ChatterBank23 mins ago
Einstein Said Nothing Can Move Faster Than Light?
141 Answers
Einstein's theory states nothing can move faster than light. How did we get all the way out here with images from the beginning of time still arriving? It is also accepted that the big bang pushed everything out instantaneously. Surely, the big bang theory proves Einstein wrong.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ty_buchanan. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
PS I'm a fan of the late Sir Fred Hoyle and I despise the contempt shown to him, after his 'big bang' comment. His was a steady state universe but I can forgive him for that. What he would be talking about now would be a steady state multiverse.
Scientists are often bombastic in their defence of their theoretical superstitions. Sir Fred did so much but he couldn't control the theorists he was deemed to be holding back.
Scientists are often bombastic in their defence of their theoretical superstitions. Sir Fred did so much but he couldn't control the theorists he was deemed to be holding back.
@Colm I do not understand why you think we should embrace your science fiction and disregard what you term science fiction that appears to have gained broad acceptance amongst the scientific community that studies these things.
Why should we? Where is your evidence supporting this hypothesis of yours?
Why should we? Where is your evidence supporting this hypothesis of yours?
I don't see contempt being slung Hoyle's way. Seems to me he took some flak for sticking with a belief long after many considered it clearly incorrect; but contempt ? I don't believe one should assume because one supported a steady state universe in the past it necessarily follows one would support a steady state multiverse now, or vice versa: if you didn't believe in a steady state universe that you'd necessarily reject a steady state multiverse. They are different issues.
I'm sure there is a certain amount of theoretical bias in Science pretty much all the time. What tends to happen though is that the theoretical biases that exist eventually get discarded when experimental evidence comes along to reject that belief. Thus. the idea that light travelled as a wave in something called aether pervaded physics thinking for years, before eventually the famous Michelson-Morley experiment showed that this was just not true, and the stage was set for the twin revolutions of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
I think that a number of ideas about the CMB have been explored and are being explored, including a check to make sure that our Universe isn't in fact smaller than the CMB implies. There was also a paper released a couple of years back claiming that it should be possible to search for signatures of other Universes in the CMB, though that was in the context of some sort of collision, I think. So far, none of these ideas has led anywhere interesting. In the mean time, this inflation theory that you are showing so much contempt for is managing to explain virtually everything about the CMB; from the consistency of temperature, to the variations within it, even right down (apparently, according to a paper released last week) to the subtlest patterns of polarisation that can only come from the very kind of gravitational waves that would be caused by a massive faster-than-light expansion in the early Universe.
Given the extraordinary success of Inflation Theory over any other model, it's pretty reasonable to be biased in its favour, I'd say. I'm not quite sure how you would be able to explain this so effectively as "light from other Universes". How would the light travel between them? How come it's so uniform in every direction? Where do the polarisations come from? And so on and so for. The ball, really, is in your court to try to answer these questions, or at least to find someone who supports the idea who's managed to answer them.
And no, thought doesn't travel faster than light.
I think that a number of ideas about the CMB have been explored and are being explored, including a check to make sure that our Universe isn't in fact smaller than the CMB implies. There was also a paper released a couple of years back claiming that it should be possible to search for signatures of other Universes in the CMB, though that was in the context of some sort of collision, I think. So far, none of these ideas has led anywhere interesting. In the mean time, this inflation theory that you are showing so much contempt for is managing to explain virtually everything about the CMB; from the consistency of temperature, to the variations within it, even right down (apparently, according to a paper released last week) to the subtlest patterns of polarisation that can only come from the very kind of gravitational waves that would be caused by a massive faster-than-light expansion in the early Universe.
Given the extraordinary success of Inflation Theory over any other model, it's pretty reasonable to be biased in its favour, I'd say. I'm not quite sure how you would be able to explain this so effectively as "light from other Universes". How would the light travel between them? How come it's so uniform in every direction? Where do the polarisations come from? And so on and so for. The ball, really, is in your court to try to answer these questions, or at least to find someone who supports the idea who's managed to answer them.
And no, thought doesn't travel faster than light.
