Why the speed of light is constant for every observer?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the constancy of the speed of light for all observers, exploring its implications for massless particles, particularly photons, and the underlying physics principles. Participants examine theoretical aspects, potential variations in speed, and the significance of the fine structure constant in relation to the speed of light.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if a particle has zero mass, then all observers will see its speed as c, but this is contingent on the existence of other massless particles.
  • Others argue that several massless particles travel at c, similar to photons, but the exact nature of this speed and its implications remain uncertain.
  • A participant notes the potential for photons to have a tiny mass, which could imply a variable speed, challenging the assumption that light always travels at c.
  • There is discussion about the significance of the fine structure constant, with some suggesting it adjusts the strength of electromagnetic interactions rather than the speed of light itself.
  • One participant raises a question about how observers moving at different speeds perceive the speed of light, leading to a clarification that both will see light moving at c, but the context of their relative motion complicates the discussion.
  • Concerns are expressed about the clarity of terms like "non-zero speed" and the relativity of motion, emphasizing that statements about speed must be relative to a frame of reference.
  • Participants express uncertainty about the implications of adjusting the fine structure constant and how it might affect physical laws.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that massless particles travel at c, but there is no consensus on the implications of this for the nature of light or the role of the fine structure constant. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact nature of these relationships and the potential for variations in speed.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of mass and speed, the unresolved nature of the fine structure constant's value, and the complexity of relativistic effects on perceived speeds.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring concepts in theoretical physics, particularly in relation to relativity, particle physics, and the fundamental constants of nature.

Arman777
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
2,163
Reaction score
191
Why the speed of light is constant for every observer ? Is it a special thing for photons cause I guess there's no other elementry particle that can move with c ?

Also I want to investigate the constant of c for every observer, in the perspective of particle relationship.

For example, can I say "If a particle has zero mass, then all observers will see its speed as c"

(Of course this will be true for, If there's other particles that has zero mass. If not can we assume ?)

Or this statement is only true for photons.
And why such number ##(c=299,792,458 \frac {m} {s})## ? How would be the physics laws worked if c was so small or very large ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Arman777 said:
For example, can I say "If a particle has zero mass, then all observers will see its speed as c"
Yes. There are several massless particles and they all travel at c in the same way as photons.
Arman777 said:
And why such number (c=299,792,458ms)(c=299,792,458ms)(c=299,792,458 \frac {m} {s}) ?
Because the SI committee got together and voted on that number. It was chosen because it matched previous definitions of the meter to within the available precision.
 
You have to be a bit careful with what you mean by "the speed of light". There is a speed that is invariant for all inertial observers. This is a consequence of spacetime having a Lorentzian signature, but why that should be so we don't know.

Light and anything else massless (like gravitational waves) travels at the invariant speed as far as we know. However, it is at least possible that photons have a tiny mass (I believe the current upper bound is around 10-50kg), in which case light would have a variable speed and would travel slower than c, just like everything else with mass. We presume the mass of the photon is zero, but we can't, strictly speaking, be sure of that.

So we tend to use "the speed of light" interchangeably with "the invariant speed", but that's technically not absolutely certain.

As to the exact value of c, it's fairly meaningless. You get a different number if you use different units. I gather that any careful analysis of the question leads to it actually meaning "why is the value of the dimensionless fine structure constant what it is". To which the answer is that we don't know.

So, in short:
Arman777 said:
Why the speed of light is constant for every observer ?
We don't know.
Arman777 said:
Is it a special thing for photons cause I guess there's no other elementry particle that can move with c ?
No. Everything massless moves at c.
Arman777 said:
And why such number
Because of the value of the fine structure constant. But we don't know why the fine structure constant has the value it does.
Arman777 said:
How would be the physics laws worked if c was so small or very large ?
Doesn't make sense - it's the fine structure constant you need to adjust.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Arman777 and Dale
Dale said:
There are several massless particles and they all travel at c in the same way as photons.
So Let's suppose we have a massless particle and an observer which his speed is non-zero.Then, Is this observer will see the speed of object as c ?
My answer is yes but I want to be sure.

Ibix said:
We don't know.
It's interesting. I thought maybe QED can explain it or some other Quantum Field Theory.

Ibix said:
No. Everything massless moves at c.
Is this an axiom or proven by math ? Since I guess it would be awkward If we see a massless particle moves with a speed of non ##c##.

Ibix said:
Because of the value of the fine structure constant. But we don't know why the fine structure constant has the value it does.

So FSC (Fine Structure Constant) adjusts the speed of light, Is that means, FSC is more important then the concept of c in the sense of the SR or GR ?

