Eisteins theory of relativity


by Dewbo
Tags: eisteins, relativity, theory
Dewbo
Dewbo is offline
#1
Feb14-13, 12:29 PM
P: 6
Is this statement true? The speed of light (about 300,000,000 meters per second) is the same for all observers, whether or not they're moving.

If so could someone please explain it to me, because it was my understanding that if an object was moving at a constant velocity it would appear to be travelling slower to an observer which is stationary than an observer travelling at any constant velocity.

Found on http://science.howstuffworks.com/warp-speed2.htm

Thanks
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Internet co-creator Cerf debunks 'myth' that US runs it
Astronomical forensics uncover planetary disks in Hubble archive
Solar-powered two-seat Sunseeker airplane has progress report
ghwellsjr
ghwellsjr is online now
#2
Feb14-13, 12:44 PM
PF Gold
P: 4,541
Quote Quote by Dewbo View Post
Is this statement true? The speed of light (about 300,000,000 meters per second) is the same for all observers, whether or not they're moving.

If so could someone please explain it to me, because it was my understanding that if an object was moving at a constant velocity it would appear to be travelling slower to an observer which is stationary than an observer travelling at any constant velocity.

Found on http://science.howstuffworks.com/warp-speed2.htm

Thanks
I didn't see anything in that link that says that light or anything else "would appear to be travelling slower to an observer which is stationary than an observer travelling at any constant velocity". Can you please copy and post the text in that link that says anything like that?
AmanDhaliwal
AmanDhaliwal is offline
#3
Feb14-13, 01:00 PM
P: 1
The statement is false. The speed of light is constant (299,792,458 m/s) regardless of reference frame and velocity of an observer.

Dewbo
Dewbo is offline
#4
Feb14-13, 01:14 PM
P: 6

Eisteins theory of relativity


Quote Quote by ghwellsjr View Post
I didn't see anything in that link that says that light or anything else "would appear to be travelling slower to an observer which is stationary than an observer travelling at any constant velocity". Can you please copy and post the text in that link that says anything like that?
That wasn't a quote, that was what I thought, as i said "because it was my understanding that...".
read the question more thoroughly please.
ZapperZ
ZapperZ is offline
#5
Feb14-13, 01:21 PM
Mentor
ZapperZ's Avatar
P: 28,841
Quote Quote by Dewbo View Post
That wasn't a quote, that was what I thought, as i said "because it was my understanding that...".
read the question more thoroughly please.
But then you put a link right after that statement. It is naturally implied that you learned that from that link!

So you need to thoroughly read your post and make sure you convey your message clearly.

IF that link wasn't your reference, what is the purpose for it being presented there?

Zz.
Dewbo
Dewbo is offline
#6
Feb14-13, 01:21 PM
P: 6
Quote Quote by AmanDhaliwal View Post
The statement is false. The speed of light is constant (299,792,458 m/s) regardless of reference frame and velocity of an observer.
This doesn't answer my question you just re quoted the statement with a more accurate speed of light and different context.
Nugatory
Nugatory is offline
#7
Feb14-13, 01:23 PM
Sci Advisor
Thanks
P: 2,973
Quote Quote by Dewbo View Post
Is this statement true? The speed of light (about 300,000,000 meters per second) is the same for all observers, whether or not they're moving.
That statement is true (aside from AmanDhaliwal's point about it being 299,792,458 m/s instead of "about 300,000,000" m/s).

If so could someone please explain it to me, because it was my understanding that if an object was moving at a constant velocity it would appear to be travelling slower to an observer which is stationary than an observer travelling at any constant velocity.
Your understanding is wrong - speeds do not add and subtract that way. Let's say that you're at rest, somebody ("Slowguy") passes by you at speed u; and then a moment later "Fastguy" moving at some faster speed v passes by you in the same direction. You're expecting that Fastguy's speed relative to Slowguy will be (v-u). It's not; it's [tex]\frac{v-u}{1-\frac{uv}{c^2}}[/tex]
Two interesting things about this formula:
1) For speeds that are small compared with the speed of light, it comes out REALLY close to the v-u that you expected; that's why you've never noticed.
2) If v=c (that is, fastguy is actually a pulse of light) the formula comes out to give fastguy moving at speed c relative to both you and slowguy, which makes the statement that you found on the web consistent.
ZapperZ
ZapperZ is offline
#8
Feb14-13, 01:26 PM
Mentor
ZapperZ's Avatar
P: 28,841
Quote Quote by Dewbo View Post
This doesn't answer my question you just re quoted the statement with a more accurate speed of light and different context.
In a way, it did answer your question. It is one of the fundamental postulate of SR that the speed of light is a constant in ALL reference frame.

