Speed of light

[lesliedellow]

I rather doubt the word 'universally'. It is most acceptable and reliable - as much modern electronic equipment attest - but is reasonably ignored in terms of astronomical observations and measurements.

By the same token, General Relativity is both acceptable and reliable in the macrocosm, but not so valuable in the microcosm. So General Relativity is not 'universally' accepted in the same manner.

Correct.

I am looking eagerly to the time when the reconciliation is accomplished.

You seem to use "acceptable" as a synonym for "useful".

 

[Archie the Preacher]

You seem to use "acceptable" as a synonym for "useful".

Humpf. So it would seem. I base this on the observation that a scientist, theoretician, engineer or technician who finds something 'acceptable' also 'uses' it.

Or maybe not. Both QM and GR are not useful or useable in certain conditions.

Now I'm somewhat confused. But I'm used to it.

 

[lesliedellow]

Humpf. So it would seem. I base this on the observation that a scientist, theoretician, engineer or technician who finds something 'acceptable' also 'uses' it.

Or maybe not. Both QM and GR are not useful or useable in certain conditions.

Now I'm somewhat confused. But I'm used to it.

A theoretical physicist would have no problen accepting that QM and Relativity are applicable to the world of double decker buses and electric fires, but he would be highly unlikely to regard them as useful in that situation, because it would be using a sledge hammer to crack open an egg shell.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

A theoretical physicist would have no problen accepting that QM and Relativity are applicable to the world of double decker buses and electric fires, but he would be highly unlikely to regard them as useful in that situation, because it would be using a sledge hammer to crack open an egg shell.

Fair enough.

I read in one essay on Relativity an automobile traveling at sixty miles per hour, due to Relativity shortening, looses about "half an atom" of length. (Atom of what not stipulated.) I believe the amount of 'uncertainty' of the exact position of the automobile is on the same magnitude. So you are correct; it 'could' be done but pointless.

 

[paul becke]

It is not wrong. Quantum Mechanics is universally applicable, but since vectors in infinite dimensional Hilbert Space are not something encountered in every high school cirriculum, Newtonian mechanicsis used wherever possible, because it is simpler and more convenient.

Well, yes, that's obvous, Leslie. The classical mechanistic paradigm is of no use in terms of the microscopic QM world, for which only QM serves.

That is arrant nonsense. It is not exactly a secret that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible. They cannot both be right, and they are almost certainly both wrong. Like Newtonian Mechanics before them, they are approximations to the truth.

'It is not wrong. Quantum Mechanics is universally applicable, but since vectors in infinite dimensional Hilbert Space are not something encountered in every high school cirriculum, Newtonian mechanicsis used wherever possible, because it is simpler and more convenient.'

That has to be a joke. 'wherever possible' are the operative words? Understanding the atomic and subatomic world is not possible via the classical mechanistic paradigm. Period.

When I said QM is the most (successfuly) tested theory ever, and that modern industry relies on to a vey large extent, I was not making it up. You only seem capable of linear, mechanistic thinking, which is fine for building Meccano or Lego models but not for understanding the quantum world. For goodness sake wise up by reading the synthesis - no you can't countenance anything non-linear and mechanistic. We'll have to leave it at that.

 

[lesliedellow]

'It is not wrong. Quantum Mechanics is universally applicable, but since vectors in infinite dimensional Hilbert Space are not something encountered in every high school cirriculum, Newtonian mechanicsis used wherever possible, because it is simpler and more convenient.'

You said, in case you have forgotten (but I haven't):

"However, it has actually also been proven that it can never be superseded, i.e. never be improved upon."

At the risk of repeating myself, that is arrant nonsense. It both can and will be improved upon, and that is not speculation.

That has to be a joke. 'wherever possible' are the operative words? Understanding the atomic and subatomic world is not possible via the classical mechanistic paradigm. Period.

I cannot recall anybody saying otherwise.