Ibix said:
Doesn't make sense - it's the fine structure constant you need to adjust.

FSC probably would change also other physical systems, but If we adjusted such that c will give us as a low value then how the world would be ?
 
Arman777 said:
So Let's suppose we have a massless particle and an observer which his speed is non-zero.Then, Is this observer will see the speed of object as c ?
In Newtonian physics, if I see two cars heading towards each other at 30mph, I can deduce that each car will see the other approaching it at 60mph. So there's no difference in the closing rate of the car measured in any frame. This is not true in relativity; in fact in the rest frame of one of the cars the speed of the other will be slightly lower than 60mph.

So in a frame where the observer is at rest, light will approach him at c. In a frame where the observer is moving, the light is still doing c but the observer has a non-zero velocity and their closing rate will not be c. You are always free to transform into a frame where the observer is not moving.
Arman777 said:
It's interesting. I thought maybe QED can explain it or some other Quantum Field Theory.
All scientific theories have assumptions that are not justified except that the predictions deduced from them match reality. The existence of an invariant speed is one of the assumptions of modern physics.
Arman777 said:
Is this an axiom or proven by math ? Since I guess it would be awkward If we see a massless particle moves with a speed of non ##c##.
It turns out that what we call the mass of a particle is the modulus of its energy-momentum vector. Things moving at c have a null energy-momentum vector, which is to say that its length is zero. So saying a particle has zero mass is equivalent to saying that it moves at light speed.
Arman777 said:
So FSC (Fine Structure Constant) adjusts the speed of light, Is that means, FSC is more important then the concept of c in the sense of the SR or GR
It isn't that it adjusts the speed of light; it adjusts the strength of the electromagnetic interaction, which has different effects on things we measure to determine light speed.
Arman777 said:
FSC probably would change also other physical systems, but If we adjusted such that c will give us as a low value then how the world would be ?
Beyond my level of knowledge, I'm afraid.
 
It was very enlightening thanks.

Ibix said:
Beyond my level of knowledge, I'm afraid.

Maybe there's some articles about it for different level of FSC.there's some things about cosmology and FSC relationship
 
Arman777 said:
So Let's suppose we have a massless particle and an observer which his speed is non-zero.Then, Is this observer will see the speed of object as c ?
In fact, the question as you've asked it is not as clear as you're thinking it is. When you say your observer's speed is non-zero, what exactly do you mean? How would you know whether his speed was non-zero or not?

To see the problem, consider the situation that we find ourselves in when we perform experiments of this sort. I observe a flash of light moving away me at speed ##c##. I also observe that you are moving in the same direction as the flash at some non-zero speed, say 100 km/hr just to be definite. You observe the same flash of light moving away from you at speed ##c##, and you also observe that I am moving in the opposite direction at 100 km/hr. Which one of us is the one with non-zero speed?

The only useful facts we have are that you have observed me moving in one direction at 100 km/hr and you've observed me moving in the opposite direction at 100 km/hr, and these facts are consistent with either or both of us having non-zero speed. Follow through on this line of thought and you will see that any statement about something having any speed, whether zero or non-zero, will be meaningless unless you also say what that speed is relative. A corollary is that any statements or questions about which of us is "really moving" or "really at rest" are meaningless.

My answer is yes but I want to be sure.
Phrased properly, your question would be "Will two observers moving relative to one another both see the speed of the object as ##c##?", and then you are correct. The answer is "yes".
 
Well, in that case observer's speed is non-zero relative to me and in this case I guess its yes, they will both see the speed of light as c.
 
there's massless particles but I guess photon is the only particle that moves with a speed of c.

I was doing research and found this,

"So it is a general rule that massless particles travel at the velocity of light, but only when in external lines in Feynman diagrams. This is true for photons, and we thought it was true for neutrinos but were proven wrong with neutrino oscillations.

Gluons on the other hand we only find within a nucleus and these are by definition internal lines in Feynman diagrams and therefore are not constrained to have a mass of 0, even though in the theory they are supposed to. In the asymptotically free case, at very high energies they should display a mass of zero."

"So Let's suppose we have a massless particle and an observer which his speed is non-zero.Then, Is this observer will see the speed of object as c ?"

Actually I was asking this question for other massless particle (gluon), but in the general sense It wasn't make much diffefence but now It might make a difference after this information?
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Arman777 said:
My answer is yes but I want to be sure
Yes. With the caveats mentioned by @Nugatory
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Arman777

Similar threads

  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
60
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K