- #1
- 138
- 2
Please tell me if Lorentz Transformation would be altered in any way if the invariance of c is explained, instead of postulated.
Great! Thank you.The mathematical derivation of the Lorentz transformation is the same as long as c is constant. It does not depend on why c is constant (explained or postulated).
The invariance of the speed of light is essentially explained by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. Reconciling that theory with Classical Mechanics, in the form of the Galilean transformation, was problematic. The invariance of the speed of light is, however, consistent with the Lorentz Transformation.Please tell me if Lorentz Transformation would be altered in any way if the invariance of c is explained, instead of postulated.
GR does not have the invariance of the speed of light as a postulate. It does, however, assume that light travels on null paths. But, that is not fundamental to the development of the theory; only to the behaviour of light within the theory.Great! Thank you.
What about the rest of the math in relativity (both special and general)?
If I postulate 2+2=4, is that result in any way affected if I, instead, postulate 1+1=2 and treat 2 as derived instead of fundamental?What about the rest of the math in relativity (both special and general)?
Maybe I'll post my explanation for the invariance of c. The basic idea is that we rely on atoms/molecules when it comes to measure anything, including time intervals and distances in space (our instruments are made of atoms/molecules), but atoms/molecules are structures held together by electromagnetic forces, with the photon as the force carrier ... So, we are measuring the speed of light using something that depends on it ...@DanMP I'm not comprehending your question. Can you give some conceptual example to show how you imagine SR or GR might change if a physical cause for constant c were identified?
Work all the way through this line of thought (and "all the way" is a very long hard slog with not much reward at the end) and you will come up with the Lorentz Ether Theory. LET makes the same predictions as special relativity so we can't say that it is exactly wrong; but it is a very poor base on which to build any deeper understanding of general relativity or relativistic quantum mechanics so is generally rejected by physicists.I don't expect that the math of SR or GR would change in any way by replacing a postulate with an explanation stating the same thing, but when I wrote this in another forum, I was not believed, so I'm here to ask for experts opinion.
I don't quite understand this. The invariance of c is not used/necessary in GR?GR does not have the invariance of the speed of light as a postulate. It does, however, assume that light travels on null paths. But, that is not fundamental to the development of the theory; only to the behaviour of light within the theory.
So what? You can construct a theory in which there is a finite invariant speed but light does not travel at it (Proca's work). Experiment does not match it. You can construct a theory in which there is no finite invariant speed (Newton). Experiment does not match it. You can construct a theory that does not respect the principle of relativity (ether theories are one such type). Experiment does not match it.Maybe I'll post my explanation for the invariance of c. The basic idea is that we rely on atoms/molecules when it comes to measure anything, including time intervals and distances in space (our instruments are made of atoms/molecules), but atoms/molecules are structures held together by electromagnetic forces, with the photon as the force carrier ... So, we are measuring the speed of light using something that depends on it ...
There are no global inertial frames in general relativity, so "the same speed in all inertial frames" doesn't have inertial frames to work with. It's still true locally - light will always pass you at c.I don't quite understand this. The invariance of c is not used/necessary in GR?
No, my explanation has nothing to do with LET. Maybe I'll post it tomorrow.Work all the way through this line of thought and you will come up with the Lorentz Ether Theory. LET makes the same predictions as special relativity so we can't say that it is exactly wrong; but it is a very poor base on which to build any deeper understanding of general relativity or relativistic quantum mechanics so is generally rejected by physicists.
This is great. It is exactly what my explanation concludes. Thank you!There are no global inertial frames in general relativity, so "the same speed in all inertial frames" doesn't have inertial frames to work with. It's still true locally - light will always pass you at c.
Don't. That will put you on the wrong side of the Physics Forums rule prohibiting posting theories that have not been previously published in an appropriate peer-reviewed journal.No, my explanation has nothing to do with LET. Maybe I'll post it tomorrow.