1

New Theories / Re: Where does quantization of energy of electromagnetic radiation come from?

« on: 30/05/2023 16:12:29 »

Hi.

    I've always thought that Quantisation is fairly odd and can only be used with caution.  Although we can use Quantum mechanics to establish that quantisation should be there,  we then quickly establish that we cannot observe a perfect example of it.   Instead what we will typically observe is a frequency that could fall anywhere within some continuous range, with just some statements we can make about the probability distribution or spread of what is typically a continuous random variable.

     An atom with an electron in an excited state, should eventually have that electron fall back to a lower energy orbit but we don't really know exactly when that will happen.  Although the transition from one orbit to another should be quantised, there is an uncertainty relation between the time the atom takes to transition (remains in the excited state before falling back to the lower energy state) and the energy of the photon released.
    See  https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_University_Physics_(OpenStax)/University_Physics_III_-_Optics_and_Modern_Physics_(OpenStax)/07%3A_Quantum_Mechanics/7.03%3A_The_Heisenberg_Uncertainty_Principle
   for some discussion  (especially the section around equation 7.3.2 and example 7.3.3).

   As a consequence, all atomic spectral emission / absorption lines have some non-zero width rather than being perfect spikes at precisely one frequency.   There is another theoretical limitation that can be considered:  We also have a position - momentum uncertainty relation.   The atom which emitted the photon along with the detector that captured and identified it can be moving relative to the lab frame and a Doppler-shift in frequency is inevitable.   
    In practice there are also limitations on the accuracy of the equipment and random experimental errors that appear.   Even if you overlook those experimental limitations, the theoretical limitations from uncertainty relations cannot be avoided.   Overall, there should be some precise quantisation BUT you can't observe it in any single measurement.   Theoretically, we can only assert that the expected frequency of a photon emitted by an excited atom should correspond to the difference in the energy between the two states of the atom.   There is nothing we can do to remove all of the randomness and spread of the actual frequency that is really detected from any one atom and one emission.

Best Wishes.

2

Just Chat! / Re: Fast buck hack

« on: 25/05/2023 10:44:32 »

Hi.

If the forum rules don't explicitly forbid promotion of illegal activities please update them.

   They do...

We are all bound by law, and we cannot host material that contravenes the law.

Acceptable Usage Policy.   https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.msg99453#msg99453

   Although this is in the "Just Chat" section so you'd have to assume it was just light-hearted discussion.

Best Wishes.

3

New Theories / Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?

« on: 24/05/2023 11:59:19 »

Hi.

I don't know if you've noticed but some of the old posts are going wrong.
Example:   Examine the section in quotes in post #39:

It’s not likely that a single line will pass through all of them

Presumably you once had an apostrophe but it's changed to an accented letter a,  one Euro currency symbol and finally a Trade Mark symbol.

Sometimes pictures or diagrams just go missing.   If there were any mathematical symbols produced with LaTeX coding, then they've almost certainly gone.   Overall the forum is having a problem  (see other discussions like https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70438.msg705025#msg705025 about a server migration due to excessive costs).   There's no guarantee of anything in this thread (or any other) being safely stored or maintained in a way capable of being read by someone else in the future.   
    I'm not staff but I just thought you might like to be aware of the problem.

Best Wishes.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Talking about Physics

« on: 20/05/2023 00:08:08 »

Hi.

I've noticed that plenty of people seem to be able to make what they please of what Feynman said in that lecture.

    Yes, that's what people will do when they read a document that is about 3 pages (or listen to lecture of about 1 hour),  they will summarise and/or condense it.   Different words are bound to be used by them.
    If you read that lecture I don't think there is a compact sentence that is held up high as the perfect definition.   There isn't a single sentence that you should try to utilize as a self-contained definition of energy.   He takes an entire lecture to make his point and provide examples.  He is frequently telling you what energy isn't instead of attempting to tell you what it definitely is.   Overall, a scientist should have some appreciation of what energy is and isn't by the end of that lecture.
   Split the lecture into thirds:
1st section:   Smash pre-conceived ideas.  Illustrate that all we know is that energy is some abstract numerical quantity.
2nd section:   Provide some examples.   Illustrate that what we have understood is enough to do a lot.
3rd section:    Explain that it is even more complicated than this lecture suggested and even more things are going on.

   Example phrases from the 3rd section:  There are many other forms of energy, and of course we cannot describe them in any more detail just now.  ;     independence of time has to do with the conservation of energy*   ;  we should note that available energy is another matter?.... The laws which govern how much energy is available are called the laws of thermodynamics and involve a concept called entropy 
   
* - In a previous post I've already taken some extracts out of his discussion of conservation laws and time translation invariance.   I haven't taken extracts from lectures on thermodynamics or many other things but they are there.

