Electromagnetic Spectrum and Physics Limits # Electromagnetic Frequency, Fundamental Constants, and the Limits of Information Propagation: A Comprehensive Analysis ## Abstract This report provides an expert-level analysis of the intricate relationships governing electromagnetic radiation, information transmission, and fundamental physical principles. It begins by examining the connection between electromagnetic frequency and information-carrying capacity, grounded in the Shannon-Hartley theorem, which establishes the theoretical upper limit on data rates as a function of bandwidth and signal-to-noise ratio. The diverse properties of electromagnetic waves across the spectrum, from radio waves to gamma rays, are explored, detailing how their differing wavelengths, energies, and interactions with matter dictate their applications in communication and astronomy. The report then delves into the measurement and definition of fundamental electromagnetic constants—specifically the speed of light (c), vacuum permittivity (ε₀), and vacuum permeability (μ₀)—tracing their historical determination and the impact of the 1983 and 2019 SI unit redefinitions. These redefinitions fixed c, e, and h, making ε₀ and μ₀ experimentally determined quantities linked via the fine-structure constant (α). Potential anthropocentric biases related to the visible spectrum and the interpretation of fine-tuned constants are discussed, concluding that such biases primarily affect interpretation rather than measurement methodology. The report rigorously examines the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light (c) as dictated by Special Relativity and the Standard Model. Theoretical frameworks for Lorentz Invariance Violation (LIV), which predict energy-dependent variations in c, are presented alongside the powerful astrophysical methods used to test these predictions, primarily through observations of gamma-ray bursts and active galactic nuclei. Current experimental constraints strongly uphold Lorentz invariance, pushing the scale for potential violations towards or beyond the Planck energy, although systematic uncertainties related to intrinsic source effects remain a challenge. The history of precision measurements of c, particularly the laser-based experiments leading to the 1983 redefinition of the meter, is reviewed, analyzing methodological nuances and historical variations attributed to systematic errors. Finally, the report addresses the fundamental role of c as the speed limit for causality within Special Relativity, exploring the implications of hypothetical faster-than-light propagation and the distinction between quantum non-local correlations and information transfer. It concludes that while quantum phenomena and quantum gravity theories continue to be explored, c remains the established upper limit for information propagation in current physical understanding. ## Introduction Purpose: This report aims to deliver a comprehensive, expert-level analysis of the multifaceted interplay between the properties of electromagnetic (EM) radiation, particularly its frequency and wavelength, and the fundamental principles governing information transmission, the nature of physical constants, and the ultimate speed limits imposed by the laws of physics. It synthesizes theoretical frameworks, experimental findings, and conceptual considerations related to information capacity, the measurement and constancy of the speed of light (c) and related constants (ε₀, μ₀, α), potential observational biases, and the theoretical underpinnings of causality and information propagation. Context: The discussion is situated at the intersection of several core areas of physics and related disciplines. It draws upon information theory to understand communication limits, classical electromagnetism as described by Maxwell's equations, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity which establishes the unique role of c, quantum electrodynamics (QED) which governs the interaction of light and matter and defines the fine-structure constant, and concepts emerging from the quest for quantum gravity, such as potential violations of Lorentz invariance. Furthermore, it touches upon the precise science of metrology, which deals with the definition and realization of physical units, and the philosophy of science, particularly concerning the interpretation of physical laws and the potential for anthropocentric biases. Scope and Structure: The report systematically explores these interconnected themes. Section 1 examines the relationship between EM frequency, bandwidth, and information capacity, using the Shannon-Hartley theorem as a foundation, and surveys how different parts of the EM spectrum are utilized based on their physical properties. Section 2 investigates the experimental determination of fundamental electromagnetic constants (c, ε₀, μ₀, α), the impact of modern SI unit redefinitions, and evaluates the potential influence of spectral limitations and anthropocentric viewpoints on our understanding of these constants. Section 3 focuses on the postulate of the constancy of c in Special Relativity, introduces theoretical frameworks predicting Lorentz Invariance Violation (LIV), and details the astrophysical methods used to test for energy-dependent variations in photon speed, summarizing current experimental constraints. Section 4 delves into the history and methodology of precision measurements of the speed of light, analyzing potential systematic variations and the implications of the 1983 redefinition of the meter. Section 5 explores the profound connection between the speed of light, causality, and the concept of a universal information propagation speed limit, considering challenges from quantum phenomena and speculative theories. The report concludes by synthesizing the key findings, highlighting the deep interconnections between these topics, and noting outstanding questions in fundamental physics. ## Section 1: Electromagnetic Frequency and Information Capacity ### 1.1 The Shannon-Hartley Theorem: Fundamental Limits on Information Rate The theoretical maximum rate at which information can be reliably transmitted over a communication channel is governed by the Shannon-Hartley theorem, a cornerstone of information theory.1 This theorem provides a quantitative upper bound, known as the channel capacity (C), for a channel with a specific bandwidth (B) operating in the presence of noise. The capacity, measured in bits per second, is given by the formula: C = B log₂(1 + S/N) where S is the average received signal power and N is the average power of the noise and interference within the channel bandwidth.2 This relationship elegantly combines the insights of earlier work by Nyquist and Hartley with Claude Shannon's rigorous mathematical framework for communication in the presence of noise.2 Role of Bandwidth (B): The theorem explicitly states that channel capacity is directly proportional to the bandwidth B, measured in Hertz.2 Bandwidth represents the range of frequencies the communication channel can effectively carry.3 A wider bandwidth fundamentally allows for the transmission of more independent signal elements, or pulses, per unit time, as established by Nyquist's work which identified the maximum pulse rate as 2B (the Nyquist rate).2 Consequently, doubling the available bandwidth, while keeping the signal-to-noise ratio constant, theoretically doubles the maximum rate at which error-free information can be sent.2 This linear dependence underscores the critical importance of bandwidth in achieving high data rates. Role of Signal-to-Noise Ratio (S/N): The capacity also depends crucially on the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), which quantifies the strength of the desired signal relative to the background noise.2 Noise, an unavoidable aspect of real-world channels arising from various sources like thermal effects or interference 3, fundamentally limits the ability of a receiver to reliably distinguish between different possible signal levels or states. Hartley first recognized that the number of distinguishable levels limits the information rate.2 Shannon's contribution, within the context of additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN), was to show that capacity increases with the logarithm (base 2) of (1 + S/N).2 This logarithmic relationship implies that while a higher S/N ratio increases capacity, it does so with diminishing returns. Significant increases in signal power or reductions in noise power are required to achieve substantial gains in capacity, especially when the S/N ratio is already high.2 The interplay between bandwidth and signal-to-noise ratio reveals a fundamental trade-off in communication system design. The linear dependence of capacity on bandwidth contrasts sharply with its logarithmic dependence on S/N. Mathematically, increasing bandwidth offers a more potent means of increasing channel capacity compared to proportionally increasing the signal-to-noise ratio, particularly in scenarios where bandwidth is available and noise does not scale prohibitively with bandwidth. This understanding drives the development of technologies that utilize large bandwidths, such as optical fiber communications and ultra-wideband radio systems, to achieve very high data rates. Frequency Dependence (Beyond Bandwidth): While the basic formula assumes white noise (uniform power spectral density across the bandwidth), a more general form of the theorem accounts for frequency-dependent, or "colored," noise. In this case, the capacity is found by integrating the logarithmic term over the channel bandwidth, considering the signal power spectral density S(f) and noise power spectral density N(f) at each frequency f within the band.2 This highlights that the specific frequencies utilized within the allocated bandwidth, and the noise characteristics at those frequencies, can influence the overall achievable capacity. Theoretical vs. Practical Limits: It is essential to recognize that the Shannon-Hartley theorem provides a theoretical upper bound.2 It assumes ideal conditions, such as Gaussian noise characteristics and the possibility of employing arbitrarily complex error-correction coding schemes that can operate over infinitely long data blocks with potentially infinite latency to achieve an arbitrarily low error rate.3 Real-world communication systems inevitably operate below the Shannon limit due to practical constraints, including hardware limitations, finite coding block lengths, processing delays, and non-ideal channel conditions.4 Furthermore, the theorem primarily applies to a single point-to-point communication link and does not directly encompass the complexities of multiple access systems or networks, although it serves as a crucial starting point for their analysis.4 ### 1.2 Information Transmission Across the EM Spectrum: Properties and Applications The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum encompasses a vast range of radiation types, all fundamentally consisting of propagating oscillations of electric and magnetic fields, traveling at the speed of light c in a vacuum.5 Despite this common speed, waves across the spectrum exhibit vastly different frequencies, wavelengths, and photon energies, which dictate how they are generated, how they interact with matter, and consequently, their suitability for various information transmission and astronomical applications.5 - Radio Waves: Occupying the lowest frequency (longest wavelength) end of the spectrum, radio waves possess the lowest photon energies.7 They readily penetrate Earth's atmosphere, constituting a significant "atmospheric window," and can also pass through foliage and many building materials.6 These properties make them ideal for long-distance terrestrial and satellite communication, including AM/FM radio and television broadcasting, mobile telephony, radar, and wireless data networks (Wi-Fi).6 In astronomy, radio waves emitted by celestial objects like cold gas clouds, stars, galaxies, and pulsars allow astronomers to study phenomena obscured at other wavelengths or probe the large-scale structure and dynamics of the universe.6 - Microwaves: With shorter wavelengths and higher frequencies than radio waves, microwaves carry more energy.6 They are used extensively for point-to-point communication links, satellite transmissions (as some frequencies can penetrate clouds), and radar systems.6 Their ability to efficiently transfer energy to water molecules is exploited in microwave ovens.6 Astronomically, microwaves are crucial for studying the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, the relic heat from the Big Bang, providing insights into the early universe. They also probe the structure of our own and nearby galaxies.6 - Infrared (IR) Radiation: Infrared radiation lies between microwaves and visible light, often associated with heat emission.6 Objects emit IR radiation based on their temperature. This property is utilized in thermal imaging (night vision) and remote controls.6 Certain IR wavelengths are also used in fiber optic communication systems.9 Astronomers use IR observations to penetrate interstellar dust clouds that obscure visible light, allowing them to study star formation regions, cool stars, planets, and the warm gas and dust within galaxies.6 Observing distant galaxies in the infrared is also vital, as the expansion of the universe redshifts their emitted light into the IR range.9 - Visible Light: This constitutes a very narrow band of the EM spectrum, defined as the range detectable by the human eye.5 Different wavelengths within this band are perceived as different colors.9 Visible light passes relatively unimpeded through the Earth's atmosphere, forming another critical atmospheric window.6 It is the basis for optical astronomy, allowing detailed studies of stars, galaxies, and nebulae.6 In technology, visible light is used in various forms of visual communication and display, and increasingly in high-bandwidth fiber optic communications.8 - Ultraviolet (UV) Radiation: With shorter wavelengths and higher energies than visible light, UV radiation carries enough