- 488

- 0

Hey guys

Ok, after my last whimsical attempt at expressing my lack of understanding regarding c being constant in all reference frames, i did some digging and have come back equally bewildered but with some more ammo.

Ok, so as far as i know it goes like this. Galilean relativity states that the laws of nature are the same in all [intertial] reference frames, i accept that, proof is all around us and it is logical. Then some guys found that Maxwells equations were not invariant under a Galilean transformation but were under Lorentz. This showed that either absolute time was wrong or relativity was wrong. They threw out relativity and proposed the aether. They then assumed that Maxwells equation using the permiability and permiativity of free space to come up with the speed of light was in reference to the aether as an absolute base speed. The idea of the aether was then thrown out by the big man himself and replaced with variable time and restoring the ideas of relativity.

Now i get that. I understand why this had to be thrown out if that was true etc. What i DONT get is the bit with Maxwells theoretical measurement of c. It is a simple equation (c=1/sqrt(ue)) with no spacial or temporal variables and so one would think, at a glance, that this measurement is indeed independant of various transformations and so is a relativistic invariant.

My question is this: would the measurement of these constants not produce different values in different reference frames? or do these differences cancel each other out to produce the all purvading speed of light we all know and love?

thanks

-G

EDIT: I am also aware of a.) the Michaelson Morley experiment and b.) that the equation i used is derived from Maxwells equations which use can be transformed using Lorentz transformations

Ok, after my last whimsical attempt at expressing my lack of understanding regarding c being constant in all reference frames, i did some digging and have come back equally bewildered but with some more ammo.

Ok, so as far as i know it goes like this. Galilean relativity states that the laws of nature are the same in all [intertial] reference frames, i accept that, proof is all around us and it is logical. Then some guys found that Maxwells equations were not invariant under a Galilean transformation but were under Lorentz. This showed that either absolute time was wrong or relativity was wrong. They threw out relativity and proposed the aether. They then assumed that Maxwells equation using the permiability and permiativity of free space to come up with the speed of light was in reference to the aether as an absolute base speed. The idea of the aether was then thrown out by the big man himself and replaced with variable time and restoring the ideas of relativity.

Now i get that. I understand why this had to be thrown out if that was true etc. What i DONT get is the bit with Maxwells theoretical measurement of c. It is a simple equation (c=1/sqrt(ue)) with no spacial or temporal variables and so one would think, at a glance, that this measurement is indeed independant of various transformations and so is a relativistic invariant.

My question is this: would the measurement of these constants not produce different values in different reference frames? or do these differences cancel each other out to produce the all purvading speed of light we all know and love?

thanks

-G

EDIT: I am also aware of a.) the Michaelson Morley experiment and b.) that the equation i used is derived from Maxwells equations which use can be transformed using Lorentz transformations

Last edited: