spreading out. That is an important difference. (If space were truly expanding, the objects within it would also be expanding/swelling - and they're not).
Secondly, he layers 'Dark Energy' on top, (when it is no more than a concept that is not proven, and just a theoretical way to plug a gap in our understanding based on the strengthening redshift of galaxies - which can be interpreted in other ways). He then says that the combination increases the spread beyond what it was before.
The overall effect is still that things had to travel faster than the speed of light to get from the Big Bang point, to the extremities of what we can see and theorize about in the universe, in absolute terms. Nobody knows how big the Universe is because we can't see its outer limits (if indeed, there are any).
I could add that the notion of curved space has also been largely disproven by the 9 year results of the WMAP programme which concluded, (with a small margin of error), that the dimensional lines are straight and therefore that space is potentially infinite.
I feel that the best way to think about things is that the most distant objects we can see are in a place where they existed 13billion years ago, not the present day. We are also in the middle of the expansion, and because we are surrounded by material evenly on all sides, it is logical to assume that if there was a Big Bang, (which also seems likely), that the material emitted before us came out faster than us, and the material that came out after us, was travelling more slowly.
That being the case, if you try to argue that the speed of light is the maximum that anything could go (also just a theory), then we are still faced with the dilemma that the universe shouldn't be more than 27.4 billon light years across, no matter what.
Quoting tim wood
We don't reside in a world, that confers any value to evidence anymore. I'm not denigrating anyone, but @Gary Enfield is adhering to a nonstandard interpretation, without disconfirming the specifics of its antithesis (on which there exists an empirical consensus: Hubble's Law).
Quoting Gary Enfield
C remains insurmountable, solely under the following prerequisites (I may be mistaken, but this is a canonical interpretation):
If a massive body were to traverse alongside a beam of light, on a flat space-time fabric (the intuitive analog of a four-dimensional Pseudo-Riemannian manifold), then it'd be unable - with any degree of acceleration, to surpass that beam. If there exist crevasses or protrusions within that manifold, such as a metric tensor defining a traversable Einstein-Rosen bridge, a massive body might be able to encompass an otherwise spacelike distance, that a beam of light would cease to trace on a flattened variant of the continuum.
Space-time fabrics, nonetheless, are tractable - if they expand, they necessarily elongate the relative distances between any two bodies on them. @jkg20 delineated this idea, earlier; you can't characterize space, with a normative velocity. I hope you'll attribute any degree of credence to a (reverified) Wikipedia article on the construct (insofar as you won't be incorrigible, or obstinate):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe
Quoting jgill
I'm sorry; I didn't quite grasp this - can you elaborate on what you meant?
Quoting jkg20
This refers to quantum entanglement of distant particles. Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance". QM just says that the measured values of entangled particles (including at a distance) will be correlated. It specifies no mechanism for how that occurs, which is an interpretational issue. Some interpretations reject locality (such as Bohmian Mechanics), others reject realism (in Bell's sense).
Quoting Quantum nonlocality - Wikipedia
The standard answer to this is, I believe, that at small scale distances, e.g. between the atoms that make up bodies, gravitational effects like expansion of space are trumped by the effects of electormagnetic, strong and weak forces acting between atoms and so on. Hence objects made up of atoms etc do not expand whilst the space between those objects does, or at least can.
If this is how you initiate, I've got to wonder what your ulterior motives are. Way more dissing than is warranted by the circumstances. I'm only beginning to get into the mathematical core of cutting edge physics, so my ideas of proportion and correlation are primarily qualitative, but they are drawn from books by respected physicists who I presume didn't make an error that flagrantly misguides readers. Theories associated with the speed of light are at the fringe of my knowledge, and this post is as speculative as I've attempted at this site, so consider it an effort to learn more than a proposal of something I believe is definitive. As for the theory of relativity, I'll think about it and do some reading.
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
The probability wave concept I'm employing is just that the predicted proportion of behavior within a reference frame at the quantum scale, whether construed in terms of position, momentum or whatever, models the average amount of energy within that reference frame relative to the rest of the wave function. Maybe time contraction because matter of lower frequency (energy) moves or spreads faster in some way? Not my expertise, but if someone wants to critique that definition, go for it!
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
In my case, because its not metaphysics, its the foundations of psychology in matter! I have a much firmer grasp of quantum biology than any concepts akin to quantum relativity. I'd love to get your's or anyone's critique of my attempt to integrate results from biology experiments in which quantum effects have been observed with a theory of qualitative experience (as elaborated in those three threads you probably bashed without reading lol) I'm much more competent to discuss details in that arena than anything tied to the equations of relativity.
These are the links again for those interested:
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics, The Sequel
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics, the Reality Possibly
Maybe you guys can read these discussions and teach me something about quantum effects in nature.
I appreciate that you guys bothered to resurrect this neglected thread so we can all learn some stuff, new ideas on my radar!
Tim / Aryamoy Mitra
I gave my understanding with several examples which did include evidence and rationale.
You may not like them, but unless you can show they are not correct, they remain a valid interpretation in their own right. I don't need to cite anyone else.
