Why does light have invarient speed?

[mdeng]

What is the physics answer to the question of why light has an invariant speed
to anyone and everyone, other than this is what light is? There must be a
reason why light behaves this way (or perhaps not necessarily this way
always). I'd think something must have happened external to the light to give
it this peculiar property. Put it in another way, what's wrong with the
classical physics where velocity would follow the law of vector arithmetics,
when applied to light?

Thanks,
- Ming

 

[haushofer]

What is the physics answer to the question of why light has an invariant speed
to anyone and everyone, other than this is what light is? There must be a
reason why light behaves this way (or perhaps not necessarily this way
always). I'd think something must have happened external to the light to give
it this peculiar property. Put it in another way, what's wrong with the
classical physics where velocity would follow the law of vector arithmetics,
when applied to light?

Thanks,
- Ming

I think the appropriate answer to this should be looked in the Maxwell equations. These equations say that electromagnetic fields obey wave equations, and that the velocity of these waves only depends on the properties of the material. Because this velocity is also the speed of light we measure, it can be postulated that light is an electromagnetic wave.

Now, this has to be compared with measurements, and indeed we measure that the speed of light doesn't depend on the observer, only on the material in which the observer observes.

 

[Dale]

The only other "why" I can think of for the invariance of the speed of light is that photons are massless.

 

[lightarrow]

What is the physics answer to the question of why light has an invariant speed
to anyone and everyone, other than this is what light is? There must be a
reason why light behaves this way (or perhaps not necessarily this way
always). I'd think something must have happened external to the light to give
it this peculiar property. Put it in another way, what's wrong with the
classical physics where velocity would follow the law of vector arithmetics,
when applied to light?

Thanks,
- Ming

There is not an explanation in the present physics.
However I could give you a sort of idea to which think about.

Imagine to be born in another planet and to have studied physics in a different way: there velocity is not defined as s/t, s = space, t = time, but in a different way, exactly in the way mass was defined taken a sample of Platinum-Iridium; you take an object moving at a constant speed (and this one you could measure as you like, e.g. in our way) and you put on it another object with exactly the same speed. In this way you have defined what is a "double" speed, and so on. What comes out is a quantity called "rapidity".
The interesting fact is that rapidity has no limit, it can go to infinite. The more interesting thing is that light's rapidity is infinite. So, if you lived in that planet, it wouldn't be so strange for you that light's speed is independent on the relative velocity v between source and observer: infinite + v = infinite!

 

[mdeng]

I think the appropriate answer to this should be looked in the Maxwell equations. These equations say that electromagnetic fields obey wave equations, and that the velocity of these waves only depends on the properties of the material. Because this velocity is also the speed of light we measure, it can be postulated that light is an electromagnetic wave.

Now, this has to be compared with measurements, and indeed we measure that the speed of light doesn't depend on the observer, only on the material in which the observer observes.

I am aware of the consequence of the Maxwell equation. Intuitively though, why would the set of equations give rise to c? And what mechanism (i.e., cause-and-effect) is behind light that gives it this peculiar property?

 

[mdeng]

The only other "why" I can think of for the invariance of the speed of light is that photons are massless.

I think masslessness must have something to do with invariance of c. I am not clear though, whether masslessness of photon is a consequence of assuming that c is constant. In other words, does Einstein’s relativity theory require photon to be massless (at rest)? If yes, then we would be going in circles. Another question I had, as posted in the Quantum group, what happens to non-photon particles that are moving at a speed close to c and are moving against each other? Is the relative speed of the two particle beams (whose sum is > c) capped by c? Relativity theory says yes. But what would be the mechanics behind this phenomenon? And would this be called "invarance of upbound of relative speed"?

 

[belliott4488]

I would say that historically we first discovered that the speed of light is invariant and then from that learned the properties of space and time (as described by Special Relativity). Now that we know those properties, however, I would venture to say that it is a property of space and time that massless particles always move at the maximum speed that any object can obtain, which is also invariant for different observers. Light happens to be an example but is otherwise not special.

In other words, I'd say the invariance of the speed of light is a by-product of the underlying properties of space-time, so the question becomes, why are space and time the way they are? I doubt there's a definitive answer for that yet.

 

[mdeng]

Imagine to be born in another planet and to have studied physics in a different way: there velocity is not defined as s/t, s = space, t = time, but in a different way, exactly in the way mass was defined taken a sample of Platinum-Iridium; you take an object moving at a constant speed (and this one you could measure as you like, e.g. in our way) and you put on it another object with exactly the same speed. In this way you have defined what is a "double" speed, and so on. What comes out is a quantity called "rapidity".
The interesting fact is that rapidity has no limit, it can go to infinite. The more interesting thing is that light's rapidity is infinite. So, if you lived in that planet, it wouldn't be so strange for you that light's speed is independent on the relative velocity v between source and observer: infinite + v = infinite!

Are you saying with your example that for any non-photon particle, if we keep cranking up their speed, they will go faster and faster but never attain the speed of light, as the relativity theory dictates? In this regard, light speed appears to be infinite as it’s not attainable unless it’s a photon.

 

[belliott4488]

I think masslessness must have something to do with invariance of c. I am not clear though, whether masslessness of photon is a consequence of assuming that c is constant. In other words, does Einstein’s relativity theory require photon to be massless (at rest)? If yes, then we would be going in circles. Another question I had, as posted in the Quantum group, what happens to non-photon particles that are moving at a speed close to c and are moving against each other? Is the relative speed of the two particle beams capped by c? Relativity theory says yes. But what would be the mechanics behind this phenomenon?

The lower a particle's mass, the faster it accelerates in response to any force acting on it. In the zero-mass limit, all particles must move at speed c. Nothing in Relativity requires that light be massless, but the observation that it moves at speed c implies that it is indeed massless.

Yes, you're right, two particles moving at .999c and -999c relative to one observer still see a relative speed less than c in their own frames. This is a result of the velocity addition theorem from Special Relativity; you can't add two velocities and exceed speed c.

As I said above, I would attribute all of this to the properties of space and time - they are what dictate the relative velocities of inertially moving objects.

 

[JesseM]

Is the relative speed of the two particle beams (whose sum is > c) capped by c? Relativity theory says yes.

It follows from the formula for velocity addition in relativity...if you're moving at velocity v to the right in the first particle's frame (meaning it's moving at v to the left in your frame), and the second particle is moving at velocity u to the right in your frame, then the first particle will see the second particle moving at this velocity:

\frac{u + v}{1 + uv/c^2}

As long as both u and v are below c, this formula gives a velocity below c as well. If you're confused about why the velocity is not just u + v as it would be in classical mechanics, it has to do with the fact that each observer uses rulers and clocks at rest relative to themselves to define speed in terms of distance/time, but each observer sees the other observer's rulers shrunk relative to his own, and the other observer's clocks slowed down relative to their own.

 

[mdeng]

I would say that historically we first discovered that the speed of light is invariant and then from that learned the properties of space and time (as described by Special Relativity). Now that we know those properties, however, I would venture to say that it is a property of space and time that massless particles always move at the maximum speed that any object can obtain, which is also invariant for different observers. Light happens to be an example but is otherwise not special.

In other words, I'd say the invariance of the speed of light is a by-product of the underlying properties of space-time, so the question becomes, why are space and time the way they are? I doubt there's a definitive answer for that yet.

Interesting answer, though it raises more questions than answered.

Could it be that space really has some other dimension where light takes “shortcuts” and its trajectory projection onto our 3-D space is invariant. And photon’s m = e/c^2 may just happen to be a mathematical convenience in 3D world we currently understand.

The following from wikipedia offerst an interesting insight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation][/PLAIN]
The usual treatment (e.g. Einstein's original work) is based on the invariance
of the speed of light. However, this must not necessarily be the starting
point: indeed (as is exposed, for example, in the second volume of the Course
in Theoretical Physics by Landau and Lif****z), what is really at stake is the
locality of interactions: one supposes that the influence that one particle,
say, exerts on another can not be transmitted instantaneously. Hence, there
exists a theoretical maximal speed of information transmission which must be
invariant , and it turns out that this speed coincides with the speed
of light in the vacuum. It is interesting to know that the need for locality
in physical theories was already seen by Newton (see Koestler's "The
Sleepwalkers"), who considered "philosophically absurd" the notion of an
action at a distance and believed that gravity must be transmitted by an agent
(interstellar aether) which obeys certain physical laws.

In an 1964 paper,[12] Erik Christopher Zeeman showed that a, in a mathematical
sense, weaker condition, the causality preserving property, is enough to
assure that the coordinate transformations be the Lorentz-transformations.

