The constant speed of light is just the most obvious example of the covariance of all the physical laws. The physical laws do not change even when gravity produces different rates of time or motion gives different frames of reference. For example, energy, force, inertia, mass, etc. all must undergo coordinated changes in order to keep the physical laws (including the constant speed of light) the same in all frames of reference and all gravitational potentials. Do you have any insights or partial explanations into the constant speed of light and the covariance of the physical laws?
From 1916 until his death, Einstein believed that space was not an empty void. He also rejected the idea of the ether that had a specific frame of reference and propagated classical waves. Instead, he believed that space had physical content that achieved the relativistic covariance of the physical laws. He used words such as “new ether”, “physical space” and “relativistic ether” to convey this concept. This is documented in the book titled, Einstein and the Ether by L. Kostro. Einstein did not suggest how "relativistic ether" could achieve a constant speed of light and create covariance of the physical laws.
My answer to this question and other surprising physics predictions are contained in the preprint: www.researchgate.net/publication/353049276
Dear John A. Macken ,
I would put it like this :
how could Einstein conceive two postulates for SR when the second forcibly had to depend on the first?
If one requires the equivalence of the IRFs, Galilean Relativity, there is no reason that a property found in one IRF is not the same for all the other IRFs. In reason of what one could think that the measurement of a certain property according to a standard procedure can give different results within equivalent systems?
The nonconstancy of the measurement of the SOL, within any IRF, would immediately invalidate their equivalence.
The space-time supported by the Lorentz Transformations is the direct consequence of the equivalence of IRFs in presence of a non-infinite speed of signals, the Lorentz Invariance.
Unfortunately, though there are tests of the Lorentz Invariance that have never been performed whose consequences are quite important:
- relativity of simultaneity
- drifting of the light
The second is maybe the most disputable consequence.
Regarding the local constancy of the SOL, the Shapiro Delay experiment tells us unequivocally that in Euclidean space in presence of gravitation the speed of light is not constant. So as a matter of fact the speed of light is not constant in all frame of references in presence of gravitation, although in GR postulating the diffeomorfism of the space-time (Reimanian Space) it is assumed again that SOL is constant.
Dear John,
The answer is quite simple, we are three-dimensional beings living in a 4-dimensional universe. This universe has a hyperspheric form and from its form all the laws of physics are deduced (I have deduced a few and I have assumed that all the others can also be deduced). Those laws will be the same as long as their shape remains the same and they vary as their shape changes.
As its shape is hyperspheric, any movement in its hypersurface (speed) generates a movement in its hyperradius (4th dimension) by simple centrifugal force. From there you can get all relativity.
With which, at higher speeds, we will have more and more hyper-radio component and less hyper-surface component.
There will be a limit in which the entire component of motion is in hyper-radius, that limit is the speed of light and that is the reason why it is constant.
The words, the "I believe" and "it seems to me" are useless in physics, all this can be demonstrated by equations.
I consider the covariance of the laws of physics the largest of all the physics mysteries. For example, dark matter is often mentioned as a prominent unsolved mystery. However, one day a new particle will be discovered with some unusual properties that explain the properties of dark matter. Adding that particle to the standard model will solve this mystery. That is an example of an answer that affects one narrow branch of physics.
Now visualize the answer required to conceptually explain the covariance of the physical laws. This answer affects everything in the universe. For example, when the rate of time is different between two locations, but the laws of physics are the same, many coordinated physical changes are required. This is not a simple analogy to speeding up or slowing down a video. For example, momentum and electric current scale proportional to 1/t, energy, and force scale proportional to 1/t2, power scales proportional to 1/t3, while the length and the fine structure constant are independent of time 1/t0. This is time raised to four different powers, yet the laws of physics are constant even with this difference in time dependence.
For the proper speed of light to be constant everywhere, it is necessary to have coordination between all particles, all forces, and all fields. The only plausible explanation is that everything in the universe must be derived from a single universal field. The Michaelson Morley experiment assumed the interferometer, rulers and clocks were independent of the classical ether. However, if everything is made of a single universal field, then motion relative to this field would be undetectable. The interferometer, rulers and clocks participate on the coordinated coverup.
Well, nothing, it's a mystery.
Why do you ask if you don't listen to the answers later?
Sergio,
ResearchGate now gives the choice between either "ask a question" or "start a discussion". I chose to "start a discussion". Therefore, I am allowed to express opinion on this subject. If you disagree with my viewpoint - great. This furthers the discussion.
Dear John,
Yes, you're right.
Even so I have been surprised that you say that it is a mystery when I am explaining it to you..
Dear John A. Macken
The answer why the speed of light is a constant is simple, but if it is also simple for you depends on your point of view (your conceptual framework about reality).
