Is the speed of light actually constant or just always measured to be the same?

[CosmicVoyager]

Greetings,

Sometimes I read that the speed of light is constant, and sometimes I read that it is always measured to be the same. Is it:

A - The speed of light is actually constant.

or

B - It is not constant, but is always measured to be the same due the effect of something such as time dilation? If so, what is the apparent constant speed the result of?

or

C - Is something going on similar to weird quantum phenomena. Is it that a photon does not actually exist at any particular location along it's path, and has no speed, until it is absorbed by something? For example, if a year after a photon is emitted, there is an object, which is stationary relative to the source, a light year away in the path of the photon, then the photon will be there and be absorbed. But, if instead, a year after the photon is emitted, there is an object, which is moving and experiencing time dilation, in the same place a light year away in the path of the photon, then the photon will *not* be there and will *not* be absorbed because the time dilation would cause it to measure the photon as having taken longer to travel the light year?

Thanks

 

[FunkyDwarf]

What is the difference between something 'actually' being constant, and always measured to be constant?

 

[CosmicVoyager]

What is the difference between something 'actually' being constant, and always measured to be constant?

Something might be measured to be the same under various conditions even though that something is different, if the measuring instruments are somehow affected by the different conditions. Or for some other not thought of reason.

 

[Forestman]

Hey CosmicVoyager,

In a vacuum the speed of light is always measured at being 186,000 miles per second.

But when light passes through something like glass or water it slows down a little.

At the speed of light time stops, but from the photons point of view its time is normal, and the time for the rest of the universe has stopped. From the photons point of view it takes absolutely no time at all to travel a light year. The photon sees all the space in the universe as being compressed. So from the photons point of view it does not have to travel any distance.

 

[jtbell]

B - It is not constant, but is always measured to be the same due the effect of something such as time dilation?

How would we know that the speed isn't really constant, then?

 

[bcrowell]

What is the difference between something 'actually' being constant, and always measured to be constant?

Something might be measured to be the same under various conditions even though that something is different, if the measuring instruments are somehow affected by the different conditions. Or for some other not thought of reason.

For example, we can tell that a pendulum clock is affected by vibrations, because it disagrees with a quartz clock. In this situation, we would say that time is not actually affected by vibration. There is one clock that is right, and one that is wrong.
But in relativity, *all* clocks in the same state of motion agree. There is therefore no useful way to make the distinction between a distortion of measurement of time and an actual distortion of time.
The same considerations apply to distance as to time.
Since a speed is a distance divided by a time, there is also no way to make such a distinction when it comes to the speed of light.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Isn't the constant speed of light given by the wave equation derived from maxwell's equations?

 

[CosmicVoyager]

For example, we can tell that a pendulum clock is affected by vibrations, because it disagrees with a quartz clock. In this situation, we would say that time is not actually affected by vibration. There is one clock that is right, and one that is wrong.
But in relativity, *all* clocks in the same state of motion agree. There is therefore no useful way to make the distinction between a distortion of measurement of time and an actual distortion of time.
The same considerations apply to distance as to time.
Since a speed is a distance divided by a time, there is also no way to make such a distinction when it comes to the speed of light.

"There is therefore no useful way to make the distinction between a distortion of measurement of time and an actual distortion of time."

Hi. I am not addressing if time is distorted. We know it is. Time moves slower at faster speeds. If we know the clocks we are using to measure the speed are running slower, then we know the actual speed of what we are measuring is faster.

 

[DaveC426913]

"There is therefore no useful way to make the distinction between a distortion of measurement of time and an actual distortion of time."

Hi. I am not addressing if time is distorted. We know it is. Time moves slower at faster speeds. If we know the clocks we are using to measure the speed are running slower, then we know the actual speed of what we are measuring is faster.

This is a bit of a misunderstanding. None of the those frames of reference are any less valid than any other. It is not like there's one guy who's stopped and his time is accurate, and every one else's time is distorted.

Time is a factor of the relative velocities between two frames of reference. There is no such thing as "a stationary frame of reference".

 

[DaveC426913]

Simply put, you are making a distinction without a difference.

