Why speed of light is measured same regardless of their speed?

[adjacent]

Can someone please explain me why speed of light is measured same regardless of their speed?
Will not a person moving with 0.6c measure speed of light as 0.4c?

 

[mfb]

It is "just" an experimental result that the speed of light is the same for all.

Will not a person moving with 0.6c measure speed of light as 0.4c?

No. You cannot use the everyday experience of time and space for those velocities, they are not right there any more. You have to work with relativistic mechanics. The result is that the speed of light is indeed constant for all observers. There are tons of books and webpages, explaining the details.

 

[Doc Al]

Can someone please explain me why speed of light is measured same regardless of their speed?

Space and time conspire to ensure that the speed of light is the same in every frame. That's one of the basic premises of special relativity.

Will not a person moving with 0.6c measure speed of light as 0.4c?

No.

 

[adjacent]

Thanks once again

 

[ghwellsjr]

Can someone please explain me why speed of light is measured same regardless of their speed?
Will not a person moving with 0.6c measure speed of light as 0.4c?

No one has ever measured anything that would violate the Principle of Relativity. If what you ask were true, then we would live in a different world where no one would have come up with such a Principle. So there really is no answer to your "why" question except to say that that is the way our world behaves.

 

[Boy@n]

No one has ever measured anything that would violate the Principle of Relativity. If what you ask were true, then we would live in a different world where no one would have come up with such a Principle. So there really is no answer to your "why" question except to say that that is the way our world behaves.

Couldn't the answer to 'why' be: because that's maximal speed 'fabric' of vacuum (empty space with quantum fluctuations) 'allows' photons (electromagnetical waves) to propagate?

 

[mfb]

The speed limit is more fundamental than light - you don't even need light to determine it, and it applies to gravity as well.
In addition, words cannot give some fundamental reason - you can just ask "why" again for any statement in words.

 

[rbj]

Can someone please explain me why speed of light is measured same regardless of their speed?

It is "just" an experimental result that the speed of light is the same for all.

no, it's more than that. Einstein's thought "experiments" made no use of results of Michaelson-Morley. in fact, i don't think that those results would have surprized him at all.

No one has ever measured anything that would violate the Principle of Relativity.

something like that.

Will not a person moving with 0.6 \ c measure speed of light as 0.4 \ c?

0.6 \ c relative to what?? the whole point of Relativity is that any observer that is not accelerated has an equal claim to being "at rest" as any other inertial observer. so while one observer might view this person you refer to as "moving [at] 0.6 \ c" (implicitly relative to that observer), the person this first observer thinks is moving at 0.6 \ c is also an observer and is also an inertial observer with just as much reason to believe she is at rest and thinks that this first observer is moving in the opposite direction at 0.6 \ c.

who is right? the first observer watching the second or the second observer watching the first?

the theory of Special Relativity says that they are both equally correct. they both have equal claim to being at rest. and if that is the case, there is no reason for why the laws of nature should be different for one of the observers than for the other. both observers have the very same set of Maxwell's equations apply to electromagnetic phenomena that they observe. both observers have, in their Maxwell's equations, the very same \epsilon_0 and \mu_0. and since

c = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}

then both observers, in their own frame of reference, must have the same c.

the kinda unintuitive phenomena regarding time dilation and length contraction and such come about when you consider both observes (each moving relative to the other) are examining the very same ray of light that they both observe to be moving at the same invariant speed c.

how is it that when one observer says "this beam of light is moving at 299792458 m/s" and the other observer says (regarding the same ray of light) that "this beam of light is moving at 299792458 m/s"? how can that be true when they are moving 179875474.8 m/s relative to each other? the only possible way for that to happen is that when they observe the other's clock, both observers see that the other's clock is ticking at a slower rate than their own clock (which, to them, is ticking away just fine at the rate it's supposed to).

does this make sense, adjacent?

 

[Nugatory]

Couldn't the answer to 'why' be: because that's maximal speed 'fabric' of vacuum (empty space with quantum fluctuations) 'allows' photons (electromagnetical waves) to propagate?

That's a dangerously misleading way of thinking about it, because once you introduce that word "fabric" (and in this context it's a metaphor, not a real thing) it is almost impossible not to fall into the error of thinking of things moving or at rest relative to that "fabric".

But even if it weren't dangerously misleading, it would still be subject to mfb's criticism: It just leads to another "why" question.

 

[Nugatory]

and if that is the case, there is no reason for why the laws of nature should be different for one of the observers than for the other. both observers have the very same set of Maxwell's equations apply to electromagnetic phenomena that they observe. both observers have, in their Maxwell's equations, the very same \epsilon_0{ and \mu_0{. and since

c = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}

then both observers, in their own frame of reference, must have the same c.

That is also my favorite argument for the constancy of the speed of light, although it's more compelling in hindsight. Maxwell's equations were discovered in 1861, but an entire generation of physicists spent the next 40-odd years considering (quite reasonably, given the historical context) ether theories instead of recognizing a hint from nature that the speed of light should be constant for all inertial observers.

Einstein himself chose to present the constant speed of light as a postulate ("Hey, look what happens what if we assume the speed of light is constant for all inertial observers! We don't need no stinkin' ether!") in part because in 1905 no one would be convinced by the argument that it follows directly from the principle of relativity plus Maxwell's electrodynamics. More than a century later, it's still not by no means cut-and-dried; there have been a number of threads here on exactly this topic.

 

[Boy@n]

...be subject to mfb's criticism: It just leads to another "why" question.

Sure, but not all 'why' questions make sense.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Will not a person moving with 0.6c measure speed of light as 0.4c?

