Invariance of c

[AbstractDreamer]

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yes you are. And so far you seem to have rejected all reasons and answers offered. I have seen this similar methodology in the past elsewhere, where someone presumes to ask a question and as it turns out, that someone also refuses all reasonable answers, and as it further turns out there is always inevitabley some agenda or baggage behind theeeeir question and behind why they will not accept an answer.

 

Well that is your error of judgement then.  What answer have i refused to accept?  What is this agenda you think i have?  You think I'm here to antagonise by questioning a cornerstone of accepted science? Then why even post a comment on my thread if you believe i have an agenda?   Are you sure this agenda you're speaking of is not yours?  Are you sure you're not on an agenda to antagonise me?  What answers have i rejected?  What answers have i not accepted?

[beecee]

19 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

You mean "no knowledge", and that is wrong, i do have some knowledge just not very much. 

 

19 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

Tell me, how do you think someone who is asking questions and trying to learn going to possibly PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE?  You want the student to come up with an alternative, while you expect them to accept your answers on faith?

Perhaps that is the issue. I mean like me you are an amateur and non professional. As a non professional, I also had plenty of questions when I was participating on a now defunct forum that had its own GR expert and an Astronomer. I listened to their answers...I also read a plenty of reputable books by reputable authors such as Hawking, Sagan, Thorne, Weinberg, Kaku and Davis. Why do you suppose that you need an alternative? All aspects of SR have been verified. We have no evidence of "c' being anything else but invariable and constant. Why do you doubt that? Do you have evidence to support your hypothesis? Do you have access to the state of the art scientific equipement available to the professionals? If you were told by a professional you needed a life saving operation by a trusted professional, along with a second agreeable professional opinion, would you question him? or take his opinion on faith? Yes in essence you have the right to question any professional accepted mainstream opinion as you see fit...but first enroll your self in the necessary appropriate courses...get your masters and all the other qualifications...Then come back and tell us your seemingly objections to what mainstream is proposing.

Edited June 2, 2018 by beecee

[AbstractDreamer]

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

But it wasn't the second postulate itself and is not a good way to present it.

 

I have been responding to other speculations ( negative mass and earth science) this morning as they are easier than preparing a sensible guide to the chain of reasoning that leads to special relativity.

I will take the time today, so look again later on - it is a fascinating story that leads eventually to the maths stated. But, as Einstein said, the Physics must come first.

Well its from wiki and it looked more mathematical than the postulate that was purely in English at the top of the page, so i figured it would be more accurate.

I have since read a few things on how Einstein initially was toying with the idea of variable c, but couldn't get the equations to fit.  Then something about reconciling with gravity.  My conclusion then is he put contraints and assumptions on GR and SR to make it work, which then turned out to fit empirical evidence.  I'm more interested into what thought processes he had and what made him initially modelled c as variable.

[Strange]

21 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

You mean "no knowledge", and that is wrong, i do have some knowledge just not very much.  What answers have i refused to accept ?-

I did mean "no knowledge", thanks.

You were told, repeatedly, that various observations of distant objects would give us information about the fundamental constants at that time. You refused, repeatedly (1) to accept that such differences occurred (2) or that we are actually observing effects from the past (3) invoked non-existent physics to hide any effects.

25 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

I really would have thought anyone who could answer my questions, would not need to be shown the postulates to know them and what the typical questions such as those that im asking might be, and not actually need them to provide the same answer they have no doubt given many times before, or even asked themselves when they were students.

I didn't say that you needed to provide a reference to the postulates of special relativity.

But: YOU QUOTED SOMETHING.

1. It was not obvious you had quoted anything. I assumed that equation and the surrounding text was your own work.

2. Even if I suspected that you had quoted / copied something, I would have to do a Google search of the ENTIRE FRICKING WEB to try and work out where it had come from.

If you quote something, provide the source. It is as simple as that.

[beecee]

15 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

Well that is your error of judgement then.  What answer have i refused to accept? 

My own answer to your question as to why "c"should be "c" and invariable was that this is what length contraction and time dilation depend on. Other answers by others were also forthcoming, such as if it were variable, it would be noticed in many other aspects.

Quote

What is this agenda you think i have?  

I suggested a possible underlying cause that I have been a part of in another forum. That person often questioned GR, BH'S the BB and as it turned out, he was exposed as a closeted IDer. I hope you do not have an agenda.

Quote

You think I'm here to antagonise by questioning a cornerstone of accepted science?