If it is true that there must “exists a theoretical maximal speed of information transmission which must be invariant”, it may explain the existence of light which happen to satisfy this postulate. What would be the mathematical proof of this postulate? And does it require whatever these particles may be to have zero mass at rest?

 

[belliott4488]

Interesting answer, though it raises more questions than answered.

Could it be that space really has some other dimension where light takes “shortcuts” and its trajectory projection onto our 3-D space is invariant. And photon’s m = e/c^2 may just happen to be a mathematical convenience in 3D world we currently understand.

I can't imagine why we'd want to say that. The current theory predicts observed phenomena just fine - why mess with it? If it ain't broke ...

The following from wikipedia offerst an interesting insight.

<quotation snipped>

If it is true that there must “exists a theoretical maximal speed of information transmission which must be invariant”, it may explain the existence of light which happen to satisfy this postulate. What would be the mathematical proof of this postulate? And does it require whatever these particles may be to have zero mass at rest?

I don't know what you're asking - you don't prove postulates, that's why they're postulates. Besides, this principle wasn't stated as a postulate, but more as an observation, I think.

In any case, it doesn't explain the existence of light, but it puts the same "speed limit" on light as on anything else. Light - as well as other massless particles - moves at that speed for the reasons given in the theory of Special Relativity.

 

[mdeng]

Hi JesseM and Belliott,

Thanks for pointing to the velocity addition formula. It’s pretty amazing, clean, concise, and even intuitive.

 

[mdeng]

I can't imagine why we'd want to say that. The current theory predicts observed phenomena just fine - why mess with it? If it ain't broke ...

I don't know what you're asking - you don't prove postulates, that's why they're postulates. Besides, this principle wasn't stated as a postulate, but more as an observation, I think.

In any case, it doesn't explain the existence of light, but it puts the same "speed limit" on light as on anything else. Light - as well as other massless particles - moves at that speed for the reasons given in the theory of Special Relativity.

As for “If it ain't broke …”, yes and no. It’s working as it seems to agree with all the observations we have so far, but it also made some assumptions which we all would like to have an answer to.

The invariant max speed principle (pardon my use of terms above) seems a reasonable one. Intuitively, I can see that it has to be constant, or else some “instantaneity” will occur which violates locality law. I am not quite sure why it has to be invariant except that it might otherwise enable arbitrary travel into to the past.

You are probably aware of the “instantaneity” observation in some quantum physics experiments. That seems to suggest there must exist something that travels faster than light (in fact, infinitely faster). What’s the thought on this for those in the relativity area?

 

[rbj]

The only other "why" I can think of for the invariance of the speed of light is that photons are massless.

photons have inertial mass of

m = \frac{E}{c^2} = \frac{h \nu}{c^2}

but their rest mass (or "invariant mass")

m_0 = m \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}

is zero because v=c.

i think it's the other way around. photons are "massless" (have no rest mass) because they are believed to move at the same speed c as the wavespeed 1/\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0} for light waves. the first principle is that photons move at speed c for any observer and the consequence is that their rest mass is zero.

What is the physics answer to the question of why light has an invariant speed
to anyone and everyone, other than this is what light is? There must be a
reason why light behaves this way (or perhaps not necessarily this way
always). I'd think something must have happened external to the light to give
it this peculiar property.

this is maybe more than you are asking for, but it is among similar questions asked in the past ("Why Light"), so i am collecting stuff that i said then, that i gleaned from a few email conversations that i have had with physicists like Michael Duff and John Baez in the past. i think the physics is kosher (Integral or Pervect will come down on it if it isn't), but i am not a physicist, but an electrical engineer.

it's not just light. it's the speed of propagation of any "instantaneous" interaction, whether it's E&M, gravity, or nuclear interactions (or something that hasn't been discovered yet).

thought experiment #1
in the case of EM, imagine that you and i are standing some distance apart and facing each other. you're holding a positive charge and i am holding a negative charge and that we both are restricting our charges so they cannot move toward each other but they can move up and down and left and right (just not forward or backward). so i move my charge up a meter. since your charge is attracted to mine, your charge also wants to move up a meter and you allow that. then i move it down and your charge follows it down. now i move it to my right (your left) and your charge moves toward your left. then to my left (your right) and your charge follows it.

now i move my charge up and down repeatedly and your charge follows it up and down. that is an electromagnetic wave that originated with me moving my charge around and that wave moved toward you (at the speed of propagation of E&M waves which is "c") and causes your charge to move correspondingly. in a very real sense, my moving charge is a "transmitting antenna" and your moving charge is a "receiving antenna". if, somehow, i could move my charge up and down a million times per second, you could tune your AM radio to 1000 kHz and hear a signal (a silent carrier). if i could move it up and down 100 million times per second, you could tune it in with your FM radio just between the 99.9 and 100.1 settings (provided no other stations were close by). if i could move it up and down 500 trillion times per second, you would see it as a blur of orange colored light. now i can't move it up and down an entire meter 500 trillion times per second because the speed of that movement would exceed c. but i can have a whole pile of like charges and move them up and down maybe 10 microns at a frequency of 500 trillion Hz. that is what happens in a transmitting antenna or something that emits visible light. charges are moving and that causes other charges to move. but they don't react instantaneously (as observed by a third party that is equi-distant to you and i).

that is what light is (from a wave-property perspective, no mention of photons here) and it required no medium for these waves to travel. they just are there because unlike charges attract and like charges repel (that's the fundamental physics) - there need be no medium in between for that to happen.

why is the speed of light constant for different observers moving relative to each other? it's because there is no way to prefer one inertial, but moving (at least from the POV of someone else) observer to any other inertial (but also moving) observer. if you can't prefer one over the other, the laws of physics must be the same.

the postulate (of SR) is that no inertial frame is qualitative different (or "better") than any other inertial frame of reference and that if we can't tell the difference between a "stationary" vacuum and a vacuum "moving" past our faces at a high velocity, that there is no meaningful difference between a stationary vacuum and a moving vacuum and that Maxwell's Equations should work the same for any and all inertial frames so then the speed of E&M must be measured to be the same in all inertial frames, even if it is the same beam of light viewed by two observers moving relative to each other. from that, we got time dilation, then length contraction, then Lorentz transformation, and so on.

besides the fact that there was a very important experiment, the Michealson-Morley experiment, where they were specifically looking for evidence of a change in the speed of light, given the realistic assumption that if the aether existed, our planet oughta be moving through it at least some season of the year and at sufficient speed that they could measure the difference in c parallel to this movement and perpendicular to this movement and the experiment came out negative . no such change in c was detected. besides that experimental fact, Einstein had a thought experiment about it that i paraphrase below:

you understand that "light" is the propagation of electromagnetic (E&M) fields or "waves" and the physics that describes that propagation are "Maxwell's Equations").

i would not call the constancy of c (for all frames of reference) an axiom or postulate for which there is no idea why such principle exists (and we just notice it experimentally). it's because we can detect no intrinsic difference between different inertial frames of reference (two observers moving at constant velocities relative to each other both have equal claim to being "stationary", there is no good reason to say that one is absolutely stationary and the other is the one that is moving) and that the laws of physics, namely Maxwell's equations, apply to both frames of reference equally validly. if two different observers, neither accelerated but both moving relatively to each other, are examining the very same beam of light (an electromagnetic wave), for both observers, when they apply and solve Maxwell's equations for the propagation of the EM wave, they both get the same speed of c out of solving Maxwell's eqs.

so we do have a good idea for why the speed of propagation of E&M is the same for all inertial observers that may or may not be moving relative to each other. it's because, we cannot tell the difference between a "moving" vacuum and "stationary" vacuum, that there is no difference between a moving and stationary vacuum and then there is not apparent reason for the observed speed of light to be different.

this is different than for sound. the physics of Maxwell's Equations make no reference to a medium that conducts the electromagnetic field (and, indeed, the Michaelson-Morley experiement failed to show that such a hypothetical medium, called "aether" exists - if it does exist, it seems to be moving around in the same frame of reference as the Earth going around the sun because no matter what time of day or season of the year, no one could detect with the M-M apparatus any motion through this aether). but for sound, the physics describe it as compressions and rarefractions of the air (or whatever other matter medium). there is no such thing as sound in a vacuum (but there is light). so if you feel the wind moving past your face from left to right (say at a speed of 20 m/s), you will also measure the speed of sound from a source on your left to be 20 m/s faster than sound from a source in front of you and 40 m/s faster than a sound that is at your right. now you can repeat that setup and get an identical result if there is no wind but you are moving (toward your left) through the air at a speed of 20 m/s. so the observer that is stationary (relative to the air) will look at a sound wave and measure it at something like 334 m/s, but you, moving through the air toward the source at 20 m/s will measure the speed of that very same sound wave to be 354 m/s.