0.6 \ c relative to what??

Relative to the light.

the whole point of Relativity is that any observer that is not accelerated has an equal claim to being "at rest" as any other inertial observer. so while one observer might view this person you refer to as "moving [at] 0.6 \ c" (implicitly relative to that observer), the person this first observer thinks is moving at 0.6 \ c is also an observer and is also an inertial observer with just as much reason to believe she is at rest and thinks that this first observer is moving in the opposite direction at 0.6 \ c.

who is right? the first observer watching the second or the second observer watching the first?

You're missing the whole point of the Principle of Relativity. It's not that each observer is at rest and so his measurements come out the same--it's that even when an observer is not at rest but traveling at some high rate of speed, his measurements still come out the same.

the theory of Special Relativity says that they are both equally correct. they both have equal claim to being at rest. and if that is the case, there is no reason for why the laws of nature should be different for one of the observers than for the other. both observers have the very same set of Maxwell's equations apply to electromagnetic phenomena that they observe. both observers have, in their Maxwell's equations, the very same \epsilon_0 and \mu_0. and since

c = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}

then both observers, in their own frame of reference, must have the same c.

the kinda unintuitive phenomena regarding time dilation and length contraction and such come about when you consider both observes (each moving relative to the other) are examining the very same ray of light that they both observe to be moving at the same invariant speed c.

how is it that when one observer says "this beam of light is moving at 299792458 m/s" and the other observer says (regarding the same ray of light) that "this beam of light is moving at 299792458 m/s"? how can that be true when they are moving 179875474.8 m/s relative to each other? the only possible way for that to happen is that when they observe the other's clock, both observers see that the other's clock is ticking at a slower rate than their own clock (which, to them, is ticking away just fine at the rate it's supposed to).

does this make sense, adjacent?

But now you're talking about a different subject than the one the OP asked about. He asked about measuring the speed of light (always a two-way round-trip measurement) and it is not possible to measure or observe the propagation of a ray of light which is one-way. So if you're going to bring up this new subject, you should say that according to the second postulate of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, each inertial observer assigns the speed of the beam of light to be c and then you can proceed to discuss the implication of the Time Dilation of the other ones clock but you still should not say that they can actually see the other ones clock ticking at the slower Time Dilated rate because they cannot.

 

[Boy@n]

Einstein himself chose to present the constant speed of light as a postulate "Hey, look what happens if we assume the speed of light is constant for all inertial observers!"

And what would happen if there were no upper limit for motion? How would nature 'behave'?

We still have that exception of spacetime expanding, where expansion itself can go faster than the speed of light/gravitation... So, if there is a star 'riding' such expansion wave, would that star go backwards in time to another star which is left behind? (Say that expansion stopped after some time, so light from that star moving faster than c would catch that other star staying behind.)

 

[ghwellsjr]

That is also my favorite argument for the constancy of the speed of light, although it's more compelling in hindsight. Maxwell's equations were discovered in 1861, but an entire generation of physicists spent the next 40-odd years considering (quite reasonably, given the historical context) ether theories instead of recognizing a hint from nature that the speed of light should be constant for all inertial observers.

Maxwell himself was the one who believed that his equations supported the notion of a medium in which light propagated and suggested a way to determine the absolute rest state of that medium.

Einstein himself chose to present the constant speed of light as a postulate ("Hey, look what happens what if we assume the speed of light is constant for all inertial observers! We don't need no stinkin' ether!") in part because in 1905 no one would be convinced by the argument that it follows directly from the principle of relativity plus Maxwell's electrodynamics. More than a century later, it's still not by no means cut-and-dried; there have been a number of threads here on exactly this topic.

As I just pointed out in my previous post, the constant measured speed of light, c, was already experimentally accepted and follows from Maxwell's equations but that is not the significance of Einstein's second postulate. Maxwell's equations are just as much at home with an absolute ether theory. It takes Einstein's second postulate (or something equivalent) to render the concept of an ether as pointless.

 

[Boy@n]

You have to work with relativistic mechanics. The result is that the speed of light is indeed constant for all observers.

(I hope me question will make sense.)

Right at the time spaceship traveling at 0.99C passes Sun, going towards Earth, the pilot starts measuring how much time it takes for light from Sun to reach Earth.

Observers on Earth measure about 8 minutes and 19 seconds, does the pilot measure the same amount of time since speed of light is constant for all observers, no matter of their speed?

If different time it seems strange, since distance from Sun to Earth is (for this thought experiment) constant (except if distance is shorter for the pilot, maybe due to space 'contraction'?).

If same time it also seems strange if light is moving away from spaceship toward the Earth at speed C relative to spaceship.

 

[Nugatory]

And what would happen if there were no upper limit for motion? How would nature 'behave'?

We still have that exception of spacetime expanding, where expansion itself can go faster than the speed of light/gravitation... So, if there is a star 'riding' such expansion wave, would that star go backwards in time to another star which is left behind? (Say that expansion stopped after some time, so light from that star moving faster than c would catch that other star staying behind.)

Yes, as a result of expanding spacetime it's perfectly possible for sufficiently distant stars to be doing something that could be kinda sort of described as "moving away faster than the speed of light" although that certainly does not imply going backwards in time or anything like that.

I deliberately specified inertial observers to avoid the complexites of expanding and non-flat spacetime, and because I didn't want to get into the math that's needed to move beyond the "kinda sort of described as" language in the previous paragraph. You really have to thoroughly understand the simpler case of flat and non-expanding spacetime completely before you move on to the more general case. You aren't even giving anything up by making this simplification, because in the general case spacetime is still locally flat so the area around any observer so behaves as descried by special relativity.

