Variable Speed of Light Relativity
Perfectly Innocent
The Story of a Scientific Speculation," _Perseus Publishing_, 2003,
that revisions to special relativity are possible which do not
contradict the relativity of motion.
I quote:
"IT'S DIFFICULT to sum up where VSL stands, as I finish this book,
because it is still well within the maelstrom of scientific inquiry.
VSL is now an umbrella for many different theories, all predicting, in
one way or another, that the speed of light is not constant, and that
revisions to special relativity are required. Some of these theories
contradict the relativity of motion--for example, the model Andy and I
first proposed--but others don't. Some predict that the speed of light
varies in space-time, such as my Lorentz-invariant VSL theory and
Moffat's theory." (p. 256).
Judging from the pages I've read I don't believe Magueijo's claim for
a minute. I am fairly confident that I can refute it easily. All I
need is for someone to exhibit a concrete example--an explicit
transformation equation--expressing how space-time events transform in
different "inertial" frames of reference, preserving the principle of
relativity. Out of all you geniuses, and from the entire collection of
VSL papers, does anyone here know how to write down even one of these
alleged transforms explicitly for the easy case of one spatial
dimension?
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
Bill Hobba
Easy. As myself and Bilge have said many times relativity can be expressed
in a form having nothing to with light. See Rindler - Introduction to
Special Relativity for details. Also in another thread a link was given to
a previous posting of Tom Roberts where he derived the Lorentz
transformation from group theory. I have set myself a little project of
hacking this wonderful little piece to extend it a bit and clarify some
points I think are important. Will post when I have finished (my financial
planning masters is taking up a bit pf my time).
Thanks
Bill
Perfectly Innocent
Bill,
Let me speak plainly. I'm NOT asking for a derivation of the Lorentz
transformation. SR is not a VSL (variable speed of light) theory. I'm
requesting an explicit example of a VSL (variable speed of light)
relativity that preserves the principle of relativity.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
Bilge
He didn't give you a derivation of the lorentz transformation, per se.
What he said was that for a transformation of the form:
t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
the quantity, tanh(A) doesn't have to be v/c. The general transformation,
however will still be of the same form. That doesn't imply anything
about whether or not the transformation will reduce to one which
is lorentz covariant under the assumption that c is a constant.
> SR is not a VSL (variable speed of light) theory. I'm
>requesting an explicit example of a VSL (variable speed of light)
>relativity that preserves the principle of relativity.
>
Have you considered reading some of the articles to which you allude?
For example, magueijo:
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0007036
greywolf42
Perfectly Innocent <perfectl...@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.03073...@posting.google.com...
The commonly available ones that I know of are:
1) General Relativity (1916). Light speed is a function of gravitational
potential.
2) Lorentz Electrodynamic Theory (1904). However, that might not be
"explicit" enough for you.
3) Maxwell's aether used to first derive "Maxwell's equations" ("On Physical
Lines of Force"). Light speed is a function of the properties of the
medium.
None have been "disproved" to my knowledge. Except perhaps GR in the case
of "black holes" and quasiperiodic variations.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Steve Carlip
> Let me speak plainly. I'm NOT asking for a derivation of the Lorentz
> transformation. SR is not a VSL (variable speed of light) theory. I'm
> requesting an explicit example of a VSL (variable speed of light)
> relativity that preserves the principle of relativity.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0012051
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0207085
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0001481
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0007036
Lots more where those came from...
Steve Carlip
Bill Hobba
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
>
> > Let me speak plainly. I'm NOT asking for a derivation of the Lorentz
> > transformation. SR is not a VSL (variable speed of light) theory. I'm
> > requesting an explicit example of a VSL (variable speed of light)
> > relativity that preserves the principle of relativity.
>
Steve Carlip wrote;
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0012051
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0207085
> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0001481
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0007036
>
I had a brief look at the outlines which certainly is not as good as going
through the details. The impression I get however is that they are dealing
either with frames that are not inertial or proposing extra structure on an
inertial frame. If so then I can sort of see what they are getting at (as
far as you can without going into the detail). However if not then I do not
see how it is possible to get around the general outcome of the symmetry
implied by the POR - that the speed information can be sent must be
invariant between inertial reference frames or causality must be violated.
Or am I missing something? You are quite at liberty to tell me to stop
being lazy and read the papers but certainly on the surface it seems a bit
funny.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
Perfectly Innocent: wrote:
> >Let me speak plainly. I'm NOT asking for a derivation of the Lorentz
> >transformation.
