Could Relativity Still Apply in a Universe Filled with Water?

[RandallB]

Randal has epitomised what I have to say... maybe stuff starts going 'wrong' ( as we would consider it) if the people in this universe applied the formulae using the speed of light they measured. I just want to clarify one thing ( while the great discussion continues! ) - we all agree that if Mr Einstein derived his equations using the speed of light he measured in THIS medium, his formulas would not work and would not conform to the results observed! ? - thereby HE IS NOT FAMOUS!

I don't understand your point, are you saying Einstein only appears to be famous in our world? - just because of something in your fictional water world.
If your talking about someone 'equivalent’ to him in the water world do us a favor and avoid confusion by assign a new name for that person in that “frame” of world.
Lets call that person Ms Eins as a woman would do better in water any way.
I see no reason that Eins would not become famous with her theory of relativity, even if it is based on “slow light”. It would still be an major concept improvement of the old classical 17th century ideas of “Newt” (that name goes well with water).

At least until they discover in a laboratory they can create a volume without any water in it, by removing their aether and replaced with a void. Something will have to happen because problems will show up in the theory. In addition to updating the great but flawed version of relativity by Ms Eins, they will need to come to grips with the concept of a “void” being more fundamental then the aether they have been familiar with – not just that light can travel faster than they thought! Clearing up problems that would have to become obvious as science progressed into the particle physics.

 

[yogi]

The relativistic transforms derived by Einstein follow from the first postulate - that experiments made in every inertial frame will lead to the same result - In Galilean relativity the same assumption is incorporated as to mechanical measurments... what Einstein did was extend the notion to experiments that would reveal the velocity of light. You will not get conforming results when attempting to measure the velocity of light in water with respect to which you are moving just as you will not get correct results when attempting to measure the velocity of sound relative to air when you are moving with respect to the air. The so called
aether has the unique property that velocity with respect thereto is meaningless (according to Einstein). This is not the case wrt other mediums.

 

[RandallB]

Exactly; where Einstein would be creating postulates on knowing the speed of light as 3.0E+8 and that it didn’t change. Ms Eins in rushil’s water "or thick ether" world light would have a local light speed of 2.0E+8 and would it be faster or slower depending on the speed of the source. She wouldn’t be able to create a complete relativity theory until the idea of a true vacuum was understood.

Also note that the theories of “Newt” couldn’t match up well with Newton and prior very well. Until the could see and understand that energy could be lost into creating disturbances the media that is carrying the light at an artificially slow speed they wouldn’t be able to define the conservation of energy as not even the parabolas of Galileo’s cannon balls would work correctly nor could planetary orbits be maintained within this “aether”. The whole history and laws of science in such a world would be greatly different; it may be a difficult just to get the idea of a vacuum.

 

[rushil]

Aqausians - living in Aqausia - the water filled universe ( please use this name from now!) do not know about 'vacuum' as we call it! Their 'vacuum' is effectively a space filled with Just Aqua - the name for aether in Aqausia!

Besides, hoe would they prove for the first time that THERE IS A SPEED LIMIT in Aqausia given that Aquasians can never reach speeds as high as 2*10^8 m/s ( we know this because our correctly derived relations predict that too much energy is required to reach such high speeds!) , and light travels at 2* 10^8 m/s?!

 

[Ich]

As I understood, the "water" should be without resistance and play the role of an aether.
Then you would find that the speed of light is not a constant, therefore no need to derive SR. This would change when you observe particles faster than light, but with a constant maximum velocity. Still, SR would lose most of its attraction because there is a preferred frame and you could not unite electrodynamics with Newtonian mechanics.
In the real world, SR is found to be appropriate because it reflects most elegantly the perfect symmetry between inertial frames.

 

[RandallB]

Aqausians - living in Aqausia - the water filled universe ( please use this name from now!) do not know about 'vacuum' as we call it! Their 'vacuum' is effectively a space filled with Just Aqua - the name for aether in Aqausia!
Besides, hoe would they prove for the first time that THERE IS A SPEED LIMIT in Aqausia given that Aquasians can never reach speeds as high as 2*10^8 m/s ( we know this because our correctly derived relations predict that too much energy is required to reach such high speeds!) , and light travels at 2* 10^8 m/s?!

But remember the simple physics of a billiard ball bounce off a billiard ball conservation of vis-viva, all these depend on the interaction of the force of EM. And EM uses virtual photons to manage those interactions - thus the Aquasians have Aqausia withdrawing energy from any movement as the Aqausia itself is disturbed and parts moved by transmitting that light. Thus until they can "see" Aqausia as being something that takes-up energy with movement as it interacts with everything, they will not be able to understand the simplest of physics. Example only in areas without Aqausia will be able to maintain energy conserving orbits. Understanding these kind of issues would need to be resolved (by somehow discovering vacuum not Aqausia exists where orbits do) long before their science would be ready to address things like finding the correct speed of light.