If you prefer the phenomenological model your focus is mainly upon matter (particles) and the mutual influences between matter. [A]
Perhaps you are convinced that QFT is right, reality represents universal fields – like the Higgs field and the electromagnetic field – and the mutual relations between these fields create phenomenological reality (matter and the mutual influences between matter). [B]
Or maybe you are convinced that the universal fields (QFT) are the detectable properties of an underlying reality, the whole volume of our universe (termed "space itself"). [C]
By the way, that there exists no total emptiness in the universe was already known for 2500 years (ancient Greek philosophers). It was not Einstein’s “genius” that he proposed that space is not an empty void. The idea of an empty void only existed during a relative short period of time (like the idea that the earth is flat). A lot of nonsense about “scientific knowledge” was contrived in Europe during the 18th and 19th century (the rise of printed news papers and magazines as a business).
So what is your point of view: A, B or C?
With kind regards, Sydney
Sydney - You ask me to state my point of view by choosing between your 3 alternatives. My discussion statement ends with the sentence: My answer to this question and other surprising physics predictions are contained in the preprint: www.researchgate.net/publication/353049276 - In this preprint article, I expand on John Wheeler's model of the quantum vacuum. He found that vacuum zero-point energy could be explained by the quantum vacuum being a sea of "quantum foam" with Planck length Lp=(ħG/c3)1/2 vacuum fluctuations, primarily at Planck frequency ωp = (c5/ħG)1/2. There is an analogy between the speed of sound in a gas and the speed of light in the quantum vacuum. The speed of sound in a gas is determined by the thermal velocity of the gas molecules. The speed of light (wave propagation) in the quantum vacuum is set by the speed of the vacuum fluctuations that form the quantum vacuum. The equation is: Lpωp= c. Planck length times Planck angular frequency equals the speed of light.
This quantum vacuum model is then verified by making predictions that are proven correct. The most important prediction is that an electron’s gravitational and electromagnetic forces are united by quantum mechanics. For example, the electron’s gravitational and electromagnetic forces are shown to be united through a square exponent when the separation distance is stated using the electron’s quantum mechanical natural units of distance.
Dear John A. Macken
We can interpret a quantum as some kind of an universal "tangible" building block [A], we can interpret it as a local fixed field fluctuation [B] and we can interpret it as a universal fixed amount of a variable property of space itself [C]. So I think it is important that we make up our mind about our personal concept of reality.
In your paper - I had scanned it before - you use the Planck units. But between the Planck length (10-34 m) and the smallest particles/wave length (about 10-15 m) is a gap of 10-20. So why has nature made such an enormous gap within the structure of the compositions of energy?
Anyway, your comment shows that your discussion has the intention to discuss your paper. That's why I think that it is better if you wait for comments from physicists who's ideas are more in line with your preprint.
With kind regards, Sydney
Dear John A. Macken,
Of course we cannot know the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. This is an assertion of Special Relativity and other related theory.
If the Zero Point Field is the carrier of light, contrary to present theory, then the speed of light would not be constant in all frames of reference, but it would be constant relative to the motion of the background field, of the same density, and in the same time frame.
Special Relativity (SR) ASSUMES it is. One of the experiments that Special Relativity was trying to describe was the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX). Fitzgerald and Lorentz the Assumed the transformations. If one starts with the Lorentz equations, the constancy of the speed of light in the MMX is derived (the Lorentz Ether Theory - LET). So, SR started with the constancy of light and derived the Lorentz equations. So, many difficulties were introduced into SR.
However, if one starts with a different explanation of the experiments that SR was addressing, better consistency with experiment is obtained.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353463876_Replacing_Special_Relativity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX9ToS_kgrw&t=51s
To Sergio Garcia Chimeno:
Sergio, you say “This universe has a hyperspheric form”. Frankly, I also think that is the likely form of the Robertson-Walker metric (for my own reasons), but that goes against the concordance cosmological model embraced by the majority of physicists, who consider the flat cosmological model most worthy of further study. The evidence suggests that they are right, but not at a sufficiently high statistical significance to convince me to join that party.
Nevertheless, the majority of experts in this field operate on the assumption that the universe is not spherical, so I advise against just assuming that it is.
“As its shape is hyperspheric, any movement in its hypersurface (speed) generates a movement in its hyperradius (4th dimension) by simple centrifugal force”
The spherical Robertson-Walker model, as discussed in Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (and numerous other texts) has the radial component serving as a proxy for the time axis. Thus motion in 3-D is not needed for radial motion, the simple passage of cosmic time makes that happen all by itself.
Dear John Wendell Fowler ,
"but that goes against the concordance cosmological model embraced by the majority of physicists, who consider the flat cosmological model most worthy of further study. The evidence suggests that they are right, but not at a sufficiently high statistical significance to convince me to join that party. "
I know, but it is as absurd as saying that the earth is flat. I doubt that it is possible to measure the curvature of something so large, the observations of energy and dark matter could be calculated without really existing and all the equations of physics can be derived from their hyperspheric form (I have already managed to obtain all the equations of relativity both SR and GR, photon energy and Schrodinguer's equation)
"the radial component serving as a proxy for the time axis. Thus motion in 3-D is not needed for radial motion, the simple passage of cosmic time makes that happen all by itself."
