I generally put my faith in those with greater experience and lifelong formal education yet often times on sites like these I will witness folks arguing what is already known to me as fact.


Hence I base a lot of my facts on, which are in reality, second hand knowledge. A very sharp double edged sword indeed.


The line between fact and conjecture seems to become more obscured as a person gathers more facts and improves their fact finding ability because they have gathered a wide variety of second hand knowledge instead of carrying out experiment and calculation themselves. So I must ask, how many here have really done this work?


So it becomes that many folks on this site for example don't feel the need to include references and sources where I largely discard their opinions without.


Let's not forget about half the planet believes in "God" which is the pinnacle of assumption and yet many of those people are well educated in other areas so I seriously doubt their ability to view the world objectively across all subjects. Many folks seem to say 'good enough for me' regarding one fact and breeze onto the next.

Some are more stubborn when it comes to accepting as facts which have long since been proven. Others put forth arguments which have absolutely no evidentiary basis whatsoever. Like when has anyone ever actually observed FTL transmission?

 

Some are more stubborn when it comes to accepting as facts which have long since been proven. Others put forth arguments which have absolutely no evidentiary basis whatsoever. Like when has anyone ever actually observed FTL transmission?

What I find most interesting about questions like the title.. in order for the question to be valid, we assume our current knowledge of the speed of light is accurate enough as to become the benchmark of comparison. I'm not arguing for or against, rather, I'm pointing out the conjecture as it is possible that light speed may not be constant throughout the cosmos as it has been measured where we have measured it so far which is a very small portion of space. We are also dealing with quantities that appear to be infinitesimal as an error parameter is also usually given.

So in the context of 'building blocks' (one concept formed on the basis of the previous), this whole discussion may be invalid to begin with. Again, I'm not saying it is or isn't.. I just think it's important to include this possibility because if we are wrong about the basis of an argument, then the rest that follows is also wrong.

Historically speaking, this has been the case many times as 'facts' are constantly being rewritten in many different branches of science. Of course this won't stop people from calling each other dummies with the sword and shield of conjecture. Many people think just because they are convinced of one thing, then everyone should be too because the measure that has convinced them should automatically convince everyone else.

Think what you will, just be careful what you say to the next person because things are rarely what they seem. I for one, have had enough of telling people what's what based on my limited view of things being a small human in a big, big world. This is why I am agnostic and more importantly, vegan.

 

What I find most interesting about questions like the title.. in order for the question to be valid, we assume our current knowledge of the speed of light is accurate enough as to become the benchmark of comparison. I'm not arguing for or against, rather, I'm pointing out the conjecture as it is possible that light speed may not be constant throughout the cosmos as it has been measured where we have measured it so far which is a very small portion of space. We are also dealing with quantities that appear to be infinitesimal as an error parameter is also usually given.

So in the context of 'building blocks' (one concept formed on the basis of the previous), this whole discussion may be invalid to begin with. Again, I'm not saying it is or isn't.. I just think it's important to include this possibility because if we are wrong about the basis of an argument, then the rest that follows is also wrong.

Historically speaking, this has been the case many times as 'facts' are constantly being rewritten in many different branches of science. Of course this won't stop people from calling each other dummies with the sword and shield of conjecture. Many people think just because they are convinced of one thing, then everyone should be too because the measure that has convinced them should automatically convince everyone else.

Think what you will, just be careful what you say to the next person because things are rarely what they seem. I for one, have had enough of telling people what's what based on my limited view of things being a small human in a big, big world. This is why I am agnostic and if you can relate the above concepts, vegan.