I think he was trying to uncover the big secret about physics;

   OK, sure.   I wasn't looking that deeply.  On the face of it, he was just presenting a lecture to educate his students.   So trying to introduce them to some of the big ideas in physics or uncover the big secrets etc. is precisely what he was trying to do.   Although, in the wider sense, his own motivation for studying and teaching physics may very well have been trying to discover some of the fundamental questions he has himself (why are we here?, what is the nature of our world? etc.)

I can't see that therefore taking away the idea that he says "energy is a number", when he actually says "energy is a conserved numerical quantity", follows at all.

   OK.  Although you asked about it in post #107, so you got a reply.

Do you think he's saying energy is just a number?

    There is at least one sentence where he does DIRECTLY talk about energy with the word "number":
...it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same...     
    However, I am not advocating that you take just that sentence as a definition,  the whole point is that you can't, you need the whole lecture (and more).   However, if you did "take away" the idea that energy is a number then that's OK and you're not wrong (although it is only a small portion of what is in the lecture). 

If we don't know what energy "really" is, and if mathematics doesn't tell us beyond it being conserved (numerically), that's as far as it goes.

    As discussed previously.  Feynman is not the only source of information about what energy is or isn't.   However, just confining our attention to this one lecture,  yes,  that is pretty much what he was saying here.  Well done.

Numbers are entities because they have properties or attributes, right? Numbers most certainly don't have a physical existence, all they have is a value.

   I'm not sure I can discuss the nature of numbers in a small amount of space and this post has already taken too much time (to write or to read).

Best Wishes.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Talking about Physics

« on: 19/05/2023 14:26:37 »

Hi.

I think you need to be careful about the phrase "numerical quantity" that Feynman uses. My opinion of it is that he's reminding everyone he also used an analogy of counting up 'abstract' children's toy blocks.

   You are free to make of Feynman's lectures what you please, however there are some conventional understandings of what was said and intended.   Feynman wasn't really using language or addressing his lectures to an audience of philosophers, he was aiming at scientists and that particular lecture was an early one for the students (in their progress through undergraduate studies).  So he was aiming to break some misconceptions from school and provide a good introduction to undergraduate level physics.
   
    Given the audience, it's fair to say that Feynman was attempting to communicate something different when he said "Energy is a numerical quantity".   He meant that it is a quantity AND ALSO it has numerical properties.

     Most people would assume the natural division was between numerical quantities and non-numerical quantities.    Even the word "quantities" is an issue since in the English language one tends to think of something you can count and number.   Overlooking that, a numerical quantity is one where a number is assigned to it.  A non-numerical quantity is something that doesn't meaningfully behave like a number.
   How many people are in this room?   How long is this string (in inches)?    Those are numerical quantities.
   What is the name of this person?   What is the colour of this t-shirt?   Those are non-numerical quantities.

Numerical quantities follow all the properties you expect of things that are numerical.   For example you can order them,  4 (people in this room) is more than  2 (people in this room).      You can also multiply and add them meaningfully,   a room with 4 people in really does have  2 times the number of people as a room with 2 people in it.   Similarly you can add the people from two rooms together and you will get a number of people that is the sum.

At best, non-numerical quantities can be ordered but they do not have all the properties of numbers.  Quite often you can't even order them.    Example:    "Pink" is not more than "Blue", there is no natural order relation on non-numerical data like colours.    If you assessed peoples size as "Small", "Medium" or "Large"  then that data actually is partially ordered but it still lacks all the other properties of numbers,   for example  you cannot add small people together and end up creating a medium person.   Meanwhile, if you had actually measured the mass of the person, then that would be a numerical quantity.

What Feynman was saying is that Energy has the properties you expect of a numerical quantity rather than being some qualitative or descriptive data only.   So, it's not as if at the start of an experiment all we can say is that the total energy was "medium" and at the end of the experiment the amount of energy was also "medium".   Energy isn't just any old sort of descriptive quantity, it is a numerical quantity.   So you can meaningfully add two energies together   AND  write a conservation law as a conventional mathematical expression:   
    The numerical sum of all energies at the start  =   the numerical sum of all energies at the end.

It can't be that nobody knows what energy is, but we know it's a number, because . . . we then know what it is.

    It is commonly understood that what Feynman was saying is that all you (his students) should accept about energy is just it is a numerical quantity which seems to be conserved (does not change with time) in all experiments and observations.  Just don't make any further assumptions about it - because you can't.
   As discussed in an earlier post,  Feynman did have more to say about energy in some later lectures.  So these are not the last or final word from him but I am confining my attention to the spirit and meaning of just this lecture.
 
Best Wishes.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Talking about Physics

« on: 19/05/2023 02:31:42 »

Hi.