But it is that this simple passage of time is caused by the speed in the hyper-surface (remember relativity and the dependence of time with speed)
I don't know the models you propose, but I suppose they are based on a hyper-sphere that increases in size as time passes and we live on its hyper-surface, right?
Such a model is quite logical, but it has certain flaws (what existed before time existed? How are time and dimensions created?), Apart from the fact that it does not provide mathematical tools to demonstrate it.
As a base this is very good, but you have to apply a simple paradigm shift that solves these questions and allows you to make mathematical demonstrations
This paradigm shift is explained with several examples of how we normally use it without realizing it, but perhaps I am missing the explanation that I think is simpler:
the universe is expanding and as you have said that expansion can be considered as the passage of time.
Tomorrow everything that surrounds us will be larger (Although we do not realize it because we are within that hyper-surface that expands) and a year ago everything had a smaller size.
With what we can measure the passage of time if we can measure the size of everything that surrounds us, not only that, Zoom and Time are indistinguishable and using this concept you have a series of mathematical tools and logical tools that allow you to solve and demonstrate all those problems.
Here is the first part (It is not only reading, it is following and checking all the equations. So it takes time to understand it and be able to use it):
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19015.96168
To John Macken:
Hi, John, it’s been a while. I hope you are well and still developing your theory of rotating quantum waves.
I don’t know the answer to your question about the covariance of physical laws other than to suggest that such covariance is part of the larger issue of the “fine-tuning problem”. Usually the latter is discussed only in the context of physical constants having exactly the right values to produce a universe in which conscious beings have something interesting to do, but I (and I think many others) consider the fine-tuning of the laws themselves to be part of the question.
Since there are an infinite number of ways that the laws (including those that are not yet discovered by humans) could conceivably have been different (just as there are an infinite number of apparently available values for the physical constants), it’s not possible to investigate all the repercussions of those laws being slightly different. But my guess is that any change at all would render the universe uninhabitable, or at least not worth inhabiting.
That doesn’t explain anything that isn’t equally poorly explained by the other possible solutions to the fine-tuning problem, i.e., intelligent design, multiverses plus anthropic principles, and just plain awesomely good luck that things worked out in the one and only universe that happened all by itself.
But I think some insight into what would happen with slightly different laws can be gained by playing with toy universes and trying different laws. The simplest I know of is Conway’s Game of Life. I have programmed it and investigated what happens with even the minimal changes to its laws, and the results were always that very early on all cells go live and stagnate, or else they all go dead and stagnate, not unlike the pre-cosmological-constant models with too much mass that collapse back into black holes almost immediately.
The only changes I found that don’t destroy everything are allowing “miracles”, e.g., left-click to turn cells on under the cursor, right-click to create “gliders”, etc. When you create your own universe, you get to work miracles!
But my main point is that this is all part of the fine-tuning problem, and so far it appears that resolving that problem is not something that scientific method can do. That doesn’t make it unworthy of serious thought, of course.
Don't rack your brains. Each frame of reference has its own and it is constant. Even in a frame of reference moving at the speed of light. The result of solving the problem depends on whether we recognize the presence of ether or not.
The speed of light is constant with respect to its source with the source not been accelerated during the observation (measurement). The solution of the Pioneer Anomaly Problem is a good example since the precise measurements of frequency and time made the proof possible. See www.problemanimatios.com
The speed of light is not constant in every inertial frame, as demonstrated in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWfKys3T_4k
JES
Yes, the constancy of the speed of light is one of the greatest mysteries of the universe. Here is a new insight:
The speed of light is adjusted at the instant of emission so that the speed of light is always constant (c) relative to the observer, regardless of his/her velocity. Suppose that an observer is moving directly away from a light source with velocity V. Then light emitted from the source will have velocity c + V so that the velocity of light relative to the observer will be ( c + V) - V = c . The question is who or what does the adjustment.
Hi Stellan, you are right. How do you like my animation to further proof it:
www.problemanimations.com
Greetings, Knut
From the daon theory, we obtain that all masses are surrounded by a media, which is the reference frame for all laws of physics. We give a general expression for the local reference frame.
Let us imagine a spacecraft in the middle of nowhere; how to calculate its speed
relative to the local reference frame?
First, we need an expression for the media surrounding a mass, we get
Med = C m/r²
That is some sort of density variation starting from the surface of the mass, C
is an unknown constant.
We can now write the velocity of the spacecraft relative to the local reference
frame in the following way,
v = Σ C (m_i/r²_i) v_i / (Σ C m_i/r^2_i) = Σ (m_i/r²_i) v_i / (Σm_i/r²_i)
We simply sum the ”strength” of the media multiplied by their source
velocity relative to the spacecraft. Notice that the ”strength” (C) of the media
is without importance.
