Blueshift + Classical Physics = Golden Ratio

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion explores the implications of classical physics on the speed of light and the perceived speed of an object (B) moving towards a stationary observer (A). By calculating the time taken for light to travel from A to B and back, the participants derive a formula that reveals how observers on A would miscalculate the speed of B based on their assumptions. The calculations lead to the discovery that the speed V of B, when equated to the Golden Ratio (approximately 1.61803399), illustrates a paradox where observers perceive B's speed as less than the speed of light, even if B is traveling at light speed. This intersection of classical physics and the Golden Ratio provides a unique perspective on relativistic effects.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of classical physics principles, particularly the speed of light.
  • Familiarity with algebraic manipulation and equations.
  • Basic knowledge of the concept of reference frames in physics.
  • Awareness of the Golden Ratio and its mathematical significance.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Einstein's theory of relativity on classical physics.
  • Learn about the mathematical derivations of the speed of light in different reference frames.
  • Investigate the properties and applications of the Golden Ratio in physics and mathematics.
  • Explore the concept of time dilation and its effects on measurements of speed in relativistic contexts.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, students of physics, and anyone interested in the intersection of classical physics and relativistic concepts, particularly those exploring the implications of the speed of light and the Golden Ratio.

greeniguana00
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
I was doing calculations to see how far classical physics would take us in terms of the speed of an object never exceeding the speed of light in a reference frame. Here was the scenario I set up:

http://la.gg/upl/light.jpg

So, if we want to find the time it takes the light to get from (A) to (B) and back to (A), we use the sum of the time it takes the light emitted from (A) at c to get to (B) and the time it takes the light reflected off (B) to get back to (A). This would equal (L/c) + ( L/(c+2V) ). Through algebra, this also equals 2L(c+V) / (c^2+2Vc).

If the observers on (A) were to think that light always travels at c relative to themselves, they might use the time of this round trip to extrapolate the distance from (B) to themselves. If the light returns in the amount of time referenced above, the observers think it must have been moving at c for that amount of time if all it did was bounce off (B) and come back. Because the actual amount of time the light takes to return equals 2L(c+V) / (c^2+2Vc), the assumed distance the light had traveled would be 2Lc(c+V) / (c^2+2Vc) Since the assumption is that light is always traveling at c relative to (A), the observers would assume that the light took the same amount of time on the way to (B) as on the way back. This would yield an assumed distance of Lc(c+V) / (c^2+2Vc) from (A) to (B). Reducing this gets you L(c+V) / (c+2V). It is worth it to note that using twice this distance (for the trip there and back) and dividing it by the time for the trip will always result in the constant speed c for the observers calculations; this makes sense considering the assumption used by the observers (light always travels at c relative to themselves).

We know the actual speed V of (B) relative to (A), so we can determine how far (B) actually travels in a given time period. Since speed=distance/time, it's also true that distance=speed*time (we already used this to determine the assumed distance of (B) from (A) in the last paragraph). Let's say that instead of sending out only a single light pulse, the observers on (A) also sent out another light pulse 1/n years after the first. We'll assume n is sufficiently large so that (B) will not have traveled far enough in that time period to hit (A). Planet (B) is traveling at V towards (A), so in a time period of 1/n, it will actually travel V*(1/n) closer to (A).

The observers on (A), however, will be using the time of return of light pulses to determine the distance traveled by (B) in the time period 1/n. We already determined that the observers would come up with a value of L(c+V) / (c+2V) for their assumed distance away, and it's clear that the difference of this value from when (B) is at L away from (A) to when (B) is at it's new location will give the assumed distance traveled. We know that when the first light pulse hits (B), (B) is actually a distance of L away from (A), and after a time period of 1/n, (B) would have actually traveled V/n towards (A). This means the new location of (B) after a time period of 1/n would be L-(V/n). The distance traveled by (B) assumed by the observers on (A) would then be ((L)(c+V)/(c+2V)) - ((L-(V/n))(c+V)/(c+2V)) which equals (L - (L-(V/n)))((c+V)/(c+2V)) which equals (V/n)((c+V)/(c+2V)).

Now the observers on (A) have the assumed distance (B) traveled in the period 1/n, and the duration of 1/n. From this, they can come up with an assumed speed for (B). Using speed=distance/time, they would assume the speed of (B) is ((V/n)((c+V)/(c+2V)))/(1/n) which equals (V((c+V)/(c+2V)) which equals (Vc+V^2)/(c+2V)). If you plug some numbers into this, you will find that observers on (A) will measure the speed of (B) to be lower than c, even if (B) is traveling at c toward (A).

However, there is a limit to how fast (B) can actually be traveling before observers (A) will paradoxically measure the speed of (B) to be faster than c. To find this magic number, we must find the solution in terms of V to (Vc+V^2)/(c+2V))=c, which will give the speed (B) must actually be traveling at towards (A) for observers on (A) to assume its speed is c. Here is how it's done:
(Vc+V^2)/(c+2V))=c
Vc+V^2=c^2+2Vc
V^2-Vc=c^2
V^2-Vc+((c^2)/4)=c^2+((c^2)/4)
(V-(c/2))^2=5((c^2)/4)
V-(c/2)=sqrt(5((c^2)/4))
V=(sqrt(5)c/2)+(c/2)
V=c(1+ sqrt(5))/2)
Ignoring the negative square root (as that would mean (B) would be moving away from (A)), we find that V is equal to approximately 1.61803399...

When I saw this, I was astounded. I knew I recognized this number from somewhere. I punched it into Google, and sure enough, it was the Golden Ratio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

:biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
greeniguana00 said:
I was doing calculations to see how far classical physics would take us in terms of the speed of an object never exceeding the speed of light in a reference frame. Here was the scenario I set up:

http://la.gg/upl/light.jpg

So, if we want to find the time it takes the light to get from (A) to (B) and back to (A), we use the sum of the time it takes the light emitted from (A) at c to get to (B) and the time it takes the light reflected off (B) to get back to (A). This would equal (L/c) + ( L/(c+2V) ). Through algebra, this also equals 2L(c+V) / (c^2+2Vc).
Your scenario is a bit ambiguous. What is L? Shall we assume that L is the distance between A and B (according to A) at the moment (according to A) that A emits the light signal? If so, then the time it takes for the light to reach B would be L/(c + V). And that would also be the time for the return trip as well. (All measurements according to A.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
L is the distance from (A) to (B) that observers on (A) would measure if only classical physics applied and both (A) and (B) were stationary. L is not the distance of (B) away from (A) at the time of the emission of the light signal, but the distance of (B) away from (A) at the time of the light striking (B).

This makes the most sense because (A) does not know previously that (B) even exists (they are just sending out light pulses to map the things around them).

I tried to make this clear by saying "Light emmited at c from (A) towards (B) hits a mirror on (B) when that mirror is a distance L away from the observer on (A)".
 
Last edited:
OK, your first paragraph is clear enough. But doesn't your next sentence contradict that setup?

greeniguana00 said:
If the observers on (A) were to think that light always travels at c relative to themselves, they might use the time of this round trip to extrapolate the distance from (B) to themselves.
All of a sudden relativity is back?

I'd better go get some coffee.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
772
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
6K