The only reason why you feel that C remains insurmountable is through your choice to believe it - despite the evidence I gave.
A fixed C was always a presumption, and now that the evidence exists to question that assumption, various people have tried to distort the basic facts in the hope that it might preserve their treasured belief in an insurmountable C instead of accepting another, more simple possibility - that it is possible in certain circumstances to go faster than light.
I really don't see why faster than light possibilities are such a feared thing to consider.
The video which Tim suggested, does present such a distortion to preserve C by arguing, without evidence, that space is expanding - what more do I need to say? There is no proof that space is expanding.
Even if you truly believe that space does expand, something must be causing it to expand, and the combined effect of thrust and expansion would be what makes things travel faster than light in absolute terms compared to the point of origin. I don't see how you can deny that.
The rest of us do what scientists always should do - re-consider the new evidence to see if it requires us to change our understanding. Many people, including Gisin and several cosmologists are suggesting that the speed of light could be different in certain circumstances.
More like a Nobel goosing, sheesh.
Quoting Enrique
Admittedly, that may have been an imprudent sentence to commence with - and I apologize for its brazen nature. I was merely seeking to pinpoint (falsifiably) that there may exist an inconsistency between the two paradigms you've sought to coalesce. Qualitative arguments are meritorious too; since I'm not matriculated into any form of higher education in Physics, I've also found them of tremendous utility.
Quoting Enrique
That's a novel postulate, and I concede to not being adequately attuned to the subject - in order to partake in a thorough deconstruction.
I do have one, minor qualm nevertheless: what does the phrase 'proportion of behavior' imply, precisely? How are you contextualizing it in a reference frame? I ask, since wave-functions aren't interchangeable with waves - one can't move across them, as one might with the latter (unless one apprehends their probability amplitudes as the QM analogs to normative crests and troughs).
What I can contribute, is a quantitative formulation - that may, or may not be associated with the qualitative hypotheses that precede it (in a fragmentary fashion):
[math]\triangle E \triangle t \geq \frac{h}{4 \pi }/E \triangle t \geq \frac{ \hbar }{2} [/math]
This is, ubiquitously (as I'm certain you're familiar), the energy-time equivalent to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. What it suggests, is that quantum states are (predominantly) transient, and are not characterized by definitive energy thresholds. Their observed energy thresholds, however, are by definition predicated on the frequencies of their states - which, in turn, are the inverse of how long they sustain itself for.
When you're unearthing QM time contraction, is this the interrelation you're endeavoring to bring to the fore - or is it instead, purely relativistic and non-experimental? If the former doesn't assuage the proposal, do contemplate reading with regards to the Dirac Equation - as the exercise may underpin your ideas in the framework, that formalizes them.
Quoting Gary Enfield
They remain an aberrant interpretation; whether they are valid, or not - is determined almost exclusively by how you rationalize standardized and reconfirmed beliefs through them.
Quoting Gary Enfield
C's constancy was one of SR's foundational postulates - nobody's vehemently contending that.
In any event, it was pivotal in resolving the incommensurate nature of Maxwell's Electromagnetism and Newton's Classical Mechanics; insofar as it wasn't a whimsical afterthought of Einstein's eccentricities.
If several individuals are fixated on its truth, it's likely since the idea's entrenched in the foundation of other canonical edifices (that are empirically grounded), and is nearly incontrovertible - as opposed to them being intransigent.
Quoting Gary Enfield
You haven't in the slightest addressed any of the criticisms that have preceded this facade, so let me quell this particular tension with a literal example:
Imagine that we were tracing two, celestial bodies - A and B, situated at a vast distance from one another (in excess of billions of light-years) - by observing how the absolute distance between them, expanded.
With simplicity in mind, let's visualize a discerned expansion equivalent to [math]3ct[/math], in a time interval demarcated by [math]t[/math].
If one were to undertake a cursory aftermath of that observation, they might partake in:
[math]v = \frac{ds}{dt} = \frac{3ct}{t} = 3c;[/math]
When the expansion's symmetric:
[math] v_{A} = v_{B} = \frac{3c}{2} = 1.5c[/math].
Is this, by any chance, what your 'speed-of-light violation' construct is accorded sustenance by?
If so, here's an exposition discrediting it - and if not, we can continue quarreling incessantly.
[math]v = \frac{ds}{dt}[/math] doesn't suffice herein - since it doesn't attain the velocity of a body on the fabric it's ensconced in, if the fabric migrates too.
Anyone can analogize this idea; if you're seated in a car - and the car's careening at a 100 miles per hour - are you characterized by the same velocity, from within the car? Einstein's constraint is tantamount to asserting that with the car as one's stationary reference frame, one can't exceed c.
I'm not going to even try deciphering Dirac or this Gislen fellow, I've read that even professional physicists find the synthesis of matrix mechanics with Schrodinger's wave function daunting. Would certainly need some coursework or a very good teacher for that.
What's going on structurally inside an atom is really what I'm interested in at the moment, and that's a tough nut to crack, though I'm getting clues from various sources. At this point, I'm thinking of orbital arrangment as having something remotely analogous to wavelength, its topological shape, and frequency, its fluctuating energy density, and of course these energetic forms flow in a periodic way that I don't grasp, though I gather that this flow has close kinship with spinors paired in an opposite motion of some kind as per the Pauli exclusion principle, while probably involving superposed states within electron shells.