JES
Hi Jes, with measurments of v and f, distance calculations of movind objects are simple. Up to now d=1/2xRTTXc, while I did come up with an equation as described in www.problemanimations.com No need for complex assumptions of m an r are needed. Thy are not measured.
Best regards, Knut
Knut,
The daon theory says simply that the Earth is a good reference frame i.e., all measurements done within a laboratory are correct. The relativity theory works therefore perfectly well within the laboratory, using it as a reference frame but, any other reference frame will give wrong results.
JES
Hi Jes, the calculations and comparison with NASA data proofs. every thing is within 1% accuracy in my descriprion. Have you inspected the animation and description which lead to the required equations. I have not seen any equations and calculations based on NASA data. ONLY THEORIES. Let me kow if you can follow the derivationof the formulas.
Best regards, Knut
Hi Knut,
I had a look at your theory but, IMO it's wrong. According to the daon theory; the speed of light is constant relative to the local reference frame, independent from the source or target of the emission. The local reference frame is of coarse changing along the path of the photon, so that it's necessary to make an integral along the path of the photon, to obtain the time interval. I have no access to the necessary NASA data, so I'll stop there.
JES
What is constant is the measure of the velocity, due to the effect of absolute movement on lengths and time intervals, jointly to wrong sincronization by observers which ignore their true velocity. The Poincaré's principle of relativity shows that this measure coincides with the velocity of light in the ether reference, the only one in which the velocity of light is really isotropic. Thanks to microwave cosmic radiation, now we know that the true velocity of light relative to Earth is minimum in the direction to Leo constellation, which is the direction of Earth's absolute movement (i.e.: relative to ether). The so-called Theory of relativity is a misunderstanding made later between measurements and true values.
It is not. Time moves mountains; it cannot be touched.
Preprint Aberrations in Spatio-Temporal Physical Theory
- How can the speed of light be constant in all frames of reference?
- Nohow (physically).
- If the speed of light is everywhere and always denoted by the same number (mathematically) .
There are two different light speeds: (1) Absolute Light Speed is the light speed observed at the light source that is dependent on the gravitational field, and (2) Normal Light Speed is the light speed observed at the reference point, which is the vector summation of Absolute Light Speed and Inertia Light Speed (the speed of light source observed at the reference point). Absolute Light Speed depends on the gravitational field at the light source. Normal Light Speed depends on Absolute Light Speed and also Inertia Light Speed.
According to Yangton and Yington Theory, the effects of gravitational field on wavelength and light speed can be summarized as follows:
1. Space and Time are absolute nature quantities that don’t change with anything at all. However, the dimension and duration of a corresponding identical object or event can change with local gravitational field due to the bombardment of the gravitons caused by gravitational field (Graviton Radiation and Contact Interaction), also aging of the universe in compliance with CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation).
2. According to Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory, Wu's Unit Length lyy (diameter) and Wu's Unit Time tyy (period) of Wu's Pairs (building blocks of the universe) are bigger at large gravitational field (massive star) and early stage of the universe (early universe). Because of the intrinsic atomic and subatomic structures, the dimension (L∞ lyy) and duration (T∞ lyy3/2) of a corresponding identical object or event are bigger, while the velocity (V ∞ lyy-1/2) and acceleration (A∞ lyy-2) of the corresponding identical object or event are smaller at large gravitational field and early stage of the universe. Also, photon as a corresponding identical object or event, the wavelength of light is bigger while the speed of light (Absolute Light Speed) is smaller at large gravitational field and early stage of the universe.
3. The wavelength of a photon emitted from a light source is dependent on the local gravitational field and aging of the universe. Because of the increase of wavelength, according to Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory caused by the large gravitational field of the star and the early stage of the universe, Gravitational Redshift and Cosmological Redshift can be observed.
4. The Absolute Light Speed observed at light source is dependent on the local gravitational field and aging of the universe. It is constant at a fixed local gravitational field and aging of the universe, such as 3x108m/s on earth, no matter of the frequency and light source. Because of the decrease of Absolute Light Speed caused by the large gravitational field of the star, according to Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory, Deflection of Light and Perihelion Precession of Mercury can be observed.
5. Light speed observed at a reference point C' is the vector summation of light speed observed at light source C (Absolute Light Speed which is a constant 3 x 108 m/s on earth) and the speed of light source observed at the reference point V (Inertia Light Speed). This is called Equation of Light Speed.
C’ = C + V
6. Because of the variations of the speed of light source (Inertia Light Speed), Acceleration Doppler Effect and Even Horizon can be realized.
7. Subject to the unit quantities used for the measurement of an object or event, such as normal unit length (meter) and normal unit time (second), or Wu’s Unit Length (lyy) and Wu’s Unit Time (tyy), which are dependent on the local gravitational field and aging of the universe of the reference point, the amounts of unit quantities of the properties of the object or event can vary with each measurement, same as that of the wavelength and light speed.
