Light

[protonman]

How is it that the speed of light is measured by all observers regardless of their relative motion?

[EL]

How is it that the speed of light is measured by all observers regardless of their relative motion?

Think you mean:
Why is the speed of light in vacuum allways measured to c, regardless of the relative motion between the light source and the observer?

Since the speed of light in vacuum is allways measured to c, regardless of the relative motion between the light source and the observer! :wink: :smile:

[protonman]

Think you mean:
Why is the speed of light in vacuum allways measured to c, regardless of the relative motion between the light source and the observer?

Since the speed of light in vacuum is allways measured to c, regardless of the relative motion between the light source and the observer! :wink: :smile:That is not a serious answer but the way you re-phrased the question is correct.

[turin]

One suggestion is that space-time is not "real." Therefore, labelling points in the space-time manifold is somewhat arbitrary, including how the axes of the coordinate system are oriented. It is, of course, found that there is a prefered type of motion (constant v as opposed to d2x/dt2 /= 0). Assuming a coordinate system that does not induce a nontrivial d2x/dt2 on free particles, then Maxwell's equations give c, regardless of the further particulars of the coordinate system, including the orientation of the space-time axes.

This is all somewhat philosophical, and, regarding the physics, the popular answer, "that is just the way it is," is valid.

[protonman]

One suggestion is that space-time is not "real." Therefore, labelling points in the space-time manifold is somewhat arbitrary, including how the axes of the coordinate system are oriented. It is, of course, found that there is a prefered type of motion (constant v as opposed to d2x/dt2 /= 0). Assuming a coordinate system that does not induce a nontrivial d2x/dt2 on free particles, then Maxwell's equations give c, regardless of the further particulars of the coordinate system, including the orientation of the space-time axes.

This is all somewhat philosophical, and, regarding the physics, the popular answer, "that is just the way it is," is valid.This is not a valid answer. This is something that needs to be understood. Anyone serious about physics should be deeply concerned that this is not understood. If you are just interested in solving equations and answering trivial questions then it is not an issue though.

[jdavel]

protonman said: "This is not a valid answer. This is something that needs to be understood. Anyone serious about physics should be deeply concerned that this is not understood. If you are just interested in solving equations and answering trivial questions then it is not an issue though."

The postulates for theories in physics can never be explained. If they could, then those explanations would be based on something even deeper in physics that couldn't be explained, and they'd be the postulates. Some branch of physical science has to be the one that can't say, "Our postulates are based on the theories of a more fundamental branch". That branch is physics.

If having to just accept things like "the speed of light is constant because that's how nature is", seems invalid or unsatisfactory then physics probably isn't for you. Because, trust me, there are a lot more things you'll have to accept, and some of them will make constant light speed seem easy!

Accepting things like constant light speed, hardly relegates physics to just "solving equations and answering trivial questions." Unless you think questions like: "How did the universe begin? How long ago did it happen? What was the universe like back then? What will happen to it?" are trivial. Again, if you do, physics probably isn't for you.

Incidentally, if physicists had spent the past 99 years fretting about why light speed is constant instead of thinking about what it implies, we'd be no closer to answering the questions in the last paragraph than we were in 1905. And where were we then? One example should give you an idea: We had no idea what made the sun hot!

[protonman]

First off I am not asking if physics is right for me. You have no idea what my understanding of physics is. Second, my question is important and useful. What is special about light that observers measurements of space and time must always be such that they ensure that light is measured the same for all observers? There is obviously something special about light. I have my own understanding and explanation but am interested in what other have to say.

[master_coda]

First off I am not asking if physics is right for me. You have no idea what my understanding of physics is. Second, my question is important and useful. What is special about light that observers measurements of space and time must always be such that they ensure that light is measured the same for all observers? There is obviously something special about light. I have my own understanding and explanation but am interested in what other have to say.

Whatever your explaination is, it will depend upon assuming something else is true "because that's just the way it is".

In general such assumptions are accepted until some simpler set of assumptions is found, but there will always be assumptions. So demanding a theory that does not make "that's the way it is" assumptions is pointless.


Of course, if you have a way of deriving the current assumptions of physics from a simpler set of assumptions, that's great. But most scientists will be very skeptical of such a claim, and for good reason. Almost invariably such proposals turn out to be philosophical conjectures that are impossible to test, instead of actual scientific theories.

[outandbeyond2004]

I agree with master_coda. In science as in virtually any other branch of philosophy, you have to start with assumptions.

protonman, why don't you just show your assumptions and let us see if they are better than Einstein's?

[AntiMagicMan]

Experiment shows that the speed of light is measured the same for all inertial observers. The laws of classical electrodynamics give a classical view to why it happens, because of the symmetry of those laws under lorentz transformations.

Why it happens is not a question for physicists.

[Scott Sieger]

In my unqualified way I find Photonmans question very interesting and more to the point the response so far also.

Relativity if I'm not mistaken suggests that time slows according to velocity. If time is slower for a mass travelling at velocity how can that mass ( or someone traveling on or in that mass) measure the speed of light as 'c' for surely the time dilation would ruin any chance of that?

protonman, why don't you just show your assumptions and let us see if they are better than Einstein's?

There is no doubt about Einstiens Brilliance and I don't think this is in dispute. However it is worth remembering that highschool physics teaches Einstiens work and the work of others quite thoroughly. What was once frontier physics is now almost common knowledge.

Therefore, it isn't suprising that some one wants to and eventually is bound to improve on it all.