thought experiment #2
now think of the same thing, but instead you two observers are out in some vacuum of space somewhere and are looking at the same beam of light. the other observer is holding the flashlight and measuring the speed of light to be 299792458 m/s. you are moving toward that observer at a speed of, say, 1000 m/s and looking at the very same beam of light that the other observer is. you are thinking that you would measure it at a speed of 299793458 m/s, right? but why should it be any different for you? you have equal claim to being stationary (and it's the guy with the flashlight is moving toward you at 1000 m/s). you cannot feel the vacuum moving past you at a speed of 1000 m/s, in fact there is no physical meaning to the vacuum moving past your face at 1000 m/s like it's a wind. you cannot tell the difference between you moving and the other guy as stationary or if the roles were reversed and there is no meaning to any notion of who is stationary absolutely and who is moving.

so then, if there is no meaningful difference, if both of you have equal claim to being stationary (and it's the other guy that is moving), then the laws of physics (particularly Maxwell's Equations) have to be exactly the same for both of you, both in a qualitative sense, and in a quantitative sense. both of you have the same permittivity of free space (\epsilon_0) and permealbility of free space (\mu_0). so when you apply Maxwell's equations to this E&M wave (of this flashlight beam), you will see that this changing E field is causing a changing B field which, in turn, is causing a changing E field which is causing a changing B field, etc. now for both of you, the laws (Maxwell's Eqs. and the parameters \epsilon_0 and \mu_0) are the same. then it turns out, when we solve Maxwell's Equations for this case, we get a propagating wave and the wave speed is

c = \sqrt{\frac{1}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}} [/itex]<br /> <br /> <b>but that&#039;s the same for both you and the other observer!</b> (even though you are both moving relative to the other.) there is no reason that the other guy should solve the Maxwell&#039;s equations and get a different c than you get (because you have the same \epsilon_0 and \mu_0)! even if you two are looking at the very same beam of light. <br /> <br /> now, to repeat and sum up (my, this is long): <b>it&#039;s not just light.</b> it&#039;s the speed of propagation of <b>any</b> fundamental interaction. if, say, gravity (or some other action) could propagate faster (like instantaneously), we could conceivable devise a device that could use the interaction of gravity to communicate information at a speed that is faster than <i>c</i>. but <b>nothing</b> moves faster than that. it is not just a speed limit for moving objects, it is actual and finite speed that the fundamental interactions of nature (all of them) move.<br /> <br /> why at this speed (299792458 m/s)? because we cannot measure any physical quantity except by measuring it against a like dimensioned physical quantity (that we might call a &quot;standard&quot; or a &quot;unit&quot;) and not only is that the way we measure things, it&#039;s overall how we <i>experience</i> or <i>perceive</i> things (relative to something else, often <i>us</i>, our bodies or our thinking). it&#039;s not like Nature is decreeing that &quot;light, E&amp;M, gravity, nuclear and all other fundamental physical interactions shall propagate at a speed of 299792458 m/s&quot;, it&#039;s only that Nature decrees that this speed be <b>finite</b> and the same finite speed for all of these interactions. whatever finite speed that is doesn&#039;t matter because it (along with <i>G</i> and \hbar) defines the scaling in reality of length, time, and mass. all the physics says is that this speed of interaction is finite, not infinite. this is what Planck Units are fundamentally about. we, by a historic accident, have chosen a unit of length to be the meter (about as big as we are) and the unit of time to be the second (about as long as a fleeting thought that our biological brains can do), so because of that, we observer that <i>c</i> is 299793458 m/s, but the speed of light is <b>always</b>, fundamentally 1 Planck Length per Planck Time.<br /> <br /> Now, I don&#039;t know why an atom&#039;s size is approximately 10²⁵ L_P, but it is (and that seems to me to be a legitimate question for physicists), or why biological cells are about 10⁵times bigger than atoms, but they are (and that seems to me to be a legitimate question for micro-biologists), or why we sentient human beings are about 10⁵ times bigger (in one dimension) than the cells that make up our bodies, but we are (a good question for biologists) and if any of those dimensionless ratios changed, life would be different. We would know the difference. But if none of those ratios changed, nor any other ratio of like dimensioned physical quantity, we would still be about as big as 10³⁵ L_P , our clocks would tick about once every 10⁴⁴ T_P, and, by definition, we <b>always</b> perceive the speed of light (not just light or E&amp;M but the speed of propagation of all instantaneous interactions, such as gravity) to be <i>c</i> = L_P/ T_P which is the same as how we do now, no matter how some &quot;god-like&quot; manipulator changes it.<br /> <br /> Now if some dimensionless value like the Fine-structure constant \alpha changed, that&#039;s different. We <b>would</b> perceive the difference. But to attribute that change to a change in <i>c</i>, that case is not defensible. You could argue that the change in alpha is due to a change in the speed of light, and I could argue it&#039;s a change in Planck&#039;s constant or the elementary charge and there is no way to support one view over the other.<br /> <br /> So, rather than asking &quot;Why is the speed of light equal to 299792458 m/s?&quot;, which really is a meaningless question, we would ask why is the meter (which is about as big as we are) about 10²⁵ L_P? And why is the second (which is about a fleeting moment of thought for our species) about 10⁴⁴ T_P? (Both are asking about dimensionless quantities, which <b>are</b> meaningful questions.) When those questions get answered, then we have an answer for why the speed of light is equal to 299792458 m/s.

 

[lightarrow]

Are you saying with your example that for any non-photon particle, if we keep cranking up their speed, they will go faster and faster but never attain the speed of light, as the relativity theory dictates? In this regard, light speed appears to be infinite as it’s not attainable unless it’s a photon.

Yes.

 

[lightarrow]

I would say that historically we first discovered that the speed of light is invariant and then from that learned the properties of space and time (as described by Special Relativity). Now that we know those properties, however, I would venture to say that it is a property of space and time that massless particles always move at the maximum speed that any object can obtain,

Maybe there is also another reason: if a massless particle moved at v < c, it would have zero energy and zero momentum. How could we detect it?

 

[||spoon||]

When not using relativity, or when ignoring its effects, total velocity is simply:

V_t=v_1+v_2

When we take into account the consequences of relativity the equation becomes:

V_t=\frac{v_1+v_2}{1+\frac{v_1v_2}{c^2}}

where c is the einstein constant (or speed of light in vacuum).

now let v_1 be equal to c, and our own velocity be equal to v_2. (of course our velocity is of no consequence as you will see :) )

then what you arrive with is the following:

V_t=\frac{c+v_2}{1+\frac{c v_2}{c^2}}

by cancelling c within the denominator and multiplying by c we arrive at:

V_t=\frac{(c+v_2)c}{c+v_2} (because multiplying the c cancels c in denominator)

Then by caneclling (c+v_2) we are left with:

V_t=c

Therefore it does not matter what our speed is at all... the speed of light when will always remain at this constant (depending on the medium) so lights speed will not vary. Light does adhere to arithmetic... but only when you use the correct equations :)

note: first time i used latex thing so sorry if i screwed up anywhere

 

[mdeng]

r b-j, thanks for gathering all the info.

we can't tell the difference between a "stationary" vacuum and a vacuum "moving" past our faces at a high velocity
…
we can detect no intrinsic difference between different inertial frames of reference (two observers moving at constant velocities relative to each other both have equal claim to being "stationary", there is no good reason to say that one is absolutely stationary and the other is the one that is moving) and that the laws of physics, namely Maxwell's equations, apply to both frames of reference equally validly.

That’s what Einstein (any many other experiments) observed. But why should vacuum, and consequently, light have this property? Note that when light travels in other mediums such as water, light lost its peculiar property of speed constancy.

it's not just light. it's the speed of propagation of any fundamental interaction. if, say, gravity (or some other action) could propagate faster (like instantaneously), we could conceivable devise a device that could use the interaction of gravity to communicate information at a speed that is faster than c. but nothing moves faster than that. it is not just a speed limit for moving objects, it is actual and finite speed that the fundamental interactions of nature (all of them) move.

