Second Postulate of Special Relativity

[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?

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[ZapperZ]

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

 

[jtbell]

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.

 

[Project]

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.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

 

[dextercioby]

From a theorist's perspective,deriving consequences (LT) from the axioms (Einstein's postulates) is the only logical way.

Daniel.

 

[Project]

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?

 

[dextercioby]

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.