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: Tom Roberts on 14 Feb 2010 18:49

Ste wrote:
> I want simple answers to what seem to me to be simple physical
> questions.

Just because they seem "simple physical questions" to you does not mean that
they actually are such questions. Indeed, from understanding our current best
models of the world we inhabit, it is incredibly likely that you are condemned
to disappointment in this.

> As I said on a previous occasion, few here seem to be able
> to break out of the notion that something exists independent of
> observation.

Hmmm. It is quite clear to me that the world exists and proceeds in its
evolution without any observers at all. But it is true that modern physics
places an emphasis on observation, or more accurately, on measurements. That's
because discussing measurements eliminates many ambiguities, and because the
only information we have about the world we inhabit comes from observation
(measurements).

IOW I utterly reject the solipsism your statement here seems to espouse.

> I want an explanation where, essentially, information travels
> instantaneously,

That's part of your problem. As best we know, that is impossible. If you insist
on counterfactual properties, you are condemned to disappointment.

> but from which I can derive the effects that any
> particular observer would observe. It matters not that information
> does not, really, travel instantaneously. The point is that I want an
> explanation where it *does*, and I can then add on a layer of observer
> effects to reconcile it with real observation.

Almost surely hopeless. You need to LEARN what is currently known, because it
implies your hopes and dreams can not be satisfied. Note this is essentially
always true of people like you who insist on imposing their will on nature.
Nature does not care what you think, wish, or desire. Live with it, because you
have no choice -- you must take nature as she is, not as you wish her to be.

[Don't expect me to continue, until and unless you decide to do
science. Whatever it is you are trying to do is uninteresting.]

Tom Roberts

From: Peter Webb on 14 Feb 2010 18:58

"mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13d31b2a-e1d4-4b1f-8c50-703bb52a09be(a)u15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 14, 9:44 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:24b1dbfc-e19c-4c2e-a7f7-6a3601ea13da(a)q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 14, 1:31 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:49c69202-f525-4bba-bfa0-09b662433837(a)s33g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 14, 1:12 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > Now, here's the kicker. If the Observers on the train know they are
> > > moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment, the
> > > Observers on the train will be able to factor in the trains motion
> > > relative to the water and calculate back and determine the lightning
> > > strikes were in fact, simultaneous with respect to the water
>
> > > _______________________________________
> > > Yes.
>
> > > and conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous, in nature.
>
> > > __________________________________________
> > > No. Nowhere in the 200 lines that preceded this do you show that
> > > reference
> > > frame of the water is the reference frame of "nature". It doesn't even
> > > make
> > > any sense.
>
> > Light propagates at a constant speed with respect to the state of the
> > medium in which it exists.
>
> > __________________________________________
> > No.
>
> > The Observers on the train know their state
> > with respect to the state of the water and are able to conclude
> > correctly the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' were simultaneous, in
> > nature.
>
> > ________________________________
> > If by "in nature", you mean the "in the frame of reference of the earth
> > considered as an inertial frame", then yes. If "in nature" means
> > something
> > else, perhaps you should explain exactly what "in nature" is supposed to
> > mean.
>
> As long as any Observer is able to factor in their state with respect
> to the state of the medium in which the light propagates being at rest
> then the Observer is able to conclude when the lightning strikes
> occurred in nature.
>
> ______________________________________
>
> So the inertial reference frame of nature is the rest frame in which light
> moves at a constant rate?
>
> What reference frame is that, relative to the Sun?

The reference frame is the state of the aether the light propagates
through. And this includes the state of the aether which exists in any
and all mediums in which the light propagates.

__________________________________
No, you misunderstood my question. If the aether defines a stationary
reference frame, what is it exactly? The Sun and the planets are presumably
moving through space, what is the Sun's speed relative to the ether? Is it
stationary, moving at 1 kms/sec, what is its speed?

From: Inertial on 14 Feb 2010 19:08

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:98a0590c-da07-42d9-afec-c26155be9744(a)w31g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> I want an explanation where, essentially, information travels
> instantaneously, but from which I can derive the effects that any
> particular observer would observe.

There is no need for that. When we talk about what would be observed in a
given frame, it does NOT mean that there is just single observer at the
origin of that frame whose measurements are affected by how long light takes
to travel to him (unless we are explicitly talking about what a given
observer would actually 'see'). We generally assume (in a gedanken) that
one can place an 'observer' (ie some sort of appropriate measuring device)
at any point in space and time required. One can take simultaneous readings
with such devices without the need for information to travel
instantaneously.

So for the lightning strikes on a train scenario, we can place clocks at the
appropriate places and detect the times the strikes occur. That we can do
some of the analysis based on the time light takes to reach given points
does not mean that the effect is purely some optical illusion.

Of course, *some* things that SR will predict ARE predictions of what a
single observer would 'see' .. and they are clearly described as such .. eg
Terrel rotation.

