The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Alternative discussion - why is the speed of light independent of inertial frames of reference?  (Read 1062 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
It might be easier to see the difference if you make clear that local measurements are what we use. The universe you look out on is a result of your local 'measurement'. We haven't found any 'global truths' that I know of. What we call the 'universe' is always the result of you interacting locally with it, taking its 'measurement', as it might be expressed. It's a subtle thing to think about but it is true. And when it comes to relativity is actually accentuates the truth of this local interpretation, as it tells you that with different speeds, mass, etc, your experience/measurements will vary. Some things will still hold true though, no matter your speed or mass. Those include 'c', a meter, and a second.
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 346
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Quote
Well, under some specified conditions, not involving accelerations/decelerations it actually define it. When it comes to accelerations/decelerations you can still argue that the discrepancy you measure (from 'c') is a result of 'gravity', locally measured.

Acceleration and deceleration have nothing to do with tick rate of your clock other than getting to the SR constant speed or GR constant dilation. GR dilation gradient is just like acceleration and deceleration. The discrepancy of measurement is always part of measuring the speed of light. Acceleration tick rate slows and deceleration tick rate increases. With speed in SR your measuring stick visually increases with a increase in vector speed. So you measure the speed of light with a longer measuring stick and a slower clock tick rate. But they are confounded to measure the same speed of light in every frame.

c a meter and a second are only ratios within your frame of measurement. You describe as local. There is no fixed frame of reference even the speed of light. How can there be with time not being fixed to distance, while it is fixed to a measurement ratio.

Quote
There are two sets of relativity, one being SR, the other involving gravity (GR). And using SR 'c' is a constant.

Gr dilation as a gradient changes the distance in space by dilation. Yes c is constant but distances are not. This is by convention. There is no fixed preferred frame. c is not a fixed distance in space. The ratio between the electron and photon are confounded to measure the same speed per distance measured. If there were no mass in the world c would be constant and uniform. Mass is in the universe, so GR affects all measurement distances. What do you consider as constant?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
"The speed of light in free space (that is, in a vacuum) is a constant that has been measured to considerable accuracy. To nine significant figures, it is 299,792,458 meters per second (2.99792458 x 10 8 m/s). This is the speed with which all electromagnetic field s, including radio waves, infrared (IR), ultraviolet (UV), X rays, and gamma rays, propagate in a vacuum. The constant is symbolized c ."

You lose me there, using words I don't really know how to interpret? Physics depends on us being able to agree on definitions. The local definition of 'c' is as above. And the measurement we agreed on above is repeatable by us all, no matter 'relative speeds' or mass.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
I think you're mixing up some global definition, of your own choice, with a local? The local definition of 'c' fulfills all demands physics ask of it. what you do is to imagine a 'whole universe', yourself standing outside it, then saying that 'c' can't be 'c'. But it is, for you too. You're inside it, will never get outside it. That's the way the universe works.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
There are a sort of 'global definitions' in physics, as Lorentz transformations. Ways of knitting one frame of reference to another, what I measure to what you measure. They are expressions of a local logic applied on a universe we need to agree on. We can't agree though, not without introducing time dilations and length contractions, to get those different measurements to fit, unless we happen to be in a same frame of reference as we measure.. We've been in one for the longest time btw, it's called Earth. That's also why we found it so easy to agree on our observations. It's not until recently we've found out otherwise.

But a 'time dilation' has nothing to do with your life span. It always stay the same. locally measured, as by your wristwatch. A 'time dilation' is a result of you measuring locally, using that wristwatch (and that measuring stick), relative some other celestial object (neutron star maybe?) for example. It doesn't change your clock, neither your meter stick. I better point out that it doesn't change your length either, Age does though :)
=

Why I define it this way has a lot to do with the way we define physics, coming from local measurements, agreed upon. It's the simple solution, and it fits. You can choose to insist on one whole 'cosmos' and then define a lot of confusing rules, to explain why , and how, 'c' varies, as well as your own 'time dilations and length contractions', but in the end that logic must fit the one I present, and this one is so much simpler. As well as the whole idea of a 'whole cosmos/universe/whatever' that you can place yourself outside is highly questionable.

And all of this are general descriptions. Being in a same 'frame of reference' can also be seen as being scale dependent, depending on your type/choice of measurement, as shown by NIST experiments with atomic clocks.

