Can motion be detected without external reference in a moving container?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill Minerick
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Absolute Motion
Click For Summary
Motion cannot be detected within a moving container without external reference, as demonstrated in two setups involving a laser and a light bulb. In Setup #1, a laser aimed vertically will illuminate a spot directly above it from the perspective of the occupant, despite the container's motion, contradicting the idea that it would hit a point behind the source. In Setup #2, both spectrum analyzers inside the container would measure the same frequency due to the uniform velocity of the light source and walls, negating any observable Doppler shift. The discussions emphasize that light behaves consistently regardless of the motion of the source, adhering to the principles of relativity. Ultimately, absolute motion detection is not feasible within an inertial frame without external reference points.
Bill Minerick
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Set-up #1: A person is enclosed in a container traveling with a constant velocity in the x direction. Wouldn't a laser inside the container attached to the floor and aimed perpendicular to the direction of travel (i.e., y direction) illuminate a spot on the ceiling of the container that is BEHIND a point marked on the ceiling directly above the laser, thus allowing the occupant to detect uniform motion in the x direction without external reference? As a laser photon traverses from floor to ceiling the container is moving and since light is not effected by the speed or direction of the source it will travel straight up.

Set-up #2: A person is enclosed is in a container traveling with a constant velocity in the x direction. In the middle of the container is a lit light bulb. One spectrum analyzer is attached on the inside front wall and another analyzer attached on the inside back wall of the container. Wouldn't occupants be able to see different phasing due to the doppler shift and thereby detect their motion without external reference?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Bill Minerick said:
Set-up #1: A person is enclosed in a container traveling with a constant velocity in the x direction. Wouldn't a laser inside the container attached to the floor and aimed perpendicular to the direction of travel (i.e., y direction) illuminate a spot on the ceiling of the container that is BEHIND a point marked on the ceiling directly above the laser, thus allowing the occupant to detect uniform motion in the x direction without external reference? As a laser photon traverses from floor to ceiling the container is moving and since light is not effected by the speed or direction of the source it will travel straight up.
Nope, that won't work. It will hit a spot behind the source, but only when viewed from another frame. You're in a moving frame right now: try it and see!

Set-up #2: A person is enclosed is in a container traveling with a constant velocity in the x direction. In the middle of the container is a lit light bulb. One spectrum analyzer is attached on the inside front wall and another analyzer attached on the inside back wall of the container. Wouldn't occupants be able to see different phasing due to the doppler shift and thereby detect their motion without external reference?
Nope, that won't work either.
 
Detecting absolute motion?

No chance.
 
Bill Minerick said:
Set-up #1: A person is enclosed in a container traveling with a constant velocity in the x direction. Wouldn't a laser inside the container attached to the floor and aimed perpendicular to the direction of travel (i.e., y direction) illuminate a spot on the ceiling of the container that is BEHIND a point marked on the ceiling directly above the laser, thus allowing the occupant to detect uniform motion in the x direction without external reference? As a laser photon traverses from floor to ceiling the container is moving and since light is not effected by the speed or direction of the source it will travel straight up.

It is the speed of light that is unaffected by the motion of the source but the direction can change. In the Michelson Morley experiment the photon appears to be going straight up and down the y arm to an observer at rest with the interferometer. To an observer with relative motion with respect to the interferometer the photon appears to following a zig zag path. In both cases the observers measure the speed of the photon to be c. In your example both observers will see the laser hit the spot on the ceiling directly above the source. To the external observer the laser photon is emmited at a forward diagonal angle rather than straight up.


Bill Minerick said:
Set-up #2: A person is enclosed is in a container traveling with a constant velocity in the x direction. In the middle of the container is a lit light bulb. One spectrum analyzer is attached on the inside front wall and another analyzer attached on the inside back wall of the container. Wouldn't occupants be able to see different phasing due to the doppler shift and thereby detect their motion without external reference?

Doppler shift comes about as a result of difference in the velocities of the source and the receiver. In your example the bulb and the walls all have exactly the same velocity so no doppler shift will be observed.
 
Are you saying that a photon emitted by a laser in the y direction has an x component? How can that be, it has no mass? Once emitted the photon continues on its vertical path.
Einstein used a similar thought experiment where a light beam would appear to bend while traversing across an accelerating elevator. It would seem that in a non-accelerating elevator (i.e., one moving at a constant velocity) the beam would not bend but traverse the elevator diagonally.

