The necessity of the second postulate in special relativity

DOI10.1016/J.SHPSB.2014.08.015MaRDI QIDQ493030zbMATH OpenOpenAlexFDO

Authors Alon Drory

Publication date 11 September 2015

Published in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Part B. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.4018

zbMATH Keywords

constancy of the speed of lightelectromagnetismLorentz transformationssecond postulatespecial relativity

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Physics (00A79) Electromagnetic theory (general) (78A25) Special relativity (83A05)

Abstract: Many authors noted that the principle of relativity together with space-time homogeneity and isotropy restrict the form of the coordinate transformations from one inertial frame to another to being Lorentz-like. The equations contain a free parameter, $k$ (equal to $c^{-2}$ in special relativity), which value is claimed to be merely an empirical matter, so that special relativity does not need the postulate of constancy of the speed of light. I analyze this claim and argue that the distinction between the cases $k=0$ and $keq0$ is on the level of a postulate and that until we assume one or the other, we have an incomplete structure that leaves many fundamental questions undecided, including basic prerequisites of experimentation. I examine an analogous case in which isotropy is the postulate dropped and use it to illustrate the problem. Finally I analyze two attempts by Sfarti, and Behera and Mukhopadhyay to derive the constancy of the speed of light from the principle of relativity. I show that these attempts make hidden assumptions that are equivalent to the second postulate.

Recommendations

• The Lorentz transformations. A new approach
• Derivation of special relativity from Maxwell and Newton
• Einstein's misgivings about his 1905 formulation of special relativity
• A dual first-postulate basis for special relativity
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 2059306

Cites work

• Can special relativity be derived from Galilean mechanics alone?
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3166120 (Why is no real title available?)
• New Approach to Special Relativity
• Nothing but relativity
• The necessity of the second postulate in special relativity

Cited in

(12)

• Time isotropy, Lorentz transformation and inertial frames
• A physical theory based solely on the first postulate of relativity
• Why not a sound postulate?
• Locality hypothesis and the speed of light
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 429169 (Why is no real title available?)
• A dual first-postulate basis for special relativity
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1796858 (Why is no real title available?)
• The necessity of the second postulate in special relativity
• Derivation of special relativity from Maxwell and Newton
• Special relativity from classical gedanken experiments involving electromagnetic forces: a contribution to relativity without light
• Constancy of the speed of light and the unit matching problem
• On the consistency between the assumption of a special system of reference and special relativity

This page was built for publication: The necessity of the second postulate in special relativity

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q493030)