You have right to "honestly" question whatever you have a problem with. There are things I have not understood in the past....I then make an effort to dig deeper and gain more knowledge in that particular area of science, and invariably it turns out that the answers I gave been given were correct at that time.

Quote

Then why even post a comment on my thread if you believe i have an agenda?   Are you sure this agenda you're speaking of is not yours?  Are you sure you're not on an agenda to antagonise me?  What answers have i rejected?  What answers have i not accepted?

My only agenda my friend is science, the scientific method, and to keep learning off those more qualified and understanding same. 

Edited June 2, 2018 by beecee

[AbstractDreamer]

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

Why do you suppose that you need an alternative?

Its not that I don't suppose we need an alternative.  Its that I cannot offer one.  I do not have the grasp of all the mathematical concepts, equations and relationships that is required.  For me to give an alternative would be just so you can laugh at me, why would waste your time with a baseless alternative?

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

All aspects of SR have been verified. We have no evidence of "c' being anything else but invariable and constant. Why do you doubt that? Do you have evidence to support your hypothesis?

I have already stated my evidence. There are spatial frames of reference around black hole event horizons where GR is incomplete.  There are frame of reference over time, when t=10^-43 seconds where GR is incomplete.  Those were my thoughts recently after maybe watching something on youtube or reading something somewhere or talking to someone i cant remember.  I looked up both GR and SR on wiki to understand further.   I examined the postulates i thought i found.  I looked for anything that might explain where the limits of SR might be and found none in the postulates.  I proceeded to this forum to ask further questions.  THAT is my agenda.

 

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

 Do you have access to the state of the art scientific equipement available to the professionals? If you were told by a professional you needed a life saving operation by a trusted professional, along with a second agreeable professional opinion, would you question him? or take his opinion on faith? Yes in essence you have the right to question any professional accepted mainstream opinion as you see fit...but first enroll your self in the necessary appropriate courses...get your masters and all the other qualifications...Then come back and tell us your seemingly objections to what mainstream is proposing.

I would take his opinion because I'm not looking to understand medicine, I just want to live.  Here, i'm not looking to practice science, i want to understand it.  The analogy is incompatible.  There is a difference between being a student and being a patient.  

[beecee]

17 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

Its not that I don't suppose we need an alternative.  Its that I cannot offer one.  I do not have the grasp of all the mathematical concepts, equations and relationships that is required.  For me to give an alternative would be just so you can laugh at me, why would waste your time with a baseless alternative?

Well I suggest that you listen to what most reputable professionals are saying, both here and in the science world in general.

Quote

have already stated my evidence. There are spatial frames of reference around black hole event horizons where GR is incomplete. 

We all know where GR fails us....at the quantum/Planck level at the BH's center where the non physical singularity exists.Not at the EH.

 

Quote

There are frame of reference over time, when t=10^-43 seconds where GR is incomplete.

No one has ever denied that GR is an apporoximation. But any validated QGT will give the same answers as GR within the parameters of applicability of GR.

 

 

Quote

Those were my thoughts recently after maybe watching something on youtube or reading something somewhere or talking to someone i cant remember.  I looked up both GR and SR on wiki to understand further.   I examined the postulates i thought i found.  I looked for anything that might explain where the limits of SR might be and found none in the postulates.  I proceeded to this forum to ask further questions.  THAT is my agenda.

That's great and I'm glad I am mistaken with my suggestion. Your next step now is to understand the answers you have been given and the science it entails. And of course the expertise of the people giving you those answers.

Quote

I would take his opinion because I'm not looking to understand medicine, I just want to live.  Here, i'm not looking to practice science, i want to understand it.  The analogy is incompatible.  There is a difference between being a student and being a patient.

GR is incomplete  because it is an approximation. A future validated  QGT will almost certainly encompass the BB and GR and extend the parameters at which they operate. Just as GR extended and improved accuracies beyond Newtonian gravity.

Edited June 2, 2018 by beecee

[AbstractDreamer]

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

You were told, repeatedly, that various observations of distant objects would give us information about the fundamental constants at that time. You refused, repeatedly (1) to accept that such differences occurred (2) or that we are actually observing effects from the past (3) invoked non-existent physics to hide any effects.

I didn't say that you needed to provide a reference to the postulates of special relativity.

But: YOU QUOTED SOMETHING.

1. It was not obvious you had quoted anything. I assumed that equation and the surrounding text was your own work.

2. Even if I suspected that you had quoted / copied something, I would have to do a Google search of the ENTIRE FRICKING WEB to try and work out where it had come from.

