Undergrad Does Noether theorem explain the constant speed of light?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Emmy Noether's theorem, which states that every conserved quantity is linked to a symmetry. Participants explore whether universal constants, such as the speed of light, arise from inherent symmetries in the universe. While the speed of light is a constant across all reference frames, it is emphasized that this does not imply a symmetry related to its value. The conversation also touches on dimensionless constants, like the fine-structure constant, which do not correspond to any symmetry and remain unexplained in terms of their existence and relationships.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Emmy Noether's theorem
  • Familiarity with universal constants in physics
  • Knowledge of dimensionless constants and their significance
  • Basic concepts of particle physics and unit systems
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Noether's theorem in modern physics
  • Explore the nature of dimensionless constants and their role in fundamental physics
  • Investigate the relationship between symmetries and conservation laws in physics
  • Learn about Planck units and their significance in theoretical physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of theoretical physics, and anyone interested in the foundational principles of the universe and the nature of physical constants.

Frigorifico
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
I learned in Analytical Mechanics: "Emmy Noether's theorem shows that every conserved quantity is due to a symmetry".
The examples I learned where conservation of energy as symmetry in time and conservation of momentum as symmetries in space.

Now I wonder, do universal constants are also due to symmetries like the speed of light?.
Maybe if we lived in a word that couldn't help but be symmetric in space, then there would be a universal value for momentum for all things, or I don't know.

The idea is that the speed of light is constant because of a symmetry inherent to the universe, but knowable nonetheless.

The speed of light is the first one I thought about, but now I wonder if this could apply to other universal constants, like G for gravity and k for electromagnetism.

Now, I have no idea what this symmetries would be, and maybe I am generalizing wrong, if so please illuminate me.

Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The speed of light as constant is similar to the conversion between miles and kilometers: 1 mile = 1.609 km. This conversion is true everywhere in the universe, in every reference frame, but it is just a conversion between arbitrary man-made units.

We could express all lengths in light-seconds, or all times in meters. It would not change physics, and in fact this is frequently done in particle physics, where energy, momentum and mass are all expressed in the same units (eV). In those unit systems, ##c=1##. There is no symmetry related to a constant that is 1.
You can also set ##\hbar = 1 ##, then particle lifetimes can be expressed in 1/eV. Add ##G=1## (sometimes defined with a prefactor) and you get the Planck units.

The really fundamental constants are dimensionless constants: their value does not depend on the unit system we choose. The most prominent example is the fine-structure constant, about 1/137. But those don't correspond to any symmetry either.
 
  • Like
Likes BvU
mfb said:
The speed of light as constant is similar to the conversion between miles and kilometers: 1 mile = 1.609 km. This conversion is true everywhere in the universe, in every reference frame, but it is just a conversion between arbitrary man-made units.

We could express all lengths in light-seconds, or all times in meters. It would not change physics, and in fact this is frequently done in particle physics, where energy, momentum and mass are all expressed in the same units (eV). In those unit systems, ##c=1##. There is no symmetry related to a constant that is 1.
You can also set ##\hbar = 1 ##, then particle lifetimes can be expressed in 1/eV. Add ##G=1## (sometimes defined with a prefactor) and you get the Planck units.

The really fundamental constants are dimensionless constants: their value does not depend on the unit system we choose. The most prominent example is the fine-structure constant, about 1/137. But those don't correspond to any symmetry either.

Thanks. I wanted there to be a reason for some values to be constant, but I guess we still don't know the reason for the constants to exist nor they proportion to one another
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
60
Views
5K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K