Second Postulate of Special Relativity

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the second postulate of special relativity, particularly the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum as perceived by inertial observers. Participants explore the implications of this postulate, its conceptual challenges, and alternative approaches to understanding it, including derivations and educational methodologies.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the constancy of the speed of light makes sense only if one abandons the notions of absolute time and distance, suggesting that our biases from classical physics hinder understanding.
  • Others propose that making sense of the second postulate requires accepting experimental results and recognizing that light does not behave like everyday objects, which may take time and effort to grasp.
  • A participant mentions that understanding the second postulate can be achieved through the Lorentz transformation, which can be derived without presupposing the postulate itself.
  • Some participants advocate for a new approach to teaching special relativity, arguing that there are more elegant axiom sets than Einstein's original postulates, which could simplify the learning process.
  • Another viewpoint emphasizes the robustness of the axiomatization of special relativity and quantum mechanics, suggesting that they have stood the test of time despite challenges.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the interpretation and teaching of the second postulate, with no clear consensus on the best approach or understanding. Some support the traditional postulates, while others advocate for alternative methods and frameworks.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of current educational practices in conveying the concept of time in special relativity, suggesting that existing methods may not effectively address student confusion.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and educators in physics, particularly those exploring the foundations of special relativity and its implications, as well as theorists considering alternative frameworks for understanding the subject.

Icebreaker
The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is the same to all inertial observers, is the same in all directions, and does not depend on the velocity of the object emitting the light.

This would make perfect sense if light was instataneous; i.e., if c equals (that's right, equals, not approaching) infinity distance unit / time unit. But it isn't. How does one make sense of it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Icebreaker said:
This would make perfect sense if light was instataneous; i.e., if c equals (that's right, equals, not approaching) infinity distance unit / time unit. But it isn't. How does one make sense of it?
Its simple once you abbandon the concepts of absolute time and distance. Abbandoning those concepts is, admittedly, pretty difficult.
 
Icebreaker said:
This would make perfect sense if light was instataneous; i.e., if c equals (that's right, equals, not approaching) infinity distance unit / time unit. But it isn't. How does one make sense of it?

How come, when one tries to force a square (cube) object through a round hole, and have trouble doing it, one always put the blame on the round hole and very seldom on the fact that one has a square object?

The WHOLE point of special relativity is that your "sense" is built on a set of biases based on the perception that light is instantaneous. It isn't nature that is causing the problem, it's our built-in prejudices that we acquired from the classical world. In this very case, there is no need for light to be instantaneous, because the fault lies in our "common sense".

Zz.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
-- A. Einstein
 
Icebreaker said:
How does one make sense of it?

You make sense of it by accepting experimental results on the speed of light emitted by moving objects, and giving up the preconceived notion, based on extrapolation from everyday experience, that light must behave like slowly-moving material objects such as baseballs.

it does take some time to become comfortable with the idea that the speed of a particular light beam or pulse is the same for all inertially-moving observers. You have to carry out (or at least follow) some of the calculations that are based on this idea, and see that they agree with actual experimental results, and do not introduce any contradictions in actual direct physical observations.
 
How does one make sense of Einstein's second postulate?
Einstein's second postulate is best understood from the Lorentz transformation. Fortunately, there are derivations of the Lorentz transformation that do not require presupposing Einstein's second postulate. :smile:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
 
From a theorist's perspective,deriving consequences (LT) from the axioms (Einstein's postulates) is the only logical way.

Daniel.
 
There are axiom sets for special relativity possessing greater elegance and richness than the postulates advocated by Einstein one hundred years ago.

I believe it would be smart to retire Einstein's two postulates as the academic standard for deriving special relativity and to adopt an approach to teaching special relativity that is conceptually simpler, more insightful and less confusing to students. I propose that beginning math and physics students should learn how to derive the Lorentz transformation from Newton's first law of motion and the homogeneity of time alone.

See section 4 of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

The ineffectiveness of standard university instruction in the concept of time in special relativity has been carefully researched and documented. http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0207/0207109.pdf
Isn't it time to try something new?
 
I think the axiomatization of SR and QM (especially QM) is absolutely remarkable...They need no change.Experiment can overthrow them (the axioms),but for at least 100 yrs exactly,it just couldn't...

Daniel.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Understanding Einstein's second postulate of special relativity
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
7K
High School Second Postulate of Special Relativity Explained
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Undergrad Why doesn't relativity of simultaneity lead to a contradiction?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Undergrad Postulates of Special Relativity: Speed of Light in Inertial Frames
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
High School Question about the relative motion of an eye relative to light source
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Undergrad Basic Special Relativity question but the math isn’t working
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Undergrad The wave equation interpretation of special relativity
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
High School Problem about postulate of the invariance of the speed of light
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
Undergrad How Does Special Relativity Affect Perceptions of Simultaneity?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Graduate Is the constancy of c a postulate or a derivable theorem?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K