Speed of light Schmeed of light: things can travel faster

In summary, relativistic principles state that the speed of an object is relative to another object, and that the two objects will never observe each other at the same speed.
  • #1
Namloh2000
28
0
okay guys:
i understand relativistic principles but bear with me:

i gots two bodies traveling in opposite directions from a central point in space. both are traveling at .7c

relative to either one of the bodies, isn't the other traveling faster than c?

if there's no absolute rest, everything has to be measured relative to everything else, so this has to be so (even though i know that it may not).

would one body ever see the other while they were moving (would light from one body not be able to "catch up" to the other)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I'm just a novice at the math behind SR.

It sounds like you've got an incorrect assumption based on your "stationary" observer; that central point in space, C. Just because C observes A moving at 0.7c relative to itself, and B moving at -0.7c relative to itself, that doesn't mean that A and B will observe each other moving at 1.4c. More likely, because A and B do not fall within each other's light cones they'll never observe each other at all.

I'll think on this a bit more until someone else replies.
 
  • #3
Originally posted by Severian596
It sounds like you've got an incorrect assumption based on your "stationary" observer; that central point in space, C. Just because C observes A moving at 0.7c relative to itself, and B moving at -0.7c relative to itself, that doesn't mean that A and B will observe each other moving at 1.4c. More likely, because A and B do not fall within each other's light cones they'll never observe each other at all.
As a matter of fact, that's pretty much the funamental postulate of SR.

Namloh2000, you're trying to reconcile Einstein's relativity with classical mechanics. You can't. Put quite simply, Newtonian physics gets less and less accurate as speeds get higher and higher. I know at first read Einstien's relativity is hard to accept, but there is a mountain of emperical evidence supporting it. It really is how mechanics works on a macroscopic level.
 
  • #4
that's what i don't like... it's mechanics on a macro-scale - if it doesn't apply to everything it's not right...

where's a GUT when you need one?
 
  • #5
Your basic problem is this:
"i understand relativistic principles "

No, you don't. If you did then you would know that if two objects are moving directly toward one another, each moving at 0.7 c relative to an object between them, there speed relative to one another is

(0.7c+ 0.7c)/(1+ (0.7c)(0.7c)/c<sup>2</sup>)= 1.4c/1.49= 0.940c, still slightly less than the speed of light.
 
  • #6
Originally posted by Namloh2000
that's what i don't like... it's mechanics on a macro-scale - if it doesn't apply to everything it's not right...

where's a GUT when you need one?

But it does apply to everything. (Relativity that is)

Take your example; two rockets each heading at .7c relative to, and towards point C. Newtonian physics would have you add the velocities like this:

[tex]u+v=w[/tex]

and get

[tex].7c+.7c= 1.4c[/tex]

for the velocity of each rocket to each other as measured by either rocket.

Relativity says you have to use the following formula instead.

[tex]\frac{u+v}{1+\frac{uv}{c^{2}}}[/tex]

and get an answer of 0.94c

and that this is the correct formula for adding any velocities no matter how small. It is just that when adding small velocities, this formula will give an answer so close to the first formula, tha the difference can be safely ignored.

And since the answers at low velocities differ by so little, and until fairly recently we only had experience with such low velocities, we were fooled into believing that the first formula was the correct one.
 
  • #7
Originally posted by Namloh2000
that's what i don't like... it's mechanics on a macro-scale - if it doesn't apply to everything it's not right...

The SR velocity addition law does apply to everything.
 
  • #8
hey guys by opposite directions, i meant away from each other, not towards...
 
  • #9
Originally posted by Namloh2000
hey guys by opposite directions, i meant away from each other, not towards...

Same difference. It doesn't matter if they are moving away or towards, the same rules apply.
 
  • #10
Originally posted by Namloh2000
hey guys by opposite directions, i meant away from each other, not towards...
So its .94C towards each other or .94C away from each other.
that's what i don't like... it's mechanics on a macro-scale - if it doesn't apply to everything it's not right...
It isn't that it doesn't apply to very small things, its just that over small distances, quantum fluctuations have more and more of an effect. An electron (for example) is so small that quantum uncertainty is relatively large compared to its size. By the same token, while there is a very real and finite quantum uncertainty in your position, compared to your size its very small and isn't relevant in most situations.
 
  • #11
thank you all that posted! as i am naieve in my knowledge of physics, i am nonetheless adept at learning.

as my knowledge partly stems from the questions i ask, and when an apparent inconsistancy or misunderstanding will frustrate me; i am glad i may ask my questions in such a community, proving prompt and knowledgeable answers
 
  • #12
Namloh2000 said:
thank you all that posted! as i am naieve in my knowledge of physics, i am nonetheless adept at learning.

as my knowledge partly stems from the questions i ask, and when an apparent inconsistancy or misunderstanding will frustrate me; i am glad i may ask my questions in such a community, proving prompt and knowledgeable answers


me too. i posted another thread enquiring about lights susceptibility to gravity, and if it can vary the speed of light, and if this is so, is there a constant speed as gravity is not constant?
 
  • #13
azzkika said:
me too. i posted another thread enquiring about lights susceptibility to gravity, and if it can vary the speed of light, and if this is so, is there a constant speed as gravity is not constant?

You have a faulty logic here. The SPEED of propagation of something isn't the same as the AMPLITUDE of something. I can vary the intensity of light as well. By your logic, I've varied the speed of propagation of light. This isn't correct.

Zz.
 
  • #14
azzkika said:
me too. i posted another thread enquiring about lights susceptibility to gravity, and if it can vary the speed of light, and if this is so, is there a constant speed as gravity is not constant?
Gravity does NOT change the speed of light. Where did you get that impression?
 

What is the speed of light?

The speed of light is a fundamental physical constant that represents the maximum speed at which all matter and information in the universe can travel. It is approximately 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum.

Why is the speed of light considered the universal speed limit?

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the speed of light is the maximum speed at which energy and information can travel. As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases and time slows down, making it impossible for anything to exceed the speed of light.

Can anything travel faster than the speed of light?

Based on current scientific understanding, it is not possible for anything to travel faster than the speed of light. This is due to the fundamental laws of physics and the fact that the speed of light is the ultimate limit of the universe.

How is the speed of light measured?

The speed of light can be measured using various methods, such as the time it takes for light to travel a known distance or through the use of instruments such as a laser interferometer. The most accurate measurement of the speed of light was achieved using a technique known as the "wheeler method" in 1972.

What are the implications of the speed of light for space travel?

The speed of light poses a significant challenge for space travel. As it is currently impossible to travel faster than the speed of light, it would take an enormous amount of time to travel to even the nearest stars. However, scientists are constantly researching and exploring new technologies and theories that may one day allow us to travel at near-light speeds.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
584
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
848
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
130
Views
7K
Back
Top