>
Bilge replied:
> He didn't give you a derivation of the lorentz transformation, per se.
> What he said was that for a transformation of the form:
>
> t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
>
> x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
>
> the quantity, tanh(A) doesn't have to be v/c. The general transformation,
> however will still be of the same form. That doesn't imply anything
> about whether or not the transformation will reduce to one which
> is lorentz covariant under the assumption that c is a constant.
>
This is the point Bilge and I repeatedly try and make - the POR alone
implies the equations above with an undetermined c. We know to a high
degree of accuracy c is the speed of light. What we do not know is if it is
actually the speed of light, but that such a speed must exist is a
consequence of the symmetry properties of an inertial frame.
Bilge replied:
>
> Have you considered reading some of the articles to which you allude?
> For example, magueijo:
>
> http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0007036
I guess I am not lilywhite either - I should acquaint myself with the more
advance literature as well. I did have a look a while ago but it was just
cursory - I really should not be that lazy and and have a good look.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
Bill hobba wrote:
> I guess I am not lilywhite either - I should acquaint myself with the more
> advance literature as well. I did have a look a while ago but it was just
> cursory - I really should not be that lazy and and have a good look.
I had more than a quick look at the paper this time - a full 15 minutes
worth (I am lazy not quick). What I gleaned was the following:
'The resulting theory retains the unit-invariant aspects of the second
postulate, and clearly c may now be anisotropy and vary in space-time. Under
such circumstances what is the structure which represents Lorentz
invariance?'
To me this would be a breaking of the space isotropy property of an inertial
reference frame. If light behaved that way there would be a preferred
direction that could be determined experimentally so you would not be
dealing with a strictly inertial frame. Now of course inertial reference
frames are a construct - they do not exist in reality. So again this leads
me to believe these theories are proposing a gradual wreaking of what an
inertial frame is to see if that can be used to model reality better. A
perfectly legit direction I might add but I am not sure this is what the
original poster was after.
I still believe that the symmetry properties of an inertial frame imply the
existence of an invariant speed.
Thanks
Bill
Perfectly Innocent
> What he said was that for a transformation of the form:
>
> t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
>
> x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
>
> the quantity, tanh(A) doesn't have to be v/c.
> Have you considered reading some of the articles to which you allude?
> For example, magueijo:
>
> http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0007036
Hi Bilge,
Let's suppose that we have a general 1-parameter group of
transformations. We can discuss the one you listed.
It's of no surprise to anyone that each transformation acts on an
event (x, t) and that each transformation is determined by parameter
A. Obviously, as the physics geniuses announce, c isn't mentioned
anywhere. The question is, How should we interpret the group so that
it represents different observers in different states of motion?
Answer: Each transformation gives us a change of coordinates between
different "inertial" frames of reference. Consequently, an observer
resting comfortably in his frame at x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)] = 0
will trace out a path x = t tanh(A) in the other frame. At this stage
in our theory, we define the "velocity" v to be the number tanh(A). We
notice immediately, then, that there's a limit to velocity. The limit
is -1 and 1. Adding to this curiosity, we notice that the equation
x=t implies x'=t' and x=-t implies x'=-t'.
A great wonder child is born and he conjectures that light moves at
this velocity. Then another child rises up and posts on the newsgroups
saying, "We were giants yesterday and we'll be Lilliputians tomorrow."
"Listen up all you trolls. Hear these wonderful words, O you idiots."
I heard the words but they seemed unnecessarily complex. I asked my
father what they meant and he said, "The speed of light is slowing
down but we're shrinking at the same rate so it's not easy to measure
the transformation unless you first master the occult sciences."
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
Perfectly Innocent
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0012051
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0207085
> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0001481
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0007036
>
> Lots more where those came from...
>
> Steve Carlip
Steve,
I'm not asking for an anthology on physics (but I am thinking about
writing one, called Gulliver's travails). I'm asking for a specific
mathematical transformation (I'm thinking a 1-parameter group of
transformations) expressing how space-time events transform between
different "inertial" frames of reference. Hopefully, the
transformation will be explicit and easy to understand. That's why I
requested the easy case of one spatial dimension.
If the transformations form a group, then I'm insisting that the group
preserves the principle of relativity and that the group invariants
demonstrate a variable speed of light. Let me illustrate.
Let f be an invertible function and let f* be the inverse of f. Then
the transformations:
x'= Y(v)(x-vf(t))
t'=f*(Y(v)(f(t)-vx/c^2))
form a group. Y(v)=1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
It's an easy check in algebra to prove that x=cf(t) implies x'=cf(t').