I think your argument is based on a specious conjecture. We are pretty certain that we know the speed of light to quite a few significant figures. I know of no research that suggests the laws of physics depend on where you are located. I do admit that things change, especially our perceptions, according to your surroundings. Interstellar space is a different gravitational environment than orbiting a black hole. I doubt that we will discover that Maxwell's equations are valid here and not there. I'm also confident that the strong nuclear force is the same everywhere and the weak force is as well. That leaves quantum mechanics which is a thing most people struggle with. Even physicists of the early 20th century had trouble with accepting it. If you have actual evidence for some thing that behaves differently in our galaxy versus another, then we have something to talk about. Otherwise idle musings about possibilities are just that and about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

 

I think your argument is based on a specious conjecture. We are pretty certain that we know the speed of light to quite a few significant figures. I know of no research that suggests the laws of physics depend on where you are located. I do admit that things change, especially our perceptions, according to your surroundings. Interstellar space is a different gravitational environment than orbiting a black hole. I doubt that we will discover that Maxwell's equations are valid here and not there. I'm also confident that the strong nuclear force is the same everywhere and the weak force is as well. That leaves quantum mechanics which is a thing most people struggle with. Even physicists of the early 20th century had trouble with accepting it. If you have actual evidence for some thing that behaves differently in our galaxy versus another, then we have something to talk about. Otherwise idle musings about possibilities are just that and about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

Fair enough but we will be long dead before "we" are are able to set up any sort of apparatus in the nearest star system much less the entire universe so your view is just as specious as mine regarding the fundamental forces. If you do not consider this possibility useful then I suppose that's your cognitive limitation, it is certainly useful to me in an attempt to be as objective as possible. It's not my idea either, there are several top minds that have presented this very argument as reason to delve further into the issues.

 

Fair enough but we will be long dead before "we" are are able to set up any sort of apparatus in the nearest star system much less the entire universe so your view is just as specious as mine regarding the fundamental forces. If you do not consider this possibility useful then I suppose that's your cognitive limitation, it is certainly useful to me in an attempt to be as objective as possible. It's not my idea either, there are several top minds that have presented this very argument as reason to delve further into the issues.

I don't believe that. With instruments like the Webb, LIGO, etc ... we can 'see' across the universe and test our theories using remote sensing.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/teach/activity/using-light-to-study-planets/

There's no need to be physically there to validate theories of fundamental forces across the known universe and time. That's why we know there is a problem (our fundamental understanding at all scales) with gravity, our predictions of what we think should happen don't quite jive with what we're seeing.

 

Fair enough but we will be long dead before "we" are are able to set up any sort of apparatus in the nearest star system much less the entire universe so your view is just as specious as mine regarding the fundamental forces. If you do not consider this possibility useful then I suppose that's your cognitive limitation, it is certainly useful to me in an attempt to be as objective as possible. It's not my idea either, there are several top minds that have presented this very argument as reason to delve further into the issues.

I disagree. We have substantial evidence in favor of our understanding of the fundamental forces. We lack any evidence or justification that the notion of faster than light communication is possible.

 

Actually, there are astronomical observations that do not agree to our current knowledge. The most glaring one is the rotation curve of galaxies. Such anomalies lead to new hypotheses and hopefully, eventually, to new physics. There are several viable explanations of the galaxy rotation curve, including various forms of dark matter, modified Newtonian mechanics, and modified gravity. None has yet been successful.

 

Right or wrong, I don't feel that the science has been done yet. To me it is still an open question. Does my personal biases influence this, maybe.

Hi there Wendy,

Sir Issac Newton is still considered one of the greatest mathematicians and physicists of all time. In his time, everyone everywhere believed that the theory of gravity was complete and settled (as in settled law). It was not until about 200 years later (that's about three generations of humans) that it was discovered that he was missing something that was so far removed from his ideas that no one at his time would have ever ever ever believed it could be possible. Apparently he missed one little fact: the precession of Mercury. I even wonder if he was able to measure such a thing in his time.
It's only been about 300 years since Sir Issac Newton and his 'theory' of gravitation. What is to come in 3000 years. Anyone who thinks they can predict this has to be aware of Carl Sagan's famous quote:
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (ECREE)"

Note also (chuckle) that i am 'reusing' this quote from a former post here in this thread. What i find strange is when people quote NEUTRAL statements as if they somehow can quality their own beliefs. It's the cup half full or half empty again.

Also, i have to also say that i have talked about this 'ad nauseam' (another borrowed phrase that seems to give more credibility to my personal claim).

