Why is the speed of light the same to any observer?

[Sheyr]

And the 2nd question:
Do we know why is the speed of light 3*10^8 m/s? What determines this value? (I'm not asking about system of units)

S.

 

[peter0302]

Anything that has momentum without mass is seen to travel at 'c' by any observer. This was a postulate of special relativity, and has many times been experimentally verified. If you want any more of an answer than that, you'll have to ask a philosopher. :)

Same goes for your second question. Some have theorized that the speed of light might have changed over the life of the universe, but there's been no evidence of this.

 

[pmb_phy]

And the 2nd question:
Do we know why is the speed of light 3*10^8 m/s? What determines this value? (I'm not asking about system of units)

S.

The value of c can be derived by postulating Maxwell's equations. The derivation shows that c = 1/sqrt(eu) where e = permitivity of free space and u = permiability of free space.

Anything that has momentum without mass is seen to travel at 'c' by any observer. This was a postulate of special relativity, and has many times been experimentally verified.

That is a theorem (something derived) and not a postulate.

Pete

 

[peter0302]

The constancy of the speed of light was one of Einstein's original postulates. The fact that v=c when m=0 can be derived from E=pc does not make it a theorem because it already assumes that which it is trying to prove.

 

[pmb_phy]

The constancy of the speed of light was one of Einstein's original postulates. The fact that v=c when m=0 can be derived from E=pc does not make it a theorem because it already assumes that which it is trying to prove.

My interpretation of the OP's original question is that he was asking about why c is invariant and also how the value of c is obtained. c is obtained using Maxwell's equations. The invariance of c is a postulate and as such is not derived. However we can postulate the Principle of Relativity and Maxwell's equations and then derive the invariance of c. So it really depends on what you're starting with.

The fact that v=c when m=0 can be derived from E=pc does not make it a theorem because it already assumes that which it is trying to prove.

Please provide the derivation of which you speak.

A theorem is, by definition, that which is derived from other theorems, from postulates/laws/axioms or from both. As far as E = pc then this too is something derived and not postulated. This relation can be derived from Maxwell's equatons. As such it too is a theorem. If you hold that v = 0 given m = 0 and E = pc then please proof a proof since I'm a bit uncertain as to what you're assuming as given (i.e. what are you assuming is true in that derivation?). How exactly are you defining mass m anyway?

Definiton of theorem - a formula, proposition, or statement in mathematics or logic deduced or to be deduced from other formulas or propositions.

If you disagree then please define the term "theorem" as you understand it and, if possible, please provide a source where you learned such a definition. Thank you.

Pete

 

[meaw]

here is my 2 cents :
1. constancy of speed of light wrt all observer is a postulate of relativity.
2. Maxwells eq gives a theoritical proof of what the value should be, but doesn't imply that it is contant for all frames.
3. even if the value of C is changing, it is same for everybody/frame at a given pint in time.

4. to understand why it is same for all frames, if you have to deal with higher dimension. Light is actually traveling perpendicular to 4D, it is traveling in 5th dimension, but trapped by the 4D universe so that it just grazes the surface of 4D. Anything traveling in 5th dimension will not be seen as traveling with varying speed to any observer in 4D. Don't compare with X/Y axis here. XY axis is straight, where as 5th dimension is curved. Efeectively what is happening is this
you tarvell at a speed in Y axis.
observer is in X axis, now assume Y axis is curved although always pernedicualr to X. the component of its velocity projected on X axis will remain identical irrerespective of the movement along X axis. in eucledian X-Y axis this component is zero. in our higher dimension, where things to bend, the component is = C.

Any object without mass, can't exist in a gravitational field, it must escape the field = escape the universe but since the higher dimensions are al curved, they graze the surface of 4D universe.

Read kaluza-Kein theory of 5 dimension you will get the hint. If you want to know further you have to get into string theory or some such ideas.

In fact the equations of SR can be derived from this - light is traveling perpednicular to 4D. I can't draw images here. poor at editing.