That's the kind of invariant that I'm looking for. (I'm certain that
you know what an invariant is). I assume you know all about geometric
group theory and Klein's Erlanger program:
"Every geometry is defined by a group of transformations, and the goal
of every geometry is to study invariants of this group." Klein,
Erlanger Program.
"Each type of geometry is the study of the invariants of a group of
transformations; that is, the symmetry transformation of some chosen
space." Stewart and Golubitsky 1993, p. 44.
"A geometry is defined by a group of transformations, and investigates
everything that is invariant under the transformations of this given
group." Weyl 1952, p. 133.
In the group defined above, let c go to infinity. Then the group
transformations simply to:
x'= x-vf(t)
t'=t
Spacetime governed by this group is easily interpreted as a universe
where all "inertial" frames of reference are uniformly speeding up or
slowing down. In this instance, Newtonian relativity is generalized
but the speed of light is still unvarying and infinite. The problem
is, in the generalization of SR above, where the general group is
defined by a general function f, the principle of relativity is
violated for every function f except in the one instance where f(x)=x.
That's what I had in mind in the opening post. Issues like that. So
let's go back to my original question. In the references you cited,
did you have at least one specific page in mind? What's the page
number?
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
RL Gerl
>
> Bilge replied:
> > He didn't give you a derivation of the lorentz transformation, per se.
> > What he said was that for a transformation of the form:
> >
> > t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
> >
> > x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
> >
> > the quantity, tanh(A) doesn't have to be v/c. The general
transformation,
> > however will still be of the same form. That doesn't imply anything
> > about whether or not the transformation will reduce to one which
> > is lorentz covariant under the assumption that c is a constant.
>
> This is the point Bilge and I repeatedly try and make - the POR alone
> implies the equations above with an undetermined c. We know to a high
> degree of accuracy c is the speed of light. What we do not know is if it
is
> actually the speed of light, but that such a speed must exist is a
> consequence of the symmetry properties of an inertial frame.
I don't know how many people following this thread are familiar with some of
the latest results from the world of astronomy, so I'm reposting these links
for the interested. These make interesting reading and I hope people read
these articles carefully and completely as they restrict changes in c to no
more than one part or so in 10^32 over billions of years.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-03d.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/quantum_bits_030402.html
Bilge
>message news:<slrnbil7q1....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
>
>> What he said was that for a transformation of the form:
>>
>> t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
>>
>> x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
>>
>> the quantity, tanh(A) doesn't have to be v/c.
>
>> Have you considered reading some of the articles to which you allude?
>> For example, magueijo:
>>
>> http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0007036
>
>
>Hi Bilge,
>
>Let's suppose that we have a general 1-parameter group of
>transformations. We can discuss the one you listed.
[...]
>"Listen up all you trolls. Hear these wonderful words, O you idiots."
>I heard the words but they seemed unnecessarily complex. I asked my
>father what they meant and he said, "The speed of light is slowing
>down but we're shrinking at the same rate so it's not easy to measure
>the transformation unless you first master the occult sciences."
Was there a point to your narrative?
Perfectly Innocent
> > > Bilge wrote:
> > t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
> >
> > x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
> >
> > the quantity, tanh(A) doesn't have to be v/c.
>
> This is the point Bilge and I repeatedly try and make - the POR alone
> implies the equations above with an undetermined c.
>
> Thanks
> Bill
Your comments have nothing to do with VSL (variable speed of light)
relativity.
There's nothing **undetermined** about the greatest possible speed in
a universe governed by the equations:
t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
The greatest possible speed in this instance is dx/dt=1. Consequently,
c=1. That's an absolute, unvarying constant.
Please permit me to restate my question. Joao Magueijo asserts that
revisions to special relativity are possible that do not contradict
the relativity of motion. Ibid (p. 256). I'm asking, What are the
transformation equations to this alleged revision of SR where the
principle of relativity is still true?
As I've mentioned elsewhere, revisions to Newtonian physics and
Galilean relativity are possible that do not contradict the relativity
of motion but similar types of revisions to Einstein's special theory
seem too incredible to believe.
I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying that mathematical solutions
that revolutionary shouldn't be hidden. It's obvious that you don't
believe that such an animal exists.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
Bilge
>
>> > > Bilge wrote:
>
>> > t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
>> >
>> > x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
>> >
>> > the quantity, tanh(A) doesn't have to be v/c.
