Can you determine absolute motion?

[Physicist1231]

I have heard it said that an object not feeling acceleration cannot determine if he is in motion unless he sees another object to compare himself too.

But what if you had an apparatus that was made of two spheres. One inside the other. Perfectly centered on each other. The inner sphere emits light pulses at a given frequency. The outer sphere is lined with photo receptors and are ALL equi-distant from the surface of the inner sphere. All Photo receptors have a clocked that is syncronized with only the photo receptors immediatly next to it (minimal distance between them).

We know that the propogation of light is emitted from its 3d point in space and is subject to the doppler shift.

With that said if this entire apparatus were "absolutely still" thus having "zero motion" a pulse of light from the center would reach ALL surfaces of the outer sphere at the same time and all clocks would register as receiving the light at the same time.

However, if that apparatus were in motion in a given direction that same emition of light would hit the receptor that is in the opposite direction of travel earlier than the others ending with the last receptor receiving the light being the direction of travel. Since all clocks are synced to each other there is a time difference between the first and last and thus can determine the speed at which it is going.

Now that you have speed and direction you have Velocity.

If this is the case then can we say that something is at "absolute rest"?

 

[jeppetrost]

The short answer is "no".
Absolute velocity has no physical sense. This is actually the foundation of the theory of relativity.

 

[Physicist1231]

True it is the foundation of the theory of relativity. Not arguing that. Just saying what would this imply and would it the measurements and predictions be accurate according to the setup I made?

 

[f95toli]

However, if that apparatus were in motion in a given direction that same emition of light would hit the receptor that is in the opposite direction of travel earlier than the others ending with the last receptor receiving the light being the direction of travel.

This is not correct. Light always travels at c, you can't "add" a speed to it. So light would hit all the receptors at the same time.
Remember that EVERYONE will always measure the same speed of light(c).

 

[1MileCrash]

In addition to what f95toli said, it wouldn't work even if you used something other than light. This spherical object is never in motion relative to itself, you could use light, sound, water, gas, coca-cola, or anything else you wanted and it still wouldn't work.

The relative motion of the device wouldn't change anything, the signals would always hit the receptors at equal times regardless of the type of signal unless the object is accelerating, which can already be determined with a simple pendulum.

 

[Physicist1231]

This is not correct. Light always travels at c, you can't "add" a speed to it. So light would hit all the receptors at the same time.
Remember that EVERYONE will always measure the same speed of light(c).

Slightly off. Light does travel at the speed of light correct. It does this from the point of origin. Hence why we see light of a moving object having a doppler shift. Classic proof is the Red/blue shift of the light of stars we see.

It is true that there is a relativistic idea that light approaches all objects and the speed of light but that is not supported by what we see with the red and blue shifts of light.

a good quick link for this would be http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/doppler.htm

 

[Nabeshin]

Slightly off. Light does travel at the speed of light correct. It does this from the point of origin. Hence why we see light of a moving object having a doppler shift. Classic proof is the Red/blue shift of the light of stars we see.

It is true that there is a relativistic idea that light approaches all objects and the speed of light but that is not supported by what we see with the red and blue shifts of light.

a good quick link for this would be http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/doppler.htm

Wait, what? Are you seriously suggesting that red/blueshifted light is actually traveling at a velocity different from c?

 

[1MileCrash]

Slightly off. Light does travel at the speed of light correct. It does this from the point of origin. Hence why we see light of a moving object having a doppler shift. Classic proof is the Red/blue shift of the light of stars we see.

It is true that there is a relativistic idea that light approaches all objects and the speed of light but that is not supported by what we see with the red and blue shifts of light.

a good quick link for this would be http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/doppler.htm

Red/blue shift is from a lengthening/contraction of wavelengths and has nothing to do with the speed of the photons.

And, even so, this is irrelevant because in order for red/blue shift to occur, the source has to be accelerating to/away from the observer, which could never happen in your device since it's two spheres mounted to one another as one piece, with the outer one being the "observer" and the inner one being the "source."

