Basing everything on speed of light

[teodorakis]

Hi when we derive time dilation and other consequences of relativity we base our idea to constant speed of light, and then we relate every other process to this. As I get we do it this way because speed of light is the speed of information and since we evaluate the processes in other reference frames by how we get the information(and the speed of information is constant and finite) we base our ideas on the speed of light.
In another way i ask that what is the relation between the popular thought experiment( light travels in the hypotheouse of the triangle) and slowing down of everyhing?
Is the answer is what i mention above? Or is it like this: everything must slow in same ratio beacuse if not the person in inertial reference frame has a way of understanding that he's moving and this contradicts the postulates of relativity? Or the two answers are both equal?

 

[bcrowell]

Hi when we derive time dilation and other consequences of relativity we base our idea to constant speed of light, and then we relate every other process to this. As I get we do it this way because speed of light is the speed of information and since we evaluate the processes in other reference frames by how we get the information(and the speed of information is constant and finite) we base our ideas on the speed of light.
In another way i ask that what is the relation between the popular thought experiment( light travels in the hypotheouse of the triangle) and slowing down of everyhing?
Is the answer is what i mention above? Or is it like this: everything must slow in same ratio beacuse if not the person in inertial reference frame has a way of understanding that he's moving and this contradicts the postulates of relativity? Or the two answers are both equal?

I think you're basically asking what is fundamental in SR and what is derived. This is a little complicated, because different people choose different sets of postulates. If that's a correct interpretation of your question, then the following FAQ entry may help. As a matter of taste, I agree with you that c should be viewed fundamentally as the maximum speed of information. Describing it as the speed of light is an anachronism; it was more natural to describe it that way in 1905 because in those days the EM field was the only known fundamental field.

FAQ: Why is the speed of light the same in all frames of reference?

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 (Ignatowsky 1911, Rindler 1979, Pal 2003). These systems take the symmetry properties of spacetime as their basic assumptions.

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 the symmetry-based systems, 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.

W.v.Ignatowsky, Phys. Zeits. 11 (1911) 972

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

Palash B. Pal, "Nothing but Relativity," http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045v1

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

 

[teodorakis]

I think you're basically asking what is fundamental in SR and what is derived. This is a little complicated, because different people choose different sets of postulates. If that's a correct interpretation of your question, then the following FAQ entry may help. As a matter of taste, I agree with you that c should be viewed fundamentally as the maximum speed of information. Describing it as the speed of light is an anachronism; it was more natural to describe it that way in 1905 because in those days the EM field was the only known fundamental field.

FAQ: Why is the speed of light the same in all frames of reference?

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 (Ignatowsky 1911, Rindler 1979, Pal 2003). These systems take the symmetry properties of spacetime as their basic assumptions.

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 the symmetry-based systems, 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.

W.v.Ignatowsky, Phys. Zeits. 11 (1911) 972

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

Palash B. Pal, "Nothing but Relativity," http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045v1

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

waow thanks a lot for the detailed answer, i want to ask one more thing. Do we say that all physical phenomenen based on the electromagnetic interactions? So when we talk about electromagnetism we have to base our ideas to speed oof light and all the processes slows down by this logic. And in thought experiments we choose a light clock for easiness to get the basic idea which everything depends on?

 

[bcrowell]

Do we say that all physical phenomenen based on the electromagnetic interactions?

No, definitely not. For an antidote to this, see the paper by Pal that I linked to in #2.

 

[Dale]

I wouldn't describe relativity in terms of the speed of information because that leads to the idea that if we were blind we would have developed SR with c = the speed of sound. The important thing about c (IMO) isn't that information often travels at that speed but rather that it is the only invariant speed.

 

[teodorakis]

I wouldn't describe relativity in terms of the speed of information because that leads to the idea that if we were blind we would have developed SR with c = the speed of sound. The important thing about c (IMO) isn't that information often travels at that speed but rather that it is the only invariant speed.

ok, do you mean that because of this invariance of speed we should "see" the moving refernce frames as "shrinking" and "slowing"?

 

[Dale]

Yes.

 

[teodorakis]

i still relate this to the finiteness of transfer of info. Because it helps me to visualise the space in my mind.

 

[Dale]

Lots of people do, but it can cause problems as I mentioned above. Here is another thread where someone (thetexan) took the information-speed line of reasoning to a wrong conclusion:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3240757&postcount=189

And my response:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3240840&postcount=193