What i think it is is that some people believe that there is no possibility of a sporadic advance in science. That is, that everything under the sun and beyond must come in a perfectly structured order. The only order i can see that is consistent is that one year we dont know something, then the next year we do. I dont see any other structure when looking back in history. This makes me again think of the old chess player's adage, "If you see a good move, sit on your hands and find a better one", which simply means dont be to quick to judge as there may be something better.

So, if we havent learned anything about the original topic, i put forward that we have learned that there are two types of people:
Those that believe that knowledge in science is a linear progression of knowledge that compiles in a very orderly and unchangeable way, and those that believe that science can change drastically and without warning as time progresses.
We can actually find fields of study where the second here has overtaken the first already. I just cant help but believe that any field of study can follow that pattern because we just dont know everything yet and it's as simple as that.

It's been interesting though

 

There are tons of experiments operating this second that log data transmission times, cosmic ray particle events, etc... that could show signs of FTL communications or speeds. Any that show a discrepancy that can't be eliminated by trivial means are investigated deeply to find the source.

"There's nothing more dangerous than a loose wire"
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/ftl-neutrinos.59683/post-458879

https://phys.org/news/2012-06-einstein-neutrino.html
Einstein was right, neutrino researchers admit

https://jimal-khalili.com/blog/Faster-than-the-speed-of-light/

That's pretty damn sure.

Hi,

He cant eat his shorts if he isnt still alive when it happens, therefore his 'bet' is grossly in err. He may never be able to pay up.

 

Sir Issac Newton is still considered one of the greatest mathematicians and physicists of all time. In his time, everyone everywhere believed that the theory of gravity was complete and settled (as in settled law). It was not until about 200 years later (that's about three generations of humans) that it was discovered that he was missing something that was so far removed from his ideas that no one at his time would have ever ever ever believed it could be possible. Apparently he missed one little fact: the precession of Mercury. I even wonder if he was able to measure such a thing in his time.

It's only been about 300 years since Sir Issac Newton and his 'theory' of gravitation. What is to come in 3000 years. Anyone who thinks they can predict this has to be aware of Carl Sagan's famous quote:

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (ECREE)"


Note also (chuckle) that i am 'reusing' this quote from a former post here in this thread. What i find strange is when people quote NEUTRAL statements as if they somehow can quality their own beliefs. It's the cup half full or half empty again.


Also, i have to also say that i have talked about this 'ad nauseam' (another borrowed phrase that seems to give more credibility to my personal claim).


What i think it is is that some people believe that there is no possibility of a sporadic advance in science. That is, that everything under the sun and beyond must come in a perfectly structured order. The only order i can see that is consistent is that one year we dont know something, then the next year we do. I dont see any other structure when looking back in history. This makes me again think of the old chess player's adage, "If you see a good move, sit on your hands and find a better one", which simply means dont be to quick to judge as there may be something better.


So, if we havent learned anything about the original topic, i put forward that we have learned that there are two types of people:

Those that believe that knowledge in science is a linear progression of knowledge that compiles in a very orderly and unchangeable way, and those that believe that science can change drastically and without warning as time progresses.

We can actually find fields of study where the second here has overtaken the first already. I just cant help but believe that any field of study can follow that pattern because we just dont know everything yet and it's as simple as that.

Well I for one have never agreed with Lord Kelvin science is mostly complete or anything like that. But I do think it is better to proceed from first principles given what we currently DO know to to be true about something (within some well-defined margin of error). Otherwise we spend 99.9% of the time barking up the wrong tree. In other words to understand the unknown we should at first consider what IS known.

Yes Einstein's refinements did indeed introduce a set of field equations which overall yield vastly more accurate predictions. But Newtons equations still give a decent description of gravitational mechanics for anything other than highly-accelerated reference frames. In most cases the calculation of variations is sufficient. Speed is the first derivative of position at time t. Acceleration is the second derivative. Good enough!

Actually, there are astronomical observations that do not agree to our current knowledge. The most glaring one is the rotation curve of galaxies. Such anomalies lead to new hypotheses and hopefully, eventually, to new physics. There are several viable explanations of the galaxy rotation curve, including various forms of dark matter, modified Newtonian mechanics, and modified gravity. None has yet been successful.