I am starting to like this idea. More generally, it’s what some calls the locality principle which postulates “there exists a theoretical maximal speed of information transmission which must be invariant”, and light in vacuum just happens to possesses this property. It would be convincing to me if we can prove the locality principle and derive from it the c constant (in some unit). It would then entail the whole special relativity theory and likely provide better insight to relativity. And perhaps, if there is another world where locality principle does not always apply (as some claims in quantum world), we can derive something else.

 

[mdeng]

When not using relativity, or when ignoring its effects, total velocity is simply:

V_t=v_1+v_2

When we take into account the consequences of relativity the equation becomes:

V_t=\frac{v_1+v_2}{1+\frac{v_1v_2}{c^2}}

where c is the einstein constant (or speed of light in vacuum).

now let v_1 be equal to c, and our own velocity be equal to v_2. (of course our velocity is of no consequence as you will see :) )

then what you arrive with is the following:

V_t=\frac{c+v_2}{1+\frac{c v_2}{c^2}}

by cancelling c within the denominator and multiplying by c we arrive at:

V_t=\frac{(c+v_2)c}{c+v_2} (because multiplying the c cancels c in denominator)

Then by caneclling (c+v_2) we are left with:

V_t=c

Therefore it does not matter what our speed is at all... the speed of light when will always remain at this constant (depending on the medium) so lights speed will not vary. Light does adhere to arithmetic... but only when you use the correct equations :)

note: first time i used latex thing so sorry if i screwed up anywhere

Thanks! I also found this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula.

 

[rbj]

But why should vacuum, and consequently, light have this property?

actually, it's the other way around; you need to justify why any two intertial observers would have different laws of physics applying to them. to repeat (sorta):

(a quasi-quote, slightly amplified)

... so then, if there is no meaningful difference [between two different observers, neither whom are accelerated], if both observers have equal claim to being stationary (and it's the other guy who is moving), then the laws of physics (particularly Maxwell's Equations) have to be exactly the same for both of them, both in a qualitative sense, and in a quantitative sense. both observers have the same permittivity of free space (\epsilon_0) and permealbility of free space (\mu_0). (why should one get values lower or higher than the other?) so when they apply Maxwell's equations to this E&M wave (of this flashlight beam), they both will see that this changing E field is causing a changing B field which, in turn, is causing a changing E field which is causing a changing B field, etc. and for both observers, the laws of physics governing the interactions of electomagnetic fields (Maxwell's Eqs. and the parameters \epsilon_0 and \mu_0) are the same. (as well as all other physical law.) then it turns out, when either observer solves Maxwell's Equations for this case, they both get a propagating wave with wave speed of:

c = \sqrt{\frac{1}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}} [/itex]<br /> <br /> <b>but that&#039;s the same for both observers!</b> (even though they both are moving relative to the other.) there is no reason one should solve the Maxwell&#039;s equations and get a different <i>c</i> than the other (because they both have the same \epsilon_0 and \mu_0)! even if the two are looking at the very same beam of light.

<br /> <br /> now do you get it?<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> Note that when light travels in other mediums such as water, light lost its peculiar property of speed constancy. </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> don&#039;t think of light as <i>using</i> a medium as sound does. E&amp;M (as well as gravity and the nuclear interactions) interact between between different places separated by nothingness without the need of a material medium. that&#039;s the physics. even if this &quot;vacuum&quot; has these other molecules that essentially get in the way, interact with the changing EM field creating their own electromagnetic wave that interferes and results in a retarded group velocity of the EM field (the phase velocity is still the same, i think). it&#039;s a completely different thing than propagation of something that actually <i>uses</i> a medium to propagate in like a wave on a string.<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> I am starting to like this idea. More generally, it’s what some calls the locality principle which postulates “there exists a theoretical maximal speed of information transmission which must be invariant”, </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> it&#039;s not just a maximal speed. it is <b>the</b> speed of propagation. and it doesn&#039;t matter what that speed is (from the POV of the outside &quot;god&quot; that can tell the difference). whatever it is, because the physics that affects us has this parameter as defining scale in the equations of law, it will seem the same to us (as we measure it with our pre-determined meters and seconds). the speed can be set to any finite value simply by our choice of units. and Nature doesn&#039;t give a rat&#039;s ass about our choice of units.<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> and light in vacuum just happens to possesses this property. </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> <b>it&#039;s not just E&amp;M (which is what light is). it is <u>everything</u>.</b> forget about mediums. just think that everything is in a vacuum. fundamentally, it&#039;s all the same except we have more atoms and molecules around here getting in the way. but <i>between</i> those atoms, there is the same vacuum as there is in outer space. just a much shorter mean distance between atoms. that&#039;s a quantitative difference, not a qualitative difference. in any case some thing at point A changes (a mass moves or a charge moves) that the laws of physics say affects some other thing at point B. if you are an observer at point C that is equal distance from A and B, the physics says that when the thing at A changes and the thing at B reacts, you observe that it does not react instantaneously (and you are equal distant from both things at A and B). there is a finite time between the change at A and the reaction at B. for <b>whatever</b> the interaction is.<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> It would be convincing to me if we can prove the locality principle and derive from it the c constant (in some unit). </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> you missed the other point. it doesn&#039;t matter (to us, who are subject to the laws of physics) <i>what</i> that value of <i>c</i> comes out to be (from the POV of some &quot;god&quot; who conceivably can observe the speed of propagation of these interactions change) as long as it&#039;s finite (the physics for us would be different if <i>c</i> was infinite). we would still measure the speed of light to be 299792458 m/s because, <i>unless some salient dimensionless constant changes, like the number of Planck Lengths in a meter and/or the number of Planck Times in a second, both dimensionless quantities that <b>do</b> have meaning if they change</i>. but if those dimensionless parameters remain constant, then <i>c</i> has no choice but to be the same from our POV. take a look at the Planck units article at Wikipedia.<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> It would then entail the whole special relativity theory and likely provide better insight to relativity. And perhaps, if there is another world where locality principle does not always apply (as some claims in quantum world), we can derive something else. </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> that i dunno.

 

[lightarrow]

Originally Posted by lightarrow

Imagine to be born in another planet and to have studied physics in a different way: there velocity is not defined as s/t, s = space, t = time, but in a different way, exactly in the way mass was defined taken a sample of Platinum-Iridium; you take an object moving at a constant speed (and this one you could measure as you like, e.g. in our way) and you put on it another object with exactly the same speed. In this way you have defined what is a "double" speed, and so on. What comes out is a quantity called "rapidity".
The interesting fact is that rapidity has no limit, it can go to infinite. The more interesting thing is that light's rapidity is infinite. So, if you lived in that planet, it wouldn't be so strange for you that light's speed is independent on the relative velocity v between source and observer: infinite + v = infinite!

Are you saying with your example that for any non-photon particle, if we keep cranking up their speed, they will go faster and faster but never attain the speed of light, as the relativity theory dictates? In this regard, light speed appears to be infinite as it’s not attainable unless it’s a photon.

However there is more than simply that; if you take a starship and, starting from Earth, you accelerates to very near light's speed, you will measure all planets, stars, galaxies, ecc. distances as Lorentz-contracted to near zero meters, so you will travel along all the universe in a fraction of a second of your time (time = space/c = 0/c = 0); wouldn't you call it, practically, as an infinite "speed"?

 

[belliott4488]

However there is more than simply that; if you take a starship and, starting from Earth, you accelerates to very near light's speed, you will measure all planets, stars, galaxies, ecc. distances as Lorentz-contracted to near zero meters, so you will travel along all the universe in a fraction of a second of your time (time = space/c = 0/c = 0); wouldn't you call it, practically, as an infinite "speed"?

I don't think that's quite right. As the L-contracted distances go to zero (gamma -> inf.), doesn't the time also go to infinity? I.e. the distance you have to go goes to zero, but so does the rate of your clock.

EDIT: Never mind, my bad - that's the rate of your clock as seen in the rest frame of the universe. You'll see it tick along as normal, and since your velocity is near c by assumption, you'll see the universe flying by at the same speed. So , yes, I guess in the limiting case you'll reach the other side of the universe in vanishing time. Hm ... never thought of that.

 

[jtbell]

you will travel along all the universe in a fraction of a second of your time (time = space/c = 0/c = 0); wouldn't you call it, practically, as an infinite "speed"?

In calculating this "speed", you're taking the distance traveled as measured in one reference frame, and dividing it by the time as measured in another reference frame. This number is definitely of practical significance to space-travelers, but I think most physicists would resist calling it "speed" because of this mixing of reference frames. Unfortunately, I can't think of a good word to use instead of "speed" here.