I don’t believe there’s any evidence to suggest that our universe is not part of a multiverse. Since, in the light of new evidence, science is prone to discarding previously held opinions, I have my doubts about placing too much ‘faith’ in hypotheses that have found ‘broad acceptance amongst the scientific community’.
How does a hypothesis become an accepted paradigm, a Theory? Evolution, Gravity? They become a paradigm because that Theory, that collection of experimental and observational evidence best explains the observations and phenomena that surround us - Tested, repeated, falsifiable. Yes, such Theories are subject to further refinements, but rarely will you see any fundamental changes in such established theories.
I am no expert in matters cosmological, so I place my trust in the scientific method. As best as I can understand these things right now, the Inflation model, for all its gaps, represents the best description we have right now to explain the observational data we have right now.
Colm posits a different hypothesis; That the CMB we see - uniform (remarkably so ) and ubiquitous, from all points of the universe, is evidence of other big bangs happening within a steady state multiverse, and the CMB is evidence of those other Big Bangs. Its a theory, but where is the observational evidence in support of that theory? Colm terms the inflation theory "nothing but science fiction masquerading as fact", and then by inference suggests those cosmologists supporting the consensus view as "bombasts in defence of their theoretical superstition".
I asked him for links to the observational evidence that supports that claim, evidence strong enough for us to overturn the consensus view based around accepted paradigm. Colm "believes" in their version, their theory as fact, but to me, in the absence of any evidence to support it, it is science fiction.
There is no evidence to deny the notion of a multiverse; but as yet there is not a great deal of observational evidence to support it either. Even where there a multiverse, it still does not necessarily support the notion that big bangs of other forming universes created a uniform and ubiquitous CMB in our own.
Colm wants us to apply Occams Razor - that should be applied to their own theory too; and they should also be careful when talking about people being "bombastic in defence of their theoretical superstitions". Sometimes it pays to apply that same looking glass to your own theories and superstitions too.
I am no expert in matters cosmological, so I place my trust in the scientific method. As best as I can understand these things right now, the Inflation model, for all its gaps, represents the best description we have right now to explain the observational data we have right now.
Colm posits a different hypothesis; That the CMB we see - uniform (remarkably so ) and ubiquitous, from all points of the universe, is evidence of other big bangs happening within a steady state multiverse, and the CMB is evidence of those other Big Bangs. Its a theory, but where is the observational evidence in support of that theory? Colm terms the inflation theory "nothing but science fiction masquerading as fact", and then by inference suggests those cosmologists supporting the consensus view as "bombasts in defence of their theoretical superstition".
I asked him for links to the observational evidence that supports that claim, evidence strong enough for us to overturn the consensus view based around accepted paradigm. Colm "believes" in their version, their theory as fact, but to me, in the absence of any evidence to support it, it is science fiction.
There is no evidence to deny the notion of a multiverse; but as yet there is not a great deal of observational evidence to support it either. Even where there a multiverse, it still does not necessarily support the notion that big bangs of other forming universes created a uniform and ubiquitous CMB in our own.
Colm wants us to apply Occams Razor - that should be applied to their own theory too; and they should also be careful when talking about people being "bombastic in defence of their theoretical superstitions". Sometimes it pays to apply that same looking glass to your own theories and superstitions too.
LazyGun //There is no evidence to deny the notion of a multiverse; but as yet there is not a great deal of observational evidence to support it either. //
There is the problem that the set of physical constant we find in our Universe happen to be those which allow it to exist in the form we know.
Any significant variations would prevent its persistence. Yet we do not have any theory which explains why these constants, above all others, have prevailed.
This lead to the notion that our set of constant are just one st of about 10^500 possible sets, all of which could manifest in a random quantum event.
We see that set because we otherwise wouldn't be here to see them.
There is the problem that the set of physical constant we find in our Universe happen to be those which allow it to exist in the form we know.
Any significant variations would prevent its persistence. Yet we do not have any theory which explains why these constants, above all others, have prevailed.
This lead to the notion that our set of constant are just one st of about 10^500 possible sets, all of which could manifest in a random quantum event.
We see that set because we otherwise wouldn't be here to see them.
