Light as a Relativistic invariant

In summary: Once convincing argument is that according to Maxwell's equations, the speed of light is c in all inertial frames. Another way of saying the same thing is that Maxwell's equations aren't Galilean invariant (which was assumed to be the invariance of the universe until the Lorentz group was discovered).Thanks, masudr!
  • #1
FunkyDwarf
489
0
Hey guys,

I know this subject is a bit of an old chesnut but i thought id ask it anyway.

What logical steps did the various physicists take to realize that c was constant in all reference frames? I've sort of found some weird ways to justify that fact in my head, but its more reverse engineering than actually arriving at it from nothing.

Id like to know how these guys game up with this, was it just lortenz's work or something more.

Thanks
-G
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Einstein, in a word

FunkyDwarf said:
What logical steps did the various physicists take to realize that c was constant in all reference frames?

Actually, that was all Einstein. Two good books:

Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord, Oxford University Press, 1982.

Peter Galison, Einstein's clocks, Poincare's maps, Norton, 2003.
 
  • #3
At the risk of sounding impatient could you not put it in a nutshell for me? I already have einstines original book on SR and GR so I've got most of the basics down.
 
  • #4
FunkyDwarf said:
At the risk of sounding impatient could you not put it in a nutshell for me? I already have einstines original book on SR and GR so I've got most of the basics down.


No you don't. The types that misspell his name the way you did and who use lower case don't know (and don't deserve to be taught).
 
  • #5
nakurusil said:
No you don't. The types that misspell his name the way you did and who use lower case don't know (and don't deserve to be taught).
That's a bit harsh, isn't it? It's common on the internet to not capitalise proper nouns (this is partially due to URLs not being case sensitive, and partially laziness). As for the misspelling, we are not yet sure if it's a typo or a case of ignorance.

FunkyDwarf said:
could you not put it in a nutshell for me?
Once convincing argument is that according to Maxwell's equations, the speed of light is c in all inertial frames. Another way of saying the same thing is that Maxwell's equations aren't Galilean invariant (which was assumed to be the invariance of the universe until the Lorentz group was discovered).
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Thanks, masudr!

And FunkyDwarf, don't worry about nakurusil; speaking for myself, I know I can get a bit cranky at times.

To some extent this might be a function of not knowing whether one is addressing a graduate student (whom one would expect to follow up citations by reading the books mentioned), or a younger person who might not yet appreciate the "scholarly ethos" (according to which it could be considered a bit rude to demand that I summarize a book for you). But don't worry, I am not holding you to that because I am assuming you didn't know this.
 
  • #7
"In a nutshell": Gallileo asserted that if you were riding in a closed carriage (no windows) at a constant speed on a perfectly level, smooth surface, there is no way for you to determine your speed or even if you are moving: that's referred to as "Gallilean relativty". Essentially, that is due to "F= ma". In order to have a force to feel or to move a pointer or other indicator of speed.

But Galilleo didn't know about electricty: magnetic force on an electron depends upon the speed of the electron relative to the magnetic field. A result of that is that Maxwells equations for eletro-magnetic fields have a "speed" term. Doing an "electro-magnetic" experiment (i.e. light) should tell you your speed relative to light itself. The Michaelson-Morley experiment was designed to do that but gave a null result- leading to the conclusion that every frame of reference has the same speed relative to light (or, conversely, light has the same speed relative to every frame of reference).
 
  • #8
Ah ok, so would it be fair to say that the michaelson-morley experiment (no capitals?! oh the horror!) would be the defining factor in c being the same in all reference frames?
 

1. What is the concept of "Light as a Relativistic invariant"?

The concept of "Light as a Relativistic invariant" refers to the idea that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and does not change regardless of the observer's frame of reference. This is a fundamental principle of Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. Why is the speed of light considered to be a relativistic invariant?

The speed of light is considered to be a relativistic invariant because it does not depend on the relative motion of the observer. In other words, no matter how fast an observer is moving, the speed of light will always appear to be the same to them.

3. How does the concept of "Light as a Relativistic invariant" relate to the theory of relativity?

The concept of "Light as a Relativistic invariant" is a key component of Einstein's theory of relativity. It is one of the fundamental principles that the theory is built upon and helps to explain the relationship between space, time, and motion.

4. Can the speed of light ever be exceeded?

According to the theory of relativity, the speed of light is the maximum speed that can be reached in the universe. It is not possible for any object with mass to reach or exceed the speed of light.

5. How has the concept of "Light as a Relativistic invariant" impacted our understanding of the universe?

The concept of "Light as a Relativistic invariant" has greatly impacted our understanding of the universe. It has led to the development of Einstein's theory of relativity, which has revolutionized our understanding of space, time, and gravity. It has also helped to explain many phenomena in the universe, such as the bending of light around massive objects like black holes.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
46
Views
4K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
11
Replies
376
Views
10K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
835
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
3
Replies
87
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
32
Views
5K
Back
Top