Not quite sure how to take that. Are you saying the Sintropia authors have their symmetry right or wrong?
It is a matter of symmetry, you are correct there. The Sintropia gents just decided to arbitrarily choose an alternate axis to display symmetry about and that just doesn't work.
The descriptions of the three studies were sufficiently poor that I can't see how to even faithfully reproduce the set-up. Unfortunately for them that means one of two things. Either their writing sucks (which it doesn't - it reads pretty well). Or the studies have some fatal flaw in them which is sufficiently disguised by the lax description.
<statistics alert!>Another flag is this: getting p-values in those ranges with only a couple hundred subjects seems fishy to me, something like only one false negative or positive in the entire test. NO test data is that clean. The only way to overcome basic noise and generate those p-values is to have sample sizes in the tens to hundreds of thousands. And that's not what they said they had.
This is the kind of thing I meant. I thank you. Between you and Bertrand Russell I think we have thing squashed.
Related, (but not completely on topic)... a question for all you physics knowledgeable folks....
What is the property of space/vacuum/whatever that governs the speed of light (in a vacuum), faster than which nothing can travel? There must surely be a physical reason for this constant being what it is (approx. 186,000 mpsec.), rather than "that's the way is is because it is"....
There's probably a simple reason for this which has been explained decades ago... but casually looking around for an answer, I found nothing... yet.
I think it's more controversial than you suggest. I'm not even sure how you'd prove free will. "OK, do something totally unpredictable... Now!" What we do is based on 1) our genes and 2) our environment. Where does that leave free will?
I'm coming out of a series of discussions of Thomas Hardy's The Mayor of Casterbridge, and one of the principal interests in that novel is fate/chance/free will.
Every time someone says "free will" now I chuckle. How can you have "will" if it is not "free"?
And yes, for anyone interested, I've read Milton's(?) de Doctrina Christiana (which is about free will) cover to cover.
Here is a link to a paper on retrocausality, consciousness and quantum theory.
Things like this always sound so interesting, but I'd rather put my energy into reading Roger Penrose's books about consciousness: The Emperor's New Mind, Shadows of the Mind, and a later book for which I don't have the title. I suspect that Penrose's book will be a more rewarding read, when I get around to it. I wish I weren't such a slow reader.
Related, (but not completely on topic)... a question for all you physics knowledgeable folks....
What is the property of space/vacuum/whatever that governs the speed of light (in a vacuum), faster than which nothing can travel? There must surely be a physical reason for this constant being what it is (approx. 186,000 mpsec.), rather than "that's the way is is because it is"....
There's probably a simple reason for this which has been explained decades ago... but casually looking around for an answer, I found nothing... yet.
I dont think you will either, maybe someone else knows more, and it might have something to do with the higgs field if thats ever shown to be correct,
but this is something else that i find issue with in QM from looking at the explainations of things from our POV. The question of positive and negative time - and the speed of it - is irrelavent from the POV of energy. Time, distance and polarity doesnt exist for energy, from its own POV the things we perceive about it dont exist.
Negative time is the same as positive time because time doesn't exist for energy.
Negative energy and positive energy are the same thing, because polarity doesn't exist
Distance doesn't exist, because at 'c' - there is no distance.
We are looking at the universe from our POV and perceptions to get an explanation of the universe. IMO to really understand it, we need to look at the universes POV, and how it would perceive itself to get an explanation of us.
This is why people like Heisenberg called dirac's equation "Learned trash" and spent years trying to make it fit his perception of common sense. It led Einstein to invent the cosmological constant and quip "God does not play dice"
The universe doesnt give a toss about our perceptions of reality or common sense. Were not going to be able to twist the truth to make it fit our desires.
so in regard to the original question, what causes the speed limit of light - light itself tells us that it is not moving. There is no movement of light - einstein shows us that because at the speed of light there is no distance or time. Light moves at a big fat 0 mph. Miles and per hour are concepts that simply dont exist from its own POV.
