Why is the speed of light constant and independent from the observer?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the constancy of the speed of light and its independence from the observer, exploring the implications of this concept within the framework of relativity and the philosophical questions it raises. Participants examine the relationship between inertial reference frames and the Lorentz transformation, as well as the nature of the laws of physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Philosophical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the speed of light is constant in inertial reference frames related by the Lorentz transformation, suggesting that the laws of physics exhibit Lorentz invariance.
  • One participant notes that while light's speed is constant in inertial frames, it could differ in non-inertial coordinate systems.
  • There is a contention regarding whether the question of "why" the speed of light is constant is philosophical or scientific, with some arguing it requires a new theory of physics for an answer.
  • Another participant emphasizes that if Lorentz invariance is fundamental, it leads to broader metaphysical questions about the nature of physical laws.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the question of the constancy of light's speed is philosophical or scientific, indicating a lack of consensus on the nature of the inquiry.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of the relationship between physical laws and their philosophical implications, with unresolved questions about the foundational nature of these laws and their derivability.

redphoton
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Why is the speed of light constant and independent from the observer?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The philosophy department is down the hall. ;)
 
Well, it's constant if you stick to inertial reference frames whose coordinates are related to one another by the Lorentz transformation, and relativity predicts (and all the evidence suggests) that the fundamental laws of physics all have the property of "Lorentz invariance" which means they obey the same equations when written in any inertial coordiante system of this type. There's nothing stopping you from using a non-inertial coordinate system where light's speed is different, though.

As for "why", it depends what you're asking...given inertial frames related by the Lorentz transformation, it's easy to show that anything with a coordinate velocity of c in one inertial frame will have a coordinate velocity of c in any other inertial frame. But as to why the the laws of physics are invariant under the Lorentz transformation in the first place, like ZikZak says that seems to be more of philosophical question.
 
I wouldn't say it's a philosophical question. Philosophy doesn't seem to have anything to do with it (unless you're going to study the meaning of the word "why" or something like that). The only thing that could answer it is another theory of physics. Of course, if we ever find a theory that answers that question, it would give us a new set of "why?" questions.
 
Fredrik said:
I wouldn't say it's a philosophical question. Philosophy doesn't seem to have anything to do with it (unless you're going to study the meaning of the word "why" or something like that). The only thing that could answer it is another theory of physics. Of course, if we ever find a theory that answers that question, it would give us a new set of "why?" questions.
It's philosophical in the sense that if Lorentz-invariance is part of the most fundamental laws (the final 'Theory of Everything') rather than being derivable from more fundamental laws, then "why are the laws of physics Lorentz-invariant" is just a subset of the general question "why are the laws of physics what they are", which obviously cannot be answered by physics and therefore is a metaphysical question (for example, one answer might be 'because God chose them that way', another might be 'because all mathematically describable universes exist as Platonic forms, and are perceived as real by any intelligent beings that evolve within them').
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
60
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K