I'm curious if what we theorize as electrons might actually be a complex perturbation in the electromagnetic field caused by nuclei, similar to magnetic field lines induced by the action at a distance of a magnet. Ionization into wave packets - balls or rings of matter that flow - when energy is appropriately inputted might give the illusion of a particularity or shape that isn't actually much like the inside of an atom.
I also want to know what the difference is between fermions and bosons. Are they coalescences of basic Planck energy quanta in differing formations, or fundamentally discrepant forms of matter? What I've read so far on the subject seems to be derived from statistical mechanics, the behavior of large quantities, rather than the structure of supposed individual wavicles, if those even exist. Not sure I would comprehend much of the terminology, but maybe you guys know of some uncommonly good introductory resources.
I envision the Schrodinger wave function as defining energy change and transfer at a particular location in matter while claiming nothing about the structure of that matter itself, though simple instances can be rudimentarily graphed on a coordinate system (x, y, z orbitals are what I'm thinking of). Researchers insert probabilities according to parameters established by experiment and get accurate probabilities out depending on what they are looking for without any direct image of what is going on. Who knows what palpably happens at the subatomic level?
However, the Schrodinger equation might be able to model energy's inverse correlation with time. Any demarcated section of the wave function is like a representation of matter's energy at a certain location, and contours within that wave correspond to relative energy discrepancies. While a portion of the wave function (frame of reference) is in a particular state, and the more concentrated its energy is in specific spots, which I presume would show up as larger wave peaks, the less energy that subsists in between. The lower the energy or frequency in between, the longer this interstitial matter's wavelengths and perhaps the faster that causal effects are transmitted between peaks during any succession of states. Exactly what the causality of time contraction consists of in terms of structure I'm not sure, but the wave function can perhaps model or predict it indirectly if applied to experimental results. Is the wave function utilized to model entanglement and synchronicity?
Are radiation events that typically happen on Earth capable of producing extremely long wavelengths, perhaps at very low intensities, and do these waves travel significantly faster than for instance the visible spectrum? If so, what implications would this have for cosmology?
Pure speculation on my end, but you guys seem to have a decent fund of knowledge, so maybe you can further the analysis of these ideas or tie some loose ends together.
Hi All
Your examples are based on relative positions rather than absolute ones - and as a result are subject to various potential distortions.
That is why I prefer to stay with the basics in absolute terms.
If there was Big Bang from a singularity at a point in space, and the Universe is now at least 98bn light years across after a period of 13.7 billion years from the big bang, then distance divided by time gives speed - and that says matter/energy in the universe travelled faster than the standard speed of light to get there.
That fundamental relationship between distance, time, and speed is more believable than some notion that you can preserve a fixed C by inflating space - for which there is absolutely no evidence.
If you wish to contradict the basics of distance divided by time = speed then the emphasis is not on me to uphold the basic truth of the definition - but on you and others to prove that the inflation of space is real... in order to simply preserve a fixed C.
Steven Hawking and all other serious commentators have said that this basic truth is problematic.... and they weren't kidding.
The evidence is on my side guys.... and Gisin's experiment only reinforces it.
Quoting Gary Enfield
I'll no longer be partaking in this conversation; it's as though Einstein was never born. I concede to certain nonstandard narratives in history having usurped standard ones, but you're declaiming yours on a multiplicity of fallacious presuppositions - whose untruths I've elaborated on in previous comments, only to be thoroughly discounted.
Hi Aryamoy Mitra
There is a place for relativity, and it is a good place, but it is a toolset like any other and it must always be compared to absolute values if they are available, as a means of calibration and verification. That is the case here.
Nobody is discounting the contribution of Einstein, but I'm sure that he would also acknowledge the basics in this case.
So I say again....
...if you wish to contradict the fundamental definition of 'Distance divided by Time = Speed' then the emphasis is not on me to uphold the basic truth of the definition - but on you and others to prove that the 'inflation of space' is real... in order to simply preserve a fixed C.
Steven Hawking and all other serious commentators have said that this basic truth is problematic.... and they weren't kidding.
The evidence is on my side guys.... and Gisin's experiment only reinforces it.
This isn't an elementary introduction to Classical Mechanics; this is Inflationary Cosmology, with an emphasis on Hubble's law. I'm not contradicting your presuppositions; I'm stating that they're incomplete.
Here's a reminder of why I believe your arguments to be fallacious, in a fashion commensurate with Hubble's law. If this doesn't suffice, I'm afraid we are at an irreconcilable discordance. You can continually arrogate to yourself all 'evidence' on this front; I've only shared a canonical physical law, a demonstrable analogy and a standardized interpretation of cosmological inflation - hardly substantive, I'd imagine.
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
The idea of spatial expansion is just an escape. When objects are observed to be moving faster than the speed of light, it is proposed that the substance which they exist in, is actually changing, so this doesn't qualify as "motion" in accepted usage. But what this does is introduce the concept of a changing or evolving substratum. And if the substratum, within which objects exist, is changing in this way, which is not accounted for in our normal modeling of motions, then this conventional modeling of motions is invalid. So what this assumption (spatial expansion) does is invalidate conventional models of motions.