The question is what causes us to perceive that light moves at 186k mps - And that turns the view of the universe on its head. A leap that apparently we are not ready to embrace.
I have thought of an 'car' analogy that might make my idea easier to understand.
Einstein shows us through relativity that time slows as we approach the speed of light - there is a subtle difference in how this could be achieved - but perceived from our POV to be exactly the same thing.
Imagine time to be an engine revving constantly at the same speed - and our perception of time as the wheels of our car. The relativistic effect of time is a clutch that progressively slips as our wheels spin closer to the speed of the engine.
From our POV the effect is the same, but the underlying mechanics are different. Conventionally perception of time is controlled by the speed of the engine.
Its possible, that as we test and probe the higgs field theory, that we find that this field is acting like my clutch - some things pass through it relatively unscathed like photons, while other elements go through and are slowed so that they aquire mass and time.
To be really precise, you need to invert the analogy so that the engine is always still, and the clutch acts more like a brake slowing the wheels...
What do you mean lack of free will? We all have free will, everybody knows that.
No, you dont know that at all, you like to believe you have it because if you don't then it becomes almost impossible to function. Perhaps free-will is a concept created by religion to buffer you from the truth so that you can more easily be controlled by them, or to protect you from reality that you are a complete pawn to the mechanics of the universe. Such things could cause all kinds of pandemonium and depression if generally accepted.
You could of course exercise your free-will in knowing you're right, by not responding to this post.
whatever you decide to do, respond or not, you lose, because both options become my will, so i just took the illusion of freedom away from you.
What is the property of space/vacuum/whatever that governs the speed of light (in a vacuum), faster than which nothing can travel? There must surely be a physical reason for this constant being what it is . . .
I'd welcome comments, but I believe it is explained by Einstein's theory of general relativity. Constants in physics are the result of fields, such as gravity. The universe has a total mass and a density, which results in an overall gravitational field in the universe. Change it, and the speed of light will change. This explains why light slows down when it gets close to a heavy object, like a star. It explains why light cannot get out of a super heavy object like a black hole.
Fields like gravity and electromagnetism determine all the physical constants, not just the speed of light. This is how we have discovered that the universe is finely tuned so that life may exist somewhere, which happens to be earth. It has been debated whether such fine tuning is the results of an intelligent designer, or whether it is random chance. in some cases the fine tuning is to within one part in 10 to the 100th power. Although chance is easily ruled out for a single universe, some speculate that there are an infinite number of universes, and we are the lucky ones to be in the right universe. But that's another topic. Even the existence of other universes is unknowable according to one theory.
a better way to think about it is that the speed of light is a constant, period. Our units are arbitrary; it could be 530 barsdeit/umpta as long as it is 530 everywhere (in empty space).
The reason it is a constant is another issue, the speed of light represents a maximum value of speed which is not due to any physical property of the universe but rather due to the simple fact that space and time are coupled and there will always be one speed where the universe collapses to a point and time doesn't change... The reason photons and other massless particles travel at this speed is also due to the fact that in the photon frame any mass would result in an infinite density; any particles with mass cannot act as only energy carriers...
I'm coming out of a series of discussions of Thomas Hardy's The Mayor of Casterbridge, and one of the principal interests in that novel is fate/chance/free will.
Every time someone says "free will" now I chuckle. How can you have "will" if it is not "free"?
And yes, for anyone interested, I've read Milton's(?) de Doctrina Christiana (which is about free will) cover to cover.
So what is your conclusion? Yea or Nay to free will?
im quite convinced free-will and other such religious concepts are not designed to lead us to the truth, but have been crafted to protect us from it.
Discussions like this could go on for forever in some forums. Personally, I don't think free-will and non-free-will are mutually exclusive, if we put them in the light of multidimensional reality, with 9 to 12 spacial dimensions and two or three dimensions of time. I read a book a while back that went into this subject. However, we are evidently not capable of visualizing or thinking beyond the three spacial dimensions we know, and a half dimension of time, always increasing. As a result, we can only argue forever. (See, Beyond the Cosmos, by Hugh Ross, PhD in Astronomy and Astrophysics.)
