Why is the speed of light absolute?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of why the speed of light is considered absolute or invariant, particularly in the context of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity. Participants explore theoretical implications, empirical evidence, and philosophical considerations regarding the nature of light and its speed.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that Einstein assumed the speed of light to be absolute, but question the underlying reasons for this assumption.
  • It is mentioned that the speed of light is invariant across all inertial reference frames, supported by experimental evidence.
  • One participant suggests that deriving the Lorentz transformation can be achieved through considerations of symmetry and homogeneity of time and space.
  • Another participant argues that empirical science struggles to answer "why" questions, indicating that while the speed of light is invariant, the reason for this remains elusive.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of Maxwell's equations and how they hint at the necessity of an invariant speed of light.
  • There is a question raised about whether additional assumptions are needed to exclude the possibility of a homogeneous and symmetric universe without an invariant speed.
  • One participant states that all empirical evidence supports the Einstein-Minkowski spacetime model over the Galilei-Newton model, which lacks a universal speed limit.
  • Concerns are expressed regarding the masslessness of the electromagnetic field and whether this reasoning can be applied to gravitational waves.
  • A participant requests a reference to support the claim that massless particles must travel at the speed of light, leading to a discussion of four-momentum and null worldlines.
  • There is a debate about the appropriateness of philosophical responses to scientific questions, with differing views on whether "why" questions can be satisfactorily answered.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views regarding the nature of the speed of light, with no consensus on the underlying reasons for its invariance. Some agree on the empirical evidence supporting the invariance, while others question the philosophical implications and the adequacy of current theories.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in addressing "why" questions in physics, suggesting that empirical evidence can describe behavior but not necessarily explain it. There are also unresolved discussions about the implications of symmetry and homogeneity in relation to the speed of light.

  • #31
strangerep said:
In fact, to derive an invariant speed, one needs only the relativity principle (physical equivalence of inertial frames), spatial isotropy, and a technical assumption that velocity boosts along a given direction form a 1-parameter Lie group.
With these assumptions you get either Einstein-Minkowski (existence of an invariant speed) or Galilei-Newton (absence of an invariant speed) spacetime. The question, which one describes the observations of Nature better is an empirical one, and of course it's well established that Einstein-Minkowski is the way better (approximate) description of spacetime. Only the Einstein (GR) spacetime (or most probably its extension to a Einstein-Cartan spacetime, but that's for purely esthetical reason yet) is even better.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Ad VanderVen said:
Dale you said:

"In general, science can only answer 'why' questions by appeal to theory, and in the case of 'why' questions about assumptions of theories only by appeal to a more fundamental theory."

I can't say how I agree with you. You have formulated it beautifully.

Please pay attention when people ask you to do something:

Dale said:
@Ad VanderVen when quoting people please use the quote feature and not just text quotes. You can do that either by clicking on the Reply button to quote the entire post or by selecting the specific text you wish to quote and clicking on the Reply pop-up
 
  • #33
andresB said:
Do Galilean boost don't form a 1-parameter subgroup of the Galilei Group?
Your question doesn't make sense.
 
  • #34
vanhees71 said:
With these assumptions you get either Einstein-Minkowski (existence of an invariant speed) or Galilei-Newton (absence of an invariant speed) spacetime. [...]
Heh, you forgot de Sitter. :oldwink:
 
  • #35
strangerep said:
Your question doesn't make sense.

Galilean relativity doesn't have an invariant speed and it has spatial isotropy and homogenity. Galilean boosts in one axis are also a 1-parameter Liegroup (don't they?). So I don't see how only using the postulates you mention you get an invariatn speed, since those postulates are also in the galilean relativity.
 
  • #36
andresB said:
Galilean relativity doesn't have an invariant speed and it has spatial isotropy and homogenity. Galilean boosts in one axis are also a 1-parameter Liegroup (don't they?). So I don't see how only using the postulates you mention you get an invariatn speed, since those postulates are also in the galilean relativity.
The "invariant speed" in Galilean relativity turns out to be ##\infty##.