 

[lightarrow]

In calculating this "speed", you're taking the distance traveled as measured in one reference frame, and dividing it by the time as measured in another reference frame. This number is definitely of practical significance to space-travelers, but I think most physicists would resist calling it "speed" because of this mixing of reference frames. Unfortunately, I can't think of a good word to use instead of "speed" here.

I have never done what you say; I have only talked about rapidity and I showed that you could travel along all the universe in (almost) zero time of your clock. The fact rapidity has nothing to do with space and time should have been clear by the way I have defined it, so it's not very useful to say that it couldn't be called "speed" because "you're taking the distance traveled as measured in one reference frame, and dividing it by the time as measured in another reference frame": the idea is just to avoid defining it in terms of space and time.

With this idea, the fact light's speed cannot be reached is transformed in the idea that light's "speed" = rapidity is actually infinite, but s/t doesn't result as infinite but finite, because space and time are not mutually independent, excepting at v << c.

By the way: rapidity R = arctgh(v/c).

 

[mdeng]

so then, if there is no meaningful difference, if both of you have equal claim to being stationary (and it's the other guy that is moving), then the laws of physics (particularly Maxwell's Equations) have to be exactly the same for both of you, both in a qualitative sense, and in a quantitative sense. both of you have the same permittivity of free space (\epsilon_0) and permealbility of free space (\mu_0). so when you apply Maxwell's equations to this E&M wave (of this flashlight beam), you will see that this changing E field is causing a changing B field which, in turn, is causing a changing E field which is causing a changing B field, etc. now for both of you, the laws (Maxwell's Eqs. and the parameters \epsilon_0 and \mu_0) are the same. then it turns out, when we solve Maxwell's Equations for this case, we get a propagating wave and the wave speed is

c = \sqrt{\frac{1}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}} [/itex]<br /> <br /> <b>but that&#039;s the same for both you and the other observer!</b> (even though you are both moving relative to the other.) there is no reason that the other guy should solve the Maxwell&#039;s equations and get a different c than you get (because you have the same \epsilon_0 and \mu_0)! even if you two are looking at the very same beam of light.

<br /> <br /> I&#039;d argue though that the above is only true under the premise that c is max and constancy to anyone and everyone. It does not prove, nor explain, why c (or its special case, light speed in vacuum) is constancy. And the only proof we have is by experiment/example (and perhaps Maxwell&#039;s equation, which is up to interpretation and subject to the question of whether it is complete). If neither of the observers can claim that he’s solely being stationary, why must we assume both of them are right? You (and we all) say, well, otherwise Maxwell’s equation (and SR) would be broken. This to me, is a circular argument that does not address the deeper question.<br /> <br /> On the other hand, if we can prove mathematically, without assuming Einstein&#039;s relativity principle (constancy of c and relativity) that c must exist and has to be constancy, we likely would be able to show that light speed in vacuum satisfies the proof (i.e., is a special case of c) and consequently derive SR. To me, locality principle seems to be capable of doing this. I believe that the locality principle assumes something more fundamental than constancy of c , and thus would give us deeper insight about relativity.<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="rbj" data-source="post: 1561007" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> rbj said: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> it&#039;s not just a maximal speed. it is <b>the</b> speed of propagation. and it doesn&#039;t matter what that speed is (from the POV of the outside &quot;god&quot; that can tell the difference). whatever it is, because the physics that affects us has this parameter as defining scale in the equations of law, it will seem the same to us (as we measure it with our pre-determined meters and seconds). the speed can be set to any finite value simply by our choice of units. and Nature doesn&#039;t give a rat&#039;s ass about our choice of units. </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> It is ‘the’ speed without mathematical proof, though SR shows us that if we take this for granted we can come to lots of useful and consistent conclusions.<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="rbj" data-source="post: 1561007" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> rbj said: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> <b>it&#039;s not just E&amp;M (which is what light is). it is <u>everything</u>.</b> forget about mediums. just think that everything is in a vacuum. fundamentally, it&#039;s all the same except we have more atoms and molecules around here getting in the way. but <i>between</i> those atoms, there is the same vacuum as there is in outer space. just a much shorter mean distance between atoms. that&#039;s a quantitative difference, not a qualitative difference. in any case some thing at point A changes (a mass moves or a charge moves) that the laws of physics say affects some other thing at point B. if you are an observer at point C that is equal distance from A and B, the physics says that when the thing at A changes and the thing at B reacts, you observe that it does not react instantaneously (and you are equal distant from both things at A and B). there is a finite time between the change at A and the reaction at B. for <b>whatever</b> the interaction is. </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> This would bring up another interesting question. Is vacuum really “nothing”? Is there such a thing that is truly empty where *nothing* can travel on/by/within/through it? And what would be the equivalent of photon for magnetic field, gravitational field, or quantum fields where fundamental particles interact within? Is there any theoretical or experimental proof so far that “graviton” exists, has zero rest mass, travels at c to each one and everyone?

 

[dotman]

This would bring up another interesting question. Is vacuum really “nothing”?

The aether theory has been out of vogue for a bit over a century now-- so yes, it's really nothing.

 

[sas3]

Since you are on this subject, I have a quick observation/question.
If photons travel at this speed then do they (photons) experience time at all?
As I see it a photon will not notice time at all, everything happens instantaneous, photons live and die and never sense time.
The 8 minute trip from the sun to the Earth happens instantaneous as far as a photon is concerned.
Do I have this right or am I confused?

 

[mdeng]

The aether theory has been out of vogue for a bit over a century now-- so yes, it's really nothing.

Einstein’s relativity theory does not preclude ether. However, it is not ether that is on my mind. It's more of a philosophical (and physics to some extent) question. Is so-called "vacuum" in the universe truly nothing? As we know, it contains energy (e.g., the background radiation). So, is a "vacuum" still containing nothing if it has energy within?
And even if when no light is traveling in it, is vacuum really a nothing (i.e., a theoretical convenience, a concept) or perhaps filled up with invisible things that while may not affect light’s speed but nevertheless contribute to its propagation? For example, light may still be traveling at c w.r.t. (any and all) ether (stationary or not), but is relying on ether to propagate in vacuum.

 

[mdeng]

Since you are on this subject, I have a quick observation/question.
If photons travel at this speed then do they (photons) experience time at all?
As I see it a photon will not notice time at all, everything happens instantaneous, photons live and die and never sense time.
The 8 minute trip from the sun to the Earth happens instantaneous as far as a photon is concerned.
Do I have this right or am I confused?

As we approach speed of light, time slows down next to stand-still (and space contracts by an infinite factor). However, I don’t think this can apply to speed = c because 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is undefined. Intuitively, how can we have time frozen and yet "travel" (i.e., how can we experience "change" without time)? Maybe, when time is frozen, we must be at anywhere and everywhere. That is, there is no longer a concept of "space" because there is no longer a concept of distance.

 

[rbj]

I'd argue though that the above is only true under the premise that c is max and constancy to anyone and everyone. It does not prove, nor explain, why c (or its special case, light speed in vacuum) is constancy. And the only proof we have is by experiment/example (and perhaps Maxwell's equation, which is up to interpretation and subject to the question of whether it is complete). If neither of the observers can claim that he’s solely being stationary, why must we assume both of them are right?

well, evidently you didn't get it. nothing that a little repetition cannot fix:

actually, it's the other way around; YOU need to justify why any two inertial observers would have different laws of physics applying to them. what would be the mechanism for why one inertial observer would have one set of physical laws applying to what he observes and the other inertial observer would have a different set of physical laws applying to what she observes. the postulate of SR is that we can tell no difference between the two different constant velocity frames of reference because there is nothing different about them just because they do not have the same constant velocity. from the POV of the first observer, he is stationary and it's the second observer who is moving. from the POV of the second observer, she is stationary and it's the first observer who is moving. what tangible reason would you prefer one over the other?