If you quote something, provide the source. It is as simple as that.

Wrong.  Please quote me where i refused to accept such differences.  Simply continuing a line of questions does not imply a refusal to accept.  My point remains valid on the measurement of the observable.  Just because I'm arguing one position, doesn't mean I am refusing to accept the opposite position.  My point was to show there might be lots of opportunities for unknown physics be operating in, and to highlight the fallibility of such answers NOT to refuse to accept them.  There is a difference between critical thinking and opinion.

I quoted something that was so mainstream popular and accepted, i thought it would be easily familiar with people that i expected that could answer my question and who could readily correct me, such as someone else who has told me its not actually the second postulate.  I didn't think it needed a quote.  Why would i re-work a postulate of the most well known theory and then ask questions on my own work?

[Strange]

33 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

There are spatial frames of reference around black hole event horizons where GR is incomplete

Are there? Citation needed.

12 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

I quoted something that was so mainstream popular and accepted, i thought it would be easily familiar with people that i expected that could answer my question and who could readily correct me, such as someone else who has told me its not actually the second postulate.  I didn't think it needed a quote.  Why would i re-work a postulate of the most well known theory and then ask questions on my own work?

Quoting something without credit is called plagiarism. It is generally considered a Bd Thing.

14 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

Please quote me where i refused to accept such differences. 

Oh good grief, really... Here:

On 01/06/2018 at 1:05 PM, AbstractDreamer said:

Looking at alpha today is not looking at alpha a long time ago nor is it looking at alpha a long way away.

23 hours ago, AbstractDreamer said:

It is NOT looking at alpha as it was then billions of years ago.  It is looking at alpha today that has already aged billions of years.

It took a long time to convince you that you were wrong.

 

 

[AbstractDreamer]

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

We all know where GR fails us....at the quantum/Planck level at the BH's center where the non physical singularity exists.Not at the EH.

 

No one has ever denied that GR is an apporoximation. But any validated QGT will give the same answers as GR within the parameters of applicability of GR.

 

 

That's great and I'm glad I am mistaken with my suggestion. Your next step now is to understand the answers you have been given and the science it entails. And of course the expertise of the people giving you those answers.

GR is incomplete  because it is an approximation. A future validated  QGT will almost certainly encompass the BB and GR and extend the parameters at which they operate. Just as GR extended and improved accuracies beyond Newtonian gravity.

Anywhere within a BH is not empty free space and therefore not a valid  spatial frame of reference to test invariance of c, irrespective of whether or not the theory is valid.  Only at the EH and outside can there be empty space between which light can pass at invariant c for the 2nd postulate to hold and for it still to be a valid frame of reference, and also a point where the theory fails.

Your first post was about time dilation as evidence that c must be invariant.   Now you're saying of course its an approximation. Had you actually read my #1 post and listened, we could have saved 3 pages of missing the point.   Given that there a limits at where GR/SR fails, is it not scientifically valid to question the postulates as the reason why it fails?

Must any future validated QGT also specify that c must be invariant?

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

Are there? Citation needed.

Quoting something without credit is called plagiarism. It is generally considered a Bd Thing.

Oh good grief, really... Here:

It took a long time to convince you that you were wrong.

 

 

No that's not the full meaning of plagiarism.   You are missing the key concept of benefit to the plagiator.

How have you interpreted that as a refusal to accept an answer?

I'm not refusing to accept that alpha readings show invariant c?  I'm contesting a point about the measured observable.  Can you really not see the difference?

[Markus Hanke]

On 1/6/2018 at 8:29 AM, AbstractDreamer said:

Special Relativity is formulated from an assumption

The basic assumption of SR is actually both simpler and more general than the one you have quoted: namely, that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. Practically speaking, this means that there is no local experiment which you can perform in order to distinguish between two given inertial frames - the necessary and sufficient condition for this is that the causal structure of these two local spacetime patches must be identical. 

The easiest way to experimentally probe the (classical) causal structure of local spacetime is to set up a source of radiation in vacuum, and examine how this radition propagates through space and time. So let us consider some source-free radiation field in vacuum; in any arbitrary inertial frame, this field will obey the general homogenous wave equation

[math]\square f(x,t)=0[/math]

with some function f(x,t).

SR is now telling us that the same is true in all other inertial frames as well, meaning that no matter which inertial frame you look at, the local radiation field will always obey the above wave equation. This necessarily means that c must be invariant between inertial frames. This is something we can of course test, which has been done innumerable times with many different setups, both directly and indirectly.