You / we might have some free will. But only within our own cultually and individually socialized limits... by far more limiting than the 3 dimensions mentioned.
a better way to think about it is that the speed of light is a constant, period.
If this is indeed true, how do we explain the way gravity of a star bends the light traveling near it in space? Also, what explains why light cannot get out of a black hole, if it is not the extreme gravitational field? Then too, why do we need an inertial frame of reference, stationary with the stars and therefore stationary with the gravitational fields? If gravitational fields mean nothing to light, then we could just as well use a rotating frame of reference to solve many problems in physics.
If this is indeed true, how do we explain the way gravity of a star bends the light traveling near it in space? Also, what explains why light cannot get out of a black hole, if it is not the extreme gravitational field? Then too, why do we need an inertial frame of reference, stationary with the stars and therefore stationary with the gravitational fields? If gravitational fields mean nothing to light, then we could just as well use a rotating frame of reference to solve many problems in physics.
Um, have you even studied general relativity?
It is space that bends around objects not light...
The speed of light does indeed change, however, but it is constant under identical conditions...
It is space that bends around objects not light. . .
Okay, I'll go along with that. I thought the light slowed down slightly too, but I'll take your word for it. Now, what about black holes? Doesn't the extreme gravitational field keep light from getting out? I've been phrasing these as questions for a reason. I'm not sure of the answer. General relativity is not my field, but it IS interesting none the less.
Quote:
The speed of light does indeed change, however, but it is constant under identical conditions. . .
That is pretty obvious, even if the speed is influenced by gravity.
Comments
Not quite sure how to take that. Are you saying the Sintropia authors have their symmetry right or wrong?
It is a matter of symmetry, you are correct there. The Sintropia gents just decided to arbitrarily choose an alternate axis to display symmetry about and that just doesn't work.
The descriptions of the three studies were sufficiently poor that I can't see how to even faithfully reproduce the set-up. Unfortunately for them that means one of two things. Either their writing sucks (which it doesn't - it reads pretty well). Or the studies have some fatal flaw in them which is sufficiently disguised by the lax description.
<statistics alert!>Another flag is this: getting p-values in those ranges with only a couple hundred subjects seems fishy to me, something like only one false negative or positive in the entire test. NO test data is that clean. The only way to overcome basic noise and generate those p-values is to have sample sizes in the tens to hundreds of thousands. And that's not what they said they had.
This is the kind of thing I meant. I thank you. Between you and Bertrand Russell I think we have thing squashed.
What is the property of space/vacuum/whatever that governs the speed of light (in a vacuum), faster than which nothing can travel? There must surely be a physical reason for this constant being what it is (approx. 186,000 mpsec.), rather than "that's the way is is because it is"....
There's probably a simple reason for this which has been explained decades ago... but casually looking around for an answer, I found nothing... yet.
I think it's more controversial than you suggest. I'm not even sure how you'd prove free will. "OK, do something totally unpredictable... Now!" What we do is based on 1) our genes and 2) our environment. Where does that leave free will?
I'm coming out of a series of discussions of Thomas Hardy's The Mayor of Casterbridge, and one of the principal interests in that novel is fate/chance/free will.
Every time someone says "free will" now I chuckle. How can you have "will" if it is not "free"?
And yes, for anyone interested, I've read Milton's(?) de Doctrina Christiana (which is about free will) cover to cover.
Here is a link to a paper on retrocausality, consciousness and quantum theory.
Things like this always sound so interesting, but I'd rather put my energy into reading Roger Penrose's books about consciousness: The Emperor's New Mind, Shadows of the Mind, and a later book for which I don't have the title. I suspect that Penrose's book will be a more rewarding read, when I get around to it. I wish I weren't such a slow reader.