 

[DrGreg]

Besides, how would they prove for the first time that THERE IS A SPEED LIMIT in Aquasia given that Aquasians can never reach speeds as high as 2*10⁸ m/s?

Not true -- it's entirely possible for particles to travel faster than the speed of light-through-aqua (as has been pointed out earlier in this thread). Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_effect" .

 

[Janus]

Aqausians - living in Aqausia - the water filled universe ( please use this name from now!) do not know about 'vacuum' as we call it! Their 'vacuum' is effectively a space filled with Just Aqua - the name for aether in Aqausia!

Before we can answer your questions, we must nail down the the properties of this Aqua and the laws of nature in Aquasia.

Is Aqua viscous? Does it share all characteristics with water? (if you seal a container, and then move that container does the Aqua inside move with the container or not?
Or does Aqua takes the place of the classical aether? (IOW, is Aquasia not even in a Relativistic Universe?

Or is Aqua the equivalent of a vacuum in a Relativistic universe, one in which the speed of light in a vacuum is 2e8 m/s ?

Or is Aqua some mixture of all the above? Light travels through it as it was water, but it is non-viscous and can not be contained in a vessel like the aether, yet the universe of Aquasia is relativistic and shares all the other laws of our universe?

 

[yogi]

Yes janus - I agree that a little learning is a dangerous thing - the problem is that the best of us only has a little learning - so we try to perceive truth with only half sufficient knowledge. We take as "right" the ideas of Einstein - yet for the most part they were untested until much later in his life - as Einstein himself professed: "we can only dimly perceive the intelligence manifested in nature" So re the present interrogatory, can we say that the speed of light is a property of the universe? - the space/time frame that defines its speed - the issue to me is the nature of what we regard as space - we know it has characteristics - capacitance, inductance, energy ...yet it is massless and totally undetectable by any means yet devised . Could we even construct a universe where space is filled with a perfect frictionless fluid having the density of water - I doubt it, Such a medium would not support transverse waves - whereas a medium under tension would - but neither water nor any other fluid is capable of supporting shear

If we are going to understand the universe, we must first understand space - for that is the stuff of which it is made

 

[rushil]

I have a question regarding the Michaq-moraq experiment conducted in Aquasia!
Wouldn't it, if carried out in exactly the same way as on Earth, still yield wrong results if the theory used simple Galilean transformations as on Earth? I think it would... However, here comes the catch. On earth, Einstein concluded that the speed of light is constant on the basis of this experiment. But since the Aquasians DO observe object sat speeds greater than 2 * 10^8 m/s, and they also observe that the speed of light depends on the motion of teh body in Aquasia, what conclusions do they draw from the Mich- More experiment?
The Theory of galilean transforms in Aquasia has just $$c_w$$ instead of c in vacuum! So the displacement in fringes would still NOT conform to thery...however, it would NOT lead Aquasians to conclude anything about a speed limit in Aqausia? Or would it?

What would be the significane of Mich-more experiment in Aqausia!

( I have two more posts - please read! )

 

[rushil]

As far as I thing, Aqua in Aquasia is just the aether!

Nothing more , nothing less! Its undetectable but we assume, for now , that it exists! I think doing this is not too much of a 'wrong' given that Modern theoretical physics on Earth has envisioned stranger things!

I hope all of us keep in mind that Aqua in Aquasia = something like aether that was thought about some years ago, when we discuss things!

Definition of aqua - inviscous, undetectable, invisible, liquid filling space till infinity...

 

[rushil]

I try to derive that speed of light in Aquasia is NOT independent of motion of emitting body... please see if it is correct.

K is an observer on Earth seeing the boxed universe 'Aqausia' . K' is an observer in Aqausia ( stationary) , Let M be a moving object in Aqausai, with speed v. K' can look only inside Aqausia. C_w is speed of light in aquasia = 2* 10^8. C is true speed of light = 3 * 10^8. Now the speed of light emitted by M in frame of K is (v + c_w )/( 1 + vc_w / c^2 )

Speed of K wrt K' = 0. therefore, speed of light emitted by M in K' frame is same as in K frame ... ( note K' does not know the correct equations and is not doind ANY calculations. All calculations are being done by K)

Thus, even in Aqausia, the speed of light ( as observed - not calculated) DOES depend on speed of motion of emitting body!

 

[rushil]

Hey guys,,, why has the discussion stopped! Are these ideas going somewhere? Is this idea worth further study!? Please speak!

 

[Crazy8s]

When light is travels through a medium, it is in fact possible for other bodies to move faster than the speed of light in that medium. It's not speculative, it's called the Cerenkov effect. Detectors in particle accelerators are engineered based on it.

This is because light is not a particle, and the Cernekov effect is a particle.