In some ways it's meaningless to imagine a "change" in a physical constant that has definite units like the speed of light, although you can imagine changes in "dimensionless" physical constants that are pure numbers (because they are ratios of various physical constants with units)--see this article explaining why, as well as this page summarizing all the dimensionless constants.Bible Thumper said:Why does light have to necessarily go 186K MPS? Why not 100K MPS? Or 300K MPS?
Why strictly 186K MPS even tho there are numerous, different ways to generate light?
Why, Mr. Anderson? Why?
Keanu Reeves (it's a line from 'The Matrix')atyy said:Who is Mr. Anderson?
JesseM said:Keanu Reeves (it's a line from 'The Matrix')
atyy said:Who is Mr. Anderson?
JesseM said:In some ways it's meaningless to imagine a "change" in a physical constant that has definite units like the speed of light, although you can imagine changes in "dimensionless" physical constants that are pure numbers (because they are ratios of various physical constants with units)--see this article explaining why, as well as this page summarizing all the dimensionless constants.
The speed of light is exact. And exactly the same for all inertial observers. If this were not so, human thought as electric current would not generate a magnetic field, and the Matrix could not exist.Bible Thumper said:Why does light have to necessarily go 186K MPS? Why not 100K MPS? Or 300K MPS?
Why strictly 186K MPS even tho there are numerous, different ways to generate light?
Why, Mr. Anderson? Why?
Why does light have to necessarily go 186K MPS? Why not 100K MPS? Or 300K MPS?
I'd be pretty upset, since my WiFi router would crap out and I wouldn't be able to surf PF anymore!Phrak said:If the speed of light is globally changed would anyone notice?
russ_watters said:I'd be pretty upset, since my WiFi router would crap out and I wouldn't be able to surf PF anymore!
I also assumed you meant that the laws of physics would remain unchanged, just the value of C changed. But if you change the value of C, then things (such as radio frequencies) that depend on that value also change. Since we're speaking hypothetically, it is possible that both my router and wifi card would change the same way if their antenna and electronics are similar, but that still doesn't mean the new frequency would be able to find its way through my house.Phrak said:how? I'd be inclined to think that the laws of physics are invariant under a rescaling of c.
Because physical distances would NOT change. Circuits would behave differently, GPS signals would behave differently, human bodies would behave differently. Heck, molecules and atoms might behave differently.Phrak said:how? I'd be inclined to think that the laws of physics are invariant under a rescaling of c.
DaveC426913 said:Because physical distances would NOT change. Circuits would behave differently, GPS signals would behave differently, human bodies would behave differently. Heck, molecules and atoms might behave differently.
[EDIT] D'oh. Active thread.
No, we can certainly imagine a dimensionless ratio like G/hc changing. My point was that if it did change, how would you know it was changing because c increased, as opposed to because G decreased or h increased? You could leave c unchanged and fiddle with the other constants to produce the same change in the dimensionless ratios. In such a situation, I don't see how it's physically meaningful to ask which of the constants with units are "really" changing and which aren't, you can only talk about which dimensionless ratios changed and by how much.Phrak said:The expression G/hc is unitless.
So then, according to what you're saying, a global variation in c would neccesitate that G/hc is constant, right?
JesseM said:No, we can certainly imagine a dimensionless ratio like G/hc changing. My point was that if it did change, how would you know it was changing because c increased, as opposed to because G decreased or h increased?That's what I said.
I see no examples counter dimensionful of dimensionless changes.
Can you clarify what is meant by the phrase "dimensionful of dimensionless changes"?Phrak said:That's what I said.I see no examples counter dimensionful of dimensionless changes.
There could be several reasons for this. It could be that Mr. Anderson is a curious person and genuinely wants to understand the reasons behind things. It could also be that he is trying to challenge or question something that has been said or done. Additionally, Mr. Anderson may have a habit of asking "why" frequently as a way of processing information.
Yes, asking "why" is a crucial part of the scientific process. Scientists are constantly questioning and seeking to understand the world around them. By asking "why", they can uncover new information and insights that can lead to further research and discoveries.
Asking "why" allows scientists to identify gaps in knowledge and generate hypotheses to explain phenomena. It also helps to challenge existing beliefs and theories, leading to new discoveries and advancements in the field. Additionally, asking "why" can lead to a deeper understanding of complex systems and processes.
Asking "why" is an essential part of the scientific process and should not lead to biased results. However, it is crucial for scientists to be aware of their own biases and actively seek to eliminate them in their research. Additionally, peer review and replication studies can help to identify and correct any potential biases in scientific research.
There are many ways to encourage curiosity and questioning in individuals. One way is to provide opportunities for hands-on learning and exploration. Another approach is to encourage critical thinking and open-mindedness in education and daily life. Additionally, fostering a supportive and non-judgmental environment can also promote curiosity and the desire to ask "why".