 

[Nugatory]

(I hope me question will make sense.)
Right at the time spaceship traveling at 0.99C passes Sun, going towards Earth, the pilot starts measuring how much time it takes for light from Sun to reach Earth.

Observers on Earth measure about 8 minutes and 19 seconds, does the pilot measure the same amount of time since speed of light is constant for all observers, no matter of their speed?

I guess not (I know very little of SR & GR)... I guess pilot will measure a much smaller amount of time because the distance for pilot from Sun to Earth would be much shorter, right?

Yep, that's pretty much it.

Look in the FAQ on experimental support for relativity at the top of this forum, find the references to time dilation and the relativistic muon experiment for an example of how time dilation and length contraction play together to give a consistent physics for all observers.

Basically, fast moving muons with a very short lifetime are created when cosmic rays hit the top of the Earth's atmosphere. Naively, we'd expect them to decay before they reach the surface of the earth, but they don't. There are two equivalent and equally valid explanations: From the muons' point of view the distance to the surface of the Earth is contracted enough for the muon to cross it in a normal undilated lifetime; from the Earth's point of view the muon's lifetime is dilated enough for it to live long enough to cross the uncontracted distance.

 

[Nugatory]

Maxwell himself was the one who believed that his equations supported the notion of a medium in which light propagated and suggested a way to determine the absolute rest state of that medium.

Yep - that's an important piece of the historical context that I mentioned.

It takes Einstein's second postulate (or something equivalent) to render the concept of an ether as pointless.

Indeed it does, which is why (with tongue in cheek) I sometimes paraphrase the second postulate as "We don't need no steenkin' ether!".

 

[Boy@n]

Yep, that's pretty much it.

The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is 150 million km, so, what is it for that spaceship traveling at 0.99 C?

Is it simply 0.01 of that distance?

And for light (photon viewpoint) it is 0? (Since time for photon is 'frozen'.)

 

[Michamus]

(I hope me question will make sense.)

Right at the time spaceship traveling at 0.99C passes Sun, going towards Earth, the pilot starts measuring how much time it takes for light from Sun to reach Earth.

.99C relative to what? The Earth? It's always irked me when people use a percentage of lightspeed as a velocity, when it's totally relative.

For your experiment though, let's suppose a spacecraft is orbiting the sun at 1 million km/s at a distance roughly 150 million km. It would take light about 8 1/3 minutes to reach this space craft.

Now, let's imagine that same spaceship is orbiting the sun at 300,000 km/s at a distance of roughly 150 million km. It would take light about 8 1/3 minutes to reach that space craft.

You see, SR explains that Lightspeed is Constant in the Universe. No matter your velocity, light will always propagate at light speed, even if you are the source of that light. This occurs because SR explains that from your FOR, everything else is moving and you're sitting still.

As another example: Imagine that same 1 million km/s spacecraft has head lights. While traveling at that speed, it decides to turn on it's headlights. The photons would emit from those head lights at C and would propagate ahead of the spacecraft at C. So if the spacecraft had a pole with an attached sensor 1km ahead of it, that sensor would register that the light reached it at C.

You see, the "AH HAH" moment for me on SR/GR was the realization that there isn't a Universal Frame of Reference. In fact, the whole point of SR/GR was to get rid of that myth of a Universal FOR and replace with a model where everything is relative to the observer.

I hope that added some clarity.

 

[Boy@n]

...the realization that there isn't a Universal Frame of Reference. In fact, the whole point of SR/GR was to get rid of that myth of a Universal FOR and replace with a model where everything is relative to the observer.

The most interesting thing to me is that spacetime (distances) physically/really contract/shorten the more the faster you move...

So in my example above, what is the distance from Sun to Earth for a spaceship traveling that path at speed 0.99 of C?

 

[ghwellsjr]

Right at the time spaceship traveling at 0.99C passes Sun, going towards Earth, the pilot starts measuring how much time it takes for light from Sun to reach Earth.

Observers on Earth measure about 8 minutes and 19 seconds, does the pilot measure the same amount of time since speed of light is constant for all observers, no matter of their speed?

If different time it seems strange, since distance from Sun to Earth is (for this thought experiment) constant (except if distance is shorter for the pilot, maybe due to space 'contraction'?).

If same time it also seems strange if light is moving away from spaceship toward the Earth at speed C relative to spaceship.

As I just pointed out in a previous post, you cannot measure the one-way speed of light. In Special Relativity, we define it to be c. So even if the pilot were stationary at the Sun, he still cannot measure how long it takes for light to get to the Earth. In the same way, we cannot measure how long it takes for the light to get from the Sun to the Earth. There is no possible measurement that allows us to start a stopwatch when some light leaves the Sun and stop it when the light arrives at Earth and yields a measurement of 8 minutes and 19 seconds. What we can do instead is figure out how far away the Sun is by whatever means we have available to us, and convert that to a distance in terms of light-seconds and then we say that the light took that same number of seconds to reach us. And according to SR, this is only true in the frame in which both the Sun and Earth are at rest. Alternately, we could use the radar method to measure how long it takes for a signal to go from us to the remote object and back to us. We assume the signal takes the same amount of time going as it does coming back so we divide our measurement by two and that gives us the assumed (and defined by SR) one-way speed of light.