In set-up #2 it is true that the bulb and analyzers are traveling at the same velocity however, once the light leaves the bulb it travels at c in both directions and the light waves impacting the back wall will be more compressed than those impacting the front. I appreciate your patience.
 
In set-up #2 it is true that the bulb and analyzers are traveling at the same velocity however, once the light leaves the bulb it travels at c in both directions and the light waves impacting the back wall will be more compressed than those impacting the front. I appreciate your patience.
No, the walls are stationary wrt to the emitter.
 
Bill Minerick said:
Are you saying that a photon emitted by a laser in the y direction has an x component? How can that be, it has no mass? Once emitted the photon continues on its vertical path.
Einstein used a similar thought experiment where a light beam would appear to bend while traversing across an accelerating elevator. It would seem that in a non-accelerating elevator (i.e., one moving at a constant velocity) the beam would not bend but traverse the elevator diagonally.

In the case of the elevator with constant motion the direction of the emitted photon is altered so that it hits the exact same spot on the opposite wall as it would when the elevator is stationary.

When the elevator is accelerating the photon moves in a straight line just as in the first example but once emitted the photon is "committed" and can not alter its trajectory due the additional change in velocity of the elevator in the period between being emmited and received. In this scenario the photon misses the target and to the observer in the elevator the photon appears to be following a curved path.

P.S. The full and complete general answer to your original post was given on post #3 ;)

P.P.S. I was talking about an elevator being artificially accelerated by a rocket in flat space. If the elevator is free falling in a gravitational field then the photon and the elevator are acceleated equally by gravity and the photon hits its target. The observer inside an enclosed free fallin elevator will think he is stationary. An observer that is outside the elevator and stationary in the gravitational field will see the photon following a curved path while the observer inside the free falling elevator will see the photon following a straight path.
 
Last edited:
Bill Minerick said:
Are you saying that a photon emitted by a laser in the y direction has an x component? How can that be, it has no mass? Once emitted the photon continues on its vertical path.
Relativity tells us that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. That means that since the emitter is stationary with respect to the box, it is stationary with respect to the box. Period. That's all it cares about. So the beam does not have an x-component of motion with respect to the box.

The beam can have an x-component of motion with respect to someone else traveling past the box.

BTW, this part of relativity predates Einstein. The fact that you can throw and catch a baseball on an Earth rotating with a speed of 1000mph is the same principle. Einstein extends the principle beyond that, though...
 
Russ, Kev, et al - let's just stay inside the box for now. the emitter IS stationary with respect to he box however once a photon is emitted it is independent of both the emitter and the box and will travel in the y direction while the box continues to move in the x direction. unlike a baseball tossed up in a moving vehicle, the emitted photon does not have momentum in the x direction. likewise, in set-up#2, since the emitted flash of light is independent of the bulb and container the light will impact the front and back walls at different times.

Kev, what alters the direction of an emitted photon in the elevator?
 
  • #10
aberration

Bill, when viewed from within the box, the photon trajectory is along the y-direction. But that's not the case when viewing the photon from outside the box. From outside the box, the photon trajectory is at an angle (similar to, but not exactly like, a baseball). This effect is called the "headlight" effect or relativistic aberration. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_aberration"

And yes, viewed from a frame in which the box is moving in the x-direction, the photon does have an x-component of momentum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
Doc, if momentum (p) = mass x velocity and if a photon is massless, how is momentum in the x direction imparted by the container moving in the x direction the y direction?
 
  • #12
Momentum only equals mass x velocity for slow moving particles. For photons, which are massless, p = E/c (photon energy divided by the speed of light).
 
  • #13
Bill Minerick said:
Doc, if momentum (p) = mass x velocity and if a photon is massless, how is momentum in the x direction imparted by the container moving in the x direction the y direction?

The momentum of a photon is related to its energy and not its mass(or lack there of).
 
  • #14
Bill Minerick said:
Russ, Kev, et al - let's just stay inside the box for now. the emitter IS stationary with respect to he box...
Yes.
however once a photon is emitted it is independent of both the emitter and the box
No. The principle of relativity tells us that what is happening inside the box is not affected by the motion of the box. The light moves at C with respect to the box regardless of the box's speed.

