Hello Emmanouil Markoulakis;

Indeed the speed of light has been a fundamental constant in our understanding of the universe since the early 20th century when Albert Einstein proposed the theory of special relativity. It has become a foundational concept in modern physics, and many subsequent theories and discoveries have been built upon this framework.

However, science is an ever-evolving field, and the history of scientific progress is filled with examples of previously held beliefs being overturned by new evidence and theories. It's important to remain open to the possibility that our understanding of the universe is incomplete and that future discoveries may change our perspective on the speed of light and its role in the cosmos.

Exploration of phenomena like dark matter, dark energy, and the nature of the vacuum could indeed lead to new insights that challenge our current understanding of the speed of light as an ultimate speed limit. Encouraging open-mindedness and curiosity in the scientific community is essential for continued progress.

At the same time, it's important to recognize that the speed of light as a fundamental constant has withstood the test of time and has been confirmed by numerous experiments. While it's crucial to remain open to new ideas, it's also essential to maintain rigorous standards of evidence and experimental confirmation. So, the speed of light may or may not remain the ultimate limit of science. The scientific community should continue to explore new ideas and theories, including those related to superluminal phenomena, while maintaining a strong commitment to empirical evidence and the scientific method.

Regards,

Alessandro

We should not confuse speed of light with speed of causation. The maximum speed of matter/particles may well be c . But Alain Aspect received a Nobel for the experiment suggesting a much greater speed of causation. Then there is the van Flandern speed observation.

The rejection by the mainstream of observational evidence is another matter. And, not a new condition. When the science of his day (the Church) rejected Galileo, the scientist moved to more tolerant nations (North and the west).

Dear Allessandro and John,

Very interesting comments and arguments. Thank you.

Indeed QE experiments maybe the biggest proof that c bound causality may not be the only causality in the Universe and that although light energy information can only be transferred at c there might be another type of energy different than light that can be communed on a sub layer at a much higher speed and then interacting with normal matter and light at a different location much much farther away thus we call this non-locality but I find it difficult how this could be interpreted different than supeluminal interaction. Calling it non-local phenomenon really disguises this unexplained superluminal phenomenon in nature.

I never understood really why instant action at a distance breaks causality since the arrow of time is not reversed just nullified and simultaneity depends again on the observer position.

Even more astonishing I want to bring to your attention the Dragan-Ekert et al., recent work that proves that when Relativity is properly extended to include supeluminocity (i.e. I prefer this term instead superluminality) surprisingly QM indeterministic behavior and superposition characteristics arise!

These two papers have some of highest ever annual scores in Altmetric with more than 30,000 downloads each at the years 2022 and 2020 and steered quite a bit the physics community:

https://tinyurl.com/nhbhym8a

https://tinyurl.com/csjcu8uj

These two papers were not desk rejected by the Journals because the significant name of Ekert known in the science community for his contributions to science but Dragan is also a genius.

Also read here the interesting story of this research:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/quantum-theory-speed-light-dragan

This very high popularity of the above two papers (positive or negative , doesn't matter) proofs again how eager the physics community is for new physics since existing theories explanations are unsatisfactory for most and superluminal research should not be suppressed and censored in the future since it may be the key for ultimately deciphering nature.

What if our universe is a mix of subluminal (i.e. matter), luminal (i.e. light) and superluminal (i.e. free space vacuum) energy forming different phases of the same energy? This would explain possible dark energy and dark matter and also the cosmological constant problem.

We must break out of our c bound prison If we ever want to explain these phenomena. Let's go Superluminal ! :)

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Thanks for the references to Dragan & Ekert 'swork. I was unaware of them.

As you may know, I've been thinking of this subject for some time now (1st paper on diffraction using STOE model 2012). In a TEGS meeting a few weeks ago, I suggested a paper to show the plenum (aether, supporter of superluminal waves) is REAL. There are similar efforts by others (Croace, et al.). The model suggest observations are made with matter particles and their speed limit is c. BUT, matter causes waves in the plenum which travel superliminously to cause forces on the matter. So, matter doesn't travel faster than light, but the forces do. But our sensors do not detect the plenum. They detect only matter, and light (photons) are matter. So, not matter, light, and "free space", but matter and a real plenum with superluminosity.

So, van Flandern detected the movement of the Sun by 2 means - light with a 8 minute delay from the gravity. So, we have 2 methods to determine the length of rods. 1 uses light which obeys Lorentz equations and the speed of light. The other using the speed of plenum waves (gravity which is the effect of the plenum on matter). NOT ``action at a distance'' but action by plenum and action by other matter (light).

But this doesn't get dark matter or dark energy. For these, one needs a Mach's principle and a different creation myth.

The speed of light is believed to be the highest speed an object can achieve, but what exactly is the speed of light? Even though it can be said to be three hundred million metres per second, this quantity is unit dependent and hence can not be a complete constant. If we look at the dimensions of the speed of light, it depends on distance and time. If we look deeper into these two, we find out that when we define units of these quantities, such as metres or seconds, we tend to use the speed of light in one or the other. This makes a complete loophole, where we must assume the definition of one of these ( metre, second or speed of light) to define the other two.