Now to answer your question about the pilot, in his rest frame moving at 0.99c with respect to the Earth-Sun rest frame, he can make a radar measurement of the round-trip time it takes for light to go from the Sun to Earth and back to him and he will get a time that is about 1/14 of the time he would get if he were stationary with respect to the Earth-Sun. In the stationary case, he would measure 16 minutes and 38 seconds and then he would divide that by 2 to get 8 minutes and 19 seconds. In his moving case, he will get about 71 seconds. If he divides that by 2 he will get about 35.5 seconds but he will know that this is not correct because the Earth has moved during the time of the measurement so he needs to take that into account. And the way he does that is to assume that his measurement applies at the half-way point of his measurement, in other words, when he had traveled for 35.5 seconds. So he says that at his time of 35.5 seconds, the Earth was 35.5 light-seconds away. Now he needs to figure out how far away it was when he started from the Sun's position. He can measure the speed of the Earth coming towards him using several Radar measurements and he will determine that it is traveling at 0.99c. Therefore, in 35.5 seconds, it has traveled towards him by a distance of 35.5 seconds time 0.99c or 35.1 light seconds away. So he adds the two numbers, 35.5 and 35.1 and he concludes that the Earth was 70.6 light-seconds away from him when he left the Sun and so therefore it takes 70.6 seconds for the light to get from the Sun to the Earth. (This number is only approximately correct, since I have been doing a lot of "abouts".)

So the distance between the Sun and the Earth is different in the rest frame of a traveler than it is in the rest frame of the Sun-Earth. In fact it is Length Contracted by the factor of 1/gamma which in this case is about 1/7 and we can see that our answer of 70.6 seconds is about 1/7 of 6 minutes and 19 seconds.

 

[mfb]

Relative to the light.

Your speed relative to light depends on the reference frame.

(I hope me question will make sense.)

Right at the time spaceship traveling at 0.99C passes Sun, going towards Earth, the pilot starts measuring how much time it takes for light from Sun to reach Earth.

Observers on Earth measure about 8 minutes and 19 seconds, does the pilot measure the same amount of time since speed of light is constant for all observers, no matter of their speed?

If different time it seems strange, since distance from Sun to Earth is (for this thought experiment) constant (except if distance is shorter for the pilot, maybe due to space 'contraction'?).

If same time it also seems strange if light is moving away from spaceship toward the Earth at speed C relative to spaceship.

- the target (earth) is moving
- the distance between both is subject to length contraction (with a factor of $\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-0.99^2}} \approx 7.1$).
- in general, the pilot will measure a different time. The speed of light is constant, but distances and velocities (apart from light) are not.

 

[rbj]

Relative to the light.

missed the point.

You're missing the whole point of the Principle of Relativity.

it's precisely the point.

It's not that each observer is at rest

relative to their own inertial frame of reference they certainly are.

and so his measurements come out the same--it's that even when an observer is not at rest but traveling at some high rate of speed, his measurements still come out the same.

high rate of speed implies motion. motion relative to what??

his or her measurements come out the same because his or her physics are the same because each, being in their own inertial frame of reference, are in indistinguishable situations. they are, in their own unaccelerated position, operationally at rest and it's the other observer who is moving.

the motion is relative. all inertial motion is relative. without a universal frame of reference (that is what the aether was hypothesized to be) to refer to, there is no way for any inertial observer to claim being in absolute motion or to be at absolute rest.

But now you're talking about a different subject than the one the OP asked about. He asked about measuring the speed of light (always a two-way round-trip measurement) and it is not possible to measure or observe the propagation of a ray of light which is one-way. So if you're going to bring up this new subject, you should say that according to the second postulate of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, each inertial observer assigns the speed of the beam of light to be c and then you can proceed to discuss the implication of the Time Dilation of the other ones clock but you still should not say that they can actually see the other ones clock ticking at the slower Time Dilated rate because they cannot.

start with a light clock. then move on.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Imagine that same 1 million km/s spacecraft has head lights. While traveling at that speed, it decides to turn on it's headlights. The photons would emit from those head lights at C and would propagate ahead of the spacecraft at C. So if the spacecraft had a pole with an attached sensor 1km ahead of it, that sensor would register that the light reached it at C.

This is only true if you have previously set the clock on the remote sensor so that the measurement of the speed of light will come out to be c. And after you do that, lo and behold, the measurement comes out to be c. But if the spacecraft changes its speed, you will have to re-calibrate (re-synchronize) the remote clock to the spacecraft clock so that you continue to make the same "measurement". You cannot measure the one-way speed of light apart from setting the clock to make the measurement come out to be c. All you can do is set your remote clock so that the "measurement" will come out to be c.

 

[rbj]

There is no possible measurement that allows us to start a stopwatch when some light leaves the Sun and stop it when the light arrives at Earth and yields a measurement of 8 minutes and 19 seconds.

maybe we (on Earth) can't, but an observer far away that is equidistant from the light source and the Earth can.

suppose instead of the Sun, it was a quick little nuclear flash. and the Earth was one big silvered ball that reflects whatever hits it. the observer (who is equidistant from the source and the reflector) sees a flash and, at a later time, sees the reflection of that flash come from the shiny ball. if the distance between the source and the reflecting ball is 1.496 × 10¹¹ m, then that difference in time is 499 seconds.

 

[rbj]

This is only true if you have previously set the clock on the remote sensor so that the measurement of the speed of light will come out to be c. And after you do that, lo and behold, the measurement comes out to be c.

and how is the remote sensor going to communicate the time-of-arrival to you?

... All you can do is set your remote clock so that the "measurement" will come out to be c.

George, i don't know if there is a semantic breakdown goin' on here, but most of what you type does not, taken as a whole, make sense. there are snippets of fact in there that are correct regarding one-way and round-trip measurements, but you don't seem to know of or at least understand the fundamental thought experiments (since these are thought experiments, this is theory, not real experiments) that Einstein and other physics authors have postulated to form the basis of Special Relativity. it's really you who appears to have missed the whole point.