energy to cause chemical reactions and ionization ("ionizing radiation" for higher-energy UV).7 Most incoming solar UV is absorbed by the Earth's ozone layer, necessitating space-based telescopes for UV astronomy.6 UV observations reveal information about hot, young stars, stellar nurseries, planetary atmospheres, and energetic processes in galaxies.6 Technological applications include sterilization and certain types of lithography. - X-rays: X-rays possess significantly higher energies and shorter wavelengths than UV light.6 They are highly penetrating, passing through soft tissues but absorbed by denser materials like bone, making them invaluable for medical imaging and security screening.6 X-rays from space are blocked by the atmosphere, requiring observations from satellites.6 X-ray astronomy probes extremely hot and violent environments in the universe, such as gas heated to millions of degrees in galaxy clusters, material accreting onto black holes and neutron stars, and supernova remnants.6 - Gamma Rays: Occupying the highest-energy, shortest-wavelength end of the spectrum, gamma rays are the most energetic form of EM radiation.6 They are highly penetrating and ionizing.7 Produced by the most extreme events in the universe, such as gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), supernova explosions, merging neutron stars, and processes near supermassive black holes, their detection (from space) provides insights into particle acceleration and fundamental physics under extreme conditions.6 Terrestrial applications include cancer radiotherapy and industrial sterilization.6 The interaction mechanisms between EM radiation and matter vary significantly across the spectrum, underpinning these diverse applications. Low-frequency radio waves tend to interact with bulk material via collective oscillations of charge carriers (like electrons in an antenna). Microwaves and far-infrared radiation interact with molecular rotations. Near-infrared and visible light interact primarily through molecular vibrations and electronic excitations in atoms and molecules (including pigments in the human retina). Ultraviolet light excites or ejects valence electrons (photoelectric effect). X-rays interact more strongly, ejecting core atomic electrons or undergoing Compton scattering. High-energy gamma rays can eject core electrons even in heavy elements, excite atomic nuclei, or even create particle-antiparticle pairs (pair production) when interacting with matter.7 A critical factor shaping both communication technology and astronomical observation is the selective filtering effect of Earth's atmosphere. As noted, only certain frequency ranges—primarily radio waves and visible light, along with portions of the infrared and microwave bands—can effectively penetrate the atmosphere and reach the surface.6 Gases like water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are strong absorbers at other frequencies, blocking most UV, X-ray, and gamma radiation.8 This necessitates the placement of telescopes designed for these wavelengths in space.6 Similarly, the choice of frequencies for reliable satellite communication often favors microwave bands that can penetrate clouds.8 The existence of these "atmospheric windows" is a direct consequence of the frequency-dependent interaction between EM radiation and atmospheric constituents, acting as a fundamental environmental constraint that has profoundly influenced the trajectory of scientific observation and technological development. To provide a consolidated overview, Table 1 summarizes the key properties and applications across the EM spectrum. Table 1: Comparison of EM Spectrum Bands for Information Transmission and Astronomy | | | | | | | |---|---|---|---|---|---| |Band Name|Typical Wavelength Range|Typical Frequency Range|Key Properties (Energy, Penetration, Atmos. Transmission)|Primary Information Transmission Uses|Primary Astronomical Uses & Information Gained| |Radio Waves|> 1 cm - kms|< 30 GHz|Lowest energy; High penetration (atmos, buildings); Good transmission|Long-distance broadcast (AM/FM/TV), Satellite Comms, Radar, Wi-Fi|Study cold gas, pulsars, distant galaxies, CMB structure, galactic magnetic fields; penetrate dust| |Microwaves|1 mm - 1 m|300 MHz - 300 GHz|Low energy; Penetrates clouds, heats water; Partial transmission|Satellite Comms, Radar, Microwave Ovens, Point-to-point links|CMB studies (primordial universe), Interstellar medium, Molecular clouds, Nearby galaxy structure| |Infrared|700 nm - 1 mm|300 GHz - 430 THz|Moderate energy (heat); Penetrates dust; Partial transmission (windows)|Remote controls, Thermal imaging, Fiber optics (some bands), Short-range comms|Study cool objects (planets, brown dwarfs), Star formation regions (penetrates dust), Warm gas/dust, Distant redshifted galaxies, Molecules| |Visible|400 nm - 700 nm|430 THz - 750 THz|Moderate energy; Detectable by eye; Good transmission|Fiber optics, Visual displays, Human vision|Study stars (temperature, composition), Galaxies (morphology, stellar populations), Nebulae, Planets (reflected light)| |Ultraviolet|10 nm - 400 nm|750 THz - 30 PHz|High energy; Ionizing (some); Absorbed by ozone|Sterilization, Lithography|Study hot young stars, Stellar nurseries, Quasars, Interstellar gas composition, Planetary atmospheres (aurorae)| |X-rays|0.01 nm - 10 nm|30 PHz - 30 EHz|Very high energy; Penetrating (soft tissue); Ionizing; Absorbed by atmos.|Medical imaging, Security scanning, Materials analysis|Study hot gas (galaxy clusters), Accretion disks (black holes, neutron stars), Supernova remnants, Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN)| |Gamma Rays|< 0.01 nm|> 30 EHz|Highest energy; Highly penetrating; Ionizing; Absorbed by atmos.|Medical therapy (radiation), Sterilization, Nuclear physics research|Study Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs), Supernovae, Pulsars, AGN jets, Dark matter annihilation/decay searches, Cosmic ray origins| ## Section 2: Measuring Electromagnetic Constants: Methods and Biases The fundamental constants governing electromagnetism—the speed of light in vacuum (c), the vacuum electric permittivity (ε₀), and the vacuum magnetic permeability (μ₀)—are cornerstones of modern physics. Their precise values underpin our understanding of light, fields, and the structure of spacetime. The methods for determining these constants have evolved significantly, reflecting advances in measurement technology and culminating in fundamental shifts in the International System of Units (SI). ### 2.1 Experimental Determination of c, ε₀, and μ₀: Historical Context and Modern Techniques Classical electromagnetism, as unified by James Clerk Maxwell, predicts that electromagnetic waves propagate in vacuum at a speed c given by the relationship c = 1/√(ε₀μ₀).10 This equation intrinsically links the speed of light to the constants describing the vacuum's response to electric (ε₀) and magnetic (μ₀) fields. Consequently, an experimental determination of any two of these constants allows the third to be derived. Historically, the path to determining these values involved various approaches. Early experiments focused on measuring c directly through astronomical observations or terrestrial time-of-flight methods (detailed further in Section 4.1).13 Concurrently, electrical experiments, such as those by Rosa and Dorsey in 1907, aimed to determine c by measuring the ratio of electrostatic and electromagnetic units of capacitance, effectively probing the relationship between ε₀ and μ₀.14 For a significant period during the 20th century, the SI system defined the value of the magnetic constant μ₀ to be exactly 4π × 10⁻⁷ Henry per meter (H/m).11 This definition served to fix the unit of electric current, the Ampere, based on the force between current-carrying wires (Ampère's force law).10 With μ₀ defined and c experimentally measured with increasing precision, the electric constant ε₀ was then calculated using the Maxwell relation ε₀ = 1/(μ₀c²).10 A major turning point occurred in 1983 when the 17th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures (CGPM) redefined the meter.14 Based on highly precise and consistent measurements of c using laser techniques (see Section 4.2), the speed of light in vacuum was fixed by definition to its measured value: c = 299,792,458 meters per second.13 This act transformed c from a measured quantity to an exact constant within the SI system, making the meter a derived unit defined in terms of the second and the defined speed of light.13 More recently, the 2019 revision of the SI brought about another fundamental shift.10 This redefinition fixed the numerical values of several fundamental constants, including the Planck constant (h) and the elementary charge (e).17 By fixing e, the definition of the Ampere was untethered from the defined value of μ₀. As a result, μ₀ is no longer an exactly defined constant but must now be determined experimentally.10 Since c remains fixed by definition, and ε₀ is linked to μ₀ and c via ε₀ = 1/(μ₀c²), the value of ε₀ also became an experimentally determined quantity with an associated uncertainty.10 In the current SI framework, the values of μ₀ and ε₀ are intrinsically linked to the fine-structure constant, α. The fine-structure constant is a dimensionless quantity characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction, defined as α = e² / (4πε₀ħc), where ħ = h/2π.18 Since e, h, and c now have exact defined values in the SI system, the experimental uncertainty in α directly translates into the uncertainty in ε₀ and μ₀. The relationships can be expressed as: μ₀ = (2αh) / (e²c) ε₀ = e² / (2αhc) .10 Therefore, the precision of our knowledge of the vacuum permeability and permittivity now hinges entirely on the precision with which the fine-structure constant α can be measured.10 The most precise determinations of α currently come from two main experimental approaches 18: 1. Electron Anomalous Magnetic Moment (g-2): Quantum electrodynamics (QED) provides a highly precise theoretical prediction for the electron's magnetic moment anomaly (g-2) in terms of α. By comparing extremely precise experimental measurements of g-2 (using techniques like Penning traps) with the results of complex QED calculations (involving thousands of Feynman diagrams), α can be extracted with remarkable accuracy.18 2. Atom Interferometry / Photon Recoil: These methods measure the recoil velocity imparted to an atom (like Rubidium or Cesium) when it absorbs or emits photons of known frequency. This allows for a precise determination of the ratio h/m_atom (Planck constant to atomic mass). Since atomic masses are known relative to the electron mass, and α relates h, e, c, and ε₀, these measurements provide an independent route to determining α.17 Other methods, such as measurements based on the quantum Hall effect, also contribute data.18 The Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) performs regular least-squares adjustments, combining results from all high-precision experiments relevant to fundamental constants, to produce the internationally recommended values for α, and consequently for μ₀ and ε₀.17 As of the 2022 CODATA adjustment, the recommended value for α has a relative standard uncertainty of 1.6 × 10⁻¹⁰, which is now the limiting uncertainty for μ₀ and ε₀.10 This evolution reflects a profound shift in the foundations of metrology. The SI system has moved away from reliance on macroscopic artifacts (like the former standard kilogram) and classical definitions (like the old Ampere based on force) towards a basis rooted in the fundamental constants of nature, as revealed by quantum mechanics and relativity. While this provides a more universal and stable foundation, it means that constants like μ₀ and ε₀, which describe the macroscopic electromagnetic properties of the vacuum, are now subject to the limits of experimental precision in measuring the dimensionless quantum constant α. ### 2.2 Spectral Dependence in Constant Measurement: Assessing Reliance on the Visible Spectrum Given that electromagnetic constants describe phenomena across the entire spectrum, a pertinent question arises: do the methods used to measure these constants rely predominantly on a specific spectral region, such as visible light, and could this introduce a bias? Examining the history of c measurements reveals an evolution in the frequencies employed. Early astronomical estimates by Rømer and Bradley inherently used visible light, the only EM radiation detectable by eye at the time.13 Subsequent terrestrial time-of-flight experiments by Fizeau, Foucault, and Michelson also utilized visible light sources.13 In the mid-20th century, microwave techniques were developed, notably Froome's interferometer operating around 72 GHz (wavelength ~0.4 cm).14 However, the accuracy of these microwave measurements was often limited by the difficulty of precisely measuring the relatively long wavelengths involved.14 The breakthrough in precision that ultimately led to the 1983 redefinition of the meter came with the advent of highly stable lasers and the ability to measure their frequencies directly against atomic clocks.14 The pivotal experiments conducted primarily at NBS (now NIST) involved stabilizing lasers to specific atomic or molecular transitions and measuring both their frequency (ν) and wavelength (λ) to determine c = λν. The key frequencies used were in the infrared (Helium-Neon laser stabilized to Methane at 3.39 μm, corresponding to ~88 THz) and the visible spectrum (Helium-Neon laser stabilized to Iodine at 633 nm, ~474 THz; and an Iodine transition near 576 nm, ~520 THz).14 Turning to the fine-structure constant α, which now governs the precision of μ₀ and ε₀, the primary measurement methods also involve specific frequency regimes within the experimental setups, but the constant itself is considered fundamental across all scales. The electron g-2 experiment involves trapping an electron and probing its spin and cyclotron frequencies using microwave fields, but the extracted value of α reflects the fundamental strength of the electron-photon interaction described by QED, which is not specific to microwaves.18 