That's about the gist of it, beso, I think. There may be more to it than that... it's always struck me as a premature argument though, running close to a "God of gaps" argument: "We don't understand how these constants took their given values, so there must be a multitude of possible Universes to allow for this variety." Who's to say that there isn't after all some constraint placed on these constants by a higher, as yet undiscovered theory? It seems like we ought to check that first before coming to the Multiverse idea. Never mind the fact that it is, on the face of it, untestable, as the other Universes ought by definition to be entirely separate from our own.
Then of course there's the point that an event can be extremely unlikely but still can happen without the need for multiple trials. It's just that the events we are interested in are the ones that are noteworthy. What are the chances that you get a sequence of (H=heads, T=Tails) HHTTHTHTHTHTTHTTHHTHTHHTHTHTTTTHTHHHHTTHTHTTHTHHTHTHTHTHTTHTHTTTTHHTTHTHHHTHTHHTHTHTHTHHTHHTHTHTTTTHTHTHTHTHTHTTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHHTHHHTHTHTHTHTHTTTHHH with a fair coin? 1 in 2^150, which is smaller than 1 in 10^45... an extremely small number, but since the sequence itself is unremarkable nobody cares too much.
I'd argue that the presence of life in the Universe is only remarkable because we think it is. Under these circumstances you don't really need to invoke multiple Universes, rather like the Many-worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is entirely un-necessary to explain what's going on.
Then of course there's the point that an event can be extremely unlikely but still can happen without the need for multiple trials. It's just that the events we are interested in are the ones that are noteworthy. What are the chances that you get a sequence of (H=heads, T=Tails) HHTTHTHTHTHTTHTTHHTHTHHTHTHTTTTHTHHHHTTHTHTTHTHHTHTHTHTHTTHTHTTTTHHTTHTHHHTHTHHTHTHTHTHHTHHTHTHTTTTHTHTHTHTHTHTTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHHTHHHTHTHTHTHTHTTTHHH with a fair coin? 1 in 2^150, which is smaller than 1 in 10^45... an extremely small number, but since the sequence itself is unremarkable nobody cares too much.
I'd argue that the presence of life in the Universe is only remarkable because we think it is. Under these circumstances you don't really need to invoke multiple Universes, rather like the Many-worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is entirely un-necessary to explain what's going on.
The way I see it, there are no independent constants in the universe. They are all emergent values; all related. There was no possibility of one being different while the others remain the same resulting in a failed/lifeless universe. Change one constant and all the others would change proportionally with the result that there is no discernible difference, hence no alternate universe is possible. So i'd say our set of constants are just one set of a possible one set. :)
Now to answer the OP...
Einstein was wrong but not because of the big bang, as that theory is wrong too. The idea that the speed of light is a universal speed limit and not source-dependent is a falsity that was proven wrong back in the sixties when powerful radar signals were bounced off the planet Venus from multiple radar stations around the globe simultaneously. As Bryan G. Wallace showed, signals from the side of the earth rotating towards Venus came back sooner than those from the side rotating away, to a degree that fits source-dependent models: http://
This suggests that [as common sense would have it] the speed of light is additive, i.e. light emitted from a source with velocity v, will have a velocity of c+v on emission. Light is capable of travelling through space with differing velocities. Wallace's observation refutes relativity but unfortunately, by this time relativity had already become more like a religion than science. No career-minded physicist could be seen to be paying heed to a "relativity-denier", so Wallace's paper did not get the attention it deserved and no further investigation was made. The mainstream scientific community carried on believing in the fallacy that the speed of light is always constant.
Experiments on earth can give the illusion of source-independence but that is due to the EM fields of the earth's matter interfering by normalizing the speed of light from a moving source, i.e. slowing it down to c almost as soon as it is emitted. Astronomical and interplanetary observations reveal light's base nature. It's planet-bound behaviour is a special case.
There have been other astronomical observations that suggest source-dependence, like this: http://
But such observations are seen as some minor curiosity and the theorists will bend over backwards to invent any kind of fantastical nonsense to explain them so that they can avoid ditching relativity.
