The discussion revolves around the nature of the theory of relativity, specifically addressing why it is classified as a theory despite certain experimental confirmations, such as time dilation. Participants explore the definitions of scientific theories, the implications of the constancy of the speed of light, and the historical context of Einstein's work.
Participants express a range of views on the classification of relativity as a theory, with some agreeing on the definitions while others challenge the implications of experimental evidence. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the deeper reasons behind the constancy of the speed of light and the nature of scientific theories.
Participants note that the discussion involves complex definitions and historical perspectives that may not be universally agreed upon. The implications of gravity on light and time dilation are also presented as dependent on the framework of general relativity.
VertexOperator said:Why is the theory of relativity a theory?
Haven't we proven one of its consequences (time dilation) already using atomic synchronized clocks?
brenan said:No - what you have proved is that clocks go out of sync when you accelerate them
to high velocities. The experiment proves nothing more than that.
No. It is just an observation, and our physical theories are based on it.But WHY is c constant?
Is there a proper scientist explanation to why the speed of light is always c?
mfb said:No. It is just an observation, and our physical theories are based on it.
It would be possible to live in a universe with Newtonian physics as well*. But this is not our universe.
* particle physics would have to look completely different without special relativity, but let's ignore that here.
VertexOperator said:Is there a proper scientific explanation to why the speed of light is always c?
VertexOperator said:Coud you guys please help me with this:
Is there a proper scientific explanation to why the speed of light is always c?
VertexOperator said:Ok, makes so much sense lol :)
How did Einstein make this observation? Please don't tell me it was a thought experiment :O
Nugatory said:Science never really answers "why" questions; no matter what answer I give you it, it will lead to another deeper "why". (Hence the old joke about "turtles all the way").
So it might be easiest to treat the constant speed of light as a postulate; that's how Einstein presented special relativity. It is, however, a good postulate, in that it leads to a logical and elegant theory that agrees with observation and makes correct predictions. You might also find the recent thread on this subject interesting.
Nugatory said:Nature had already given us a pretty strong hint, as Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics suggest that light should travel in a vacuum at speed c. Indeed, much of the second half of the 19th century was spent trying to reconcile classical electrodynamics with our intuitive (but not empirically confirmed) notions of how space and time should work.
It's worth noting that Einstein introduced relativity in a paper entitled "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies"... That really was the problem of the century.
It is a consequence of a similar postulate in general relativity: Physics is the same for all free-falling observers.VertexOperator said:Also, why is it that the closer to a gravitational field an object is moving the more time dilates?
It affects spacetime, and light is moving in this spacetime. Light gets deflected by gravity, indeed. The strongest influence of gravity on light can be seen (or, well, not seen ;)) in black holes.Does gravity affect light in anyway?
yes, and that's the hint from mother nature that I was referring to in #12 above.VertexOperator said:Didn't a guy called Hertz use Maxwell's equation and radio waves to find a value for the speed of light?
VertexOperator said:Didn't a guy called Hertz use Maxwell's equation and radio waves to find a value for the speed of light?
jtbell said:Maxwell himself used his equations to predict the existence of electromagnetic waves. He used results of previous experiments on electricity and magnetism to predict the speed of those waves. It turned out to equal (within experimental uncertainty) the speed of light, which other people had recently measured fairly precisely.
I don't see why you can't learn the necessary EM on your own although contour integration is a topic from complex analysis and not, I'm assuming, what you meant to say.VertexOperator said:I really wish we study Maxwell's equations in high school :( but we don't do contour integration in high school maths...
WannabeNewton said:I don't see why you can't learn the necessary EM on your own although contour integration is a topic from complex analysis and not, I'm assuming, what you meant to say.
VertexOperator said:But Maxwell's equations have a lot of contour integrals.
I will try to learn it on my own :)
Those are regular path integrals. I'm not sure where the mixing of the terminology path integral and contour integral came from but the latter applies to complex valued functions along curves in the complex plane. Anyways, good luck in your interests!VertexOperator said:But Maxwell's equations have a lot of contour integrals.
I will try to learn it on my own :)