Quantum of Light and my Parrot.

[socratus]

Quantum of Light and my Parrot.
=.
The fact number - 1.
In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment
showed that the speed of quantum of light is constant
in all directions regardless of the motion of the source.
(c = 299,792,458 m/sec = 1)
#
The fact number - 2.
Paper: “ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.”
Einstein’s second postulate says that
the speed of quantum of light in the vacuum
is absolute constant c=1.
============..
#
Gentlemen
I have only two questions:
First -
Didn’t my parrot fly to you?
Second -
Why does everyone say that all movements are relative
if the speed of quantum of light isn’t relative but
it is an absolute constant in absolute Vacuum ?
P.S.
You can easily find out my parrot. It studied only
two sentences: ‘ there is no absolute movement ’,
‘ there is no absolute reference system ‘
#
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==== .
P.S.
‘ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken. ‘
/ Einstein /

===,

[Impenitent]

the parrot is dead

-Imp

[John]

Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!

[socratus]

Quantum of Light and my Parrot.
=.
The fact number -1.
1729.The astronomical aberration effect of light showed
the finite constant speed of quantum of light.
#
The fact number - 2.
In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment
showed that the speed of quantum of light is constant
in all directions regardless of the motion of the source.
(c = 299,792,458 m/sec = 1)
#
The fact number - 3.
1905. Paper: “ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.”
Einstein’s second postulate says that
the speed of quantum of light in the vacuum
is absolute constant c=1.
============..
#
Gentlemen
I have only two questions:
First -
Didn’t my parrot fly to you?
Second -
Why does everyone say that all movements are relative
if the speed of quantum of light isn’t relative but
it is an absolute constant in absolute Vacuum ?
P.S.
You can easily find out my parrot. It studied only
two sentences: ‘ there is no absolute movement ’,
‘ there is no absolute reference system ‘
#
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==== .
P.S.
‘ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken. ‘
/ Einstein /
===============..

[socratus]

Comment by Kris:
Indeed... it is in total contradiction to say that there is no
absolute frame of reference, and then to say that the speed
of light is constant... in which you can use for you calculations
and experiments...
. . . i.e. the speed of light IS an absolute frame of reference.

However... they can fix their contradiction by making another statement –
- there is no such thing as an absolute vacuum.
With that statement, they make the speed of light relative, yet,
hold the theoretical absolute frame of reference of c.
What's worse is, all "more accurate" measurements of the speed
of light change the measure of a meter rather than the theorized
speed of light in a vacuum.

The important thing to understand is that this is all completely
arbitrary and even is admittedly so ( yet, not in these words )
in the standard model. But, it is close enough for practical use.
/ Kris /
=========…

[socratus]

Indeed... it is in total contradiction to say that there is no
absolute frame of reference, and then to say that the speed
of light is constant..
/ Kris /
How is it possible to say that there is absolute speed of light
and there is no absolute frame of reference ?
Huh?
In the Alice's Wonderland everything is possible.
Socratus
======…

[melonkali]

This is interesting -- any "math guys" around to defend/explain the apparent contradiction? (I love it when the "math guys" jump in.)

One thing I don't get -- the geese px. Is there a profound point being made in it other than "super cute"? rebecca

[Arising_uk]

I think the idea is 'black swans'. Could be Taleb but maybe the old philosophical one about induction, i.e. "All swans are white, this is a swan therefore it is white" and then we found black swans in Australia(?).

[Thundril]

The black geese are in mourning for the parrot

[melonkali]

I think the idea is 'black swans'. Could be Taleb but maybe the old philosophical one about induction, i.e. "All swans are white, this is a swan therefore it is white" and then we found black swans in Australia(?).

Thanks -- I wasn't familiar with Taleb or the black swan theory. Interesting stuff.

So is the gist of the thread that scientists have proven two contradictory theories? Math Guys! We need the Math Guys!

rebecca

[Arising_uk]

I think we need the physicist guys as the maths guys are not much concerned with reality.

[Thundril]

I'm not a maths guy, or a physics guy (except in a vary amateur sense,) but I'll have a go at this. It doesn't need a great deal of maths to grasp the priciple; just basic adding and subtracting of a few simple numbers.
Say the speed of light is absolute. This means that two observers, measuring the speed of the same photon, will get the same result.
This seems obvious, till you realise that each observer is measuring the photon's speed relative to herself. (or himself.)
Now. take a simple analogy. You and I are travelling along a wide straight road, in our cars, in the same direction. And we both have radar 'speed measuring devices' in our cars.
Say at one point you are a mile or so ahead of me. Your speedo says you're doing sixty, and my speedo says I'm doing seventy. If you turn your radar device onto my car, you'll read that I'm coming up behind you at ten miles an hour, and my radar device will tell me you are coming back towards me at ten miles an hour.
OK, nothing weird so far.
So suppose we both train our devices on the bridge up ahead. If your speedo tells you your car is moving at sixty, your radar will read the bridge coming back at you at sixty. (Because the bridge is standing still on the road.) And since I'm moving at seventy over the road, my radar reads the bridge as coming back toward me at seventy.
Your radar says the bridge is 'doing sixty', and my radar measures the same bridge as 'doing seventy'. We don't think this is odd, because we know we are moving at different speeds relative to each other. The ten mph difference in our relative speeds is reflected precisely in the ten mph difference we get when we both measure the same object.
And this works just the same if the object is itself moving.
Suppose an ambulance comes tearing up behind us. Let's say the ambulance speedo says it's doing ninety. We both train our radars on the ambulance. Your radar tells you the ambulance is closing on you at thirty mph. (Its ninety minus your sixty.) My radar tells me its closing on me at twenty. (Its ninety minus my seventy)
Again, the difference in our observations is exactly the same as the difference we measure in our own speeds.