Light always travels at c. Period.

There is no such thing as a "special" measurment technique that can somehow measure the "real" speed of light.

 

[netheril96]

"There is therefore no useful way to make the distinction between a distortion of measurement of time and an actual distortion of time."

Hi. I am not addressing if time is distorted. We know it is. Time moves slower at faster speeds. If we know the clocks we are using to measure the speed are running slower, then we know the actual speed of what we are measuring is faster.

If A and B are moving relatively, then A will find that B's clock is slower, and B will find A's clock is slower.

I always think this is the key to understanding time dilation. It is not a transitive relation! Therefore there is no actual speed.

 

[Phrak]

Greetings,

Sometimes I read that the speed of light is constant, and sometimes I read that it is always measured to be the same. Is it:

A - The speed of light is actually constant.

Classical physics is spoken in the Relativity Forum. In the domain of Special Relativity the following answer holds:​

No, the speed of light is not constant--not even in a vacuum. This is a common misconception here, but it is not true. In fact, it is somewhat misleading to assign a single speed to the propagation velocity of electromagnetic waves in almost any given case.

The proportionality constant, c, between space and time is--apparently--constant, but not the propagation speed of electromagnetic radiation, as can be simply shown. Only in the exceptional cases where beams of light, planar waves or other idealizations are produced, can the speed of the light be said to be c.

 

[bcrowell]

Classical physics is spoken in the Relativity Forum. In the domain of Special Relativity the following answer holds:​

No, the speed of light is not constant--not even in a vacuum. This is a common misconception here, but it is not true. In fact, it is somewhat misleading to assign a single speed to the propagation velocity of electromagnetic waves in almost any given case.

The proportionality constant, c, between space and time is--apparently--constant, but not the propagation speed of electromagnetic radiation, as can be simply shown. Only in the exceptional cases where beams of light, planar waves or other idealizations are produced, can the speed of the light be said to be c.

Could you spell out more completely what you mean here? Are you talking about phase velocity versus group velocity? Accelerating versus nonaccelerating frames? Local versus global? The phenomena analogous to refraction and partial reflection that you theoretically get in a strong gravitational field?

The speed of light in a vacuum *is* a constant, when the words are interpreted the way that nearly all physicists interpret them.

Re accelerating versus nonaccelerating frames, which is an issue that comes up here frequently, the following may be helpful.

FAQ: Is the speed of light equal to c even in an accelerating frame of reference?

The short answer is "yes."

The long answer is that it depends on what you mean by measuring the speed of light.

In the SI, the speed of light has a defined value of 299,792,458 m/s, because the meter is defined in terms of the speed of light. In the system of units commonly used by relativists, it has a defined value of 1. Obviously we can't do an experiment that will remeasure 1 to greater precision. However, it could turn out to have been a bad idea to give the speed of light a defined value. For example, it would have been a bad idea to give the speed of sound a defined value, because the speed of sound depends on extraneous variables such as temperature.

One such extraneous variable might be the direction in which the light travels, as in the Sagnac effect, which was first observed experimentally in 1913. In the Sagnac effect, a beam of light is split, and the partial beams are sent clockwise and counterclockwise around an interferometer. If the interferometer is rotating in the plane of the beams' path, then a shift is observed in their interference, revealing that the time it takes light to go around the apparatus clockwise is different from the time it takes to go around counterclockwise. An observer in a nonrotating frame explains the observation by saying that the beams went at equal speeds, but their times of flight were unequal because while they were in flight, the apparatus accelerated. An observer in the frame rotating along with the apparatus says that clearly the beams could not have always had the same speed c, since they took unequal times to travel the same path. If we insist on letting c have a defined value, then the rotating observer is forced to say that the same closed path has a different length depending on whether the length is measured clockwise or counterclockwise. This is equivalent to saying that the distance unit has a length that depends on whether length is measured clockwise or counterclockwise.

Silly conclusions like this one can be eliminated by specifying that c has a defined value not in all experiments but in local experiments. The Sagnac effect is nonlocal because the apparatus has a finite size. The observed effect is proportional to the area enclosed by the beam-path. "Local" is actually very difficult to define rigorously [Sotiriou 2007], but basically the idea is that if your apparatus is of size L, any discrepancy in its measurement of c will approach zero in the limit as L approaches zero.

