Proof of the Constancy of the Speed of Light

[sjastro]

Perhaps the Enterprise's jump to warp speed took it into another universe (MWI) where our known laws of physics and physical constants differ. What happens when it comes back into our universe when it arrives, would be a doozy to explain though ..

On a related subject I have already been corrected by a Trekie, that the Alcubierre drive is part of Star Trek technology.

The Star Trek television series and films used the term "warp drive" to describe their method of faster-than-light travel. Neither the Alcubierre theory, nor anything similar, existed when the series was conceived—the term "warp drive" and general concept originated with John W. Campbell's 1931 science fiction novel Islands of Space.[38] Alcubierre stated in an email to William Shatner that his theory was directly inspired by the term used in the show[39] and references the "'warp drive' of science fiction" in his 1994 article.[40] The 1975 Star Trek Star Fleet Technical Manual suggests that the essential concept is the same as that later proposed by Alcubierre.[41]

Never argue with a Trekie.....

 

[Kaon]

As stated previously the Lorentz factor was not introduced by Einstein but was proposed to explain the null result of the MM experiment through length contraction.
It was an attempt to save the ether absolute frame of reference where the speed of light was source dependent.
It is the Lorentz transformations not the Lorentz factor in isolation that defines SR, since the Lorentz factor is dimensionless.

This is inconsequential to the problem: source independence of the speed of light, and measuring a critical value against itself is the problem. It goes to the OP, actually, and its derivation.

Irrespective of the value of the Hubble constant, recession velocities can exceed the speed of light as galaxies are being carried by the Hubble flow.
Galaxies (=objects with mass) moving in space-time cannot reach the speed of light let alone exceed it as it would require an infinite amount of KE.

No it is not irrespective of the Hubble Constant. A good amount of cosmology constants are flawed and it most certainly affects the rest of the math we assume is correct in the textbooks. It also handicaps us from understanding the reality of the forces in our universe - namely because we are looking at the wrong information.

It doesn’t matter how crude or refined the physics is, the facts are there is no observational evidence that indicates information can travel faster than light through space-time.

It does matter how crude physics is - the erroneous cosmological constants, gravity, and other things are a testament to how much time we waste holding on to the idea of pet theories we think work (instead of challenging the status quo and digging deeper). That is why we are still using combustion for rocket ships and cars...

Our physics is crude because 1) physicists are scared to entertain something that exists outside of the axiomatic set of alleged conditions governing the world as we know it, and 2) because it is crude. The hauteur of humans, in general, doesn't help us to evolve to better physics.

It matters.

There are a number of problems with this argument.
The photon is travelling through space-time; the Enterprise isn’t but moving along with space-time (using your tearing space-time description).

It is, in fact, time-like, and moving through space at non-tachyonic speeds. Warp fields are more about gravity than electrodynamics (or, are they one in the same???)...

Since there is an element of sci-fi we can take this a step further and claim the Enterprise is using an Alcubierre drive which is the only piece of science fiction I know of which is a solution to Einstein’s field equations.
Since the Enterprise is not moving through space-time it is stationary in its frame of reference, even though it is being carried by space-time.
As a result you can’t draw any conclusions by making comparisons to the photon’s world line or trajectory through space-time.

None of this is actually what I put up - the spaceship IS moving in space-time (M2), it IS NOT tachyonic, which means we don't need to add any science fiction to the problem. You are getting sci-fi because of the incredibly superficial mention of the Enterprise - I would have named any ship or object that travels at non-tachyonic speeds. Reread what I wrote.

Alcubierre drive has a problem with placement geometry, and transfer of information (which is what you brought up). The Casimir Effect does not allow for signalling, otherwise the mechanism for traveling at "warp" would be denatured. This is not what I am talking about; I am specifically setting up an alternative in which signaling can occur at superluminar speeds despite non-tachyonic attributes of the vector. Moreover, an Alcubierre drive cannot warp space-time. My example tears space-time without being tachyonic, because we are assuming the Enterprise has the ability to generate and control gravity (warp field).

The example I gave was only sci-fi because scientists have not figured out a way to set up the experiment and test it yet - that is a testament to the crudeness of our physics. Although, gravitational lensing and topological field theory are getting decently close to understanding how to go beyond crudeness into "commonplace understanding" (perhaps, among the galaxy).

Furthermore your illustrated Minkowski(?) space-time diagram isn’t relevant either.
In fact it doesn’t make sense.
How does the blue region labelled “casual future” extend into the region t < 0 which represents the past?

The “casual future” only applies to the region where t > 0 while the present is defined for t=0.

When t < 0, it means the impulse response is zero - which is what I described in the set up. t<0 is for the purposes of showing the activity of the photon before it gets to the same "location" as the spaceship. Did you read what I put up?

The two Minkowski space-time diagrams represent flat static space and can only describe the world lines of particles travelling through it.