The reasoning that Einstein gave for the speed of light being the highest to achieve is that two constituents of light will always accelerate to a higher one if something equates it.

There can be another reason that for an object with some mass to gain some velocity, it needs some energy. The greater the velocity gained, the higher the energy needed. Another thing that matters is the mass of the body. The greater the mass, again higher the energy needed and as we know light is the purest form of energy with no mass, it can achieve higher and higher velocity with the smallest fraction of energy. So, one can speed of light to be the highest and a limit for objects with some mass at least.

But, the universe consists of things other than just lighter and matter only. There is space to be considered that definitely can achieve a speed greater than the speed of causality, but again the same issue comes. How will we find out its velocity?

One of the more pressing issues is that most of our modern science holds on to the fact that the speed of light is the highest achievable. If there comes to be a change it can change the very face of science. Many results and principles such as the Uncertainty principle will be changed and that will change the face of the whole of Quantum physics.

So, even if we do prove that the speed of causality is not the limit, it might come out as more of a loss to modern physics than a victory. That might be the reason for the reluctance of scientists to accept a different perspective. Yet, I would like to say that what we choose to believe, can not change what is present out there, and the sooner we open our eyes to it better it for us if there is something like that true.

Preprint Optical measurement of superluminal motion in the neutron-st...

This article says that superluminal motion has been detected in space.

Hello Emmanouil: Great enquiry going deeper to know real truth operating nature!! We will eventually be able to unravel with our MPST theoretical with experimental verifying mathematical physical proofs!! We are excitedly waiting to your TEGS presence to lead us to new heights!! towards paradigm shifting PHYSICS with the future revelations!! Thank you for sharing this research and Alessandro, John, Navjot, Akash, and Arayik with wonderful discussions, fruitful problem solutions moving through the horizon of natural PHYSICS!! Sincerely with all best regards, Rajan Iyer ENGINEERINGINC INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONAL TEKNET EARTH GLOBAL

Now, it is clearly possible to posit a spectrum / range of superluminal velocities for energy propagation in the whole cosmos, the lower limit being the luminal velocity.

I believe that the upper limit of the possible energy propagation velocities in each local universe may be conceived as determined by the highest density reached by the respective local universe at its condensation phase. (I do not find any other possible causal explanation. If anyone of you has, please share.)

This local universe density, in turn, would have to be determined by the amount of matter-energy the respective local universe has in direct availability for condensation.

This is the gist of what I have argued in my book of 2018. One may call it mere speculation. But given that it is extremely difficult to obtain the actual density and availability of matter-energy in each local universe for comparison and scientific study, we have only a rational means of thought here, based on earth-based experiments!

Kindly take a look at my reply here:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Who_can_tell_me_what_happens_at_the_edge_of_the_Universe/5

“…To my understanding, it is unthinkable to take two theories born to describe different interactions and make one without considering changing at least one of the two in a radical way, or make a step back and restart from first principles, considering all the experimental data available, and see where got it wrong...…..”

- really that hasn’t relation to the thread question “Why current General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics will never be united?”, and for at least two reasons. First of all the real QM-GR problem isn’t in some taking of two theories “born to describe different interactions”, QM must, in principle, to describe any/every interactions in Matter, since everything in Matter exists and happens on QM scale, though more correctly – on Planck scale, but that isn’t essential,

- though the QM interactions are so unbelievably averaged on macroscale, that on macroscale “classical” theories well work, however most of utmost fundamental parameters of material objects/events/processes – energy, momentums, angular momentums, charges, etc., which are defined just in classic theories, are used, though specifically, also in QM, classic theories, and are at that in some sense the QM base;

- while the GR is just macro theory, and so, if it would be a really adequate to the reality, i.e. the theory of some fundamental Nature force, the “problem of GR quantization” would be without problems solved, as that, say, happened with classical electrodynamics; and

- just because of in the GR Gravity isn’t some fundamental Nature force that is fundamentally impossible – the interactions that the GR describes are indeed different from what is in QM, first of all in that these interactions don’t exist.

Really Gravity is fundamentally nothing else than a fundamental Nature force, which in a few traits similar to the fundamental Nature Electric force, including, first of all, both Forces act by the same fundamental scheme – see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces; moreover this scheme works at Nuclear Force that combine atomic nuclei interactions , see 2023 this Force model in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

Cheers“Do you believe the speed of light should be the limit of science?”

- this question looks as rather questionable, despite that

“…Indeed the speed of light has been a fundamental constant in our understanding of the universe since the early 20th century when Albert Einstein proposed the theory of special relativity. …”

- is indeed in mainstream physics. Really the speed of light by no means differs from any other fundamental constant in physics, say, gravitational constant G, fine structure constant α, electric charge e, etc.