>>
>> This is the point Bilge and I repeatedly try and make - the POR alone
>> implies the equations above with an undetermined c.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Bill
>
>Your comments have nothing to do with VSL (variable speed of light)
>relativity.
papers you mentioned by magueijo.
>There's nothing **undetermined** about the greatest possible speed in
>a universe governed by the equations:
>
>t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
>
>x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
>
>The greatest possible speed in this instance is dx/dt=1. Consequently,
>c=1. That's an absolute, unvarying constant.
Did you read anything by the author you mentioned (magueijo)
e.g., the articles to which you were given references?
>Please permit me to restate my question. Joao Magueijo asserts that
>revisions to special relativity are possible that do not contradict
>the relativity of motion. Ibid (p. 256). I'm asking, What are the
>transformation equations to this alleged revision of SR where the
>principle of relativity is still true?
That is answered for you on pg 1 of the article I referenced.
Perfectly Innocent
> Perfectly Innocent:
> >"Bill Hobba" <bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message news:<3f2b0...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
> >
> >> > > Bilge wrote:
>
> >> > t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
> >> >
> >> > x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
> >> >
> >> > the quantity, tanh(A) doesn't have to be v/c.
> >>
> >> This is the point Bilge and I repeatedly try and make - the POR alone
> >> implies the equations above with an undetermined c.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Bill
> >
> >Your comments have nothing to do with VSL (variable speed of light)
> >relativity.
>
> Not so.
So, you don't know how to compute the most obvious group invariants?
> >There's nothing **undetermined** about the greatest possible speed in
> >a universe governed by the equations:
> >
> >t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
> >
> >x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
> >
> >The greatest possible speed in this instance is dx/dt=1. Consequently,
> >c=1. That's an absolute, unvarying constant.
>
> Did you read anything by the author you mentioned (magueijo)
> e.g., the articles to which you were given references?
I heard the words but they seemed unnecessarily complex. I asked my
father what they meant and he said, "The speed of light is slowing
down but we're shrinking at the same rate so it's not easy to measure
the transformation unless you first master the occult sciences."
> >Please permit me to restate my question. Joao Magueijo asserts that
> >revisions to special relativity are possible that do not contradict
> >the relativity of motion. Ibid (p. 256). I'm asking, What are the
> >transformation equations to this alleged revision of SR where the
> >principle of relativity is still true?
>
> That is answered for you on pg 1 of the article I referenced.
How does the Lorentz transformation support the theory that "we were
giants yesterday and we'll be Lilliputians tomorrow"?
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/
Bilge
>news:<slrnbirn1b....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
>> Perfectly Innocent:
>> >Your comments have nothing to do with VSL (variable speed of light)
>> >relativity.
>>
>> Not so.
>
>So, you don't know how to compute the most obvious group invariants?
Are you just being dense or are your posts some sort of performance art
designed to instill that perception in readers? What the hell are you
talking about and how does it relate to the theories you asked about?
>> Did you read anything by the author you mentioned (magueijo)
>> e.g., the articles to which you were given references?
>
>I heard the words but they seemed unnecessarily complex.
That's not my problem. Rather than ask specific questions about the
the references you were provided, you post obtuse crap like this:
>I asked my
>father what they meant and he said, "The speed of light is slowing
>down but we're shrinking at the same rate so it's not easy to measure
>the transformation unless you first master the occult sciences."
Then why don't you ask your father for his books on spells and
sorcery?
>> >Please permit me to restate my question. Joao Magueijo asserts that
>> >revisions to special relativity are possible that do not contradict
>> >the relativity of motion. Ibid (p. 256). I'm asking, What are the
>> >transformation equations to this alleged revision of SR where the
>> >principle of relativity is still true?
>>
>> That is answered for you on pg 1 of the article I referenced.
>
>How does the Lorentz transformation support the theory that "we were
>giants yesterday and we'll be Lilliputians tomorrow"?
Since I haven't the faintest ide what such a deliberately obtuse and
pointless question means, you'll have to use your ouija board to get
the answer you want. Why did you post a lot of nonsense about variable
speed of light theories and in particular, magueijo, if you weren't
interested in reading the reference you were given and try to formulate
questions that appear to have been given some thought?
Steve Carlip
> I'm not asking for an anthology on physics (but I am thinking about
> writing one, called Gulliver's travails). I'm asking for a specific
> mathematical transformation (I'm thinking a 1-parameter group of
> transformations) expressing how space-time events transform between
> different "inertial" frames of reference.
