Wikipedia "Speed of light" article
Army1987
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light) for peer review, and
another Wikipedian suggested to contact other people not currently active
on Wikipedia. In case you are interested, feel free to review the article
and to leave your comments at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3APeer_review/Speed_of_light/archive1
Thanks in advance.
--
Armando di Matteo <a r m y ONE NINE EIGHT SEVEN AT e m a i l DOT i t>
Vuolsi così colà dove si puote / ciò che si vuole; più non dimandare.
[ T H I S S P A C E I S F O R R E N T ]
Uncle Al
>
> I've nominated the Wikipedia article "Speed of light"
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light) for peer review, and
> another Wikipedian suggested to contact other people not currently active
> on Wikipedia. In case you are interested, feel free to review the article
> and to leave your comments at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3APeer_review/Speed_of_light/archive1
A fundamental question: why is lightspeed finite, and so slow in
comparison to astronomic scales? The discussion should include
engineering the vacuum, like the Scharnhorst effect,
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw43.html
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0107091
http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0010055
Phys. Lett. B236 354 (1990)
Phys. Lett. B250 133 (1990)
J Phys A26 2037 (1993)
A weak fouding postulate makes for a weak axiomatic system.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Androcles
"Army1987" <army...@foo.invalid> wrote in message
news:4ae61e5c$0$674$c5fe...@read01.usenet4all.se...
> I've nominated the Wikipedia article "Speed of light"
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light) for peer review, and
> another Wikipedian suggested to contact other people not currently active
> on Wikipedia. In case you are interested, feel free to review the article
> and to leave your comments at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3APeer_review/Speed_of_light/archive1
>
No way, I've had it with wackypedia. There is no need to advertise any
crackpot theory such as special relativity, and the bullshit line "In
physics, the speed of light (usually denoted c) is a physical constant, the
speed at which electromagnetic radiation, such as light, travels in free
space (i.e., perfect vacuum)" begs the question, relative to WHAT?
The whole page is nothing more than a prejudicial plug for an idiot's
theory.
If a car were to travel at 300,000 km/sec relative to the Sun and reach
Saturn from Earth in 1 hour and 10 minutes,
does it pass its own headlight beams? Only an idiot would say it did, and
only an idiot would say time slows down
for it.
M Not Musatov
jmfbahciv
> Army1987 wrote:
>> I've nominated the Wikipedia article "Speed of light"
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light) for peer review, and
>> another Wikipedian suggested to contact other people not currently active
>> on Wikipedia. In case you are interested, feel free to review the article
>> and to leave your comments at
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3APeer_review/Speed_of_light/archive1
>
> A fundamental question: why is lightspeed finite, and so slow in
> comparison to astronomic scales?
it has to go through all of that dark stuff.
But yea. We often wanted to speed it up and a lot
of the CPU designers had to do things to slow it down ;-).
>The discussion should include
> engineering the vacuum, like the Scharnhorst effect,
>
> http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw43.html
> http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0107091
> http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0010055
> Phys. Lett. B236 354 (1990)
> Phys. Lett. B250 133 (1990)
> J Phys A26 2037 (1993)
>
> A weak fouding postulate makes for a weak axiomatic system.
>
Founding? Folding?
/BAH
Rock Brentwood
> A fundamental question: why is lightspeed finite, and so slow in
> comparison to astronomic scales?
Or was it?
There are two ways of looking at the metric singularity for
cosmological time 0. Since the metric goes like the line element:
g = a dr^2 - b dt^2
with the ratio a/b -> 0 as you approach time 0, then one can interpret
this either as
(a) spatial distances are scaling as the factor "a" and are
approaching 0, relative to the "b" factor, with everything thus
contracting to a point.
or
(b) the RATIO a/b of the spatial and temporal part of the metric (i.e.
(1/c)^2) is approaching 0, but not necessarily the spatial distances
themselves.
In case (b), the spatial part of the metric dr^2 decouples from the
temporal part dt^2, and in the limit, one has a metric which is (up to
a scale factor) g = dt^2.
That's the metric for non-relativistic theory -- a Galilean spacetime;
or the 3-dimensional (equal time) slice of one.
In case (a), everything the initial singularity is 0-dimensional,
unless you accept the notion fo a 3-dimensional space with everything
at 0 distance.
Penrose made this subtle point in his "Road to Reality". He pointed
out that even though the Big Bang is popularly (mis-)portrayed as an
emergence from a single point of space and all that it contains, most
cosmologists regard the initial singularity as THREE dimensional, not
ZERO dimensional. The "minority" opinion, he pointed out, is held by
the Tipler "Omega Point" crowd.
The problem with a zero-dimensional singularity is that every single
part of the universe is in direct line of sight on the future light-
cone from that singular point. That's almost self-contradictory
(which, not too surprisingly, probably has something to do with why
the singularity is called a singularity).
A more reasonable point of view is that the surface is three-
dimensional, so that not all of it is in the past light cone and that
not all points in the universe see the same surface or same part of
the surface.