Related, (but not completely on topic)... a question for all you physics knowledgeable folks....
What is the property of space/vacuum/whatever that governs the speed of light (in a vacuum), faster than which nothing can travel? There must surely be a physical reason for this constant being what it is (approx. 186,000 mpsec.), rather than "that's the way is is because it is"....
There's probably a simple reason for this which has been explained decades ago... but casually looking around for an answer, I found nothing... yet.
I dont think you will either, maybe someone else knows more, and it might have something to do with the higgs field if thats ever shown to be correct,
but this is something else that i find issue with in QM from looking at the explainations of things from our POV. The question of positive and negative time - and the speed of it - is irrelavent from the POV of energy. Time, distance and polarity doesnt exist for energy, from its own POV the things we perceive about it dont exist.
Negative time is the same as positive time because time doesn't exist for energy.
Negative energy and positive energy are the same thing, because polarity doesn't exist
Distance doesn't exist, because at 'c' - there is no distance.
We are looking at the universe from our POV and perceptions to get an explanation of the universe. IMO to really understand it, we need to look at the universes POV, and how it would perceive itself to get an explanation of us.
This is why people like Heisenberg called dirac's equation "Learned trash" and spent years trying to make it fit his perception of common sense. It led Einstein to invent the cosmological constant and quip "God does not play dice"
The universe doesnt give a toss about our perceptions of reality or common sense. Were not going to be able to twist the truth to make it fit our desires.
so in regard to the original question, what causes the speed limit of light - light itself tells us that it is not moving. There is no movement of light - einstein shows us that because at the speed of light there is no distance or time. Light moves at a big fat 0 mph. Miles and per hour are concepts that simply dont exist from its own POV.
The question is what causes us to perceive that light moves at 186k mps - And that turns the view of the universe on its head. A leap that apparently we are not ready to embrace.
Einstein shows us through relativity that time slows as we approach the speed of light - there is a subtle difference in how this could be achieved - but perceived from our POV to be exactly the same thing.
Imagine time to be an engine revving constantly at the same speed - and our perception of time as the wheels of our car. The relativistic effect of time is a clutch that progressively slips as our wheels spin closer to the speed of the engine.
From our POV the effect is the same, but the underlying mechanics are different. Conventionally perception of time is controlled by the speed of the engine.
Its possible, that as we test and probe the higgs field theory, that we find that this field is acting like my clutch - some things pass through it relatively unscathed like photons, while other elements go through and are slowed so that they aquire mass and time.
To be really precise, you need to invert the analogy so that the engine is always still, and the clutch acts more like a brake slowing the wheels...
What do you mean lack of free will? We all have free will, everybody knows that.
No, you dont know that at all, you like to believe you have it because if you don't then it becomes almost impossible to function. Perhaps free-will is a concept created by religion to buffer you from the truth so that you can more easily be controlled by them, or to protect you from reality that you are a complete pawn to the mechanics of the universe. Such things could cause all kinds of pandemonium and depression if generally accepted.
You could of course exercise your free-will in knowing you're right, by not responding to this post.
whatever you decide to do, respond or not, you lose, because both options become my will, so i just took the illusion of freedom away from you.
What is the property of space/vacuum/whatever that governs the speed of light (in a vacuum), faster than which nothing can travel? There must surely be a physical reason for this constant being what it is . . .
I'd welcome comments, but I believe it is explained by Einstein's theory of general relativity. Constants in physics are the result of fields, such as gravity. The universe has a total mass and a density, which results in an overall gravitational field in the universe. Change it, and the speed of light will change. This explains why light slows down when it gets close to a heavy object, like a star. It explains why light cannot get out of a super heavy object like a black hole.
