A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious. [Physics]

Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights

From: Peter Webb on 26 Feb 2010 09:32

"Vern" <vthodge2(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec31060c-9e2d-4865-b5f5-db2ae39213f9(a)v13g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 26, 2:27 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:

<snip>

> So, just for the record, Lorentz's theory is not the same as SR, and
> (according to you) if Einstein had not published SR in 1905 it would have
> taken Lorentz a "year or two" to develop it. Not, of course, that it
> matters
> where the theory came from - few people argue about Newton's contribution
> on
> the basis that Galileo already had some key concepts. SR could have been
> developed entirely by Joseph Stalin for all I care; the simple matter is
> that it works extremely well.

SR offers no physical explanation for nature. It is a principle
theory. Your post trying to explain Maxwell's equations without the
medium the equations were developed from was a joke.
__________________________
Uhh, OK, you didn't understand my attempted explanation of what light waves
are in terms of Maxwell's equations. I did say it was very difficult to give
an insight without actually using mathematics. Seems that if you want to
really understand what Maxwell says about light, you actually do have to
know basic vector calculus. And that's obviously not something that I could
be bothered teaching you.

At least I tried.

From: kenseto on 26 Feb 2010 10:00

On Feb 26, 7:31 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1eb2c398-9d3a-4cc3-9b13-7dfb68fc12f8(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 Feb, 09:53, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> Nothing wrong with that .. as long as you know which it is ..
> > >> philosophy
> > >> or
> > >> physics. Each has its place. But with the caveat that any philosophy
> > >> that
> > >> is at odds with reality (eg experimental evidence) is not a useful
> > >> adjunct
> > >> to physics.
>
> > > I agree, but as I say I don't see how my model can be deemed as "not
> > > physics".
>
> > Can you give me some details of your model. . this thread is too long to
> > go
> > back through it and try to find where you may have explained it
>
> I've been more detailed in the past, but it basically just involved
> planets, orbits, and an attractive gravity force that had some
> relationship with distance.
>
> ___________________________________
> About this gravity thing. I am having a great deal of difficulty forming a
> mental picture of how it is supposed to work. If the planets are separated
> by vacuum, how could one object possibly pull on another object when there
> is nothing between them? For that matter, how does one particle manage to
> pull on every other particle in the Universe at the same time? Are you
> positing some array of invisible springs, 10^160 of them, connecting the
> 10^80 particles in the Universe?

The following link gives a new theory of gravity that includes a
physical model....in other words, it include a mechanism how gravity
works.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf

Ken Seto

>
> Frankly, I find the suggestion that each time I move my finger to type these
> invisible gravity springs cause every other particle in the Universe to move
> ludicrous. Apart from anything else, how is this spooky action at a distance
> supposed to work, physically? Springs and levers? What is gravity supposed
> to be, physically?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: PD on 26 Feb 2010 12:34

On Feb 25, 9:05 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 Feb, 09:16, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> > > And on this point, I've repeatedly maintained that it isn't. All
> > > you've offered in the converse is a quote by Einstein that it is.
>
> > No, I've also referred you to the works of Kuhn and Lakatos. And
> > indeed, the very method that you describe involves formulating a
> > theory and then testing its predictions - in other words, the tests
> > that are carried out are constrained by the predictions made by the
> > theory. One would be unlikely to test for something that the theory
> > does not predict in the first place.
> > ____________________________
> > Thus demonstrating you also have no understanding whatsoever of the
> > scientific method or these philosophers.
>
> You talk rubbish Peter. Kuhn largely discounted the existence of any
> defined "scientific method" consistently followed by scientists.
>
> > The whole point of testing through
> > experiment is to look for places where the theory might break down, not
> > places where you have tested similar things in the past. The idea is to try
> > and disprove the theory, and through failure, demonstrate it is true. This
> > is the complete opposite to what you say.
>
> No it isn't. It's the *complete same* as what I said. You yourself say
> that (some) scientists are setting out to disprove the existing
> accepted theory. And yet the existing theory will in fact be the
> theory they are most familiar with as scientists, underpinning their
> knowledge and understanding of the natural world, and indeed that
> theory will have been responsible for most of the cutting edge
> technologies that are available to carry out tests on the natural
> world.
>
> Invariably, then, scientists will be mostly oriented

"Invariably" and "mostly" in the same sentence....hmmm. And this is no
small point.
Experiments are *usually* positioned to distinguish two or more
different models, or two or more *classes* of models (that is, a class
is a group of models that share a common feature), or two variants of
a class of models.