I wonder if galaxies behave somewhat like electromagnetic dipoles at such macroscopic scales?

 

Hi,

He cant eat his shorts if he isnt still alive when it happens, therefore his 'bet' is grossly in err. He may never be able to pay up.

He was talking about FTL neutrinos so he won the bet.

 

He was talking about FTL neutrinos so he won the bet.

Oh that's great, i was also wondering what his hat was made out of

 

Well I for one have never agreed with Lord Kelvin science is mostly complete or anything like that. But I do think it is better to proceed from first principles given what we currently DO know to to be true about something (within some well-defined margin of error). Otherwise we spend 99.9% of the time barking up the wrong tree. In other words to understand the unknown we should at first consider what IS known.

Yes Einstein's refinements did indeed introduce a set of field equations which overall yield vastly more accurate predictions. But Newtons equations still give a decent description of gravitational mechanics for anything other than highly-accelerated reference frames. In most cases the calculation of variations is sufficient. Speed is the first derivative of position at time t. Acceleration is the second derivative. Good enough!



I wonder if galaxies behave somewhat like electromagnetic dipoles at such macroscopic scales?

Hello again,

Well i was not really talking about the accuracy of a given problem or theory, i was talking about how the underlying concepts changed so drastically. Einstein's underlying theory about what gravity is all about is vastly different than Newton's although maybe Newton never attempted to explain it from any core property with some core principle. Come to think if it, is there even such a thing as a core principle, can we ever be sure we know something about the universe at the absolute most basic level such that no time period no matter how long will ever allow us to find anything at a lower level than that.

I had read somewhere that the Universe itself may be evolving. What this means is that even if it were true that right now if there was someone who knew everything about the universe today, and i do mean everything such that there is nothing else to learn, that tomorrow they would not know everything anymore because the universe actually changed itself in some way that could not have been known beforehand by that person because it just wasnt true at all YET when they did the original analysis.

When i think about how young we are as a civilization compared to eternity or just a very long time i think we have to be careful what we call settled science. If you read anything about Dr. Michio Kaku he says something similar. Maybe you can call him a 'futurist'.

 

Oh that's great, i was also wondering what his hat was made out of

It wasn't made of magical thinking.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0217513
Judgments of effort for magical violations of intuitive physics

While previous research has shown that people rely on their knowledge of the real world to construct imaginary worlds, we suggest that one important way that people do so is by drawing on their intuitive theories. When people judge the plausibility of a particular physical violation in a magical world, they may consider the amount of force or effort that their intuitive theory of physics suggests would be needed to bring that change about in the real world. We focus on the domain of intuitive physics, and present three studies in which people estimate the effort required to cast spells that cause physical violations. In Study 1, participants ranked ten spells by effort, each of which caused a physical violation such as levitation or petrification. Study 2 used a continuous measure of effort to examine the same spells, but also varied the target of each spell between conditions (levitating a frog or levitating a cow). If people indeed rely on a shared intuitive physical theory, their judgments are likely to be consistent within and across conditions, and sensitive to changes in the target or extent of the spells in line with intuitive physics. We found there was indeed consistency both between and across conditions as to which spells were judged more or less effortful. Participants’ rankings were unaffected by the amount of exposure participants had to fantasy and magic in media. In a pre-registered third study, we replicate the results of Study 2.

IMO some physics laws today are unbreakable. If they're breakable, this universe doesn't hold together without some magic God glue or some such magical stuff.

 

Well i was not really talking about the accuracy of a given problem or theory, i was talking about how the underlying concepts changed so drastically. Einstein's underlying theory about what gravity is all about is vastly different than Newton's although maybe Newton never attempted to explain it from any core property with some core principle. Come to think if it, is there even such a thing as a core principle, can we ever be sure we know something about the universe at the absolute most basic level such that no time period no matter how long will ever allow us to find anything at a lower level than that.

