I Gravity Wave Speed: Deriving Constancy from Maxwell Eqs.

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of the constancy of the speed of light from Maxwell's equations and its implications for gravitational waves. It is noted that while the speed of light can be derived from Maxwell's equations, Einstein's postulate of its constancy applies more broadly to all physical laws in special relativity. The speed of gravitational waves is established through the Einstein field equations, which indicate they propagate at the speed of light, but no pre-Einstein equations analogous to Maxwell's exist for gravity. Historical context reveals that many physicists once doubted the universality of Maxwell's equations, believing they only held in a specific inertial frame. Ultimately, Einstein's work unified these concepts under a framework that treats the speed of light as a fundamental constant applicable to all inertial frames.
  • #31
PeterDonis said:
he also meant that "the equations of mechanics" would have to be modified
Why didn't he say what "he meant"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Meir Achuz said:
Why is the second postulate needed today?
I think the opposite direction would be nicer. Derive Minkowski spacetime from postulate 1 (the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames) and postulate 2 (there exists an invariant speed) + assumed linearity. Then derive a theory of electromagnetism from assumed Coulomb’s law +SR.

There exist approaches in this direction (I did not read it because of the paywall):
paper said:
ABSTRACT
Maxwell’s equations are obtained by generalizing the laws of electrostatics, which follow from Coulomb’s law and the principle of superposition, so that they are consistent with special relativity.
Source:
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1119/1.14521
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #33
Meir Achuz said:
Why didn't he say what "he meant"?
If "he" means "Einstein", he did. That's the entire point of his 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", which is where the phrase you quote appears: to show how "the equations of mechanics" must transform in order to be Lorentz invariant, and what the implications of this are.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #34
Meir Achuz said:
Why is the second postulate needed today?
With the 1st postulate alone and the other symmetry assumptions you get Galilei-Newton spacetime or Einstein-Minkowski spacetime. To decide, which one is the correct (of rather the better) description of the spacetime structure you need empirical input. That empirical input at the time when Einstein wrote his paper were Maxwell's equations, summarizing all then known phenomena concerning electromagnetism including its application to optics, and from a purely kinematic point of view the one conclusion from the assumption that Maxwell's equations must look the same in any inertial reference frame is the "constancy of the speed of light", i.e., the independence of the phase velocity of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum of the velocity of the light source wrt. any inertial reference frame.
 
  • #35
Meir Achuz said:
Why didn't he say what "he meant"?
But he did! In his 1905 paper he gave the modified equations of motion for point particles, though in a very deformed way from the modern point of view, introducing various kinds of "relativistic mass". This was clarified already in 1906 by Planck and finally by Minkowski in 1908, revealing the mathematical structure of Einstein's special-relativistic spacetime model.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
454
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
723
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
483
Replies
10
Views
1K