okay check this out

[Anonymous No.4550864]

Idea I had while I was super high, not sure if it holds water or how I came about with the idea, but it kinda sounds like it makes sense.

If the universe were to suddenly have more mass/energy, the speed of light would increase, right? Since time and space are related, the speed at which matter can move in a given amount of time must be related to the amount of mass in the universe, which is what establishes the cap on speed in the first place. Does this shit sound like it makes sense to anyone else?

[Anonymous No.4550872]

No. A constant is impossible to shift/change. What would change with an increase/decrease of total mass and energy in the universe is the speed at which time flows.

[Anonymous No.4550908]

>>4550872

If time moved faster, even by an extra second every hour, how would this not be increasing the maximum speed at which matter can travel in a given amount of time? Time, as viewed from the prior universe in which extra mass had not been created. Light would invariably travel farther in a given amount of time in a universe in which there was more matter...right?

[Anonymous No.4550945]

>>4550908

That would be like playing a movie in fast forward and saying the people are walking faster. From your point of view the people ARE walking faster, but from the point of view of the walking people, their speed remains the same.

[Anonymous No.4550960]

>>4550945

But they *are* moving faster... As it would increase the length of an hour by the same amount it would increase the speed, the relative speed would be unchanged. But if you shot a bolt of lightning through Universe A, whose mass had not been altered, and one through Universe B, whose mass had been increased, the bolt in Universe B would move faster. NOT faster relative to the rest of the universe, but faster than it previously had, yes?

[Anonymous No.4550964]

No. c is 1. You can't change the value of 1.

[Anonymous No.4550970]

>which is what establishes the cap on speed in the first place
The cap on speed comes from geometry.

[Anonymous No.4550972]

>>4550964

>mfw c=2

[Anonymous No.4550976]

>>4550972
That would be silly.

[Anonymous No.4550978]

>>4550970

Could you explain what that means?

[Anonymous No.4550979]

> Since time and space are related, the speed at which matter can move in a given amount of time must be related to the amount of mass in the universe, which is what establishes the cap on speed in the first place.

Why?

Also, lrn2maxwell

[Anonymous No.4550989]

>>4550978
c is the speed at which the spacetime interval along a worldline is zero. You should read a good book about special relativity if you want to understand it.

[Anonymous No.4550992]

OP your hearts in the right place....

But in order to do what you suggest, you would have to change the permeability and the permittivity of the vacuum... adding matter would just "increase" c to an observer outside of the universe, i.e time would appear to be moving faster.

[Anonymous No.4550993]

>>4550989

nah that's cool, i'll probly just smoke weed and figure out most of that shit eventually anyway, I'm pretty sure I cracked the code on this one.

[Anonymous No.4551005]

Fucking retarded shit

The permeability of free space has FUCK ALL to do with the amount of mass-energy. It comes from the properties of the Poincare Group and the Feynman Path Integral associated with quantum fields. Get a book on Field Theory if you want a derivation you lazy pseudoscientific fucks.

>>4550992
Except that's wrong, you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.4551013]

>>4551005

>gets mad at people who ask questions and have discussions on scientific theory
>on /sci/

[Anonymous No.4551020]

>>4551013
>ask question on trivial topic that can be found in any science textbook
>instead of have the intelligible aptitude to find something yourself, you spam an anonymous imageboard with inane shit you developed while on a heavy dose of LSD
>SOO DEEP AND EDGY XDDD
Nope.

[Anonymous No.4551032]

>>4551005
Except that's wrong, you fucking retard.

C is the relation of energy in space relative to time.

it's the reciprocal of the square root of the product of the permittivity and permeability of free space.

[Anonymous No.4551038]

>>4551013
> Go on /sci/
> Propose bullshit theory
> Get corrected by /sci/entists
> Fuck you, I'm gonna figure this out anyway!

[Anonymous No.4551046]

>>4551032
>Hurr DURRR
>I take the permeability of free space as a parameter in my langrangian because MAXWELL said SO 100 years ago XDDDD
Babby clearly has never taken any QFT. You get a Lorentz-invariant action when you derive a simple scalar field theory with the path integral interpretation. Everything else follows naturally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_group

[Anonymous No.4551053]

>>4551032

this is pretty much exactly how I envisioned my hypothesis

[Anonymous No.4551056]

>>4551046
Babby clearly has never divided the Planck length by the Planck time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

>Hurr DURRR

[Anonymous No.4551059]

>>4551032
>>4551053
>C is the relation of energy in space relative to time.
No, it is not. Show me a single textbook that demonstrates this.

In babby's first electromagnetism, it's defined c=1/ (e u)^1/2

[Anonymous No.4551080]

>>4551059

Well, this isn't babby's first electromagnetism we are talking about.

[Anonymous No.4551088]

>>4551056
What the fuck do the Planck units have to do with anything? I guess I'm talking to some 1st year undergrad or some popsci high school kiddy.

Give me a second and I'll show you how its done.

[Anonymous No.4551111]

>>4551080
Oh, so now we're talking QED? Okay, buddy.

You get Lorentz Invariance like this. This is the standard way of doing it in field theory. THERE ISN'T ANY OTHER WAY UNLESS YOU USE THE POINCARE GROUP OR SOME RETARDED SHIT WITH CONSTANT IN RELATIVITY.