In a curved spacetime, it is theoretically possible for electromagnetic waves in a vacuum to undergo phenomena like refraction and partial reflection. Such effects are far too weak to be detected by any foreseeable technology. Assuming that they do really exist, they could be seen as analogous to what one sees in a dispersive medium. The question is then whether this constitutes a local effect or a nonlocal one. Only if it's a local effect would it violate the equivalence principle. This is closely related to the famous question of whether falling electric charges violate the equivalence principle. The best known paper on this is DeWitt and DeWitt (1964). A treatment that's easier to access online is Gron and Naess (2008). You can find many, many papers on this topic going back over the decades, with roughly half saying that such effects are local and violate the e.p., and half saying they're nonlocal and don't.

Sotiriou, Faraoni, and Liberati, arxiv.org/abs/0707.2748

Cecile and Bryce DeWitt, "Falling Charges," Physics 1 (1964) 3

Gron and Naess, arxiv.org/abs/0806.0464v1

 

[Phrak]

Classical physics is spoken in the Relativity Forum. In the domain of Special Relativity the following answer holds:​

No, the speed of light is not constant--not even in a vacuum. This is a common misconception here, but it is not true. In fact, it is somewhat misleading to assign a single speed to the propagation velocity of electromagnetic waves in almost any given case.

The proportionality constant, c, between space and time is--apparently--constant, but not the propagation speed of electromagnetic radiation, as can be simply shown. Only in the exceptional cases where beams of light, planar waves or other idealizations are produced, can the speed of the light be said to be c.

Could you spell out more completely what you mean here?

Phase velocity.

To keep things simple I pick a single case where two planar electromagnetic waves, with electric fields in the Y direction, intersect in vacuum.

E_{yR} = E_{y0} sin \left( \frac{2\pi z}{\lambda_z} + \frac{2\pi x}{\lambda_x} - \omega t\right)

E_{yR} = E_{y0} sin \left( \frac{2\pi z}{\lambda_z} - \frac{2\pi x}{\lambda_x} - \omega t\right)

E_y = E_{yR}+E_{yL}

E_y = 2E_{y0} sin \left( \frac{2\pi z}{\lambda_z}-\omega t\right) cos \left( \frac{2\pi x}{\lambda_x} \right)

The wavelength of each contributing wave is

\lambda = \frac{\lambda_x \lambda_z}{\sqrt{\lambda_x^2 + \lambda_z^2}}

so that
\omega = 2 \pi c / \lambda
or
c = \omega / k \ .

c is the phase velocity of both components E_yR and E_yL.

Find the phase velocity, w of E_y, from k_z = 2pi/omega for lambda_x > 0.

This latex is a pain in the rear to enter and then debug. I don't think I'm going to do this again. It would far easier to attach a word document.

 

[deSitter]

Yes, it is constant-constant. The speed of light is 1, and 1 is always 1. In a sense, the speed of light plays the same role in pseudo-Euclidean (Minkowski) geometry, that infinity does in Euclidean geometry. I mean that in the sense of projective geometry - that is, in Minkowskian affine geometry, the invariant quadric is the light cone, while in Euclidean affine geometry, it is the circle at infinity x^2 + y^2 = 0. The speed of light in Euclidean geometry is the imaginary unit "i", while in Minkowski geometry it is "1". The c part is just because time and space are different and one needs a relative scale. Group-theoretically, one finds that the allowed transformations from one referent to another depend on a universal fixed velocity - that light goes at this velocity is incidental to the analysis, which would still be correct if light went at something less than c because it had a tiny mass.

-drl

 

[phyti]

An observer in the frame rotating along with the apparatus says that clearly the beams could not have always had the same speed c, since they took unequal times to travel the same path. If we insist on letting c have a defined value, then the rotating observer is forced to say that the same closed path has a different length depending on whether the length is measured clockwise or counterclockwise. This is equivalent to saying that the distance unit has a length that depends on whether length is measured clockwise or counterclockwise.

