C, here's the thing

What is the speed of light (the value of c), and why are we so sure that it is a true and immutable value?

Apparently, the fact is, it is true because we say it is. Einstein pointed this out in 1905, and called it a convention, and we still have no perfect way to say it is true because it is true, and not because we say it is.

We have no demonstrable way to establish that it is a hypothesis, and that our repeated measurements and observations point to it being an established theory.

Derek Muller explains the problem in this entertaining and thought-provoking video, part of his series called Veritasium.

But can a way be found? It’s worth a conversation, and sparks of ideas for creating real doable experiments.

4 Likes

What I take home from the video is “it doesn’t matter”. All the principles of relativity, whether of Galileo or Einstein, say the same thing. When we always measure the two-way speed, it doesn’t matter. And this seems reasonable for me, so I think it is good to assume that this method is dependable in all frames of reference.

2 Likes

Is it true that before publishing research of theory of relativity in 1905, swami Vivekananda and Nikola Tesla was working on it from 1897 but Tesla fail to explain mathematical proof.
I have one article of new york vedanta in which it is presented about this event and it also in complete works book.

Can we co relate this article.

And I agree with this it is like Einestein only presenting his view but not evident experiment.
Might be paper will help because Tesla also also failed to proof mathematically when swami Vivekananda wrote a letter for demonstration
His worda are

Mr. Tesla thinks he can demonstrate

mathematically that force and matter are reducible to potential energy
Screenshot_20201122-234141

1 Like

He didn’t need to conduct an experiment again, he was critiquing earlier experiments that had already established a fairly good value, and pointing out the flaw in their design, because it is a fundamental flaw that plagues any such design.

My purpose in bringing this to the attention of chatShaala participants is not to repeat this, because then I’m only repeating what other science enthusiasts are already saying very well. Rather, note that no one has been able to find a credible solution, and the solution must, by definition, be a maker project. So it is up to makers to give this some thought, and to find a way to establish in some practical manner whether light velocity is independent of direction, and is therefore truly an absolute value in our universe.

Of course, since we can’t presently figure out any way in which this matters to us, as @G_N has pointed out, it seems academic. However, the video does point to the reason why the resolution of any scientific fallacy is, in fact, important, and this one might very well turn out to be the foundation for a Grand Unified Theory, nothing less.

I think it could be fun to have a lot of young minds thinking about it.

3 Likes

My reason for showing that article is also same.
I think their must be one theory which can derivate the whole space time structure and dimensions. We have to also consider some @G_N @vvcstemplay BAREFOOT CHAT to discuss this.
Because we are discussing the subject which regulates the universe. And if we find that subject which drives all objects we can get closer to absolute theory.
The theory of uniqness and unity one. Sharing the full article of new york vedanta.

Swami+Vivekanandas+Search+For+A+Mathematical+Demonstration+Of+The+Unity+Of+Existence.pdf (132.7 KB)

1 Like

The history of science so far tells us that there are no absolute theories, and methodologically we cannot have a single theory for all.

1 Like

The mechanics of the very small are markedly different from the mechanics of the very large, yet they are different aspects of the same set of laws.

Yet, we lack a theory that enables us to explain what happened in the very early universe (roughly 1x10^-47 seconds), as present theories fail to have a solution for time itself in those moments. Without time, everything falls apart, and we are only able to say with some confidence what happens after that. In fact, we don’t actually have even words to describe it, as our language only has words for before and after, and in this case, before cannot be defined in terms of time.

The reasoning process in the video informs us that right through the 19th c till today, nobody has found any way to determine the velocity of light in any direction. All we have is the determination of the time taken by light in a round trip.

Now, let us imagine a light source at the centre of a ball, the inner wall of which is coated as a perfect mirror (loaded words, so some very smart construction is needed to actually build such a measuring device). Sensors loaded on the surface of the light ought to be able to measure the time taken by light to return from any and all directions. Will that solve the issue?

No, it won’t. It will only determine the time taken by each ray to make a round trip, and common sense as well as hard reality tells us that each ray is independent of the other, so the individual trips to the inner wall of the ball, and the return trips, have no bearing to each other. For each measurement, we are still stuck with a round trip.

Will fixing the velocity of light give us a single unified theory? Maybe not. But it establishes a more firm foundation for assessing the visible* universe, among other things.

*By ‘visible’, all ranges of electromagnetic spectra are included

Not perfect, of course, as it is obvious that if distortions in spacetime exist between our observation point and any distant observable source of light, then the velocity of light ceases to be a determinate metric towards establishing either distance or time of travel of the light from that object.

Can such distortions exist? Remarkably, they might even be common. Recent observations of our heliosphere have led to speculation that far distant orbiting objects, with highly elliptical orbits, might be extremely massy, yet so small that direct observation could need a different approach. Small, in this case, refers to a physical size similar to a ping-pong or golf ball, and such objects would have very similar properties as a ‘black hole’, or collapsed star, with extremely tiny event horizons, and also accretion disks. Orbiting in thinly filled space, such objects might not attract masses to themselves in any substantial fashion, but will very likely affect the passage of light from further objects.

Of course, observing the physical universe is hardly the only purpose of having a determinate value for light velocity. Much of our physics is based on the existence of a handful of constants, one of which is light velocity.

1 Like