 

[DrGreg]

It is true that there is a relativistic idea that light approaches all objects at the speed of light...

It's not just an idea: the whole of relativity is based on that assumption and there is overwhelming experimental evidence to support relativity.

... but that is not supported by what we see with the red and blue shifts of light.

The Doppler effect is 100% compatible with relativity: see Relativistic Doppler effect. The shifts are a change of frequency, not a change of velocity.

And the answer to the question "Can you determine absolute motion?" No. The whole of relativity is based on that assumption and there is overwhelming experimental evidence to support relativity.

 

[Physicist1231]

Wait, what? Are you seriously suggesting that red/blueshifted light is actually traveling at a velocity different from c?

No. The photons are traveling at the speed of light. From the point in which they were emitted. The closing speed to a reference point is not necessarily C if the reference point is in motion.

 

[1MileCrash]

The closing speed to a reference point is not necessarily C if the reference point is in motion.

Yes it is..

 

[jeppetrost]

One thing should be certain:
Light travels at the "speed of light" or c in which ever reference frame you are.
Always travels at v=c. If you shine light at someone who is going at you at 200,000,000 m/s and they see the light traveling towards them at c. The same speed as any light they see.
All this is of course in vacuum.

 

[Physicist1231]

Red/blue shift is from a lengthening/contraction of wavelengths and has nothing to do with the speed of the photons.

And, even so, this is irrelevant because in order for red/blue shift to occur, the source has to be accelerating to/away from the observer, which could never happen in your device since it's two spheres mounted to one another as one piece, with the outer one being the "observer" and the inner one being the "source."

There needs no acceleration. Just a closing or opening speed of the objects in question. Also, you are correct that we see these shifts due to the wave length change. This is also has an effect on the spacings of the photons (which are the same thing).

Photons emitted at a set interval expand out in a perfectly spherical pattern and if the light source is in motion the spacing between the surface of these spheres are not the same distance all they way around. (hence doppler shift).

 

[Decimator]

If we can't determine absolute motion, what happens when a spacecraft compares its clock to a clock on earth? Why would we be unable to discover which direction of motion causes the spacecraft 's clock to run faster than the clock on earth?

 

[jeppetrost]

When you say opening/closing speed what do you mean?

 

[jeppetrost]

If we can't determine absolute motion, what happens when a spacecraft compares its clock to a clock on earth? Why would we be unable to discover which direction of motion causes the spacecraft 's clock to run faster than the clock on earth?

Well, in the spacecraft , clocks on Earth run slow, but on earth, the clocks in the rocket run slow. It's, you know, relative.

 

[Physicist1231]

When you say opening/closing speed what do you mean?

If objects are overall seperating this is an opening speed but if they are overall getting closer together this is closing speed. You can use the same term for both and just have it negative in the opposite direction. IE i run away from you i have a negative closing speed.

 

[Physicist1231]

It's not just an idea: the whole of relativity is based on that assumption and there is overwhelming experimental evidence to support relativity.

The Doppler effect is 100% compatible with relativity: see Relativistic Doppler effect. The shifts are a change of frequency, not a change of velocity.

And the answer to the question "Can you determine absolute motion?" No. The whole of relativity is based on that assumption and there is overwhelming experimental evidence to support relativity.

and frequency is the the number of wavelengths in a given interval of time. The shorter the wavelength the higher the frequency. Thus if the wave length is getting shorter so would the space between the photons. (if it is in the direction of travel... opposite effect in the if you are standing behind the objects path.

 

[1MileCrash]

There needs no acceleration. Just a closing or opening speed of the objects in question.

I misspoke, but what I said applies. A closing or opening speed between your source and reciever can't happen either if the spheres are mounted to each other.

 

[jeppetrost]

I have to object to your idea of "space between photons".
A single photon has some wavelength. Even if you have just one photon you could - in principle - assign it with some color, ie. wavelength/frequency, whatever you want.
The space between the photons is -here- irrelevant.