if there is no meaningful difference [between two different observers, neither whom are accelerated], if both observers have equal claim to being stationary (and it's the other guy who is moving), then the laws of physics (particularly Maxwell's Equations) have to be exactly the same for both of them, both in a qualitative sense, and in a quantitative sense. both observers have the same permittivity of free space (\epsilon_0) and permealbility of free space (\mu_0). (why should one get values lower or higher than the other?) so when they apply Maxwell's equations to this E&M wave (of this flashlight beam), they both will see that this changing E field is causing a changing B field which, in turn, is causing a changing E field which is causing a changing B field, etc. and for both observers, the laws of physics governing the interactions of electomagnetic fields (Maxwell's Eqs. and the parameters \epsilon_0 and \mu_0) are the same. (as well as all other physical law.) then it turns out, when either observer solves Maxwell's Equations for this case, they both get a propagating wave with wave speed of:

c = \sqrt{\frac{1}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}} [/itex]<br /> <br /> <b>but that&#039;s the same for both observers!</b> (even though they both are moving relative to the other.) there is no reason one should solve the Maxwell&#039;s equations and get a different <i>c</i> than the other (because they both have the same \epsilon_0 and \mu_0)! even if the two are looking at the very same beam of light.<br /> <br /> so, let&#039;s try again. did you read it? the onus is on <b>you</b>, not me nor Einstein (nor anyone else who accepts SR) to indicate to us <i>why</i> you would prefer one inertial frame of reference over the other. if you cannot justify such a preference, then the onus is you <b>you</b> to &quot;prove&quot; that the laws of physics is different in the two unaccelerated frames of reference. why should anyone think that they are?<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> You (and we all) say, well, otherwise Maxwell’s equation (and SR) would be broken. This to me, is a circular argument that does not address the deeper question. </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> no, not SR. where did you get that? the issue is if Maxwell&#039;s equation<b>s</b> (there are 4 of them) are in any way different for the two different inertial observers. are they? what thin little shred of evidence or reason would you think that they are? again, it&#039;s up to <b><i><u>YOU</u></i></b>, who suggests otherwise, to say why. not the other way around. this onus of reason or proof, of making a case, lies with you, not me (nor Einstein).<br /> <br /> this is the basis of SR: that we can find no reason to believe that one inertial observer is any more preferred than any other inertial observer. that is the postulate and it wouldn&#039;t be true if there really was an aether out there that sets the standard for what is truly stationary and what is truly moving. but we have no reason to believe that such an absolute frame of reference exists. there is nothing in our everyday experience, nor in scientific experiments to suggest otherwise. what is the logic in believing something to exist (outside of a trancendental faith, which is okay to have, but not okay to apply to science) when there is no reason nor evidence to believe that such exists? the onus is on <b>you</b> to prove the contrary, not on me.<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> On the other hand, if we can prove mathematically, without assuming Einstein&#039;s relativity principle (constancy of c and relativity) that c must exist and has to be constancy, we likely would be able to show that light speed in vacuum satisfies the proof (i.e., is a special case of c) and consequently derive SR. To me, locality principle seems to be capable of doing this. I believe that the locality principle assumes something more fundamental than constancy of c , and thus would give us deeper insight about relativity. </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> i think you need to look into the obvious insight before looking into the deep. <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> It is ‘the’ speed without mathematical proof, though SR shows us that if we take this for granted we can come to lots of useful and consistent conclusions. </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> no, it&#039;s the <b>only</b> consistent conclusions. if the postulate of SR was not true, we would be <b>forced</b> to come to inconsistent conclusions. how does one justify an understanding of reality with inconsistent conclusions when there exists another understanding that is consistent?<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> This would bring up another interesting question. Is vacuum really “nothing”? </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> there is &quot;space&quot;. but, unless you can find evidence that there is something else in there (and the M-M experiment tried to, with negative results), the onus is really on you to show that there is the slightest reason to believe that there actually <b>is</b> something else there. outside of religious faith (which i definitely do not denigrate) there is no reason to believe in something that has absolutely no measurable properties of existence.<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> Is there such a thing that is truly empty where *nothing* can travel on/by/within/through it? And what would be the equivalent of photon for magnetic field, gravitational field, or quantum fields where fundamental particles interact within? Is there any theoretical or experimental proof so far that “graviton” exists, has zero rest mass, travels at c to each one and everyone? </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> i don&#039;t think anyone is saying that gravitons exist as a matter of fact (as they would say that photons exist). like strings and branes, it&#039;s a hypothesis.<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="mdeng" data-source="post: 1561725" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> mdeng said: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> Einstein’s relativity theory does not preclude ether. </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> actually, it does preclude aether, if you define it as the medium of which light (E&amp;M) and/or the perturbations of other interaction propagate in.

 

[mdeng]

well, evidently you didn't get it. nothing that a little repetition cannot fix:

actually, it's the other way around; YOU need to justify why any two inertial observers would have different laws of physics applying to them.

I am not sure I follow you. Why is the burden on me to show/justify this when I am merely asking why light travels at a constant c (in vacuum) to anyone and everyone? You seem to be equating my question about constancy of light to about why one should prefer one inertia frame over another when observing light. Well, I don't think the two questions are the same, even though they may be related or even equivalent to some extent. The reason is that the assumption of constancy of light speed is the foundation of SR. Without it, I'm not even sure how one can argue about why's wrong to have preferential treatment of one inertial frame over another.

what would be the mechanism for why one inertial observer would have one set of physical laws applying to what he observes and the other inertial observer would have a different set of physical laws applying to what she observes.

SR itself does *not* prove there must exist constancy c. On the contrary, it assumes so and is built on top of it. And without this assumption, I am not sure how SR could claim what you stated above. Maxwell's equation may have predicted this (or simply happens to agree with it), but it's not explain why light must behave this way. IMO, constancy c must be the entailment of something beyond SR, not something proven by SR.

I don't have any answer as to what this "something" is, nor why or why not we'd prefer one inertia frame over the other, other than "that is what SR (together with its assumption) says". I am not saying SR is wrong, and in that sense I agree with you that we should not prefer so and so. But I'd like to ask what dictates light to behave this way? How could we arrive at the same conclusion as SR by starting with something more fundamental without first assuming constancy c or talking about light? I hope questions like these may one day lead to an answer.

this is the basis of SR: that we can find no reason to believe that one inertial observer is any more preferred than any other inertial observer. that is the postulate and it wouldn't be true if there really was an aether out there that sets the standard for what is truly stationary and what is truly moving. ... the onus is on you to prove the contrary, not on me.

While the SR postulate may very well be true (I believe is), we can't prove it merely by asking whether anybody is able to disprove it. Nevertheless, the intention of my original question is not whether SR is wrong, but what its ultimate foundation is which may replace its postulate with something more fundamental. I am just not satisfied with postulates, no matter how consistent it may seem to be. :)

there is "space". but, unless you can find evidence that there is something else in there (and the M-M experiment tried to, with negative results), the onus is really on you to show that there is the slightest reason to believe that there actually is something else there. outside of religious faith (which i definitely do not denigrate) there is no reason to believe in something that has absolutely no measurable properties of existence.

I don't have any clue or suggestion to offer. As I said, it's more a philosophical question at this stage, just like what the smallest particle is.

i don't think anyone is saying that gravitons exist as a matter of fact (as they would say that photons exist). like strings and branes, it's a hypothesis.

I'd believe that if GR is right, then graviton must exist and travels at c because GR says (assumes) gravitational wave has the property of constancy c.

 

[sas3]

As we approach speed of light, time slows down next to stand-still (and space contracts by an infinite factor). However, I don’t think this can apply to speed = c because 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is undefined. Intuitively, how can we have time frozen and yet "travel" (i.e., how can we experience "change" without time)? Maybe, when time is frozen, we must be at anywhere and everywhere. That is, there is no longer a concept of "space" because there is no longer a concept of distance.

I forgot about the “space contracts by an infinite factor” part.

Thanks

 

[mdeng]

I have never done what you say; I have only talked about rapidity and I showed that you could travel along all the universe in (almost) zero time of your clock. The fact rapidity has nothing to do with space and time should have been clear by the way I have defined it, so it's not very useful to say that it couldn't be called "speed" because "you're taking the distance traveled as measured in one reference frame, and dividing it by the time as measured in another reference frame": the idea is just to avoid defining it in terms of space and time.

With this idea, the fact light's speed cannot be reached is transformed in the idea that light's "speed" = rapidity is actually infinite, but s/t doesn't result as infinite but finite, because space and time are not mutually independent, excepting at v << c.

By the way: rapidity R = arctgh(v/c).

I think what you are saying is that although R is related to space and time (because by R's definition, it is related to v and thus to space and time by which the particular v is calculated), it avoids the dependencies between space and time. I read that rapidity has the property that relative rapidities are additive. But how is the "v" (and hence R, or vice versa) here decided anyway, as in your example? ‘v’ to which inertial frame, and by which frame's time?

 

[lightarrow]

I think what you are saying is that although R is related to space and time (because by R's definition, it is related to v and thus to space and time by which the particular v is calculated), it avoids the dependencies between space and time. I read that rapidity has the property that relative rapidities are additive.