8. According to Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory, a corresponding identical object or event on a massive star of large gravitational field has bigger length and duration, and smaller velocity and acceleration, because of the bigger Wu's Unit Length (lyy) and Wu's Unit Time (tyy). As it is observed on earth, because of the smaller Normal Unit Length (or Wu's Unit Length) and Normal Unit Time (or Wu's Unit Time) used for measurement on earth, the amounts of unit length and unit time are bigger, also the amounts of unit velocity and acceleration are smaller than that measured on the star. Consequently, as a photon quenches onto earth from a massive star, its wavelength is bigger and light speed (Absolute Light Speed) is smaller measured on earth (assuming star is stationary to earth and Inertia Light Speed is zero).
9.Yangton and Yington Theory agrees very well with General Relativity that Dimension, Duration, Speed and Acceleration of an object or event are dependent on the local gravitational field (and aging of the universe – Einstein missed this effect in his theory). However, relativistic factor 1/(1-V2/C2)1/2 doesn’t apply to Yangton and Yington Theory and there is no fixed formula for the correlation between Wu’s Unit Length and the local gravitational field (or aging of the universe).
There is no doubt that Special Relativity is wrong, but the questions are how to prove it by both theory and experiment.
Einstein’s Special Relativity is based on a postulation that the light speed in vacuum is constant no matter the light sources and observers. To prove this postulation is wrong, we need to prove that light speed observed at the light source is different from that observed at a moving reference point.
Light speed can be measured and calculated based on the following theories: (1) Vision Of Light, which defines the meaning of light speed, (2) Photon Inertia Transformation, which defines Absolute Light Speed and Inertia Light Speed, and (3) Equation of Light Speed, which is a vector summation C’ = C + V, where C’ is the Normal light speed observed at the reference point. C is the Absolute Light Speed observed at the light source (3x108 m/s on earth) and V is the speed of the light source observed at the reference point.
If the light source is moving away from the reference point at a speed V observed at the reference point (/V/ > 0), then C' ≠ C.
Although it is almost impossible to measure accurately the light speed at either the light source C or the reference point C' by experiments, the following two cosmic phenomena: (1) Doppler Redshift explained by Acceleration Doppler Effect (dV/dt > 0), and (2) Event Horizon interpreted by the competition between Absolute Light Speed and star acceleration speed (C = - V), can be considered as the nature proofs of that light speed is not constant.
Cannot: if they put light into vacuum (to measure light speed) vacuum isn't empty any more.
Natural constants are not constant indeed.
The speed of light in a vacuum is, of course, not the speed in an imaginary absolutely empty space. There is no such space in the physical world. But there is a physical vacuum - the Dirac's vacuum and more complex systems of this kind. In such a vacuum, the speed of light can be a universal constant only in one case: if the motion of a photon is a sequence of acts of absorption and re-emission.
There is no perfect empty space. Absorbtion and reemission should disturb a constant speed.
If an electromagnetic wave (“light”) is created by the structure of space itself, the linear velocity of the light must be a constant in all frames of reference (in line with QFT). If we want to “visualize” the pass on of the electromagnetic wave within the units of the structure of space the description of Alexey Orlovsky is really adequate (a sequence of acts of absorption and re-emission). This is comparable with Newton’s action = reaction.
Now there arise some conceptual problems.
Suppose I want to describe the linear pass on of one quantum of energy by one unit of the structure of space (actually “discrete space”). Every unit of the structure of space has a volume too (all the units together tessellate the volume of the universe). Therefore I can describe the constant speed of light as the transfer of 1 quantum of energy (h) from one side of the unit (P1) to the opposite side (P2). Now the speed of light is determined by the size of the unit (the distance between P1 and P2) and the duration of the transfer of the quantum from P1 to P2. If Werner Heisenberg – and others – are right, the distance between P1 and P2 is about 0,5 x10-15 m (the minimal length scale) and the constant of quantum time must be about 6 x10-23 sec.
In other words, if the speed of light is a constant in all frames of reference, time must be a constant too in all frames of reference (obvious). The consequence is that Einstein’s “relative time” isn’t about time itself, it is about the rate of change of concentrations of energy (e.g. clocks) under different physical conditions. For example the decrease of the rate of change of a particle if the velocity of the particle increases. The origin of the decrease of the rate of change is the constant speed of light because every particle is a concentration of energy (n h).
If I measure the speed of light I have to realize myself that I and my measurement instrument are concentrations of energy too. Thus if the structure of space isn’t 100% homogeneous in every direction I cannot measure the variance in the "phenomenological" speed of light if I have no insight in the underlying structure of space itself. See:
Preprint Discrete space and the scalar lattice 3.0
The question if space itself has a structure can be verified by experiments too. See:
Preprint Discrete space and measuring absolute motion (2.0)
The type of the experiments is developed by Hanna Edwards. See:
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
With kind regards, Sydney
Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm, thank you very much for your very interesting reply and preprints!
