Proof of the Constancy of the Speed of Light

[SelfSim]

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

So done ..
Do you still deny it your trust, given its no longer 'in the blind'?

 

[sjastro]

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

What has trust got to do with this?
It's the case you either understand the equations or you don't.
Maxwell's four equations have been quoted without derivation in differential form.

They can also be expressed in integral form in the second column which actually provides a better insight into the laws based on experiments which ultimately led to the derivation of Maxwell's equations.

Maxwell's equations which is 19th century physics had been given a face lift in the early 20th century to take both Special and General Relativity into account.

Here the equations are buried in the electromagnetic tensor Fₐₑ.
To ultimately understand the equations requires a knowledge of the maths; how the equations were reformulated by Heaviside and integrated into Special and General Relativity.
Then there is the experimental side from individuals such as Faraday and Ampere who defined the laws from which Maxwell's equations are structured on.

 

[SelfSim]

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

What has trust got to do with this?
It's the case you either understand the equations or you don't.

Been thinking about this ... and I personally find it quite disturbing whenever the blindingly obvious need for more knowledge (or understanding), is somehow supplanted with a need for 'trust' ..(?)

Why is some conspiracy theory, (concerning the use of math), preferred over the possibility of gaining additional knowledge about it?
(Just doesn't make sense to me ..)

 

[Contenders Edge]

So done ..
Do you still deny it your trust, given its no longer 'in the blind'?

Understanding what the equations are telling us enables us to make an informed decision about the facts evidences presented.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Been thinking about this ... and I personally find it quite disturbing whenever the blindingly obvious need for more knowledge (or understanding), is somehow supplanted with a need for 'trust' ..(?)

Why is some conspiracy theory, (concerning the use of math), preferred over the possibility of gaining additional knowledge about it?
(Just doesn't make sense to me ..)

No one is supplanting the need for more information and knowledge with trust and there is no conspiracy theory concerning the use of math, but the more information and knowledge we have about the equations presented, the better we are able to make an informed conclusion about the case the OP has presented.

[To those who have provided information and insight about what the equations are telling us, I tip my hat to you.]

 

[SelfSim]

No one is supplanting the need for more information and knowledge with trust and there is no conspiracy theory concerning the use of math, but the more information and knowledge we have about the equations presented, the better we are able to make an informed conclusion about the case the OP has presented.

Ok then .. thanks .. (glad to see that).

I take that as a retraction of your implied generalisation of the elitism of educated mathematical thinkers then?

 

[Contenders Edge]

Ok then .. thanks .. (glad to see that).

I take that as a retraction of your implied generalisation of the elitism of educated mathematical thinkers then?

No, that was not a retraction of my "implied generalisation of the elitism of educated mathematical thinkers. I never singled out mathematicians in that post. You clearly misunderstood the intent of that response post and all of my posts if that is what you are thinking.

I was simply expressing my appreciation of the willingness of those who understand the equation pattern presented by the OP to share the insight and the knowledge they have so that the rest of us who may not otherwise understand the equations presented by the OP, might be better able to come to an informed conclusion about the OP's case for his position by weighing the facts and arguments of all sides.

It is not enough to simply produce an unexplained equation pattern, claim that it is proof of something, and expect everyone to take you at your word. You have to explain how it makes the case for the position that you are trying to make.

​

 

[sjastro]

Ironically the issue of trust has been revealed in this thread from a different perspective given one particular poster decided to put forward their own pet theory.
To the unfamiliar it becomes the case who do you believe if there are a contrasting number of answers.

The creation of a new sub-forum was designed to separate mainstream ideas from pet theories, pseudoscience, mainstream bashing, fringe science etc.

 

[sjastro]

Here is a "user friendly" and humorous version of combining Special Relativity to Maxwell's equations without going through the complications of Minkowski space-time.

 

[sjastro]

Coincidentally the Alcubierre drive has been in the news very recently.
While it is definitely fringe science and qualifies to being in the new sub forum since it was brought up in this thread I decided top post the link here.
Scientists Are Starting to Take Warp Drives Seriously, Especially This One Concept

Interesting the Alcubierre drive comes up in NASA's "Warp Field Mechanics 101".
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936.pdf

 

[Hans Blaster]

Elitists are those of great influence and power who feel they know better than everyone else, placing their judgment beyond questioning and feel that they do not have to answer to those over whom they wield influence and authority, nor do they believe it to be necessary to explain themselves, thinking that their wealth, fame, academic degrees, professed expertise, and authority is enough to buy the trust of the masses who are stupid and ignorant enough to blindly trust them.

If you think you are that kind of an Elitist, then by all means go ahead and wear that T-Shirt which will proclaim you to be superior to the common man simply because he cannot understand a set of equations unless it is explain to him in a way that he can easily understand.

I never had one of those T-shirts with Maxwell's equations on them, but now I kind of wish I did so I could wear it tomorrow.