The time-dilation seen in type 1a supernova is likely down to light being source-dependent too (rather than expanding spacetime!). And, many apparently variable stars may well be binaries in which light bunching is occurring as faster light emitted from a star moving at it's maximum velocity towards us in it's orbit, catches up with slower light it emitted later: http://
Now to answer the OP...
Einstein was wrong but not because of the big bang, as that theory is wrong too. The idea that the speed of light is a universal speed limit and not source-dependent is a falsity that was proven wrong back in the sixties when powerful radar signals were bounced off the planet Venus from multiple radar stations around the globe simultaneously. As Bryan G. Wallace showed, signals from the side of the earth rotating towards Venus came back sooner than those from the side rotating away, to a degree that fits source-dependent models: http://
This suggests that [as common sense would have it] the speed of light is additive, i.e. light emitted from a source with velocity v, will have a velocity of c+v on emission. Light is capable of travelling through space with differing velocities. Wallace's observation refutes relativity but unfortunately, by this time relativity had already become more like a religion than science. No career-minded physicist could be seen to be paying heed to a "relativity-denier", so Wallace's paper did not get the attention it deserved and no further investigation was made. The mainstream scientific community carried on believing in the fallacy that the speed of light is always constant.
Experiments on earth can give the illusion of source-independence but that is due to the EM fields of the earth's matter interfering by normalizing the speed of light from a moving source, i.e. slowing it down to c almost as soon as it is emitted. Astronomical and interplanetary observations reveal light's base nature. It's planet-bound behaviour is a special case.
There have been other astronomical observations that suggest source-dependence, like this: http://
But such observations are seen as some minor curiosity and the theorists will bend over backwards to invent any kind of fantastical nonsense to explain them so that they can avoid ditching relativity.
The time-dilation seen in type 1a supernova is likely down to light being source-dependent too (rather than expanding spacetime!). And, many apparently variable stars may well be binaries in which light bunching is occurring as faster light emitted from a star moving at it's maximum velocity towards us in it's orbit, catches up with slower light it emitted later: http://
There are no images from the beginning of time still arriving as there is no beginning of time. The big bang theory is essentially a creation myth devised by a belgian priest (Georges LeMaitre) which received the support of a god-fearing american scientific community. Throughout the last hundred years observations kept cropping up that contradicted it and more and more fantastical concepts had to be invented to keep it alive — things like expanding space, inflation and dark energy. There are a number of notable astronomers who recognise the absurdity of it. Some of them give their views in this documentary which you may find interesting...
http://
That video also highlights the shameful amount of bias that exists amongst the scientific community. The professionals have to do BB-supporting research if they want to keep their jobs. So there is, of course, a lot of research supporting the big bang. It is not so much the evidence that supports the big bang but the conclusions that are drawn by scientific consensus. [see: http://
The truth is that the big bang theory is severely flawed and will likely be consigned to the history books within a decade or two. There is an increasing weight of evidence opposing it.
The best single contradicting observation may well be this:
http://
...and here is some more:
http://
http://
http://
http://
http://
http://
This page lists many deficiencies of the big bang theory:
http://
There are alternative explanations for all the cosmological observations that supposedly support the big bang, i.e. galactic redshifts are the result of light losing energy to the intergalactic medium ( http://
http://
That video also highlights the shameful amount of bias that exists amongst the scientific community. The professionals have to do BB-supporting research if they want to keep their jobs. So there is, of course, a lot of research supporting the big bang. It is not so much the evidence that supports the big bang but the conclusions that are drawn by scientific consensus. [see: http://
The truth is that the big bang theory is severely flawed and will likely be consigned to the history books within a decade or two. There is an increasing weight of evidence opposing it.
The best single contradicting observation may well be this:
http://
...and here is some more:
http://
http://
http://
http://
http://
http://
This page lists many deficiencies of the big bang theory:
http://
There are alternative explanations for all the cosmological observations that supposedly support the big bang, i.e. galactic redshifts are the result of light losing energy to the intergalactic medium ( http://
scowie, you obviously haven't a clue. Using big words they you don't understand is not a substitute for knowledge.
Linking to others who are similarly clueless does not constitute a proof. Anyone can publish on the internet and that alone does not prove anything.
