(I copy paste that one for your convenience)
Fixing suggest an active act of humans. But that's how it works.
The speed of light in a vacuum is always the same. Humans just took note of something that has always been the case.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I doubt it. There are various things that certainly impact light that exist in vacuum, such as gravity, the eruption of spacetime/particles from the vacuum pressure, and etc. How are these things measured in experiments?
They're not. We have no, none, zero conceivable ways to measure these impacts. Someday we will and dogma will not acknowledge them, or science will be reborn then.
Thanks!
I already answered that elsewhere in the discussion:
https://steempeak.com/science/@vermithrax/re-builderofcastles-the-speed-of-light-has-been-fixed-all-hail-the-metrologists-20190116t170827444z
Any scientist worth his (or her) salt will take those effects into account and mention them in the error analysis any scientific paper has.
I doubt that. The uncertainty principle doesn't only prevent us from perfect measurement. It also prevents the creation of a perfect vacuum. As well a cooling down any object to 0 kelvin.
This zero points can't exist on our universe.
I agree that we should doubt. I note that fixing the speed of light negates any taking into account of incalculable variables, so none of the scientists that agree the speed of light is fixed are 'worth their salt'.
The uncertainty principle is based on our present incapacity. Since gravity is nothing more than the effect of forces on spacetime, and does not propagate across it, but expresses that information in realtime across the universe, the actual information regarding the state of particles exists. We just don't know what it is.
I expect that we will learn that information in time.
Actually it's a fundamental property of the universe and we well never be able to overcome it.
To understand this you have to know that “uncertainty” is a translation error. Heisenberg was German and the original term was “Unschärferelation” which translates into unsharpness or blurriness.
It's like in photography: You can either focus on what is close or focus on what is far away but never on both.
The Universe too is fundamentally blurred and there is no way to un-blurre it.
Actually gravity does propagate across the universe. Google “Gravitational wave” which have recently proven to exist:
Gravitational waves travel with the speed of light (in the vacuum) and since they are not slowed down by non vacuum will overtake light in real live.
I note that it doesn't really matter regarding the translation from German, since it's simply noting why we can't be certain is that our optics are fuzzy.
You neglect that my point is that the nature of gravity is to actually denote the particular information we can but detect poorly, presently. The information is extant, we just don't know how to gain the information.
Also, regarding gravity waves, you misunderstand what waves are. Waves aren't gravity propagating linearly. Waves aren't water moving linearly either. The waves move linearly, a disturbance in the medium, but the medium isn't the wave. Waves move through the medium, which essentially remains in place after the wave passes.
There are theories that particles are waves, particles, strings and loops, all mathematical approximations. Not one of them is actually correct, but partially describing what actually is extant. Math is just a language, and can be made, like any language, to say anything. Maths that can describe what is real are useful, just like spoken language that conveys facts. Maths that simply speculate are nothing more than poetry, or disinfo.
The key to science is testability, and much speculative mathematics remains untestable. We have a long way to go in physics, and simply creating of our present rude and barbaric state of understanding a fixed state does nothing more than impede actually increasing knowledge.
Newtonian physics described reality pretty well, better than competing concepts of the day. Einsteinian physics is better, but had to overcome the resistance of the faith people had in Newtonian physics. This is why it is counterproductive to establish faith in extant 'best practices', as it impedes improving practices. It is also why the Copenhagen school of quantum dynamics essentially used manipulative tactics to BTFO competing theories that better reflected the evidence and has become the dominant theory. Pilot/wave theory actually better describes observable phenomena, but funding is focused on the socially dominant Copenhagen interpretation, despite complete failure of consilience.
It's profitable to simply fight for your funding by any means, rather than to honestly seek facts, particularly when funding is derived from politically driven factions. This is why science is so fraught with fraud and scientism today, after generations of such chicanery continually dominating funding and suppressing merely factual researchers.
I agree with you on that one. But it's also my understanding that all three theories (Pilot wave, Copenhagen, Many worlds) each have there own weaknesses.
But yes, pilot wave seems the most sane of the lot.
Yes. But you need lot's of funding to build a CERN or LIGO. So this vicious cycle. But that doesn't mean the measurement they make with CERN or LIGO are fraught.