 

[pmb_phy]

Any object without mass, can't exist in a gravitational field, it must escape the field = escape the universe but since the higher dimensions are al curved, they graze the surface of 4D universe.

I don't see where you get that idea from. Photons certainly exist in gravitational fields. In fact if they didn't then I'd be unalbe to read your posts. As far as remaining in a gravitational field its a well accepted notion that a photon can orbit a massive spherically symmetric body. However ther orbit is unstable.

Read kaluza-Kein theory of 5 dimension you will get the hint. If you want to know further you have to get into string theory or some such ideas.

Nah. Unless you learn it at a layman's level then learing string theory requires an education in quantum field theory. And its a a minority of physicists know QFT. A great deal of people who post here, such as myself, have never learned string theory at a detailed level. Namely because QFT is very hard to learn. Its said to be extremely hard, if not impossible, to learn through self teaching.

In fact the equations of SR can be derived from this - light is traveling perpednicular to 4D. I can't draw images here. poor at editing.

I'd have to see such a derivation before I'd believe it. Its meangless in SR to speak of light traveling perpendicular to 4d spacetime because relativity only uses 4 dimensions and having something perpendicular to spacetime requires another dimension. One then has to specify the meaning of that dimension before one can discuss it too.

Pete

 

[Nickelodeon]

Why is the speed of light the same to any observer

And the 2nd question:
Do we know why is the speed of light 3*10^8 m/s? What determines this value? (I'm not asking about system of units)

S.

I quess your first question has 'independent of the relative speed and direction of the observer' added on the end.
I think that it is to do with light behaving like a wave. The frequency and/or the wavelength changes (red shift/blue shift) but the relationship between these two components stays the same, hence c stays the same.

As for the second question, I would imagine that the answer would be similar to why sound has a specific speed through water or any other medium. The only difference is that we are dealing with the natural frequency of something which has resonant inertia but is not matter.

Nick

 

[HallsofIvy]

I am a bit uncomforable talking about "postulates" for physics as opposed to mathematics. In mathematics we can "make up" whatever systems we want with whatever postulates we want- in physics we are constrained by reality!

Yes, the constancy of the speed of light is a "postulate" of relativity- and it was chosen as one because that was what experimental evidence showed.

As for why the speed of light is a constant, in Newton's immortal phrase "Hypothesen non fengo"- "I frame no hypotheses".

 

[pmb_phy]

I am a bit uncomforable talking about "postulates" for physics as opposed to mathematics. In mathematics we can "make up" whatever systems we want with whatever postulates we want- in physics we are constrained by reality!

I don't follow. Why do you say that we can postulate whatever we want to in mathematics? This is certainly news to me. In math the basic postulates are things like Peno's postulates, the distributive laws, the associative laws etc. But we don't make up postulates. This follows from the definition of postulate (as used in this context)

postulate: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or start from the postulate of to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)

Pete

 

[1effect]

And the 2nd question:
Do we know why is the speed of light 3*10^8 m/s? What determines this value? (I'm not asking about system of units)

S.

This is a very good question. Turns out that light speed is set by defintion.

The value it is set to (299,792,458m/s) was obtained averaging the results of the most recent and most precise experiments.

Now, as to your thread title: "Why is the speed of light the same to any observer?"

The answer has been given by others already: it is a postulate derived from multiple experimental observations. Postulates are not explainable.

 

[ordered_chaos]

I don't follow. Why do you say that we can postulate whatever we want to in mathematics? This is certainly news to me. In math the basic postulates are things like Peno's postulates, the distributive laws, the associative laws etc. But we don't make up postulates. This follows from the definition of postulate (as used in this context)

postulate: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or start from the postulate of to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)

Pete

Those are not the basic posulates of math. Math has no basic postulates. Those postulates, or axioms are a set of axioms for the natural numbers. That's all they cover. There are many problems domains that go beyond natural numbers such as quantum mechanics and string theory, where the concept of addition or commutativity are not applicable.