The claim that the constants are linked is an unsubstantiated assertion as evidence by the sole supporting "evidence" being "the way I see it".
If Bryan G Wallace was right then The Theory of Relativity would be abandoned. The fact is Relativity has never been contradicted by a single observation and has met every challenge and predicted observations before they were made.
I bet you think climate change is a conspiracy too.
Linking to others who are similarly clueless does not constitute a proof. Anyone can publish on the internet and that alone does not prove anything.
The claim that the constants are linked is an unsubstantiated assertion as evidence by the sole supporting "evidence" being "the way I see it".
If Bryan G Wallace was right then The Theory of Relativity would be abandoned. The fact is Relativity has never been contradicted by a single observation and has met every challenge and predicted observations before they were made.
I bet you think climate change is a conspiracy too.
I wouldn't was my time. Any claim that Einstein was wrong is patently ridiculous. Relativistic considerations are included in the normal operation of satellite navigation equipment. If they were not included the calculated position would be wrong.
Light does not "bunch up" when the source is moving towards the observer. This has been thorough established for a very long time. Its frequency increases but it does not move faster.
Light does not "bunch up" when the source is moving towards the observer. This has been thorough established for a very long time. Its frequency increases but it does not move faster.
OK. I'm a country semi-retired veterinary surgeon who through my own studies and subscription to Nature has tried to stay in touch with as much as I can about one of the things I hold most precious in my life namely science.
I have not the academic authority to challenge the views of the scientific establishment, only the desire to know more before I die than I knew when science became my childhood interest.
Sir Fred Hoyle, playing devil's advocate, referred to the now established ekpyrotic theory of the origin of the universe as a 'big bang'. It's up to you if you think the decision of Hawking et al to name their proposed explanation for the beginning of our universe the 'Big Bang' was purely scientific. For me I find it a bit puerile and disrespectful, but then I could, as in all things be wrong.
As for my alternative explanation for the CBR, I recall the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees among others promoting the idea of the multiverse. I think I even have a popular science books that is called 'The Multiverse'.
When it comes to cosmology I worry that those whose career paths are influenced by the willingness to adhere to the approved consensus is right now narrowing the vision of young Einsteins.
I merely suggested that the CBR can just as easily be explained by originating from the multiverse and not from the 'big bang' and some of you think I'm out of order. Yet all the effects of gravity waves on the CBR, as has been so superbly shown (I can't wait to get the coffee mug with the graphic on), could be even more easily be explained if the original background was uniform and ubiquitous, originating from before the 'big bang' occurred.
In all I have read it seems to me that abandoning the absolute nature of c is a huge speculation (ok it's just my humble opinion) but surely all possible explanations (as per Occam's razor) should be applied, including my own suggestion made in all humility, before we subscribe to a process that by definition, as per the cause of the original question that began this discussion, leaves c behind?
PS I'm starting to be more interested in circularly polarized photons now. Has anybody got a good reference for the basic of how they, having been emitted, keep being circularly polarised? What keeps them that way- a quantised spacetime vortex perhaps?
I love science. My friends I hope we all agree about that.
I have not the academic authority to challenge the views of the scientific establishment, only the desire to know more before I die than I knew when science became my childhood interest.
Sir Fred Hoyle, playing devil's advocate, referred to the now established ekpyrotic theory of the origin of the universe as a 'big bang'. It's up to you if you think the decision of Hawking et al to name their proposed explanation for the beginning of our universe the 'Big Bang' was purely scientific. For me I find it a bit puerile and disrespectful, but then I could, as in all things be wrong.
As for my alternative explanation for the CBR, I recall the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees among others promoting the idea of the multiverse. I think I even have a popular science books that is called 'The Multiverse'.
When it comes to cosmology I worry that those whose career paths are influenced by the willingness to adhere to the approved consensus is right now narrowing the vision of young Einsteins.
I merely suggested that the CBR can just as easily be explained by originating from the multiverse and not from the 'big bang' and some of you think I'm out of order. Yet all the effects of gravity waves on the CBR, as has been so superbly shown (I can't wait to get the coffee mug with the graphic on), could be even more easily be explained if the original background was uniform and ubiquitous, originating from before the 'big bang' occurred.