For specific transformations, see
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0207085 sections 3.1 and 3.3
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0107059 section 4
Steve Carlip
Perfectly Innocent
Dear Steve,
Please pardon my ignorance. I only have a BA in mathematics. Could you
translate the equations I seek to the level of Rindler's special
relativity books?
Is there something preventing Variable Speed of Light Relativity to be
easily compared with the Lorentz transformation of ordinary SR in one
spatial dimension?
I'm expecting the transformation in one spatial dimension to look
something like:
x'=f(x,t)
t'=g(x,t)
With great appreciation,
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/
John C. Polasek
I looked at the first archive you mentioned. I was appalled to see the
authors propose modifying Diracs equation as follows: (where E2 =
E squared):
E2 = p2 + m2 + lambda*E3
with lambda being "order of Planck length".
Length! For a homogeneous equation lambda needs to be inverse energy
doesn't it? There's no wiggle room. You can't have inverse energy of
the order of Planck length. You might as well have Planck mass, but
no, it's too heavy!
I think it's dreadful: physics books have equations, never accompanied
by numbers, and if with numbers, never with units. That's how we get
such mongrel mathematification and keeps the numerologist going.
Or have I got it wrong again?
Mr. Dual Space
(If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay).
Dharma Fog
[snip]
> I looked at the first archive you mentioned. I was appalled to see the
> authors propose modifying Diracs equation as follows: (where E2 =
> E squared):
> E2 = p2 + m2 + lambda*E3
> with lambda being "order of Planck length".
It's
E^2 = p^2 + m^2 + lambda*E^3
>
> Length! For a homogeneous equation lambda needs to be inverse energy
> doesn't it?
In natural units, length has dimensions of inverse energy.
John C. Polasek
Tell me more. if Joule-meters = 1, what are some of the other units?
Dharma Fog
> >It's
> >
> > E^2 = p^2 + m^2 + lambda*E^3
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Length! For a homogeneous equation lambda needs to be inverse energy
> >> doesn't it?
> >
> >In natural units, length has dimensions of inverse energy.
> Tell me more. if Joule-meters = 1, what are some of the other units?
Notice that c=1 in the above equation, which means the relationship
between
the units in time and the units of space has already been fixed
meters/secs = 1
From elementary dimensional analysis
Joule-meter=(kg)*(meter^2)*(meter)/(sec^2)=kg*(meter)[(meter^2)/(sec^2)]
Using c = 1, this eliminates the (meter^2)/(sec^2) piece - now you
need to find a physical constant in MKS unit such that the ratio of
kg/1(meter) is equal to 1.
Then you can set Joule-meters = 1 and call them the "Polasek" units.
For the case of the Joule, see
http://superstringtheory.com/unitsa.html
-- Ken
John C. Polasek
<Dhar...@VirtualMachines.COM> wrote:
>, "John C. Polasek" wrote:
>> >It's
>> >
>> > E^2 = p^2 + m^2 + lambda*E^3
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Length! For a homogeneous equation lambda needs to be inverse energy
>> >> doesn't it?
>> >
>> >In natural units, length has dimensions of inverse energy.
>> Tell me more. if Joule-meters = 1, what are some of the other units?
>
>Notice that c=1 in the above equation, which means the relationship
>between
>the units in time and the units of space has already been fixed
>
> meters/secs = 1
>
>From elementary dimensional analysis
>
>
>Joule-meter=(kg)*(meter^2)*(meter)/(sec^2)=kg*(meter)[(meter^2)/(sec^2)]
>
>Using c = 1, this eliminates the (meter^2)/(sec^2) piece - now you
>need to find a physical constant in MKS unit such that the ratio of
>kg/1(meter) is equal to 1.
>
JP:
No I don't need to find x = kg/m. You have "eliminated" v^2 entirely,
and you think, without consequence.
But you forget that in a real problem, you will now have to carry
along a new variable, say beta= v/c with a footnote explaining this
as well as when you introduce any other variable. I can see where in
special relativity this can be handy. But, in the large, no good can
come of this casuistry.
Recognize that in using c = 1, you have performed a transformation
from physics, where experience can help, to mathematics, where it
won't.
The CGS people say D = eps*E, where eps = 1 or 1/4pi, for the vacuum,
causing one to say Volts/meter = coulombs/meter^2, but since that
can't be so, it's hard to say what D or E are.
In SI we say D = eps*E and eps = farad/meter, so all's right with the
world.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave--"
>Then you can set Joule-meters = 1 and call them the "Polasek" units.
>
>For the case of the Joule, see
>
> http://superstringtheory.com/unitsa.html
Maybe I should look.
>-- Ken