So using math you can develop axioms for all sorts of things, it doesn't matter, and maybe some applied mathematicians such as physicists will use them and the derived theorems to help solve their problems. But math itself certainly shouldn't concern it's self with our own experiences as HallsofIvy correctly stated.

So in math make up whatever axiom you want and perhaps the theorems derived will cover some part of reality we have yet to know. Betrand Russel has a famous quote:

"Thus mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never
know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is
true." -- Bertrand Russell

 

[rbj]

Do we know why is the speed of light 3*10^8 m/s? What determines this value? (I'm not asking about system of units)

it appears that you are asking about units.

the only fundamental physical fact imposed upon us by reality is that c is finite. it doesn't matter what the finite value is, and we may as well call it 1. the question as to why it comes out to be 299792458 m/s, is a question about units; why is the meter as long as it is (in terms of the Planck length) and why the second is as long as it is (in terms of the Planck time)?

 

[rbj]

here is my 2 cents :
1. constancy of speed of light wrt all observer is a postulate of relativity.

a consequence of an even more fundamental postulate that the laws of nature are the same for all inertial observers.

2. Maxwells eq gives a theoritical proof of what the value should be, but doesn't imply that it is contant for all frames.

c = \sqrt{\frac{1}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}

3. even if the value of C is changing, it is same for everybody/frame at a given pint in time.

if c were changing (or any other dimesionful "constant"), no mortal would know the difference if all of the dimensionless constants remained constant.

This is a very good question. Turns out that light speed is set by defintion.

of course, one would ask, if we defined the speed of light to be however fast my Toyota goes flat out on the highway, would that make it so? it's actually the meter that got defined in such a way that given the existing definition of the second, and the speed of light (how we experience and measure it), the meter is whatever length it has to be so that light travels 299792458 of them in the time elapsed by a second.

The value it is set to (299,792,458m/s) was obtained averaging the results of the most recent and most precise experiments.

and that was when the meter was defined as the distance between two little scratch marks on a bar of platinum-iridium (the "prototype meter" ) in the BIPM in France.

Now, as to your thread title: "Why is the speed of light the same to any observer?"

The answer has been given by others already: it is a postulate derived from multiple experimental observations. Postulates are not explainable.

this postulate is a little bit explainable. it really is dependent on the more fundamental postulate that the llaws of nature are the same, both qualitatively and quantitatively, for every inertial observer, even those that are moving (at constant speeds) relative to each other. it is a consequence of the very reasonable postulate that all observers that are not accelerated have equal claim to being stationary. if two inertial observers, moving relative to each other, have equal claim to being stationary (and "it's the other guy who is moving, not me") then the laws of physics, including the quantitative expression of them (two such quantities are \epsilon_0 and \mu_0 which determine c), must be identical to both observers.

i tried to beat this horse to death in this thread.

 

[1effect]

of course, one would ask, if we defined the speed of light to be however fast my Toyota goes flat out on the highway,

:-)

and that was when the meter was defined as the distance between two little scratch marks on a bar of platinum-iridium (the "prototype meter" ) in the BIPM in France.

Yes, back in 1983.

this postulate is a little bit explainable. it really is dependent on the more fundamental postulate that the llaws of nature are the same, both qualitatively and quantitatively, for every inertial observer, even those that are moving (at constant speeds) relative to each other. it is a consequence of the very reasonable postulate that all observers that are not accelerated have equal claim to being stationary. if two inertial observers, moving relative to each other, have equal claim to being stationary (and "it's the other guy who is moving, not me") then the laws of physics, including the quantitative expression of them (two such quantities are \epsilon_0 and \mu_0 which determine c), must be identical to both observers.

This is an interesting one, I have seen occasional claims of :
-dependency of the second postulate on the first one
(re)constructing SR based only one the first postulate

but I could never find the respective papers/books. Do you know if the above claims are provable?

i tried to beat this horse to death in this thread.