I'd like to canvas some responses, about the subject of energy and how this is understood.

   There was a fairly recent (end of 2022) discussion in this thread:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=85721.0

I don't suppose anyone would mind discussing it again but there's already quite a bit of information and opinion in that thread.   It's recent enough that many of the regulars will remember a little about it.

@alancalverd said this:

In simple terms, there isn't a simple explanation or even a simple definition.  Energy is one of the quantities that is conserved in classical physics, and very few adults have any idea what that means.

@Bogie_smiles said this:

In the simplest terms, I have always understood energy as the ability to do work.

@paul cotter  said this:

To return to the original question, I propose the following: energy is the capacity to do work with the limitation that in the case of thermal energy some or all( worst case ) will  not be able to do useful work.

@Eternal Student  (me) said stuff that took a lot of space and I'll just try to summarise here:
    1.   School level definitions don't really do it (Energy) any justice.
    2.   Energy is that which appears in Noether's theorem and as such it can only be identified as a conserved quantity in systems with time translation symmetry.  For example, in our expanding universe, there isn't a conserved quantity you can call energy.   (To condense that severely:  What most people think of as Energy is not conserved).

- - - - - -

One more detail: Feynman says that energy is a conserved numerical quantity. What's your opinion of that? Do you think he's saying energy is just a number?

    Yes, that is pretty much the gist of what he was saying in that lecture.
    There were some other lectures discussing symmetries and conservation laws but they are more specialised.  He discusses symmetry and conservation laws mainly in the context of Quantum Mechanics:
You see, therefore, the relation between the conservation laws and the symmetry of the world. Symmetry with respect to displacements in time implies the conservation of energy;...

[Taken from Feynman 17-3  between eq. 17.24 and 17.25.  https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_17.html ]   

    In the time of those lectures the relationship was mainly used just in Quantum mechanics but that particular relationship is much more general and not just limited to QM.

Best Wishes.

7

Famous Scientists, Doctors and Inventors / Re: Are some scientists unique and only they could have made the discovery?

« on: 18/05/2023 21:33:07 »

Hi.

   There has recently been a statement made by Chris here:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70438.msg705025#msg705025
    Where a server migration is discussed.

Best Wishes.

8

Famous Scientists, Doctors and Inventors / Re: Are some scientists unique and only they could have made the discovery?

« on: 17/05/2023 04:33:10 »

Hi.

Y'all know about the DONATE button on thenakedscientists.com website, Right?

   Yes I know about it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

What is a reasonable expectation and what do TNS need?
    The information on the donate page is suggesting 5 pounds every month, is that still sufficient or has the situation changed?

   I'm wondering if a "storage fee" would be reasonable and could be enforced without significantly altering the original purpose of the forum.   If forum posts were deleted after (lets say) 4 weeks that will keep the need for online servers down and reduce running costs.  It doesn't prevent the use of the forum for discussion or for getting questions answered.  It's controversial and may alter how people use the forum but not all of those changes would be negative.
If money is getting that tight then "controversial" is what might be required.   My stuff wouldn't be exempt - it can go.
   Another option is to put an internal message out to all the users:  "You've been using the site for a week,  please consider donating" etc.   My message box wouldn't be exempt.
   Wikipedia are quite skilled at analysing cookies and noticing even just when you have visited them a few times,  fire messages out to anyone who browses the site even without logging-in directly.   My computer won't be exempt.
    If you (TNS) just can't provide the forum free of charge then you just can't, economics has laws just like physics has laws.  So you could make a payment compulsory for people who want to use the site.  (As always, I won't be exempt).

    They're all controversial options but is it time that TNS staff did update people on the current situation and possibly ask for opinions  or, since it's your website and your money that is limited, just state what will be necessary.

Best Wishes.

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can Light Experience 'Time'

« on: 16/05/2023 23:55:30 »

Hi.

Is it just a convention that c should be a very large number?

   Yes, more or less.  As far as physics is concerned, yes.  As far as human evolution is concerned, no.
Most units of measurement are going to be based on what seems sensible to a human being, the things we experience and the things we can do.   For example, we can't throw a stone or a spear all that far and people probably wanted to have vocabulary that is useful to tell others how far they should throw their stones.   If we had a notion of length where 1 unit = the diameter of our planet, then everything you can see is (approximately) 0 distance from everything else, it would be useless information.  The evolution of language was bound to be such that we would be able to describe smaller distances more easily.   Similarly, language would evolve with some notion or units of measuring time that would be useful instead of having 1 unit of time = 1 average lifetime of a galaxy.
   So recognising that our units of speed are based on what we can do, then c = 300 000 000  (in m/s) is telling you something - it's really fast.   If you were hunting an animal that moved that fast, it's gone, hunt something else.
   