I realize this is just a thought experiment, but please be aware that real experiments have been done on this (such as the M&M exp cited above). So the answer is not in doubt. Yes, if light behaved more like sound, for example, the experiment would work as you describe. But it doesn't.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Of course if you used a sound source in the box (filled with air) you still would not detect absolute motion (or a doppler shift in the sound) inside the box.
 
  • #16
The box would have to be open for it to be analagous to the ether.
 
  • #17
Bill

Setup #1: I'm not convinced the laser will hit the spot. I would like some experimental evidence to show it doesn't lag behind.

Setup #2: The spectrum analysers will both read the same frequency. Going forward - an increase in frequency would be countered by a decrease in speed, and vice versa.

Good questions.
 
  • #18
Bill Minerick said:
Set-up #1: A person is enclosed in a container traveling with a constant velocity in the x direction. Wouldn't a laser inside the container attached to the floor and aimed perpendicular to the direction of travel (i.e., y direction) illuminate a spot on the ceiling of the container that is BEHIND a point marked on the ceiling directly above the laser, thus allowing the occupant to detect uniform motion in the x direction without external reference? As a laser photon traverses from floor to ceiling the container is moving and since light is not effected by the speed or direction of the source it will travel straight up.

The laser beam is vertical even in the system where laser moves. This is not exclusively relativistic phenomenon: imagine a juggler siting in a train and throwing balls straight up in his system. The balls travel verticaly in his system, but not in a system where train is moving.
 
  • #19
If we have sound source mounted on the centre of an open railway carriage and receivers mounted on the rear and front of the same carriage then we will not detect a change in frequency even when the train is moving and the air is moving relative to the carriage.

There are any number of ways we can detect our motion relative to the air but unfortunately detecting doppler shift using emitters and receivers that are only mounted on the carriage is not one of them.

The classical non relativistic doppler shift equation is often stated as

f ' = f {(v \pm v_o) \over (v \mp v_S)}

where v is speed of sound in the medium and \vec v_o and \vec v_S are the velocities of the observer and source respectively, relative to the medium.


Getting the signs correct when using that formula is a little tricky as they are determined by whether the source is moving away from or towards the observer. When the source and the observer are moving at the same velocity it is hard to decide which signs to use as there is no obvious "away" or "towards" in this case. (The secret is to see which way the vector arrows are pointing.) The classical doppler equation can be expressed in terms of vectors like this:

f ' = f {( |\vec v| \pm (\vec v_o) )\over (|\vec v| \mp (\vec v_S))}

The difficulty of choosing the correct signs remain and information is lost by only using the unsigned value of the wave velocity |\vec v| . If we take the medium as a coordinate system and express all velocities (including the wave velocity) as vectors relative to the medium then the doppler equation can be expressed like this:

f ' = f {( \vec v - \vec v_o)\over (\vec v - \vec v_S)}

Using this form there is no difficulty getting the signs right and it immediately clear when \vec v_o= \vec v_S that f ' = f

Doppler shift only detects relative velocity and is completely useless for detecting absolute velocity, whether the medium has relative motion or not.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
With regards to set up #1

What do you make of this?

http://home.comcast.net/~adring/Johnson.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
Lojzek said:
The laser beam is vertical even in the system where laser moves. This is not exclusively relativistic phenomenon: imagine a juggler siting in a train and throwing balls straight up in his system. The balls travel verticaly in his system, but not in a system where train is moving.

Lojzek. The paper published by Don Johnson (link in previous post) suggests that the laser light will lag behind. However, it if the laser is tilted forward to compensate, the light will come out perpendicular in the moving frame. By tilting the laser you can make the light lead, go straight up, or lag behind.
To calibrate the spot perpendicular to the laser you would need to rotate the moving frame and find the spot's central position.
 
  • #22
wisp said:
The paper published by Don Johnson (link in previous post)...
In "Galilean Electrodynamics", a crank anti-relativity journal. Please do no link to such sites.
 
  • #23
noob question: what is "absolute motion"?
 
  • #24
Bigman said:
noob question: what is "absolute motion"?

An "absolute velocity" would be a velocity that every observer in the universe would agree about, without any reference to any other object.