OK, I am now going to look your horse in the mouth :-)

 

[Nickelodeon]

two inertial observers, moving relative to each other, have equal claim to being stationary

If these inertial observers don't have equal claim to being stationary does Maxwell's formula become untenable?
The reason I question it is that there is speculation about reference frames and the distortion of these near areas of high gravity. The existence of a reference frame at all may suggest that there is a theoretical 'at rest'

Nick

 

[rbj]

If these inertial observers don't have equal claim to being stationary does Maxwell's formula become untenable?

no, i don't think so. but if these inertial observers have unequal degrees of absolute velocity, and their absolute velocity is determined relative to some absolutely stationary frame of reference (that really doesn't exist, but we would call it "aether" if it did), then the velocities expressed in Maxwell's equations (the J vector would be charge density times a velocity vector v) and in the Lorentz force equation, those velocities would be in terms of or relative to the aether. doesn't make it untenable, just not correct.

 

[rbj]

and that was when the meter was defined as the distance between two little scratch marks on a bar of platinum-iridium (the "prototype meter" ) in the BIPM in France.

Yes, back in 1983.

actually, earlier than that. 1959, more like.

This is an interesting one, I have seen occasional claims of :
-dependency of the second postulate on the first one
(re)constructing SR based only one the first postulate

but I could never find the respective papers/books. Do you know if the above claims are provable?

depends on what you mean by "the laws of physics". if parameters that appear in the laws of physics are, themselves, part of the laws of physics, then it is an obvious logical construction to conclude that the parameters of the laws of physics (namely \epsilon_0, \mu_0, and c) remain invariant if the laws of physics are invariant.

some people might mean that the structure of the laws of physics remaining constant do not mean that the parameters inside them must remain constant, but that is not what i mean when i say "the laws of physics remain constant" for various inertial observers. is that what Einstein meant? i think so, but someone else might disagree. but it doesn't matter because Einstein closed the door on this but explicitly stating that the laws of physics and, at least the parameter we call c, both remain invariant for all inertial observers.

one reason i think that it is semantically silly (and logically silly) to say that the parameters inside the laws of physics aren't part and parcel to the laws of physics and do not share the same degree of invariancy as the laws of physics is that, for any particular law, let's say Newton's 2^nd law, one can insert a parameter (that would be unit dependent, just like c is) initially set it to 1 (so it changed nothing, by inserting it) and hypothesize that it might vary:

F = k \frac{dp}{dt}

if k varies, does that mean that Newton's 2^nd law remained constant or not?

it is no different of an issue regarding the appearance of c in the laws of physics. if the laws of physics remain invariant for different inertial observers, then i cannot see how that semantic does not mean that c, G, h, do not also. either the law, the entire law is unchanged, or it has changed.

 

[phyti]

speed of light same for all observers

The answer is in 'velocity measurement' http://wizdum.awardspace.info"

 

[DaveC426913]

it appears that you are asking about units.

the only fundamental physical fact imposed upon us by reality is that c is finite. it doesn't matter what the finite value is, and we may as well call it 1.

No, I think he really is asking why the speed of light is the speed that it is, independent of whatever unit you measure it in.

Yes, you can measure the speed of light in light-seconds per second, in which case its speed is 1ls/s, or in furlongs per heartbeat. But I do think he's asking why that speed.


I would speculate wildly that the speed was soon after the creation of the universe and is somehow related to the vacuum energy or the mass of the Higgs Boson. Or the amount of plasma vented from the warp nacelles.

 

[rbj]

No, I think he really is asking why the speed of light is the speed that it is, independent of whatever unit you measure it in.