[chroot]

Relativity if I'm not mistaken suggests that time slows according to velocity. If time is slower for a mass travelling at velocity how can that mass ( or someone traveling on or in that mass) measure the speed of light as 'c' for surely the time dilation would ruin any chance of that?
You are mistaken. Relativity says that if someone flies away from you in a spaceship at a significant fraction of the speed of light, it will appear to you as though the events on the spaceship are running slow. To the people on the spaceship, everything looks the same as it always does. One of the central ideas of relativity is that you cannot measure the speed of your spaceship without looking out the window.

- Warren

[protonman]

I agree with master_coda. In science as in virtually any other branch of philosophy, you have to start with assumptions.

protonman, why don't you just show your assumptions and let us see if they are better than Einstein's?I never said I had any assumption.

[protonman]

Your attempts to dismiss my question are total bull****. Science is about explaining why things in the physical world are the way they are. Before Quantum Mechanics no one could explain why the sky was blue. QM gave an answer to this. Yes eventually you get to the point where the answer is just "that's the way it is" but science has not reached that point with light.

[master_coda]

I never said I had any assumption.

You claimed to have an explaination. This explaination must require assumptions, or else it is not in fact an explaination. They may be assumptions you consider to be self-evident or obvious, but they still are assumptions.

I agree that there's nothing wrong with asking "why is that?" It's actually a fundamental question in science. But since you haven't actually put forth an explaination, you shouldn't be offended that people are dismissing you.


You come here, state that physics isn't doing a good enough job explaining because it assumes things, claim to have an explaination that fixes everything (an explaination you don't provide) and then get upset when you're dismissed?

[selfAdjoint]

Einstein discovered that he could account for the Lorentz transformations in electrodynamics (which had already been discovered by Lorentz, but which wee not well motivated) by assuming the two postulates: Galilean relativity of inertial frames and constancy of the speed of electromagnetic radiation for all inertial frames. So the "reason" for the constant speed is to provide a consistent account of the observed relationships in electrodynamics.

More modern explanations are like this. When you work out minkowski space you have to have a constant to multiply your time units by to convert them to length units, so the all the units of your spacetime vector will be the same. Call this constant c (c for "constant" or "conversion" now, instead of "celeritas"). Then continuing to work through the math you find two things about this constant. First, it has the dimensions of a speed: length over time ("so many length units per time unit"). Second, it turns out to be a Lorentz scalar, meaning it is preserved under Lorentz transformations, meaning in turn that it's the same in all inertial frames. Well that's good news, you wouldn't want your basic definition of what a vector is to vary among different viewpoints!

So now you have the Lorentz transformations with this new constant c in them, and you can easily prove that IF a body travels at that speed THEN it has to be massless. And conversely if a massless body isn't prevented from doing so, it WILL travel at c.

Then you have the word from quantum mechanics that the mass of the photon is zero, and you conclude that it travels at c, which we already found to be a Lorentz scalar, which means that all inertial observers will measure that speed the same. Other massless bodies, like the gluons, are also assumed to move at c, and they also would have their speed invariant between inertial observers.

Does this help at all?

[jdavel]

protonman said:

(post #5) "This is not a valid answer. This is something that needs to be understood. Anyone serious about physics should be deeply concerned that this is not understood. If you are just interested in solving equations and answering trivial questions then it is not an issue though."

(post #7) "You have no idea what my understanding of physics is."

Yes I do. Based on what you said in #5, your understanding of physics is negligible. What's worse, with your attitude, it will always be negligible.

But here's a chance for a fresh start. At the end of your post #7 you say: "I have my own understanding and explanation but am interested in what others have to say."

Ok, now you've seen what we have to say; it's your turn. What's your explanation for constant light speed?

[DrChinese]

Theories operate in a competitive environment. We go from one useful description of reality to a better one over time. The role of science is to help us compare theories and move in a positive direction.

protonman seems to want to skip the preliminaries and go to the end. Good try, but his criticism is a red herring. How can you criticize a theory that works perfectly in its domain? No theory claims to have all of the answers to all questions. Yet, anyway. :)

In the meantime, if protonman has something positive to offer, let's have it.

[protonman]

I would tell you my ideas but I am concerned that you will take then as your own and perhaps publish then in a journal of intellectual thought.

[jdavel]

selfadjoint said: "Einstein discovered that he could account for the Lorentz transformations in electrodynamics (which had already been discovered by Lorentz, but which wee not well motivated) by assuming the two postulates: Galilean relativity of inertial frames and constancy of the speed of electromagnetic radiation for all inertial frames."

Einstein assumed "Galilean relativity of inertial frames"? Is that really what you meant?

[jdavel]

I would tell you my ideas but I am concerned that you will take then as your own and perhaps publish then in a journal of intellectual thought.

Ok, let us know when you get them published, and I'll read them then. :wink:

[Tom Mattson]

selfadjoint said: "Einstein discovered that he could account for the Lorentz transformations in electrodynamics (which had already been discovered by Lorentz, but which wee not well motivated) by assuming the two postulates: Galilean relativity of inertial frames and constancy of the speed of electromagnetic radiation for all inertial frames."

Einstein assumed "Galilean relativity of inertial frames"? Is that really what you meant?

I think it is what he meant, but just to clarify: He did not say that Einstein assumed the Galilean transformation. He said that Einstein assumed Galilean relativity (meaning the postulate that it should not be possible to differentiate inertial frames by doing any experiment that does not make reference to the outside world), which is correct.

[Scott Sieger]

You are mistaken. Relativity says that if someone flies away from you in a spaceship at a significant fraction of the speed of light, it will appear to you as though the events on the spaceship are running slow. To the people on the spaceship, everything looks the same as it always does. One of the central ideas of relativity is that you cannot measure the speed of your spaceship without looking out the window.