« Last Edit: 24/10/2016 19:14:43 by yor_on »
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 346
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile

The speed of light is measured to be the same I every frame. You say the word measure but say c is not a measurement it is a constant. Lets look at the formula v x t = d. c = v as a constant in your mind. You use local as a measuring point. Lets say we have a tunnel in the moon to the gravitational center. v1 x t1 = distance1 on the surface of the moon. Now we go to the center of the moon where dilation is greater than on the surface. v1 x t1 = distance2. now we either have to change v1 or t2 to be constant with either time or velocity. We can change c velocity or we can change t for time. By convention we change time even though we measure a longer distance with a slower clock. Now because the tick rate of your clock and measured distance are always confounded we claim v as c is a measured constant in a vacuum. t and d are always the same measured ratio with SR and GR but for different reasons. c in the absence of gravity would be constant. Nothing in the universe is void of gravity even space. Lensing in galaxies is the gravity threshold between galaxy mass and space density of space time. Gravity being the inverse square between two galaxies. Space density / time energy changes distances so what is constant? If it were constant we would have a fixed frame and we do not.

Quote
There are a sort of 'global definitions' in physics, as Lorentz transformations. Ways of knitting one frame of reference to another, what I measure to what you measure. They are expressions of a local logic applied on a universe we need to agree on. We can't agree though, not without introducing time dilations and length contractions, to get those different measurements to fit, unless we happen to be in a same frame of reference as we measure.. We've been in one for the longest time btw, it's called Earth. That's also why we found it so easy to agree on our observations. It's not until recently we've found out otherwise.

But a 'time dilation' has nothing to do with your life span. It always stay the same. locally measured, as by your wristwatch. A 'time dilation' is a result of you measuring locally, using that wristwatch (and that measuring stick), relative some other celestial object (neutron star maybe?) for example. It doesn't change your clock, neither your meter stick. I better point out that it doesn't change your length either, Age does though :)
=

And all of this are general descriptions. Being in a same 'frame of reference' can also be seen as being scale dependent, depending on your type/choice of measurement, as shown by NIST experiments with atomic clocks.

Different frames have different reaction times and or body is a biological clock. so in more dilated gravity or faster speed biological aging would slow down compared to less speed of SR or less gravity in GR.

GR dilation is a physical increase in size. SR vector speed neither contracts nor expands you comparatively physically. The Lorentz contraction from a rest position is a geometry trick with light speed being finite. SR has an equivalence with GR for the clock speeds. So aging is slower at greater speeds due to available space energy c being less with more vector velocity.

I can show you the Euclidean geometry for the visual contraction.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
'c' is a constant, locally measured GoC. That's not 'mine definition', it's the way it is. You can't measure 'globally', how do you think you can do that?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
In physics you have constants, set variables that we experimentally, and logically, find/define to exist independently of the experimenter, the experiment, as well as of his/her location in time and space. physical constant

'c' is the one I see as the most important.
=

Sorry, had to add some words here
« Last Edit: 24/10/2016 19:50:11 by yor_on »
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 346
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
 
  The speed of light is measured to be the same in every frame in a vacuum.

  physics is the same in every frame.

   Inverse square of the distance, volume square law.

   These are constants.

   c is a constant energy state of space with gravity changing the density of energy by energy per volume of space. Potential energy of mass is related to entropy to a lower energy (dilation) of space locally.  There is a depth of understanding based on the mechanics of relativity. The standard model is based on postulates not mechanics. Virtual photon is a weasel word to maintain the standard model.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
I can agree on 'virtual photons' :) On the other tentacle, you also can find 'pair productions' of 'virtual particles' becoming measurable particles, so it's 'kind of' a question of definition. Myself I prefer 'indeterminacy'
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
It might be easier to see the difference if you make clear that local measurements are what we use. The universe you look out on is a result of your local 'measurement'. We haven't found any 'global truths' that I know of. What we call the 'universe' is always the result of you interacting locally with it, taking its 'measurement', as it might be expressed. It's a subtle thing to think about but it is true. And when it comes to relativity is actually accentuates the truth of this local interpretation, as it tells you that with different speeds, mass, etc, your experience/measurements will vary. Some things will still hold true though, no matter your speed or mass. Those include 'c', a meter, and a second.
   The only thing true is the speed of light C. Meters will vary and seconds will vary. For any particle velocity
LT = LoTo
   The product of length times time is always the same for any particle. If it speed up its size will drop and its internal clock will slow. If it slows down its size will expand and its clock will speed up. The Earth is moving slowly relative to the speed of light C, so our differences in size and clock are very small.
 