Even though the direction is constantly changing, the moving observer has a constant speed. Why not conclude the relative light speed is c-v and c+v for the one way paths, the same as in an inertial frame?
The c speed for both directions in SR was only a definition, not a fact about light propagation, as stated by the author.

 

[bcrowell]

The c speed for both directions in SR was only a definition, not a fact about light propagation, as stated by the author.

Actually what I said based on that example was: "Silly conclusions like this one can be eliminated by specifying that c has a defined value not in all experiments but in local experiments." That is, I didn't state that c has an equal speed in both directions in SR, globally. I said that the global speed wasn't what was interesting to talk about.

 

[harrylin]

[on "What is the difference between something 'actually' being constant, and always measured to be constant?"]

Something might be measured to be the same under various conditions even though that something is different, if the measuring instruments are somehow affected by the different conditions. Or for some other not thought of reason.

Relativity is about what will be measured: all terms (such as "speed") are measurement values. It does not answer such questions about what "actually" happens.

 

[DaveC426913]

Relativity is about what will be measured: all terms (such as "speed") are measurement values. It does not answer such questions about what "actually" happens.

The problem with the way you're explaining this is that implies that there is something that "actually" happens, but that we simply aren't measuring it properly. This is a bad idea to put into an impressionable mind.

 

[netheril96]

Relativity is about what will be measured: all terms (such as "speed") are measurement values. It does not answer such questions about what "actually" happens.

All physics and science is about what will be measured: all terms (such as "speed") are measurement values. It does not answer such questions about what "actually" happens.

This is just semantics.

 

[DaveC426913]

All physics and science is about what will be measured: all terms (such as "speed") are measurement values. It does not answer such questions about what "actually" happens.

This is just semantics.

Still, I would not want the OP and other to go off with some idea that the speed of light, time dilation, velocity calculations and special relativity are simply a "measurement problem" and that, if they could they might figure out what's "really" happening.

Time dilation is real. So is length contraction. These are emergent properties of the way space-time is built.

 

[Passionflower]

Still, I would not want the OP and other to go off with some idea that the speed of light, time dilation, velocity calculations and special relativity are simply a "measurement problem" and that, if they could they might figure out what's "really" happening.

When we measure the speed of light between two points in curved spacetime then the speed will generally not be c.

 

[deSitter]

When we measure the speed of light between two points in curved spacetime then the speed will generally not be c.

This is simply false, it's physics-false, and math-false. As I pointed out above, the speed of light is 1 in natural units. It will always be 1, until the photon becomes massive. The parameter C does not represent something about light so much as it represents the pseudo-Euclidean nature of the world. Light goes at C because it is a massless field. The analysis of space and time that leads to C, does not depend on light in any way. It depends on linearity, homogeneity, and isotropy of both space and time.

http://membrane.com/sidd/wundrelat.txt

-drl

 

[DaveC426913]

When we measure the speed of light between two points in curved spacetime then the speed will generally not be c.

Yah, I'm not really sure what leads you to say this.

 

[Passionflower]

This is simply false, it's physics-false, and math-false. As I pointed out above, the speed of light is 1 in natural units. It will always be 1, until the photon becomes massive. The parameter C does not represent something about light so much as it represents the pseudo-Euclidean nature of the world. Light goes at C because it is a massless field. The analysis of space and time that leads to C, does not depend on light in any way. It depends on linearity, homogeneity, and isotropy of both space and time.

http://membrane.com/sidd/wundrelat.txt

-drl

For a mathematical example see for instance https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=446631

Some interesting postings in this treads:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2980825&postcount=17
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2983289&postcount=65

A 2D plot: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2981285&postcount=29
And here is a 3D plot https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2984900&postcount=77

 

[DaveC426913]

For a mathematical example see for instance https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=446631

Some interesting postings in this treads:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2980825&postcount=17
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2983289&postcount=65

A 2D plot: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2981285&postcount=29
And here is a 3D plot https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2984900&postcount=77

Well, OK, you've linked to your own posts. Do you have any references that aren't you?

