Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Invariance of the speed of light


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 geordief

geordief

    Protist

  • Senior Members
  • 799 posts

Posted 5 January 2017 - 03:37 PM

This has been verified experimentally and it seems that any effect exhibiting this invariance and a finite speed could  be used to derive the Lorentz Transformations.

 

Is there any way of showing that this invariance and finite speed must be the case  or does one just accept observations as they are and proceed from there?

 

https://books.google...&q=28.2&f=false

 

page 43


  • 0

#2 zztop

zztop

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 149 posts

Posted 5 January 2017 - 03:57 PM

Not clear what you are asking, can you try again?


  • 0

#3 geordief

geordief

    Protist

  • Senior Members
  • 799 posts

Posted 5 January 2017 - 04:05 PM

Not clear what you are asking, can you try again?

Can the invariance of the speed of light (or any other effect) be proven other than experimentally?

 

Is it ,as apparently was the case with Einstein , a "given" or can it be shown that it corresponds to certain (even more) fundamental requirements?

 

I don't want to disprove (since it is experimentally true apparently)  it but would be interested if it might be shown from first principles(which I doubt  by the way -but still  live in hope)


  • 0

#4 zztop

zztop

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 149 posts

Posted 5 January 2017 - 04:14 PM

Can the invariance of the speed of light (or any other effect) be proven other than experimentally?

 

There are derivations of SR that do not use the axiom of light speed constancy, these papers actually derive this from the principle of relativity PLUS the outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment.


Edited by zztop, 5 January 2017 - 04:16 PM.

  • 0

#5 StringJunky

StringJunky

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 5,917 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 5 January 2017 - 04:31 PM

AFAIK Einstein postulated light as c then investigated the effects of assuming that on the other parameters affected by it; it is an axiom.


  • 0

 Education, like life, is a journey not a destination


#6 Klaynos

Klaynos

    Insert Witty Comment

  • Moderators
  • 8,318 posts

Posted 5 January 2017 - 04:33 PM

Experiments are all that can provide evidence in science.

The speed of light being constant is a result of electromagnetism, Maxwell's theory is relativistic. The evidence that this theory is correct is overwhelming and some simple experiments e.G flowing charge having a magnetic effect, can be easily shown with a wire and compuss at home.
  • 0
Klaynos - share and enjoy.

#7 geordief

geordief

    Protist

  • Senior Members
  • 799 posts

Posted 5 January 2017 - 04:41 PM

Not quite what I asked,I think
@zztop
.It was specifically the frame invariance of lightI was wondering about-whether that could be derived from other postulates.

I think the answer is no but am really just scratching an itch, I suppose.

Edited by geordief, 5 January 2017 - 04:45 PM.

  • 0

#8 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 35,739 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 5 January 2017 - 04:49 PM

Not quite what I asked,I think

.It was specifically the frame invariance of lightI was wondering about-whether that could be derived from other postulates.

I think the answer is no but am really just scratching an itch, I suppose.

 

 

The invariance is present in Maxwell's equations. That they work (there is a wave equation you can formulate from them) is evidence that c is invariant. If it weren't, you wouldn't have EM waves as a solution when there was relative motion of the source and receiver.  Relativity is an extension of this applied to kinematics, which is why the paper is entitled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"


  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#9 zztop

zztop

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 149 posts

Posted 5 January 2017 - 04:54 PM

Not quite what I asked,I think
@zztop
.It was specifically the frame invariance of lightI was wondering about-whether that could be derived from other postulates.

I think the answer is no but am really just scratching an itch, I suppose.

I answered your question exactly. The answer is not "no", it is "yes". Not only that the speed light is invariant and equal to "c" in vacuum in inertial frames, it can ALSO be PROVEN that it is invariant and equal to "c" in uniformly accelerated frames and in uniformly rotating frames. These are very advanced subjects in relativity.


  • 0

#10 geordief

geordief

    Protist

  • Senior Members
  • 799 posts

Posted 5 January 2017 - 05:10 PM

I answered your question exactly. The answer is not "no", it is "yes". Not only that the speed light is invariant and equal to "c" in vacuum in inertial frames, it can ALSO be PROVEN that it is invariant and equal to "c" in uniformly accelerated frames and in uniformly rotating frames. These are very advanced subjects in relativity.

You would not have a link to where I might find that proof, would you?

The invariance is present in Maxwell's equations. That they work (there is a wave equation you can formulate from them) is evidence that c is invariant. If it weren't, you wouldn't have EM waves as a solution when there was relative motion of the source and receiver.  Relativity is an extension of this applied to kinematics, which is why the paper is entitled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"

Yes I think I have heard that but have not so far been able to go onto it myself at"first hand".Perhaps that is also what zztop is getting at.

Edited by geordief, 5 January 2017 - 05:13 PM.

