Roll over Einstein: Pillar of physics challenged

reply to post by playswithmachines


How can you reject setting c equal to 1 and then promote using natural units?

Also, I want you to tell me why c is not a constant.

So if we soon will know via new data: that relativity is wrong, and standard model of particle physics is wrong, what should be taught. We have no other theories for these things. If they are taught just because they are useful: shouldn't they be classed as engineering. Should Einsteins name live on as a Nuclear engineer.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Indeed we do. E² = m² + p² is much more pleasing to the senses. So long as we know that c has been set equal to 1...which is why I try to avoid "natural" units at all costs. But, that's one of my little quirks. I do appreciate their usefulness.

Why does the speed of light need to be measured in m/s or ft/s? In fact, c=1 seems the most natural choice indeed, in the domain of particle and nuclear physics.

No that any of that matters.

Originally posted by consciousgod


But this isn't the point. Electrons traveling at .9999999962c should have a much larger mass than an electron moving at 0.1 c, but we don't see it.

It would have a mass of about 1.478 x10 ^ -26 kilogram. The "rest" mass of an electron is about 9.109×10^−31 kilogram.

Are you sure we "don't see this?"

The above comes from using the relativistic mass equation from here.

Harte

Originally posted by s12345
So if we soon will know via new data: that relativity is wrong, and standard model of particle physics is wrong, what should be taught. We have no other theories for these things. If they are taught just because they are useful: shouldn't they be classed as engineering. Should Einsteins name live on as a Nuclear engineer.

Physicits should view thr big bang explosion as a big implosion and proceed from there.
In fact I am currently working on building a alternative standard model.
Someday I will publish it.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Physicits should view thr big bang explosion as a big implosion and proceed from there.
In fact I am currently working on building a alternative standard model.
Someday I will publish it.

Roll over Einstein: "Angelic Resurrection" will make you his b!tch.

How pathetic.

Well, it was fun while it lasted

You all might want to read This Thread and the other 2 threads by Blackpoison........

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Indeed we do. E² = m² + p² is much more pleasing to the senses. So long as we know that c has been set equal to 1...which is why I try to avoid "natural" units at all costs. But, that's one of my little quirks. I do appreciate their usefulness.

Why does the speed of light need to be measured in m/s or ft/s? In fact, c=1 seems the most natural choice indeed, in the domain of particle and nuclear physics.

No that any of that matters.

Good one!

Originally posted by s12345
So if we soon will know via new data: that relativity is wrong, and standard model of particle physics is wrong, what should be taught. We have no other theories for these things. If they are taught just because they are useful: shouldn't they be classed as engineering. Should Einsteins name live on as a Nuclear engineer.

Actually there are many alternatives to existing theory out there in the wild of mad science. Many loose sight that much of science in an interpretation of data, and interpretation is fundamentally influenced by belief. Like believing the speed of light was constant because we had no data to suggest otherwise. Look on the net for alternatives. There are many.

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain … In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar." ~ Richard Feynman

Originally posted by CantSay

Like believing the speed of light was constant because we had no data to suggest otherwise.

This is not why we "believe" the speed of light to be constant.

Originally posted by CantSay
Actually there are many alternatives to existing theory out there in the wild of mad science. Many loose sight that much of science in an interpretation of data

That's quite a superficial statement, I'm afraid.

and interpretation is fundamentally influenced by belief.

I don't think you get how "scientific method" works. You can look it up. Cheers!

Like believing the speed of light was constant because we had no data to suggest otherwise.

We don't "believe" it's constant, we just say that's the most probable hypothesis.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by CantSay
Actually there are many alternatives to existing theory out there in the wild of mad science. Many loose sight that much of science in an interpretation of data

That's quite a superficial statement, I'm afraid.

and interpretation is fundamentally influenced by belief.

I don't think you get how "scientific method" works. You can look it up. Cheers!

Like believing the speed of light was constant because we had no data to suggest otherwise.

We don't "believe" it's constant, we just say that's the most probable hypothesis.

Superficial? I said go out and research for yourself what's out there.

Being a scientist, I think I know the scientific method quite well. I also know the philosophy behind it and that ultimately all data is interpreted the best way we can based on what we cumulatively know - be it our current knowledge of mathematics or of associated physical phenomena that we use to interpret the data. In the end belief always plays a role especially when there is a lot of unknown out there. For example, the belief of having data support a theory by modifying the theory to support the data, or having the data invalidate the theory in order to replace the theory. How that decision is made, and how we go about it, is based on beliefs which affect the interpretation of the data. There are a lot of pressures in science outside of the scientific method that affect the scientific method, like having a level of uncertainty but publicly claiming it's almost exact in order to get funding. The uncertainty on the interpretation of data is rarely highlighted which makes the naive and ignorant believe certain things are factual when they're actually not. That's all I'm saying.