Moreover, there exist indeed ultimately fundamental and universal constants in Matter – the Planck units: the fundamental elementary physical action/angular momentum ћ, Planck length lP, and Planck time, tP, and so the speed of light is really derived constant, c= lP/tP, gravitational constant is G=√(ћc)/M, where M is Planck mass, e=(4πε0 αħc)1/2 etc.

Though yeah, in 1905 postulating of c as an ultimately fundamental constant allowed to obtain the Lorentz transformations by well more simple and elegant way that that Lorentz did in 1904, but really that has no any problem of any real limitation of science;

- and really that resulted also in really only a political limitation of physics development, since to make the postulate above as some fundamental base of the theory required at that also to postulate that Matter’s absolute spacetime doesn’t exist, and that so all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely equally equivalent and legitimate,

- what is fundamentally incorrect, and so from the SR any number of really senseless consequences follow, the simplest one is the Dingle objection to the SR. So really the SR is effectively applicable only in everyday physics practice, and by no means is applicable at fundamental physics development.

Really in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics[and two other models in framework of this whole model] , it is rigorously shown that Matter’s spacetime is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,g,w,e,s,ct),

- while Matter is really simple informational system that is based on a simple binary reversible logics, so, including, to derive Lorentz transformations ad other main equation of the SR really it is enough to know Pythagoras theorem.

More see the link above

Cheers

I want to know. If the speed of light is limited. Then why should it follow from this that the speed of matter is also limited?

"Who call tell what happens at the edge of the universe?"

In order to answer this question, we have been discussing the anisotropy in the universe, Doppler effect, etc.

Why not take into consideration also the following commonsense but rationally acceptable (true) points to ponder?

There are gravitational coalescences within the universe, between a star and its planets, between stars, between galaxies, between clusters of galaxies, etc. In that case, we have the following commonsense-wise acceptable scenario:

1. SUPPOSE THE UNIVERSE IS OF FINITE CONTENT:

Then there will be only a finite number of local universes in it; and each will form gravitational coalescence with some others in the vicinity, and finally, all of them will be seen to be together in one gravitational conglomeration.

Could you please try and conclude anything further about this sort of a universe: of its origin, evolution, end, etc? Please do not accuse me of being of any conclusion. I am asking you all....

2. IF THE COSMOS IS OF INFINITE CONTENT:

Then, at any given moment, there will be an infinite number of finite-content universes. Each of these will naturally coalesce gravitationally with a finite number of others, and this effect will only widen in the course of time into the future. Here, each such coalescence can be deemed to possess a proper time scale of its own. That is, causal connection between universes can give temporal connection too.

This time scale will widen as the content of each such local universe of universes widens its content by furthering the breadth of its proper gravitational coalescence formation by attracting and being attracted to other universes.

(I admit that gravitation may be taken mathematically as spacetime curvature. But what exist out there are not the curvature but the curving matter-energy formations, in which gravitation too should form part. After all, gravitation is not a vacuous magical power! Hence, spacetime curvature is not a vacuous mathematical effect; it is a physical effect in actual existents.)

But at any given time there can only be finite-content gravitational coalescences. And, by assumption under 2, there is an infinite number of universes within the cosmos. In this case, will there be further cosmological questions to answer?

I am just asking, I do not posit solutions here about the origin, evolution, and end of the gravitational coalescences of local universes. IF ANYONE OF YOU HAS ANY SUGGESTIONS, PLEASE SUGGEST.

I BELIEVE THIS IS THE STATE OF AFFAIRS AT THE EDGES OF THE LOCAL UNIVERSES IN ANY GIVEN FINITE VICINITY OF EACH UNIVERSE.

But if you insist that we have no proofs for the existence of an infinite number of universes, then choose a finite number of them and be happy about it!

But please note: I did not say here anything irrational, and hence, I said nothing prospectively unscientific. For some this too may be unscientific -- in which case, what is prospectively scientific is for them unscientific, and their definition of science would naturally be: "The rational study of whatever we can experiment with".

I believe it to be too poor a definition. All of you have all the rights to hold the other definition or any other!

Arayik Danghyan

"I want to know. If the speed of light is limited. Then why should it follow from this that the speed of matter is also limited?"

Maybe because all elementary matter fields could be also seen as light standing waves that generate via the Higgs mechanism mass which has intrinsic inertia therefore slower than light when translating though space?

Arayik Danghyan

"I want to know. If the speed of light is limited. Then why should it follow from this that the speed of matter is also limited?"

Because light is matter/particles.

No ............

Science has lots of room to outlive the balderdash that Albert Einstein inserted into it ,,,,,,,,,,,

New Publication "The superluminous vacuum" why the vacuum appears as nothing.

Article The superluminous vacuum

That they have brought out relativistic versions of Quantum physics is itself a sign that "representation" has taken the place of "presentation" even at the highest imaginable positions in science......... Alas !!