This will baffle some posters. So who is baffled? I for one am baffled. Why isn't this taught in science courses? Any ideas on that will be appreciated. Here we have two scientists discussing this topic.
No one has unambiguously measured the one-way speed of light. The 2-way speed of light is what we have and it assumes that space is isotropic. I believe that this is a very reasonable assumption and I haven't read about theoretical physicists questioning the assumption that space is isotropic. Einstein was well aware that he was making this assumption when he formulated the special theory of relativity. I'm not sure if the Hughes-Drever experiment proves that space is isotropic but it does confirm that inertia or mass is the same in all directions of space- isotropic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity Isoptropy of mass, energy, and space from Wikipedia - tests of special theory of relativity Clock-comparison experiments (periodic processes and frequencies can be considered as clocks) such as the Hughes–Drever experiments provide stringent tests of Lorentz invariance. They are not restricted to the photon sector as Michelson-Morley but directly determine any anisotropy of mass, energy, or space by measuring the ground state of nuclei. Upper limit of such anisotropies of 10−33 GeV have been provided. Thus these experiments are among the most precise verifications of Lorentz invariance ever conducted.[3][4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes–Drever_experiment Hughes–Drever experiments (also clock comparison-, clock anisotropy-, mass isotropy-, or energy isotropy experiments) are spectroscopic tests of the isotropy of mass and space. Unlike Michelson–Morley type experiments, Hughes–Drever experiments test the isotropy of the interactions of matter itself, that is, of protons, neutrons, and electrons. The accuracy achieved makes this kind of experiment one of the most accurate confirmations of relativity (see also Tests of special relativity)
The Michelson-Morley experiment where light travels in perpendicular round-trip directions does provide some evidence that space is at least approximately isotropic and the speed of light is the same in all directions - it is exactly what we measure it to be in the 2-way (back and forth) measurement. Wikipedia, Michelson-Morley experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment The experiment compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind"). The result was negative, in that Michelson and Morley found no significant difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles.
Face it light has some weird properties. People like these guys are going to cause a monumental universal total black hole event if they're not careful.
Conservation of angular momentum implies that space is isotropic. I listened to the entire video and found nothing wrong with it except for the fact that they didn't try to make a case for space being isotropic. They were being the devil's advocate. I have a textbook on special relativity that doesn't mention a thing about the assumption of space being isotropic. If there was some reason the think otherwise then there would have been some discussion. I was wondering if the cosmological principle involving the isotropic distribution of mass in the universe would be relevant to space being isotropic, maybe not. http://www.basic-physics.com/m10-the-isotropy-of-space-and-angular-momentum-conservation/ As momentum conservation is related to, and indeed can be founded upon, the homogeneity of space (the indistinguishability of one point in space from another—see Essay M5), angular-momentum conservation is similarly tied to the isotropy of space (the indistinguishability of one direction from another). An isolated object at rest in space is not expected to be self-accelerating in some direction, for that would imply an inhomogeneity of space. Nor is it expected to set itself spontaneously into rotation, for that would imply an anisotropy of space. The absence of spontaneous rotation requires the absence of any net internal torque, which in turn implies that the angular momentum of an isolated system is conserved. The bland sameness of space is at the root of both momentum conservation and angular-momentum conservation.
Angles are virtual and space is an unspecified volume of spatial points . We can assume infinite space would be isotropic but any finite space with an unspecified volume is n-dimensional as any dimensions fit within an infinite spatial reference frame .
There is nothing about lights nature that is weird or complex . I can create black holes but I am careful .
The authors hold doctorate degrees and are both experts in physics. I see a chance for you to address your points in the video that was presented. Did you avail yourself of that ability to notify them?
The videos point ? Anyway light does not have a speed +ve=F the speed light travels is an extraction transition See this diagram that shows a quantum scale and additionally why there is no time dilation . https://www.facebook.com/119575119874599/photos/a.119579413207503/288324902999619/ https://www.facebook.com/119575119874599/photos/a.119579413207503/288263239672452/
I will present from a professional site what I learned many years ago in Physics. 3.1 RADIOMETER Radiometer is a device used to measure the intensity of radiant energy. A majority of radiometers use only single photocell sensors. In order to measure radiation emitted from a specific spectrum or to incorporate the radiometer within a certain spectral response, an optical filter is normally used. Such optical filtering offers a simpler and more cost effective solution. The industrial applications of radiometer mainly involve irradiance and radiance measurement. In order to quantify the radiation emission from source, radiance measurement is normally used. On the other hand, when the level of exposure is of concern, the irradiance or the integrated irradiance measurement is then carried out. https://www.konicaminolta.com/instruments/knowledge/light/instrumentation/01.html
The Video I supplied here has a way to communicate with the two scientists. Give it a try and keep us informed of your and their discussion please.