Yes, you can measure the speed of light in light-seconds per second, in which case its speed is 1ls/s, or in furlongs per heartbeat. But I do think he's asking why that speed.

but Dave, respectfully, then either he is asking what ultimately is a meaningless question (why is lightspeed 1 light-second per second?) or he is asking about units (why is lightspeed X furlongs per heartbeat?). the latter really is about why a furlong has the length it has (in terms of the Planck length or some other natural unit) and why a heartbeat transpires the number of Planck times (or other appropriate natural unit) that it does. asking why dimensionful constants are what they are is meaningless. asking why dimensionless parameters take on the values that they do is meaningful. we don't measure or even perceive any dimensionful quantity except in relation to another like dimensioned standard. the raw results (and net results) of all of our physical experiments, of reading instruments, or of kust our everyday experience are dimensionless numbers.

I would speculate wildly that the speed was soon after the creation of the universe and is somehow related to the vacuum energy or the mass of the Higgs Boson. Or the amount of plasma vented from the warp nacelles.

i'm with Michael Duff, John Barrow, Gabriele Veniziano, and John Baez about this. the speed of propagation of the fundamental interactions of nature is finite, real, and positive (it is necessary physics to come to that conlusion) but the actual value of that finite value is not operationally meaningful. it just defines the scaling, the tick marks, that the rest of reality conforms to. if the speed of light somehow suddenly doubled (from the POV of some God or "Q" or some omnipotent being who does not submit to the laws of nature), we mortals wouldn't know the difference. not unless some dimensionless parameter (like the fine-structure constant) changed, and then the meaningful thing that changed was that dimensionless parameter.

 

[DaveC426913]

but Dave, respectfully, then either he is asking what ultimately is a meaningless question (why is lightspeed 1 light-second per second

Why is this a meaningless question?

 

[NateTG]

And the 2nd question:
Do we know why is the speed of light 3*10^8 m/s? What determines this value? (I'm not asking about system of units)

It is generally agreed (and experimentally verified) that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference. The prediction that the speed of light is constant comes out of Maxwell's equations as others have mentioned. This struck people as odd, and a huge number of experiments were run allmost all of which support that the speed of light is constant. The most famous of which is the Michelson-Morely experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

 

[dst]

It is quite a valid question to ask why light moves at 3x10^8 m/s and not say, 4 m/s or 4x10^100m/s (using the same "metre" as a multiple of however many Planck lengths each and every time). Of course, I don't know if I've dug my own grave by using Planck lengths as a measure of length, are they dependant on the speed of light? If so then surely all that matters, as I keep hearing, is that C is not infinite or zero.

Any ideas?

 

[matheinste]

Hello all.

Any value attached to c is purely due to our choice of units and by a certain choice of units it could be 1 or 99 or whatever. But if we ignore units, to ask why it is whatever it is is a valid question.

As far as i have been taught Maxwell's equations require it to be a ratio of certain physical properties of space.

Matheinste.

 

[Sheyr]

As far as i have been taught Maxwell's equations require it to be a ratio of certain physical properties of space.

Re value of c. Many of you point out Maxwell, and that means we talk about permittivity and permeability of the space. If this space has certain properties can we call it empty space or vacuum? If the empty space is really empty should it have any properties at all?

 

[rbj]

Why is this a meaningless question?

because it is asking why a definition is what it is.

so what is it that i am missing?

 

[rbj]

It is quite a valid question to ask why light moves at 3x10^8 m/s and not say, 4 m/s or 4x10^100m/s (using the same "metre" as a multiple of however many Planck lengths each and every time).

but then the second has to change, in terms of the number of Planck times. you can't keep both dimensionless ratios constant and expect to notice a change in c.

Of course, I don't know if I've dug my own grave by using Planck lengths as a measure of length, are they dependant on the speed of light?

if you measure things in terms of meters (the pre-1960 meter) and seconds, yes. then the Planck Length (in terms of these meters that are the distance between two scratch marks on a platinum-iridium bar) is dependent on the speed of light.

If so then surely all that matters, as I keep hearing, is that C is not infinite or zero.

that is, essentially, what i believe. whatever finite value that c takes on gets to define, along with G and \hbar, the scaling of Nature. everything else, every size or distance, every time interval, every amount of mass is in terms of these Planck units (or similar, with some scaling of 4 \pi in there).