There's a good reason for that. In the areas of highest interest, we
don't HAVE an accepted model yet, though there are certainly several
candidate models.

In some cases we have a model that we KNOW is going to break at some
energy scale. The "Standard Model" of particle interactions is an
example. Again, it's not clear which extension or alternate model is
favored, but by comparing the Standard Model's predictions as-is
against measurements with higher precision or at higher energy, we get
a clue as to which of those alternates should be pursued.

In decidedly rarer cases, there are continued tests of older models,
like special relativity, where we have a huge database of evidence to
support the model. What's the pay-off of continuing to test the
predictions of a well-established model? A potential huge pay-off in
terms of surprise value. If something we now are quite confident about
turns out to not do so well in some small area, then this is a flag
for exciting and brand new physics.

> towards testing
> the *explicit predictions of the existing theory*. And this sort of
> testing is undoubtedly *decided by the theory* - you would not test
> for predictions that theory didn't make or claim domain over in the
> first place.
>
> You are a fool if you can't see that the theory therefore determines
> the sorts of tests that are carried out.

On the contrary, it's an artifact of your somewhat obscured and
distant view of how the work is actually done.

>
> > The sad fact that even you must acknowledge - and tell us if you don't - is
> > that SR is routinely tested every day of the year in wildly diverse
> > environments such as particle accelerators, GPS units, astronomy, and space
> > exploration. All completely independent ways of testing, and some giving
> > very highg precision indeed.
>
> Not really. The very existence of those technologies is made possible
> by SR. One could have a crack at making a machine based on only
> classical mechanics, and then marvel at the "ongoing proof of the
> theory". Of course, we now know that classical mechanics is only
> applicable to reality as an approximation.
>
> > Like it or not, the equations of SR are obviously correct.
>
> Pff. I didn't really say that SR wasn't correct, although I have said
> that its conceptual framework doesn't seem very clear. Most conceptual
> questions seem to be headed off by claiming that certain observations,
> such as the invariance of 'c', are fundamental manifestations of
> reality. The same is true when questions are asked about the
> wavefunction in QM - questions are headed off by claiming that it is a
> fundamental manifestation of reality.
>
> > So the only thing that you can bring to the table is some philosophical
> > interpretation of what is "really" going on. This is a task you are poorly
> > prepared to do, as you don't understand the current (dominant)
> > interpretation of what is really going on, which is Minkowski space-time. It
> > is (when you understand it) a very simple model which explains a great deal
> > of the physics very simply - in particular the Energy and Momentum of a
> > particle. Frankly, you are not going to find a mental model of SR which is
> > better or simpler than Minkowski space-time, I very much doubt one exists at
> > all.
>
> I also doubt one exists at the moment, but I see that as a problem.
> It's utterly irreconcilable, within any conceptual framework that I
> know of, to have situations where, for example, a large ladder can end
> up in a smaller barn according to an observer stationary in the barn,
> but not according to an observer riding the ladder.

Why? And here we can systematically trace back to the assumptions you
are making and then question them. In this case, you have a firm
belief that length is definable in such a way that it is intrinsic to
the object and frame-independent, and that physical "fitting" is a
function of the *intrinsic* lengths of two objects (or an object and a
container). This is an *assumption* on your part that is not
warranted. Why it is not warranted and how it can make perfect
physical sense that it is not warranted is the discussion on frame-
dependent simultaneity that we started and which you bailed on.