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
Yes, this is the problematic issue, the ideal that "the fabric migrates". Conventional modeling of motions does not account for the migration of the fabric. If it is true that the fabric is migrating then it is also true that conventional modeling of motions is incorrect, because the part of the motion which ought to be attributed to the migration of the fabric is unknown, and not accounted for.
Quoting tim wood
A logically viable explanation.
Hi Aryamoy Mitra
You are again resorting to relative measures, which can be subject to many unknown influences - including your supposition that your measurements of distance between these objects is accurate - which you cannot know.
You may be correct, but your theory still lacks firm evidence to discount the more natural observation based on an undisputed absolute - the width of the universe. For the moment - that's where I place my preferences.
Observing how bodies traverse 'relative' to the fabric on which they're immersed, is the only cosmological dynamic of significance; they're invoked in rationalizations of absolute measurements.
Quoting Gary Enfield
By that token, nobody can ever discern anything at all - and we're forever and inescapably entrapped in the recesses of fallibilism. Inflationary Cosmology formalizes approximations, that are phenomenologically derived - prior to being ascribed a credence, on empirical fronts.
Answer for once, solely this question:
Do you acknowledge a semantic difference between the expansion of a spacetime fabric, and the celestial bodies ensconced on that fabric?
If you don't concede to the existence of that distinction to commence with, you'll be unamenable to any evidence that underpins it.
I have no idea what your words are supposed to mean.
You need to clarify.
Can you quote me, on what I've stated that is unclear?
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
Okay. I can elucidate, but there's a far more effective analogy.
I'm quoting, verbatim, this article from the Scientific American. Apprise me if you concur with its conclusions (or otherwise, if you don't).
'According to Einstein's general relativity equations, the spacetime containing matter cannot remain stationary and must either expand or contract. Galaxies and other sources, then, are not strictly expanding away from each other but rather are attached to the fixed grid on the expanding fabric of spacetime. Thus, the galaxies give us the impression of moving away from each other. Imagine the surface of a balloon, on which you put dots. Then start inflating the balloon. The distances between the dots will increase, so if you live in one of these dots, you will interpret this as the dots--which represent galaxies in this example--moving away from each other. In reality, of course, they remain in the same positions, with respect to latitudes and longitudes on the balloon, and it is the fabric of the balloon that is actually expanding.'
If you inflate a balloon, the objects you draw on it inflate too. In reality, objects in space stay the same size.
Why you persist in the nonsense of inflation without evidence is beyond me. What is so sacred about a fixed C that you wish to abandon the basic evidence?
Why not spend your time investigating the opportunities of faster than light travel under whatever abnormal circumstances the Big Bang might create?
Why not try and acknowledge the results of the faster than light experiment by Gisin - which said that communications at least could be 10,000 times the speed of light even in the circumstances that we occupy?
If you want to break the real fundamentals of science, in preference for speculative doctrine, then you need real evidence.... which you don't have.
That's impertinent to the analogy; and the latter assertion may not be verified (I'm not accredited to comment on it).
Quoting Gary Enfield
If Gisin's experiment is at all associated with Quantum Entanglement (I'm not certain if it is), then there do exist several rationalizations of QE that remain adherent to SR.
Quoting Gary Enfield
Certainly. I'm the one flailing unprincipled ideas, as opposed to eliciting standardized laws, explanations, articles and analogies.
I hope you don't mind if I refrain from replying to this thread anymore; we're at an irreconcilable discord.
Tim
If you don't believe in the application of logic to evidence, then you have no basis for any opinion.
The evidence and logic I presented are perfectly valid.
Even if you might prefer an alternate explanation you have not yet provided any logic to say that mine is invalid. If it is a valid possibility - then it should be able to stand on its own merits - which it does.
Until you act like a scientist and acknowledge the range of valid potential explanations, and explain why others are not valid, you are just mud slinging based on doctrine over substance.
No.
Quoting Enrique
No.
Quoting Enrique
Pardon?
Aryamoy Mitra is right. The analogy is supposed to elucidate the idea of a measured spatial difference between two things being, on the one hand, the effect of an expansion of the framework used to measure distances, and, on the other, being the effect of the motion of things measured within that framework. The effect only becomes noticeable at relatively large distances, which is why it will be difficult to see the changes in the expansion of small dots on a balloon, but relatively easy to see the gaps between them increasing. Change the details of the analogy, and have the small dots replaced by confetti held in place by electrostatic forces, such as that provided by glue. There, the expansion of the items between which the distances are being measured is no longer an issue at all. Amending the analogy that way, incidently, is pertinent, since long before Einstein, it was recognised that electromagnetic forces overwhelm gravitational effects between relatively small masses at relatively small distances. This is why, even if the spacetime volumes contained within what Austin used to call "medium sized dry goods" are expanding, the effects of that expansion would be unnoticeable to us, at least with the equipment we currently have.
Say what?