- Warren

I am sorry,
I was under the impression that time dilations where a reality and not a just a perception of light speeds.......

[protonman]

Ok, let us know when you get them published, and I'll read them then. :wink:I don't care about getting them published. Besides the world is probably not ready for my ideas and would most likely reject them due to their ignorance.

[master_coda]

I don't care about getting them published. Besides the world is probably not ready for my ideas and would most likely reject them due to their ignorance.

Of course. Because when faced with the possibility that either:

A) You are wrong.

- or -

B) You are smarter than everyone else in the world and so nobody else can comprehend your brilliant ideas.

then the answer is clearly B. Possibility A is clearly impossible. :rolleyes:

[Nereid]

I am sorry,
I was under the impression that time dilations where a reality and not a just a perception of light speeds.......Pions 'at rest' are observed to decay in x microseconds; pions produced by cosmic ray air showers - moving at speeds of z m/s - are observed by Scott, Nereid, Tom, protonman, etc to decay in y microseconds. Hmm, seems pretty 'real' to me.
:wink:

[brookstimtimtim]

yesterday after having a beer or 12, I wrote a mean post on another thread about aether. It closed quickly. Sorry. I have not been drinking today, So lets see if I can ask a good question (that will not close the thread). If time slow downs as something travels closer and closer to "c",would this suggest that the atomic motion of matter slows, and can it be that something is causing that? Space having some kind of resitance to it. It's not that I believe it is aether, but like the first post, it is hard to accept the answer "it just is".

[russ_watters]

I am sorry,
I was under the impression that time dilations where a reality and not a just a perception of light speeds....... They are a reality, but like velocity, you can only measure it in relation to someone else. If time slow downs as something travels closer and closer to "c",would this suggest that the atomic motion of matter slows, and can it be that something is causing that? Space having some kind of resitance to it. It's not that I believe it is aether, but like the first post, it is hard to accept the answer "it just is". To date, there is no evidence of this "something" causing the motion of matter to slow. It is certainly possible, but without any evidence, it can't be assumed or even theorized. And it works perfectly well to use the current explanation: that time itself is slowing.

All of the laws of the universe 'just are' - either that or they were made by God for a reason only he knows. Either way, you do have to live with that answer.

[Scott Sieger]

Russ this is interesting.....

Say you are traveling at a velocity that creates time dilations for you the traveller relative to another frame....and as you are travelling you decide to measure the speed of light even though you are in a time dilated state....how could you measure "c" accurately when your tools to measure with are time dilated? Wouldn't the measurement be in error due to time dilation?

[PRyckman]

Laymans terms to topic question.

If you travel at nearly the speed of light. Lets say 99.99 Percent of it Light still travels ahead of you at light speed. This is because time is distorted to you, Although you felt as if travelling a light year in just a few days, to earth it still took you a year. 0.001% more than a year to be exact)

Therefor the greater speed you travel the more time is distorted making up the difference.
(fits into equation;)

[chroot]

Say you are traveling at a velocity that creates time dilations for you the traveller relative to another frame....and as you are travelling you decide to measure the speed of light even though you are in a time dilated state....how could you measure "c" accurately when your tools to measure with are time dilated? Wouldn't the measurement be in error due to time dilation?
No. Let's say you're the captain of a starship, and you take off on a trip at 0.99c, relative to your buddy back on Earth. Your large relative velocity will make your clock appear to tick slowly to your buddy. On the bridge of the ship, you will never notice anything funny going on, no matter how fast you go. Your starship will always look its normal size, and your watch will always tick its normal rate.

This is a consequence of the principle of relativity: if you're in a spaceship, and you close all the windows, there's no way you can tell how fast you're going. The ship cannot be said to have a velocity unless you reference that velocity to another object, like the Earth. You cannot say "the ship is going 0.99c." You must say "the ship is going 0.99c relative to the Earth."

- Warren

[Scott Sieger]

Chroot I accept what you are saying.....can i try another angle to my question....

youare the starships captain and you are traveling at .99'c'.....you check the speed of light and it comes in aas youwould expect.....say 300,000kspsec.

back on earth they do the same check and as well it comes in at 300,000kspersec.

However the starships second is slower than the earths by let us guess.....10%

so form earths reference frame the starships measurement of light is 10 % faster......compared to that of earths.....
which makes it 330,000 kspsec from earths frame of reference....

**** I hope I got the math right....ha .....do I make sense.?.... :wink:

[chroot]

Scott,

You can't measure the speed of light that doesn't go through your machine, can you?

- Warren

[Scott Sieger]

but you can measure the speed of light inside your machine....
as in source and reflections inside your ship.....not from outside the ship.....

[chroot]

Right. Relativity says you'll measure the speed of light going through your machine as c. It says nothing about the speed of light that doesn't go through your machine. Since you can't measure the speed of light that can't go through your machine, it's rather moot to discuss what value you'd get.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

yea i think he's got you there. And if shining a light from that .99 ship ahead of you, to an observer on earth seeing that light shone on them, it should be significantly blue shifted correct?

[chroot]

It would be redshifted if the spaceship is receding away from you, and blueshifted if it is approaching you.

- Warren

[Scott Sieger]

Thanks Chroot for your indulgence.....the point that I wanted to explore was that light measured inside the ship would be (10%) faster due to dilation than same measured on Earth....I know it makes no real value out of it but would suggest that light can be effected by dilation as well as the mass that may carry that light within it......