In the more general derivation, one actually derives a constant with dimensions of inverse speed squared. SR corresponds to the choice of ##1/c^2## for this constant. Galilean relativity corresponds to the choice ##0##, which is equivalent to letting ##c\to\infty##.
 
  • #37
That makes more sense.
 
  • #38
strangerep said:
Heh, you forgot de Sitter. :oldwink:
It's an interesting question, why de Sitter doesn't also follow from these symmetry assumptions. I guess it's because it's not time-translation invariant.

I'm referring to the derivation of the Galilei and Lorentz transformation given here:

https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1665000
 
  • #39
vanhees71 said:
It's an interesting question, why de Sitter doesn't also follow from these symmetry assumptions. I guess it's because it's not time-translation invariant.
It's because the homogeneity assumption adopted by Berzi+Gorini (and many others) insists that finite intervals are preserved under spatio-temporal translations. That forces the denominator in the more general fractional-linear transformations to become trivial, resulting in linearity.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
  • #40
Ad VanderVen said:
Summary:: To derive the Lorentz transformation, Einstein assumed that the speed of light was absolute (not relative), but is it also known why the speed of light is absolute?

To describe the movement of the planets, Newton assumed that there was such a thing as gravity. But he didn't know what gravity was. To derive the Lorentz transformation, Einstein assumed that the speed of light was absolute (not relative), but is it also known why the speed of light is absolute?

Well, why experiment may give us a particular result or "Why any observation is possible at all?" ;o) You may consider an observation act as some predicate in some axiomatic thus, any observable reality must be consistent otherwise you can not have definite results of experiments. So, the question "why speed of light is absolute?" is similar to "why it happens to get into existence in this particular reality?" Because otherwise you would have a different set of "why" questions for different realities arrangements. Axiomatic of any reality can not be completely defined it remains open so its expansion/extension is filtered/selected/restricted by requirement to ensure the possibility for its observer to observe definite observations (to provide a local consistency)...
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Does this FermiLab video help?
"Why can't you go faster than light?" by Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln
 
  • #42
The OP and the answers are slightly inaccurate. The correct answer is:

The speed of light in vacuum is constant and given by c_{0}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu_{0}\epsilon_{0}}}.

The speed of light in other cases is given by c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu \epsilon}}. The speed of light in glass (for example) is about \frac{2c_{0}}{3}. This is the reason why prisms and lenses work...
 
  • #43
Svein said:
The OP and the answers are slightly inaccurate. The correct answer is:

The speed of light in vacuum is constant and given by c_{0}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu_{0}\epsilon_{0}}}.

The speed of light in other cases is given by c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu \epsilon}}. The speed of light in glass (for example) is about \frac{2c_{0}}{3}. This is the reason why prisms and lenses work...

The key point about the speed of light in vacuum is that it is invariant. The speed of light in other media is not invariant, but constant relative to the medium.

The speed of light now is taken to be exactly ##299,792,458 m/s##, which defines the metre.
 
  • #44
PeroK said:
The key point about the speed of light in vacuum is that it is invariant. The speed of light in other media is not invariant, but constant relative to the medium.

The speed of light now is taken to be exactly ##299,792,458 m/s##, which defines the metre.
Yes. The reason why I stressed "in vacuum" is that several optical effects rely on the speed of light being dependent on the medium it travels through. The speed of light in air is not the same as ##c_{0}## (and AFAIK is dependent on the air pressure).
 
  • #45
@Dale You can distinguish two types of why questions within a science: questions that can or cannot be answered with the current state of affairs and questions that can or cannot be answered by that science in principle. I was talking about why questions of the latter type.
 

Similar threads

High School Questions about the Speed of Light, Time, etc.
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
6K
Undergrad Determining a stationary point of reference to base all absolute motion
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
3K
Undergrad The Einstein Clock aka Light Clock
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
High School Gravity and speed of information for orbiting planets
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
Undergrad The invariance of the speed of light is not only a hypothesis?
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
6K
Undergrad Conventionality of the One-Way Speed of Light
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School Why is it impossible to go faster than the speed of light?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
High School One-Way Speed of Light
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
6K
Undergrad One way speed of light
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
558
High School Implications of negative Michelson-Morley result
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K