In all I have read it seems to me that abandoning the absolute nature of c is a huge speculation (ok it's just my humble opinion) but surely all possible explanations (as per Occam's razor) should be applied, including my own suggestion made in all humility, before we subscribe to a process that by definition, as per the cause of the original question that began this discussion, leaves c behind?
PS I'm starting to be more interested in circularly polarized photons now. Has anybody got a good reference for the basic of how they, having been emitted, keep being circularly polarised? What keeps them that way- a quantised spacetime vortex perhaps?
I love science. My friends I hope we all agree about that.
Ideally no theory should rely on academic authority, Colm. I have no issue with you holding differing views from the consensus; All I would say is that if you are, then the theories you prefer need have a consistent internal logic and, most important of all, be able to better explain the observable phenomena of the universe, and not just by assertion either.
The alternative needs to be clearly articulated, and explicitly stated how it better fits the observable phenomena than the current model. More than that; to satisfy the academic theoreticians, you would need to be able to demonstrate evidence of those observations, mathematical proofs, and predictions from your model that the current paradigm would be unable to meet.
There are other theories out there, no question; The Electric Universe, which I believe Scowie is a proponent of, for example. Other people talk of multiverses ( largely, it seems to me, out of discomfort over the anthropic principle). And there are undoubtedly still issues where we do not have the knowledge, where the current model still has holes. That does not mean that it needs to be thrown out with the bathwater.
And alleging by inference that the consensus has the hallmarks of a conspiracy to prevent radical alternatives being examined or discussed does not inspire any confidence in me in your arguments.Nor does describing the consensus as "science fiction".
The consensus view does get overturned in science. Cosmology itself is a fine example of that. The Steady State Universe was the settled view back in the 20s and 30s. It was overturned because of observed phenomena that were better explained by the inflation theory; phenomena that could not be adequately explained by a steady state universe, for example.
Like you, I try and keep up with the science as an interested layman; but none of these alternative theories appear to have any weight behind them when critiqued.
So, specifically, what are the observed phenomenological shortfalls of inflation theory that are better explained by your preferred alternative? does your preferred alternative better explain such observed features as the abundance of light elements,large scale structures,Hubbles Law, and the cosmic microwave background radiation, its uniformity and ubiquity, better than the current model?
Then if you can provide the maths to support your suggestions, you should be well on your way to a Nobel Prize :)
The alternative needs to be clearly articulated, and explicitly stated how it better fits the observable phenomena than the current model. More than that; to satisfy the academic theoreticians, you would need to be able to demonstrate evidence of those observations, mathematical proofs, and predictions from your model that the current paradigm would be unable to meet.
There are other theories out there, no question; The Electric Universe, which I believe Scowie is a proponent of, for example. Other people talk of multiverses ( largely, it seems to me, out of discomfort over the anthropic principle). And there are undoubtedly still issues where we do not have the knowledge, where the current model still has holes. That does not mean that it needs to be thrown out with the bathwater.
And alleging by inference that the consensus has the hallmarks of a conspiracy to prevent radical alternatives being examined or discussed does not inspire any confidence in me in your arguments.Nor does describing the consensus as "science fiction".
The consensus view does get overturned in science. Cosmology itself is a fine example of that. The Steady State Universe was the settled view back in the 20s and 30s. It was overturned because of observed phenomena that were better explained by the inflation theory; phenomena that could not be adequately explained by a steady state universe, for example.
Like you, I try and keep up with the science as an interested layman; but none of these alternative theories appear to have any weight behind them when critiqued.
So, specifically, what are the observed phenomenological shortfalls of inflation theory that are better explained by your preferred alternative? does your preferred alternative better explain such observed features as the abundance of light elements,large scale structures,Hubbles Law, and the cosmic microwave background radiation, its uniformity and ubiquity, better than the current model?
Then if you can provide the maths to support your suggestions, you should be well on your way to a Nobel Prize :)
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
ChatterBank30 mins ago
Crosswords40 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles43 mins ago
Film, Media & TV54 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.