 

[Passionflower]

Well, OK, you've linked to your own posts. Do you have any references that aren't you?

If we have a Schwarzschild solution and we consider a set of pairs of stationary test observers an identical and fixed distance apart from each other we can deduce that the light travel time between them depends on the r-value in Schwarzschild coordinates.

Feel free to question the math, it is rather straightforward.

 

[harrylin]

The problem with the way you're explaining this is that implies that there is something that "actually" happens, but that we simply aren't measuring it properly. This is a bad idea to put into an impressionable mind.

What I wrote (that relativity does not answer such questions) is a fact; consequently, and regretfully, your suggestion that "actually" nothing happens is definitely not a fact!

 

[harrylin]

All physics and science is about what will be measured: all terms (such as "speed") are measurement values. It does not answer such questions about what "actually" happens.

This is just semantics.

It's more than semantics! Such questions relate to philosophy and physical models. Relativity was the natural outcome of the older physical models of mechanics and optics; however, the result was a theory that is based on principles (a "principle theory") which does not directly relate to physical models.

 

[DaveC426913]

What I wrote (that relativity does not answer such questions) is a fact; consequently, and regretfully, your suggestion that "actually" nothing happens is definitely not a fact!

I did not suggest that actually nothing happens.

You're a little too fast and loose with these "facts" of yours.

 

[harrylin]

When we measure the speed of light between two points in curved spacetime then the speed will generally not be c.

Good one! - I suppose that you refer to the Shapiro time delay?
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay

 

[harrylin]

I did not suggest that actually nothing happens.

You're a little too fast and loose with these "facts" of yours.

Pot and kettle? "Time" isn't something with which building is possible, it even has no substance.

 

[DaveC426913]

Pot and kettle? "Time" isn't a "building block", it even has no substance!

Your thoughts are becoming disjointed. No part of the above addresses anything in the current thread. Take some time to compose your responses so as to contribute to the topic at-hand.

(Also, maybe calm down a bit. If you have facts on your side, use them instead of exclamation marks to make your case.)

 

[Ken Natton]

Perhaps this also contributes nothing of significance, but what I am struggling with here is why anyone thinks that the constancy of the speed of light is open to question under relativity. It isn’t some side effect of relativity, it is one of the two postulates. Take it away and you are not discussing relativity. Or so it seems to me. Some one else on these forums pointed out that if you increase the value of c (hypothetically of course) you get closer and closer to Newtonian mechanics until, when c is infinity, hey presto! Newtonian mechanics! That is to say, the constancy of the speed of light is the difference between Newtonian mechanics and special relativity.

 

[harrylin]

Your thoughts are becoming disjointed. No part of the above addresses anything in the current thread. Take some time to compose your responses so as to contribute to the topic at-hand.

(Also, maybe calm down a bit. If you have facts on your side, use them instead of exclamation marks to make your case.)

Please focus on answering questions instead of criticizing the contributions and opinions of others, OK?

 

[DaveC426913]

Please focus on answering questions instead of criticizing the contributions and opinions of others, OK?

Seriously dude, are you going to just copycat me?


Can you explain what

"Time" isn't a "building block", it even has no substance!

has to do with the topic at-hand?

 

[harrylin]

Perhaps this also contributes nothing of significance, but what I am struggling with here is why anyone thinks that the constancy of the speed of light is open to question under relativity. It isn’t some side effect of relativity, it is one of the two postulates. Take it away and you are not discussing relativity. Or so it seems to me. Some one else on these forums pointed out that if you increase the value of c (hypothetically of course) you get closer and closer to Newtonian mechanics until, when c is infinity, hey presto! Newtonian mechanics! That is to say, the constancy of the speed of light is the difference between Newtonian mechanics and special relativity.

When c is infinity and c does not relate to the speed of light, then you obtain Newtonian mechanics. However, "Relativity" commonly means General relativity, in which the second postulate is only locally valid.

- http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html

Cheers,
Harald

 

[Ken Natton]

Well okay, perhaps these are just the ramblings of someone who doesn’t understand very well, but it has always seemed to me to be a problem that we call the phenomenon ‘the speed of light’. It has a tendency to make people think that light is the issue. It isn’t. It isn’t about the speed of the propagation of electromagnetic waves. Light travels at that speed but it isn’t the driver of the phenomenon.