When I said QM is the most (successfuly) tested theory ever, and that modern industry relies on to a vey large extent, I was not making it up. You only seem capable of linear, mechanistic thinking, which is fine for building Meccano or Lego models but not for understanding the quantum world. For goodness sake wise up by reading the synthesis - no you can't countenance anything non-linear and mechanistic. We'll have to leave it at that.

Stop trying to patronise me. Quantum Mechanics was something I covered in the "applied" part of my maths degree thirty something years ago.

 

[paul becke]

Even if it is the case that consciousness cannot be accounted for in terms of energy and matter, that still does not excuse the nonsense which gets talked about quantum mechanics. Newtonian mechanics gets used for the very good reason that is an excellent approximation to quantum mechanics in the everyday world, and the mathematics is a whole lot simpler.

There's no 'ifs' about it. Metaphysically, it's nonsense.

The approximation of classical, mechanistic physics to QM in the everyday world is an irrelevance. As the physical paradigm at that scale, it stands on its own merits, where QM is utterly impracticable.

What you do not seem to be aware of, is that the more deeply physicsts have penetrated matter, the higher the wall of paradoxes they face has become. And why would that not be so, since it appears to have reached the mysterious interface between matter and the Spirit of God, its Creator.

I've read more than once the question raised : 'Have we come to the end of physics' - which might go someway towards explaining why those atheists who have so risibly postured as the hard-headed, super-rational paragons of scientific thought, now want us to believe in 'many worlds' and a multiworld, etc - all pure conjecture to 'prevent God's foot in the door', as atheist, evolutionary biologist and genetecist, Richard Lewontin so ingenuously admitted should, be their (atheist scientists)' top priority, even over reason and logic.

 

[paul becke]

I cann [post recall anybody saying otherwise.

You've said more than once that use of the Newtonian mechanistic in preference to QM was just a matter of convenience, and besides, QM would be an inappropriate subject in school-books !

 

[lesliedellow]

What you do not seem to be aware of, is that the more deeply physicsts have penetrated matter, the higher the wall of paradoxes they face has become. And why would that not be so, since it appears to have reached the mysterious interface between matter and the Spirit of God, its Creator.

That is pure hocus pocus on your part.

I've read more than once the question raised : 'Have we come to the end of physics' - which might go someway towards explaining why those atheists who have so risibly postured as the hard-headed, super-rational paragons of scientific thought, now want us to believe in 'many worlds' and a multiworld, etc - all pure conjecture to 'prevent God's foot in the door', as atheist, evolutionary biologist and genetecist, Richard Lewontin so ingenuously admitted should, be their (atheist scientists)' top priority, even over reason and logic.

The majority of physicists are still signed up to the Copenhagen Interpretation.

 

[lesliedellow]

You've said more than once that use of the Newtonian mechanistic in preference to QM was just a matter of convenience, and besides, QM would be an inappropriate subject in school-books !

Looking back, I said:

"It is not wrong. Quantum Mechanics is universally applicable, but since vectors in infinite dimensional Hilbert Space are not something encountered in every high school cirriculum, Newtonian mechanicsis used wherever possible, because it is simpler and more convenient."

Which is perfectly true. Newtonian mechanics is used wherever possible, and QM is not used to get people to the Moon. Furthermore, it certainly is the case that notions such as infinite dimensional Hilbert Spaces were not the stuff of 'A' level, even in my day.

Oh, I forgot. Americans don't speak English, so they think school means university, whereas we British know that it means school.

 

[paul becke]

and QM is not used to get people to the Moon.

'Without quantum mechanics there would be no transistor, and hence no personal computer; no laser,..'
Shows what you know. Or, rather, don't.'

Implications of Quantum Mechanics

Oh. I forgot. I'm English, not American. Wake up, Christmas !

 

[lesliedellow]

'Without quantum mechanics there would be no transistor, and hence no personal computer; no laser,..'
Shows what you know. Or, rather, don't.'