Atom interferometry techniques typically employ lasers in the visible or near-infrared regions to manipulate the atoms and measure recoil, but again, the derived value of α (or h/m) reflects fundamental atomic properties and QED.18 Astrophysical tests searching for variations in α over cosmological time often rely on analyzing absorption lines from quasars, which fall predominantly in the visible and ultraviolet parts of the spectrum as observed from Earth.27 Evaluating this evidence, it is clear that visible and infrared lasers played a crucial role in the high-precision measurements of c that anchored the modern definition of the meter. Furthermore, certain methods for determining or constraining α utilize visible or UV light. However, there is little basis to suggest that this reliance introduces a fundamental bias into the values of the constants themselves. QED, the theory underpinning the g-2 determination of α, is expected to hold across all energy scales currently probed. The consistency between α values derived from vastly different physical systems (electron magnetic moment vs. atom recoil) provides strong evidence against a significant methodological bias tied solely to the spectral region used in a particular experiment. The prevalence of optical and infrared techniques in modern precision metrology appears largely driven by technological factors rather than a fundamental physical necessity. The development of extremely stable lasers, high-finesse interferometers, and precise frequency counting techniques has historically been most advanced in these spectral regions.14 Conversely, establishing reliable calibration standards and high-precision measurement techniques in other regions, such as the ultraviolet, has proven more challenging.28 Therefore, the use of visible/IR light seems primarily a matter of technological convenience and achievable precision, not an indication that fundamental constants measured using these methods are inherently skewed or only valid within that narrow spectral window. The universality implied by the fundamental theories (Maxwell's equations, QED, SR) and the consistency across different experimental approaches support the view that the measured constants are indeed universal. ### 2.3 Anthropocentric Considerations: Fine-Tuning, Observation Selection, and Potential Biases Beyond the technical aspects of measurement, the values of fundamental constants, including those related to electromagnetism like α, have prompted deeper philosophical and cosmological discussions centered around the Anthropic Principle.29 This principle, in its various forms, suggests that the observable properties of the universe must be compatible with the existence of observers (like humans) within it.29 The core motivation often stems from the "fine-tuning" argument: numerous fundamental physical constants and cosmological parameters—such as α, the gravitational constant G, the ratio of electron to proton mass, the strengths of nuclear forces, and the cosmological constant—appear to possess values that fall within remarkably narrow ranges necessary for the emergence of complex structures like stars, planets, and ultimately, life as we know it.29 Had these constants been even slightly different, the universe might have been drastically different and inhospitable: stars might not form or burn stably, essential elements like carbon might not be synthesized, or the universe might have collapsed too quickly or expanded too rapidly for structures to form.30 Several explanations have been proposed for this apparent fine-tuning 29: 1. Necessity: The constants may be mathematically required to have their observed values due to a deeper, yet unknown, fundamental theory (a "Theory of Everything"). 2. Chance: In a single universe, the observed values might simply be a brute fact, a fortunate coincidence. 3. Multiverse: If a vast ensemble of universes exists (perhaps generated by mechanisms like cosmic inflation or string theory landscapes), each with different physical constants, then observers would naturally only find themselves in those universes whose constants happen to permit their existence. This invokes the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) as an "observation selection effect": our data (the observed constants) is biased by the prerequisite of our own existence.29 4. Design: The fine-tuning could be interpreted as evidence for a purposeful design, implying the universe was intentionally created to support life (often associated with the Strong Anthropic Principle, SAP, or teleological arguments).29 The discussion inevitably raises questions about anthropocentric bias. Is the universe fine-tuned for life in general, or specifically for human life? Some argue the focus should be on the conditions necessary for the building blocks of complexity (stars, stable matter, chemistry) rather than complex life itself.33 The term "anthropic" might indeed be a misnomer, as the conditions might allow for other forms of complexity or observation not necessarily resembling human life.29 Furthermore, there is a documented cognitive bias—an "anthro-teleological bias"—where humans tend to perceive stronger evidence of design in natural phenomena that specifically benefit human survival.37 Does this potential bias influence the measurement or definition of fundamental constants? The available evidence suggests that the primary impact of anthropocentric reasoning lies in the interpretation of why the constants have the values they do, rather than affecting the experimental determination of those values.29 The methods used to measure α or c rely on objective physical processes and rigorous experimental protocols. However, the broader concept of "observation selection effects," closely related to the WAP, is a genuine methodological consideration in fields like cosmology.29 Our location in space and time, necessary for our existence, inevitably biases the cosmological data we can collect. It is crucial to distinguish between the scientifically valid concept of observation selection effects (WAP), which acknowledges inherent biases in data collection due to observer requirements, and the more speculative or philosophical claims of the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) or design arguments.29 WAP is essentially a statement about conditional probability: given our existence, what properties should we expect to observe? SAP, conversely, makes a stronger claim about the nature of the universe itself, suggesting it possesses a property or follows a law ensuring observers arise.29 The fine-tuning problem highlights a genuine puzzle in physics and cosmology regarding the values of constants. Anthropic reasoning offers one possible framework for addressing this puzzle, primarily by interpreting the significance of the measured values through the lens of observer existence. While selection effects related to WAP are relevant to data analysis in some domains, there is little indication that the precise values obtained for fundamental constants like c, ε₀, μ₀, or α through modern metrology are themselves the product of an anthropocentric methodological bias. The bias appears predominantly at the level of interpretation and explanation. The Anthropic Principle, particularly its stronger variants, remains controversial. Critics argue that it can be unfalsifiable, discourage the search for deeper physical explanations, or represent a reversion to teleological thinking that falls outside the standard methods of science.29 ## Section 3: The Constancy of Photon Speed and Tests of Lorentz Invariance A central pillar of modern physics is the principle that the speed of light in a vacuum, c, is a universal constant. This concept, formalized in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, has profound implications for our understanding of space, time, causality, and the behavior of particles. However, the quest to unify gravity with quantum mechanics has led theoretical physicists to explore scenarios where this principle might break down at extremely high energies, leading to experimental searches for violations of Lorentz invariance. ### 3.1 The Postulate of Constant c in Special Relativity and the Standard Model Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (SR), introduced in 1905, is built upon two fundamental postulates 39: 1. The Principle of Relativity: The laws of physics are identical in all inertial frames of reference (frames moving at constant velocity relative to each other).39 2. The Principle of Light Constancy: The speed of light in vacuum (c) has the same value for all inertial observers, regardless of the motion of the light source or the observer.13 The second postulate, motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the null results of experiments searching for a luminiferous ether (like the Michelson-Morley experiment), was revolutionary.39 It implies that speeds do not simply add or subtract in the way classical intuition suggests.40 This constancy of c leads directly to the core phenomena of SR: time dilation (moving clocks run slower), length contraction (moving objects appear shorter in their direction of motion), the relativity of simultaneity (events simultaneous in one frame may not be in another), and the equivalence of mass and energy (E=mc²).39 Within SR, c emerges not just as the speed of light, but as the ultimate speed limit for the propagation of matter, energy, and, crucially, any form of information or causal influence.13 The Standard Model of particle physics, our current best description of fundamental particles and their interactions (excluding gravity), is formulated as a relativistic quantum field theory. As such, it inherently incorporates Lorentz invariance—the symmetry underpinning Special Relativity, which includes the constancy of c—as a fundamental principle.45 In the Standard Model, the photon, the carrier of the electromagnetic force, is a massless gauge boson, and the theory dictates that massless particles must travel precisely at speed c in a vacuum. ### 3.2 Theoretical Frameworks for Lorentz Invariance Violation (LIV) Despite the remarkable success of Special Relativity and the Standard Model, the challenge of reconciling general relativity (our theory of gravity) with quantum mechanics has led some theoretical physicists to question whether Lorentz invariance remains an exact symmetry at all energy scales. Several candidate theories of quantum gravity (QG)—such as certain versions of string theory, loop quantum gravity, non-commutative geometry, or models involving spacetime "foam"—hypothesize that the smooth spacetime continuum described by relativity might break down at the extremely small distances and high energies associated with the Planck scale (Planck energy E_Planck ≈ 1.22 × 10¹⁹ GeV).45 A possible consequence of such a breakdown could be a subtle violation of Lorentz invariance. Phenomenologically, potential LIV effects are often explored through modifications to the standard energy-momentum dispersion relation for particles, E² = p²c² + m²c⁴. For massless particles like photons (m=0), LIV might manifest as energy-dependent corrections 46: E² ≈ p²c² [1 ± s_n (pc / E_LIV,n)ⁿ] Here, E_LIV,n represents the characteristic energy scale at which LIV effects become significant (often presumed to be near E_Planck), n is an integer typically taken as 1 (linear dependence on energy) or 2 (quadratic dependence), and s_n = ±1 allows for either an increase or decrease in energy for a given momentum compared to the standard relation.46 A direct consequence of such a modified dispersion relation (MDR) is that the group velocity of photons, v = ∂E/∂p, would become energy-dependent 45: v(E) ≈ c [1 ± s_n (n+1)/2 (E / E_LIV,n)ⁿ] This implies that high-energy photons might travel through the vacuum at slightly different speeds than low-energy photons, an effect that, while minuscule at laboratory energies (since E << E_LIV), could accumulate over cosmological distances.46 Another potential manifestation of LIV, particularly in theories that violate rotational symmetry, is vacuum birefringence.45 In this scenario, the vacuum itself acts like an optically active medium, causing left- and right-handed circularly polarized photons to travel at slightly different speeds. This difference, often parameterized as v± ≈ c [1 ± η (E/E_Planck)²] or similar forms, would lead to a rotation of the polarization plane of linearly polarized light as it propagates through space, with the rotation angle potentially depending on the photon energy and the distance traveled.47 A comprehensive framework for parameterizing potential LIV effects is the Standard Model Extension (SME).45 The SME is an effective field theory that includes all possible Lorentz-violating terms that can be added to the Standard Model Lagrangian while maintaining other standard symmetries. It provides a systematic way to classify and constrain different types of LIV across all sectors (photons, electrons, neutrinos, gravity, etc.). ### 3.3 Astrophysical Probes of LIV: Gamma-Ray Bursts and Active Galactic Nuclei The search for the extremely subtle effects predicted by LIV theories requires leveraging vast distances and highly energetic phenomena, making astrophysical observations the most sensitive probes currently available.45 Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) and flares from Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) are particularly well-suited for these tests due to several key characteristics: - Distance: They are among the most distant observable objects, with light traveling for billions of years to reach Earth, providing a long baseline for potential propagation effects to accumulate.46 - Energy: They emit photons across a wide range of energies, often extending into the GeV and even TeV range, maximizing the potential energy-dependent effects (proportional to (E/E_LIV)ⁿ).46 - Variability: Their emission is often highly variable on short timescales (milliseconds to seconds for GRBs, minutes to hours for AGN flares), providing sharp temporal features that allow for precise timing comparisons between photons of