The currently-understood laws of physics prohibit any such declarations -- the concept of velocity doesn't even exist without some reference. You don't even need any fancy theory to understand why: if I tell you my car is going 60 mph, what does that really mean? Is it moving 60 mph relative to the trees on the side of the road? Or is it moving 60 mph relative to the oncoming traffic?

- Warren
 
  • #25
Bigman said:
noob question: what is "absolute motion"?

Let's say you are standing next to me. Next, you jump into a spaceship and accelerate any until you have have a constant velocity of 0.6c relative to me. Who is "really" moving? Your intuition is that it is you that is really moving because you accelerated from our initial rest condition. However we know for example that when we appear to be at rest on the surface of the Earth, that the Earth is rotating about its own axis and orbiting around the Sun and so on, so that while we are standing still we are "actually" traveling at thousands of MPH through space. So by this line of thought, when you were standing next to me we could have been (for all we know) going at -0.6c relative to some imaginary, invisible "absolute" reference frame in space and after you accelerated your addition of 0.6c to your velocity actually brought you to a stop relative to the imaginary, invisible "absolute" reference frame. In other words there is no way of knowing if it is "really" you or me that is "really" moving. If you could prove that it is really you or me that is moving relative to the imaginary, invisible "absolute" reference frame then you would have determined your absolute velocity. To date there has been no scientific experiment or accepted logical argument that shows absolute velocity can be determined.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
oh ok, that goes along with my current (limited) understanding of things. so what determines who's clock goes slower and who's goes faster when talking about time dilation?
 
  • #27
Bigman said:
oh ok, that goes along with my current (limited) understanding of things. so what determines who's clock goes slower and who's goes faster when talking about time dilation?

Neither. Each observer will measure the other's clock to be running slow, compared to his own. His own clock will look the same as it always does.

Time dilation is a symmetric effect -- it works the same in both directions. If A observes B's clock to be running slow, B will measure A's to be running slow by the same amount.

- Warren
 
  • #28
chroot said:
Neither. Each observer will measure the other's clock to be running slow, compared to his own. His own clock will look the same as it always does.

Time dilation is a symmetric effect -- it works the same in both directions. If A observes B's clock to be running slow, B will measure A's to be running slow by the same amount.

- Warren

huh?? wow, that throws a wrench in the gears :P so if two people have a great difference in velocity, they'll both observe the other person as aging less over time then themselves? maybe that explains a few of the things i haven't gotten so far... what about the time difference when they reunite? what determines which person will have aged more (like with the concorde, i remember hearing that a clock put on the concorde will be ever so slightly behind after a landing)?
 
  • #29
Bigman said:
huh?? wow, that throws a wrench in the gears :P so if two people have a great difference in velocity, they'll both observe the other person as aging less over time then themselves?

That's correct.

maybe that explains a few of the things i haven't gotten so far... what about the time difference when they reunite?

This is known as the twin paradox. A full resolution of the paradox requires general relativity. The web abounds with good explanations of it. Here's my favorite:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html

- Warren
 
  • #30
Much more is involved in examining the question of whether one can detect movement in an inertial frame, than merely questions involving light. Many seemingly absolute values would all have to assume the same value in all inertial frames if such detection is as claimed impossible. Plancks length/time, forces influenced by distance, charge, and anything else one wished to test such as rate of radioactive decay would all have to contribute to the collective body of information creating the perception that ones own inertial frame was one indistingishable from any other. I've never seen anyone come up with a full list of all known fundamental physical constants and explain why each would remain unchanged in a frame of reference which warped space time in the manner understood. It is very hard to prove a negative, and yet the assertion here is typically expressed in the form of a negative as in "one cannot tell one is a moving inertial frame".
 

Similar threads

Graduate How Does Linear Framedragging Affect Parallel Moving Masses in Flat Spacetime?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
High School Light Clock Traveling in Z Direction
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad The velocity of a moving frame of reference
  • · Replies 111 ·
4
Replies
111
Views
9K
Undergrad What was the role of frequency in the Michelson-Morley experiment's null result?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Undergrad Understanding Simultaneity Through Male & Female Clocks Meeting
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
High School Einstein thought experiment confusion: “light clock in a moving frame”
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Understanding Falling with Horizontal Velocity
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
High School Can an Object Exceed the Speed of Light?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
High School Length contraction and Time dilation calculation
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
Laser Measurement and Velocity Determination in Moving Containers
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K