 

[DaveC426913]

because it is asking why a definition is what it is.

so what is it that i am missing?

OK.

Sound travels at about 770mph (or 1230kph, Mach 1 or whatever other units one wants to use)in air at sea level at 70F because ... that is the speed at which molecules of air can transmit compression and rarefaction. If we examined two average molecules close up, we would see that they bump into each other at about that speed because of their mass, their distance (density) and their existing kinetic energy (temp). Changing any of those will change the speed of transmisson. etc. etc.

This is why sound does NOT travel at 1540mph (or 2460kph, or Mach2), and why it doesn't travel at 385mph (or 615kph or Mach .5).



So why does light travel at the speed it does? What properties of the universe determine this? I think that's the question at hand.

 

[rbj]

Re value of c. Many of you point out Maxwell, and that means we talk about permittivity and permeability of the space. If this space has certain properties can we call it empty space or vacuum?

i think, if you measure everything in terms of Planck units, that any property of empty space, that is quantitatively measured, can be normalized to 1. this is with the thinking that the fine-stucture constant (or some other dimensionless ratio of universal physical parameters), is a associated with the elementary charge (or some other property of a particle), which is not a property of freespace but a property of a particle.

If the empty space is really empty should it have any properties at all?

dunno. that's a philosophical question beyond my pay grade.

 

[rbj]

Sound travels at about 770mph (or 1230kph, Mach 1 or whatever other units one wants to use)in air at sea level at 70F because ... that is the speed at which molecules of air can transmit compression and rarefaction. If we examined two average molecules close up, we would see that they bump into each other at about that speed because of their mass, their distance (density) and their existing kinetic energy (temp). Changing any of those will change the speed of transmisson. etc. etc.

but there are properties of particles in there to consider. sound does not propagate without a medium. the speed of propagation is understood as a property of the medium of propagation (in an ideal gas, a function of pressure, density, and that \gamma exponent).

This is why sound does NOT travel at 1540mph (or 2460kph, or Mach2), and why it doesn't travel at 385mph (or 615kph or Mach .5).

yes it is. it is the sole property of the medium; numbers regarding the mass of molecules, mean square distance between 'em, and the number of other degrees of freedom (that determines the \gamma in P V^\gamma = constant).

So why does light travel at the speed it does? What properties of the universe determine this? I think that's the question at hand.

if you measure things in terms of Planck units, there remains no "why?". there is no property of free space, that is not a consequence of the units used to measure it, that determines the speed of propagation of EM (or whatever other fundamental interaction). still no question at hand.

a reasonable question, IMO, is why would the speeds of propagation of different interactions would be the same, and maybe it isn't (and someday they measure a difference in the speed of gravitation vs. EM). so far, we believe them to be the same, and were measured to be the same to within 20%. but there's an operational difference between the two speeds being the same, or one speed exceeds the other. there is no operational difference if only some dimensionful constant changes. we can't know the difference, if all of the dimensionless constants remained constant.

 

[Phrak]

And the 2nd question:
Do we know why is the speed of light 3*10^8 m/s? What determines this value? (I'm not asking about system of units)
S.

dst-

I've wondered the same thing. Why is the speed of light 3*10^8 m/s instead of something else, say? This is not a entirely a philosophical question, I believe.

Better yet, and to the point, if the speed of light were different, would there be any measurable change? For instance, in a Euclidian space, if everything in one direction where stretched twice as long, it would not be noticed. In fact it doesn't even have meaning without something that is not 'stretched' to compare it to.

To examine this sort of thing there's a very powerful tool known as global gauge invariance. This is really just a fancy way to say that when something changes everywhere, something else doesn't. In the case of the toy Euclidian space above, it means that as one direction is stretched, all the laws of physics remain the same so that nothing appears different.

