I am not a scientist, but it seems to me that light speed was mesured. Then why this constant and not another one: because it is a reality. Why do we constate that sun rises in east ? because it is a reality. Now, universe obeys laws. Why these laws and not other ones? It is up to an astrophysicist to answer. - morgankane01
Why these laws and not other ones, is more of a philosophical question. How/What this laws work/are, is the physical question behind it. Knowing the laws allowes for a better understanding. The sun rises in the east, a reality, but it does so because the planet rotates eastwards.
Lightspeed in itself isn’t a law, it is the result of such.
There is a polydactylic hand of measured constants including c, G and h for which there are no formulae. As nature is eternal, so are they. They just crystallize out of the prevenient laws of physics at their points of intersection once they’ve settled down in the matrix of minimal, lowest quantum noise, where being emerges from unstable nothingness. Do any of them have any impact at the threshold of existence? Are cee, Gee & 'aitch present from the word go?
That a curious thought. What about evolution and change?
They just crystallize out of the prevenient laws of physics at their points of intersection once they’ve settled down in the matrix of minimal, lowest quantum noise, where being emerges from unstable nothingness.
There is a polydactylic hand of measured constants including c, G and h for which there are no formulae.
I imagine he meant Polydactyly: "a deformity in which the hand has one or more extra fingers in any of three places of the hand: on the small finger side..." WIKI
Though that doesn’t help me tease any more sense out of that sentence.
“c, G and h for which there are no formulae” I won’t’ pretend to understand the substance of those formulae, but I know they exist:
It is now @lausten. Like imparsimonious. Usage is correct. What adjective would you derive from polydactyly?
@citizenschallengev4, arm uh no nuthin. I did the ‘math’ to satisfy myself with regard to Heisenberg 30 years ago and was utterly delighted by it. But I really am a massive underachiever. Which is an overstatement. Typical. I can’t even do mediocrity. But. I’ve learned that nobody else knows nuthin either. Apart from the ‘math’. And reason as by our hero young Dickie.
So. c, G, h, mu zero, emm ee and the abstruse quark, gauge, Higgs etc (QCD vacuum phase) stuff are only subject to change as they settle down, if anything.
Now that is a bloody good question as to whether c, G, h et al are fixed by minimal quantum noise coming in to contact with the rest of nature - wave function collapse. Prior to that they may well be irrelevant. Indeterminate. What is the minimal scintilla - string or whatever - of existence? Does it omm in those keys? OR DOES GOD?!?!?
There are no formulae for c, G, h etc, they cannot be derived, only measured. If you have formulae, you’ll get a Nobel and a Fields for each. Unless you know them in the Jungian (not King James!) sense. The link shows no formulae for them as there aren’t any.
As for we don’t know answers, why do some clouds precipitate and most not? I.e. how, why does it rain? And not. Vague hand waving with nucleation and added vapour pressure doesn’t count.
But I really am a massive underachiever. Which is an overstatement. Typical. I can’t even do mediocrity. But. I’ve learned that nobody else knows nuthin either. Apart from the ‘math’. And reason as by our hero young Dickie.
Sorry, just trying to make sense of what you're trying to say. Excuse me.
c is representative of the fuller handful, I listed 5/6 in my dotage. e - elementary charge - is the missing one. c, e, G, h, emm ee, mu zero. I’d be tempted in my colossal ignorance to add emm pee - proton mass.
Stumbling along, until a Banksian Mind comes along to say otherwise, I doubt that any of the constants are relevant prior to the wave function collapse of the minimal quanta popping in to existence from absolutely nothing, when they encounter the rest of eternal nature next. We have no reason to doubt that c is constant throughout the multiverse; it has to be that, so it is. Like stuff having to exist.
Well, we could posit that c is a function of the density of the aether we call space. Red shift observed from the far reaches of the universe might be taken as showing that the energy in a light wave is dissipated at some rate per unit distance per unit density rather than the universe expanding faster than c. Would that satisfy your desire for a formula for c?
I suppose one would have to at least imagine that space is something and not nothing in order to entertain an idea of a wave moving through it.