Implications of Quantum Mechanics

Crap. Nowhere did I say that QM wasn't applicable at the atomic scale, except in your febrile imagination. In fact, I have been insisting that it is applicable at all scales. It just isn't useful at all of them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

'Without quantum mechanics there would be no transistor, and hence no personal computer; no laser,..'
Shows what you know. Or, rather, don't.'

Implications of Quantum Mechanics

That's rather childish; I think we all know what he meant.

 

[Steve Petersen]

A very easy to understand demonstration of the speed of light being constant and time being variable:

 

[paul becke]

Crap. Nowhere did I say that QM wasn't applicable at the atomic scale, except in your febrile imagination. In fact, I have been insisting that it is applicable at all scales. It just isn't useful at all of them.

What a facile strawman. I actually quoted what you said about QM not being used to get a rocket to the moon, and you start rambling about the atomic scale !

 

[paul becke]

That's rather childish; I think we all know what he meant.

I'm still unaware of this universal knowledge, beyond my ken, Mr Bandersnatch. Perhaps you would be good enough to apprise me of what he meant ? Mmm? Or are total strawmen OK among you people ? Leslie is not illiterate ? Am I to make allowances for you two, accepting your substitutions of unintelligible generalities or metaphors for specifics ?

Leslie scoffed at the applicability of QM in current, leading-edge science and technology, after I had apprised him that the precise opposite obtained, i.e. it depended on it to an extarordianry degree.

And then you put in your, frankly, fatuous two penn'orth - which, when pressed, you couldn't make sense of yourself, and apprise me thereof. It is surely better not to interject, if you can't say something rational. Still, we all live and learn. Hopefully.

 

[Radrook]

What is this, a trick question? I should think that if I were driving my car at the speed of light, I and the car would be annihilated

You would need to get your tires retreaded quick every few miles! Then you'd need force field to prevent disintegration via atmospheric friction or drive in a vacuum. Special lubricant for the pistons and other parts lest they immediately crumble from the unusual stress.

Or just simply assume its just a hypothetical and dispense with all the troublesome amenities.

 

[tansy]

You would need to get your tires retreaded quick every few miles! Then you'd need force field to prevent disintegration via atmospheric friction or drive in a vacuum. Special lubricant for the pistons and other parts lest they immediately crumble from the unusual stress.

Or just simply assume its just a hypothetical and dispense with all the troublesome amenities.

LOL - I do tend to take things too literally sometimes...but of course, it actually does raise the question of if it would be possible somehow to travel at the speed of light? Maybe only if one could do a 'beam me up Scotty' type of thing. But that, if I remember correctly, was more to do with disassembling and reassembling a person? Not sure, it's decades since I watched Star Trek LOL

 

[Ygrene Imref]

According to, some of the people other people think are smart, light is only constant in a vacuum. Moving through different mediums can slow it down. I remember a paper where the speed of light was slowed down to, like, 5 miles per hour? Which raises all kinds of questions because allegedly the speed of light was the result of Maxwell's Field Equations precluding a static light wave. So Einstein's relativity came into play making the speed of light uncatchable (due to time dilation) because if you could catch up to it, you could look over at it and that would constitute a relative static light wave, which can't exist. Presto chango, relativity. So my question was, when they slowed light to a walking speed, how did you not introduce a relatively static light wave?

But then, what is a vacuum? I read that a true vacuum doesn't exist (at least, not naturally) and so that should mean, what? Light isn't naturally constant? There's no such a thing in nature as a constant speed of light. To make matters worse, I remember a paper just a year or so ago in which even in a vacuum light doesn't appear to be constant. Something about twisting a planar wave into a wave front.

In the end, I'm confident nobody knows anything. It's just a bunch of imaginary conjecture.

It is. Constants and gauges to make the math work for the physics.

Sometimes, things stick. But, is it the unique solution, or a "skeleton key" approac my belief is the latter.

 

[MrSpikey]

I did get a book out of the library about time, but unfortunately it was due back before I had a chance to finish reading it.

That made me laugh, thank you.