different energies.51 Several observational techniques are employed: - Time-of-Flight (Dispersion) Tests: This is the most common method, searching directly for an energy-dependent arrival time delay (or advance) of photons.45 If high-energy photons travel at a speed v(E) ≠ c, the arrival time difference Δt between two photons with energies E_high and E_low emitted simultaneously from a source at redshift z is approximately given by integrating the velocity difference over the cosmological path 46: Δt_LIV ≈ ± ( (1+n) / (2 H₀) ) * ( (E_highⁿ - E_lowⁿ) / E_LIV,nⁿ ) * ∫[0 to z] ( (1+z')ⁿ / √(Ω_m(1+z')³ + Ω_Λ) ) dz' where H₀ is the Hubble constant, and Ω_m and Ω_Λ are cosmological density parameters. Various analysis methods are used, including identifying the single highest-energy photon and comparing its arrival time to lower-energy emission peaks 51, using statistical techniques like maximizing the "sharpness" or minimizing the spread of reconstructed light curves after correcting for a hypothetical LIV effect (e.g., DisCan method, likelihood analysis) 51, or cross-correlating light curves at different energy bands.57 A significant challenge is disentangling the potential LIV propagation delay (Δt_LIV) from any intrinsic time delay (spectral lag, Δt_intrinsic) originating at the source itself, as these intrinsic lags are known to exist and can also be energy-dependent.46 Stacking data from multiple bursts is one strategy to average out random intrinsic effects, but this often requires making assumptions about the average or distribution of these lags.48 - Polarization (Birefringence) Tests: These tests search for evidence of vacuum birefringence by measuring the polarization properties of light from distant sources.45 If LIV causes an energy-dependent rotation of the polarization angle, spectropolarimetric measurements (measuring polarization as a function of energy) can directly constrain this effect.47 Alternatively, broadband polarization measurements can be used: if the polarization angle rotates differently for different energies within the band, the net observed polarization will be reduced (depolarization). Thus, the detection of significant linear polarization from a distant source already places limits on birefringence.49 - Threshold Effects: LIV could modify the energy thresholds for fundamental particle interactions.45 For example, if photons could travel faster than electrons at high energies (superluminal LIV), processes like photon decay (γ → e⁺e⁻) or vacuum Cherenkov radiation (emission of lower-energy particles by a superluminal charged particle) might become possible in vacuum.45 The observation of very high-energy photons (e.g., >100 TeV) arriving from distant astrophysical sources, which should have decayed or lost significant energy via these processes if such superluminal LIV existed, places strong constraints on these specific LIV scenarios.45 Similarly, LIV could affect the threshold for pair production (γ + γ_background → e⁺e⁻), potentially altering the expected cutoff in the spectra of distant TeV sources due to interaction with background light fields (like the EBL or CMB).50 ### 3.4 Current Experimental Constraints on Energy-Dependent Photon Speed Over the past two decades, numerous studies utilizing data from ground-based Cherenkov telescopes (like MAGIC, H.E.S.S., VERITAS, HAWC) and space-based gamma-ray observatories (like Fermi-LAT, INTEGRAL, Swift) have placed increasingly stringent constraints on potential LIV effects in the photon sector.45 - Linear Energy Dependence (n=1): Time-of-flight tests are most sensitive to the linear term (n=1) in the MDR. The majority of studies have found no statistically significant evidence for an energy-dependent time delay consistent with LIV. The resulting lower limits on the LIV energy scale E_LIV,1 are typically pushed to values comparable to or significantly exceeding the Planck energy (E_Planck ≈ 1.22 × 10¹⁹ GeV).45 For example, analyses of bright Fermi-LAT GRBs have set robust limits E_LIV,1 > 7.6 × E_Planck.52 While some recent analyses, focusing on specific high-energy photon events and employing particular models for intrinsic lags, have suggested tentative evidence for LIV with E_LIV,1 ≈ 3 × 10¹⁷ GeV (significantly below E_Planck) and a preference for high-energy photons arriving earlier 46, these results are sensitive to assumptions about source physics and require independent confirmation. The overwhelming consensus from null results strongly disfavors linear LIV effects at energy scales below E_Planck. - Quadratic Energy Dependence (n=2): Constraints on the quadratic term (n=2) are generally less stringent because the effect scales with E² rather than E. However, limits from GRB timing analyses still reach impressive scales, typically placing lower bounds on E_LIV,2 in the range of 10¹⁰ to 10¹¹ GeV.52 - Vacuum Birefringence: Searches for energy-dependent polarization rotation or depolarization have yielded extremely tight constraints. Limits on dimensionless birefringence parameters like η or ξ (related to specific SME coefficients) are often constrained to be zero to within uncertainties of 10⁻¹⁵ – 10⁻¹⁶ or even smaller, effectively ruling out many models predicting significant birefringence effects near the Planck scale.45 - Threshold Constraints: The detection of photons with energies exceeding 100 TeV from astrophysical sources by the HAWC observatory provides powerful constraints on superluminal LIV scenarios that would permit photon decay or vacuum Cherenkov radiation.56 These observations exclude LIV energy scales up to E_LIV ≈ 2 × 10³¹ eV (or ~2000 × E_Planck) for specific LIV operators allowing photon decay, representing a significant improvement over previous limits for those scenarios.56 It is crucial to acknowledge the caveats associated with these constraints. Time-of-flight measurements are particularly sensitive to assumptions about the simultaneous emission of photons across different energies at the source.51 Intrinsic spectral lags, inherent to the emission mechanisms of GRBs and AGN, represent a major systematic uncertainty that can mimic or mask a true LIV signal.46 Different analysis techniques and assumptions about these intrinsic lags can lead to varying results, as seen in the tension between studies claiming tentative detections and those reporting null results.46 Furthermore, the interpretation of limits often depends on the assumed cosmological model used to calculate distances and propagation times, although efforts are being made towards model-independent analyses.48 Despite these challenges, the power of using astrophysical sources as laboratories for fundamental physics is undeniable. The immense distances involved act as a natural amplifier for even minuscule deviations from standard physics predicted at the Planck scale. Consider the energy-dependent speed variation: v(E) ≈ c [1 ± (E/E_LIV)ⁿ]. Even if E_LIV is the Planck energy, the fractional speed deviation (v-c)/c for a 1 TeV photon (E ≈ 10¹² eV) would be incredibly small, perhaps ~10⁻¹⁶ for n=1 or ~10⁻³² for n=2. However, when this tiny deviation accumulates over a distance D of billions of light-years (D ≈ 10²⁵ - 10²⁶ m), the resulting time delay Δt ≈ D/c * [(v-c)/c] can become potentially observable, ranging from microseconds to seconds depending on the energy, distance, and the order n of the effect.46 This "lever arm" effect makes astrophysical observations uniquely sensitive probes of quantum gravity phenomenology. The existing tension between null results and tentative detections underscores the critical importance of understanding and mitigating systematic uncertainties, especially the intrinsic spectral lags of sources. Robust claims of LIV detection would require compelling evidence across multiple sources and analysis techniques, ideally with improved physical models of the source emission or methods demonstrably insensitive to these intrinsic effects. Until then, the data strongly supports the validity of Lorentz invariance up to energy scales approaching or exceeding the Planck scale. Table 2 summarizes the current landscape of constraints on LIV from astrophysical observations in the photon sector. Table 2: Summary of Current Constraints on Lorentz Invariance Violation (Photon Sector) | | | | | | |---|---|---|---|---| |Phenomenon Tested|Primary Observational Method|Key Experiments/Observations|Typical Lower Limit on E_LIV or Constraint on Parameter|Key References| |Time Dispersion (n=1)|GRB timing (ToF)|Fermi-LAT, MAGIC, H.E.S.S.|E_LIV,1 > E_Planck (often > several × E_Planck). Some analyses suggest E_LIV,1 ≈ 3×10¹⁷ GeV (sub-Planck)|46| |Time Dispersion (n=1)|AGN flare timing (ToF)|MAGIC, H.E.S.S., VERITAS|E_LIV,1 > E_Planck|45| |Time Dispersion (n=2)|GRB timing (ToF)|Fermi-LAT|E_LIV,2 > 10¹⁰ - 10¹¹ GeV|52| |Time Dispersion (n=2)|AGN flare timing (ToF)|MAGIC, H.E.S.S.|E_LIV,2 > ~10¹⁰ GeV|45| |Vacuum Birefringence|GRB polarization (Energy-dependent rotation / Depolarization)|INTEGRAL, POLAR, AstroSat|Limits on η or ξ (EFT parameter) ~10⁻¹⁵ - 10⁻¹⁶ or tighter; limits on SME coeffs (e.g., k⁽⁵⁾_(V)00) extremely tight|45| |Vacuum Birefringence|AGN polarization|Optical/Radio Polarimeters|Stringent limits on rotation/depolarization|45| |Vacuum Birefringence|CMB polarization|WMAP, Planck, QUaD|Strong constraints on parity-violating rotation angles|45| |Threshold Effects (γ decay)|Observation of >100 TeV photons from distant sources|HAWC|E_LIV > ~2000 × E_Planck (for specific superluminal operators allowing decay)|45| |Threshold Effects (VCR)|Observation of high-energy cosmic rays / gamma rays|Various CR/gamma detectors|Constrains superluminal LIV for charged particles/photons|45| (Note: E_Planck ≈ 1.22 × 10¹⁹ GeV ≈ 1.22 × 10²⁸ eV. Limits are model-dependent and subject to ongoing refinement and debate regarding systematics.) ## Section 4: Precision Measurement of the Speed of Light: Methodological Nuances The speed of light, c, is arguably the most fundamental constant in relativity and electromagnetism. Its measurement has a rich history, marked by increasing ingenuity and precision, ultimately leading to its value being fixed by definition within the modern SI system. Understanding this history and the methodologies involved reveals much about the nature of scientific measurement and the role of systematic effects. ### 4.1 Evolution of Experimental Techniques for Measuring c The quest to measure the speed of light spans centuries, employing progressively sophisticated techniques: - Astronomical Methods: The first quantitative estimates came from astronomical observations. In 1676, Ole Rømer observed systematic variations in the timing of the eclipses of Jupiter's moon Io, correctly attributing the delays to the changing distance between Earth and Jupiter and the finite time light takes to traverse this distance.13 In 1728, James Bradley used the phenomenon of stellar aberration—the apparent shift in the position of stars due to Earth's orbital motion—to derive another estimate for c.13 These early methods, while groundbreaking, were limited by the precision of astronomical observations and distance measurements available at the time. - Terrestrial Time-of-Flight: In the mid-19th century, experiments moved to terrestrial settings. Armand Fizeau (1849) used a rotating toothed wheel to chop a beam of light sent to a distant mirror and back, measuring the rotation speed at which the returning light was blocked. Léon Foucault (1862) improved on this using a rotating mirror, which deflected the returning beam by an angle dependent on the light travel time.13 Later refinements by Albert A. Michelson and others significantly increased the precision of these time-of-flight methods. - Electromagnetic Constant Ratio: Maxwell's theory provided an indirect route: c = 1/√(ε₀μ₀).10 Experiments measuring the ratio of electrostatic to electromagnetic units for quantities like capacitance (e.g., Rosa & Dorsey, 1907) could yield a value for c, providing an independent check on direct measurements.14 - Resonant Cavities and Interferometry (Mid-20th Century): The development of microwave technology enabled new approaches. Louis Essen and A.C. Gordon-Smith used cavity resonators, measuring their resonant frequencies and dimensions to infer c. Keith Froome, in 1958, employed a microwave interferometer operating at 72 GHz (wavelength ~0.4 cm), measuring both frequency and wavelength to determine c = λν.13 While these methods offered improved precision, accurately measuring the wavelength of microwaves remained a significant challenge.14 - Laser Methods (Late 20th Century): The invention of the laser and the development of techniques to stabilize laser frequencies to precise atomic or molecular transitions revolutionized the measurement of c.14 By extending frequency measurement capabilities from the microwave domain (defined by atomic clocks like the Cesium standard) into the infrared and visible regions, researchers could simultaneously measure both the frequency (ν) and wavelength (λ) of a highly stable laser beam with unprecedented accuracy.14 The speed of light was then calculated directly from the fundamental relation c = λν.14 ### 4.2 High-Precision Laser-Based Measurements and the Redefinition of the Meter The culmination of efforts to measure c with high precision occurred in the 1970s, largely driven by work at national metrology institutes like the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), now the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in the United States.14 Researchers at NBS Boulder pioneered the development of complex "frequency synthesis chains".14 These chains used nonlinear devices (like metal-insulator-metal point contact diodes) for harmonic generation and mixing to create a phase-locked link between the primary Cesium frequency standard (operating in the microwave region) and lasers operating at much higher frequencies in the infrared and visible spectrum.26 Key measurements that proved pivotal included 14: - The direct frequency measurement of a Helium-Neon (HeNe) laser stabilized to an absorption line in Methane gas at a wavelength of 3.39 μm (frequency ≈ 88 THz). - The subsequent