From: Peter Webb on 14 Feb 2010 19:13

I'm afraid you're easily satisifed Tom. As I say, I'm not really
interested in learning geometry,

________________________________________
That's your problem. If you are not really interested in learning geometry,
you cannot understand Minkowski space-time. If you are not interested in
learning vector calculus, you can't understand Maxwell's equations. If you
are not really interested in learning simple calculus, you can't understand
Newtonian celestial mechanics. If you are not really interested in learning
about probability distribution functions, you can't understand QM.

You have two choices. Learn some geometry, and hence understand Minkowski
spacetime. Or don't learn some geometry, and don't understand it. Pretty
much all physics of the 20th Century uses mathematics extensively, and if
you want to understand physics you have to learn the maths. Don't complain
that its too hard or you are too lazy and then expect anybody to care about
your opinions on a subject you know nothing about.

From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 19:25

On Feb 14, 6:58 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:13d31b2a-e1d4-4b1f-8c50-703bb52a09be(a)u15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 14, 9:44 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:24b1dbfc-e19c-4c2e-a7f7-6a3601ea13da(a)q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com....
> > On Feb 14, 1:31 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:49c69202-f525-4bba-bfa0-09b662433837(a)s33g2000prm.googlegroups.com....
> > > On Feb 14, 1:12 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > Now, here's the kicker. If the Observers on the train know they are
> > > > moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment, the
> > > > Observers on the train will be able to factor in the trains motion
> > > > relative to the water and calculate back and determine the lightning
> > > > strikes were in fact, simultaneous with respect to the water
>
> > > > _______________________________________
> > > > Yes.
>
> > > > and conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous, in nature.
>
> > > > __________________________________________
> > > > No. Nowhere in the 200 lines that preceded this do you show that
> > > > reference
> > > > frame of the water is the reference frame of "nature". It doesn't even
> > > > make
> > > > any sense.
>
> > > Light propagates at a constant speed with respect to the state of the
> > > medium in which it exists.
>
> > > __________________________________________
> > > No.
>
> > > The Observers on the train know their state
> > > with respect to the state of the water and are able to conclude
> > > correctly the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' were simultaneous, in
> > > nature.
>
> > > ________________________________
> > > If by "in nature", you mean the "in the frame of reference of the earth
> > > considered as an inertial frame", then yes. If "in nature" means
> > > something
> > > else, perhaps you should explain exactly what "in nature" is supposed to
> > > mean.
>
> > As long as any Observer is able to factor in their state with respect
> > to the state of the medium in which the light propagates being at rest
> > then the Observer is able to conclude when the lightning strikes
> > occurred in nature.
>
> > ______________________________________
>
> > So the inertial reference frame of nature is the rest frame in which light
> > moves at a constant rate?
>
> > What reference frame is that, relative to the Sun?
>
> The reference frame is the state of the aether the light propagates
> through. And this includes the state of the aether which exists in any
> and all mediums in which the light propagates.
>
> __________________________________
> No, you misunderstood my question. If the aether defines a stationary
> reference frame, what is it exactly? The Sun and the planets are presumably
> moving through space, what is the Sun's speed relative to the ether? Is it
> stationary, moving at 1 kms/sec, what is its speed?

The aether does not define a stationary reference frame. The state of
the aether defines the rate at which atomic clocks 'tick'. Light
propagates at 'c' with respect to the state of the aether.

The problem with trying to create a stationary reference frame when
discussing the propagation of light is that is not how nature works.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"

The aether does not define a stationary reference frame. The aether is
not an absolutely stationary space. The state of the aether is defined
by its connections to the matter.

This means the more connected the aether is to the matter the more 'at
rest' the aether is with respect to the aether. That is the reason for
the MMX 'null' results, the Michelson-Gale results, the Sagnac effect
and so on.

Since the state of the aether is determined by its connections with
the matter the state of the aether is more at rest with respect to the
surface of the Earth than the aether is a mile up from the Earth's
surface.

Since the state of the aether can only be determined by its
connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring
places and because of the results such as the experiments listed above
the best we can do is to conclude the aether is at rest, or almost at
rest, with respect to the surface of the Earth.

Einstein's definition of motion when discussing the aether is the
aether does not consist of particles which can be separately tracked
through time. So, you question as to what the Sun's speed is with
respect to the aether cannot be answered. Since the aether within and
at the surface of the Sun is the most connected to the Sun the best we
can state is the aether is the most 'at rest' with respect to the
Sun's surface and is less 'at rest' with respect to the Sun the
further from the Sun the aether is.

That doesn't mean we can't determine the speed of light through the
aether. We must determine the speed of light with respect to the
aether based upon the aether's connectedness to the matter.

Referring to stationary frames of reference when discussing light is
completely misunderstanding how light behaves in nature.