If this is correct then light projected within the ship is travelling faster than 'c' measured on earth but not in any sense other than that of dilated time.....for relative to the ship 'c' is still 300,000kpsec......( inside the ship )

Is this a fair conclusion?

If not what speed would light be travelling WITHIN the ship when the ship is traveling at say 0.8 'c'?

[chroot]

It's a total moot point. You can only speak of measurements that you can physically make. Measuring the speed of light in a spaceship with an apparatus based on Earth is not possible. There's nothing else I can say on this topic.

- Warren

[protonman]

Of course. Because when faced with the possibility that either:

A) You are wrong.

- or -

B) You are smarter than everyone else in the world and so nobody else can comprehend your brilliant ideas.

then the answer is clearly B. Possibility A is clearly impossible. :rolleyes:Exactly, you are almost as smart as me.

[brookstimtimtim]

If I was looking down on 2 ships and saw one travling at 1/4 of "c" and the other travling a "c". How would the ship travling at 1/4 of "c" see the 2nd ship. Would he say that it went a shorter distance for a shorter time? Also what are the exceptions to the rules, for example if I look at the moon then trun 180 deg. to look at a star behind me, with relativity could I just say that I did not move that everything else did? This movement would faster that "c", what is the catch that allows this. I know this sounds stupid but what does allow it.

[chroot]

Velocities do not add linearly in special relativity.

Rotation is not relative.

- Warren

[brookstimtimtim]

I thought so, with the Rotation is not relative, and asked that stupid question to lead up to the next stupid question. Before I ask it though, I still would like to know what would the slower ship would see. Ok. now for the next stupid question. Is it safe to say that is just not just speed that cause a time dilation, but speed and distance traveled away from you. If you take the old example of the train moving at the speed of light, and put a twist on that saying it is traveling on a circle track with you in the center, would a time dilation be there, or could you consider this rotation?

[chroot]

Time dilation and length contraction act along the position vector connecting the observer and the object. On a circular train track, there is never any velocity along the position vector, only orthogonal to it. Therefore, there will be no time dilation or length contraction observed.

Also, please note that the train could not go to the speed of light, only very close to it.

- Warren

[outandbeyond2004]

Centrifugal forces on the train would create a time dilation effect like gravitational redshift. Also, the train would not be perfectly rigid; it would pancake somewhat. Moreover, I am not sure what the train would look like to the observer, going that fast around the track. Detailed and careful raytracing might turn up some interesting effect?

[outandbeyond2004]

I believe chroot is wrong about the time dilation of the train.

The proper time of the train is related to the coordinate time of the observer's irf by this equation:

(ds)^2 = (dt)^2 - (dx)^2 - (dy)^2

( no dz term because the train does not go up/down.)

The train is located by the observer in polar coordinates by these equations:

x = r cos\phi
y = r sin\phi
where r is the distance from the observer to the track, and phi is the angular position of the train = \omega t + \phi_0

Divide the first equation by (dt)^2 and do some calculus to obtain the time dilation factor:

(ds/dt) = \sqrt{1-(\omega r)^2}

[brookstimtimtim]

Ok, I'm getting feed back on the train, but of the two ships, and what the fisrt ship would see (about 4 post back)? I just had another thought no the train. Isn't time dilation part of mass going to infinity, if so, would on time dilation mean the train could go the speed of light? Then If the train did have time dilation then what is the diffrences in this example and the one where I spin my head.

[2clockdude]

['protonman' asked:]
Why is the speed of light invariant in today's view?
(paraphrased)

['selfAdjoint' replied:]
... Second, it turns out to be a Lorentz scalar, meaning it is
preserved under Lorentz transformations, meaning in turn that
it's the same in all inertial frames. ...

[2clockdude replies:]
Thinking people would want to know why light's one-way speed
is Lorentz invariant.

And the answer is simple, as follows:
It's because Einstein forced it to be by definition, so this
case of Lorentz invariance has nothing to do with physics (or
with the nature of nature).

Further explanation:
If I decide to force two clocks to obtain one-way light speed
invariance, then of course they are going to obtain it, and of
course my math (in this case, the Lorentz transformations) will
faithfully (if stupidly) reflect this; however, this clearly
has nothing to do with physical science (or with the nature of
nature) because it is a mere convention (just as is the length
of an inch).

Even further explanation:
Forget about the Lorentz transformation math, it merely reflects
Einstein's definition of clock synchronization, which has no basis
in either theory or fact. Forget about Einstein's definition of
clock synchronization because it is not physics, it is only a
convention. Also, it produces absolutely asynchronous clocks.
Forget about the so-called theory of special relativity - it is
not really a scientific theory but is merely a definition of
clock synchronization. (SR is based solely on Einstein's definition
of synchronization.)

Moreover:
The important thing in physics is experiment, not theory, not a
mere definition of synchronization, not a postulate, not a
principle, not some math based on a definition, etc., etc.
Therefore, the question in this case becomes Who has ever
experimentally used two non-rotating, relatively-at-rest clocks
to measure the one-way speed of light? And the answer is No one.
So no one really has proved experimentally that light's one-way
speed is indeed invariant (or isotropic). In fact, no one has
shown that light's one-way, two-clock speed can even be an
experimentally-found law of nature, as Einstein claimed it to
be. You might begin by asking yourself Why has no one ever used
two same-frame clocks to measure the one-way speed of light?
In fact, this has never even been done on paper, so we don't
even have the excuse of the lack of technology, as if this
could even be a real excuse today. The real reason for the lack
of the performance (if only on paper) of the one-way version of
the Michelson-Morley experiment is simple: No such experiment
exists. Why is this? It is because nature cannot synchronize
clocks in order to give us an experimental result in the one-way
case. (Only man can synchronize clocks, so the only result we
can obtain in the one-way case is a man-given one, and man does
not give us the laws of nature, man gives only definitions and
conventions, such as Einstein's definition of synchronization.)