direct frequency measurement of an HeNe laser stabilized to an absorption line in Iodine gas at a wavelength of 633 nm (frequency ≈ 474 THz). - Frequency measurements of other Iodine transitions, such as one near 576 nm (frequency ≈ 520 THz). These laser frequencies could be measured with extremely high accuracy by referencing them back to the Cesium atomic clock standard.26 Simultaneously, the wavelengths (λ) of these stabilized lasers were measured with high precision using interferometry. Combining the measured λ and ν yielded values for c = λν whose accuracy surpassed previous determinations by nearly two orders of magnitude.14 Crucially, the precision of these laser-based c measurements became so high that they were ultimately limited not by the experiment itself, but by the uncertainty in the definition of the meter at that time.14 The meter was then defined based on a specific number of wavelengths of radiation from a Krypton-86 lamp, and the inherent width and potential asymmetry of this spectral line imposed the dominant uncertainty.14 Recognizing that the speed of light could be determined more accurately than the meter could be realized using the Krypton standard, and acknowledging the consistency of results from different laboratories using laser methods, the international metrology community moved towards a redefinition. In 1983, the 17th CGPM adopted a new definition for the meter 13: "The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second." This act had a profound consequence: the speed of light in vacuum, c, ceased to be an experimentally measured quantity within the SI system and instead became a fundamental constant with an exactly defined numerical value.13 Since 1983, experiments involving the precise measurement of laser frequencies and wavelengths no longer measure c; instead, they serve to realize the definition of the meter (by determining λ = c_defined / ν_measured) or to measure frequencies, using c as a fixed conversion factor.13 ### 4.3 Analysis of Potential Systematic Variations in c Measurements Given the history of c measurements yielding slightly different values over time, and the use of specific frequencies in the defining experiments, it is pertinent to analyze potential systematic variations or biases. Historical measurements of c before the laser era certainly showed scatter and shifts in the accepted value over time.60 For instance, values prevalent around the late 19th century differ noticeably from those common in the first half of the 20th century.60 These variations are now overwhelmingly understood not as actual changes in the fundamental constant c, but as reflections of undetected or underestimated systematic errors inherent in the different experimental techniques employed during those periods.60 Factors like inaccuracies in distance measurement, timing technology limitations, diffraction effects, index of refraction corrections for air, and wavelength measurement uncertainties could all contribute. Furthermore, the phenomenon of experimenter bias, where results might be unconsciously adjusted towards prevailing expectations or previously published values, cannot be entirely discounted as a contributing factor to the historical clustering of results.60 A key question is whether the measured value of c exhibits any dependence on the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation used in the measurement. Special Relativity's second postulate asserts that c is constant for all electromagnetic radiation in vacuum, independent of frequency.13 The high-precision laser measurements leading to the 1983 redefinition utilized specific frequencies in the infrared and visible spectrum (88 THz, 474 THz, 520 THz).14 However, the consistency of these results, combined with the extremely stringent limits placed on any frequency (energy) dependence of c by the LIV tests discussed in Section 3, provides strong evidence that c is indeed constant across the spectrum within current experimental precision. Apparent frequency dependencies observed in historical measurements (e.g., discrepancies between microwave and optical results pre-1970s) are attributed to the differing systematic uncertainties and limitations of the measurement techniques used at those frequencies, such as the relative difficulty of precise wavelength measurement for microwaves compared to visible light.14 All experimental measurements are susceptible to methodological biases, which can be broadly categorized as systematic errors arising from the apparatus, environment, calibration, or data analysis procedures, as well as cognitive biases affecting the researchers themselves.60 Examples in optical measurements might include imperfect alignment, calibration errors in detectors or frequency standards 28, unaccounted-for environmental influences, or biases in fitting models to data.61 Modern precision measurement science places enormous emphasis on identifying, quantifying, and minimizing all potential sources of systematic error.64 Techniques like blinding, where researchers analyze data without knowing certain parameters that could bias their judgment, are sometimes employed.60 The remarkable agreement achieved between different laboratories using different laser transitions and variations of the frequency/wavelength measurement technique provided the necessary confidence for the CGPM to fix the value of c in 1983.14 Since 1983, within the framework of the SI system, the constancy and exact value of c are established by definition. Experiments that previously would have been interpreted as measuring c are now viewed as realizations of the meter. If such an experiment were to yield a result inconsistent with c = λν, it would imply an error in the measurement of λ or ν, or in the understanding of the experimental system, rather than indicating a deviation in the defined value of c. This highlights how definitions within a measurement system shape the interpretation of experimental results. The historical variations in measured c values serve as a compelling illustration of how scientific measurements evolve. The apparent clustering of results around different values in different eras strongly suggests the influence of dominant, often unrecognized, systematic errors associated with the prevailing technologies of the time. The eventual convergence on the modern value, enabled by the advent of lasers and advanced frequency metrology, reflects significant progress in understanding and controlling these systematics, paving the way for c to become a defined cornerstone of our measurement system. ## Section 5: Causality, Relativity, and the Ultimate Information Speed Limit The speed of light c plays a role far more profound than merely describing the propagation of electromagnetic waves; it is deeply intertwined with the structure of spacetime and the fundamental principle of causality, acting as the universe's ultimate speed limit for the transmission of information. ### 5.1 The Role of c as the Causality-Enforcing Speed Limit in Relativity A fundamental consequence of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is that c represents the maximum speed at which any causal influence—any signal carrying information or energy that can produce an effect—can propagate through spacetime.13 This speed limit is not an arbitrary addition to the theory but emerges directly from its core postulates, particularly the constancy of c and the principle of relativity, which together lead to the relativity of simultaneity.43 The relativity of simultaneity dictates that observers in different inertial frames of reference will generally disagree on whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time.43 Specifically, the time ordering of events that are space-like separated—meaning the spatial distance Δx between them is greater than the distance light could travel in the time interval Δt between them (Δx > cΔt)—is relative and depends on the observer's motion.43 One observer might see event A happen before event B, while another observer moving relative to the first might see event B happen before event A. Conversely, for events that are time-like separated (Δx < cΔt) or light-like separated (Δx = cΔt), meaning they could potentially be connected by a signal traveling at or below the speed of light, their temporal order is absolute. All inertial observers will agree on which event occurred first.43 This invariance of the temporal order for causally connectable events is essential for preserving the principle of causality—the notion that a cause must always precede its effect. The link between faster-than-light (FTL) propagation and causality violation arises directly from this structure. If a signal could travel faster than c, it could connect space-like separated events.43 Because the time ordering of such events is frame-dependent, there would inevitably exist inertial frames of reference in which the signal arrives at its destination before it was transmitted from its source.43 This reversal of cause and effect would lead to logical paradoxes, such as being able to send information back into one's own past to alter events in a way that prevents the signal from being sent in the first place (a "grandfather paradox" variant).43 Therefore, within the framework of Special Relativity, the postulate that no information or causal influence can travel faster than c is necessary to maintain a consistent causal structure of the universe.65 In this sense, c is often interpreted not merely as the speed of light, but as the fundamental "speed of causality" or the universe's maximum information propagation speed.40 ### 5.2 Hypothetical Faster-Than-Light Propagation and Causality Paradoxes While Special Relativity's structure strongly prohibits FTL information transfer to preserve causality, various hypothetical scenarios and physical phenomena have been considered in this context: - Tachyons: These are hypothetical particles postulated to always travel faster than light. While mathematically consistent with the Lorentz transformations in some formulations (e.g., having imaginary rest mass), their existence within standard relativistic field theories leads to instabilities (like vacuum decay via tachyonic condensation) and causality violations. No experimental evidence for tachyons has ever been found. - Quantum Entanglement: Perhaps the most famous example of apparent FTL effects is quantum entanglement. When two particles are entangled, measuring a property of one particle instantaneously influences the state of the other, regardless of the distance separating them ("spooky action at a distance"). However, according to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, these non-local correlations cannot be used to transmit controllable information faster than light.67 An observer measuring one entangled particle cannot force a specific outcome on the other particle instantaneously in a way that conveys a message. The correlations only become apparent when the results from measurements performed locally on both particles are later compared, a process limited by the speed of light. This is often formalized by the "no-communication theorem," which ensures that quantum entanglement, despite its non-local nature, respects relativistic causality. - Apparent FTL Effects in Optics: Certain physical situations, particularly involving the propagation of light pulses through specific types of media (e.g., those with anomalous dispersion near an absorption line) or quantum tunneling phenomena, can exhibit measured group velocities or signal velocities that exceed c.65 However, careful analysis reveals that these effects do not permit the transmission of information FTL in a way that violates causality. Typically, the leading edge or "front" of any information-carrying signal, which represents the true propagation of a new cause, still travels at a speed less than or equal to c.65 Maxwell's equations themselves, upon which classical optics is based, are strictly causal.65 ### 5.3 Theoretical Explorations Beyond c: Quantum Information and Gravity Perspectives While c remains the established speed limit within relativity and standard quantum mechanics, theoretical physics continues to explore the boundaries of these frameworks, particularly at the intersection of quantum mechanics and gravity, and in the context of quantum information science. Research in quantum information theory investigates fundamental speed limits on various quantum processes.67 For instance, studies examine the maximum rate at which entanglement can be generated between quantum systems 69 or the speed at which quantum coherence or correlations can spread through a many-body system.67 These investigations often utilize concepts like Lieb-Robinson bounds, which establish that in systems with local interactions, there is effectively a maximum speed (often related to interaction strengths) for the propagation of influences or correlations, creating an effective "light cone" within the quantum system.67 While these bounds define limits on quantum dynamics, they are generally understood to operate within the overarching framework of relativistic causality, meaning they respect c as the ultimate speed limit imposed by spacetime structure. They quantify how fast quantum effects can spread locally, not whether information can be sent FTL globally. Some speculative approaches to quantum gravity propose that spacetime itself might be an emergent phenomenon, arising from more fundamental degrees of freedom, possibly related to quantum entanglement or information.68 For example, proposals explore dualities linking spacetime geometry (like curvature) to quantum information measures (like entanglement entropy).68 Such frameworks could potentially lead to a reinterpretation of the nature of spacetime and its fundamental speed limits. However, current mainstream theoretical developments in this area typically still incorporate Lorentz invariance and the role of c at macroscopic scales, or seek to explain how Lorentz invariance emerges from the underlying theory.71 There is currently no widely accepted theoretical framework supported by