Here’s another point that I believed to be a significant insight, perhaps this is also wrong but maybe discussing it will help to clear up the misalignments of thought that are dogging the discussion. Something I read suggested that in point of fact the speed of everything is always constant through space time. The only variable is what proportion of your travel through space time is travel through space and what proportion is travel through time. When you are stationary in space, all of your travel through space time is taken up with travel through time. When you are traveling through space at c, time is stopped all together. The only variable is where you lie between these two extremes.

 

[harrylin]

Seriously dude, are you going to just copycat me?

Can you explain what

has to do with the topic at-hand?

Also seriously, that would be appropriate as your behavioral advice was really good. This was merely to illustrate that nit-picking on other contributors is not constructive - so I can but won't elaborate. Peace dude (yes that was a copycat).

 

[harrylin]

Well okay, perhaps these are just the ramblings of someone who doesn’t understand very well, but it has always seemed to me to be a problem that we call the phenomenon ‘the speed of light’. It has a tendency to make people think that light is the issue. It isn’t. It isn’t about the speed of the propagation of electromagnetic waves. Light travels at that speed but it isn’t the driver of the phenomenon. [..]

Yes that's an essential insight. The speed of light is a boundary condition from which the Lorentz transformations followed; light itself isn't an issue.

Harald

 

[netheril96]

It's more than semantics! Such questions relate to philosophy and physical models. Relativity was the natural outcome of the older physical models of mechanics and optics; however, the result was a theory that is based on principles (a "principle theory") which does not directly relate to physical models.

Philosophy is just semantics. Scientific method requires that we focus on the observable and testable, not something that "actually" happens according to your unsubstantiated belief system or philosophical system and that somehow cannot be measured in any way whatsoever or have any effect on the observable nature.

 

[Ken Natton]

The speed of light is a boundary condition from which the Lorentz transformations followed; light itself isn't an issue.

So then is it not important to be clear about what is being discussed? Are we discussing the speed of the propagation of electromagnetic waves, the possible variablility of which does not necessarily undermine the basic principles of relativity, or are we discussing the boundary condition, the speed that is the fastest it is possible to travel through space and at which time stops, whose invariabliity is central to the whole concept of relativity? Is that perhaps the source of the misunderstandings here?

 

[Passionflower]

Well, OK, you've linked to your own posts. Do you have any references that aren't you?

Let's get this out of the way by putting up the math, this is not the first time you are making innuendos I do know what I am talking about.

Let's take a pair of stationary test observers R2 and R3 in a Schwarzschild solution with a Schwarzschild radius of R.

Do you agree that the ruler distance between them is:

<br /> \rho = R \left( \sqrt {3}\sqrt {2}-\sqrt {2}+\ln \left( -\sqrt {3}+\sqrt {3}<br /> \sqrt {2}-\sqrt {2}+2 \right) \right) <br />

If so do you agree that the radar distance T in coordinate time between them is:

<br /> T = R+R\ln \left( 2 \right)<br />

And that the radar distance in proper time for R2 is:

<br /> \tau_{R2} = 1/2\, \left( R+R\ln \left( 2 \right) \right) \sqrt {2}<br />

And for R3:

<br /> \tau_{R3} = 1/3\, \left( R+R\ln \left( 2 \right) \right) \sqrt {6}<br />

With me so far or anything wrong with the math?

From this you can calculate the (average) speed of light, if you do this you will find that both the coordinate speed and the speed from r2 to r3 (r2 < r3) in proper time is always < c. Only the speed from r3 to r2 in proper time is > c.

Agreed? No? Where do I make a mistake?

For you reference if we value the R2 and R3 values we can chart it, here is a 2D plot.

Below is a plot of light speeds between pairs of static observers (o1, o2) separated a fixed ruler distance of 1 with the radar distance as measured by a clock at observer o1. In the plot you can see the ruler distance (which is 1 for each pair) divided by the radar distance, this ratio is larger for pairs closer to the EH.
[PLAIN]http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/4331/slowdownoflight.gif

And here is a 3D plot:
[PLAIN]http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/2414/001lightspeed3d.gif

Any mistakes?