I think that sometimes it is given the value 1.

  Yes.   (It's understood that this will put everything else we might be working with into different units as well).

Would it be equally possible  to give it a very small number so that  in the expression e=mc^2 we might have the impression that it would take a numerically  huge  amount of mass to  render a numerically tiny amount of energy?

   Yes but see above.   The amount of mass would now have to be measured in different units.  You can't change reality just by assigning c a small value,  all you will do is change the numerical description of the amount of mass that is equivalent to it.
 
Best Wishes.

10

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Spring-Heeled Jack.

« on: 16/05/2023 18:54:31 »

Hi.

Sorry, I don't know.   Some careful internet searches would produce more information.   The Wiki article you gave provides full details for 40 references (and more in the "further reading" they suggest).   Checking those would be a fair start and probably keep you busy for several weeks.

This is what ChatGPT provided:

Input:    What is the origin of the tales of Spring-heeled Jack?

Output: 

The origin of the tales of Spring-heeled Jack can be traced back to 19th-century England, specifically to the early 1830s. Spring-heeled Jack is a notorious figure in English folklore, described as a strange and supernatural entity with the ability to leap incredible heights and distances.

The first reported sightings of Spring-heeled Jack occurred in 1837, primarily in the London area. Witnesses described him as having a terrifying appearance, with glowing red eyes, clawed hands, and a peculiar outfit that resembled a tight-fitting oilskin suit. According to various accounts, Spring-heeled Jack would approach his victims, often women, and subject them to bizarre and sometimes violent encounters. He was said to breathe blue flames, tear at their clothes with metallic claws, and exhibit inhuman agility.

These tales quickly spread throughout London and the surrounding regions, capturing the public's imagination. The press took an interest in the stories, further fueling the legend of Spring-heeled Jack. Numerous reports of his sightings and encounters were published, leading to widespread panic and hysteria.

While there are several theories about the true nature of Spring-heeled Jack, the most commonly accepted explanation is that the phenomenon was the result of urban legend, mass hysteria, and a combination of hoaxers and pranksters. It is believed that some individuals impersonated the character of Spring-heeled Jack to frighten and shock others, while the public's fear and fascination with the tales led to further embellishment and exaggeration.

The legend of Spring-heeled Jack persisted for several decades, with sporadic reports and sightings popping up in various parts of England. The character also found his way into popular culture, appearing in numerous works of fiction, plays, and penny dreadfuls (cheap sensationalist literature). Over time, the legend evolved and took on different interpretations, with various writers and storytellers adding their own twists to the narrative.

Today, Spring-heeled Jack remains an intriguing figure in folklore and continues to capture the imagination of people interested in the supernatural and mysterious aspects of history.

Best Wishes.

11

Just Chat! / Re: TNS - thenakedscientists.com

« on: 16/05/2023 05:59:54 »

Hi.

   What search terms were you using?
    Bing with search terms   "Science" + "forums"  listed  TNS second.   There is already a well known forum called "Scienceforums" and with that name you won't dislodge that from 1st place with those search terms.
   Those search terms on Google get TNS in about 8th place,  just barely on the first page.

   Before you can really know how easily a site can be found, you need to know what sort of search terms people might try to use.  For all I know people will try to find it with search terms like  "where can I talk about science?"  , "best chemistry forum"   or  "Free science chat".

Any idea how to improve it?

    Yes, there's a whole industry based on SEO  (Search Engine Optimisation).   However, the better search engines try to keep up with this and they will alter the way their engines prioritise results every now and again.   They may also penalize blatant attempts to achieve higher ranked results, so a crude attempt to improve the ranking of TNS could actually make things worse for them.
    If you (an individual) were going to try and improve the search engine ranking for TNS then the best advice is to go about it genuinely rather than trying to use tricks.   For example, tell your friends about the site and genuinely boost the traffic coming here.   Put links to TNS on your social media that you engage with BUT only where it's relevant.   If some discussion has nothing what-so-ever to do with TNS or a forum thread that was hosted here, then don't drop a link in,  that is artificial and the engines will soon penalize that.   Remember that people who click away from a site too fast (perhaps because they followed your link and realised it was rubbish) may raise a flag for the search engines that indicate how dis-satisfied with the link they were. 
    Let's be an idealist for one moment:  Perhaps the most genuine boost for TNS occurs when you do something to help a new user.  If they do come back to the site again - that's great and they might also tell their friends about the site.   I'm no expert and I don't know what to suggest but hopefully this sort of thing does no harm.

Best Wishes. 

12

Famous Scientists, Doctors and Inventors / Are some scientists unique and only they could have made the discovery?

« on: 16/05/2023 03:38:37 »

Hi.