experimental evidence that replaces c with a different fundamental information propagation speed limit. The question arises whether c itself is the fundamental entity, or whether the more fundamental principle is simply the existence of a finite maximum causal speed, which massless particles like photons happen to travel at.66 From this perspective, the constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of the photon being massless and interacting according to Lorentz-invariant laws within a spacetime structure that possesses a maximum propagation speed for causal influences. Is there, then, a need to define a "fundamental information propagation speed limit" distinct from c? Based on current understanding and experimental evidence, Special Relativity and the principle of causality firmly establish c as this limit. While quantum mechanics introduces non-local correlations through entanglement, these do not appear to permit FTL communication.65 Theoretical explorations in quantum gravity are ongoing, but they have yet to provide a compelling, experimentally testable alternative to c as the universal speed limit for information transfer. The research reviewed largely reinforces the status of c or seeks to constrain deviations from it (LIV tests), rather than proposing a fundamentally different limit. The prohibition against FTL information transfer appears deeply rooted in the logical requirement of causality within the structure of spacetime described by Special Relativity. The theory demonstrates, through the relativity of simultaneity, that any propagation speed exceeding c would inevitably lead to scenarios where effects precede causes in some valid reference frames.43 This logical inconsistency provides a powerful argument for why c serves as the universal speed limit. It is not merely a property of light, but a structural feature of spacetime necessary to maintain a coherent causal order. Furthermore, the distinction between quantum non-locality and information transfer is critical. Quantum entanglement reveals correlations between distant parts of a system that are stronger or appear faster than classical communication could establish.65 However, these correlations cannot be arbitrarily controlled by one observer to send a specific message to another faster than light. Studies exploring speed limits in quantum information processing, such as the spread of coherence or entanglement dynamics 67, generally quantify how quickly quantum states can evolve or correlations can build up within the constraints imposed by relativistic causality. They describe the internal dynamics of quantum systems bounded by the universal speed limit c, rather than suggesting a way to circumvent it for information transmission. Thus, even in the face of quantum weirdness, c retains its status as the ultimate speed limit for controllable information transfer. ## Conclusion and Synthesis This report has traversed a complex landscape interconnecting the properties of electromagnetic radiation, the foundations of information theory, the nature and measurement of fundamental constants, the principles of relativity and causality, and the frontiers of quantum gravity research. Several key findings and interconnections emerge from this analysis. The information-carrying capacity of electromagnetic waves is fundamentally limited by the channel's bandwidth and signal-to-noise ratio, as quantified by the Shannon-Hartley theorem. The linear dependence on bandwidth and logarithmic dependence on SNR establish a crucial trade-off, highlighting the importance of spectral width for high data rates.2 The diverse characteristics of EM radiation across the spectrum—from long-wavelength, penetrating radio waves to highly energetic, ionizing gamma rays—dictate their specific applications in communication and astronomy, with atmospheric absorption playing a critical role in shaping ground-based versus space-based endeavors.6 The measurement and definition of the fundamental electromagnetic constants c, ε₀, and μ₀ have undergone significant evolution. Initially, c was measured, μ₀ was defined, and ε₀ derived. The 1983 redefinition of the meter fixed c by definition, based on highly precise laser measurements.13 The 2019 SI redefinition fixed fundamental constants e and h, transforming μ₀ and ε₀ into experimentally determined quantities whose precision is now limited by our ability to measure the fine-structure constant α, primarily via electron g-2 experiments and atom interferometry.10 While visible and infrared techniques were historically crucial due to technological maturity, there is no strong evidence suggesting a fundamental bias in the constants' values due to this spectral reliance.14 Anthropocentric considerations, particularly regarding the fine-tuning of constants, primarily influence the interpretation of why these constants have their observed values, rather than the measurement process itself, although observation selection effects remain a valid methodological concern in cosmology.29 Special Relativity's postulate of the constancy of c for all inertial observers remains a cornerstone of modern physics, underpinning the structure of spacetime and enforcing causality by setting the ultimate speed limit for information transfer.39 Theoretical motivations from quantum gravity have spurred searches for Lorentz Invariance Violation (LIV), primarily testing for energy-dependent variations in photon speed or vacuum birefringence.45 Astrophysical observations of distant, energetic sources like GRBs and AGN provide the most sensitive probes, leveraging cosmological distances to amplify potential effects.46 Current constraints are extremely stringent, largely ruling out LIV effects below the Planck scale, although systematic uncertainties related to intrinsic source properties remain a challenge.45 The historical variations in c measurements prior to 1983 are best understood as reflecting the limitations and systematic errors of past experimental techniques, rather than actual changes in the constant.60 The convergence achieved with laser metrology underscores the progress in controlling these systematics.14 Since 1983, c is fixed in the SI system, and experiments involving precise frequency and wavelength measurements now serve to realize the meter.13 Finally, the role of c as the speed limit for causality is deeply embedded in the structure of Special Relativity. The relativity of simultaneity implies that any propagation faster than c would permit violations of cause and effect.43 While quantum entanglement exhibits non-local correlations, it does not allow for FTL information transmission.65 Theoretical explorations in quantum information and quantum gravity continue, but currently, c remains the established fundamental speed limit for information propagation within experimentally verified physics.44 The interconnectedness of these topics is profound. Maxwell's equations link c, ε₀, and μ₀. QED and the measured value of α now determine ε₀ and μ₀ within the redefined SI system built on fixed c, e, and h. Special Relativity's postulate about c dictates the causal structure of spacetime and sets the information speed limit. Astrophysical observations utilize light across the spectrum, traveling at this speed limit (to within tested precision), to probe the universe and test fundamental physics like LIV. Metrology, driven by technological advances like lasers, enabled the fixing of c, fundamentally changing its status from measured to defined. Despite significant progress, outstanding questions remain. Fully characterizing intrinsic source effects (like spectral lags in GRBs) is crucial for improving LIV constraints. The slight tensions between different LIV analyses warrant further investigation. The fundamental origin of the values of constants and the fine-tuning problem remain deep mysteries. The ultimate unification of quantum mechanics and gravity, and its implications for the nature of spacetime, causality, and perhaps even the constancy of c at the most fundamental level, continues to be a primary goal of theoretical physics. Exploring the ultimate limits of quantum information processing and its relationship to physical speed limits is also an active area of research. In conclusion, electromagnetic radiation, governed by constants like c, ε₀, and μ₀, is not only the primary carrier of information across the cosmos and in our technologies but also a fundamental constituent of the physical reality whose properties define the limits of communication and the structure of causality itself. The speed of light c stands as a remarkably robust constant, upheld by stringent experimental tests and enshrined in our system of units, serving as the universal speed limit within our current understanding of the laws of physics. The ongoing quest to probe the boundaries of this understanding, through astrophysical observation, precision measurement, and theoretical innovation, continues to refine our knowledge of the universe's fundamental workings. #### Works cited 1. en.wikipedia.org, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem#:~:text=The%20theorem%20establishes%20Shannon's%20channel,and%20that%20the%20Gaussian%20noise](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%2525E2%252580%252593Hartley_theorem%2523:~:text%253DThe%252520theorem%252520establishes%252520Shannon%26%2339;s%252520channel,and%252520that%252520the%252520Gaussian%252520noise%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016729798%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0ZoWzQPg2iHGnX2DM6SKqP&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016800366&usg=AOvVaw3XuRHRwCAaXpSEVCHAQvJc) 2. Shannon–Hartley theorem - Wikipedia, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%2525E2%252580%252593Hartley_theorem%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016730166%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3HTSu6KmOgu4-V3OyXRY74&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016800685&usg=AOvVaw1yRkDQ1b62DN_zmVxqPBVI) 3. Shannon-Hartley theorem - The Linux Information Project, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://www.linfo.org/shannon-hartley_theorem.html](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.linfo.org/shannon-hartley_theorem.html%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016730487%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2ouYenRR3Msvk3HjYTuHWd&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016800767&usg=AOvVaw3twce0xacD94v3F5D1snIy) 4. Back to Basics: The Shannon-Hartley Theorem - Ingenu, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://www.ingenu.com/2016/07/back-to-basics-the-shannon-hartley-theorem/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.ingenu.com/2016/07/back-to-basics-the-shannon-hartley-theorem/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016730889%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1sPjtvmffFDkBQZKI9VUWo&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016800830&usg=AOvVaw3L5vjgtiHWJblkjGTCjmSo) 5. Electromagnetic spectrum | Definition, Diagram, & Uses - Britannica, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://www.britannica.com/science/electromagnetic-spectrum](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.britannica.com/science/electromagnetic-spectrum%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016731218%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1N9rrNDlQMFdK21ICQ1Rby&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016800893&usg=AOvVaw3w-ajS-qOo56Sxehunqioh) 6. Electromagnetic Spectrum - Introduction - Imagine the Universe!, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum1.html](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum1.html%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016731527%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw12vQk5lrgFRStDJwO-zkMw&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016800952&usg=AOvVaw2WhzQZYfSyvR5e7ZdtbkMb) 7. Electromagnetic spectrum - Wikipedia, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016731949%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3JxMcPEDaDDzMmWeBUUs7c&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016801010&usg=AOvVaw0QHJjiWuRAuSjR8WL9MPOC) 8. Introduction to the Electromagnetic Spectrum - NASA Science, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://science.nasa.gov/ems/01_intro/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://science.nasa.gov/ems/01_intro/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016732280%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1bFZodTbuhomZZzRTzNXkx&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016801066&usg=AOvVaw0-Spsjs0EPSHWeR2vP42zg) 9. Wavelengths - NASA Science, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://hubblesite.org/contents/articles/the-electromagnetic-spectrum](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://hubblesite.org/contents/articles/the-electromagnetic-spectrum%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016732592%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw05N6du7vJ0y2i6iVxyxQq3&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016801123&usg=AOvVaw27OwjRhrUpeBkTwNSpCn0G) 10. Vacuum permittivity - Wikipedia, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016732848%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1oSRUIw3hbO5umnuX0TJo8&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016801180&usg=AOvVaw3gp7d4I_0ArkJYVjBiXqAJ) 11. Vacuum permeability - Wikipedia, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016733117%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3l6tddy0lD6obWxpZo-rYB&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016801235&usg=AOvVaw2rPHSl3ODQ-vIAlPutcS9m) 12. Maxwell's Equations: Electromagnetic Waves Predicted and Observed | College Physics I – Introduction Class Notes | Fiveable, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://library.fiveable.me/intro-college-physics/unit-24/1-maxwells-equations-electromagnetic-waves-predicted-observed/study-guide/QTszEIh6snTgVdpi](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://library.fiveable.me/intro-college-physics/unit-24/1-maxwells-equations-electromagnetic-waves-predicted-observed/study-guide/QTszEIh6snTgVdpi%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016733654%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw351tFCVVMh726bic5DaZMS&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016801298&usg=AOvVaw1Br7cyXfRxZBuZvye3FrsW) 13. Speed of light - Wikipedia, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016733907%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3Y9Y7O3vuz-V5qcPJE6gJC&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016801364&usg=AOvVaw0vQ5kWkHecWornYzlwKEHg) 14. nvlpubs.nist.gov, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/sp958-lide/191-193.