Relativity, speed of light and stuff...

yuiop

I tend to agree with Jennifer here. I can not see how a physicist isolated in a small spacestation that had never experienced gravity or even heard of it, would conclude from a knowledge of Special Relativity alone, that two particles would have to move towards each other, let alone that they accelerate towards each other with an acceleration inversely proportional to the distance separating them.

As far as I can tell General Relativity started with a knowledge that we experience "Newtonian gravity" and extrapolated or reverse engineered that knowledge to more extreme conditions than we normally experience. It is hardly surprising that Newtonian gravity is recovered from GR in the weak field limit because GR started with that assumption. lease do not get me wrong here. I am not saying there is anything wrong with GR, I am just saying that it does not fundementally explain or predict gravity and just provides a pretty good mathematical description of what we observe.

Put it another way. In multiverse theories where there are any number of possible universes each with their own laws of nature, would a universe that obeys the laws of Special Relativity have to have an inverse square law of gravity in the weak field limit or come to that, any gravity at all?

JesseM

When did Fredrik say anything like that? He didn't say you could discover the inverse-square law from pure thought, he just said that if you already know the equations of GR you can get the inverse-square law as a derived consequence. Of course you could say the same thing about the equations of Newtonian gravity in some sense, so I'm not sure this is a totally clear distinction, but at least in Newtonian gravity it's obvious from the fundamental equations whereas in GR it's not.
I don't know whether or not that's true of Einstein's original derivation as a historical matter, but it is at least true that GR can be derived from assumptions that have nothing to do with Newtonian gravity--on this page Steve Carlip writes:
I think it is also true that you can come up with theories that are identical to Newtonian gravity in every respect except for the fact that the strength of the force is inversely proportional to some other real power like r^2.05, whereas in GR you don't have this sort of wiggle room, trying to make it no longer obey an inverse-square law would give a very different theory (presumably it would require violating one of Carlip's basic assumptions above).

granpa

the electric field follows an inverse square law because space is 3 dimensional. aether theory explains this very well.

Fredrik

To me, the idea of a law being fundamental or not only makes sense within the framework of a specific theory. What you call "fundamental laws" seems to be what I would describe as "a final theory". If such a theory is found, it won't be possible to explain its postulates. This isn't a very deep statement. It's just the definition of what I mean by "final".

Thanks. If I hadn't been asleep I would have said something very similar.

To Kev and MeJennifer, I would like to add a couple of things:

I don't consider the way Einstein discovered SR and GR to be "derivations" of those theories. In both cases he wrote down a somewhat ill-defined list of properties that he wanted the theory to have, and then searched for a theory that had those properties. The reason why I can't consider this method a "derivation" is that the "list of properties" was ill-defined to begin with, and later made well-defined by the theory that was found. (E.g. we need Minkowski space to properly define the inertial frames in which the speed of light is supposed to be a constant).

I understand that your opinion is that the fact that GR was found by looking only for theories that could reproduce the Newtonian limit means that GR can't be said to explain the inverse square law. That is a valid opinion (about the meaning of the word "explain") but I don't agree with it. There is no deeper form of understanding than having a theory that agrees with experiment, so if derivation from a theory that agrees with experiment can't be considered an explanation, nothing can. It makes no difference to me (at all) how the theory was found. All that matters to me is what range of phenomena it's capable of describing and how well it agrees with experiment.

rbj

if you bring into this an additional concept of flux, which is conserved and makes Gauss's Law possible. the concept of conserved flux seems natural and satisfying, but it wouldn't have to necessarily be the case. the inverse-square law of gravitation would require the same hypothesis; a gravitational flux emitted by quantities of mass, unless, like we're discussing here, the Newtonian inverse-square law is derived from some other more fundamental principle (like GR).

now, inverse-square laws regarding radiant intensity (E&M or acoustic) do necessarily follow from a combination hypotheses of conservation of energy and 3-dim space (both reasonable). the radiant energy (or power) comprises a natural form of "flux", which is conserved.

BTW, it is because of this concept of flux in inverse-square laws that make me wish that Planck units had originally normalized [itex]4 \pi G[/itex] and [itex]\epsilon_0[/itex] rather than normalizing [itex]G[/itex] and [itex]4 \pi \epsilon_0[/itex] as was done. i believe these rationalized Planck units are a little more natural (yielding simpler field equations) than the existing definitions. with any extraneous constants removed from the field equations, i think that might lead to insight to what might be behind such. we know that Nature isn't really performing a multiplication in her head to convert a particle wave frequency to its energy. that multiplication is necessary only because of the anthropocentric units we arbitrarily chose to use. and Nature doesn't give a rat's as$ what units humans (or some alien race) chose to use.