    This section is rarely used, I thought I'd put something in here.

Is it just time and numbers that are important rather than who you have working on science?
Are there some discoveries and theories that are so extraordinary that only one person could have made them?

    Let's take Newton as one example.  We tend to remember the contributions he made to mathematics such as Newton's laws of motion.  We overlook the fact that a lot of his Philosophi? Naturalis Principia Mathematica contained discussions of what can reasonably be described as some philosophy and theology.   We have selectively taken out only the most relevant and useful bits of his work and only that bit of it tends to be remembered and highly valued.
   If you disregard all the junk that you (the reader) have written over your lifetime and just retain the best bits,  then it's very likely that you have created something profound and well worth preserving for future generations.  Well done and congratulations to you.
    Arguably if we had a million monkeys with typewriters, then all you need to do is disregard the bits of junk in the middle (let's say keep a sentence at a time) and you should be able to find a Shakespearean play in there.

   So, is it just a game of applying time and a large number of scientists to a problem before any problem in science would eventually be resolved?
   You might think of other famous scientists like Einstein and wonder if you just had to have an extraordinary mind to think of such bizarre things like applying a curvature to spacetime but actually it wasn't just Einstein coming up with these ideas.   The mathematician David Hilbert was apparently also developing a theory similar to General relativity.  Einstein knew this and was arguably more driven to complete and publish his work faster.   I don't know how far Hilbert had progressed but it is commonly thought that Hilbert would have got there and if his version of the theory had been published it might have been even more elegant.
     We tend to be aware of mathematicians like Minkowski and Riemann that contributed to Einsteins work but there may well have been others getting involved more regularly but rarely credited.  See https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/not-lone-genius   where a historian looks into the involvement of Einstein's freinds from college (Besso and Grossman) and also Einstein's first wife Mileva Marić Einstein who was a brilliant physicist but at this sort of time that was never going to be accepted or recognised. 

     Albert and Mileva were admitted to the physics-mathematics section of the Polytechnic Institute in Zurich (now ETH) in 1896....
      By the end of their classes in 1900, Mileva and Albert had similar grades (4.7 and 4.6, respectively) except in applied physics where she got the top mark of 5 but he, only 1. She excelled at experimental work while he did not. But at the oral exam, Professor Minkowski gave 11 out of 12 to the four male students but only 5 to Mileva. Only Albert got his degree.

["The Forgotten Life of Einstein's First Wife", Scientific American.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-forgotten-life-of-einsteins-first-wife/ ]

    We know that Einstein discussed relativity with his wife, there are letters with evidence of that but most of the discussions were verbal rather than being written down.  You should not underestimate how brilliant his wife was.

    ...nobody made it clearer than Albert Einstein himself that they collaborated on special relativity when he wrote to Mileva on 27 March 1901: ?How happy and proud I will be when the two of us together will have brought our work on relative motion to a victorious conclusion.?    

["The Forgotten Life..., Scientific American]

    We aren't sure exactly why Mileva's name didn't appear as a co-author on any of Einstein's work, it is suggested (source:   Radmila Milentijević: Mileva Marić Einstein: Life with Albert Einstein, United World Press, 2015) that given the prevalent bias against women at the time, a publication co-signed with a woman might have carried less weight.
Whatever the situation may have been, Mileva had much bigger problems to worry about then getting her name on a paper:   In 1901 she became pregnant out of wedlock  ..(she) tried to persuade Albert to marry her. She gave birth to a girl named Liserl in January 1902. No one knows what happened to her. She was probably given to adoption.   

"The Forgotten Life...", S.A.

   It wasn't a great time for women in science in the 1900's.   Recall, for example, that the Nobel prize committee only wanted to recognise Pierre Curie and Henri Becquerel for the Nobel prize in 1903,  they needed their arm twisted to add Marie Curie's name to that list and it was only the insistence of Pierre Curie that ultimately made it happen.
- - - - - - - - - -

    Anyway, enough of the sad stuff.  I've just recently explained how special relativity could have been discovered by alternative routes if light hadn't been a massless particle, which is partly why this is now on my mind.   It's not just that there were other people involved in developing relativity, there are so many different ways in which relativity would have eventually been discovered.  It was inevitable.

   So, we're back to the original question:   
   Is any scientific discovery such that only one person could have found it?  Is scientific development just about applying numbers of scientists to study the problem and waiting for the problem to be broken with time?

   Looking just on the home front:  If a forum like this one can motivate a few people to study some science, wouldn't it be worth keeping it?   It doesn't matter if it's not discussing the latest developments or hosting the most erudite discussions.  Why are there rumours that the site is closing down and what could be done to maintain it?   

Best Wishes.