Howdy Folks,
I find comfort in the reading: The speed of light is measured to be constant in all frames of reference. Humans, being what we are, get efficient in communication (and thought) and leave out measured to be as too much bother.
The Fitzgerald-Lorentz Contraction is also a comfort. Since Wave Mechanics, etc., have been developed it is not so absurd to note that the waveforms of matter in measuring instruments, etc., must maintain their integrity, that is, they must shorten in motion or lose track of their tails.
Happy Trails, Len
The light velocity is really isotropic only in the absolute space (that in which the background radiation is symmetric). But inertial observers at low absolute velocity who are ignorant of that radiation can believe, due to compensation of length contraction, time dilation and time desynchronization, that the velocity of light with respect to them is the same in all directions. This is not the case for observers in Earth, who knows that light velocity with respect to them is less in the direction to Leo constellation than in the opposite direction.
Howdy Angel López-Ramos,
There is much agreement between our views, especially when we include your earlier post in which "measured" is emphasized. After decades of struggle with this issue I butted in, but I do like my discussion entry for clarity - no surprise there. Thank you for the information in your posts.
However, I find great ambivalence in this discussion thread as to whether "measured" or "actual" is the speed to which reference is made and you definitely address "actual." Further, John A. Macken's opening phrase in the discussion of his topic was "The constant speed of light is just the most obvious example of the covariance of all the physical laws." which introduces uncertainty as to whether "the speed of light" is actual, measured, or theoretical in its constancy. Later he writes "Do you have any insights or partial explanations into the constant speed of light and the covariance of the physical laws?" My reply addressed the only possible meaning for me, that the covariance is in the statement of the laws compatible with measurement in a coordinate system - frame of reference.
You are confident that "The light velocity is really isotropic only in the absolute space (that in which the background radiation is symmetric)." Sydney Ernest Grimm has informed me in another thread of the new confidence that a pure rest frame has been found and absolute motions may confidently be observed, thus the reference to Leo. I think this also is an interesting topic, but is it the same as the discussion issue about ". . . covariance of the physical laws?"
Well, just thoughts, worthy of reflection I hope. I really enjoy adding these new matters to what I have learned over decades past and hope not to offend.
Happy Trails, Len
"How can the speed of light be constant in all frames of reference?"
No way!
I answer your question with a question: how does the mathematical ratio of two relative quantities (meter divided by a second) become an "absolute" value (the speed of light)?
Howdy Vladimir A. Lebedev,
It doesn't.
Now, firstly this is John A. Macken's question and I only provided a reply. (ResearchGate fed it to me this morning, probably to all concerned, so I have responded - helpfully is my intent.)
Secondly, there were the careful measurements six months apart to separate the motion of the earth from the results that produced the same number for the speed of light.
Thirdly, several efforts to 1) explain, or 2) at least enable calculating, this result were produced. The method of calculation that became the standard was provided by Albert Einstein.
Fourthly, by the time the press, skeptics, "it is known that," logicians, casual thinkers, great scientists and mathematicians like Hendrik Lorentz, Hermann Minkowski, George FitzGerald, etc., had had their say it had become Special Relativity.
Fifthly, "what is truth" in this case has generated as much nonsense as the aftermath of Sir Isaac Newton's use of "infinitesimals."
Sixthly, measured to be. To "be constant" is the source of confusion. "Special Relativity" does not address an "absolute" value. The ratio is "a measure of" the speed of light.
Seventhly, the jury is out for some of us on the question whether this number that always appears as the same value for the measured speed of light may be valid in all cases. What if the distribution of energy in the universe does warp space and time identically so that there exists a gradient in a gravitational field that refracts light but wherever you measure in the gradient your instruments always produce the same ratio for the speed of light?
Eighthly, it is not finished, we do not know everything. Your energy is good and I encourage you to look into who means what when they write "speed," whether they mean absolute, relative, theoretical, or measured. The result is clear when you look past the false mysteries generated by not-quite-up-to-the-mark reasoning and indefinite wording.
[Oh, I do understand that the phases of the moon are not due to a dragon's delight in cheese and no seaman worth his salt ever believed he would fall off the edge of the earth - one can see six miles of ocean from the deck and much further from the crow's nest. Beware of science writers and busy people who do not have time to look deeper.]
All this effort by so many reasoners to dispose of the bother of Special Relativity would be better spent on discovery of how this observation occurs in our experience.
Happy Trails, Len
Howdy Leonard Hall
I didn't even see your text either last time or now. I have indeed expressed my opinion on the question asked by Mr. John A. Macken. I know what the special theory of relativity is, and my opinion about it coincides with the opinion of its creator (Poincaré). For this reason, neither your reasoning about it, nor anyone else's assumptions are of interest to me. And I don't need any teaching. I could teach you a lot myself, but I think it's tactless.