Start with a standard potential for a quantum field. This is ALL IN NATURAL UNITS.
<div class="math">V(q_{1}, q_{2}, \ldots, q_{N}) = \sum_{ab} \frac{1}{2} k_{ab} q_{a} q_{b} + \cdots</div>
Then get the action from a continuum limit
<div class="math">S(q) \to S(\varphi) = \int_{0}^{T} \mathrm{d} t \int \mathrm{d}^{2} x \mathcal{L} (\varphi)</div>
<div class="math">= \int_{0}^{T} \mathrm{d} t \int \mathrm{d}^{2} x \frac{1}{2} \left \{ \sigma \left ( \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial t} \right )^{2} - \rho \left [ \left ( \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial x} \right )^{2} + \left ( \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial y} \right )^{2} \right ] - \tau \varphi^{2} - \varsigma \varphi^{4} + \cdots \right \}</div>
<span class="math">\rho = \sigma c^{2}[/spoiler], After rearranging a little and <span class="math">\varphi \to \varphi / \sqrt{\sigma}[/spoiler]
<div class="math">S = \int \mathrm{d}^{d} x \left [ \frac{1}{2} (\partial \varphi)^{2} - \frac{1}{2} m^{2} \varphi^{2} - \frac{g}{3!} \varphi^{3} - \frac{\lambda}{4!} \varphi^{4} + \cdots \right ]</div>
NOTICE HOW LORENTZ INVARIANCE COMES UP NATURALLY WITH C AS THE PHASE VELOCITY OF THE QUANTUM FIELD XDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Then you get the path integral for a scalar field theory
<div class="math">Z = \int D \varphi e^{i \int \mathrm{d}^{d} x (\frac{1}{2} (\partial \varphi)^{2} - V(\varphi))} </div>

All kiddy bullshit. Everything in here should be obvious so I'm not going to clarify any variables unless you ask.

[Anonymous No.4551128]

>>4551111
Quads for owned. Though I will say he was a bit over the top with it being "kiddy bullshit" but hey this is 4chan after all, that is the generally agreed upon tone.

[Anonymous No.4551131]

>>4551111
Nigga layin' down the law right herrr

[Anonymous No.4551138]

>>4551111
All in unity :P

[Anonymous No.4551143]

>>4551111

Is it just me or did this rendering get totally fucked up?

[Anonymous No.4551157]

>>4551111
Lorentz symmetry is taken as a postulate in quantum field theory. You are retarded.

[Anonymous No.4551164]

>>4551157
>as a postulate
Are you shitting me? I just showed you how to get it.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0211106.pdf

[Anonymous No.4551170]

>>4551046

I'm sorry, but I think the guy who discovered the laws of electromagnetic interactions would have a little more insight on the matter then some retard on 4chan.

>>4551111
what >>4551157 said

[Anonymous No.4551176]

>>4551170
Well you can keep appealing to authority or, you know, LOOK AT THE FUCKING DERIVATION.

[Anonymous No.4551181]

>>4551170
>>4551157
Yeah.. Well I guess the kiddies on this board are too mentally handicapped to know what the Poincare group for Special Relativity is. I used the standard derivation for a scalar field theory and showed how it naturally has Lorentz invariance if we generalize the path integral interpretation to an N particle hamiltonian with the standard potential. This is in pretty much any Quantum Field Theory book which covers the Feynman Path Integral Interpretation, and any Group theory textbook which goes over what the Poincare group is and how it was historically discovered.

But, what do I know, I'm just some asshole on an imageboard who happens to have taken some actual field theory.

[Anonymous No.4551185]

>>4551164
>>4551176

People post crazy shit on arXiv all the time you whore.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310368v3.pdf

[Anonymous No.4551195]

>>4551185
Mother of god, every fucking excuse in the book.

Here's a bunch of free material covering path integrals in field theory
http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys851/Luty/notes/pathint.pdf
http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v19/i4/p1153_1
http://staff.science.uva.nl/~jsmit/qft07.pdf
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~dermisek/QFT_08/qft-I-6-1p.pdf
http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/~vanbaal/FT/lect.pdf
https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/theoreticalphysics/public/MSc/AQFT/AFTlect1.pdf

[Anonymous No.4551203]

ITT

how physicsfags get trolled worse than biologists. It's so easy, it's almost unsportsmanlike.

[Anonymous No.4551207]

>>4551203
fuck you faget

[Anonymous No.4551221]

>>4551203
More like one physics student owns all of /sci/ ITT

[Anonymous No.4551248]

>>4551221
>implying I'm the only physics student on here
>implying there aren't others who are PhD students and know more than me

[Anonymous No.4551255]

>>4551195

Nothing but lies created by the devil to deceive you.

Accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savor and repent from your evil way.

[Anonymous No.4551260]

>>4551255
/thread

[Anonymous No.4552433]

>>4551111
this is a decent approach to see lorentz invariance in a free scalar field theory. natural units are always cool, and they are used in the standard model (in most cases) for that reason. just keep in mind that with path integrals you implicitly choose the lorentz frame when you define canonical momenta, so this isn't anything too special. the real source of all the special relativity stuff, lorentz invariance included, is in the poincare group (as was already mentioned in this thread). symmetry in qed obviously deals a lot with this. in essence when you want to work with scalar fields in particle physics, you choose a symmetry, decide on the fields you want by specifying how they transform under the symmetry, and then write down the action. with natural units, c is always unity, so it comes out and looks a lot cleaner. our convoluted choice of units (meters, amperes, ev, dynes, etc.) have no fundamental correlation with nature. they are arbitrary.