Let us engineer an experiment and place the Radiometer one end of a long tube (b) Let us now place a light source at the other end of the tube (a) (a) →(b) Now let us turn on our Radiometer and measure the constant state of the interior of the tube Now let us simultaneous activate our light source and connected timer Let us now measure the time using the Radiometer change of constant state d/t= time of change
Why don't you inform Dr. Derek Muller the famous physicist of your findings. It is his video you find not accurate as I understand you. Dr. Mueller lives in Canada where he as a child was taken from Australia by his parents who came from South Africa.
You can easily correct both of the famous physicists in the video. Both are famous. Derek Muller a Ph.D. has been commented on., This is about the other scientist. Destin Sandlin has a BS in mechanical engineering from the University of Alabama and an MS in aerospace engineering from the University of Alabama in Huntsville.[1][10] While an undergraduate, he was awarded the University of Alabama's Outstanding Senior Award.[1] He also minored in Business Administration while at the University of Alabama.[11] Sandlin was, until late 2018, a full-time Missile Flight Test Engineer at Redstone Arsenal.[12][13] He is currently a PhD candidate at the University of Alabama Huntsville advised by Kavan Hazeli.[14] (as of 201 By this time I believe Destin did receive his PhD.
Pass that on to the two famous scientists, Derek Muller and Destin Sandlin who worked on top secret things for the Government. Destin has a site known as Smarter every day. He has worked with Derek Muller who presented the video you are critiquing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destin_Sandlin#Background
I have zero scientific academics and spent over a decade self studying . I told science over a decade ago for mocking my findings in a different topic that I'd ''destroy'' their science theory and I have done . I have very little interest in being lured towards youtube wannabes . Engineering is design , engineers don't manufacture . Jigsaw puzzles in reality that technicians put together . Missiles are fireworks in reality , nothing complex .
That is excellent. As I said, both men were trained in physics to a very high degree. Derek has been a successful Youtuber for many years and is said to earn an excellent living. How can you tell science? Science has a range of topics. Since I have personally done some engineering, I get it. I did both engineer and manufacture.
In learning styles , most people learn in a stereotypical manner , namely the common style . The common style is a predefined set of knowledge that is based on memorizing the information . Most qualifications are based on the common style and those who succeed have remembered what they were taught . ''Top'' physicists in general discuss physics using the common style and some of the more ''celebrity'' physicists reflect on the common style taught to them . My personal learning style , namely the discourse style , means I always question if the answer isn't absolute and try to discover the answer . I learnt physics in the discourse style and as a reflection of this it helped my thoughts in engineering design as achievements of a good design , must co-exist with the physics involved . I have innovations myself but I have failed to gain interest from people I have approached in message .
I stated in my 3rd post that the video is accurate - I listened to the entire video and found nothing wrong with it except for the fact that they didn't try to make a case for space being isotropic. I am just trying to supply some balance to the video. I am having serous doubts about my argument that conservation of angular momentum proves that space is isotropic and that this is relevant to the motion of light in a straight line. According to the video it is possible for light to be travelling at 0.5 the accepted value of c in one direction and at an infinite velocity in the opposite direction. That would seem to create a serious problem for astronomers because there would be no time delay in some directions of space while there could be up to double the time delay in the opposite direction - this issue was not adequately addressed. Wouldn't we know something is seriously wrong if this were true? Is there any rational reason why light should not travel at the same speed in opposite directions? How could some unknown property of space account for different light speeds in opposite directions? Why didn't the video mention and discuss what is stated in Wikipedia's "One-way speed of light post about the Michelson-Morley Exp. and the Kennedy-Thorndike Exp.? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light The two-way speed of light is the average speed of light from one point, such as a source, to a mirror and back again. Because the light starts and finishes in the same place only one clock is needed to measure the total time, thus this speed can be experimentally determined independently of any clock synchronization scheme. Any measurement in which the light follows a closed path is considered a two-way speed measurement. Many tests of special relativity such as the Michelson–Morley experiment and the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment have shown within tight limits that in an inertial frame the two-way speed of light is isotropic and independent of the closed path considered. Isotropy experiments of the Michelson–Morley type do not use an external clock to directly measure the speed of light, but rather compare two internal frequencies or clocks. Therefore, such experiments are sometimes called "clock anisotropy experiments", since every arm of a Michelson interferometer can be seen as a light clock having a specific rate, whose relative orientation dependences can be tested.[6]