If not, could you please stop making innuendos I am wrong?

 

[DaveC426913]

...this is not the first time you are making innuendos I do know what I am talking about...

If not, could you please stop making innuendos I am wrong?

I am not making innuendos, I am simply asking for a reference to something other than your own work for the claim you are making. I get to do that.

 

[Passionflower]

I am not making innuendos, I am simply asking for a reference to something other than your own work for the claim you are making. I get to do that.

The 'claim' that I am making is obvious if you follow the math. It is very simple: it is true or false, either my math is right or it is wrong.

So you think titles and reputations are more authoritative than the mathematics? If so I pity you.

 

[DrGreg]

When we measure the speed of light between two points in curved spacetime then the speed will generally not be c.

Yah, I'm not really sure what leads you to say this.

This is a well-known fact of non-inertial frames (and there are no such things as inertial frames in curved spacetime, only local approximations to them).

See for example Physics FAQ: Is The Speed of Light Constant? - General Relativity subsection

To clarify, in curved spacetime (or even in flat spacetime in a non-inertial frame) when you measure the speed of some light passing right next to you, you always get c (using proper distance and proper time) but if you measure light that is some distance away from you, you will almost always get a different answer.

 

[DaveC426913]

OK:

The 'claim' that I am making is obvious if you follow the math. It is very simple: it is true or false, either my math is right or it is wrong.

I do not have the math background to follow it. Why do you think I'm asking for a reference so I can read up on it?

So you think titles and reputations are more authoritative than the mathematics?

Where on Earth did that come from? Not from me.

No, I think that I like to verify something that goes against my understanding, by checking with multiple sources.

If so I pity you.

You don't have a middle zone do you? You're either normal or in Full Attack. Try being a little less defensive. And maybe a little less vicious.

I'm asking for references to your claim so I can understand it. I have not made the slightest suggestion that you are wrong. Go back and check.

 

[harrylin]

Philosophy is just semantics. Scientific method requires that we focus on the observable and testable, not something that "actually" happens according to your unsubstantiated belief system or philosophical system and that somehow cannot be measured in any way whatsoever or have any effect on the observable nature.

I agree with the focus of modern science - thanks for enhancing my point. However, I doubt that any philosopher will agree with your claim about their profession.

Harald

 

[harrylin]

So then is it not important to be clear about what is being discussed? Are we discussing the speed of the propagation of electromagnetic waves, the possible variablility of which does not necessarily undermine the basic principles of relativity, or are we discussing the boundary condition, the speed that is the fastest it is possible to travel through space and at which time stops, whose invariabliity is central to the whole concept of relativity? Is that perhaps the source of the misunderstandings here?

I do think that the OP is talking about the speed of light rays. However, I see no consequence for this thread of understanding this thread to be about either light rays or the limit speed, as they are supposed to be equal and the validity of relativity is not questioned here. What answer do you think would change with the interpretation of the question?

 

[harrylin]

[..]

See for example Physics FAQ: Is The Speed of Light Constant? - General Relativity subsection

To clarify, in curved spacetime (or even in flat spacetime in a non-inertial frame) when you measure the speed of some light passing right next to you, you always get c (using proper distance and proper time) but if you measure light that is some distance away from you, you will almost always get a different answer.

Yes it's very basic, it even was one of the first things that Einstein explained to the public about GR. Here's the reference once more: http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html

Harald

PS: I now see that the writers of the FAQ are unfamiliar with the use of "velocity" in older English literature (and still some modern literature of other disciplines). It usually stands for "Geschwindigkeit" which commonly means speed; and here it is a translation of "Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit" which means propagation speed (that is, non-vectorial).
- http://www.ideayayinevi.com/metinler/relativitetstheorie/oggk03.htm
- http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit

And if you check his 1916 scientific paper on GR you will understand that his explanation only makes sense if it is understood to mean just that, from his use of the Huygens principle.