I C in a Vacuum: Evidence of Constant?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the evidence supporting the speed of light in a vacuum as an absolute constant, specifically its invariance across different inertial frames. While the speed of light is a postulate in Einstein's theory, participants seek direct experimental evidence confirming this invariance rather than broader implications of Special Theory of Relativity. The Michelson-Morley experiment is noted as a historical test, but the conversation emphasizes the need for specific evidence that demonstrates light's constancy over time and across frames. Clarifications are made regarding the terminology of "constant" versus "invariant." Overall, the inquiry highlights a desire for concrete experimental validation of the speed of light as an absolute constant.
pkc111
Messages
224
Reaction score
26
TL;DR
What evidence is there that the speed of light in a vacuum is an absolute constant. "Absolute" in the sense of invariant to an observer in any inertial frame of reference.
I understand that it is one of Einstein's postulates, however I don't know of any direct experiments which show that it is true.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In physics (as well as any other empirical science), you generally do not prove things. What you do is that you take a theory that makes certain predictions and then you go out and test those predictions empirically by performing experiments that could, a priori, falsify the theory.

In the case of the speed of light in vacuum, the original introduction as an assumption in the theory relied on experiments such as the Michelson-Morely experiments. However, the resulting theory also makes countless other predictions that have been tested to extreme levels of accuracy, such as the prediction that any massive particle cannot reach the speed of light in vacuum regardless of how much energy you provide. For example, observing an electron traveling faster than c would have falsified the theory.
 
  • Like
Likes Lord Jestocost
Thanks I understand your points.
I wasnt very clear.My question is what is the evidence that supports that c in a vacuum is a constant. I am not really talking about the experimental evidence for Special Theory of Relativity and the evidence for time dilation, mass dilation (electrons having speed limits etc) or length contraction etc. Although I can see your point if the STR was found not supported then perhaps one of the assumptions was not true.
Im referring more to specific evidence which has been gathered about the speed of light as an absolute constant.
 
Just to clarify, what do you mean by "constant" here? Do you mean that it doesn't change over time, or that it is the same in all inertial frames? Strictly, "constant" means the former, but I suspect you mean the latter (which is properly called "invariant").
 
Ibix said:
Just to clarify, what do you mean by "constant" here? Do you mean that it doesn't change over time, or that it is the same in all inertial frames? Strictly, "constant" means the former, but I suspect you mean the latter (which is properly called "invariant").
I mean "absolute constant", in the sense invariant.
 
pkc111 said:
I mean "absolute constant", in the sense invariant.
See section 3 of the FAQ linked from the thread weirdoguy linked, particularly the moving sources section.
 
Thanks Weirdoguy and Ibix I think that's exactly what I am after.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman

Similar threads

Replies
25
Views
594
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K