Hi,After having studied special relativity, I sometimes see things

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the interpretation of special relativity, specifically the assertion that information cannot travel faster than light. The user expresses confusion over whether this prohibition is a fundamental tenet of special relativity or a derived consequence. They reference a source that distinguishes between faster-than-light expansion and the transmission of information, suggesting that while the former is permissible, the latter is not. The user seeks clarity on whether this interpretation reflects a shift in understanding within the physics community regarding the principles of special relativity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of special relativity principles, specifically the two postulates: laws of physics in inertial frames and constancy of the speed of light.
  • Familiarity with the concept of causality in physics.
  • Knowledge of the distinction between information transmission and physical phenomena propagation.
  • Basic comprehension of theoretical physics literature and discussions.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the two postulates of special relativity in depth.
  • Explore the concept of causality in the context of special relativity and its interpretations.
  • Investigate current literature on the interpretation of faster-than-light phenomena and their relationship to information transmission.
  • Examine discussions on the evolution of understanding in theoretical physics regarding special relativity.
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators in theoretical physics, and anyone interested in the nuances of special relativity and its interpretations in modern physics discussions.

apolloe
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi,

After having studied special relativity, I sometimes see things mention that physicists now interpret relativity to be the claim that information cannot travel faster than light. I am confused by this - I thought that no information faster than light was a consequence of special relativity, but often these articles sound as though physicists see this as one of the tenets (if not THE tenet) of special relativity.

My efforts to find discussions about this in my textbooks, and online, have been to no avail. If this is how physicists *now* understand special relativity, I can't seem to find a discussion on that change of understanding. Take for example:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=387
She says, "You ask a good question, one whose answer lies in the subtle difference between expansion that is faster than the speed of light and the propagation of information that is faster than the speed of light. The latter is forbidden by fundamental physical laws, but the former is allowed; that is, as long as you are not transmitting any information (like a light pulse), you can make something happen at a speed that is faster than that of light"

I find this odd, since I thought the inability to transmit information was a consequence of special relativity, but this almost sounds like it's a principle of it. You might say, "special relativity prohibits the transmission of information faster than light", and I'd agree. But these statements sound like one step further.

If any of you have any thoughts on this, or even better a discussion on this change of understanding (if indeed there is one) somewhere in "the literature", I would much appreciate it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


If something is predicted by a theory and this prediction turns out to be incorrect, then the theory is also incorrect. SR predicts information cannot be transmitted faster than light. Putting more or less emphasis on the idea is of no consequence to the fact that it is predicted by the theory.
 


The two principles are:
1) The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames
2) The speed of light is the same in all inertial refernce frames

The second refers to the speed of light, but doesn't explicitly say that no information can travel faster than it. So that can be considered derived from the two principles and considerations of causality.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K