Minkowski spacetime is always flat.

It can’t be used to describe the world lines of objects carried by the Hubble flow.

I thought we talked about hubble...

The photon’s world line is at a 45⁰ angle that passes through the origin and forms the past and future light cones.
The Enterprise’s world line cannot be represented in the diagram as space-time is neither flat nor static due to the Alcubierre drive.

If the Enterprise did move through space-time, it would be travelling at less than c and within the light cones in the time-like region where causality is not violated as illustrated.

This is not what I described; these are your conditions. I said exactly what I meant. I also gave a diagram of exactly what I mean, as well as the description of each detail. You are assuming there is no alternative - which was not the premise I began with. In fact, I specifically defined the alternative to illustrate how semi-superluminar signaling can happen without the need for tachyonic particles.

These diagrams you are posting are the hackneyed details of what I call crude physics.

What I am going to do is concede the argument on this thread - I gave up the business of going back and forth on CF for 20 pages over superficiality. Either I am misunderstanding you, you are misunderstanding me, or both. The thread is actually an interesting one for laypersons of physics, so it might be better to continue this in a PM where we can present equations and specific diagrams per argument (so as not to distract from the discussion in general)? (I was being pithy and demi-intellectual because I know there are lurkers who are not physicists or mathematicians.) Or, if enough lurkers want it, we can definitely discuss it here. Just bear with my handwriting.

 

[SelfSim]

.. It also handicaps us from understanding the reality of the forces in our universe - namely because we are looking at the wrong information.

.. and you know which is the right information, eh?

Our physics is crude because 1) physicists are scared to entertain something that exists outside of the axiomatic set of alleged conditions governing the world as we know it, and 2) because it is crude.

There is no 'axiomatic' basis of physics, nor does physics need any 'conditions governing the world'.

You dreamed all that up .. entirely.

Not much wonder your physics is 'crude' where that's the basis of your understanding of physics!

 

[SelfSim]

These diagrams you are posting are the hackneyed details of what I call crude physics.

At least they make consistent sense ..

What I am going to do is concede the argument on this thread - I gave up the business of going back and forth on CF for 20 pages over superficiality. Either I am misunderstanding you, you are misunderstanding me, or both. The thread is actually an interesting one for laypersons of physics, so it might be better to continue this in a PM where we can present equations and specific diagrams per argument (so as not to distract from the discussion in general)?

In other words: "My self-named 'physics' won't stand up to scrutiny, and I have now achieved my objectives of putting it out there anyway".
What a cop out!

 

[usexpat97]

There is no 'axiomatic' basis of physics, nor does physics need any 'conditions governing the world'.

I don't know...

I mean, while "question everything" is welcomed, there has to be at least SOMETHING that you accept as axiomatic. I don't see anybody questioning that 1 > 0.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don't know...

I mean, while "question everything" is welcomed, there has to be at least SOMETHING that you accept as axiomatic. I don't see anybody questioning that 1 > 0.

My favorite axiom? ('Cuz I made it myself.) All axioms are arrived at inductively, including this one.

To say something is axiomatic is not to say it is unsupportable. While there are those that accept that which is unsupportable, I try my best not to do that.

 

[sjastro]

This is inconsequential to the problem: source independence of the speed of light, and measuring a critical value against itself is the problem. It goes to the OP, actually, and its derivation.

This is a deflection; I was correcting your error in assuming the Lorentz factor is a product of SR when it was first used to address absolute frames of references.

No it is not irrespective of the Hubble Constant. A good amount of cosmology constants are flawed and it most certainly affects the rest of the math we assume is correct in the textbooks. It also handicaps us from understanding the reality of the forces in our universe - namely because we are looking at the wrong information.

Nonsense; if superluminal recession velocities are not possible the Hubble constant can have only one value zero, in which case expansion does not occur.
Over the years the Hubble constant has varied in the range of 60-90; which does not change the fact that superluminal velocities exist.

It does matter how crude physics is - the erroneous cosmological constants, gravity, and other things are a testament to how much time we waste holding on to the idea of pet theories we think work (instead of challenging the status quo and digging deeper). That is why we are still using combustion for rocket ships and cars...

Our physics is crude because 1) physicists are scared to entertain something that exists outside of the axiomatic set of alleged conditions governing the world as we know it, and 2) because it is crude. The hauteur of humans, in general, doesn't help us to evolve to better physics.

It matters.

As pointed by out by SelfSim this is plain wrong.
The sciences use mathematical models which are not as rigorous as Pure Mathematics since the objective is not based on proof.

It is, in fact, time-like, and moving through space at non-tachyonic speeds. Warp fields are more about gravity than electrodynamics (or, are they one in the same???)...