So, who said it is constant? Most folks say Einstein. Ever ask yourself why he would say such a thing? How could he know for a fact?
Consider that it is impossible to measure the speed of a thing moving faster than sound using only sound as input to the measuring instruments. Remember that when trying to prove that it is possible you cannot use light, or sight, in any part of the setup or operation of the experiment.
It is also impossible to measure the speed of a thing moving faster than you can run using only touch. Remember you can’t use light or sound as inputs.
I suspect Uncle Albert realized that the fact that you cannot measure the speed of a thing moving faster than the speed of the fastest input into your measuring device also applied to light. Given that realization, it follows that he could say with confidence that we cannot measure the speed of an object moving faster than the speed of light.
Of course to the average guy there is a big difference between saying we can’t measure the speed of a thing moving faster than light and saying no thing can move faster than the speed of light. The science folks aren’t average guys; they have to obey the rule of science that says we cannot claim a statement about an event or process is true unless we can share an experience of that event or process.
So if one were to say that objects can move faster than the speed of light, the science guys would say sorry, but because we cannot share the experience we must say that claim is false. OK, there may be some science guys who would say that the claim is unproven, but because it is not provable using the fastest input we now know about, which is light, we must consider it false unless and until we develop measuring devices using an input faster than light. Thus science accepts c as a limit, for now.
That seems like a rhetorical question. Like you are assuming we have not asked ourselves that. That’s not how you develop dialog. It’s a physics question. I wouldn’t work through your thought experiment here, I would ask a physicist.
Of course it is a rhetorical question and as such it was intended to illicit comments. Your reference is great. One of the things presented there that most people can look at to get a bit more insight is nearly at the end of the responses. It is the description of the one-way speed of light versus the two-way speed of light.
is the formula for setting a remote clock. What it means is that the time T3 at the remote clock is, in terms of the local clock, exactly one half the time T1 when a signal was sent to the remote station added to the time T2 when the signal arrived back at the local station.
The formula expresses Einstein’s position that the one-way speed of light is the same as the two-way speed of light. It has to be that way because it is, according to the science guys, impossible to measure the one-way speed of light.
For example, if both stations are moving with the same velocity such that the outbound signal actually takes one second to make the trip to the remote station and three seconds to make the return trip we are to consider the measured speed of light on each leg of the trip as 2 seconds. It has to be considered that way in order for us to say the speed of light will be measured to be the same regardless of the motion of the measuring instruments.
Human arbitrary values established and codified for human convenience.
The Universe itself does not codify measurements. It functions in accordance with certain Logical limitations and permissions based on the interaction of inherent values in everything.
SOL is just a natural limitation placed on the inherent value of photons. @ SOL a photon begins to acquire mass and mass cannot exceed SOL. It is a mathematical limitation imposed by spacetime geometry.
Also, you might want to consider that the duration of the second as well as the length of the meter is an arbitrary value set by humans. So stating that the speed of light is a certain number of meters per second is necesarily arbitrary.
Even if you were to accept that c is a function of the density (and other properties) of an aether as I touched on earlier, you would be left with arbitrary values for volume unless you could determine the volume (and other properties) of a mole of aether. If you get that far you might be able to refine our definition of the mole relating it to other universal quantities touched on by martin-peter-clarke and be on your way to your own Ultra Unification theory.
I suspect the mathematical universe guys would be thrilled with a UUT.
If they had it, they might be able to make sense of and develop formulae for the triple points which could have practical applications.
You’re just playing with words now. It doesn’t matter what language you use, the thing it’s describing doesn’t change. That’s why we can translate languages understand each other.
I don’t think so. Didirius’ question was “why 299’792’458 m/s and not less or more?” It seemed to me that he was questioning the quantity 299’792’458.
I was trying to explain to him that since both the meter and the second are arbitrary that quantity is also arbitrary and that there is no real significance in the quantity . It should be obvious that if we wamted to use a unit of length 238.65 times as long as the meter and a unit of time 0.0092 the duration of the second we would get a different quantity.
Of course the actual speed of light is just what it is regardless of the units used to describe it. Perhaps someday someone will discover a relationship between that speed and another universal constant and bring us closer to a unified theory without arbitrary units.