Is this an attempt to diss me or something? If so, enjoy yourself thoroughly!
I guess what was proved, and this is based on books about physics I've been reading, is that frequency (energy) is inversely proportional to time, and when distance or occupied space shrinks much faster than energy, this also causes time contraction. I was curious about the implications for theories of what matter does, so was hoping to get some insight from posters at this site, and I have!
If time contracts enough due to relatively large energy concentration within very confined space, such as in an atom, or extremely large total concentration, such as a big ball of electricity like the brain, this might account for entanglement effects that seem to happen faster than the speed of light, in essence synchronicity, and spooky action at a distance isn't so spooky after all, but in fact a mundane consequence of 19th and early 20th century formulas.
What is 'occupied space'? Matter? If energy and matter were equivalent states of information, what would that mean for your proof? And what exactly is time as opposed to spacetime, anyway?
You're talking about physics, but whose physics do you mean? The spookiness only happens to someone looking for the primacy of objects (in this case particles) in an object-oriented ontology.
Earthbound matter is a steady state energetic system: energy goes in and comes out, but the total quantity remains fairly constant.
Most of the chemical bonding energy of atoms is contained in relatively small concentration within electron orbitals, and this density of energy combined with the equation wt=d/f implies that since 'd' is extremely small while the 'f' value comprises most of matter's energy, 't' probably becomes minuscule also, and energetic matter apparently links up in a system of pervasive synchronicity at the nanoscale. To put it simply, much of atomic motion is coordinated almost instantaneously.
The brain is an extremely concentrated ball of high energy electricity, so it participates in the same dynamic as atoms but on the macroscopic scale. Consciousness thus transcends principles belonging to the four dimensional substrate of motion called spacetime. Spacetime-based concepts model certain macroscopic phenomena such as light and extremely large mass, but consciousness and quantum entanglement might surpass the parameters of these models according to 19th and early 20th century science.
Maybe someone else can explain the difference between time and spacetime in a succinct way.
Quoting Enrique It is? Quoting EnriqueIt exists? Quoting EnriqueAre you just picking theoretical components?Quoting EnriqueI see. So it's like some supremely spicy quantum consciousness thesis.
You're getting the idea!
Look at these threads for much more about the consciousness angle:
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics, The Sequel
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics, the Reality Possibly
You're welcome. Its amazing how little traction I can get with these ideas considering its a #$!&ing scientific revolution. Sometimes it seems that I'm more likely to end up in traction thinking about this stuff.
Quoting jkg20
Thank you, very much, for corroborating. I've been promulgating this for ages, albeit with an increasing self-doubt. At the very least, I now know I'm not laying forth a particularly naive concept.
Quoting Enrique
I'm not denigrating them, but do you really believe that your ideas are constitutive of a scientific revolution? They're novel, certainly. I don't know if they have any veracity (admittedly, some of the terms and interrelations you've perpetuated are outside my understanding). To assert, nevertheless, that they're transformative - in comparison to the death of Classical Mechanics at the hand of Special Relativity, or Dirac's Equation foretelling the existence of Antimatter - is a bold, and perhaps even unfounded statement.
Quoting Enrique
For instance, isn't this quintessential of the Quantum Mind, which is partly pseudoscientific? Where are the methodological relationships, interweaving the two? It's unprincipled.
Since I've studied quantum biology way more than relativity theory and this is for me an adjunct to the quantum subject matter, I don't mind diverting the thread in this direction. I've already posted about it a lot at this forum, but since you know your stuff it could be fruitful to get into it again. This is a short summary of the basic model:
In exactly what way consciousness emerged via evolution is a mystery, but we can be fairly certain about what had to obtain in order for it to be possible. Initially, electrical properties in aggregates of tissue such as the brain needed to be robust enough that a stable supervenience of electromagnetic field (EMF) was created by systematic electrical fluxing.
Quantum effects in molecules of the body are sensitive to trace EMF energy sources (similar to magnetoreception), creating a structural complex of relatively thermodynamic mass containing pockets of relatively quantum biochemistry integrated by sustained radiation.
EMF/quantum hybridization is likely responsible for our synthetic experience of qualia, how we perceive unfathomably minute and diverse fluctuating in environments as a perpetualized substrate, perturbed by its surroundings but never vanishing while we are awake and lucid, the essence of perceptual “stream of consciousness”.
Nonlocal phenomena are ever underlying the macroscopic substance of qualitative consciousness, its EMF properties as well as bulked matter in which nonlocality is partially dampened, and quantum processes in cells interface perception instantiated in bodies with nonlocality of the natural world which is still enigmatic to scientific knowledge.
Quantum features of biochemistry have likely been refined evolutionarily so that mechanisms by which relative nonlocality affects organisms, mechanisms of EMF/matter interfacing, mechanisms targeting particular environmental stimuli via functionally tailored pigments along with further classes of molecules and cellular tissues, and mechanisms for translation of stimulus into representational memory all became increasingly coordinated until an arrangement involving what we call ‘intentionality’ emerged, a mind with executive functions of deliberative interpretation and strategizing, beyond mere reflex-centric memory conjoined to stimulus/response.