Late Editing:  Apologies for not getting all the accents and special symbols like ae to appear.  None of that works anymore.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can Light Experience 'Time'

« on: 15/05/2023 21:17:33 »

Hi.

Thanks @paul cotter .   It's not really my idea, ideas like this have been discussed by people thinking about time.  Red-shift will work here instead of worrying about an emergence of time from any other geometry, so all I did was steal an idea and shorten it.   However, for me, keeping something short is an achievement.

Best Wishes.

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can Light Experience 'Time'

« on: 15/05/2023 20:59:22 »

Hi.

@geordief   asked about  the speed c.
LaTex isn't working so we can't have mathematical symbols here in the post,  sorry.

    Basically, yes starting from the Lorentz transformation you would quickly obtain the relativistic velocity addition formula - see  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula#Special_relativity

   That will show you that a velocity with magnitude c (which is just what appears in the Lorentz transformation and not necessarily the speed of light) is mapped to another velocity with the same magnitude in any other inertial reference frame.

    The entire discussion was about assuming light may not travel at the speed c.  So, that's why @hamdani yusuf  said what they said (I would think).   In most textbook developments of special relativity it is common to start from an assumption about light and the invariance of its speed.  In this situation, the whole point is that you don't - we assume light has some other speed.

    You could still obtain the Lorentz transformation even if nature had been very unkind to physicists and never given them a massless particle that could be detected.   We were lucky, we had light, it did exhibit properties that strongly pointed us to the development of special relativity.   Assume light wasn't available or did not behave like that.  Provided special relativity is still a rule in nature, then there would have been signposts to it.
   See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation   which describes how muons can be produced in earths upper atmosphere when cosmic rays come in.    We use this as a test of special relativity, specifically we suspect that muons moving fast relative to the lab frame would live long enough to reach the surface of the earth before decaying.   The main point is that the effects of relativity like this would still be there, in nature, and eventually we would notice:    Someone would have studied the half-life and decay of particles and they would have noticed that fast moving particles seem to live longer,  they would have said "that's weird, it's as if their clock is ticking slowly".   We now also have particle accelerators and with equipment like that to play with it's almost certain that we would have noticed strange effects when objects have high velocities relative to each other.    Basically, unless the important speed which we are calling c and appears in the Lorentz transformation was many orders of magnitude greater than it actually is, then there would have been signposts to relativity and eventually we would have noticed them.
        With some LaTex mathematical symbols (which, as I mentioned, we don't have the luxury of), we could demonstrate that the Poincare group of transformations is the only set of transformations between reference frames we should consider.   Non-linear transformations are also possible but the words "non-linear" should strike fear into the hearts of anyone who has ever studied some mathematics.   So you can rest assured that every linear transformation between reference frames would have been proposed and examined first.   The basic Poincare transformations like a rotation of the space frame won't explain the results you were getting from experiments so before too long the subset of the Poincare transformations which are just the Lorentz boosts would be all you have left before you move to non-linear transformations.   While mathematicians would be beginning to sweat and fear that  non-linear transformations would be needed, the last set of linear transformations would turn out to be the charm, they would work.  Obviously a Lorentz boost will work, we know that a Lorentz transformation was precisely what we needed.   There would be a constant which we can call c  in those transformations, it would have the dimensions of a speed etc.    The value of c would be chosen to match the experimental results we were obtaining.  Once you have the Lorentz transformations, the rest of the theory of special relativity follows.
   So, summarising all of that,  we could reasonably have obtained the Lorentz transformations just from empirical observations of strange effects when two objects have high velocities relative to each other.   Having a massless particle like light which did travel at c was a great help and it is a clear signpost to relativity.   It probably speeded up the recognition and development of relativity by many years.  Indeed taking, as an axiom, that the speed of light is an invariant will allow you (a lecturer) to develop the theory of relativity on the blackboard in front your students in 1 hour rather than over several lectures.   The key is that it wasn't essential, special relativity is just all the physics which you can obtain from the Lorentz transformation.   You can get to that (the Lorentz transformation) by other routes, you do not need to assume the speed of light is an invariant.   (However, in the world in which we do live, the speed of light is c, so you aren't doing any harm by taking that as an axiom and you will see it done in many textbooks and hear it suggested by many people.   You need this much space on a forum to explain why it isn't quite like that). 

I hope that helps.

Best Wishes.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Talking about Physics

« on: 15/05/2023 17:39:56 »

Hi.

So why no consistent quantum philosophy?

     A few philosophers are throwing out papers and discussions involving Quantum theory.   See, for example,  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-issues/     The online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,   which has a lengthy discussion and cites many other modern articles.   It's still a bit too early to know if there will be a consistent quantum philosophy  (in my opinion).   