None of this is actually what I put up - the spaceship IS moving in space-time (M2), it IS NOT tachyonic, which means we don't need to add any science fiction to the problem. You are getting sci-fi because of the incredibly superficial mention of the Enterprise - I would have named any ship or object that travels at non-tachyonic speeds. Reread what I wrote.

Yes I did reread it and it confirms your statement of the Enterprise “warps and tears spacetime” which conveys a totally different message to travelling in space-time.

Alcubierre drive has a problem with placement geometry, and transfer of information (which is what you brought up). The Casimir Effect does not allow for signalling, otherwise the mechanism for traveling at "warp" would be denatured. This is not what I am talking about; I am specifically setting up an alternative in which signaling can occur at superluminar speeds despite non-tachyonic attributes of the vector. Moreover, an Alcubierre drive cannot warp space-time. My example tears space-time without being tachyonic, because we are assuming the Enterprise has the ability to generate and control gravity (warp field).

As much I dislike discussing sci-fi you are dead wrong about the Alcubierre drive not warping space-time, since the coefficients of the Alcubierre metric are not only time dependant but non linear.

The example I gave was only sci-fi because scientists have not figured out a way to set up the experiment and test it yet - that is a testament to the crudeness of our physics. Although, gravitational lensing and topological field theory are getting decently close to understanding how to go beyond crudeness into "commonplace understanding" (perhaps, among the galaxy).

Irony overload; our crude physics is supported by experiment and observation yet your refined physics cannot even define tests or make predictions in order to be falsifiable.

When t < 0, it means the impulse response is zero - which is what I described in the set up. t<0 is for the purposes of showing the activity of the photon before it gets to the same "location" as the spaceship. Did you read what I put up?

I’ll call this out for what it is; intellectual dishonesty.
You produce a scanned image of what amounts to chicken scratch which I had to decipher and makes absolutely no reference to impulse response; you are making things up as you go along.

Minkowski spacetime is always flat.

Why state the obvious.

I thought we talked about hubble...

It seems like you don’t know the difference between the Hubble flow and Hubble constant.

This is not what I described; these are your conditions. I said exactly what I meant. I also gave a diagram of exactly what I mean, as well as the description of each detail. You are assuming there is no alternative - which was not the premise I began with. In fact, I specifically defined the alternative to illustrate how semi-superluminar signaling can happen without the need for tachyonic particles.

More intellectual dishonesty; your chicken scratch does not convey anything of the sort.

These diagrams you are posting are the hackneyed details of what I call crude physics.

And let me repeat again crude physics supported by observation and experiment.

What I am going to do is concede the argument on this thread - I gave up the business of going back and forth on CF for 20 pages over superficiality. Either I am misunderstanding you, you are misunderstanding me, or both. The thread is actually an interesting one for laypersons of physics, so it might be better to continue this in a PM where we can present equations and specific diagrams per argument (so as not to distract from the discussion in general)? (I was being pithy and demi-intellectual because I know there are lurkers who are not physicists or mathematicians.) Or, if enough lurkers want it, we can definitely discuss it here. Just bear with my handwriting.

Don't bother.
I can see where this is heading...........

 

[SelfSim]

There is no 'axiomatic' basis of physics, nor does physics need any 'conditions governing the world'.

I don't know...
I mean, while "question everything" is welcomed, there has to be at least SOMETHING that you accept as axiomatic. I don't see anybody questioning that 1 > 0.

Except I didn't say that I didn't accept axiomatic logic based processes (ie: mathematics).

What I said was: 'There is no axiomatic basis of physics'. For example; there's no 'a priori' assumptions such as 'causation' in physics! It is often assumed that causality or determinism are 'fundamental' to physics, but this just isn't true. Not only are they not required to be axioms of physics, they don't even work as axioms, because axioms have to always work, and they just don't (as the Minskowski diagram describes in sjastro's clarification).

This is why the scientific method does not have a step of: 'let us consult the axioms". It does have a step of 'let us test the axioms', with the understanding that they are always contextual, idealized, and subject to change. The last part of that is invariably left out however, and this is the least well understood aspect of science.

 

[Kaon]

This is a deflection; I was correcting your error in assuming the Lorentz factor is a product of SR when it was first used to address absolute frames of references.


Nonsense; if superluminal recession velocities are not possible the Hubble constant can have only one value zero, in which case expansion does not occur.
Over the years the Hubble constant has varied in the range of 60-90; which does not change the fact that superluminal velocities exist.


As pointed by out by SelfSim this is plain wrong.
The sciences use mathematical models which are not as rigorous as Pure Mathematics since the objective is not based on proof.


Yes I did reread it and it confirms your statement of the Enterprise “warps and tears spacetime” which conveys a totally different message to travelling in space-time.


As much I dislike discussing sci-fi you are dead wrong about the Alcubierre drive not warping space-time, since the coefficients of the Alcubierre metric are not only time dependant but non linear.