It may still be that it's a meaningless question, but formally we could ask "Is the speed of light globally gauge invariant?" This is the same as asking what would happen if one second where scaled up or down in the entire universe without the meter being scaled with it.

Perhaps someone more clever than I can sort this out. Does it require defining an absolute time or distance scale with which to generate a gauge?

 

[Nickelodeon]

Presumably, the speed of light does vary. If you are happy with the idea of space curvature near mass then I guess light bending round this mass could signify a change in velocity.
If you measured the speed of light at sea level then measured the same distance (that's the difficult bit) at say 10000 miles away (higher) then the speed would be different due to the weaker gravitational field.

 

[Hurkyl]

Presumably, the speed of light does vary. If you are happy with the idea of space curvature near mass then I guess light bending round this mass could signify a change in velocity.

The light is traveling in a perfectly straight line -- it only appears to be bending when we try to describe its path using coordinates that are not orthonormal.

 

[Phrak]

Um, but Hurkyl. If we apply a locally orthonormal coordinate system, then remote velocities can exceed c, and appear to be traveling in arcs, can they not?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The light is traveling in a perfectly straight line -- it only appears to be bending when we try to describe its path using coordinates that are not orthonormal.

You mean in reality/experimentation light is bent but in maths its traveling in a straight line. Seems like a contradiction to me. Can you explain gravitational lensing in terms that involve the light traveling in a straight line, and consistently model the experimental data?

The speed limit of the Universe as far as we know is c, in the same way that the fine-structure constant \alpha = 7.297\,352\,5376 \times 10^{-3}

It just is, I'm sure there are a million and one hypothesis as to why though.

 

[MeJennifer]

if you measure things in terms of Planck units, there remains no "why?". there is no property of free space, that is not a consequence of the units used to measure it, that determines the speed of propagation of EM (or whatever other fundamental interaction). still no question at hand.

In this respect how do you interpret the fine structure constant?

 

[rbj]

In this respect how do you interpret the fine structure constant?

i guess as the square of the elementary charge since Planck units say nothing about e and everything else in the expression for \alpha is 1.

i know that it's true that historically Planck himself did not define a unit charge with the rest of the Planck units in 1899, but more recently a few authors (notably Michael Duff, but there are others) have essentially extended the idea to a unit charge (as such that when two charges, each of one unit, are spaced apart by one unit length, you get a unit of electrostatic force, just as it is done in cgs) and you get q_P = \sqrt{4 \pi \epsilon_0 \hbar c}. and i realize that such a definition is sort of arbitrary. i s'pose they could define the unit charge to be e, but then the Coulomb constant would be \alpha (expressing simply why, given e=1, that the fine structure constant can be thought of as the coupling parameter for the strength of EM) and the shorthand expression for the fine structure constant that theoretical physicists prefer (\alpha = e^2/(\hbar c)) could no longer be used. (being an engineer, i like seeing the 4 \pi \epsilon_0 in the expression because then i know it's correct in any system of units.)

so, for my pea-brained electrical engineering understanding of it, if \alpha was measured to have changed (and, being a dimensionless parameter, there is an operational meaning to a changing \alpha), there are at least two ways to interpret the meaning of it. either all of the charged particles in the universe (if \alpha is believed to be the same everywhere in the universe) have changed the amount of effective charge on them (if 4 \pi \epsilon_0=1) or , if e=1, then the strength of the EM interaction, relative to the other fundamental interactions, has changed. at least that's my simple spin to it.

 

[Hurkyl]

Um, but Hurkyl. If we apply a locally orthonormal coordinate system, then remote velocities can exceed c, and appear to be traveling in arcs, can they not?

Yes, remote coordinate velocities can exceed c. That can happen in SR too (in a non-inertial chart)

They are still traveling in straight lines, though -- it's only when you replace the metric with the Euclidean metric on your coordinate chart that they are curved.

You mean in reality/experimentation light is bent but in maths its traveling in a straight line.