Of course. That is pretty much how science works. We make this or that refinement to the calculation and if it matches up with observation we call it a law. Each model provides a given measure of accuracy. The only real question being which is more applicable in a given case? If you are talking the behavior of bodies in relatively weak gravitational fields such as here on Earth then Newtonian mechanics will give you a more than sufficient answer.

Other laws are of necessity vague. For example you might be able to calculate the kinetic energy of a dozen or even thousands of bodies. But now consider trillions of them and suddenly the problem becomes almost intractable. That is unless we were to instead view the bodies not as individuals but as a single unit. We call this "temperature". And yes we can make predictions about the system based on the laws which apply to heat and entropy. It isn't nearly "accurate" as the kinematic description but it is does nonetheless provide a useful method to predict something about the system.

I had read somewhere that the Universe itself may be evolving. What this means is that even if it were true that right now if there was someone who knew everything about the universe today, and i do mean everything such that there is nothing else to learn, that tomorrow they would not know everything anymore because the universe actually changed itself in some way that could not have been known beforehand by that person because it just wasnt true at all YET when they did the original analysis.


When i think about how young we are as a civilization compared to eternity or just a very long time i think we have to be careful what we call settled science. If you read anything about Dr. Michio Kaku he says something similar. Maybe you can call him a 'futurist'.

Right well keep in mind that Dr. Kaku is a also a successful pop-science writer who has sold millions of books promoting some highly speculative material over the years. Very little of what he talks about seems to apply much to actual physics. Could Schrödinger's cat one day emerge from a wormhole having been teleported somehow from the Starship Enterprise itself? (It's the multiverse Man - anything can happen!!!)

So I would ask for some evidence of changing physics. Because up to the present experiments have only shown otherwise to be true. Measure the speed of light within an accelerated spacecraft for example and we find that c never changes. It is CONSTANT.

 

Hello again,

Well i was not really talking about the accuracy of a given problem or theory, i was talking about how the underlying concepts changed so drastically. Einstein's underlying theory about what gravity is all about is vastly different than Newton's although maybe Newton never attempted to explain it from any core property with some core principle. Come to think if it, is there even such a thing as a core principle, can we ever be sure we know something about the universe at the absolute most basic level such that no time period no matter how long will ever allow us to find anything at a lower level than that.

I had read somewhere that the Universe itself may be evolving. What this means is that even if it were true that right now if there was someone who knew everything about the universe today, and i do mean everything such that there is nothing else to learn, that tomorrow they would not know everything anymore because the universe actually changed itself in some way that could not have been known beforehand by that person because it just wasnt true at all YET when they did the original analysis.

When i think about how young we are as a civilization compared to eternity or just a very long time i think we have to be careful what we call settled science. If you read anything about Dr. Michio Kaku he says something similar. Maybe you can call him a 'futurist'.

Interesting view. If the laws of physics are different elsewhere how would we know it? I could reason by the time the information reached us, it would be in our region of space and so bound by our laws and not the laws from which it originated.

Lots of people consider this folly yet paradigm has been rewritten time and time again. Red and blue shift is an example of how information becomes distorted. The rabbit hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

If we consider everything that has led to our reality of which seems to be from infinity, then surely there is more. Why is it that we have words, shoes, clouds and discos etc.? All these things are normal because they are common but I don't think it's trivial. The fact that I was even born is mind boggling.

Most people contemplate what happens after we die but what the heck was I before I was born? Nothing? I'm not convinced.

 

Of course. That is pretty much how science works. We make this or that refinement to the calculation and if it matches up with observation we call it a law. Each model provides a given measure of accuracy. The only real question being which is more applicable in a given case? If you are talking the behavior of bodies in relatively weak gravitational fields such as here on Earth then Newtonian mechanics will give you a more than sufficient answer.

Other laws are of necessity vague. For example you might be able to calculate the kinetic energy of a dozen or even thousands of bodies. But now consider trillions of them and suddenly the problem becomes almost intractable. That is unless we were to instead view the bodies not as individuals but as a single unit. We call this "temperature". And yes we can make predictions about the system based on the laws which apply to heat and entropy. It isn't nearly "accurate" as the kinematic description but it is does nonetheless provide a useful method to predict something about the system.