> It's easier to see
> why it might be possible for it to *appear* to do so (when the
> observers are carefully placed), but it certainly can't happen in
> reality.
>
> > Your disbelief of SR stems from the fact that you don't understand it.
>
> My disbelief, really, stems from the blatant lack of conceptual
> understanding of the theory. I mean, as I repeatedly point out, I
> don't know a single equation of relativity, and yet I can root out the
> conceptual contradictions immediately when people here have a crack at
> making meaningful qualitative statements in SR. The classic example,
> of course, was Paul's contention that "what is simultaneous in one
> frame can never be simultaneous in another", which of course isn't
> true according to SR.

I'm sorry? It is very much true in SR that two spatially separated
events that are simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in
another frame moving relative to the first.

We were in the middle of exploring why this is perfectly consistent
with the laws of physics, when you bailed.

> And while I'll excuse it as a slip of his
> fingers, I've no doubt that many here understand the qualitative side
> of SR so poorly that such a statement did not immediately ring alarm
> bells when it was made, and yet indeed they dare to accuse me of "not
> understanding".
>
> > That's because you are lazy; you seem intelligent enough to learn it if you
> > wanted.
>
> I'm not lazy really, it's just I have little motivation to learn the
> mathematical side of SR when I would say it is well beyond my present
> mathematical ability, and completely outside of my real interests. My
> existing mental models seem adequate to cope with taking the position
> of a subjective observer in SR, but I certainly can't reconcile it in
> "God mode", and discussions so far don't seem to have suggested that I
> will get my answers if only I learned the maths. Indeed, I suspect I'd
> get that far and still be raising the same contradictions, at which
> point someone would just say "this is what SR is" or "it's a
> fundamental manifestation of reality", "you can't describe reality
> independent of the observer", etc.
>
> > However, jumping from you don't understand SR to therefore
> > physicists are all wrong shows an almighty conceit on your part. Just
> > because you are an idiot doesn't mean every physicist in the world is as
> > well.
>
> Yawn. You totally fail to grasp the nuance of all the arguments that
> I've made so far. If you think that the problem is a lack of
> mathematical understanding on my part, then it's almost certainly an
> insurmountable allegation, because to disprove it imposes a huge
> obligation which will have no payoff for me except the small one of
> proving you wrong.
>
> > If you really don't believe that SR has been massively and overwhelmingly
> > been "proved" by experimental evidence, just say so, and I will dig up a
> > list of experimental proofs for you.
>
> See all of what I've just written in this post.
>
> > If you accept that the equations of SR are correct, then your point in all
> > this is ..... ?
>
> My point is that I may as well pat myself on the head with a
> housebrick.

From: PD on 26 Feb 2010 12:40

On Feb 25, 9:38 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 Feb, 09:46, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> > And indeed, I said openly that I couldn't make that work, once I'd
> > been able to construct a graphic where I could see the proof with my
> > own eyes, and clearly the physical understanding on which that was
> > based is untenable. As it stands, I don't really have any workable
> > physical model for light under relativity.
>
> > _________________________________
>
> > Relativity does not provide a workable physical model for light, in fact it
> > says nothing about it at all.
>
> > The workable physical model for light is provided by Maxwell's eqns, which
> > tell us *exactly* what light is; it is two out of phase electric and
> > magnetic fields, and this uses the same maths and mechanisms as explain
> > radio broadcasting, transformers, generators etc.
>
> You know I actually got as far as reviewing Maxwell's equations before
> I started to fall over laughing at my gullibility. I really should
> have realised at the outset that "Maxwell's equations" were not going
> to involve anything physical.

Lovely. So it's not relativity that you have a problem with, it is
classical electrodynamics. I'm curious whether you're also going to
have a problem with Newtonian gravity as not involving anything
physical. (Note both involve potentials and fields, and in fact Gauss'
Law is common to both.)