Irony overload; our crude physics is supported by experiment and observation yet your refined physics cannot even define tests or make predictions in order to be falsifiable.


I’ll call this out for what it is; intellectual dishonesty.
You produce a scanned image of what amounts to chicken scratch which I had to decipher and makes absolutely no reference to impulse response; you are making things up as you go along.


Why state the obvious.


It seems like you don’t know the difference between the Hubble flow and Hubble constant.


More intellectual dishonesty; your chicken scratch does not convey anything of the sort.


And let me repeat again crude physics supported by observation and experiment.


Don't bother.
I can see where this is heading...........

Ok, no problem.

 

[Kaon]

I don't know...

I mean, while "question everything" is welcomed, there has to be at least SOMETHING that you accept as axiomatic. I don't see anybody questioning that 1 > 0.

Well, axiomatic is a problem in general because it is something accepted without the need for proof. We "know" 1 > 0 because we are assuming we are in a certain space where certain operations and elements mean certain things. The problem is the self evidence of axioms in general - to keeps us stagnant because of our adherence to axioms that may conflict with progressing, current or new theory.

 

[SelfSim]

Well, axiomatic is a problem in general because it is something accepted without the need for proof. We "know" 1 > 0 because we are assuming we are in a certain space where certain operations and elements mean certain things.

No .. There is no need to assume any such thing. There is abundant objective evidence that the meaning of all our language is assigned by us humans, within a context which is also described by us.

What 'certain space' are you referring to here?

The problem is the self evidence of axioms in general - to keeps us stagnant because of our adherence to axioms that may conflict with progressing, current or new theory.

You confuse 'theory' with axioms. There is no such 'problem'.
Theories acquire their meanings in the context of science.
Theorems on the other hand, are mathematical statements that have been proven to be true, and are thus a logical consequence of its axioms.
There is no 'stagnation' because of 'adherance to axioms conflicting with progressing'.. You just made all that up.

 

[usexpat97]

I don't have time to prove everything. Most of the time I just have to take stuff as true and focus on the one thing I am working on. I did that yesterday afternoon--I was writing a couple diffie q's on the whiteboard with 5 people watching, and twice I had to wave my hand and say, "Magic happens," and the math comes out to this. The discussion was not about how to formulate closed-form solutions to diffie q's--it was about the thing we were modelling.

The stagnation in fact comes from having to prove everything. If I did that, I would get nowhere. Maybe someone else can go back and revisit whether my assumptions were all right, but not for me.

 

[Contenders Edge]

For me, the consistency of the logic was the point I took away from the OP content. Its pretty well 'airtight', but to see that, requires a fair amount of math knowledge.

The physical model it describes is another matter again. Whether that model produces predictions which can be verified, is a matter of testing .. and it does produce that (ie: it tests out very well in its specified physical contexts), but to see that, requires a fair amount of physics knowledge.

Assuming that the OP's point was to convince people 'that the speed of light is constant and never changes' was only an assumption and at the end of the day, it would be the OP's own personal choice as to whether to waste their time on that (or not).

In order for that point to be proven, the equations in the formula must have an interpretation attached to them so that we can all understand how the OP reached his conclusion. You cannot expect everyone to blindly trust in an unexplained formula.

 

[SelfSim]

In order for that point to be proven, the equations in the formula must have an interpretation attached to them so that we can all understand how the OP reached his conclusion. You cannot expect everyone to blindly trust in an unexplained formula.

Sure .. that's where the knowledge of science and math comes in.
Oh .. and 'blind trust' should never be expected, no?

 

[Contenders Edge]

Sure .. that's where the knowledge of science and math comes in.
Oh .. and 'blind trust' should never be expected, no?

Well, I am certainly not going to blindly trust in a set of equations that are not explained.

 

[SelfSim]

Well, I am certainly not going to blindly trust in a set of equations that are not explained.

To which part are you denying your 'blind trust'?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Well, I am certainly not going to blindly trust in a set of equations that are not explained.

Electric charges give rise to electric fields. ε0 is the constant of proportionality that relates the two.

Electric currents give rise to magnetic fields. μ0 is the constant of proportionality that relates the two.

It turns out that changing electric fields gives rise to magnetic fields, and changing magnetic fields give rise to electric fields.

These are the Maxwell equations.

It further turns out that when you put it all together, you can get self-propagating electric and magnetic fields. The equations combine to form something that has the same form as the standard wave equation. This is an electromagnetic wave. Which turns out to be what light is.

The wave equation also tells you what speed the wave travels at. For light, it is a combination of the two constants, and thus is itself constant.

 

[Contenders Edge]

To which part are you denying your 'blind trust'?

In the case of the equations presented by the OP, I refuse to trust any of them unless they are explained.

 

[lordjeff]

I'm excited here is something not claimed to have been invented by Congress.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm excited here is something not claimed to have been invented by Congress.

(Or by the head of the Executive).