Qualitative consciousness precedes the degree of unification we experience as humanlike awareness, for qualia can exist and perform a functional role in consort with quantum effects and additional gradations of nonlocal reality while an organism is almost entirely lacking the centralized control we would classify as intention.
Every facet of this consciousness theory is observable via research: quantum biochemistry in a thermodynamically physiological substrate that also includes more traditionally neuronal mechanisms, integrated by EMFs. All we require is to find the anatomical systems and classes of molecules involved, then correlate with subjectivity and the dynamics of nonlocality in general. Some of this will be psychology, some traditional chemistry, some quantum, and some will exceed what has thus far been discovered of nonlocal processes in nature by physical science.
Also key to the model is the assertion, yet to be verified, that many forms of quantum process such as entanglement and superposition produce qualia at a fundamental level. Essentially, it is intrinsic of matter to perceive and feel, or at least contain fragments of perception and feeling, and these quantum resonance properties will be as objective as shape and size.
Try to be mature about this Tim.
If you have a reason why you feel that my suggestion is wrong then say so, but saying that it is wrong simply because other people have said something else is just crass.
Quoting tim wood
What a load of rubbish.
I have stated my evidence many times, as this thread easily shows, and quite clearly - the size of the universe compared to the age of the universe, and the faster than light experiments by Gisin.
You haven't denied or contradicted any of it.
To say what you did, is simply false.
The only thing that lacks real world evidence is your suggestion (along with others) that the universe is inflating.
So when you produce evidence that it is inflating we will all pat you on the back and say well done. But as you can't, you are still talking rubbish - just because others are.
[b]Tim - if you're going to resort to blatant lies, there's no point in continuing.
Your credibiilty is shot - and others who can read can verify what I am saying[/b]
Quoting tim wood
I have looked back on this thread and I first made the comments on 23rd March.
Quoting Gary Enfield
I have also defended the same points to you and others on 24th, 25th and 28th March
So again - If you're going to resort to blatant lies, your credibility is shot.
In summary, you have asked me for evidence - and I have given 2 proven examples from science which you and others do not deny.
When I ask you for evidence of your inflation idea, you can produce none.
End of story
I did answer the points, and my evidence is far beyond just claims. They are accepted basic science.
None of the others who advocate inflation could produce any evidence to justify that speculation either.
That's because it was only ever invented as a way to preserve the doctrine of a fixed C - doctrine over reality.
If you don't even know what real evidence is, you shouldn't be on this forum.
If you do have evidence for your claim then present it - as I have asked everyone to do.
But you can't, because there isn't any.
Scientists should go with the evidence - clearly you aren't.
Quoting Gary Enfield
In relation to your latest bit of nonsense... why don't your read the previous posts?
Quoting Gary Enfield
[b]Tim - your credibility is shot, and you don't understand what real evidence is.
I'm done with you.[/b]
I agree.
It doesn't.
For a very limited set of problems, the equations work. Beyond that, I have no idea what they offer other than paradoxes. Where there are paradoxes, there is failure.
Within the universe there is a wide range of existents, from very large to very small. Relativity works in the middle area.
The scale of galaxies, where what is called spatial expansion has an impact, with the requirement for dark energy, dark matter, etc..
Right, so long as we posit the real existence of those unobservables, dark energy and dark matter, to account for the discrepancies between what is observed and what relativity theory predicts, relativity works just fine.
I think Gary explained it to you quite well. If I understood correctly, what he said was that for the (material) parts of the universe to get to where they are right now, from the big bang, they must have traveled faster than the speed of light. I did not check his math, but I think this is what he was saying anyway. Does it not make sense to you?
Quoting Gary Enfield
I see.
Well, apart from the laws of physics becoming inconsistent... yeah, what are folk worried about.
Sorry tim, but your references don't seem to address the issue, and I see no basis for your accusation of "colossal stupidity". But It's not my argument, so I'll leave it at that.
Sorry, I don't see the relevance, but you can make that conclusion if you want, I will not.
I think that's exactly the point of the op, designating "the speed of light" as a constant has been proven to be a mistake.
As I said, it's not my argument, so those questions I'll ignore. I was just pointing out some issues I had with what you were saying. Those questions you propose are irrelevant to the points I made.
Quoting Banno
Hi Banno
I don't think there are inconsistencies..
The Laws concerning movement won't be affected by the possibility that travel faster than light is possible.
In practical terms, the only things that would be affected in our Earth-bound circumstances are the potential amounts of energy being released in a nuclear explosion - because it is only when you get to those levels that we get to anything near the factors that the speed of light would affect.
Given that the energy from even detonated nuclear explosions, (which we have tried to measure as verification of estimates), can themselves only be estimated by their effects, the potential reality exposed by the size and age of the universe will have no practical impact on the application of our current descriptive laws.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Thanks for that "MU".
The maths is quite simple....
The age of the universe is now agreed at approx 13.7 billion years.
An explosion at the speed of light would travel outwards 13.7 billion light years in that time.
However that is only a radius, so that distance has to be doubled for the diameter.
So 27.4 billion light years should therefore be the maximum diameter but scientists/cosmologists agree that the universe is at least 96billion light years across.
