Timeline for Do we know why there is a speed limit in our universe?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 17, 2023 at 9:34 | comment | added | Zuhair Al-Johar | About the point that the new theory must still explain the observations we have is no double demanded, but it can explain it over a subdomain of it, it need not be generalized to the whole domain. We may one day discover particles that move faster than light, and we may have instruments that work with those particles and that can detect such speedy particles, our present domain would be constrained to that below light speed particles and for such domain the laws or relativity suffice, it need not cover the super speedy realms. | |
| Jul 6, 2019 at 18:19 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jul 6, 2019 at 18:35 | |||||
| Mar 31, 2019 at 23:23 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Apr 1, 2019 at 2:50 | |||||
| Mar 31, 2019 at 19:05 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Mar 31, 2019 at 19:59 | |||||
| Jul 10, 2018 at 13:35 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jul 10, 2018 at 15:01 | |||||
| Oct 7, 2017 at 16:43 | comment | added | anna v | @Dvij I disagree. We first studied and found the 1/r^2 behavior and then used it to PREDICT future behavior. Data banks, like maps , have no predictive ability. It is the possibility of predictions using mathematical tools(mathematical models) that is important in physics. Correct predictions validate the tool, incorrect ones lead to changes in the models. Physics theories are formulated so that future setups can be predicted and the theory checked against new data. | |
| Oct 7, 2017 at 14:53 | comment | added | user87745 | Theoretical Physics is not a mnemonic to remember the experimental results. At any point in time, the most basic theory that we have is precisely the answer to why all the phenomena that can be explained by this basic theory happen. It would be either stupid or dishonest to say, "we can't explain why we have an inverse square force law for gravity or electromagnetism beyond the statement that we found them so". Basic principles of GR and YM theory is why we have these inverse square laws. | |
| Oct 7, 2017 at 14:42 | comment | added | user87745 | @annav Why explain anything at all? Why formulate any theory at all? Just so that you can easily remember data? We have good computers now I guess so we don't have to remember stuff. Then, I believe a big table of all the observations is the best Physics we could do in your universe. I am happy I don't live in your universe. | |
| Aug 6, 2017 at 18:42 | comment | added | anna v | @BenCrowell Evidently we disagree. "Why" questions after going through "how mathematically they fit the theoretical model" end up on the postulates/principles/laws that are the distillation of observations/experiments , extra axioms imposed on the mathematics in order to pick up the subset of solutions relevant to data. Then the only answer is "because that is what has been observed". | |
| Aug 6, 2017 at 16:19 | comment | added | user4552 | Theoretical ideas don't exist in a theoretical vacuum. Appeals to experiment are not the only possible answers to "why" questions. | |
| May 6, 2017 at 13:50 | comment | added | TheQuantumMan | @annav chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/58305/… | |
| May 6, 2017 at 13:40 | comment | added | TheQuantumMan | @annav You mean that, even if we achieve the most fundamental understanding of our Universe that we can, somebody could answer this question by changing an axiom with a theorem and give a different explanation? That is why an explanation of a "fundamental" why is considered as being subjective? (Also, could we extend this conversation in a chat room?) | |
| Sep 29, 2016 at 12:33 | comment | added | user43769 | I've had this theory for a long time. I believe that the speed of light is limited to what it is because the flow of TIME is exactly the same (in other units) and anything faster than light would break through TIME into the future (or nowhere) never to be seen again. Even as the future becomes the NOW, the THING is still moving into the new future of the new NOW. SO, if all light moved any faster - there would be NO light to be seen and we would not be here. | |
| May 31, 2016 at 1:57 | comment | added | David White | @annav, your comments and posts are ALWAYS right to the point and very insightful. Keep posting ... I REALLY enjoy reading your responses. | |
| May 12, 2016 at 3:57 | comment | added | anna v | @QuanticMan just saw this discussion. Physics uses mathematics. In mathematics you should know that the choice of axioms is subjective usually dependent on minimizing steps. It is true for an axiomatic mathematical theory that one could substitute a theorem for an axiom, and then an axiom becomes a theorem, i.e. provable from the axioms. In physics there are postulates that pick out the subset of the axiomatic mathematics that fits the data. In the same sense as with the axioms one could pick different postulates and use mathematics to prove the previous postulates, a subjective part. | |
| Jan 22, 2016 at 23:28 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | @LandosAdam: If you do not see why the answer to "what is the most fundamental reason for X" is subjective, then you need to think about what your definition of "fundamental" is. I guarantee that it is not objective. | |
| Jan 21, 2016 at 15:25 | comment | added | TheQuantumMan | @SteveJessop i agree with what you are saying, although i do not see why the answer to "what is the most fundamental reason for this X thing to happen" is subjective. It is not a matter of opinion. It seems as a matter of opinion because some people know more than others, and so we get a lot of answers. But i am sure that if you go deeper in most answers then you will find the most fundamental answer on this page, and in this case is that we do not know the why behind it(if there is a why). | |
| Jan 21, 2016 at 15:15 | comment | added | Steve Jessop | It's also worth bearing in mind that whether or not something answers a "why" question is somewhat subjective, since we're talking about simplifying explanations ("multiples of 10 end in a 0 because we're writing them in base 10"), not physical causes ("My foot hurts because it's softer than the rock I just kicked"). So others have concluded that there is an answer to "why", and in fact they can talk about features of the model that for them partially explain the existence in the model of a limit. | |
| Jan 21, 2016 at 15:13 | comment | added | Steve Jessop | @LandosAdam: exactly. If we ask, "why do objects move around/past the Sun in conic sections?", then physics can say "why" that is in terms of other properties of the model that can be seen in some sense as more fundamental: an inverse-square acceleration results in certain geometrical features. Of course it's still not an "ultimate" answer to "why", but it is an answer. But when it comes to why light doesn't arrive instantaneously, anna is stating here that there's only one possible answer, that is to say the model doesn't provide any "deeper" foundation for the phenomenon. | |
| Jan 21, 2016 at 14:57 | comment | added | TheQuantumMan | @annav i know that, that is the beauty of its objectivity in a sense. But, sometimes, a theory can explain some things that were previously considered to be fundamental. That is why i made this question. And, the way i look at it, the fact that there is a chance that it could be derived from more fundamental laws that we are not aware of yet makes me more enthusiastic. But, the key word here is "MIGHT" because it could as well just be as you said. | |
| Jan 21, 2016 at 14:53 | comment | added | anna v | @LandosAdam Yes. The theory that demands a limited and fixed velocity for zero mass particles derives from the data. Physics does not answer ultimately "why" questions. It says "how" with the accepted model one can arrive at an observation. If we had observed a variable velocity of light we would have developed a different theory. | |
| Jan 21, 2016 at 13:47 | comment | added | TheQuantumMan | @annav so, the bottom line is that the most fundamental explanation that we have for it right now is that it "just is", right? | |
| Jan 21, 2016 at 10:58 | history | edited | user36790 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 23 characters in body
|
| Jan 21, 2016 at 10:53 | review | Low quality answers | |||
| Jan 21, 2016 at 12:18 | |||||
| Jan 21, 2016 at 10:34 | history | answered | anna v | CC BY-SA 3.0 |