In conclusion:
To answer my paraphrased version of 'protonman's' important
question, I can say that the one-way light speed invariance in
today's view is irrelevant because it was not given by nature,
but was merely forced by man via a synchronization definition.
Since there can be no natural value for light's one-way, two-clock
speed, there can be no postulate, hypothesis, or theory which
pertains to such a value (and which claims to predict it). Even
though Nature cannot give us a one-way law, we can still use two
clocks to correctly measure light's one-way speed, as long as the
two clocks are correctly related (or correctly synchronized).
This means that the most important goal of (flat) space-time
physics is two absolutely synchronous clocks. (And such clocks
will find a variable one-way light speed. Indeed, if we were to
correct for clock slowing and rod contraction, we would obtain
a variable round-trip speed of light.)

[Tom Mattson]

['protonman' asked:]
Why is the speed of light invariant in today's view?
(paraphrased)

['selfAdjoint' replied:]
... Second, it turns out to be a Lorentz scalar, meaning it is
preserved under Lorentz transformations, meaning in turn that
it's the same in all inertial frames. ...

[2clockdude replies:]
Thinking people would want to know why light's one-way speed
is Lorentz invariant.


You can think about it all you want, the question has no known answer. And as has been noted, even if we did have the answer, that explanation would have some unexplained phenomenon behind it.


And the answer is simple, as follows:
It's because Einstein forced it to be by definition, so this
case of Lorentz invariance has nothing to do with physics (or
with the nature of nature).


Wrong. Einstein did not have the power to force the speed of light to be absolute, "by definition", or any other means. The speed of light is a Lorentz scalar because that's what it is measured to be.


Further explanation:
If I decide to force two clocks to obtain one-way light speed
invariance, then of course they are going to obtain it, and of
course my math (in this case, the Lorentz transformations) will
faithfully (if stupidly) reflect this; however, this clearly
has nothing to do with physical science (or with the nature of
nature) because it is a mere convention (just as is the length
of an inch).


???

You can't "force" two clocks to do anything that would violate the laws of physics. Anyway, the one-way speed of light has already been measured by decaying pions in flight. Even when the pions are moving at over 99% of the speed of light, guess what the speed of the pions is? You guessed it: c.

Or do you suppose that we can force pions to emit photons that only travel as fast as we want them to?


Even further explanation:
Forget about the Lorentz transformation math, it merely reflects
Einstein's definition of clock synchronization, which has no basis
in either theory or fact. Forget about Einstein's definition of
clock synchronization because it is not physics, it is only a
convention. Also, it produces absolutely asynchronous clocks.
Forget about the so-called theory of special relativity - it is
not really a scientific theory but is merely a definition of
clock synchronization. (SR is based solely on Einstein's definition
of synchronization.)


No, it isn't based on that. You have to read beyond the initial thought experiment. He develops relativity from scratch from the two postulates (neither one has to do with clock synchronization). The thought experiment at the beginning of the paper is presented to prepare the minds of the readers for one of the remarkable conclusions of the paper, namely that temporal measurements are not absolute.

In any case, the discussion at the beginning of the paper is most certainly grounded in reality, as time dilation has been well confirmed, as have other consequences of relativity.


In conclusion:
To answer my paraphrased version of 'protonman's' important
question, I can say that the one-way light speed invariance in
today's view is irrelevant because it was not given by nature,
but was merely forced by man via a synchronization definition.


Nope. Whether you measure the speed of light one-way or two-way, you get the same result, namely that the speed of light is a Lorentz invariant.

[outandbeyond2004]

2clockdude's post #48
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=192224&postcount=48

looks remarkably like what Martin Miller would write. You know the fella who got mad and called some people meatheads or something like that in a thread called 'The SR Question of the Century.'

2clockdude is all experimentalist and no theorist, seems like. If he is Martin Miller, what can we do to make him understand that we cannot begin to comprehend the universe without some initial set of assumptions = the start of some theory? We need both theory and experiment. Without a theory, an experiment is just fumbling in the dark = no planning. Without experiment, theory is just wild guessing. We need to do both theorizing and experimenting at the same time.

I still could not comprehend Martin Miller's objections = also 2clockdude's - either that or he/they are just completely wrongheaded or in emergency need of some philosophical head-cleaning.

Let me concede that nobody has measured the one-way speed of light directly by means of a non-rotating set of two relatively-at-rest clocks that we know are synchronized. He predicts that (oh, my honey, THEORY!!) we will find the speed of light to be variable, contradicting SR. Well, shrug, until people do the experiment and convince the rest of the science world that indeed light propagation is locally anisotropic, I'll just side with SR, thanks, against the likes of what Martin /or & 2clockdude offers, (which is not much more than an objection, as far as I can see). I just don't know of any actual experiment that SR could not explain, as long as we can neglect gravitational effects and we can add quantum theory if need be.

2clocky, you are welcome to present a complete set of postulates/principles to replace SR. If they are indeed in some way better than those of SR, I would be happy to switch to them, provided they pass all experimental tests as well as SR has to date.

[2clockdude]

[2clockdude wrote:]
Thinking people would want to know why light's one-way speed
is Lorentz invariant.