Hope that helps.
The assumption is that he laws of physics are the same for every observer - that they are consistent. But the speed of light can be derived from Maxwell's equations. Hence the speed of light must be the same for every observer.
The equations of relativity explain how this can be accounted for in a consistent fashion. Those equations also show that no mass can travel faster than the speed of light.
Hence if something were to travel faster than light, the laws of physics could not be the same for every observer.
They would be inconsistent.
Hi Banno
An interesting reply - thank you.
As I understand it, Maxwell's equations only demonstrate how we consistently perceive light.
The size of the universe is a measurement within our perception.
Quoting Banno
They only do this I believe because they assume a fixed c. That is not proof - it simply says that there might not be anything that could push faster.
However, what is to say that the special circumstances of the Big Bang wouldn't create a faster push?
They are correct for any observer.
Quoting Gary Enfield
The laws of physics dictate the speed of light. Hence, if the laws of physics are the same for all observers, then the speed of light must be the same for all observers.
What is the case is that separation caused by spatial expansion, is not considered to be properly called spatial "motion". Very large objects like galaxies get further apart without actually moving at all, because spatial expansion does not qualify as "motion". Since this activity of separating from each other, due to spatial expansion, is not a form of "motion", material things can separate at rates which are much faster than the speed of light, without violating principles of relativity, because within the confines of that theoretical structure, this does not qualify as "motion".
You ought to be able to see, that in the effort to maintain general relativity as the applicable theory for motions in the universe, we have now developed a whole new category of motion which does not qualify as "motion", because "motion" is defined by that theory. In other words, if we want all the types of motion which we have observational evidence for in the universe, to be measurable within one consistent theory of motion, we need a different theory. General relativity does not allow that this type of motion which is the result of spatial expansion is "motion".
I'm regretting answering any of your posts, Meta. You inhabit a weird meta-world were explanations don't serve any purpose. Enjoy.
Right, and special relativity is about curved space-time too ... not. Yet they're still both "relativity". I think you're missing something there Banno. General relativity is how the principles of special relativity are adapted to account for gravity.
You are inhabited by some strange mind which thinks it knows what it obviously does not. So you haven't the foggiest clue how to explain anything.
:rofl:
When reading Meta's views on physics, one should keep in mind that he rejects the notion of instantaneous velocity.
The speed of light can be derived directly from Maxwells' equations. That is, it is as much a part of physical law as F=ma and v=u+at.
Quoting Banno
No they don't. The Laws of physics merely build-in an assumption.
They don't prove that the speed of light is fixed.... and the evidence would seem to contradict that notion. You always have to calibrate equations against reality.
In this case however, scientists want to preserve doctrine over substance.
Nuh.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefie.html#c3
Science erected a god idol around a Time magazine cover story, and continues to worship it.
There is a reason Einstein received the Nobel prize for the photoelectric effect (which should have been shared with his wife), and not Relativity, and let's not forget he fought quantum theory to his death. There is no such thing as entanglement and instaneous action at a distance? Science constructed an idol and is too embarrassed to take it down. What will happen over time is it will fade into oblivion.
Hi Banno
That's a great video - thanks for pointing it out.
The maths is largely beyond me, but I listened to the entire thing, to try and get the most from it.
I trust the calculations and the final formula - which left two factors to plug into the equation (at pre-determined values), which provided a number for the current speed of light in a vacuum.
(From what I can tell, this didn't set a limit on what the speed of light might be in different circumstances).
I think it's great that various parts of scientific theory came together to validate values in our current circumstances, but the reality remains - the size of the universe compared to its age suggests that travel faster than the speed of light is possible.
Is the expansion of the universe subject to different principles than the speed of light travelling within it?
Quite possibly, when the reality of the size and age of the universe show that expansion must have happened faster than light.
Clearly the basics of Maxwell's laws / equations reflect circumstances now, rather than then - and at a time when the emerging universe may have had different restraints or opportunities etc.
Part of the reason for my saying this is that the presenter admitted that there were a number of assumptions within the equations, as well as an admission that waves could exist in a vacuum.
As we know, there doesn't seem to be any part of space with an absence of anything in it, and so there is a potential for some restraining effect everywhere. This may explain why the the equations now would differ to effects then.
However, one way or another, the reality of the size of the universe compared to its age should leave open all possibilities that cannot be dismissed.
As stated several times on earlier posts, the more basic/fundamental definition/equation/Law is distance/time = speed. If you wish to show that this doesn't apply you need evidence to say why. Maths isn't evidence, it is an encoding of a theory - nothing more.
And yet, without showing us the calculations, you insist that they are wrong.
I don't think there is more to say here. That the velocity of light is a constant, fixed for all observers, is fundamental to physics.
I don't think so. You might mean the observable universe.
See https://www.technologyreview.com/2011/02/01/197279/cosmos-at-least-250x-bigger-than-visible-universe-say-cosmologists/
So that's a minimum size, not the size.
Maybe if you watched more YouTube videos you would avoid dumping big fat loads of bad physics on us.
If all you got is that it is a minimum, then I agree, but you haven't been following the discussion, and you got nuthin'.