Quote

Can we prove that c has always been invariant and will always be invariant?

No. But what we can do is look for clues as to whether the fundamental constants have changed over time, or not. One way to do this is to look at the phenomenon of natural nuclear fission reactors, such as the one in Oklo:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor#Relation_to_the_atomic_fine-structure_constant

Since the fine structure constant directly depends on c (and vice versa), this would seem to indicate that - at least in the past 2 billion years or so - there has been no change in the numerical value of c.

Edited June 2, 2018 by Markus Hanke

[AbstractDreamer]

I'm trying to find where the local limitation between inertial frames of reference are stated.   The only thing i can find is that as long as any frame is not accelerating then c will be invariant

Thanks for the oklo info, showing c has been constant for 2 billion years.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, AbstractDreamer said:

Anywhere within a BH is not empty free space

What do you base that on?

1 hour ago, AbstractDreamer said:

Now you're saying of course its an approximation.

ALL theories are approximations.

1 hour ago, AbstractDreamer said:

Must any future validated QGT also specify that c must be invariant?

In the cases where SR applies, yes. Otherwise it would make different predictions than SR and would therefore be wrong.

1 hour ago, AbstractDreamer said:

No that's not the full meaning of plagiarism.   You are missing the key concept of benefit to the plagiator.

Well, the benefit could be (or it could be a disadvantage) is that you appear to know more than you do by showing the equation for space-time intervals.

But that isn't relevant: If you quote something it is good manners to both your audience and the person you are copying to (1) make it clear you are copying something and (2) provide the source. 

[AbstractDreamer]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

What do you base that on?

ALL theories are approximations.

In the cases where SR applies, yes. Otherwise it would make different predictions than SR and would therefore be wrong.

Well, the benefit could be (or it could be a disadvantage) is that you appear to know more than you do by showing the equation for space-time intervals.

But that isn't relevant: If you quote something it is good manners to both your audience and the person you are copying to (1) make it clear you are copying something and (2) provide the source. 

Based on an understanding the laws of physics don't apply beyond the EH.

By definition invariance in only select cases, albeit most cases, is not invariance.     Your answer belies your bias in affecting your critical thinking.

It could find invariance, make different predictions and still be more complete, because it could make predictions on relationships not addressed with SR. 

It could find variance, make the same predictions and still be more complete, because it might include unknown unknowns.

Well if its a disadvantage, its not plagiarism.  With the nature of responses i have received, I think most would agree its a disadvantage.

What is relevant is that you stay on topic.  If you want to preach about manners, you can open your own thread.

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

Based on an understanding the laws of physics don't apply beyond the EH.

By definition invariance in only select cases, albeit most cases, is not invariance.     Your answer belies your bias in affecting your critical thinking.

It could find invariance, make different predictions and still be more complete, because it could make predictions on relationships not addressed with SR. 

It could find variance, make the same predictions and still be more complete, because it might include unknown unknowns.

Well if its a disadvantage, its not plagiarism.  With the nature of responses i have received, I think most would agree its a disadvantage.

What is relevant is that you stay on topic.  If you want to preach about manners, you can open your own thread.

I hope you aren't mentally skipping over Markus's post...  he knows what he's talking about.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, AbstractDreamer said:

Based on an understanding the laws of physics don't apply beyond the EH.

That isn’t true. As far as we know, currently, the physics inside a black hole is the same as outside. Obviously we have no way of testing by this. And, if black holes are as described by HR, then we can never test it (or, we can but can never tell anyone outside what we found!)

1 hour ago, AbstractDreamer said:

By definition invariance in only select cases, albeit most cases, is not invariance. 

Obviously SR only applies in certain cases.  But the speed of light is invariant in GR too, it is just less obvious what that means. 

 

[Markus Hanke]

2 hours ago, AbstractDreamer said:

I'm trying to find where the local limitation between inertial frames of reference are stated.   The only thing i can find is that as long as any frame is not accelerating then c will be invariant

Thanks for the oklo info, showing c has been constant for 2 billion years.

You can think of c as short-hand for “causal structure” - if the causal structure between events is the same within two frames, then c is invariant between these frames. This applies principally to inertial frames, since otherwise the relationship between events will explicitly depend on proper acceleration (which is an absolute quantity that all observers agree on). Do note though that sufficiently small patches of spacetime are always approximately inertial; physically this means that the global speed of light may vary in non-inertial situations, but the local speed of light does not. This is true even in the curved spacetimes of GR, and can be directly - and relatively easily - tested.