Right well keep in mind that Dr. Kaku is a also a successful pop-science writer who has sold millions of books promoting some highly speculative material over the years. Very little of what he talks about seems to apply much to actual physics. Could Schrödinger's cat one day emerge from a wormhole having been teleported somehow from the Starship Enterprise itself? (It's the multiverse Man - anything can happen!!!)

So I would ask for some evidence of changing physics. Because up to the present experiments have only shown otherwise to be true. Measure the speed of light within an accelerated spacecraft for example and we find that c never changes. It is CONSTANT.

Hi,

I dont think i am getting my main point across. I am not talking about one theory JUST increasing the accuracy of another, i am talking about a complete change in the underlying mechanics of it entirely. The difference between Newton and Einstein are worlds apart not just about 2 seconds of arc or some improvement. It's entirely different altogether. That's how much it changed from N to E and that was only what about 300 years so imaging what could change in 3000 years, 30000 years, 3 million years from now.

I believe many scientists believe that in another universe the physics could be entirely different so much that we would not be able to exist in those type. There are a number of constants that form the basis of our universe as we know it so far but those constants could be different in other universes. That tells us right there that the speed of light may be different there.

Another interesting little side fact i might have mentioned before. If you shine a laser at a mirror and measure the time it takes to get back, you assume you know the speed of light but all you know is the speed of light that goes away from you and then back to you, you dont know if it was different going away than when it was coming back. We all BELIEVE it was the same both ways. Is there a way to prove it is? Give it some thought.

 

Interesting view. If the laws of physics are different elsewhere how would we know it? I could reason by the time the information reached us, it would be in our region of space and so bound by our laws and not the laws from which it originated.

Lots of people consider this folly yet paradigm has been rewritten time and time again. Red and blue shift is an example of how information becomes distorted. The rabbit hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

If we consider everything that has led to our reality of which seems to be from infinity, then surely there is more. Why is it that we have words, shoes, clouds and discos etc.? All these things are normal because they are common but I don't think it's trivial. The fact that I was even born is mind boggling.

Most people contemplate what happens after we die but what the heck was I before I was born? Nothing? I'm not convinced.

Hi,

I think you are talking about the local physics but that's not exactly what i am talking about, when it comes to differences between different localities. I am really talking about the same locality what can change there (as well as somewhere else).

I realize we have to stick to what we know now for the most part, but i also realize we need to keep an open mind about the future. There are still things we dont even have ANY experience with yet because we have not yet encountered them, and even if we did we might not understand them because we had nothing like it in our experience in the past. Remember we are right now basing everything on what we knew in the past, our past experiences. If something comes up that we dont have any past experience to compare it to, we just have to resort to accepting it.
For example, what if we find out that the universe has ALWAYS existed, or the 'multiverse' has always existed. That is, it had no beginning because it did not require one. That would blow our minds because we have no experience to date that deals with something that has 'always' existed with no beginning. If we did find that out, we would be forced to just accept it even if we could not explain it.

 

It wasn't made of magical thinking.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0217513
Judgments of effort for magical violations of intuitive physics


IMO some physics laws today are unbreakable. If they're breakable, this universe doesn't hold together without some magic God glue or some such magical stuff.

Hi,

Well we are sort of forced to think that way in the work-a-day world, but in thinking about what could happen in the future we can dream.
I cant pretend my car will run 1000 miles on 1 ounce of gas, but i can dream that one day it may run on some sort of nuclear engine or some other completely new type of engine. As long as it is not self driving i'll be happy (ha ha)

Hey that gives me an idea maybe i should start working on it tomorrow.
A new cell phone app that provides a comprehensive map that shows where all the self driving cars are on the road ... so we dont go that way

 

Hey that gives me an idea maybe i should start working on it tomorrow.
A new cell phone app that provides a comprehensive map that shows where all the self driving cars are on the road ... so we dont go that way

More useful would be an app that alerts you to which drivers are looking at their phones instead of watching the road.