Fields like gravity and electromagnetism determine all the physical constants, not just the speed of light. This is how we have discovered that the universe is finely tuned so that life may exist somewhere, which happens to be earth. It has been debated whether such fine tuning is the results of an intelligent designer, or whether it is random chance. in some cases the fine tuning is to within one part in 10 to the 100th power. Although chance is easily ruled out for a single universe, some speculate that there are an infinite number of universes, and we are the lucky ones to be in the right universe. But that's another topic. Even the existence of other universes is unknowable according to one theory.
a better way to think about it is that the speed of light is a constant, period. Our units are arbitrary; it could be 530 barsdeit/umpta as long as it is 530 everywhere (in empty space).
The reason it is a constant is another issue, the speed of light represents a maximum value of speed which is not due to any physical property of the universe but rather due to the simple fact that space and time are coupled and there will always be one speed where the universe collapses to a point and time doesn't change... The reason photons and other massless particles travel at this speed is also due to the fact that in the photon frame any mass would result in an infinite density; any particles with mass cannot act as only energy carriers...
No, you dont know that at all, you like to believe you have it because if you don't then it becomes almost impossible to function.
Nice contradiction.
Nice contradiction.
yes it a bit of a bitch.
im quite convinced free-will and other such religious concepts are not designed to lead us to the truth, but have been crafted to protect us from it.
I'm coming out of a series of discussions of Thomas Hardy's The Mayor of Casterbridge, and one of the principal interests in that novel is fate/chance/free will.
Every time someone says "free will" now I chuckle. How can you have "will" if it is not "free"?
And yes, for anyone interested, I've read Milton's(?) de Doctrina Christiana (which is about free will) cover to cover.
So what is your conclusion? Yea or Nay to free will?
is it beneficial to society and the individual if this truth (no-free will) were to be revealed to the masses?
Might cause a problem - technically you wouldn't be responsible for your actions.
im quite convinced free-will and other such religious concepts are not designed to lead us to the truth, but have been crafted to protect us from it.
Discussions like this could go on for forever in some forums. Personally, I don't think free-will and non-free-will are mutually exclusive, if we put them in the light of multidimensional reality, with 9 to 12 spacial dimensions and two or three dimensions of time. I read a book a while back that went into this subject. However, we are evidently not capable of visualizing or thinking beyond the three spacial dimensions we know, and a half dimension of time, always increasing. As a result, we can only argue forever. (See, Beyond the Cosmos, by Hugh Ross, PhD in Astronomy and Astrophysics.)
As a result, we can only argue forever.
which is why we're all here anyway. Perhaps its better to be honest and embrace that, than forge a mask and pretend were here for debate.
a better way to think about it is that the speed of light is a constant, period.
If this is indeed true, how do we explain the way gravity of a star bends the light traveling near it in space? Also, what explains why light cannot get out of a black hole, if it is not the extreme gravitational field? Then too, why do we need an inertial frame of reference, stationary with the stars and therefore stationary with the gravitational fields? If gravitational fields mean nothing to light, then we could just as well use a rotating frame of reference to solve many problems in physics.
If this is indeed true, how do we explain the way gravity of a star bends the light traveling near it in space? Also, what explains why light cannot get out of a black hole, if it is not the extreme gravitational field? Then too, why do we need an inertial frame of reference, stationary with the stars and therefore stationary with the gravitational fields? If gravitational fields mean nothing to light, then we could just as well use a rotating frame of reference to solve many problems in physics.
Um, have you even studied general relativity?
It is space that bends around objects not light...
The speed of light does indeed change, however, but it is constant under identical conditions...
So what is your conclusion? Yea or Nay to free will?
Does it matter?
Isn't perception everything?
It is space that bends around objects not light. . .
Okay, I'll go along with that. I thought the light slowed down slightly too, but I'll take your word for it. Now, what about black holes? Doesn't the extreme gravitational field keep light from getting out? I've been phrasing these as questions for a reason. I'm not sure of the answer. General relativity is not my field, but it IS interesting none the less.
The speed of light does indeed change, however, but it is constant under identical conditions. . .
That is pretty obvious, even if the speed is influenced by gravity.