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/sp958-lide/191-193.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016734201%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2t4QFf0F9-T6DqZTtRKrCo&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016801423&usg=AOvVaw1w3kxZLfuZaf0FFj0UErB9) 15. Ampère's law | Principles of Physics II Class Notes - Fiveable, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://library.fiveable.me/principles-physics-ii/unit-6/amperes-law/study-guide/mYQjujSPU7x7SGAu](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://library.fiveable.me/principles-physics-ii/unit-6/amperes-law/study-guide/mYQjujSPU7x7SGAu%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016734623%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2TkhndgeSD8SRLgZ3Xwu12&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016801490&usg=AOvVaw1wt0Tn2Ww4cGSdReeIkanF) 16. Speed of light - wikidoc, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Speed_of_light](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Speed_of_light%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016734954%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1mDsi_cq059uOWwBSZdYTl&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016801553&usg=AOvVaw1atRJCpzfkNeGWtHQ0S7h7) 17. CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2018 - PMC, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9890581/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9890581/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016735293%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0rScWuD3fbXEXFVwU2RzIm&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016801616&usg=AOvVaw0WOzOSyoMlNUdyRPbw546b) 18. Fine-structure constant - Wikipedia, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016735615%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3wwpWWzZFeAgLm67q2jYOf&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016801677&usg=AOvVaw3e8YlaVvLPcoC4wYFCoohM) 19. CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2018, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.93.025010](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.93.025010%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016735953%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3OvLe0zK0uGSCVAI3ztxuJ&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016801740&usg=AOvVaw0IbPvbphUvmTs_vduJ0AHK) 20. CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants: 2018, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/JPCRD2018CODATA.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/JPCRD2018CODATA.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016736335%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2fEOIfGa8Wsv94QqEQ9Ye2&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016801802&usg=AOvVaw2adFWUIMOV2iZNRTPLYTC5) 21. CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2006*, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/RevModPhys_80_000633acc.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/RevModPhys_80_000633acc.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016736795%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2iqGJVAaEITG1rsmVmlaMw&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016801876&usg=AOvVaw20_GeT-N-FrOD-NcEVAfXa) 22. CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2014, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/CODATA_RMP2016.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/CODATA_RMP2016.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016737136%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3kE5WT2ACdp7MWxISNM0CG&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016801940&usg=AOvVaw28Myo570ubtraigHvT7EHq) 23. CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2010*, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/codata.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/codata.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016737597%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw29aJ9SzJpLf-CrREEn9n_A&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016802003&usg=AOvVaw3vV7mRjG20BuBA17Tcro5d) 24. CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants: 1998 - Standard Reference Data, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://srd.nist.gov/jpcrdreprint/1.556049.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://srd.nist.gov/jpcrdreprint/1.556049.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016738024%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1GTOiYlQdoPmyQ4S1fmrSc&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016802066&usg=AOvVaw2wHHiowGrkngMQBahkVBoT) 25. fine-structure constant - CODATA Value, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?alph](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?alph%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016738428%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2V3gEv4qTOSUbW8bcrQ8dw&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016802128&usg=AOvVaw3TMzaA1THZF4ZOlSYduowu) 26. Speed of Light * - Time and Frequency Division, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/308.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/308.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016738799%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1P0M1K7_2sRulmVlJjY5MZ&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016802189&usg=AOvVaw0W8tKln6u04wAVoUxsk_yT) 27. [hep-ph/0205340] The fundamental constants and their variation: observational status and theoretical motivations - arXiv, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0205340](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0205340%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016739293%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3P3ffVo4cXB8xvTAkavOgQ&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016802253&usg=AOvVaw2GiwhPFUpipBalwnsIhkve) 28. ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION: Current Instrumentation and Methodology - NPL Publications, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://eprintspublications.npl.co.uk/1052/1/COEM26.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://eprintspublications.npl.co.uk/1052/1/COEM26.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016739697%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw032G4FJxM9znPOLc9bpK-K&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016802319&usg=AOvVaw3cnNd9G_aGGDPYWFhjX-0x) 29. Anthropic principle - Wikipedia, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016740006%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0FJuIJ0h8v7UMZQk7t-2Lj&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016802381&usg=AOvVaw1Y17u4jusc30uz59p9C147) 30. The anthropic principle: science, philosophy or guesswork?. Grupo Ciencia, Razón y Fe (CRYF). Universidad de Navarra, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://www.unav.edu/web/ciencia-razon-y-fe/the-anthropic-principle-science-philosophy-or-guesswork](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.unav.edu/web/ciencia-razon-y-fe/the-anthropic-principle-science-philosophy-or-guesswork%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016740445%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3EFeKs2z0pxOBfh4T4AgDf&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016802450&usg=AOvVaw3GqNOFm-Bp5v54BC2Gq2eG) 31. The Anthropic Principle - ArcGIS StoryMaps, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/7fd02d915b624f6288e73fff701040eb](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/7fd02d915b624f6288e73fff701040eb%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016740816%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1jMsMkWEYCsmG6g0e9HTFR&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016802518&usg=AOvVaw148kyZOCrvOBUpNYJbHyiB) 32. Anthropic Principle - Bibliography - PhilPapers, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://philpapers.org/browse/anthropic-principle](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://philpapers.org/browse/anthropic-principle%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016741128%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2KsnqOhjjekht8H4bYVYmu&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016802582&usg=AOvVaw2a7T8yUINcukbd6bxEQfWx) 33. Fine-tuned universe - Wikipedia, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016741383%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2v72gawySJdsrjl1Z66t-L&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016802642&usg=AOvVaw0FRMLnONW95GxUES0BBVul) 34. Varying Constants, Gravitation and Cosmology - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5256069/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5256069/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016741706%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0SoNgwxW7gRnTEhfmcOZgE&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016802704&usg=AOvVaw0LAyM43TdjIXbx7RgfPCqh) 35. Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://anthropic-principle.com/pdf/anthropic-bias-nick-bostrom.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://anthropic-principle.com/pdf/anthropic-bias-nick-bostrom.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016742088%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3l6FuHtlNQI5rxOB9HUDyc&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016802769&usg=AOvVaw13qWD9C6aUo4Bsq3QPcpc3) 36. Anthropic Explanations in Cosmology - PhilSci-Archive, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1658/1/Anthropic_Explanations_in_Cosmology_.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1658/1/Anthropic_Explanations_in_Cosmology_.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016742526%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2XREtgHo3WEokq8LwLAJ2O&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016802838&usg=AOvVaw3VPIBCPUES4YVeMksh4Fyy) 37. Anthropocentric Biases in Teleological Thinking: How Nature Seems Designed for Humans, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344384172_Anthropocentric_biases_in_teleological_thinking_How_nature_seems_designed_for_humans](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/344384172_Anthropocentric_biases_in_teleological_thinking_How_nature_seems_designed_for_humans%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016743174%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0IJtiVG7uV3x-M5cHcMSBe&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016802911&usg=AOvVaw1pWXEkudAZmW0a7yQNedrS) 38. Anthropic arrogance: Claims that the Universe is designed for humans raise far more troubling questions than they can possibly answer | David P. Barash : r/philosophy - Reddit, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/9i2agw/anthropic_arrogance_claims_that_the_universe_is/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/9i2agw/anthropic_arrogance_claims_that_the_universe_is/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016743683%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2vzux_7zAMNIwjpQ5vqgfv&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016802985&usg=AOvVaw2xClFFT_t9lU2aW2rh5m7Q) 39. Special relativity - Wikipedia, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016744193%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0JbESGiashODCqqAt4uJX3&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016803047&usg=AOvVaw3VWhuzhlvDyRk91S4JvLGd) 40. Special relativity / Elementary Tour part 4: The speed of light - Einstein-Online, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://www.einstein-online.info/en/speed_of_light/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.einstein-online.info/en/speed_of_light/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016744604%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0w-SJI6n_MKlxdfIoyPP_R&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016803107&usg=AOvVaw3-KaciaurwBLum727LCe56) 41. deepblue.lib.umich.edu, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/83152/A_Derivation_of_the_Speed_of_Light_Postulate.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/83152/A_Derivation_of_the_Speed_of_Light_Postulate.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016745025%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2O836HaQbcAq04v2QmvY3_&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016803168&usg=AOvVaw3fggWyjxVmTK7lbIZCRFWT) 42. constancy of the speed of light - Einstein-Online, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://www.einstein-online.info/en/explandict/constancy-of-the-speed-of-light/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.einstein-online.info/en/explandict/constancy-of-the-speed-of-light/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016745379%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2ISNZY3qMFYVbcEldAKmNl&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016803233&usg=AOvVaw2frFv679miDdSK6AIQGddc) 43. Special Relativity/Faster than light signals, causality and Special ..., accessed April 12, 2025, [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Faster_than_light_signals,_causality_and_Special_Relativity](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Faster_than_light_signals,_causality_and_Special_Relativity%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016745821%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1_Jd9El-TsNAZW8n33Ev2j&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016803300&usg=AOvVaw14ksbIKNFLSo3XhWT17mpe) 44. speed of light - Einstein-Online, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://www.einstein-online.info/en/explandict/speed-of-light/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.einstein-online.info/en/explandict/speed-of-light/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016746148%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0Yt1nBj-m2JqiWoV9v5qwj&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016803358&usg=AOvVaw1YN3l9N47DVWN2hPCbn6jv) 45. Modern searches for Lorentz violation - Wikipedia, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016746460%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1QDsbAFUoLiUoeRU-jWMAl&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016803413&usg=AOvVaw2DXwJl2nHm3s8rye-LcLOL) 46. Lorentz Invariance Violation from Gamma-Ray Bursts1footnote 11footnote 1 H. Song & B.