Go ahead and triple down. :rofl:
Therefore you are wrong. Fuck it. Here's the actual analysis. https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article/413/1/L91/1747653
Explain why this is bad physics.
Is that what you meant?
Goodness. The universe might be infinite, but you've got a size for it.
So after crying like a big baby over bad physics, what did you do?
Well, then, there's an opportunity for you to re-write a large part of wikipedia: "Based on large quantities of experimental observation and theoretical work, the scientific consensus is that space itself is expanding..."
See how that works out for you.
The expansion of space, rather than the expansion of the physical universe, is commonly referred-to as inflation theory - and the invite is still there for you to present physical evidence for inflation, rather than a your simple desire to preserve doctrine over real evidence.
There is plenty of evidence linked from the Wiki article; but you write: "The expansion of space, rather than the expansion of the physical universe..." Not at all sure what to make of that. The stuff about metric tensors is pretty plainly written in the WIki article; the point being that expansion of the physical universe is expansion of space.
I explained this to you already. What results from the application of general relativity, is the conclusion that space is expanding. This separation of things which is accounted for by the concept of spatial expansion is a type of motion of things relative to each other, which does not qualify as "motion" within the precepts of the general theory of relativity. Therefore we can conclude that there are motions of material things in the universe, to which general relativity is not applicable. This is regardless of whether the principles of relativity theory, special or general, are fundamental to physics.
Now, Gary would prefer not to apply the general theory of relativity, and therefore avoid the conclusion that space is expanding. That's a valid starting point. From this perspective we can take all the observed motions, and class them together, and see that there is good reason not to apply the principles of relativity, as they are inadequate. So we ought to seek a better theory which can account for all the motions in the universe as "motion".
Banno
Despite your appeals to the moderators, and being told what you had to do to both disprove the alternate theory, and demonstrate the proof to support your own preference, you again fail to do so.
What's more, you now seem to be verging on the dishonest.
Quoting Banno
We have spent a good part of this thread discussing the essence of that difference.
Others have had the good grace to acknowledge that there are two valid theories, but not you.
So have you disproved the basic maths that I outlined? No
Have you disproved the widely accepted scientific values I presented about the size and age of the Universe? No.
Have you demonstrated that the speed of light can't be exceeded? No - you have merely quoted an assumption, sometimes shrouded in maths that used the assumption as a basis for the formula.
So given that my basic evidence, (which is also based on observation and considered scientific opinion), reflects the normal way in which science handles the concept of speed, and it is clear that you wish to break that long-lasting model, you should at least provide evidence for the additional factor of inflation that you claim must exist.
We're waiting....
.... and waiting....
and waiting for you to do so, after many requests. But none comes.
So having failed on all of the basic requirements, where does that leave the theory of inflation?
Well, from my point of view, it is a potentially valid theory without evidence to support it.
It is valid because it does match the evidence and can't be disproved - but it is the more complex potential solution, and requires additional factors to make it work.
The theory which I currently prefer is the accepted way in which the basic factors would normally be interpreted, which is directly supported by the observations that would count as normal evidence.
As a simple factor, cosmologists physically observe galaxies that are now judged to be images which are 13.2 billion years old - half a billion years after the big bang, (which is assumed to be when enough material had first gathered to form stars and began illuminating the universe). But.... they appear in the position they were in at that time, not now - and as I understand it, they show a spread that is seemingly more than the speed of light could achieve in half a billion years.
That is direct physical evidence for my 'normal' explanation.
Where's yours?
Silence.
MU - thanks for your general support, but that isn't quite my view.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
To clarify my position, I do not abandon General Relativity, but like every other theory it is only valid when it explains real evidence - which it does for the most part, but doesn't seem to in this instance - at least, not a face value.
I feel that General Relativity has an important place and has been very accurate and useful up to certain parameters. One of the key parameters is the speed of light, both in terms of its current value and as a 'maximum' concept.
There are very few instances where the assumption that... 'the current maximum speed of light cannot be exceeded'... can be applied and tested against reality. One is in calculating atomic energy values. The other is in observations of the cosmos.
The real quantification of energies released by atomic explosions is still not possible in absolute terms and could easily vary from our current estimates.
However the evidence from the cosmos is pretty clear.
What do we do when there is evidence that contradicts our assumptions and formulae? We should revisit our assumptions and formulae based on the new evidence, and either modify them appropriately, or find additional factors that will then allow them to explain the new evidence.
In this case we have a choice about which sets of values we wish to preserve. One set of values has been with us and totally successful for thousands of years. The other is an assumption that has been with us for a century, and has been useful, but largely untested at its extremes.
If you wish to preserve the untested extreme at the expense of proven theories that are thousands of years old, it is not unreasonable for ordinary people to ask for evidence to prove the additional factors that would justify belief in the extreme assumption.
If we have to modify General Relativity to accept that higher speeds are possible in certain circumstances, that modification won't impact on the vast majority of circumstances where it will continue to be applied here on Earth in current conditions.
I simply go with the only evidence available, but am happy to change if something other than dogma emerges.
Cheers, Gary. Remember me in the acceptance speech for your Nobel Prize.