 

[Boy@n]

Would you care to go into greater detail with that claim? I don't believe I've read anything where space-time is affected by the velocity of an object.

See post #17 pls.

 

[Michamus]

See post #17 pls.

Length contraction (Lorentz contraction) is in reference to the traveling object, not space-time.

 

[Nugatory]

The most interesting thing to me is that spacetime (distances) physically/really contract/shorten the faster you move...

That's not a good way of thinking about it, and will likely lead to confusion. First, space-time isn't distance, and length contraction cannot be interpreted as a contraction of space-time. Second, and much more important... As far as you are concerned you aren't moving when all of this time dilation and length contraction is going on. You are at rest, and everything around you is moving and being time dilated and length contracted. Yes, other observers moving relative to you will say that they're the ones who are at rest and you're the one who is moving, contracting, and dilating, but that's their problem not yours.

So in my example above, what is the distance from Sun to Earth for a spaceship traveling that path at speed 0.99 of C?

There's no good answer to that question as you've worded it, but I'll answer the question that I think you're trying to ask:

Consider two observers. The first is moving at a speed of .99c relative to the second, who is at rest relative to the sun and the earth. The second observer sees the sun and the Earth at rest separated by about 100,000,000 miles, and he sees the first observer zooming by at .99c. However, we could just as well say that the first observer is at rest while the Earth is rushing towards him at .99c; the sun is farther away and also rushing towards him at .99c. How far apart are the sun and the Earth for the first observer?
​

Answer: 100,000,00 divided by \gamma, where \gamma is equal to
\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}
Here we have v=.99c, and you can take it from there.

This expression for \gamma comes from a bit of algebra and a set of equations called the Lorentz transforms; the Lorentz transforms come from a bit more algebra and the requirement that the speed of light be c for all observers.

 

[ghwellsjr]

high rate of speed implies motion. motion relative to what??

I could ask you the same question when you say an observer is "at rest". "At rest" relative to what? The point is that the state of motion, which includes the state of rest, is not a factor when we are talking about the Principle of Relativity. Here's a quote from the article in wikipedia,

The principle requires physical laws to be the same for anybody moving at constant velocity as they are for a body at rest. A consequence is that an observer in an inertial reference frame cannot determine an absolute speed or direction of travel in space, and may only speak of speed or direction relative to some other object.

his or her measurements come out the same because his or her physics are the same because each, being in their own inertial frame of reference, are in indistinguishable situations. they are, in their own unaccelerated position, operationally at rest and it's the other observer who is moving.

You almost got it right, if you had left off the very end. It doesn't matter if you are the one in inertial motion and it's the other guy at rest or the other way around or any other way. Inertial (unaccelerated) motion is all that matters for the Principle of Relativity.

the motion is relative. all inertial motion is relative. without a universal frame of reference (that is what the aether was hypothesized to be) to refer to, there is no way for any inertial observer to claim being in absolute motion or to be at absolute rest.

Yes, now you are saying it correctly.

But now you're talking about a different subject than the one the OP asked about. He asked about measuring the speed of light (always a two-way round-trip measurement) and it is not possible to measure or observe the propagation of a ray of light which is one-way. So if you're going to bring up this new subject, you should say that according to the second postulate of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, each inertial observer assigns the speed of the beam of light to be c and then you can proceed to discuss the implication of the Time Dilation of the other ones clock but you still should not say that they can actually see the other ones clock ticking at the slower Time Dilated rate because they cannot.

start with a light clock. then move on.

Why don't you show me what you mean or explain what you mean. A light clock involves two-way propagation of light so what is your point?

 

[ghwellsjr]

There is no possible measurement that allows us to start a stopwatch when some light leaves the Sun and stop it when the light arrives at Earth and yields a measurement of 8 minutes and 19 seconds.

maybe we (on Earth) can't, but an observer far away that is equidistant from the light source and the Earth can.

suppose instead of the Sun, it was a quick little nuclear flash. and the Earth was one big silvered ball that reflects whatever hits it. the observer (who is equidistant from the source and the reflector) sees a flash and, at a later time, sees the reflection of that flash come from the shiny ball. if the distance between the source and the reflecting ball is 1.496 × 10¹¹ m, then that difference in time is 499 seconds.

You are just measuring the round-trip time it takes for light to travel from the midpoint to the Earth and back and calling it the one-way time it takes for light to travel from the Sun to the Earth. Isn't that obvious?

 

[Naty1]

Space and time conspire to ensure that the speed of light is the same in every frame. That's one of the basic premises of special relativity.

I like that perspective; If anyone can go much further I haven't seen it. That's observed and modeled rather than developed from a few 'first principles' like the rest of science.

'c' turns out to be the observed 'transform' between space and time, via the Lorentz transform of SR. [Other forces also propagate at the same speed 'c' to a very high accuracy.] Something fundamental links them together just as all the forces,energy,mass, gravity, time,etc..., everything around us... is linked [unified] via the big bang.


We have lots of models that explain what we observe which more or less fit to together, relativity and quantum mechanics are especially important, but these don't mesh quite completely. And none explain WHY we observe the [light] characteristics we do...We know photons are massless or extremely close to being so; We think light travels isotropically...the same in all directions...we think light has always traveled at 'c' and does so everywhere in the universe right now...we know light travels more slowly in transparent materials...who ordered all that?

 

[ghwellsjr]

This is only true if you have previously set the clock on the remote sensor so that the measurement of the speed of light will come out to be c. And after you do that, lo and behold, the measurement comes out to be c.

and how is the remote sensor going to communicate the time-of-arrival to you?