Howdy Vladimir A. Lebedev,
Sincere apology offered.
One cannot know what another knows, and the implications of an observation may be misunderstood. ResearchGate fed me your response as if you were responding to my reply on the original discussion topic.
I'm not sure whether innocent exchange is tactless in this venue, and your reasoning and assumptions are of interest to me, including your emphasis on Poincaré, however I shall honor your communication.
Happy Trails, Len
to Mr. Leonard Hall
I accept apologies. I believe that your words were accidental. And not wanting to discuss the special theory of relativity, I want to know your opinion: how are the "Galilean transformations" related to the "Michelson equations"? Then I will understand who I am talking to. Let my question not seem strange to you.
All the best!
Howdy Vladimir A. Lebedev,
Thank you for your understanding. Your question does not seem at all strange to me, especially as a mild quiz for the purpose you stated.
Related (?) - not much beyond being expressions addressing motion. The Galilean transformations address in equations the observation of a phenomena from different coordinate systems in relative motion (Newtonian); the Michelson equations address the motion of a phenomena, say a photon for convenience, moving relative to a moving coordinate system. (Yes, I looked them up to refresh my memory - something I do do.)
Pleasant interlude,
Happy Trails, Len
mr. Leonard Hall !
I apologize for my mistake. We are now in the dead of night, and when I woke up, instead of the name Maxwell, I wrote Michelson. In a dream, I remembered my mistake, woke up and corrected it.
And once again I ask you to answer the question:
do Galileo's transformations satisfy Maxwell's equations or not? The question is simple, isn't it? How do your students respond to it?
Good Morning, Vladimir A. Lebedev,
Not to worry, it seemed like too easy a quiz. Dreams are interesting. The advances in my thought that I like best usually occur in half-asleep state, falling asleep or waking.
I looked up an answer that rings true for me: no; also the difficulty must be somewhere, if not in the question then it will be in the answer so, yes the question is simple; and my "career" has been uneven and few students have been involved, especially at this level.
Why no? Hopefully this reference and quotation are within the fair use copyright rules: The site was profoundphysics.com/are-maxwell-equations-relativistic/, although I expect a more extensive search would bear additional sources.
An excerpt:
"Galilean relativity is what determines transformations between reference frames that are compatible with Newton’s laws (but not with special relativity).
"Here, I want to briefly discuss how Maxwell’s equations behave under Galilean relativity. As it turns out, Maxwell’s equations are NOT compatible with Galilean relativity and therefore, not compatible with Newton’s laws either.
It’s important to understand this, because this is one of the main reasons why special relativity was invented in the first place.
"In Galilean relativity, the transformations between reference frames consist of translations, rotations, and boosts. The translations and rotations are very much the same as in Einstein’s special relativity, however the boosts look different.
"The main difference is that a Galilean boost does NOT change the time coordinates of an observer in any way – time is a universal quantity in Galilean relativity."
Now, you certainly know all this. I suspect that the issue is the treatment of time in formulating a transformation of Maxwell's Equations in which they remain invariant. Please address the problems in the above quote, and perhaps pass along the rationale for Poincaré's opinion that you affirm. After all, the history of physics has been to replace past theories with theories that are more valid and I would like to learn what is significant here.
Happy Trails, Len
Dear mr. Leonard Hall
It is considered one of the most convincing proofs of the validity of the Special Theory of Relativity that the electrodynamic equations of J.K. Maxwell do not retain their form during a coordinate transition using Galilean transformations. And only "Lorentz transformations" save the situation by keeping these equations covariant, retaining their form, consistent. But here's the problem: the equations of J.K. Maxwell were created by the author, who assumed the presence of the ether as a luminiferous medium, with "Lorentz transformations" - the same story, when deriving them, Lorentz also took into account the ether ... so how did it happen that with such a "classical" posing the question does not work "classic"?
Let's start with the fact that, speaking about the non-covariance (inconsistency) of Maxwell's equations, which describe a real physical process in space and time, they always admit an inaccuracy. In fact, we are talking about the non-covariance of the Maxwell-Hertz equations in partial derivatives, which Heinrich Hertz wrote down when solving his own problems when he needed to investigate only spatial dependencies. Hertz and Heaviside could restrict themselves on the right side of Maxwell's equations only to partial time derivatives because they were dealing with practically unlimited, homogeneous spaces, free from unevenly distributed and moving paramagnetic bodies. In this case, the partial derivatives with respect to the coordinates were quite small, and the smallness of the charge velocities also reduced their influence. Because of this, in a number of works, from Maxwell's equations, originally written by their author in total derivatives, only the time derivative remained. These "truncated" equations, taken from the works of Hertz and taken at one time as the original, naturally could not satisfy Galileo's transformations during coordinate transitions. (In order not to be unfounded, I could send one of the "original" Maxwell equations for consideration. This is important, since we are considering issues related to the justification of the Special Theory of Relativity).