 

[sjastro]

I never had one of those T-shirts with Maxwell's equations on them, but now I kind of wish I did so I could wear it tomorrow.

Either Maxwell's or Euler's identity would be my choice.

A poll of readers conducted by The Mathematical Intelligencer in 1990 named Euler's identity as the "most beautiful theorem in mathematics".[9] In another poll of readers that was conducted by Physics World in 2004, Euler's identity tied with Maxwell's equations (of electromagnetism) as the "greatest equation ever"

.
Actually I prefer Euler's identity for two reasons;
(1) My background is Applied Maths so I'm biased.
(2) Euler's identity is far easier to fit on a T-shirt than Maxwell's equations.

 

[Contenders Edge]

I never had one of those T-shirts with Maxwell's equations on them, but now I kind of wish I did so I could wear it tomorrow.

To the best of my knowledge, there really is no such T-Shirt. My post was simply intended as a response to a sarcastic remark.

 

[Larniavc]

And in such cases, you will fail to convince anyone of what you are hoping to convince them of because what you are presenting them will not make any sense unless your evidence can be presented in such a way as to make sense to everyone, and not just to a handful of elitists.

Doesn’t matter. If someone chooses to take the time to learn about complicated things one will not be expected to be involved in the conversation.

Like how it would be strange to debate Christianity if one could not read the Bible.

 

[Larniavc]

The equations E and B are solutions to a set of conditions called the Wave Equation - which says the changes in time for the wave function (WF) is proportional to the changes in space for the WF.

The speed of light in a vacuum, for classical phenomena (i.e. non quantum) is considered a constant because of the boundary conditions (constraints) of the Wave finction. We find (through those solutions to the Wave equation) that the speed of light evolves out of the math as a costant and maximum of c ~ 300,000,000 m/s, dependent on magnetic and electric permeability.

Special relativity attempts to juxtaposition general relativity and quantum mechanics. This is where the speed of light c as a constant and maximum begins to break down, and where SR and even basic QM loses some of its substance.

The equations in the OP are evolved from Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic phenomena.

1. The divergence of the fields of a charged particle is equal to the CHARGE (not zero). Think of the electric field as a ball with lines coming out of it. If you measure the volume the lines permeate at a certain radius, it will give you the CHARGE expected in that space.

2. The divergence of the magnetic field is *alegedly* zero. This means the magnetic field curls in spirals as opposed to diverging in straight lines. If you have seen representations of magnetic fields, you can understand why it curls. This also suggests there are no magnetic monopolies (like there exists electric monopoles), but this is also alleged because of the math (if the divergence of a vector is zero, then there exists a vector potential for which the curl of the vector is nonzero; if the curl of a vector is zero, there exists a scalar potential for which the divergence is nonzero. The math tends to explain the physics more.

3. A change in electric field gives a magnetic field

4. A change in magnetic field gives an electric field.

Electrodynamics can be thoroughly proven in the lab, but there are still issues with classical electroydynamics. Depending on your method of information transfer, c can be greater or smaller than the vacuum value.

Entanglement, for example, categorically must exchange information faster than the speed of light (superlunimar).

No. Just NO.

All based on a flawed premise!

It’s maths.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Doesn’t matter. If someone chooses to take the time to learn about complicated things one will not be expected to be involved in the conversation.

Like how it would be strange to debate Christianity if one could not read the Bible.

But we are involved in the conversation: A conversation about whether or not an obscure equation pattern is enough to prove anything. To the Bible's credit, it is, for the most part, easily understood and more frequently and intensely debated than a bunch of equations that most people do not understand.

 

[Ophiolite]

To the Bible's credit, it is, for the most part, easily understood and more frequently and intensely debated than a bunch of equations that most people do not understand.

If something is easily understood there should be little need to debate it. Most of the debating I am aware of is between individuals and groups who have a different understanding if what it says. (I am speaking only of the differences of opinion amongst those who are Christians.)

 

[Contenders Edge]

If something is easily understood there should be little need to debate it. Most of the debating I am aware of is between individuals and groups who have a different understanding if what it says. (I am speaking only of the differences of opinion amongst those who are Christians.)

Yet there is debate even about those things that are clearly understood because there is always some charlatan who wants to convince the rest of us that that which is easily understood is more complicated than it actually really is. Regrettably, that is a major problem within the Church and has been for centuries.

 

[Larniavc]

But we are involved in the conversation: A conversation about whether or not an obscure equation pattern is enough to prove anything. To the Bible's credit, it is, for the most part, easily understood and more frequently and intensely debated than a bunch of equations that most people do not understand.

So if you can’t understand what it says, you cannot opine on it.

Which was my point.

 

[Contenders Edge]

So if you can’t understand what it says, you cannot opine on it.

Which was my point.

And my point has been that you cannot call that which is incomprehensible proof for anything until it can be comprehended.