Well let's see what Michamus said:

Imagine that same 1 million km/s spacecraft has head lights. While traveling at that speed, it decides to turn on it's headlights. The photons would emit from those head lights at C and would propagate ahead of the spacecraft at C. So if the spacecraft had a pole with an attached sensor 1km ahead of it, that sensor would register that the light reached it at C.

Oops--he didn't say. I guess you'll have to ask him.

But it won't matter how the remote sensor communicates the time-of-arrival back to the spacecraft so why do you ask?

...All you can do is set your remote clock so that the "measurement" will come out to be c.

George, i don't know if there is a semantic breakdown goin' on here, but most of what you type does not, taken as a whole, make sense. there are snippets of fact in there that are correct regarding one-way and round-trip measurements, but you don't seem to know of or at least understand the fundamental thought experiments (since these are thought experiments, this is theory, not real experiments) that Einstein and other physics authors have postulated to form the basis of Special Relativity. it's really you who appears to have missed the whole point.

These broad-brushed allegations of incompetence are not helpful. If you think something I said is wrong, you need to point it out specifically, just like I pointed out in post #32 how your assessment of the thought experiment measuring the one-way speed of light from the Sun to the Earth is incorrect.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Long rant of gibberish

ghwellsjr,

You seem to completely misunderstand SR, in that you're bending over backwards to apply a Universal FOR, when there isn't one.

Can you quote what I said that led you to believe that I was applying a Universal FOR?

...
Also, saying an object is traveling .99C is very relative. I'll explain this in the following example:

Suppose an "object A" is traveling at 1 million km/s. If "object B" is traveling near the same trajectory at 500,000 km/s, it will see "object A" traveling at .99C. Now let's say there's an "object C" that is traveling at 100 km/s. It will see both "object A" and "object B" traveling at .99C, even though they see themselves as traveling at their mentioned speed.

We can actually calculate all this using the Lorentz factor.

Since the speed of light is less than 300,000 km/s, I would have to say your explanation involving objects traveling at 1 million km/s and 500,000 km/s is gibberish as well as this statement:

.99C relative to what? The Earth? It's always irked me when people use a percentage of lightspeed as a velocity, when it's totally relative.

Maybe you should start using the very common method of specifying speeds as a fraction of c to avoid making such obvious blunders. There is even a special symbol, β, to refer to speeds as a fraction of c.

 

[Michamus]

Can you quote what I said that led you to believe that I was applying a Universal FOR?

I'll quote the statement you made following this.

Since the speed of light is less than 300,000 km/s, I would have to say your explanation involving objects traveling at 1 million km/s and 500,000 km/s is gibberish as well as this statement:

In this statement, you're applying a Universal FOR, in that you are stating C is some sort of speed limit. It isn't that way at all, because regardless your velocity, C is always C. You can be traveling at 1 million km/s and light will still travel at C. However, time dilation (Lorentz Factor) will ensure that you never arrive to a location any faster than (or the same speed as) C to any other observer. So, the statement "you can't travel faster than light" is like saying "you can't travel faster than your nose".

Maybe you should start using the very common method of specifying speeds as a fraction of c to avoid making such obvious blunders. There is even a special symbol, β, to refer to speeds as a fraction of c.

Again, as I stated, that equation is dedicated to the observer's frame. If two observers have two different frames, they can use that equation to calculate a third frame as being .99C while traveling at different velocities in excess of 300,000 km/s. As such, an observer "C" would see object "A" and "B" traveling at .99c even if object "A" were traveling 1 LY/s and object "B" were traveling .5 LY/s. The Lorentz Factor would dictate that Object "A" would experience 1 second for every 1 year of Object "C" and Object "B" would experience 2 seconds for every 1 year of Object "C".

 

[vela]

In this statement, you're applying a Universal FOR, in that you are stating C is some sort of speed limit. It isn't that way at all, because regardless your velocity, C is always C. You can be traveling at 1 million km/s and light will still travel at C. However, time dilation (Lorentz Factor) will ensure that you never arrive to a location any faster than (or the same speed as) C to any other observer. So, the statement "you can't travel faster than light" is like saying "you can't travel faster than your nose".

So if you pass me going at 1 million km/s at the same time I send out a flash of light in the same direction you're moving, you're claiming that the light will reach a point 1 million km away in less than the second it would take you to get there? How is that supposed to work?

 

[Michamus]

So if you pass me going at 1 million km/s at the same time I send out a flash of light in the same direction you're moving, you're claiming that the light will reach a point 1 million km away in less than the second it would take you to get there? How is that supposed to work?

From your FOR nothing can exceed light-speed (c), but let's suppose an object is traveling in the same trajectory as your intended light-beam.

You would see the object traveling near c in the same trajectory as your light-beam. As such, the object would appear to you to be slowly outpaced by the light-beam. Now, here's where things get interesting; From the FOR of the object, that same light-beam would propagate ahead of it at c. This means that from your FOR the object would be nearly at pace with the light-beam, but from the object's FOR, the light-beam would propagate ahead of it at c, regardless the object's velocity.

SR debunked the myth of a Universal FOR and replaced it with a relative FOR that assumes you are always at rest and everything else is moving.

 

[WannabeNewton]

SR debunked the myth of a Universal FOR and replaced it with a relative FOR that assumes you are always at rest and everything else is moving.

This has nothing to do with SR; I have no idea where this crazy misconception originated. This concept is taken advantage of over and over when solving various first year mechanics problems (e.g. sphere rolling down accelerating incline) and if you're talking about SR then surely you've seen this in Newtonian mechanics tons of times.