Quite simple to show. If you want to add

v_1
and

v_2

the formula is

V = \frac{v_1+v_2}{1+v_1v_2/c^2}

as you know. I write it this way:

V/c = \frac{v_1/c+v_2/c}{1+v_1v_2/c^2}

By definition:

V/c = tangh\ R

v_1/c = tangh\ R_1

v_2/c = tangh\ R_2

so

tangh\ R\ =\ \frac{v_1/c+v_2/c}{1+v_1v_2/c^2}\ =\ \frac{tangh\ R_1+tangh\ R_2}{1+tangh\ R_1\ tangh\ R_2}\ =\ tangh(R_1+R_2)

which clearly means

R = R_1+R_2.

But how is the "v" (and hence R, or vice versa) here decided anyway, as in your example? ‘v’ to which inertial frame, and by which frame's time?

When you talk about the velocity of an object you are referring to a specific ref frame, exactly as in Newtonian mechanics; frame's time is not relevant here.

 

[rbj]

I am not sure I follow you.

i guess you don't.

Why is the burden on me to show/justify this when I am merely asking why light travels at a constant c (in vacuum) to anyone and everyone?

it's because of the fact that the laws of physics, both qualitatively and quantitatively are the same for observers that are both inertial that c is the same for both observers. otherwise, you have two observers that are in the same situation, an inertial frame of reference, and they both perform the same experiment and get measurably different results. if c = 1/\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0} was measurably different, then at least one observer either gets a different law of physics, at least quantitatively with a different c or \epsilon_0 or \mu_0. you have to tell us why in the world would two observers, in equivalent situations - that is inertial frames of reference, just not the same inertial frame of reference - two observers with equal claim to being the stationary observer, so there is no good reason for those Maxwell's equations to be inaccurate for either one of these observers.

unless you supply us with the good reason. if your "good" reason is that c is different for one observer over the other, that isn't good enough. that's the circular reasoning. it continues to beg the question for why should the laws of physics be different for one inertial observer than the other.

so, yes. the onus continues to be to come up with a reason for why the laws of physics are different for these two observers. if you cannot, the inescapable consequence is that the laws of physics are the same. if the laws of physics are the same, the parameters in those laws are the same. one of those parameters is c.

You seem to be equating my question about constancy of light to about why one should prefer one inertia frame over another when observing light. Well, I don't think the two questions are the same, even though they may be related or even equivalent to some extent.

they are to any extent unless you can tell us why one observer gets one set of laws and the other gets another set.

SR itself does *not* prove there must exist constancy c. On the contrary, it assumes so and is built on top of it. And without this assumption, I am not sure how SR could claim what you stated above.

i only said how, two or three times.

Maxwell's equation may have predicted this (or simply happens to agree with it),

in Maxwell's equations related to magnetism, Ampere's Law and the Biot-Savart Law.

\oint_C \mathbf{B} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{l} = \mu_0 \iint_S \mathbf{J} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{S} = \mu_0 \iint_S \rho \mathbf{v} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{S}

d\mathbf{B} = \frac{\mu_0}{4\pi} \frac{(\mathbf{J}\, dV) \times \mathbf{\hat r}}{r^2} = \frac{\mu_0}{4\pi} \frac{(\rho \mathbf{v}\, dV) \times \mathbf{\hat r}}{r^2}

\mathbf{F} = q \cdot(\mathbf{E} + \mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B})

so, with just Maxwell's equations, what value do you use for \mathbf{v} for either the moving charge that is the magnetic source or the moving charge that the \mathbf{B} field is acting on? if i am moving relative to you, do you use the values of velocity that you measure or the values that i measure? why should it be the values that you measure? why are your measures of velocity, that you plug into Maxwell's equations to compare the theoretical result to experiement, be the perferred values over the velocities that i measure in my frame of reference? you have to justify that, and if you can't, it necessarily follows that the parameters used in the expression of physlcal law be the same for you as they are for me.

but it's not explain why light must behave this way. IMO, constancy c must be the entailment of something beyond SR, not something proven by SR.

I don't have any answer as to what this "something" is, nor why or why not we'd prefer one inertia frame over the other,

then, for you to be logically consistent, if you have no reason why one inertial frame is preferred over the other, you have no reason to expect that the theoretical nor measured speed of propagation is experienced differently for the two intertial frames of reference.

other than "that is what SR (together with its assumption) says".

it's an ancillary assumption or a corrollary of the main postulate that all inertial frames of reference have equal claim to being "stationary". if either can say that they are stationary when they do experiments, they should get, as it appears to themselves, the same results within an experimental error (assuming they are equally "good" experiments - that their level of experimental error are equally low).

I am not saying SR is wrong, and in that sense I agree with you that we should not prefer so and so. But I'd like to ask what dictates light to behave this way?

and i said precisely why, given the main postulate of relativity: that it is all relative, not absolute (at least as far as how we experience velocity - acceleration is a quantity that we have an absolute measure of, at least until GR). but i don't think that GR says a word about gravitons, does it? i thought that was an extension of the ideas of quantum mechanics to gravity, in a similar sense of how photons are related to the electromagnetic action.

 

[mdeng]

Quite simple to show. If you want to add

v_1
and

v_2

the formula is

V = \frac{v_1+v_2}{1+v_1v_2/c^2}

as you know. I write it this way:

V/c = \frac{v_1/c+v_2/c}{1+v_1v_2/c^2}

By definition:

V/c = tangh\ R

v_1/c = tangh\ R_1

v_2/c = tangh\ R_2

so

tangh\ R\ =\ \frac{v_1/c+v_2/c}{1+v_1v_2/c^2}\ =\ \frac{tangh\ R_1+tangh\ R_2}{1+tangh\ R_1\ tangh\ R_2}\ =\ tangh(R_1+R_2)

which clearly means

R = R_1+R_2.



When you talk about the velocity of an object you are referring to a specific ref frame, exactly as in Newtonian mechanics; frame's time is not relevant here.

Thanks for the math. Regarding the deductions, does the final result hold for v1 = -v2? It would make the denominator equal 0.

For your last statement, I think it meant to say that the time reference is within the same frame as the speed, except that the unit of the time (and for that matter, distance/space) does not matter (i.e., is irrelevant) .

 

[mdeng]

it's because of the fact that the laws of physics, both qualitatively and quantitatively are the same for observers that are both inertial that c is the same for both observers. otherwise, you have two observers that are in the same situation, an inertial frame of reference, and they both perform the same experiment and get measurably different results.

Is this what is assumed by SR? The *why* about the 'c' part above is my question. I am aware of the "otherwise" part but I don't take that as an explanation or proof of why light has the constancy property. It's a postulate, not a proof, nor an explanation based on more fundamental physics laws.

... there is no good reason for those Maxwell's equations to be inaccurate for either one of these observers.

... unless you supply us with the good reason...

so, yes. the onus continues to be to come up with a reason for why the laws of physics are different for these two observers.

... if you cannot, the inescapable consequence is that the laws of physics are the same. if the laws of physics are the same, the parameters in those laws are the same. one of those parameters is c.

I am pretty sure that you have something to show me which I currently l don't grasp although I'd like to. However, we can't prove a theory, or a manifestation of some truth by observing that there is so far no good reason to think differently. It's plain truth that Einstein had to postulate the constancy of light speed to derive SR. If there is a proof of this postulate, and even more importantly an explanation, in terms of some more fundamental physics phenomenon, we then should be able to remove the postulate from SR and replace it with more basic principles. I don't find that your explanation satisfies this criteria which is what my question is about.

 

[Dale]

However, we can't prove a theory, or a manifestation of some truth by observing that there is so far no good reason to think differently.

Uhh, that's the whole basis of the scientific method.

Take a theory, use it to make a prediction (aka hypothesis) about some experiment, do the experiment, check the results against the hypothesis. If there is agreement then the theory is verified (so far no good reason to think differently), if there is not then the theory is falsified (a good reason to think differently).

Science fundamentally isn't about "manifestations of truth" it is about getting good models of how things work. If you want "truth" and "proof" then you want math or religion, not science. And even in math you need to start with some unproven axioms, and in religion you need unproven tenents, so why should science be denied unproven postulates? Seems rather arbitrary.

 

[mdeng]

Uhh, that's the whole basis of the scientific method.

Take a theory, use it to make a prediction (aka hypothesis) about some experiment, do the experiment, check the results against the hypothesis. If there is agreement then the theory is verified (so far no good reason to think differently), if there is not then the theory is falsified (a good reason to think differently).

Science fundamentally isn't about "manifestations of truth" it is about getting good models of how things work. If you want "truth" and "proof" then you want math or religion, not science. And even in math you need to start with some unproven axioms, and in religion you need unproven tenents, so why should science be denied unproven postulates? Seems rather arbitrary.

