Paper detail

On the $c$ equivalence principle and its relation to the weak equivalence principle of general relativity

We clarify the status of the $c$ equivalence principle ($c_u=c$) recently proposed by Heras et al \cite{JoseAJP2010,JoseEJP2010} and show that its proposal leads to an extension of the current framework of classical relativistic electrodynamics (CRE). This is because in the MLT (mass, length and time) system of units, CRE theory can contain only one fundamental constant of nature and special relativity dictates that this must be $c$, the standard speed of light in vacuum, a point not sufficiently emphasized in most textbooks with the exception of a few such as Panofsky and Phillips \cite{PanofskyPhillips}. The $c$ equivalence principle Heras \cite{JoseAJP2010,JoseEJP2010} can be shown to be linked to the second postulate of special relativity which extends the constancy of the unique velocity of light to all of physics (especially to mechanics) other than electromagnetism. An interesting corollary is that both the weak equivalence principle of general relativity and the $c$ equivalence principle are in fact one and the same, which we demonstrate within the context of Newtonian gravity.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author4 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Authors

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.