 

[vela]

From your FOR nothing can exceed light-speed (c), but let's suppose an object is traveling in the same trajectory as your intended light-beam.

So how can you be traveling at 1 million km/s? Your claim is that you're moving at 1 million km/s. That has to be relative to something and it might as well be me. So which is it? You can or can't move faster than $c$?

One of ghwellsjr's points is that as soon as you try to use an example where you claim to be moving faster than $c$ right from the start, it's pointless to go on because you're talking about a physically impossible situation.

 

[Michamus]

This has nothing to do with SR; I have no idea where this crazy misconception originated. This concept is taken advantage of over and over when solving various first year mechanics problems (e.g. sphere rolling down accelerating incline) and if you're talking about SR then surely you've seen this in Newtonian mechanics tons of times.

Again, you're applying a Universal FOR, in that you're assuming there's some Universal viewer that decrees when something is approaching light-speed. This simply isn't so. You'll never see anything move faster than light. However points in the Universe can move to any object at any velocity. That is, Alpha Centauri can move to me in 4 seconds, if I were able to withstand the acceleration and supply the energy required to do such a thing. However, my 4 seconds of flight would appear to have taken 4 years to any bystander on Earth. This is why time dilation (Lorentz Factor) exists.

So how can you be traveling at 1 million km/s? Your claim is that you're moving at 1 million km/s. That has to be relative to something and it might as well be me. So which is it? You can or can't move faster than $c$?

The representation was to show that two objects can be traveling at two different velocities altogether, yet still appear to be .99c to a third observer. I even simplified my statement as follows:
Object A's destination is moving toward it at 1 LY/s
Object B's destination is moving toward it at 2 LY/s
Object C sees both Object A and Object B at traveling .99c, due to Lorentz factor we can calculate that Object A experiences 1 second for every 1 year experienced by Object C. Object B experiences 2 seconds for every 1 year experienced by Object C.

One of ghwellsjr's points is that as soon as you try to use an example where you claim to be moving faster than $c$ right from the start, it's pointless to go on because you're talking about a physically impossible situation.

No object can move faster than c, because c is always c. Regardless how quickly the Universe appears to be moving, light will always propagate at c.

In fact, using your faulty conception of relativity, I could achieve superior speeds using fixed FORs. That is, I could have a spacecraft traveling at 299,000 km/s that launches a whole new spacecraft . This spacecraft can then accelerate to 299,000 km/s relative to it's mother craft. The mother craft would see itself at rest, with it's child craft traveling at 299,000 km/s. To a third observer, both crafts would be traveling at .99c.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Again, you're applying a Universal FOR, in that you're assuming there's some Universal viewer that decrees when something is approaching light-speed. This simply isn't so. You'll never see anything move faster than light. However points in the Universe can move to any object at any velocity. That is, Alpha Centauri can move to me in 4 seconds, if I were able to withstand the acceleration and supply the energy required to do such a thing. However, my 4 seconds of flight would appear to have taken 4 years to any bystander on Earth. This is why time dilation (Lorentz Factor) exists.

What in the world does this have to do with your extremely erroneous statement that the notion of relative motion was only introduced in SR? At this point, all I see is a random mess of physics terms.

 

[rbj]

Mich, once you start saying something concrete, then there are concrete problems that can be pointed out.

However points in the Universe can move to any object at any velocity.

hypothetical "points" are sort of meaningless. sure, i can imagine a hypothetical point right next to me and then i can imagine translating that hypothetical point 4 LY away in 4 seconds, but it's just a abstract coordinate. it is nothing of physical consequence. heck, then i'll imagine translating that point to the Andromeda galaxy. big deal.

That is, Alpha Centauri can move to me in 4 seconds, if I were able to withstand the acceleration and supply the energy required to do such a thing.

that statement is concrete and is false.

 

[Doc Al]

Again, you're applying a Universal FOR, in that you're assuming there's some Universal viewer that decrees when something is approaching light-speed. This simply isn't so. You'll never see anything move faster than light. However points in the Universe can move to any object at any velocity. That is, Alpha Centauri can move to me in 4 seconds, if I were able to withstand the acceleration and supply the energy required to do such a thing. However, my 4 seconds of flight would appear to have taken 4 years to any bystander on Earth. This is why time dilation (Lorentz Factor) exists.

You are confused. What I assume you meant to say is that a spaceship going fast enough can cover the distance from Alpha Centauri to Earth in 4 seconds as measured by that ship's clock. That's true. If you were in the ship, the travel time would be 4 seconds; if you were on Earth, the travel time would be around 4 years. Nothing here is traveling faster than light speed, unless you foolishly combine distance and time measurements from different frames. (A common freshman error.)

In fact, using your faulty conception of relativity, I could achieve superior speeds using fixed FORs. That is, I could have a spacecraft traveling at 299,000 km/s that launches a whole new spacecraft . This spacecraft can then accelerate to 299,000 km/s relative to it's mother craft. The mother craft would see itself at rest, with it's child craft traveling at 299,000 km/s. To a third observer, both crafts would be traveling at .99c.

Please explain how that process, which is perfectly legitimate as a thought experiment, leads to "superior speeds" (by which I assume you mean speeds greater than c). It will not.

 

[Michamus]

You are confused. What I assume you meant to say is that a spaceship going fast enough can cover the distance from Alpha Centauri to Earth in 4 seconds as measured by that ship's clock. That's true. If you were in the ship, the travel time would be 4 seconds; if you were on Earth, the travel time would be around 4 years. Nothing here is traveling faster than light speed, unless you foolishly combine distance and time measurements from different frames. (A common freshman error.)