[Tom Mattson noted:]
You can think about it all you want, the question has no known
answer. And as has been noted, even if we did have the answer,
that explanation would have some unexplained phenomenon behind it.
... Einstein did not have the power to force the speed of light
to be absolute, "by definition", or any other means. The speed of
light is a Lorentz scalar because that's what it is measured to be.

[2clockdude replies:]
You need to read Einstein's 1905 SR paper before trying to
comment on his "theory."

Here are his own words (which you are probably now reading for
the very first time):

"2. Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system
of coordinates with the determined velocity c, whether
the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.
Hence

velocity = light path/time interval

where time interval is to be taken in the sense of the
definition in Section 1."

Did you see the word "definition"?

If you will read Einstein's definition, then you will see that it
merely forces one-way invariance. (John Wheeler's book, Spacetime
Physics_, gives a good description of how clocks are forced to
obtain Einstein's baselessly chosen one-way invariance; I highly
recommend that you add that to your required reading list.)

I haven't got time to educate every Tom, Dick, and Harry about SR.

[Tom Mattson noted:]
... Whether you measure the speed of light one-way or two-way, you
get the same result, namely that the speed of light is a Lorentz
invariant.

[2clockdude replies:]
News Flashes to Tom:
You cannot measure light's one-way speed without two clocks, and
you cannot use two clocks to measure any speed unless they have
been correctly synchronized. Tell us how to correctly synchronize
two clocks.

As of today, no one has ever used two clocks to measure light's
one-way speed, so your above one-way claim is as bogus as the
day is long.

[2clockdude]

[outandbeyond2004 noted:]
Let me concede that nobody has measured the one-way speed of light
directly by means of a non-rotating set of two relatively-at-rest
clocks that we know are synchronized. He predicts that (oh, my
honey, THEORY!!) we will find the speed of light to be variable,
contradicting SR.

[2clockdude responds:]
Well, you have taken one step in the right direction, but now you
need to concede that the reason no one has ever measured light's
one-way speed is that no one knows how to correctly synchronize
clocks.

Then you need to further concede that only experiment can decide
the laws of nature.

Then you need to concede that man cannot give the laws of nature
via definition, by math or by any other means.

Then you need to concede that SR has one-way invariance/isotropy
only via a definition from man, so this invariance/isotropy is
not a law of nature.

Then you need to concede that Einstein himself admitted openly
and mathematically that _given_ correctly synchronized clocks,
light's one-way, two-clock speed would vary.
["w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage,
and we have
w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage
thus comes out smaller than c."][from Einstein's _Relativity_]

Then you need to realize that not only do I predict one-way variance,
but experiment shows it. And I am not even counting the experiment
given above by Einstein; all I need is two observers viewing a single
approaching light ray.

But I don't have the burden of proof. Einstein has made the claim of
one-way light speed invariance. Let him (or his followers) back this
baseless claim if they can.

Einstein has also made the claim that he has a scientific theory that
is based (solely) on his claim of one-way light speed invariance, so
if he cannot back up the latter, then he cannot back up the former.

In other words, unless one-way invariance is a law of nature, Einstein
has no scientific theory.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

[russ_watters]

Lets try a different approach, 2clockdude - you tell us how to measure the speed of light without running into clock synchronization issues that make the outcome a foregone conclusion. Put that in your pipe and smoke it! :confused: You're not in junior high...or are you?

[Antonio Lao]

protonman,

I would like to give you my idea why c is the same for all observers regardless of their state of motion in the vacuum.

To do that, I have to go back to the original formulation done by Maxwell.

c = \frac {1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}

\epsilon_0 is the permittivity of the vacuum and

\mu_0 is the permeability of the vacuum.

The permittivity and permeability of the vacuum is always a constant no matter where you are in the universal vacuum and no matter how fast or how slow your speed is at each of each location of your position and no matter how you are located in time: past, present or the future.

The permittivity and permeability is the interaction of the electric force and the magnetic force. To say that c is different is the same thing as saying the electric force and magnetic force interact differently but this can only happens if there is matter but not in vacuum.

[Antonio Lao]

Further, to relate this concept of the constancy of the speed of light to my research, the infinitesimal difference between electric and magnetic force is the force of gravity.

F_g = | F_m - F_e |

[kurious]

The speed of light is given by Electric field/magnetic field at a given point.
If one or both of these can vary the speed changes.This would also mean that the permeability and the permittivity can change.I think E/ B is different for a graviton and
so it moves faster than light and can account for "instantaneous action at a distance." If light emits gravitons then perhaps it interacts with a mass that it is moving relative to, and adjusts E/B to make it more or less, so that speed of light + speed of mass = constant.

[Antonio Lao]

I think you are getting the idea. Please add some more and make some equations or fundamental principles.

In other part of my research I'm theorizing the existence of a fundamental acceleration(s) subject to change at various distances of r.

\vec{a} \cdot \vec{r} = c^2

but the product of acceleration and the distance is always the square of c.

[Antonio Lao]

Furthermore, I am asserting a fundamental force that is equivalent to time and that mass is inversely proportional to the time rate of change of acceleration.

m = ( \frac {da}{dt} )^{-1}

[Tom Mattson]

[2clockdude wrote:]
Thinking people would want to know why light's one-way speed
is Lorentz invariant.

[Tom Mattson noted:]
You can think about it all you want, the question has no known
answer. And as has been noted, even if we did have the answer,
that explanation would have some unexplained phenomenon behind it.
... Einstein did not have the power to force the speed of light
to be absolute, "by definition", or any other means. The speed of
light is a Lorentz scalar because that's what it is measured to be.