-Q. Ma, Astrophys. J. 983 (2025) 9. - arXiv, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://arxiv.org/html/2504.00918v1](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://arxiv.org/html/2504.00918v1%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016746934%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw37cPJvodLbXM7N-2dmLU9O&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016803472&usg=AOvVaw3RlEtR31JRSVJxePeG1dOD) 47. (PDF) New Tests on Lorentz Invariance Violation Using Energy-Resolved Polarimetry of Gamma-Ray Bursts - ResearchGate, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384248373_New_Tests_on_Lorentz_Invariance_Violation_Using_Energy-Resolved_Polarimetry_of_Gamma-Ray_Bursts](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/384248373_New_Tests_on_Lorentz_Invariance_Violation_Using_Energy-Resolved_Polarimetry_of_Gamma-Ray_Bursts%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016747476%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw36nAt7PHpjK0pYfh0HZG4u&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016803531&usg=AOvVaw0qGosY06AbIhHZlIsgsjlg) 48. Model-independent constraints on Lorentz Invariance Violation with update observations of Gamma-Ray Bursts - ResearchGate, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386577381_Model-independent_constraints_on_Lorentz_Invariance_Violation_with_update_observations_of_Gamma-Ray_Bursts](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/386577381_Model-independent_constraints_on_Lorentz_Invariance_Violation_with_update_observations_of_Gamma-Ray_Bursts%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016748064%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3F3ABK0G66ACbSjYvS3NjM&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016803601&usg=AOvVaw0duawalEFbYW9Qj9ldqIco) 49. Constraints on Lorentz Invariance Violation from Optical Polarimetry of Astrophysical Objects (Journal Article) | OSTI.GOV, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://www.osti.gov/pages/biblio/2372798](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.osti.gov/pages/biblio/2372798%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016748490%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3R8Eh9VzfFP_8fvMaecgjY&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016803665&usg=AOvVaw1JDr2rtdmZ37mg244SErzU) 50. Lorentz Invariance Violation Tests in Astroparticle Physics - MDPI, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/12/8/1232](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/12/8/1232%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016748849%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0KkT7zg5acdK4UmYHRcCS4&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016803718&usg=AOvVaw1-dmaGvujpfGEpd3-JsRug) 51. Robust constraint on Lorentz violation using Fermi-LAT gamma-ray burst data | Phys. Rev. D, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.083009](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.083009%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016749301%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3QNwW5C9JySzDgFQVSFUnE&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016803774&usg=AOvVaw3ID4cqLv5zLe0ue4Xl2OiL) 52. Lorentz invariance violation_ The latest Fermi results and the GRB/ AGN complementarity, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140017794/downloads/20140017794.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140017794/downloads/20140017794.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016749694%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0nuYR89iAtGkn-Z4qz4AAX&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016803834&usg=AOvVaw3aB1-hcIp226Ir2NR9Xum4) 53. Astrophysical and Cosmological Searches for Lorentz Invariance Violation - arXiv, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.10643](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.10643%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016750035%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw13tAlp6yQ687QUlI6XsyfQ&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016803890&usg=AOvVaw1DwBXA-nqXhWcd1kS9x2GQ) 54. Robust constraints on Lorentz Invariance Violation from H.E.S.S., MAGIC and VERITAS data combination - Inspire HEP, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://inspirehep.net/literature/1901859](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://inspirehep.net/literature/1901859%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016750519%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2tk-QJPXlQPo4oJ4Uh1cok&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016803944&usg=AOvVaw2RPwxFzGLhvuso4OHwyMUt) 55. [2504.00918] Lorentz Invariance Violation from Gamma-Ray Bursts - arXiv, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.00918](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2504.00918%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016750810%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3T4qfeARuvPS0jqmICtyNx&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016803997&usg=AOvVaw3rYlVATOH7YXtybBeGcDag) 56. Constraints on Lorentz Invariance Violation from HAWC Observations of Gamma Rays above 100 TeV | Phys. Rev. Lett. - Physical Review Link Manager, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.131101](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.131101%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016751252%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw25YTxwYpnkOdWmh_BE4hMm&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016804055&usg=AOvVaw0gYEyhs_-4BXjY2ik82kmZ) 57. Revisiting tests of Lorentz invariance with gamma-ray bursts: Effects of intrinsic lags, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123023](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123023%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016751628%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2WQ-xh4pU-8xCtnBp6bZFy&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016804109&usg=AOvVaw03VUAWxuvkY02kW34i21wd) 58. Constraints on Lorentz invariance violation from the extraordinary Mrk 421 flare of 2014 using a novel analysis method - arXiv, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://arxiv.org/html/2406.07140v1](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://arxiv.org/html/2406.07140v1%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016752015%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1DwXneRRzPRPHQXqxc79g3&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016804166&usg=AOvVaw2UsP9lymYN16iFbCuWJKfA) 59. Time and frequency measurement at NIST: the first 100 years, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/1485.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/1485.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016752273%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3SrlhIujaDRM_EQ1rZ354t&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016804219&usg=AOvVaw2wPm8w6-ZAWyFn6eEJcpt3) 60. Overcoming experimenter bias in scientific research - Math Scholar, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://mathscholar.org/2024/02/overcoming-experimenter-bias-in-scientific-research/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://mathscholar.org/2024/02/overcoming-experimenter-bias-in-scientific-research/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016752644%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw25Q4Z0tU6oTErfTRan8rJg&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016804275&usg=AOvVaw0sciK-7aIZtloSzS_z_8R3) 61. Shape measurement biases from underfitting and ellipticity gradients - Oxford Academic, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/406/4/2793/1022648](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/406/4/2793/1022648%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016752968%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3T-QszV4O3LWOyg8Ya845z&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016804333&usg=AOvVaw1Y1tj8MfZ26EyHsaMsBqGB) 62. Methodological and Cognitive Biases in Science: Issues for Current Research and Ways to Counteract Them, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://direct.mit.edu/posc/article-pdf/31/5/535/2158903/posc_a_00589.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://direct.mit.edu/posc/article-pdf/31/5/535/2158903/posc_a_00589.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016753336%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1OSEEpKgAuxqg11bYQ7Edd&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016804390&usg=AOvVaw2Y7G9K3anUhvr0QKdNbLWZ) 63. Methodological and Cognitive Biases in Science: Issues for Current Research and Ways to Counteract Them - MIT Press Direct, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://direct.mit.edu/posc/article/31/5/535/115648/Methodological-and-Cognitive-Biases-in-Science](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://direct.mit.edu/posc/article/31/5/535/115648/Methodological-and-Cognitive-Biases-in-Science%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016753753%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3qsjZbb63u-gtRzwLRQcAv&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016804452&usg=AOvVaw01gDX3TWFY6eTmxb8WKXTf) 64. Quantum Metrology and Many-Body Physics: Pushing the Frontier of the Optical Lattice Clock - JILA, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://jila.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/2019-04/MJMartinThesisFinal_April%202013.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://jila.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/2019-04/MJMartinThesisFinal_April%2525202013.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016754159%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1FM_orJ_IBJUEoj1VeV8DA&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016804513&usg=AOvVaw1FkagTVbf3EGTLpXPN4gXf) 65. causality – relativity, velocity of light - RP Photonics, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://www.rp-photonics.com/causality.html](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.rp-photonics.com/causality.html%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016754445%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3pQWCB-WwWuOa9podyPXsN&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016804570&usg=AOvVaw1CnmH3v_d1DdlX7B1_1xyM) 66. Since the speed of light is the speed of causation, why? : r/AskPhysics - Reddit, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/1iq93fw/since_the_speed_of_light_is_the_speed_of/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/1iq93fw/since_the_speed_of_light_is_the_speed_of/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016754864%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2l5tw-HVdas41TkytIedTp&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016804627&usg=AOvVaw3vqBDlDJGecZLTUbXGYbxx) 67. [2410.08204] A universal speed limit for spreading of quantum coherence - arXiv, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.08204](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2410.08204%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016755144%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw29rhGFrPWtg3k8SggY92Qt&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016804684&usg=AOvVaw0jk4vhSkIvc-rFxo84vjSk) 68. Weekly Papers on Quantum Foundations (37), accessed April 12, 2025, [https://ijqf.org/archives/7235](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://ijqf.org/archives/7235%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016755388%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2DLaf7dalNh6KdkMkR2XyD&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016804736&usg=AOvVaw0gDMD9dRFxIxWlqs8UlfVT) 69. Fundamental speed limits on entanglement dynamics of bipartite quantum systems - arXiv, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.07415](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2303.07415%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016755660%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0DRREPJDdcN-lZlQFchG5f&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016804788&usg=AOvVaw1RBCZ-IbHlmmIhWaYrFhjd) 70. [2409.01473] On Propagation of Information in Quantum Mechanics and Maximal Velocity Bounds - arXiv, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.01473](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2409.01473%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016755942%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw33Q0VtcSkZrvOVPTRkM4Ds&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016804860&usg=AOvVaw0d7mMwqmuy9aqwWVMwqMEj) 71. arxiv.org, accessed April 12, 2025, [https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.12206](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2409.12206%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744451016756155%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3O_Rq9TdVD-Evfqzmk94o_&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744451016804912&usg=AOvVaw1CJ1E1KIYJqSUQ-VaweQTX)