The following users thanked this post: Alex Siqueira

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 346
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
   if particles are from atoms and have mass it violates relativity. The foam in space does not explain motion itself. I can understand trying to use the same term trying to go from a particle to a wave of particles to maintain a resemblance to the standard model. A particle through foam is impractical logically where a wave might suggest a better understanding and still transfer energy. Particle wave duality is very unlikely. A wave on particles has both energy transfer and wave characteristics. Once the necessity for mechanics is realized by the science community for the cause of relativity we will finally be on the correct path.
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 346
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Quote
The product of length times time is always the same for any particle. If it speed up its size will drop and its internal clock will slow. If it slows down its size will expand and its clock will speed up. The Earth is moving slowly relative to the speed of light C, so our differences in size and clock are very small.

the first sentence is correct. The subjective portion afterwards is incorrect. While you obviously understand the math of relativity your conclusions of that math miss the deeper implications. you believe the Lorentz contraction of visual objects is the same as the physical object itself. You follow the math but do not understand why there is a contraction. If you understood the geometry relationship in SR your confusion would be cleared up. In SR what is visually observed is misleading. You listen to those describing the Lorentz contraction as physical so size reduces and clocks slow. That is just not logical for a couple of reasons. First if clocks became smaller and the speed of light is constant light clocks would increase in tick rate not decrease. Did you really think this through? Overcoming what you were taught is a most difficult task. You were also taught you could not mix frames. This is also false. everything remains in Euclidean geometry. Visual relativity is all smoke and mirrors. They are a trick of our senses.

    Lets look at the competition between the physical object and the speed of light reflection. Everything is angles and reflected surface. A pole going through space 99 feet long at half the speed of light. The pole is moving towards the light. Your first instinct is to think the entire pole will reflect light. We can use a mirror on the front and a mirror on the back for reflected light. We have a light pulse of 1 ns. At half the speed of light when the first mirror reflects the light. While the light first hit the front of the pole the pole moves through space 33 feet before the light reaches the back mirror to reflect the light. So we get a reflection of 66 feet for the pole at the speed of light c for an observer at relative rest. The photons fall off and have nothing to reflect after 66 feet. Is the pole 66 physical feet long? No, it remains 99 feet long. Now lets reverse the light direction and mirrors. When the light pulse first hits the back mirror the pole moves one entire length of the pole forward before it hits the front mirror. The returning pulse is 198 feet long by using c speed of light. Is the ship 198 feet long? No, it remains 99 feet long physically. If the pole was a ship and you were inside the same thing happens to your measuring stick. The reflection is a combination of forward and backward light. So 198 + 66 = 264 feet / 2 = 132. But light reflected all of the one direction only so we have to subtract half of the 33 feet again so the length becomes ~115.5 visual length for the difference between the measuring stick at rest verses the measuring stick at half the speed of light. The actual visual length is slightly shorter for other reasons mathematically but I am just using this as a simple  illustration. Your measuring stick visually increases but not physically. I can show you geometrically the Lorentz contraction to the perpendicular observer. Simply put geometry is 30,60,90 triangle at half the speed of light. Cos 30 =0.866025 and the Lorentz contraction for half the speed of light is 0.866025.

So contraction is visual and not physical. Do you agree or disagree?
 

Online Alex Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
I think you're mixing up some global definition, of your own choice, with a local? The local definition of 'c' fulfills all demands physics ask of it. what you do is to imagine a 'whole universe', yourself standing outside it, then saying that 'c' can't be 'c'. But it is, for you too. You're inside it, will never get outside it. That's the way the universe works.

 While this is true, isn't that the reason and condition behind the very existence of matter?
  The one of slow down the constant of C by interaction with dense atomic structure, and the correlation between the electron borrowing energy from spinning photo, and in the same frame the photon, by coming out the state of C, start to originate mass?
  And if so, a planet, as a gigantic single atom, produces mass by causing friction, but right because it is not an ordinary empty sphere, infact a a spherical highly compacted atomic structure that was formed from inside out...

 In resume if the universe is lake that is constantly at C, and atoms and particles exists. Is to accept that all particles and surely matter, exists "between" this feel of C. Anything made of matter is existing "in between" this field that is at C.... What I mean is, I do not know neither, but the very moment I observe light moving at C while I'm not, I know that I'm not at C, maybe my particles are, but the molecular structure, the dense atomic structure that form myself, when interaction of space, is able to push empty space always from myself, not precisely matter, but mass... Anything that has mass, is in first instance, allowed to not be at C.... If you have mass, you can observe C everywhere, on light, on vacuum of space, all that without ever have being at C...  Disband all atomic structure, (undo all the atoms/split into quarks), left the particles be dispersed trough the emptiness there is, and than you'll be correct, cause mass and gravity would be no more, and at least for a good period of time, it would be in fact, impossible, to suggest an observer that is not moving at C...