Another telltale way you can clearly see that you're actually talking
about a 3-dimensional NON-RELATIVISTIC surface is that all points of
this singular surface are absolutely simultaneous with one another --
they're all at time 0.
So, the Big Bang is actually a 3-dimensional layer of non-relativistic
spacetime adjoining a Lorentzian space-time, and it exhibits the
Galilean symmetry of non-relativistic spacetime.
The 3-D surface is either a flat Euclidean space, a hypersphere or a
hyperbolic 3-space, depending on which model of the universe holds.
(Hence the answer to the question, "Define the Universe, and give 3
examples.")
And the punchline is that since (b/a) -> infinity, that means (by
continuity) light speed approaches "cosmological distances" in the
close vicinity of Time 0. Near the Galilean surface, light speed
approaches appreciable proportions whose scale is characteristic of
the distances separating galaxies. Alternatively, and equivalently,
the distances separating galaxies approaches appreciably "small"
proportions of the distance light travels in a second or year.
These points raise two other interesting points:
(c) given that the singularity is 3-dimensional, what lies on the
other side of it? Does the Galilean signature extend for a finite
depth; or is it Lorentzian on the other size; or is it Euclidean; or
is there just absolutely nothing, with the 3-D surface being an
absolute Wall to reality?"
(d) the Galilean limit of field theory ceases to be a mere academic
exercise and suddenly has relevance to cosmology, in the vicinity of
the Big Bang. Are there lingering effects or imprints that can be
observed associated with the fields from what lies on (or across) the
singular surface?
The in vacuuo Maxwell field, for instance, cannot approach a
consistent Galilean limit (notwithstanding Levy-LeBlanc & LeBellac's
assertion to the contrary) while remaining a gauge field. But the in-
isotropic-medium Maxwell field DOES have a consistent well-defined
Galilean limit (the same for the other gauge fields).
Thus, an imprint would be the appearance of Maxwell's velocity vector
G which gives you the speed of the observer relative to the frame in
which the field is isotropic. Maxwell's G vector exists cosmologically
(given by the CMB). But what more can one say of it that might lead to
the ability to see more of an "imprint" from the initial comological
singular 3-surface.
Uncle Al
<http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-233667.html>
this guy
One gets the uncomfortable impression that physics needs a fundamental
reformulation consistent with information and techniques acquired
since the 1920s. String theory ain't it, nor SUSY.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
One best begins with an impertinent observation.
Uncle Al says, "Get stuck in an unpowered elevator and lavish
emergency procedures and personnel are mobilized. Get stuck on an
unpowered escalator and people look at you like you're stupid."
dlzc
On Oct 26, 3:10 pm, Army1987 <army1...@foo.invalid> wrote:
> I've nominated the Wikipedia article "Speed
> of light"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light)
> for peer review, and another Wikipedian
> suggested to contact other people not
> currently active on Wikipedia. In case you
> are interested, feel free to review the
> article and to leave your comments at
<snip link now broken by Google.Groups>
>
> Thanks in advance.
Comments added. References are made to visible light, without
explicitly stating it is visible light to which those "relations"
apply. I caught a few.
David A. Smith
Rock Brentwood
> One gets the uncomfortable impression that physics needs a fundamental
> reformulation consistent with information and techniques acquired
> since the 1920s. String theory ain't it, nor SUSY.
That's the Follow the Crowd approach. What everyone seems to forget is
that the Wisdom of the Masses phenomenon (in which the collective
intelligence of a group gets things right more than any of the group's
members) also has a flip side: the Stupidity of the Masses (i.e.,
because the group is right more often than its members, when the group
actually DOES get things wrong, it's magnified by the fact that
EVERYBODY is wrong!)
There is one objective way to judge matters. If a problem has
attracted the best and brightest for the better part of a century, and
nobody's come up with a clear-cut answer, then that probably means
everybody is going down the wrong path.
So, you can use the Lemming Test as an objective means to determine
what approaches are NOT the right answer. SUSY and string theory are
the wrong answer, solely because they fail the Lemming Test.
The very precept of there being such a thing as Quantum Gravity has
failed the Lemming Test. Gravity is not quantizable and for a very
elementary reason.
The metric and frame field are not part of a "natural bundle", but can
only be defined as part of a "gauge natural" bundle, if you accept a
local Lorentz symmetry as a gauge group. Gauge-natural bundles can be
effectively thought of as a partitioning of a natural bundle, each
subbundle giving you an INEQUIVALENT sector; no two inequivalent
sectors can be quantized within a single coherent state space.
A field cannot be quantized in any quantum theory that only has the
diffeomorphism group, unless the field is part of a natural bundle.
The connection is. The frame field and metric are not. This may be one
of the reasons Einstein looked early on at the idea of "purely affine"
geometries. It's why Kijowski and his people (who produced the LNP 107
volume) took on the idea of trying to formulate gravity as a purely
affine theory.
But if the metric appears as a fundamental field, then this breaks the
local GL(4) frame symmetry down to the orthogonal group SO(3,1). The
fields reside on a Lorentz bundle, but not on a natural bundle. The
reduction GL(4) -> SO(3, 1) is actually a form of symmetry breaking.