We don't "believe" it's constant, we just say that's the most probable hypothesis.

Semantics my friend. Read most published material in the last 50 years. It states that the speed of light is either constant, a limit or both. Most probable hypothesis is what a scientist should know, but due to semantics, it's not what's written which in turn forms belief, especially given the longevity of the assumption.

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by CantSay

Like believing the speed of light was constant because we had no data to suggest otherwise.

This is not why we "believe" the speed of light to be constant.

Than please explain to me why we "believe" the speed of light was constant. As far I see, if there is no evidence to falsify that assumption, than it cannot be invalidated. That's called science. Einstein assumed that the speed of light was constant to resolve disparities between Maxwell's work on electromagnetism and classical mechanics. Though this assumption worked, it was still only an assumption. Other than that, there has been no evidence to invalidate this assumption. So again, please explain why "we" don't "believe" this is the reason.

I am by far no expert, most of what is being done at CERN is particle and theoretical physics.
I am studying applied physics.

That said, I don't believe Einstein said that going faster than the speed of light was impossible.

He explained it as a limit approached from both sides.
That being there are things that go faster then the speed of light and things that go slower.
Neither can actually go the speed of light.
He also said that generally things stay in their domain, IE slower than light stays slower, faster stays faster; it is possible things can switch domains but they will never go exactly the speed of light.
They would act like an electron.
One moment in one energy level the next one higher or lower but never in between.

As for the speed of light, IBM has done many studies on light.
Apparently not only is the speed of light relative from ones perspective as most things are, but depending on where it is passing and what it is passing through the speed of light can waver with a certain +-.
I really wish I could reference this study, but I haven't read it in so long I can't remember the title.

reply to post by CantSay


The Faraday Law leads to the following equation for the electric field:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ae5fe4e27efa.png[/atsimg]

The Ampère-Maxwell Law leads to the following equation for the electric field:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3f56249dbb2.png[/atsimg]

Combined, these lead to the following constraint on the velocity of propagation of electromagnetic radiation:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/77089e87ad4d.png[/atsimg]

This is, colloquially, the speed of light in a vacuum. Because the permitivity and permeability of a vacuum are constant, it too must always be constant, otherwise Maxwell's equations are not satisfied and the electromagnetic radiation is unable to propagate - and the light wave collapses.
This is why the speed of light must always be constant.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by CantSay

 

The Faraday Law leads to the following equation for the electric field:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ae5fe4e27efa.png[/atsimg]

The Ampère-Maxwell Law leads to the following equation for the electric field:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3f56249dbb2.png[/atsimg]

Combined, these lead to the following constraint on the velocity of propagation of electromagnetic radiation:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/77089e87ad4d.png[/atsimg]

This is, colloquially, the speed of light in a vacuum. Because the permitivity and permeability of a vacuum are constant, it too must always be constant, otherwise Maxwell's equations are not satisfied and the electromagnetic radiation is unable to propagate - and the light wave collapses.
This is why the speed of light must always be constant.

Perhaps what you meant to say was "that i why the speed of light IN A VACUUM must be constant"?
Your calculations in no way mean that the speed of light in other mediums must be constant.

reply to post by hudsonhawk69


Basically:
What absorbs and emits photons? Electrons.
What exists between electrons, and all other particles? Void.
What is that void? A vacuum.

Photons only exist in locations devoid of other particles. Therefore, they only exist in a vacuum.
So, there is no other speed of light other than its speed through a vacuum.

What you think is a differing speed of light through different media is, in fact, a result of how fast electrons in each medium absorb and re-emit photons (well...it's actually a little more complicated than that, involving the difference between phase and group velocity, but that's the basic idea).

Again, the speed of light through a vacuum is its only speed because light only travels through a vacuum.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by hudsonhawk69

 

Basically:
What absorbs and emits photons? Electrons.
What exists between electrons, and all other particles? Void.
What is that void? A vacuum.

.
.


Again, the speed of light through a vacuum is its only speed because light only travels through a vacuum.

Again, what...and.. if..
...if that vacuum is river-l-i-k-e ?

reply to post by nii900


Yes, and what if that vacuum is spaghetti-like?

there is a little light in the universe
so .. see for yerself < > hmmm < >