    However, a lot of philosophy is human centred and human beings don't typically observe quantum effects or build models in their mind of how things work that are remotely like quantum mechanical models.  So there is no reason why quantum mechanics should be important for all of philosophy.
     An explanation of the nature of morality that involves pages of complicated mathematical equations would be of no use or benefit to most people.  It doesn't help them understand their own nature or the nature of things around them.

Let's back this up with some analysis and opinions taken from  the paper  "The Influence of Quantum Physics on Philosophy",  F.A. Muller,  first published 2021,   an on-line version is available here:  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-020-09725-6  .

      Concerning Analytic Philosophy, we can take heed of the results of the Philosophical Papers Survey, conducted by David Chalmers and David Bourget (2014; an update and extension is in the making). They asked opinions about 30 controversial issues in philosophy and obtained 3226 responses:
     (a list of 30 issues follows including:)
   17.  Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?
   18.  Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?

Quantum physics had no discernible influence on any of these debates, full stop. Should it have influenced these debates? For most issues, I don't see what it could have contributed or how it should contribute.

  Muller discusses the burgeoning field of "philosophy of physics" and makes it clear that quantum physics has had considerable impact on this.   However, with respect to the wider fields of philosophy the conclusion is as follows:
    9.  Recapitulation:
Although quantum physics has influenced philosophy in the sense that it has grown a new flourishing and blossoming branch of the tree of philosophy, apart from some recent contact between philosophy of physics and metaphysics, quantum physics has had hardly any influence on philosophy at all, and at best some influence on metaphysics, mostly in recent times. With regard to prominent issues intensely thought about by philosophers, such as those on the Chalmers-Bouget list, we dare conclude that it is difficult to see how quantum physics could bear on those issues. If it cannot, it ought not, for ought implies can.

Best Wishes.

16

Just Chat! / Re: Where is the "Spiel Chicken"?

« on: 14/05/2023 23:46:31 »

Hi.

Nice to see you again @Zer0 .   Thanks for trying out a few things.

Best Wishes.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can Light Experience 'Time'

« on: 14/05/2023 00:56:17 »

Hi.

   That's quite a good answer from @Halc with very few words used.

    It's better to focus on making some sense of how light might be considered as being slowed down,  rather than to keep it at light speed and just ask if it experiences time.   But since Halc has already done one I might as well take a line or two to talk about the other.

    Suppose you don't consider time as something on a space-time diagram like that described by Halc or anything to do with an eigenvector of spacetime that has a negative eigenvalue for the metric in General relativity.  Instead just consider time as a record of change (possibly a cause or consequence of change).   Where there is change, time can be meaningfully identified and in our ordinary understanding of time we might say that change requires time to pass.
     Now in an expanding universe, light will be redshifted.  So its frequency is changing in any sensible co-ordinate system you care to use.   Just to be clear, the exact frequency it has is a frame dependant thing and we're not too interested in that.   However, the fact that the frequency is changing remains true in every co-ordinate system that you could (sensibly) choose.  So the changing of frequency is a frame independent characteristic that the photon has.   It's a short step to suggest that a photon experiences time because it does have a property that can change.   We can always use that to construct a notion of time (the photon was redder, so that will be defined as "later" in the lifetime of the photon etc.)

   I'm not going to fill in the details, it's just an alternative approach.  Time is complicated and modelled in various ways.   In an expanding universe you've got an easy option available for how you might get time to emerge for a photon. 

Best Wishes.

18

Just Chat! / Re: Can someone assist me with some scientific terms?

« on: 13/05/2023 12:44:35 »

Hi.

I tend to use terms like axioms, theorems, theories, hypotheses, conjectures etc in a rather flippant manner

    Well many of these terms are flexible in their application.   Which one you chose to apply may depend on things like which country or culture you were brought up in and/or which sphere of human endeavour you are working in.

- - - - - - - -
There's a dictionary definition which we shouldn't really ignore.   Let's try and put your terms in an order from the strongest to the weakest:

Axiom:
a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

Theorem:
a general proposition not self-evident but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truths.

Theory:
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

Hypothesis:
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Conjecture:
an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
- - - - - - - - - - -
   All definitions taken from the "Oxford Languages" dictionary which Google has built in to its short English Dictionary as of 2023.    (More information:    https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/    )
    For more scientific definitions use a specialist scientific dictionary.  As mentioned, most of these terms are flexible and very subject specific.  Mathematics through to Social Science will all have different accepted uses and understandings of the terms.
- - - - - - - - - -

     @alancalverd  has already made some effort to talk about the use of the terms in Science,  although I'd say that was very biased toward physics.
    @alancalverd  added the term "law".   That would usually be put above a theory and below a theorem, so it's a theory with so much evidence for it that it is almost certainly true.   Alternatively, you might consider a "law" as something that can be considered as an axiom and allows a system to be developed based on those axioms.   For example, Newton's laws of motion are the axioms of Newtonian Mechanics and it doesn't matter if Newton's laws were found to be wrong  (and according to General relativity they are).   What you can derive from Newton's laws is still valid in the system we call Newtonian Mechanics.   (Whether that is a good enough model for some real world situation is a different issue).
   - - - - - - - - - - -

Underlying all this is the common language of mathematics which is based on the mutual acceptance of certain axioms such as those of Euclidean geometry (similarity, identity, parallelism, etc) with useful theorems (statements that can be rigorously proved as long as the axioms are true) such as Pythagoras.

