- #1

- 3

- 0

kindly be descriptive

- Thread starter akshay.wizard
- Start date

- #1

- 3

- 0

kindly be descriptive

- #2

tiny-tim

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 25,832

- 251

hi akshay.wizard! welcome to pf!

the structure (the metric) of space-time has a preferred speed

light happens to travel at that speed

- #3

- 6,723

- 423

The first thing to worry about here is that when you ask someone for a satisfying answer to a "why" question, you have to define what you think would be satisfying. If you ask Euclid why the Pythagorean theorem is true, he'll show you a proof based on his five postulates. But it's also possible to form a logically equivalent system by replacing his parallel postulate with one that asserts the Pythagorean theorem to be true; in this case, we would say that the reason the "parallel theorem" is true is that we can prove it based on the "Pythagorean postulate."

Einstein's original 1905 postulates for special relativity went like this:

P1 - "The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion."

P2 - "Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary' system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

From the modern point of view, it was a mistake for Einstein to single out light for special treatment, and we imagine that the mistake was made because in 1905 the electromagnetic field was the only known fundamental field. Really, relativity is about space and time, not light. We could therefore replace P2 with:

P2* - "There exists a velocity c such that when something has that velocity, all observers agree on it."

And finally, there are completely different systems of axioms that are logically equivalent to Einstein's, and that do not take the frame-independence of c as a postulate (Rindler 1979).

For someone who likes axioms P1+P2, the frame-independence of the speed of light is a postulate, so it can't be proved. The reason we pick it as a postulate is that it appears to be true based on observations such as the Michelson-Morley experiment.

If we prefer P1+P2* instead, then we actually don't know whether the speed of light is frame-independent. What we do know is that the empirical upper bound on the mass of the photon is extremely small (Lakes 1998), and we can prove that massless particles must move at the universal velocity c.

In a system such as Rindler's, the existence of a universal velocity c is proved rather than assumed, and the behavior of photons is related empirically to c in the same way as for P1+P2*. We then have a satisfying answer to the "why" question, which is that existence of a universal speed c is a property of spacetime that must exist because spacetime has certain other properties (basically, it has some symmetries, and it doesn't have universal simultaneity).

Rindler, Essential Relativity: Special, General, and Cosmological, 1979, p. 51

R.S. Lakes, "Experimental limits on the photon mass and cosmic magnetic vector potential", Physical Review Letters 80 (1998) 1826, http://silver.neep.wisc.edu/~lakes/mu.html

- #4

- 1,434

- 2

- #5

ghwellsjr

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 5,122

- 146

You should be aware that each time the surface of the earth changes its direction and speed in space, it is as though observers carried along on the surface of the earth are constantly being dragged into different reference frames. This is the real reason why we now conclude that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames--it's what we measure and what always comes out the same.

But maybe you are asking a different question--the same question the scientists after MMX were asking--how is it possible to always measure the same speed of light, even when you know that you are changing reference frames, that is, traveling through space in different directions and at different speeds? They concluded that the only way this could happen was if their measuring apparatus was getting compressed in the direction of the presumed æther wind and their clocks were running slow. These two adjustments could explain why they always measured the same value for the speed of light.

But, maybe this isn't really what you are asking either. If so, you need to be more definitive in your question so that we will know how to give you a more satisfying answer.

- #6

- 6,723

- 423

Unfortunately he doesn't lay them out as a list. But basically it's homogeneity and isotropy of spacetime, relativity of motion, causality, and observer-dependence of time. Here is my own treatment: http://lightandmatter.com/area1book6.html There is an appendix in the back of the book that lists other treatments in this style.

- #7

- 211

- 0

"Looking at relativity from the perspective of length contraction and time dilation being the cause, and a constant speed of light the effect, is a long-since rejected notion." And why is this perception rejected?

(And i would try and write properly.Sorry for the inconvenience.)

- #8

- 15,393

- 685

The snarky answer is "Because." That is the answer given in Einstein's 1905 paper. He postulated that the speed of light is the same to all observers. Remember back to when you were a kid. Some kids pester their parents by repeatedly asking "why?" The parents inevitably get flustered at some point and answer "Because I said so." Think of a postulate as being a scientist's or mathematician's way of saying "Because I said so."But why is the speed of light the constant why not any other speed?

So what motivated Einstein to make this postulate? The answer lies in Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations describe electromagnetism. One consequence is that the speed of light is constant. Newtonian mechanics says otherwise. Solving the conflict between Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's equations was the big problem in physics in the latter part of the 19th century. Einstein's insight was to take Maxwell's equations at face value: The speed of light is the same to all observers.

A more modern view is that in our universe, space on a local scale appears to be Euclidean. A universe that is locally Euclidean almost everywhere must necessarily have a speed, a single speed, that is the same to all observers. One obvious solution is an infinite speed. This is Newton's universe. A finite speed also works, and this is Einstein's universe. Experimentally, there is a single speed that is the same to all observers, and it is finite (the speed of light). Ergo, we live in Einstein's universe, not Newton's.

Occam's razor.And why is this perception rejected?Looking at relativity from the perspective of length contraction and time dilation being the cause, and a constant speed of light the effect, is a long-since rejected notion.

Einstein was far from the only physicist working on this problem. Poincare, Lorentz, Fitzgerald, and others worked on it; it was one of the biggest problems in physics of that time. Those other physicists were perhaps too encumbered by the past. Maxwell's equations dictate that light is a wave phenomenon; every wave phenomenon known at that time propagated through some medium. So light must therefore propagate through a medium called the luminiferous aether. Those physicists developed a scheme in which length contraction and time dilation are axioms. A consequence: Their luminiferous aether could never be observed. The theory had two axioms that were very

The two theories, Lorentz Ether Theory and Special Relativity, are mathematically equivalent (they predict the same outcomes for any experiment). Einstein showed that the two key axioms of Lorentz Ether Theory are not needed, nor is the luminiferous aether. Occam's razor says that in the case of two competing theories that fully explain the same phenomena, the simpler explanation is usually the correct one.

- #9

Dale

Mentor

- 30,386

- 6,881

That was a thought that also occured to scientists of the time. They tried many variations at different altitudes, with different amounts of matter nearby, etc. Nothing made any difference.What about possible ether dragging proportionally to gravitational force (or maybe proportionally to gravitation energy density) + Lorentz contraction together?

In this way famous MMX becomes unable to measure anything.

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

- #10

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

2019 Award

- 25,726

- 8,909

- #11

- 2,226

- 9

i really think that the fundamental answer to the question is an extrapolation that Einstein made from perceived reality (observation) to reality.hi akshay.wizard! welcome to pf!

the structure (the metric) of space-time has a preferred speed

anythingwith that speed in one frame will have the same speed in all frames

light happens to travel at that speed

you have two observers, both in inertial frames of reference (neither is accelerated, BTW akshay, it's in all

so now think of it, if

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 39

- Views
- 20K

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 34

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 933

- Replies
- 52

- Views
- 21K

- Replies
- 42

- Views
- 6K

- Replies
- 26

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 178

- Views
- 27K