Please explain how that process, which is perfectly legitimate as a thought experiment, leads to "superior speeds" (by which I assume you mean speeds greater than c). It will not.

I don't know how much more often I can state "nothing travels faster than c to any other frame". The part I made bold is almost identical to this statement I made: "However, my 4 seconds of flight would appear to have taken 4 years to any bystander on Earth.".

I've not once claimed that anything would ever occur faster than c to any other frame.

that statement is concrete and is false.

There is absolutely no reason I can't do what I said. Sure, my clock will read 4 seconds, but to someone on Earth, it will take me 4 years. There's really no limit as to the velocities you can achieve in your own FOR, because you're not really moving at all in your FOR, everything else is, which is why light is c regardless your frame.

 

[Doc Al]

I don't know how much more often I can state "nothing travels faster than c to any other frame". The part I made bold is almost identical to this statement I made: "However, my 4 seconds of flight would appear to have taken 4 years to any bystander on Earth.".

I've not once claimed that anything would ever occur faster than c to any other frame.

What do you mean by any other frame? There is no frame in which anything travels faster than c.

There is absolutely no reason I can't do what I said. Sure, my clock will read 4 seconds, but to someone on Earth, it will take me 4 years. There's really no limit as to the velocities you can achieve in your own FOR, because you're not really moving at all in your FOR, everything else is, which is why light is c regardless your frame.

With respect to yourself, your speed is of course zero. With respect to you, the speed of anything else never exceeds c.

Realize that when you are in that spaceship traveling at near light speed (with respect to the Earth) from Alpha Centauri to Earth, that the distance between the two is much shorter in your frame of reference. That's why you can cover the distance in only 4 seconds, even though your speed is less than light speed.

 

[vela]

I've not once claimed that anything would ever occur faster than c to any other frame.

Sure you have:

For your experiment though, let's suppose a spacecraft is orbiting the sun at 1 million km/s at a distance roughly 150 million km.

There is absolutely no reason I can't do what I said. Sure, my clock will read 4 seconds, but to someone on Earth, it will take me 4 years. There's really no limit as to the velocities you can achieve in your own FOR, because you're not really moving at all in your FOR, everything else is, which is why light is c regardless your frame.

Is the following your logic? An observer at rest on Earth would say the distance to Alpha Centauri is about 4 ly. You, moving near the speed of light relative to said observer to Alpha Centauri, find it takes you 4 seconds to reach your destination from Earth. Are you claiming you moved at 1 ly/s because you went 4 ly in 4 second? If so, you're making the "common freshman error" Doc Al mentioned a few posts earlier. Dividing the distance measured by the observer at rest on Earth by the time measured by you, the moving observer, is meaningless.

You should keep in mind that most people who have posted in this thread are well versed in the basics of special relativity. We know how time dilation, length contraction, and the velocity-addition work. You now have four of these people pointing out that your statements are misleading or just plain wrong. You might want to entertain the notion that perhaps the misconception lies with you, not everyone else.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Realize that when you are in that spaceship traveling at near light speed (with respect to the Earth) from Alpha Centauri to Earth, that the distance between the two is much shorter in your frame of reference. That's why you can cover the distance in only 4 seconds, even though your speed is less than light speed.

I already pointed out that the distance between the Sun and the Earth is 1/7 in the rest frame of a pilot traveling at 0.99c with respect to the Sun-Earth rest frame:

So the distance between the Sun and the Earth is different in the rest frame of a traveler than it is in the rest frame of the Sun-Earth. In fact it is Length Contracted by the factor of 1/gamma which in this case is about 1/7 and we can see that our answer of 70.6 seconds is about 1/7 of 6 minutes and 19 seconds.

and he called it:

A long rant of gibberish

Why do you think he's going to believe you?

 

[Michamus]

What do you mean by any other frame? There is no frame in which anything travels faster than c.


With respect to yourself, your speed is of course zero. With respect to you, the speed of anything else never exceeds c.

Realize that when you are in that spaceship traveling at near light speed (with respect to the Earth) from Alpha Centauri to Earth, that the distance between the two is much shorter in your frame of reference. That's why you can cover the distance in only 4 seconds, even though your speed is less than light speed.

That's a better way of wording it than I've done so far.

 

[Boy@n]

So the distance between the Sun and the Earth is different in the rest frame of a traveler than it is in the rest frame of the Sun-Earth. In fact it is Length Contracted by the factor of 1/gamma which in this case is about 1/7 and we can see that our answer of 70.6 seconds is about 1/7 of 6 minutes and 19 seconds.

I thank you very much for taking the time to answer me with all the details. (especially post #22)

I am still trying to understand it all, so pardon my ignorance if/as it arises.

What I don't get is how can light from Sun to Earth take 499 seconds or 70.6 seconds depending on FOR, when the physical distance is always the same (if we ignore it orbits the Sun) and light travels at constant C speed?

Space (distance) between Sun and Earth doesn't physically contract for real, right? So, what happens is that time dilates for traveller and to him it just appears that light from Sun to Earth took 70.6s because his clock runs slower than the clock on Earth?

On the other hand, if distance for traveler really shortens to 1/7 when he travels at 0.99c it appears as if Universe changes for him... Plus, if he were to slow down and travel that path again the distance would increase by 7 times for him, right?

So, are there infinite number of distances between Sun and Earth depending on FOR?

The faster you travel through space the slower your clock ticks relative to observer on Earth, right? And at the speed of light the clock stops ticking and the distance between any objects (from photon viewpoint) becomes zero?