[2clockdude replies:]
You need to read Einstein's 1905 SR paper before trying to
comment on his "theory."

Here are his own words (which you are probably now reading for
the very first time):


I have read it. I've even worked out the details! I don't know what you think this proves, but it doesn't even address my comment. Einstein's definitions do not affect the outcome of experiments, which is what I was saying in the quote above.


"2. Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system
of coordinates with the determined velocity c, whether
the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.
Hence

velocity = light path/time interval

where time interval is to be taken in the sense of the
definition in Section 1."

Did you see the word "definition"?


Sure did.


If you will read Einstein's definition, then you will see that it
merely forces one-way invariance. (John Wheeler's book, Spacetime
Physics_, gives a good description of how clocks are forced to
obtain Einstein's baselessly chosen one-way invariance; I highly
recommend that you add that to your required reading list.)


Not only have I read it, I taught a course based on that it.

Since neither Taylor nor Wheeler have any doubts about relativity, I'm sure I don't know what parrt you are referring to. Would you mind pointing me to the section that you believe de-bunks relativity?

I have the second edition right here on my bookshelf, and I will be happy to explain to you why you misunderstand that part of the text. :smile:


I haven't got time to educate every Tom, Dick, and Harry about SR.


That can only be for the best, because you don't understand it very well. :rolleyes:


[Tom Mattson noted:]
... Whether you measure the speed of light one-way or two-way, you
get the same result, namely that the speed of light is a Lorentz
invariant.

[2clockdude replies:]
News Flashes to Tom:
You cannot measure light's one-way speed without two clocks, and
you cannot use two clocks to measure any speed unless they have
been correctly synchronized. Tell us how to correctly synchronize
two clocks.


Clocks can be synchronized quite easily. Ahrkron explained how in your thread SR Question of the Century (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=16196). I'm puzzled as to why you still don't know. :confused:


As of today, no one has ever used two clocks to measure light's
one-way speed, so your above one-way claim is as bogus as the
day is long.


Actually, the one-way speed of light has been measured, with decaying pions, just as I said. See T. Alvager et al., Physics Letters 12, 260 (10/1/64).

[yogi]

protoman - your question is quite proper - it is always disheartening to get answers like "that is the way the world is made" While SR gives correct relationships as near as one can tell, many believe that the goal post can be moved back a few yards to find a physical reason why the Einstein-Lorentz transformations work (if they do in every case). This should be an object of physics - yes - ultimately we will probably reach a point where we must say there is an unanswerable question - at least a puzzle we cannot fathom with human minds - but I concur that SR does not represent the end of the quest - probably more like a beginning. Moreover, whether you have a degree in physics or science does not automatically diminish your contributions to the state of learning - ideas frequently come from the new kid on the block because his thinking is not so regimented. Relativity was the product of a mind that had no prior recognition, a lowly patent examiner. It caught on because of its mathematical elegance, and its symmetry. It is now endorsed as gospel, but not by its creator who, near the end of his life, said, to wit: "I cannot think of a single theory that will survive the test of time. Maybe I have been on the wrong track all along - feelings of doubt come from within" Quote not quite correct - but nearly so from memory

[kurious]

Constancy of the speed of light.

Let’s suppose that a photon is moving slightly faster than c metres per second.
It emits a graviton which is also an EM wave and this is absorbed by a stationary particle with rest mass.
However because the graviton was emitted from a photon moving faster than usual
the graviton wave is blueshifted by the Doppler effect more than usual.So when it is absorbed it causes the particle to emit a graviton with a higher frequency than normal too.The photon absorbs this graviton and the ratio of E/ B gets smaller so that the photon moves at c metres per second.The graviton is not subject to Lorentz invariance
but it seems to be just because it moves so fast, 10^20 metres per second, that particle speeds which reach the speed of light at the most, are virtually the same relative to the graviton however they are measured.A photon moving slightly slower than c emits Doppler redshifted gravitons and these result in the particle emitting a redshifted graviton which causes E/B in the photon to increase.
The way to form an equation for this discussion is to consider momentum conservation for the particle graviton photon interaction.I'll give it a try sometime.

[2clockdude]

[russ_watters asked:]
Lets try a different approach, 2clockdude - you tell us
how to measure the speed of light without running into
clock synchronization issues that make the outcome a
foregone conclusion.

[2clockdude replies:]
Well, you need to clue in Tom Mattson because he sees no
problems with either SR's clock synchronization or with
the results thereof. (All of which, as you said, are merely
man-given foregone conclusions, including light's one-way
speed invariance and the SR transformation equations.)

As for your highly relevant question, here is the answer:

One need not quantify the relative speeds of one's
clock-starting entities; all one needs to do is to
simply ascertain their equality; therefore, one can
absolutely synchronize two clocks by simply using a
third (operating or running) clock to time the two
clock-starting entities speeds in order to confirm
their equality. This is known as a qualitative
comparison because neither entity's speed is actually
measured. (By analogy, I need not know the actual
lengths of two sticks in order to confirm that they
are either equally long or not. This can be done very
easily via a side-by-side comparison.)

(I hope that my description was deliberately vague enough
to protect my proprietary interest.)

Thanks for the question!

[2clockdude]

[Tom Mattson noted:]
Einstein's definitions do not affect the outcome of experiments,
which is what I was saying in the quote above.

[2clockdude replies:]
I know what you were saying, and (as even 'russ_watters' openly
stated), Einstein's definition of clock synchronization yields
merely foregone conclusions (which of course have no place in
science, either theoretical or experimental).