The 10 degrees of freedom lost in going over from the 16-d.o.f. GL(4)
symmetry to the 6-d.o.f SO(3,1) symmetry match (in number) the number
of frame components or metric components and they give you the
parametrization of a given subbundle.
Each subbundle has its own vacuum state. Two vacuum states from two
subbundles cannot be combined into a quantum superposition. The index
to the vector sectors (that is, the 10 degrees of freedom comprising
the metric/frame) are, in effect, a CLASSICAL and un-quantizable
field.
In other words: Penrose was right.
Uncle Al
>
> On Oct 28, 7:04 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > One gets the uncomfortable impression that physics needs a fundamental
> > reformulation consistent with information and techniques acquired
> > since the 1920s. String theory ain't it, nor SUSY.
>
> That's the Follow the Crowd approach. What everyone seems to forget is
> that the Wisdom of the Masses phenomenon (in which the collective
> intelligence of a group gets things right more than any of the group's
> members) also has a flip side: the Stupidity of the Masses (i.e.,
> because the group is right more often than its members, when the group
> actually DOES get things wrong, it's magnified by the fact that
> EVERYBODY is wrong!)
>
> There is one objective way to judge matters. If a problem has
> attracted the best and brightest for the better part of a century, and
> nobody's come up with a clear-cut answer, then that probably means
> everybody is going down the wrong path.
Either needs more genius or better observation to restrict or redefine
founding postulates. The minds are in place, the maths are rigorous
(as much as QM can be rigorous), consistent, and non-predictive. We
all know Uncle Al's position on this,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Somebody should look.
Everything already exists to do the observation: Equipment, test
masses, experimental protocols, personnel, and teleparallel
gravitation theory. Somebody should look.
> So, you can use the Lemming Test as an objective means to determine
> what approaches are NOT the right answer. SUSY and string theory are
> the wrong answer, solely because they fail the Lemming Test.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/reality.png
Science is empirical.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/god.jpg
The universe ignores majority votes.
> The very precept of there being such a thing as Quantum Gravity has
> failed the Lemming Test. Gravity is not quantizable and for a very
> elementary reason.
Or quantizations are fundamentally in error at the starting line.
Quantized gravitations require an odd-parity Chern-Simons term in
addition to even-parity Einstein-Hilbert action. All quantized
gravitations demand the Equivalence Principle directly or obliquely
(BRST invariance in perturbational string theory). If chemically and
macroscopically identical, opposite parity atomic mass distributions
falsify the Equivalence Principle, there's your problem solved on both
sides.
> The metric and frame field are not part of a "natural bundle", but can
> only be defined as part of a "gauge natural" bundle, if you accept a
> local Lorentz symmetry as a gauge group. Gauge-natural bundles can be
> effectively thought of as a partitioning of a natural bundle, each
> subbundle giving you an INEQUIVALENT sector; no two inequivalent
> sectors can be quantized within a single coherent state space.
Lorentz symmetry would be (trace) violated by a trace chiral
pseudoscalar vacuum background restricted to the massed sector (inert
to EM). Detection woul require exquisite apparatus (Eotvos balance)
and test masses (opposed single crystal enantiomorphic space groups
P3(1) and P3(2) glycine gamma-polymorph, or P3(1)21 and P3(2)21
quartz). No prior observation, lab or astronomic, would be
contradicted. Somebody should look.
> A field cannot be quantized in any quantum theory that only has the
> diffeomorphism group, unless the field is part of a natural bundle.
>
> The connection is. The frame field and metric are not. This may be one
> of the reasons Einstein looked early on at the idea of "purely affine"
> geometries. It's why Kijowski and his people (who produced the LNP 107
> volume) took on the idea of trying to formulate gravity as a purely
> affine theory.
>
> But if the metric appears as a fundamental field, then this breaks the
> local GL(4) frame symmetry down to the orthogonal group SO(3,1). The
> fields reside on a Lorentz bundle, but not on a natural bundle. The
> reduction GL(4) -> SO(3, 1) is actually a form of symmetry breaking.
> The 10 degrees of freedom lost in going over from the 16-d.o.f. GL(4)
> symmetry to the 6-d.o.f SO(3,1) symmetry match (in number) the number
> of frame components or metric components and they give you the
> parametrization of a given subbundle.
>
> Each subbundle has its own vacuum state. Two vacuum states from two
> subbundles cannot be combined into a quantum superposition. The index
> to the vector sectors (that is, the 10 degrees of freedom comprising
> the metric/frame) are, in effect, a CLASSICAL and un-quantizable
> field.
>
> In other words: Penrose was right.
The jury remains in the court until all the physical evidence is
disclosed. Gravitation is a geometry not a stockroom. Somebody give
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/
a boot to the head. You'd think they'd grow tired of guaranteed
measuring zero from their stockroom,
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/lowfrontier2.pdf>
but you'd be wrong,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/publon.htm
Ask Dr. Schund
Somebody should look.