  • 0

#11 zztop

zztop

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 149 posts

Posted 5 January 2017 - 05:24 PM

You would not have a link to where I might find that proof, would you?
 

Sure, here is the earliest one: https://en.wikipedia...wski_.281910.29

There are many more:

 

L ́evy-Leblond, J.M. (1976). One more derivation of the Lorentz transformation.
American Journal of Physics, 44, 271-277
Mermin, N. D. (1984). Relativity without light.American Journal of Physics,52, 119-124
Mitvalsky, V. (1966). Special relativity without the postulate of constancy of light,American Journal of Physics, 34, 825
Pal, Palash B, (2003). Nothing but relativity.European Journal of Physics, 24,315-319
Pauli, W. (1958).Theory of Relativity, (Pergamon, Oxford)
Schwartz, H. M. (1984). Deduction of the general Lorentz transformations from a set of necessary assumptions.American Journal of Physics, 52(4), 346-350
Schwartz, M. (1987). Principles of electrodynamics. Dover, New York
Sela, O., Tamir, B., Dolev, S. and Elitzur, A.C. (2009). Can special relativity be derived from Galilean mechanics alone?Foundations of Physics, 39,499-509

Edited by zztop, 5 January 2017 - 05:29 PM.

  • 0

#12 Delta1212

Delta1212

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,402 posts

Posted 6 January 2017 - 12:05 AM

AFAIK Einstein postulated light as c then investigated the effects of assuming that on the other parameters affected by it; it is an axiom.


I'm not sure that postulated is quite the right term. It falls out of Maxwell's equations, but nobody had fully worked through all of the implications of that before Einstein did.
  • 0

#13 StringJunky

StringJunky

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 5,917 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 6 January 2017 - 12:48 AM

I'm not sure that postulated is quite the right term. It falls out of Maxwell's equations, but nobody had fully worked through all of the implications of that before Einstein did.

Right.


  • 0

 Education, like life, is a journey not a destination


#14 hoola

hoola

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 610 posts
  • Locationcolorado, usa

Posted 6 January 2017 - 03:28 AM

while the speed of light is fixed, doesn't the hawking radiation emitted at the end of a black hole's life supposedly exceed C as a result of the uncertainty principle?

Edited by hoola, 6 January 2017 - 03:30 AM.

  • 0

#15 Mordred

Mordred

    Resident Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 4,153 posts

Posted 6 January 2017 - 06:47 AM

no Hawking radiation occurs outside the EH and the particles do not exceed c
  • 0
http://www.einsteins.../LightCone.html
http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/main
http://cosmocalc.wikidot.com/start
If you wish to change the rules, you must first understand the rules.

#16 hoola

hoola

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 610 posts
  • Locationcolorado, usa

Posted 8 January 2017 - 05:44 AM

This was discussed in the hawking radiation lectures of 2015. I don't remember who said it, or which lecture, but it did seem pretty unbelievable...the reason given, as I recall was that as the position of the hawking radiation source is more defineable as it shrinks, the velocity becomes less defineable (uncertainty principle), and that is why the radiation increases as the hole shrinks down towards zero size. I will go back over them (Utube) and find out and provide that info.

Edited by hoola, 8 January 2017 - 05:51 AM.

  • 0

#17 MigL

MigL

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,778 posts
  • LocationSt. Catharines, Ontario, Canada

Posted 8 January 2017 - 07:25 PM

No, Mordred is right, Hawking Radiation increases as the BH shrinks because the 'temperature' of the BH increases.

 

IIRC the Lorentz transforms were introduced in the late 1800s and were originally proposed as an explanation for the M-M experiment, long before Einstein's great year of 1905.

These transforms were also used by Poincare, who came close to beating Einstein to Special Relativity; but it was Einstein who proposed the invariance of c to explain the application of the transforms.


  • 0

#18 hoola

hoola

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 610 posts
  • Locationcolorado, usa

Posted 9 January 2017 - 04:55 PM

ok, but what is the proposed explanation of that evaporation temperature increase, if not via the uncertainty principle of position vs. momentum allowing particle speeds to exceed C?

Edited by hoola, 9 January 2017 - 05:05 PM.

  • 0

#19 Janus

Janus

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 1,208 posts

Posted 9 January 2017 - 05:31 PM

ok, but what is the proposed explanation of that evaporation temperature increase, if not via the uncertainty principle of position vs. momentum allowing particle speeds to exceed C?

A increase in momentum via the uncertainty principle does not lead to particles exceeding c.  It increases the momentum and thus the kinetic energy of the particles created, and thus the temperature, because temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy.   But since both kinetic energy and momentum approaches infinity as the speed of the particle approaches c,  they can increase without bound without the particle's speed ever exceeding c.


  • 0

#20 hoola

hoola

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 610 posts
  • Locationcolorado, usa

Posted 10 January 2017 - 01:52 AM

thank you janus, this seems to settle the issue of why the temp increases.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users