B Accounting for the constant speed of light

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the constancy of the speed of light and the implications of special relativity, particularly the Lorentz factor. Participants clarify that when traveling towards a light source at 55 mph, the speed of light remains c due to relativistic velocity addition, rather than being simply the sum of speeds. They emphasize that length contraction and time dilation, though small at such speeds, still play a crucial role in maintaining the constancy of light's speed across different frames of reference. The conversation highlights that the perceived discrepancy arises from intuitive misunderstandings of how speeds combine in relativity. Ultimately, the constancy of the speed of light is a fundamental aspect of our universe, confirmed by experimental evidence.
  • #31
@PeroK how about if you are free falling into a black hole? in this case you can make local measurements, but there could be a significant difference between the gravity in the front half of your compartment and the back half due to the black hole being very close. would the orientation of your experiment result in different measurements of the speed of light in this scenario?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
If it does make a difference it's because curvature was not negligible. Therefore it's not a local measurement in this sense.
 
  • #33
Justin Hunt said:
@PeroK how about if you are free falling into a black hole? in this case you can make local measurements, but there could be a significant difference between the gravity in the front half of your compartment and the back half due to the black hole being very close. would the orientation of your experiment result in different measurements of the speed of light in this scenario?

Good point! "Local" is relative to how curved the local spacetime is and how accurate you need your measurements. One way to think about this is to think about the tangent to a curve. The tangent, mathematically, only touches the curve at a single point. But, it can be used as an approximation to the curve over a small distance.

The same is true for a local inertial reference frame: it is the tangent space to a point in spacetime. Technically, it is not actually, precisely the local spacetime, but an approximation to it. The stronger gravity gets, the smaller the region of time and space that will look like an inertial frame.
 
  • Like
Likes Sorcerer
  • #34
Justin Hunt said:
@PeroK so speed of light isn't invariant when space-time is curved due to gravity and you are measuring the speed of light in an area with different curvature then your local area?
In GR light always follows a null geodesic. This is a coordinate independent statement that is equivalent to the invariance of c in an inertial frame. In GR there is no guarantee that an inertial frame even exists over the region of interest, so the coordinate speed of light often is not c.
 
  • Like
Likes Grinkle
  • #35
Justin Hunt said:
in this case you can make local measurements, but there could be a significant difference between the gravity in the front half of your compartment and the back half due to the black hole being very close.

If you are in the front half any measurements you make of stuff happening in the front half are local.
But any measurements you make of stuff happening in the rear half would then not be local, wouldn't they?

And note you can't get around this by being in the rear half because then measurements of stuff happening in the front half are not local.
 
  • #36
@Dale Thank you for your informative reply! I have a further question though based on your response.
Suppose that there is no inertial frame that exists over the entire region of interest. But, there are locally inertial frames at one end and at the other end. an observer at either end would measure a constant speed of light C in their local environment, but since there is no inertial frame that exists over the entire region, the coordinate speed of light is not C. (My example of this case would be a spaceship in deep space versus a spaceship on the surface of a very massive planet). We know that gravitational time dilation exists.

So, my question is would the coordinate speed of C on the planet be different than then the coordinate speed in deep space not because the speed of light C is different, but because time is passing at different rates? speed is Distance over time and they wouldn't agree on time t. In particular light would appear to be moving slower on the planet from deep space perspective and faster than C from the planet perspective of the ship in deep space. is this correct? (I am assuming there is no relative velocity between the two objects, just the large gravitational potential difference).
 
  • #37
Justin Hunt said:
@Dale Thank you for your informative reply! I have a further question though based on your response.
Suppose that there is no inertial frame that exists over the entire region of interest. But, there are locally inertial frames at one end and at the other end. an observer at either end would measure a constant speed of light C in their local environment, but since there is no inertial frame that exists over the entire region, the coordinate speed of light is not C. (My example of this case would be a spaceship in deep space versus a spaceship on the surface of a very massive planet). We know that gravitational time dilation exists.