>
> And incidentally, after realising this, but before responding, I
> actually scrolled down through the posts and found that Paul Stowe had
> also made exactly the same argument.
>
> > You would be well off learning this before you attempt SR, as much of the
> > experimentation and theory was motivated by physicists knowing that
> > Maxwell's equations - used a billion times a day - used a Lorentz transform,
> > and this would allow an absolute frame of reference to be established.
>
> > In practice, the mathematics of Maxwell are harder than SR, but I will try
> > and explain some key concepts.
>
> Hell fire! Mathematically harder than SR?
>
> > Most importantly, Maxwell's eqns are said to give rise to light waves, but
> > these are fundamentally different what you think of as a wave. In water
> > waves, there is a single variable - water height - and the wave exchanges
> > energy with the medium through which it travels. Similarly with sound waves,
> > where it is air pressure. In Maxwell, there are two waves always generated,
> > the electric and the magnetic. The electric increases, it draws energy from
> > the magnetic, the magnetic runs out, the electric collapses which feed
> > energy into the magnetic, and so on ... multiply this by about 10^20 in
> > speed and you have light.
>
> This is a bit wooly. Obviously there is some sort of oscillation going
> on, but I suspect more work needs to be done on the concept.

Or on your understanding of the concept.

I do enjoy the hubris of your general sentiment that if you don't
understand it, then there must be something wooly with it.

>
>
>
> > The total energy of the photon/wave is constant, it simply exchanges energy
> > between its electric and magnetic fields. If you ask what the electric wave
> > is "waving through" - what is storing its energy as it goes up and down like
> > a water wave - its the waves magnetic field, and the waves magnetic field is
> > similarly beating against the electric field. This means there is no
> > connection to any underlying medium which is waving, like in a water wave,
> > it is self contained. This is ultimately why it has a Lorentz transform, and
> > if you do the maths on Maxwell's equations you actually get the Lorentz
> > contraction popping out automatically. The Michelson Morley experiment was
> > specifically designed to compare the transforms for light and a physical
> > object, and contrary to your opinion that physicists don't know how to
> > design tests, was deliberately testing to the limits the prevailing
> > understanding at that time, and found it to be wrong.
>
> > The rest is now over 100 years of history; you are a little late to find a
> > problem.
>
> Lol. Perhaps a mistake more than 100 years ago is why there hasn't
> been much theoretical or conceptual advance in 100 years?

What are you missing? You don't think there's been much theoretical or
conceptual advance in 100 years? Really? Quantum entanglement, gauge
symmetry, quantum fields, cosmology, the origin of matter, none of it
is "much"? What were you expecting?

From: PD on 26 Feb 2010 12:46

On Feb 25, 9:42 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 Feb, 17:15, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 10:22 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm afraid I don't accept that this captures the certainty that many
> > > people have in various scientific theories. I've just responded to
> > > Mark who said that a theory with a 95% confidence should be accepted
> > > universally by all
>
> > I said I'm done with this conversation, but I'm not going to let you
> > misquote me, you pathetic idiot.
>
> > I said "it should be accepted by all as HAVING A 95% CHANCE OF BEING
> > TRUE". I did not say it should be accepted as being true. I said it
> > should be accepted that THERE IS A 95% CHANCE THAT IT IS TRUE BY
> > EVERYONE. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. I REPEAT, I DID NOT SAY IT SHOULD
> > BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE--IT SHOULD ONLY BE ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS A 95%
> > CHANCE THAT IT IS TRUE.
>
> > If you are so mentally degenerate that you can't understand the
> > difference, then it makes me wonder how you can make it through your
> > every day life, you moronic imbicile.
>
> > Once again, I will not discuss anything with you, but I sure as hell
> > am going to call you on it if you make retarded inferences about
> > things that I've said and then try to pass that off as my viewpoint.
>
> Calm down. I see that perhaps I did explicitly misquote you, although
> I'm not sure the inferences were so wrong.
>
> If people accept that a particular theory has a 95% confidence, then
> what are you saying they should do as a result? Do you think they
> should devote just 95% of their time to that theory? 100% of their
> time? Some other percentage?
>
> And aside from what you think they should do, what do you think they
> *actually* do?

There's a variety of things one can do (and are done).
1) Explore other candidates, though at a level that is commensurate
with risk-benefit analysis of the effort involved.
2) Continue to do other tests of this model vs other models to see
where the 5% might lead (to either opening it up to 40% or closing it
to 98%, say)
3) Let the community by itself determine organically which volunteers
from the community will plumb the 5% doubt.
4) Design a bunch of devices that are based on a 95% assurance that
the principles of that model are correct, again weighing risk vs
benefit on the chance this is a mistake.