(And it doesn't matter if we're moving in opposite directions either. We just use plusses instead of minuses.)
The important point is that, if we can measure a difference in our own speeds relative to each other, then we will measure a difference of the same size in the speed of anything that we both measure.
This is how it turns out for all ordinary speeds.

But realising that the speed of light is the same for all observers, (to see exactly how he realised this would take quite a bit of maths; more than I've got, so I'll skip it.) Einstein showed that the time and space must themselves be different for the two observers.
This is because 'speed' is only 'distance' divided by 'time'. Miles per hour, metres per second, inches per century, they're all just lengths of space divided by lengths of time. So if the two observers are moving at vastly different speeds relative to the nearest planet, and they each measure the speed (relative to themselves) of a passing photon, and they both get the same result, then there must be a discrepancy in the way the observers are measuring time and space. And if all their measuring instruments are accurate, then this discrepancy must be real, and it must be related to the fact that they are moving relative to each other. Because there is no other difference between them, or between their measuring devices or techniques.
The relativity of space and time simply means that two observers, moving at some speed relative to each other, will measure time and space differently.
In other words, the absolute value of the speed of light doesn't contradict the relativity of time and space; on the exact contrary, it is the absolute speed of light which proves it.

[melonkali]

I'm not a maths guy, or a physics guy (except in a vary amateur sense,) but I'll have a go at this. It doesn't need a great deal of maths to grasp the priciple; just basic adding and subtracting of a few simple numbers.
Say the speed of light is absolute. This means that two observers, measuring the speed of the same photon, will get the same result.
This seems obvious, till you realise that each observer is measuring the photon's speed relative to herself. (or himself.)
Now. take a simple analogy. You and I are travelling along a wide straight road, in our cars, in the same direction. And we both have radar 'speed measuring devices' in our cars.
Say at one point you are a mile or so ahead of me. Your speedo says you're doing sixty, and my speedo says I'm doing seventy. If you turn your radar device onto my car, you'll read that I'm coming up behind you at ten miles an hour, and my radar device will tell me you are coming back towards me at ten miles an hour.
OK, nothing weird so far.
So suppose we both train our devices on the bridge up ahead. If your speedo tells you your car is moving at sixty, your radar will read the bridge coming back at you at sixty. (Because the bridge is standing still on the road.) And since I'm moving at seventy over the road, my radar reads the bridge as coming back toward me at seventy.
Your radar says the bridge is 'doing sixty', and my radar measures the same bridge as 'doing seventy'. We don't think this is odd, because we know we are moving at different speeds relative to each other. The ten mph difference in our relative speeds is reflected precisely in the ten mph difference we get when we both measure the same object.
And this works just the same if the object is itself moving.
Suppose an ambulance comes tearing up behind us. Let's say the ambulance speedo says it's doing ninety. We both train our radars on the ambulance. Your radar tells you the ambulance is closing on you at thirty mph. (Its ninety minus your sixty.) My radar tells me its closing on me at twenty. (Its ninety minus my seventy)
Again, the difference in our observations is exactly the same as the difference we measure in our own speeds.

(And it doesn't matter if we're moving in opposite directions either. We just use plusses instead of minuses.)
The important point is that, if we can measure a difference in our own speeds relative to each other, then we will measure a difference of the same size in the speed of anything that we both measure.
This is how it turns out for all ordinary speeds.

But realising that the speed of light is the same for all observers, (to see exactly how he realised this would take quite a bit of maths; more than I've got, so I'll skip it.) Einstein showed that the time and space must themselves be different for the two observers.
This is because 'speed' is only 'distance' divided by 'time'. Miles per hour, metres per second, inches per century, they're all just lengths of space divided by lengths of time. So if the two observers are moving at vastly different speeds relative to the nearest planet, and they each measure the speed (relative to themselves) of a passing photon, and they both get the same result, then there must be a discrepancy in the way the observers are measuring time and space. And if all their measuring instruments are accurate, then this discrepancy must be real, and it must be related to the fact that they are moving relative to each other. Because there is no other difference between them, or between their measuring devices or techniques.
The relativity of space and time simply means that two observers, moving at some speed relative to each other, will measure time and space differently.
In other words, the absolute value of the speed of light doesn't contradict the relativity of time and space; on the exact contrary, it is the absolute speed of light which proves it.

Thanks -- I do better with examples, such as you've provided, than with abstractions. I'm chewing on the matter now, using simple paper and pen sketches. rebecca

[Thundril]

Thanks -- I do better with examples, such as you've provided, than with abstractions. I'm chewing on the matter now, using simple paper and pen sketches. rebecca

Cool.- - On rereading, I see that what I wrote wasn't as clear as I had hoped it would be, but I'm sure I could improve on it.
If you need any clarification, just ask.

[melonkali]

Thanks -- I do better with examples, such as you've provided, than with abstractions. I'm chewing on the matter now, using simple paper and pen sketches. rebecca

Cool.- - On rereading, I see that what I wrote wasn't as clear as I had hoped it would be, but I'm sure I could improve on it.
If you need any clarification, just ask.

Thanks again. I've found that I don't have enough foundational knowledge in physics to ask a reasonable question. So I'm presently scanning my kids' old physics texts and supplementing that information on the internet. A kind of mini-crash course in "remedial physics for liberal arts airheads".

Initially when I googled "relativity light speed time", the nature of the conflicting results set off my "lunatic fringe" alarm, but without a minimal foundation in physics, I have no way of separating the "ridiculous" from the "hmmm". I'll return soon with questions.

If you (or anyone) have suggestions regarding remedial physics topics for me to avoid or emphasize (perhaps because of new information?), please advise. You can't insult my intelligence -- tabula rasa.... rebecca