 

[Physicist1231]

Yes it is..

Nice. So if light were to APPROACH ever object at the speed of light and NOT from the origin inwhich it was emitted. Why do we determine that light has a doppler shift.

Even better if you have 20 bodies 20ls (light seconds) distance away from a photon of light and they a run away in various directions and speeds then according to each object the light would have hit them in 20 seconds. Thus a single wave/photon of light now has to accelerate to a different speed to compensate the spatial distance to travel to reach the object in time.

 

[1MileCrash]

Nice. So if light were to APPROACH ever object at the speed of light and NOT from the origin inwhich it was emitted. Why do we determine that light has a doppler shift.

Even better if you have 20 bodies 20ls (light seconds) distance away from a photon of light and they a run away in various directions and speeds then according to each object the light would have hit them in 20 seconds. Thus a single wave/photon of light now has to accelerate to a different speed to compensate the spatial distance to travel to reach the object in time.

I think you're misunderstanding lies in the fact that the wave properties and particle properties of light aren't that "nice."

The wavelength of light is a value/attribute of the wave we use to understand it, it's not literally how far apart particle photons are from one another in a beam of light.

Thus a single wave/photon of light now has to accelerate to a different speed to compensate the spatial distance to travel to reach the object in time.

No. The speed of light does not change in that case, spacetime does.

 

[Physicist1231]

I misspoke, but what I said applies. A closing or opening speed between your source and reciever can't happen either if the spheres are mounted to each other.

I actually mounted then there is no mistaking the distance between them. but if you think about it. If you emit a photon of light at a moving target it is traveling at C and needs to cover not only the initial distance between the spheres but also the distance the outer sphere moved in that amount of time.

Where as in the opposite direction of travel light is still traveling at C but now has less distance to cover since the outer sphere is moving closer.

 

[Physicist1231]

I think you're misunderstanding lies in the fact that the wave properties and particle properties of light aren't that "nice."

The wavelength of light is a value/attribute of the wave we use to understand it, it's not literally how far apart particle photons are from one another in a beam of light.



No. The speed of light does not change in that case, spacetime does.

Speed is made up of distance(speed) and time. It is kinda odd to say that X does not change just the things that make it up.

I can see your argument that this is an attribute. At the same time I would say that Speed is an attribute of the individual photon.

 

[jeppetrost]

Please state, 1231, what is really your problem? That one can't measure absolute motion? Or that the speed of light (in vacuum) is the same in all inertail reference frames?

 

[Decimator]

Well, in the spacecraft , clocks on Earth run slow, but on earth, the clocks in the rocket run slow. It's, you know, relative.

So even if each side continually transmits, digitally, the current time according to them, both sides will see the other's clock as being slower?

 

[1MileCrash]

I actually mounted then there is no mistaking the distance between them. but if you think about it. If you emit a photon of light at a moving target it is traveling at C and needs to cover not only the initial distance between the spheres but also the distance the outer sphere moved in that amount of time.

Where as in the opposite direction of travel light is still traveling at C but now has less distance to cover since the outer sphere is moving closer.

If the inner sphere and outer sphere are locked together, and traveling in a given direction at a constant speed, it is exactly the same as if they were both completely motionless.

Speed is made up of distance(speed) and time. It is kinda odd to say that X does not change just the things that make it up.

If I am traveling .5 C relative to an observer and shine a light out in front of me, I measure it as C as does the observer, because spacetime is relatively different between myself and the observer.

Light is always measured at C because any motion that would *possibly* change the speed that light is traveling also alters spacetime which results in a speed still measured at C.

 

[Physicist1231]

Please state, 1231, what is really your problem? That one can't measure absolute motion? Or that the speed of light (in vacuum) is the same in all inertail reference frames?

I do have some confusion as I have seen both statements made:

A photon of light is emitted from its source at the speed of light. Thus radiating out in a propogational wave.