    This post is already too long,  so I won't discuss Mathematics and axiom systems.
    There's no obligation that Science is based on Mathematics or must be formulated as some mathematics.  Physics often is but Biology doesn't easily fit that description or stereotype.   Darwin's theory of evolution isn't formulated as a relationship between some numerical quantities.

Best Wishes.

19

Just Chat! / Re: TNS - Must Read B4 shift+delete!

« on: 07/05/2023 20:21:29 »

Hi.

I've been trying to add a picture to my second post and have failed. I know about links in the first posts, but what about pictures?

     This article is a description of how to insert images.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=45718.msg397740#msg397740
     It's a bit tricky and rarely works as you hoped first time.    The best advice is to have a go and eventually you'll get it.

    There are shortcut buttons all over the posting interface.   Here's two that will be helpful:


Adding Images.jpg (145.85 kB . 1175x655 - viewed 494 times)

- - - - - - -

.... what I am looking for is a place where scientific matters can be discussed at a good, preferably expert level...

    I'm going to be cautious and not to say much.  The moderators are often still working in their fields.   There are some retired scientists and engineers among the regular users.   However, the forum is open to the general public and quite friendly to questions pitched at school level or based on everyday questions like "why is the sky blue?"  etc. 
     There are some discussions at all levels and there are certainly people keen to discuss science rather than pseudoscience  (see @paul cotter 's reply just above yours,  for example).
     Most people agree that one of the main differences of this forum compared to others is the amount of tolerance.   However, it's not without some limits.   I'm not a moderator but mainly the advice is don't try to advertise something and it will probably be OK.

I think it would be good to point the newbies to some faq covering such issues.

    I agree.  I'm not staff so I can't do much about it.   There is a fair amount of information here,  it's just spread out and hard to find for newbies.   You don't HAVE to read it all in one go, by the way, it's not a highlight of a visit to the site.

Forum Acceptable usage Policy     (does what it says in the title).
     https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0

Tips and tricks FAQ     (mainly how to do fancy tricks like adding images).
      https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=45718.0

How do we moderate discussion of new theories in the main part of the forum?
      https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0
- - - - - - - - -
   There are also some sections of the forum that are not well used and can be confusing for newbies.
For example,  the  "NAKED SCIENCE - The Official Book"  and also the "Guest Book"  sections seem to be what IT experts would call a honey-pot trap.   Specifically, automated bots (or real people) looking to drop some advertising into as many websites as possible are drawn to it like flies.   Occasionally a real person will post their first message there and regrettably that can be missed.
     I didn't design the User Interface for the site.   I think it's very hard for a new user to know where they should put their first post.

Best Wishes.

NOTE:  @Halc  finished their post before I completed this.   Hence some overlap in content.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What if the ideal gas in a vessel is not ergodic?

« on: 07/05/2023 15:38:31 »

Hi and welcome.

So, first, I would like to share the information above...

    It may help if you can provide some references or links.  Sadly the forum software won't allow you to provide a working hyperlink until you've made a few posts.   That's to reduce the amount of advertising and spam etc.    This means your first post just may not be as productive as you hoped -  sorry.

A request of mutual benefit:
     You could start to increase the number of posts you've made by replying to this forum thread:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86280.msg704124#msg704124
     The basic question in the OP (Original Post) was about how or why this site might attract and retain new members.    The OP (Original Poster) @Zer0 hasn't had many replies and even just a short sentence from a new member would be appreciated.

- - - - - - - - -

And, second, to ask for any other examples of systems with known uneven laws of energy partitioning.

    I can at least offer one example of such a system.    The behaviour can sometimes depend on the substance rather than on the container in which it is put.
    A common example (of ergodicity breaking) is that of spontaneous magnetisation in ferromagnetic systems, whereby below the Curie temperature the system preferentially adopts a non-zero magnetisation even though the ergodic hypothesis would imply that no net magnetisation should exist by virtue of the system exploring all states whose time-averaged magnetisation should be zero.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergodic_hypothesis#Phenomenology

Best Wishes.