Why is the speed of light a universal constant beyond Maxwell's equations?

rahuljayanthb
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
hi all, this is a very basic question.
apart from maxwell's equation, why else is the speed of light a universal constant?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rahuljayanthb said:
hi all, this is a very basic question.
apart from maxwell's equation, why else is the speed of light a universal constant?

It just is. I don't think there is a "why" involved. If it wasn't a constant, we'd have different laws of physics.
 
rahuljayanthb said:
hi all, this is a very basic question.
apart from maxwell's equation, why else is the speed of light a universal constant?

Because anytime anyone attempted to measure it, they always got the same answer, so much so, that we have assigned a value to it and now it is used as a universal standard from which we derive the standard for the meter, rather than using a platinum bar with marks inscribed on it defined to be one meter apart.
 
No one has a good complete theory why the speed of light is constant, nor why the charge of the electron is what it is, nor why we have only four fundamental forces, nor for the mass of any fundamental particles...they are all experimentally determined, that is, measured...
 
rahuljayanthb said:
hi all, this is a very basic question.
apart from maxwell's equation, why else is the speed of light a universal constant?
Because it cannot be overtaken. Let's assume it's not constant, that is, there exist a frame of reference moving at a speed v, in which light speed has another value c' = c-k, with k = positive speed.
You can then take another frame, moving at a speed v with respect to the previous one; since *the physical situation is exactly identical to the first*, you will find a new light speed c'' = c'-k = c-2k and so on with another frame...At a certain point you will find a frame which is overtaking light; but this is impossible, so c must be invariant (frame-independent).

Now you could ask why light speed cannot be overtaken. Imagine an infinite value: you will never be able to reach it. Yes, c is not, actually, an infinite value, but it's impossible to reach it, as if it was: light "rapidity" *is* infinite. Rapidity is a quantity, analogous to speed, which however has the advantage not to be bound to space and time in the way it is speed, so sometimes is easier to understand what's happening looking at rapidity instead of speed.

The definition of speed as space/time was given because it is simple and because, at those times, scientists didn't think to the possibility that space and time could be linked, at high speeds (near c). At very high speeds, the very concept of "speed" loose its intuitive meaning. An example: you are in a starship moving at a speed extremely near c, with respect to the Earth. In that ship, you will see *all the visible universe* in just some second. Do you intuitively associate a finite number with this? I can't. It would be more intuitive an *infinite* speed here. What is more intuitive, in this respect, is rapidity, since, as I wrote, rapidity increases from zero to infinite, going from 0 speed to light speed.
 
Last edited:
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
Back
Top