Re: Defining nature

From: Mike Helland (mhelland_at_techmocracy.net)
Date: 08/20/04 

Date: 20 Aug 2004 08:11:01 -0700

Eric Gisse wrote:

> >> >If there exists a speed limit in the set of electromagnetic
phenomena,
> >> >our defintion of nature begs us to ask, does this necessarily
imply
> >> >that the speed limit is for all of nature?
> >>
> >> Pretty much.
> >
> >It does? Why?
>
> ...because SR applies to everything including E&M phenomena.

SR applies to everything with reference frames for observers, observers
connected to their observations by signals of light.

What I'm talking about is a reference frame in nature where the
observer is connected to their observation with different signals.
Perhaps the graviton?

In that case, I find it premature to assume that the graviton-based
observations act identically to the observations mediated by particles
travelling at c.

You, I take it, are comfortable in taking this assumption as true,
unchallenged?

> >Einstein's conclusion was based on how much energy would be required
> >for the photon to complete the interaction. If the objects where
> >moving faster than the speed of light it would take an infinite
amount
> >of energy.
>
> Cart before the horse. If you insist that Einstein created SR based
on
> that, I would like to see a cite.

SR determined how much energy was required, and his conclusion was the
speed limit.

<quote>
Such a particle would have infinite momentum if it could reach the
speed of light. Since it would take an infinite amount of force (or a
finite force acting over an infinite amount of time) to accelerate a
particle to infinite momentum, we are forced to conclude that a massive
particle always travels at speeds less than the speed of light.
</quote>
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html

> >But if you think this conclusion necessarily applies to all of
nature,
> >specifically the set of gravitational phenomena, then please
> >articulate the reason why.
>
> 1) GR - a certain postulate about the speed of light. GR works, which
> covers the entire spectrum of gravitation.
>
> 2) SR - a certain postulate about the speed of light. Mashed together
> with QM long ago, both used extensively in particle physics.
>
> There are only 4 forces, and in the 2 theories that explain the 4
> forces the constancy of the speed of light is universal. Unless you
> can provide a conterexample or evidence for a 5th force you are
> barking up the wrong tree.

I've already provided the counterexample. In quantum electrodynamics
the speed of light can be greater than c:

<quote>
Feynman's QED says that:

1) Photons "sniff out" all possible paths between A and B. Since we
cannot know any point where the photon was between A and B, we have no
idea whether it took a straight line or a random path. Any attempt to
detect the photon at a point between A and B effectively turns that
point of detection into the point B.

2) The major contribution to P(A to B)occurs at speed C but there is a
small amplitude for light to go faster or slower than C. These
amplitudes cancel out over long distances. However, in short distances,
these possibilities become vitally important.
</quote>
http://killdevilhill.com/physicschat/messages2/3918.html

> Again I would like to point out that you are doing nothing to advance
> physics. You are applying restrictions on the applicibility of
> theories for no good reason. I am, still, yet to see your motivation
> for any of this.

The motivation is the quest for truth. If physics assumes that there is
a speed limit of nature, but I can show that this speed limit is an
unjustified extraplation of knowledge about specific phenomena to all
phenomena, then wouldn't refining our knowledge to accurately reflect
new thinking be important to science? In fact... isn't that science?

What if the graviton does in fact move faster than c, and what if our
incorrect assumption about the speed limit is what is preventing us
from finding a working theory of quantum gravity?

Challenging assumptions to get closer to the truth is what I'm
motivated by.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: why lorentz transformation?
    ... I allowed you an insight into what Einstein meant when he wrote that ... The fact is that Einstein did not say that c is infinite, ... unattainable supremum to those speeds attainable by material bodies is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR consistency is crap.
    ... I allowed you an insight into what Einstein meant when he wrote that (or, ... The fact is that Einstein did not say that c is infinite, ... unattainable supremum to those speeds attainable by material bodies. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: SR consistency is crap.
    ... I allowed you an insight into what Einstein meant when he wrote that (or, ... The fact is that Einstein did not say that c is infinite, ... unattainable supremum to those speeds attainable by material bodies. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: SR consistency is crap.
    ... I allowed you an insight into what Einstein meant when he wrote that (or, ... The fact is that Einstein did not say that c is infinite, ... unattainable supremum to those speeds attainable by material bodies. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Photon Mass, Measuring Distance, and Mercurys orbit
    ... Nature is the information of all phenomena. ... speeds greater, there would be information about you in my ... impressively elegant working model of quantun gravity. ...
    (sci.physics)