This means that a photon of light IS traveling at C but only from one point in space/time. that would be the origin from which it came (not the object but the XYZ coords in space)

Then I have seen that a photon of light APPROACHS all objects at C. This seems like a physical imposibility as doing the math on this a single photon of light can be in several places at once.

 

[Physicist1231]

So even if each side continually transmits, digitally, the current time according to them, both sides will see the other's clock as being slower?

bear in mind that in this apparatus all clocks are synced with the one next to it. So if you look at all clocks individually they will all be reporting the same time however one clock viewing a clock on the opposite side will see the other as slow (but still ticking at the correct interval).

 

[jeppetrost]

Well, a photon (or any massless particle, really) goes at the speed of light in any inertial reference frame.
Say you have three people. One is standing still, one is going at say 0.4c and the third going at 0.999999999999c. The first person sees/registers some photon going at c and then asks both his friends how fast it is going from their point of view. They will both be answering c. No matter how fast they were going, they would all be seeing the photon going at c. It's quite amazing, really.

 

[Physicist1231]

If the inner sphere and outer sphere are locked together, and traveling in a given direction at a constant speed, it is exactly the same as if they were both completely motionless.



If I am traveling .5 C relative to an observer and shine a light out in front of me, I measure it as C as does the observer, because spacetime is relatively different between myself and the observer.

Light is always measured at C because any motion that would *possibly* change the speed that light is traveling also alters spacetime which results in a speed still measured at C.

See that is my point. Just because an observer is in motion does not mean that the PHOTON is changing speed at all.

Say the Earth was stationary. You throw a ball at 100mph. A standing observer (in the pathh of travel will percieve this as moving at 100mph but if a person runs at 20mph away he perceives it as going 80mph. The photon of light/ball is still traveling at an absolute speed of 100mph. just perceived differently given the reference point speed.

So which is it given the previous statements. Is light traveling at the speed of light:

To all reference points

OR

From the 3d source point in space which it was emitted?

 

[jeppetrost]

See that is my point. Just because an observer is in motion does not mean that the PHOTON is changing speed at all.

Say the Earth was stationary. You throw a ball at 100mph. A standing observer (in the pathh of travel will percieve this as moving at 100mph but if a person runs at 20mph away he perceives it as going 80mph. The photon of light/ball is still traveling at an absolute speed of 100mph. just perceived differently given the reference point speed.

So which is it given the previous statements. Is light traveling at the speed of light:

To all reference points

OR

From the 3d source point in space which it was emitted?

This is exactly why realtivity is hard to get at first: It is sooo different from what you expirience in your everyday life.
Say you emit some light. Then you run towards it. It will still be going at c - both to you and to someone standing still where you started.

 

[Physicist1231]

Well, a photon (or any massless particle, really) goes at the speed of light in any inertial reference frame.
Say you have three people. One is standing still, one is going at say 0.4c and the third going at 0.999999999999c. The first person sees/registers some photon going at c and then asks both his friends how fast it is going from their point of view. They will both be answering c. No matter how fast they were going, they would all be seeing the photon going at c. It's quite amazing, really.

do you have the math on that? Cause using Newtonian Physics (seems to be a cusw word on here some times then that Photon that was emitted would have reached all three individuals at the same time but each person is in a separate location. So thus that one photon is in X (number of reference points) places at the same time.

(I say this assuming that at the beginning all people were the same distance from the photon when it was emitted.)

Also A might not be the best person to ask since there will be a time delay from his inquery to reach the others and their response back lol.

 

[Physicist1231]

This is exactly why realtivity is hard to get at first: It is sooo different from what you expirience in your everyday life.
Say you emit some light. Then you run towards it. It will still be going at c - both to you and to someone standing still where you started.

So the statement that it is moving at the speed of light from the 3d point in space is false? I just want to make sure before I comment further...

 

[jeppetrost]

So the statement that it is moving at the speed of light from the 3d point in space is false? I just want to make sure before I comment further...

Well, it is. But it is also moving at c relative to anything else.