[Tom Mattson noted:]
Since neither Taylor nor Wheeler have any doubts about relativity,
I'm sure I don't know what parrt you are referring to. Would you
mind pointing me to the section that you believe de-bunks relativity?

[2clockdude replies:]
You misread me; at no point did I even hint that the Taylor/Wheeler
'team' had 'de-bunked' SR; what I did say was that they had presented
an excellent description of Einstein's clock synchronization process,
a description which clearly shows the circularity involved. In other
words, Wheeler shows exactly how Einstein's clocks are merely forced
by man to obtain one-way light speed invariance. (Here is why this
is circular: If I force clocks to obtain one-way invariance, then,
by George, they will most certainly obtain it!)

[I can't afford their latest edition. I have the 1966 version, and
in it, said description starts on page 18 of the section entitled
"The Geometry of Spacetime."]

[Tom Mattson noted:]
Actually, the one-way speed of light has been measured, with decaying
pions, just as I said. See T. Alvager et al., Physics Letters 12, 260
(10/1/64).

[2clockdude responds:]
Nope, that was merely a source-independency test.
[See http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html --
Section VII.]

[2clockdude continues:]
As both I and 'russ_watters' know, the critical goal is two
correctly (or absolutely) synchronous clocks, and we can be
sure that Einstein failed to find such things because he
admitted that he could not determine absolute simultaneity.

[mee]

They are a reality, but like velocity, you can only measure it in relation to someone else. To date, there is no evidence of this "something" causing the motion of matter to slow. It is certainly possible, but without any evidence, it can't be assumed or even theorized. And it works perfectly well to use the current explanation: that time itself is slowing.

All of the laws of the universe 'just are' - either that or they were made by God for a reason only he knows. Either way, you do have to live with that answer.

Why does the time on the planet left not appear to slow from the spaceship as it is accelerating at great speed away from the spaceship, relative to the spaceships perception. I mean, could traveling at close to light speed also be viewed as slowing down the spaceship more and more so that the rest of the universe, traveling at close to light speed, :smile: rapidly moves in relation to the now practically "still" spaceship.

[DrChinese]

I don't care about getting them published. Besides the world is probably not ready for my ideas and would most likely reject them due to their ignorance.

1. You are afraid someone else will steal your ideas and publish them as their own;
2. But you don't care about publishing them yourself;
3. And society is too stupid to appreciate them even if they were published.

Do I detect an inconsistency here?

By my count, protonman would rate an 85 on the Baez crackpot index from his statements on this thread. But please, don't assume I am calling protonman a crackpot. Or that you know what my motives are, or anything about my educational background...

[DrChinese]

[2clockdude replies:]
I know what you were saying, and (as even 'russ_watters' openly
stated), Einstein's definition of clock synchronization yields
merely foregone conclusions (which of course have no place in
science, either theoretical or experimental).

[2clockdude continues:]
As both I and 'russ_watters' know, the critical goal is two
correctly (or absolutely) synchronous clocks, and we can be
sure that Einstein failed to find such things because he
admitted that he could not determine absolute simultaneity.

What do you think the significance of this is? It is basically of no import and arguing over semantics.

So what if absolute simultaneity cannot be determined? You still have the situation in which all "imperfect" measurements of the speed of light yield c. That doesn't happen for electrons, marbles, or other matter.

Hmmm. Maybe SR is useful after all, and not the definitional self-deception of stubborn scientists. Utility is derived from a good theory, and SR fits the bill. While you lament the foregone conclusion of the results of experiments, others are using SR every day. Got anything better? That would be a great way to convince just about anyone.

[Tom Mattson]

[Tom Mattson noted:]
[2clockdude replies:]
I know what you were saying, and (as even 'russ_watters' openly
stated), Einstein's definition of clock synchronization yields
merely foregone conclusions


No, it doesn't. Synchronizing the clocks in the way prescribed by Einstein merely forces clocks in the same inertial frame to tick at the same rate. This is required to be consistent with the relativity postulate (not the speed of light postulate).


[2clockdude replies:]
You misread me; at no point did I even hint that the Taylor/Wheeler
'team' had 'de-bunked' SR; what I did say was that they had presented
an excellent description of Einstein's clock synchronization process,
a description which clearly shows the circularity involved. In other
words, Wheeler shows exactly how Einstein's clocks are merely forced
by man to obtain one-way light speed invariance. (Here is why this
is circular: If I force clocks to obtain one-way invariance, then,
by George, they will most certainly obtain it!)


Uh-huh, so in other words you hinted that Taylor and Wheeler debunked SR.


[I can't afford their latest edition. I have the 1966 version, and
in it, said description starts on page 18 of the section entitled
"The Geometry of Spacetime."]


There is no such section in the second edition. But I did look up all the entries of "synchronization" up in the index, and they all say the same thing: that properly synchronized clocks tick at the same rate in the rest frame of the clocks. No surprises there.


[Tom Mattson noted:]
Actually, the one-way speed of light has been measured, with decaying
pions, just as I said. See T. Alvager et al., Physics Letters 12, 260
(10/1/64).

[2clockdude responds:]
Nope, that was merely a source-independency test.
[See http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html --
Section VII.]


:rolleyes:

That's the same thing, silly.


[2clockdude continues:]
As both I and 'russ_watters' know, the critical goal is two
correctly (or absolutely) synchronous clocks, and we can be
sure that Einstein failed to find such things because he
admitted that he could not determine absolute simultaneity.

Einstein failed to find a pair of clocks that are synchronized in every frame, because such a pair of clocks doesn't exist in reality: Simultaneity is relative.
[/quote]