I own a long (1990) (and subsequently repeatedly) published proof that the so-called Lorentz transformations are only a corrective technique that compensates for the obvious incorrectness of using the Maxwell-Hertz partial differential equations. Moreover, these are the same “Galilean transformations”, but taking into account the change in the scale of the coordinate axes when the emitter moves inside the spherical space.
About Poincare. Henri Poincaré was the first to lay down the foundations and principles of the theory of relativity. The authority of the scientist played a bad joke. One of the most pernicious errors for scientific thinking are preconceived notions, which, having once been expressed as hypotheses, are later accepted as indisputable truths. The force of antiquity paralyzes criticism, and false opinion takes root, distorting the picture of the historical process. And in the depths of this "prescription", in the course of history, the discoverer Poincaré was the first to understand the true meaning, the mathematical conventionality, the absence of the physical content of the theory of relativity. He understood why much obscure became supposedly understandable, convenient. A certain agreement, a convention arose in physics, and it dictated not to waste energy on solving those problems that baffled the scientific world. This convention made it possible to turn a blind eye to a kind of desertion and continue scientific existence as if nothing had happened. And even feel like winners. Poincaré wrote bitterly:
“Now some physicists want to accept a new conditional agreement. This does not mean that they were forced to do so; they find this new arrangement more convenient, that's all. And those who do not adhere to their opinion and are unwilling to give up their old habits can rightly keep the old agreement. Between us, I think they will continue to do so for a long time to come.”
From these words one can understand why Poincaré not only did not complete his path to the theory of relativity, but, on the contrary, even refused to accept the already created theory. This can also be seen from a comparison of Poincaré's and Einstein's approaches to it. What Einstein understood as relative but objective, Poincaré understood as purely subjective, conventional, conventional. Immediately after the appearance of the theoretical works of Einstein, Poincaré stopped publishing on this topic. In no work of the last seven years of his life did he mention either the theory of relativity or the name of Einstein (except for one case when he referred to Einstein's theory of the photoelectric effect). Poincare still continued to discuss the properties of the ether and mentioned the absolute motion relative to the ether... … And if its creators and adherents understand the theory so “relatively”, without even realizing its “spatial” limitations, then is it any wonder that society perceives it either “religiously” or as a kind of “black square”?
Howdy Vladimir A. Lebedev,
Excellent! Very, very good exposition of your "no way" reply. I note that you had published this before and that it is quite long for a Q&A post, but I find it valuable and many other readers will also. Your other comments on the nature of "doing science" in the science community are also deep awareness of how humans act when their work is just a job. It is a reality one finds frequently in human activities. So, again, thank you!
Recent events passed on by Sydney Ernest Grimm on my "What is the nature of action in Nature" question here on ResearchGate Q&A will surely affect the discussion here, perhaps even supporting your view, namely:
In 2022 Jeremy Darling confirmed that the CMBR – actually the electromagnetic field – is a rest frame (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ac6f08). The consequence is that we can measure absolute motion (the absolute velocity of the solar system in relation to “space itself” is about 370 km/s). This result and the associated furor will certainly produce an adventure for a while.
As for the present issue, it is an open question for me whether J. K. Maxwell erred in his work with respect to the nature of Nature, despite concerns with respect to writing and discussing the equations written to express that nature. For instance, your comment "But here's the problem: the equations of J.K. Maxwell were created by the author, who assumed the presence of the ether as a luminiferous medium, with "Lorentz transformations" - the same story, when deriving them, Lorentz also took into account the ether ... so how did it happen that with such a "classical" posing the question does not work "classic"?" The Lorentz transformations are not classical, so I am confused here. I understand your comments on the "truncated equations" and I am aware of the evolution of the equations so your remarks certainly are not "unfounded" for me. It would be a career decision to confirm your results and I am involved in asymmetric diffusion due to shear in flow, so I'll step aside here comforted by my understanding of your well stated view.
Returning to the "be constant" versus "measured to be the same value" issue raised by the wording of the original discussion question and many returns to the issue over more than a century, I am content to leave my post presenting the manner in which I have survived the combat as a supplement to your historic clarification for the potential benefit to others who might want it as a substitute for ". . .is it any wonder that society perceives it either “religiously” or as a kind of “black square”?", which I recognize as an accurate characterization of exchanges during most of the century.
Happy Trails, Len
Thanks for the conversation. I wish you all the best and conclude our discussion with you. To be honest, I'm not interested in the mathematical curiosity (special relativity with its "constancy" of the speed of light) right now.
I wish you success.
Sincerely, VL
Affirmed. I also appreciate the conversation and I have learned a great deal about the details involved that had been just background awareness. We have other fish to fry now.
I echo a wish for success in your work and communication of it to others.
Happy Trails, Len
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Energy