So, my question is would the coordinate speed of C on the planet be different than then the coordinate speed in deep space not because the speed of light C is different, but because time is passing at different rates? speed is Distance over time and they wouldn't agree on time t. In particular light would appear to be moving slower on the planet from deep space perspective and faster than C from the planet perspective of the ship in deep space. is this correct? (I am assuming there is no relative velocity between the two objects, just the large gravitational potential difference).

First, let's take an example from SR. There is a star 10 light years away. You accelerate towards the star and, after a year say, have reached a significant relative velocity for which the gamma factor is 2. Now, due to length contraction, the star is less than 5 light years away.

If you do a raw calculation, then the star has moved more than 5 light years in a year: greater than the speed of light.

The moral is that if you want to understand the invariance of the speed of light, you have to be precise in how you measure distances and times. In this case, as you accelerate you are continuously changing your inertial reference frame.

Let's take another example. If there is a spaceship moving through the solar system at, say, ##\frac35 c##. The spaceship clock will be dilated in your reference frame (assume you are on the Earth) by a factor of ##\frac54##. Now, you have two clocks with which you can measure time: your clock on Earth and the spaceship clock. Both of these give you a time coordinate of every event. You then measure things moving through the solar system (including light). If you use your clock, you get one set of coordinate speeds. But, if you use the spaceship clock, you get a different set of coordinate speeds. Including a speed of ##> c## for light.

The moral is that if you want to calculate the speed of light and get ##c##, you must use a clock that is at rest in your inertial reference frame.

Now, let's move to a GR sitiuation, where light is moving close to a large mass, perhaps a black hole. Let's assume you know the distance between two points at rest relative to the black hole. Perhaps there is a spaceship there, of known length, hovering at rest relative to the black hole (and at rest relative to Earth). A light beam moves across the spaceship. Again, you can measure time using your clock back on Earth or the spaceship clock which is local to the event. The spaceship clock, to you, will be gravitationally time dilated. So, you will get two different speeds of light depending on what clock you use. I.e. depending on what you use as your time coordinate.

The moral is that "coordinate" speed of anything depends on your choice of coordinates! In particular, you can choose to measure time according to any clock in the universe. And, if all those clocks are moving and/or at different gravitational potential relative to each other, then they will all give you a different time coordinate.

There is no such thing as the coordinate speed of light. There is a coordinate speed of light for each and every set of coordinates. There is no physical significance in changing your coordinates and getting a different coordinate speed of light.

In summary:

In SR: if you use coordinates based on an inertial reference frame, then the speed of light is always ##c##. In practice, this would mean a clock and a metre stick at rest in the inertial reference frame. And, because inertial reference frames are global, you can in fact use one clock to give your time coordinate everywhere.

In GR: if you use local coordinates: a local metre stick and a local clock (at rest with respect to each other), then the measured speed of light is always ##c##. And that is what is meant by "the speed of light locally is ##c##".

The final moral is to understand that, in GR, there is no physical significance in using global coordinates and getting a coordinate speed of light other than ##c##.
 
  • #38
Justin Hunt said:
So, my question is would the coordinate speed of C on the planet be different than then the coordinate speed in deep space not because the speed of light C is different, but because time is passing at different rates?
Questions about coordinate speeds cannot be answered without exactly specifying the coordinates. You could have two coordinate charts which agree on time but not on distance, or you could have two coordinate charts that agree on distance but not on time, or you could have two coordinate charts that disagree on both, or you could even have coordinate charts that don’t have time at all.
 
  • #39
Dale said:
... or you could even have coordinate charts that don’t have time at all.

Perhaps that is a little too subtle for a "B" level thread!
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #40
PeroK said:
Perhaps that is a little too subtle for a "B" level thread!
Oh, you are right. Oops
 
  • #41
A small thread derail has been deleted and the thread is reopened. Please remember that PF requires all posts to be consistent with the professional scientific literature
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
5K
Replies
60
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
677
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
5K