"You is made of matter! you exists on a "world/Universe" that is at C, your existence within this would of C gives you mass, for your density slows down C by borrowing the spinning, absorbing DE from the world of C: "You become made of spinning particles that are extracting fundamental energy. You are no longer a linear force. You are composed by spinning C" None of that will allowed you to ever move linear at C as light does trough space. What (you), now, produces mass, for you to linear move at C, you need external energy in order to reduce all that mass...
 The observer not being (moving) at C along with light, is as certain as observing the light moving... To allows that to happen only if one is able to proof that C is not constant, point is how? If light is "constantly" (moving) at C, the condition of the medium(universe) to allowed this to be possible is one, is C...
 Light is composed by energy, it belongs to it, although the qualities as (traveling) and (constant), the light, is borrowing from space, either for being or becoming mass less by special configuration of energy, doesn't really mater, still, C...

 To defy that constant speed of light, one would need to become able to proof that (moving C) as being non-static, is misinterpreted, I do not see how anything can be static and allowing light to behave and have its limitations and qualities as we "measure" it has and does...
 If one is to defy the speed of light traveling, the only "even possible" approach open to speculation and awaiting clarification lies on the "traveling" concept, and what it means, or not...
« Last Edit: 25/10/2016 23:55:47 by Alex Siqueira »
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 346
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Why is the speed of light independent of inertial frames of reference?

   Time = motion, Where light is produced in space becomes independent of mass because they are two different systems both controlled by fundamental energy of space. Fundamental energy moves the electron in a standard pattern of least resistance. When the electron jumps in its rotation pattern to a higher level caused by macro mass friction to space spin energy light is created from that position. The fundamental space energy is independent of the change of position of macro mass from the friction point caused by macro mass. Light is the maximum speed of time. Time is constant at that speed of c. Vector energy of mass reduces the availability of fundamental energy to the limit of c. All energy being used for the forward rotational motion. But mass has nothing to push macro mass faster than c in SR. GR on the other hand can grow a sun with a dilation of gravity attraction faster than the speed of light. This dilation no longer allows atoms to be separate from each other. This creates a super element we describe as a black hole. Consider our protons as a marble in a football field. A black hole is a football field filled with marbles. The end point to the entropy of mass. Light is no longer created because the black hole lacks fundamental energy. Light is not sucked into a black hole and light is not created by a black hole. Light merely follows the immense dilation of space energy by the inverse square of the distance curve created around the black hole. 

The electron moves through space like it is rolling around a DNA strand. That is the rotating vector motion.
 
The following users thanked this post: Alex Siqueira

Offline phyti

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
mmfiore
"It is the independence of the speed of light from other objects in motion that I believe needs a good solid mechanical explanation."
That was the original statement.
It isn't about the constant value of light speed in a vacuum, nor the constant measured light speed in any inertial frame. 
Light speed could be c or c +/_ u meters/second, which may modify physics to some degree, but the independence property is the significant difference vs material object motion. Light does not acquire the speed of the emitter. 
This limits rates of energy transfer to c, which limits attainable speeds of matter, and communication rates.
Any process involving light transfer between objects moving relative to the point of emission will occur at a slower rate (as observed by anyone not moving with the objects).

The original statement currently has no answer. Theoretical speculation could be to consider space as having a structure that determines the behavior of light, in addition to the  properties  of em parameters, virtual particles/vacuum fluctuations, casimer effect, and GR deformation via mass. I.e. space is not a vacuum or void, but not the ether of 1900.
universal frame:
Since the universe has no relative motion, and light is emitted from a point of origin outward, and events do not move, light emission may be considered as occurring in a fixed frame of reference. If SR is formulated within this frame, the motion induced phenomena resulting from a constant independent light speed, show any inertial frame may serve as a fixed frame.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
"Relativity never claims the speed of light is the same in every frame". Well, under some specified conditions, not involving accelerations/decelerations it actually define it. When it comes to accelerations/decelerations you can still argue that the discrepancy you measure (from 'c') is a result of 'gravity', locally measured. There are two sets of relativity, one being SR, the other involving gravity (GR). And using SR 'c' is a constant.
   Einstein specifies that the speed of light is C in a vacuum. The speed of light through diamond is about 0.4C while through flint glass it is about 0.5C. A super dense black hole will reduce the speed of light to near zero. Just outside the black hole if the density of particles is low, then the speed should be near C. So GR and SR works nice from a mathematical point of view as long as we can keep all the particles away. Often we are stuck with basic classical physics.
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 346
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Quote
"It is the independence of the speed of light from other objects in motion that I believe needs a good solid mechanical explanation."

Yes, independence of light highly suggests two types of material. Energy and mass are separate as independence suggests.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length