Constant c and not its invariance.

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter dpa
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Constant Invariance
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of the speed of light (c), its value, and its theoretical implications, particularly in relation to Lorentz invariance. Participants explore the experimental determination of c, its dependence on the fabric of the cosmos, and the implications of using manmade units in scientific measurements.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the value of c is experimental, while its theoretical nature is Lorentz invariant, suggesting that its value is influenced by the fabric of the cosmos.
  • Others argue that the value of c is a manmade construct, serving primarily as a conversion factor between distance and time units, with fundamental constants being dimensionless.
  • A participant notes the historical context of measurement units, indicating that the value of c has evolved based on arbitrary standards, such as the length of a king's arm or fractions of the Earth's circumference.
  • Some participants propose that c can be viewed as a geometric concept, questioning whether it is a manmade construct or a reflection of physical reality.
  • There is mention of two universal Lorentz invariant constants, the permeability and permittivity of free space, suggesting that c is defined in relation to these quantities.
  • Another viewpoint challenges the notion that ε0 and μ0 are fundamental, suggesting they are merely conversion factors that do not characterize nature.
  • One participant highlights that there are four quantities in the SI system that characterize the vacuum, all of which are Lorentz invariant, but only two are independent and measurable in direct current circuits.
  • It is noted that while the value of c varies with different units, it ultimately depends on the standards used and the fabric of space.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of c, its value, and its implications. There is no consensus on whether c is fundamentally a manmade construct or a reflection of physical reality.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the Shapiro effect as an example of how the value of c can be influenced by the fabric of space, indicating that the discussion involves complex relationships between theoretical concepts and experimental observations.

dpa
Messages
146
Reaction score
0
hi,
value of c is experimental
however c itself is theoretically lorentz invariant.
So value of c depends upon fabric of cosmos right?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The existence of c is of cosmic importance, but the value is entirely manmade. With dimensions LT-1, c is just a way of relating our distance units to our time units. The only fundamental values are the ones that are dimensionless, such as the fine structure constant.
 
dpa said:
hi,
value of c is experimental
however c itself is theoretically lorentz invariant.
So value of c depends upon fabric of cosmos right?

Thanks.

The value is historical, the unit of length was originally based on a king's arm, later a fraction of the circumference of the Earth, and the unit of time is roughly a heartbeat but also a fraction of the period of rotation of the Earth. The Babylonians liked counting based on 60 because you could divide it by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 12 easily.

Scientists just use c=1 (in units of light seconds per second).

Just think of "299792458 m = 1 second" in the same way as "25.4mm = 1 inch".
 
Bill_K said:
The existence of c is of cosmic importance, but the value is entirely manmade. With dimensions LT-1, c is just a way of relating our distance units to our time units. The only fundamental values are the ones that are dimensionless, such as the fine structure constant.

I'd say take it a step further & call c a concept of geometry. Specifically from measure & geometry (Euclid). Is that manmade or the nature of physical stuff?

Opps I just read you said value,
 
Last edited:
Free space (vacuum) has two universal Lorentz invariant constants; the permeability of free space μo, and the permittivity of free space εo.

the speed of light is then defined as
[tex]c = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_o \mu_o}}[/tex]
So c depends on the fabric of the vacuum.
 
This is an unfortunate consequence of the SI system, the belief that ε0 and μ0 are somehow fundamental. Even more than c, these quantities are nothing more than conversion factors between manmade units. They do not in any way characterize nature.
 
Bill_K said:
This is an unfortunate consequence of the SI system, the belief that ε0 and μ0 are somehow fundamental. Even more than c, these quantities are nothing more than conversion factors between manmade units. They do not in any way characterize nature.

I don't know what the squiggly lines mean, did you say that length & time do not in any way characterize nature?
 
There are actually four quantities in the SI system that characterize the (fabric of the) vacuum; permeability (Henrys per meter), permittivity (Farads per meter), characteristic impedance (ratio of E/H of radio wave in ohms), and speed of light. All are Lorentz invariant. Only two are independent. Only two can be measured in dc circuits.
 
Last edited:
dpa said:
hi,
value of c is experimental
however c itself is theoretically lorentz invariant.
So value of c depends upon fabric of cosmos right?

Thanks.

Right. Of course the value of c is different in different units, but as long as* you express it as an independent length standard divided by an independent time standard, the value that you obtain depends on those standards and on the fabric of space.
For how this works, see for example the Shapiro effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_General_Relativity#Light_travel_time_delay_testing

*for increased precision nowadays our length standard depends on c
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 144 ·
5
Replies
144
Views
12K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
645
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K