Well, it's not a proof, is it? "Proof by example" is not a proof and has often led to fallacies (or in the physics world inability to explain new phenomenons), while it certainly serves to support and strengthen the position of a theory (in the framework where the experiment is carried out).

I agree though that it is not necessarily the goal of physics to seek "manifestations of truth". However, physics does seek to reveal, or to explain, what's behind each and every physics phenomenon. And to this regard, it's an endless search. I'd regard the constancy of light speed as one such phenomenon that we, especially physics, like to find an answer to. This is completely different from saying we must deny an unproven postulate, which is not what I said or implied anyway. One of the best characteristics I like about science is that it is strong enough to allow questions on anything and everything, which ultimately gave science its strength and leads to new discoveries.

 

[mdeng]

Ming,

I repeat ( it's been said enough times in earlier posts) - without the postulate that all local observers measure the same speed of light the laws of physics ( Maxwell and Newton) do not work !

Right. I knew my result must be wrong but did not understand why. Some postings have made me aware that I missed the velocity addition formula in relativity.

 

[Mentz114]

Ming,
I saw that my post was unnecessary which is why I deleted it. I'm glad you're up-to-speed ( so to speak).

M

 

[phyti]

To mdeng:
Is your original question, "why is the measured speed of light the same for all observers?"

 

[mdeng]

To mdeng:
Is your original question, "why is the measured speed of light the same for all observers?"

Yes. I'd like to see what insights the current physics offers on this question.

EDIT: is the locality principle a candidate to explain c? It seems to have the potential.

 

[Dale]

Well, it's not a proof, is it?

Of course not. In science theories are never "proven". They are "verified" or "falsified".

You are asking a fundamentally unscientific question.

 

[mdeng]

Of course not. In science theories are never "proven". They are "verified" or "falsified".

You are asking a fundamentally unscientific question.

I hope/think you are not referring to the question of mine about why light has a constant speed c to anyone and everyone. Surely, an answer will come someday even though it will no doubt invoke some new postulates but they nevertheless would be more fundamental.

 

[mdeng]

Of course not. In science theories are never "proven". They are "verified" or "falsified".

You are asking a fundamentally unscientific question.

i only said how, two or three times.

Found something that more or less reflect your line of thoughts, which I don't really dispute at all, but would still like keep/pose my question. Or maybe I should rephrase my question from 'why' to 'how': how does light travel at constant c to anyone and everyone? :)

(from http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/24291)

This led to the final - scientific - stage, which saw the maturation of the human intellect. Physics and astronomy, Comte thought, reached this stage in the 17th century. Human beings ceased to ask why phenomena happened and instead sought to answer how they happened by finding the appropriate laws. The number of such laws tends to decrease as science progresses. Gravitation, for example, was found to unify what had seemed to be myriads of forces into one.

 

[rbj]

To mdeng:
Is your original question, "why is the measured speed of light the same for all observers?"

Yes. I'd like to see what insights the current physics offers on this question.

You are asking a fundamentally unscientific question.

i don't think that it's an unscientific question, but i fail to see how mdeng can accept the broader postulate of relativity, that "any law of nature should be the same at all times; and scientific investigations generally assume that laws of nature are the same regardless of the person measuring them", yet insist that a quantitative parameter of some of those laws can vary and, for some reason, needs yet another postulate to tie it down to a fixed value (at least between inertial observers). i don't get it, and i doubt that mdeng will convince me that I'm the one that's missing something in the logic here. the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers because, as a postulate, the laws of physics are the same. that is more than sufficient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity

the speed of light (or of gravity or whatever the interaction) being invariant between these different inertial observers is actually a corollary of the main postulate. so to ask "why is c the same" when one accepts the postulate that the laws of physics are the same is a logical disconnect.
it's a little similar to an unrelated topic that i had recently with someone else about Linear System Theory in Electrical Engineering or in Linear Algebra in mathematics.

it turns out the most basic postulate of a Linear System:

(1) \mathbf{L} \left\{ x_1(t) + x_2(t) \right\} = \mathbf{L} \left\{ x_1(t) \right\} + \mathbf{L} \left\{ x_2(t) \right\}

which is synonymous with "superposition applies" is sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the following as a corollary:

(2) \mathbf{L} \left\{ k x(t) \right\} = k \mathbf{L} \left\{ x(t) \right\}

for any constant k. at least any rational constant k.

and this can be extended to:

(3) \mathbf{L} \left\{ \sum_m k_m x_m(t) \right\} = \sum_m k_m \mathbf{L} \left\{ x_m(t) \right\}

if we set aside the issue of irrational k, simply because in a physical system with any decent continuity in it (it behaves virtually the same for k=3.1415926535897932384 as it does for k=3.1415926535897932385 and k=\pi is somewhere in between), the Eq. (2) is a direct result of Eq. (1) and, as a postulate, Eq. (1) is enough to say we have a linear system. we do not need both Eqs. (1) and (2), yet some (nearly all) textbooks in Linear System Theory list both (1) and (2) as postulates for when you are dealing with a Linear System. but Eq. (1) is good enough. if Eq. (1) is true, so is Eq. (2) (at least for all rational constants), and then so is (3).
Likewise, if one can accept the postulate that any law of nature is the same for observers in equivalent circumstances regardless of which observer is perceiving or measuring reality subject to such laws, then it follows that the parameter c, which exists in some laws, namely a simple rewritten form of Maxwell's Equations, is the same for each observer.

\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = c Z_0 \rho

\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B} = 0

\nabla \times \mathbf{E} = -\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}} {\partial t}

\nabla \times \mathbf{B} = Z_0 \rho \mathbf{v} + \frac{1}{c} \frac{\partial \mathbf{E}} {\partial t}

note here that the B field is scaled, similarly to how cgs does it, so that it is dimensionally the same animal as the E field and that, rather than express it with \epsilon_0 \mu_0, we are expressing the equations in terms of two dependent parameters

Z_0 \equiv \sqrt{\frac{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}}
and
c \equiv \sqrt{\frac{1}{\mu_0 \epsilon_0}}

forget, for the moment, about the meaning of the parameters c and Z₀ (it turns out later, that as we solve Maxwell's Equations in the context of free space, that the wavespeed comes out to be c and the characteristic impedance of propagation is Z₀). if mdeng accepts that the laws of physics are axiomatically the same between the two inertial observers, then if mdeng accepts that the c above is the speed of propagation of an EM disturbance (this is what you get when you solve the above wave equations in free space), then there is no logical reason that mdeng can deny that the postulate of identical laws for both observers does not imply an identical c. he/she can deny that one follows the other, but it is not logical.

 

[YellowTaxi]

Well what effect would there be if c stretched out and became 6x10^8 m/s
ie a value equal to 2c

Would all laws adapt, or would there be something that 'got left behind' as c increased ?

 

[rbj]

Well what effect would there be if c stretched out and became 6x10^8 m/s
ie a value equal to 2c

Would all laws adapt, or would there be something that 'got left behind' as c increased ?

what's important are the dimensionless constants. if a dimensionless 'constant' changes, we would know the difference. if a dimensionful parameter is believed to change, we don't measure that parameter all by itself. just as one counts tick marks on a ruler when measuring length, or tick marks on a weighing scale when measuring mass, or ticks of a clock when measuring time, all physical experiments really have dimensionless results. assuming we revert the definition of the meter to its pre-1960 definition (when it was the length between two scratch marks on a platinum-iridium bar in France), when we measure the speed of light, we are measuring it against some like-dimensioned standard and it would be that ratio that has fundamentally changed. perhaps it's some other parameter in that ratio that has changed. if no dimensionless fundamental constant has changed, we could not know the difference if some dimensionful constant has changed. (from whos perspective? some god who is unaffected by the change of c?) take a look at the Planck Units article in Wikipedia and/or my way-too-long treatise earlier in this thread or the little argument we had at the cosmology forum (regarding a variable \hbar cosmology). if you measure everything in Planck Units (or some other systems of natural units), then there is no c to vary, the speed of light in vacuo is always 1 Planck Length per Planck Time. if the dimensionless ratios of the number of Planck Lengths per meter or the number of Planck Times per second changed, then something would be noticably different, and while we might be tempted to blame it on a changing c, the salient fact is that this dimensionless ratio changed. whatever the dimensionless ratio that we measured that led us to initially think that c has changed. but we have to worry about the standard that c was measured against, we can't just say that it was c that had changed.