i don't see a hypothetical aether having anything to do with the inverse-square relationship.

it's not surprising because of the correspondence principle. any newer, more advanced, theory must degenerate to the old theory in the context where the old theory was known to be valid. even though Einstein knew that his new GR theory would need to do that, i don't think that Newtonian gravity was where he started and extrapolated from. i think it was those classic elevator and spaceship thought experiments.

but, because of a concept of flux (which can be cooked up from pure thought) and knowledge of the mathematical fact that a sphere in 3-dimensional space has a surface area of [itex]4 \pi r^2[/itex] can lead one to predict or hypothesize an inverse-square law for some quantity. doesn't mean, of course, that the hypothesis need not be tested in reality.

i think that Einstein first, from pure thought experiments with just a few really reasonable postulates (like the laws of physics are invariant for every inertial observer and that a free-falling observer cannot differentiate his or her state from being inertial - the equivalence principle), came up with SR, and with a little mathematical help from folks like Mercel Grossman, the GR. there is no evidence that Einstein ever drew on or referred to the Michaelson-Morley experiment and the null result, and i am convinced that it made little difference to him ("as if God had any choice in the matter"). assuming he knew of the experiment and result, Einstein was likely utterly not surprized. it's amazing what you can cook up from a very few extremely reasonable postulates, thought experiments, and math (all from pure thought). that is, if your brain is the size of a small planet and you have truly historical levels of insight. such persons are rare in history.

JesseM

Well, in his original 1905 paper, in his first paragraph he discussed some theoretical reasons to suspect that electromagnetism doesn't have a preferred frame, but then in his second paragraph he said:
And the Einstein quote you're referring to is "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world"--this was not a positive assertion that he was confident God had no choice about special relativity as you made it sound, it seems like more of a general philosophical question about the laws of physics as a whole (if it's an accurate quote at all, there are a lot of fake Einstein quotes that have circulated around, you can really only trust the ones attributed to some published source).

rbj

thanks for the reference to the original 1905 paper. i stand corrected about that. he clearly indicates he knew of the MM experiment and result (but he should have cited it).

i disagree with you about his position about this (and i assume the quote is for real). i really think that Einstein is questioning whether the form of reality could possibly be different. of the fundamental (dimensionless) constants that go into the description of reality, that's different, but the functional form, i think that Einstein was wondering, even challenging, if they could possibly be different.

JesseM

How is that disagreeing with me, though? That's just what I said, it was a philosophical question about the laws of physics as a whole.

edit: also, note that the quote is listed in the "misattributed" section of this page. On the other hand, this page claims that he said it to his assistant, Ernst Straus, but doesn't give a reference.

granpa

if light is thought of as a KIND OF sound wave in the aether then I believe it follows naturally that electric fields must follow an inverse square law. there is no difference between the electric field in a light wave and the electric field from an electron.

DaleSpam

A wave which propagates through a medium has a propagation velocity that depends on the medium and is relative to that medium. If, by some coincidence, the propagation velocity of a wave in some medium were equal to the invariant speed then all observers would measure the propagation velocity to be the invariant speed regardless of what they measure the velocity of the medium to be.

However, a wave that does require a medium must propagate at the invariant speed. Since light does not require a medium it propagates at the invariant speed, which is how we originally discovered the invariant speed and its implications for the geometry of spacetime.

Since the aether is otherwise undetectable, and since it would be an enormous coincidence if the propagation of light through the aether were equal to the invariant speed, and since the speed of light is more simply explained by assuming it does not require a medium, what is the value of the concept of aether?

granpa

your second paragraph is unclear.

it might be an enormous coincidence or it might indicate the existence of an underlying symmetry that we havent been smart enough to figure out yet.

why should light alone of all known waves not require a medium? it is much simpler to just take its wave nature as evidence of the existence of such a medium. in any event, relativity doesnt entirely eliminate the aether. it just renames it 'space'. according to relativity even empty space has properties.

DaleSpam

If a wave does not propagate in a medium then what other speed could it possibly propagate at besides the invariant speed?

granpa

zero

DaleSpam

Then it wouldn't be a wave

granpa

exactly

atyy

Not much within SR (only pedagogically for explaining the significance of the Michelson-Morley null result). But apparently it's useful within condensed matter physics (artificial "light" and "electrons"), and the interplay between condensed matter theories, quantum field theories and the search for a quantum theory of gravity. In these theories, the "aether" is typically not so much embedded in space, but spacetime and matter emerge from the "aether".

atyy

Would it help to say that the inverse square law cannot be derived from GR, only an approximate inverse square law. So GR explains why we were deceived that it is an inverse square law? (If the inverse square law were exactly derivable, we wouldn't have perihelion precession)