No, I mean that you're using the wrong notion of "straight line" -- you're using the one derived from the Euclidean metric, rather than the one derived from the actual metric on space-time.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

No, I mean that you're using an incorrect notion of "straight line" -- you're using the notion of "straight" given by the Euclidean metric, rather than the notion of "straight" given by the actual metric on space-time.

The shortest distance between two points you mean? What definition are you using may I ask?

 

[Hurkyl]

The shortest distance between two points you mean? What definition are you using may I ask?

Geometrically, its trajectory through space-time is a geodesic. Physically, it is traveling inertially.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Geometrically, its trajectory through space-time is a geodesic. Physically, it is traveling inertially.

Well that's alright then. I can still say that light is bent by gravity though can't I?

 

[MeJennifer]

Well that's alright then. I can still say that light is bent by gravity though can't I?

Many do use such terminology, personally I stay away from it.

Something that follows a geodesic does not accelerate or bend in GR. Acceleration in GR is caused by EM or other forces.

Furthermore, one can argue if it is at all meaningful to speak of traveling light. Energy carriers like photons are always emitted and absorbed, we cannot possibly detect a free traveling photon.

 

[DaveC426913]

Furthermore, one can argue if it is at all meaningful to speak of traveling light. Energy carriers like photons are always emitted and absorbed, we cannot possibly detect a free traveling photon.

This jives with the concept that photons do not experience time. Their existence consists basically of a fixed, static line in space-time that ties their point of emission with their point of absorption.

 

[Antenna Guy]

This jives with the concept that photons do not experience time. Their existence consists basically of a fixed, static line in space-time that ties their point of emission with their point of absorption.

... and emission/absorbtion are instantaneous within a photon's frame - no matter how far it travels.

Regards,

Bill

 

[DaveC426913]

... and emission/absorbtion are instantaneous within a photon's frame - no matter how far it travels.

Regards,

Bill

Well, yeah, but I was hoping to explain it with a model that didn't make any reference to the passage of time (such as "instantaneous").

 

[Nickelodeon]

Furthermore, one can argue if it is at all meaningful to speak of traveling light. Energy carriers like photons are always emitted and absorbed, we cannot possibly detect a free traveling photon.

Presumably it still holds true that c = frequency x wavelength. Perhaps we should forget about c and concentrate on f and w. Hope that doesn't sound facitious.

 

[MeJennifer]

Presumably it still holds true that c = frequency x wavelength. Perhaps we should forget about c and concentrate on f and w. Hope that doesn't sound facitious.

Note that the measured frequency of an absorbed photon is not absolute but depends on the gravitational potential between the emitter and absorber.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Many do use such terminology, personally I stay away from it.

Something that follows a geodesic does not accelerate or bend in GR. Acceleration in GR is caused by EM or other forces.

Furthermore, one can argue if it is at all meaningful to speak of traveling light. Energy carriers like photons are always emitted and absorbed, we cannot possibly detect a free traveling photon.

Yes I can see why, I tend to stay away from describing something that is happening visually in physics too.

 

[Phrak]

1) Light travels a path such that the interval between two events on the path is Maximal in the sense that the Lagrangian is maximal.

2) With light traveling in a direction x, under a change of coordinates u=x+ct and v=x-ct, the Lorentz transform obtains to a simple diagonal matrix ((d,0)(0,1/d)). The v coordinate of emmission of a photon and absorbtion are the same (in Minkowski space).

DaveC

This jives with the concept that photons do not experience time. Their existence consists basically of a fixed, static line in space-time that ties their point of emission with their point of absorption.

In the speed-of-light frame, along the trajectory of the photon, no time or distance intervens between emission and absorbtion. So the events of emission and absorbtion in this particular coordinate system are cojacent. One might be prompted to think that no photon is exchanged nor required at all, but that an exchange of energy is, instead, a direct interaction.

I was once told that Dirac did some investigation in this matter.

How all of this is consistent with point 1) is beyond me.