The reason why you think it might move slower is because you are using what we call "Galilean transformation", i.e. the way we add velocities. It has already been shown that this is only valid for velocity that is very much smaller than c, i.e. an approximation.

If you start with the postulate of SR, then there is a more generalized way to add velocities. If you are asking WHY c is a constant in all reference frames, we have no answer to that (yet), because that is how Nature behaves as we know it now.

Zz.
harrylin
harrylin is offline
#9
Feb15-13, 04:54 AM
P: 3,178
Quote Quote by Dewbo View Post
Is this statement true? The speed of light (about 300,000,000 meters per second) is the same for all observers, whether or not they're moving.

If so could someone please explain it to me, because it was my understanding that if an object was moving at a constant velocity it would appear to be travelling slower to an observer which is stationary than an observer travelling at any constant velocity.

Found on http://science.howstuffworks.com/warp-speed2.htm

Thanks
That site is inaccurate, but it does explain the basics. Not clear enough? Regretfully I don't understand your (mis)understanding about observing a moving object, or what that has to do with the speed of light. No object can reach the speed of light.
Dewbo
Dewbo is offline
#10
Feb15-13, 05:16 AM
P: 6
Quote Quote by ZapperZ View Post
If you are asking WHY c is a constant in all reference frames, we have no answer to that (yet), because that is how Nature behaves as we know it now.
Ahh I see, so no one knows why it happens but we just have to accept that it's true.

Thank you for you help.
harrylin
harrylin is offline
#11
Feb15-13, 06:03 AM
P: 3,178
Quote Quote by Dewbo View Post
Ahh I see, so no one knows why it happens but we just have to accept that it's true. [..]
Different people give different answers as to the "why". For example, assuming that Maxwell's electrodynamics is correct then it has been shown that special relativity (incl. the aspect that you mentioned) follows from the conservation laws (conservation of momentum and energy). Perhaps it can also be shown to follow from the wave nature of matter (I'm not sure about that one).
Dewbo
Dewbo is offline
#12
Feb15-13, 06:48 AM
P: 6
Quote Quote by Nugatory View Post
it's [tex]\frac{v-u}{1-\frac{uv}{c^2}}[/tex]
Could you please expand on the equation, I'm not familiar with the terms "tex" and "frac".
harrylin
harrylin is offline
#13
Feb15-13, 06:57 AM
P: 3,178
Quote Quote by Dewbo View Post
Could you please expand on the equation, I'm not familiar with the terms "tex" and "frac".
What you should see is something like:

v - u
---------
1 - uv/c2

If you see terms like "tex" and "frac", then there is a problem with your browser or internet reception.
jtbell
jtbell is offline
#14
Feb15-13, 08:16 AM
Mentor
jtbell's Avatar
P: 11,255
Quote Quote by Dewbo View Post
Could you please expand on the equation, I'm not familiar with the terms "tex" and "frac".
See here:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...iv/einvel.html

There's also Wikipedia, but it probably has more "extra" stuff than you really want:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula

As Harrylin noted, your browser isn't decoding LaTeX code for you for some reason. If you're going to hang around here a lot, you really should get that fixed, because we use LaTeX a lot for equations. Try asking about it in "Forum Feedback and Announcements", down at the bottom of the list of forums on our home page.
Borek
Borek is offline
#15
Mar12-13, 05:05 PM
Admin
Borek's Avatar
P: 22,714
I believe MathJax doesn't work in tapatalk.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
What is the conflict between General theory of relativity and Quantum theory? Cosmology 38
Is Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity Theory mutually exclusive? Beyond the Standard Model 0
special theory theory oe relativity Special & General Relativity 1
Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory Special & General Relativity 7
General relativity Theory, spacetime and string theory question.. Please Help!!!! Introductory Physics Homework 2