In the specific example I gave about the radiation, the invariance is encapsulated in the d’Alembert operator - if it is invariant between frames (i.e. the same physical propagation of radiation), then so must be c, since it explicitly appears in its definition.

Quote

By definition invariance in only select cases, albeit most cases, is not invariance.

 The invariance in question is Lorentz invariance, which is specifically an invariance between inertial frames. Its domain of applicability does not extend beyond this. However, since all small enough patches of spacetime are approximately inertial, Lorentz invariance applies to all local regions, everywhere and always, so long as they are small enough. There are no known exceptions to this. As a matter of fact, the Standard Model of Particle Physics - which describes the dynamics of fundamental particles - critically relies on this, since Lorentz invariance gives rise to CPT invariance (and vice versa!), which a basic symmetry underlying the Standard Model. Without Lorentz invariance, the particles we observe could not exist in the form we find them. For example, one immediate consequence of Lorentz invariance being violated locally would be that particles could not have the property of spin. 

Quote

Based on an understanding the laws of physics don't apply beyond the EH.

They apply within most of the region below the EH - only in the immediate vicinity of the central region of geodesic incompleteness do they begin to break down. Precisely how far below the horizon you can go before quantum effects become non-negligible depends on the particular spacetime geometry you find yourself in (among other things). 

Edited June 2, 2018 by Markus Hanke

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

The basic assumption of SR is actually both simpler and more general than the one you have quoted: namely, that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.

Welcome back, Markus!

I assume the reason that Einstein specified the invariance of the speed of light as a separate thing, is because it was unexpected (and the time) and because it is key to deriving the Lorentz transform, etc. 

[Markus Hanke]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Welcome back, Markus!

I assume the reason that Einstein specified the invariance of the speed of light as a separate thing, is because it was unexpected (and the time) and because it is key to deriving the Lorentz transform, etc. 

Thanks

Well, for all intents and purposes, we can almost use “c” as a synonym for “laws of physics”, since most laws at least in the classical domain explicitly depend on it in some form or another, though that might not always be immediately obvious. It’s just two ways to look at the same thing, really. 

[geordief]

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

Welcome back, Markus!

I assume the reason that Einstein specified the invariance of the speed of light as a separate thing, is because it was unexpected (at the time) and because it is key to deriving the Lorentz transform, etc. 

Yes ,a pleasant surprise to see Markus here....

 

I  thought I had read Einstein ,as a preamble in one of his popularizing publications perhaps  stating that all children knew that the speed of light was the same ... 

[Markus Hanke]

2 minutes ago, geordief said:

Yes ,a pleasant surprise to see Markus here....

Well, I found myself missing the weird and quirky world of amateur science forums  

[geordief]

3 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Well, I found myself missing the weird and quirky world of amateur science forums  

Our gain

[swansont]

5 hours ago, AbstractDreamer said:

 I can go on wiki and and read the facts if i wanted to just accept current science with no understanding.   

As opposed to rejecting it with no understanding?

[Mordred]

Welcome back Markus. You have supplied some excellent answers, lol saves me a bit of time....

3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

 

No. But what we can do is look for clues as to whether the fundamental constants have changed over time, or not. One way to do this is to look at the phenomenon of natural nuclear fission reactors, such as the one in Oklo:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor#Relation_to_the_atomic_fine-structure_constant

Since the fine structure constant directly depends on c (and vice versa), this would seem to indicate that - at least in the past 2 billion years or so - there has been no change in the numerical value of c.

I recall these tests done but had nearly forgotten about them thanks for the reminder..

 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, AbstractDreamer said:

 I have already stated my evidence. There are spatial frames of reference around black hole event horizons where GR is incomplete.  There are frame of reference over time, when t=10^-43 seconds where GR is incomplete.  Those were my thoughts recently after maybe watching something on youtube or reading something somewhere or talking to someone i cant remember.  I looked up both GR and SR on wiki to understand further.   I examined the postulates i thought i found.  I looked for anything that might explain where the limits of SR might be and found none in the postulates.  I proceeded to this forum to ask further questions.  THAT is my agenda.

Here's the problem with this: you have made a much more general assertion about the speed of light not being constant. It's not like there are black holes everywhere, messing with light as it gets to us. There are some number of examples — gravitational lensing, for example. But they are a small minority. We're also not talking about anything before ~380,000 years after the BB, since the universe was opaque until then.