Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Can we see light if we move our eyes at speed of light?

  1. Sep 16, 2012 #1
    Hello,
    We know we can not see light.It is only the effect of light that we actually see .
    Is it because of the fact that our eyes cant move at a speed of light? or its just basically the nature of light that we can never see it..?
    If I move my eyeballs at 'c', would I be able to see light?


    Remember: We theoretically assume that movement of eye-balls at the speed of light is possible. The discussion is not about achieving speed of light.,etc.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2012
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 16, 2012 #2
    actually, i saw a video on youtube. It was about a camera that can capture the movement of a light through a coke bottle,

    so, if you have that kind of eyes, then you might able to see the light just like a glowing object..
     
  4. Sep 16, 2012 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Welcome to PF!

    Of course we can see light! Light is what we see -- that's basically a tautology. We see light that hits our eyes and can't see light that doesn't hit our eyes, so moving doesn't have any impact on whether we can see light that doesn't hit our eyes.

    This is like asking if one were to walk next to a river at the same speed as the river flows, would you get wet?
     
  5. Sep 16, 2012 #4

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    Under which theory can we theoretically assume that? We cannot assume it under special relativity.
     
  6. Sep 16, 2012 #5

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    What, exactly, do you mean by "see" here? Many would argue that light is the only thing we see because it is the only thing that affects the retinas of or eyes. When we say we see objects we really mean we see images of them in the light- we see the light coming from the objects.

    While we can "theoretically assume" anything we want, even that relativity is NOT true, it makes no sense to assume that relativity is NOT true and then ask "what would relativity say about this situation". And that is what you doing here. What you could do is ask "suppose we are moving at 99.9% the speed of light (relative to some frame of reference), what would we see? And the answer to that is that we would exactly what we would see at any speed relative to that frame of reference- we would see light coming toward us at "c". The speed of light is the one constant speed in relativity.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2012
  7. Sep 16, 2012 #6

    ghwellsjr

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's true that when we emit a flash of light, we cannot see the light as it is traveling away from us. Is that what you are talking about?

    If so, then we can put a reflector at some distant point and wait for the light to bounce off of it and return back to us. The net result is that we can see that the light reached the reflector but because of the additional time that it took to return, we can't really say when it hit the reflector. However, Einstein came up with the idea that we can assume that the light hit the reflector half way during its round trip. Is this the issue that you are concerned with?
     
  8. Sep 16, 2012 #7
    Though if light is moving in air, so at <c, you could catch up with it if you run fast enough.
     
  9. Sep 16, 2012 #8

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    And if you can run fast enough, be sure to enter the Olympics!
     
  10. Sep 16, 2012 #9

    ghwellsjr

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Long before you can run that fast in air, you will burn up.
     
  11. Sep 17, 2012 #10
    Sorry could you link that vid?
     
  12. Sep 17, 2012 #11
    Hello joemmonster, can you send me the link of that video please
     
  13. Sep 17, 2012 #12
    Hi russ_watters,
    Well I partly agree with that..
    Now consider the situation below:
    I am standing at (0,-2) and facing X-axis....
    A light ray is moving along positive X-axis direction and is at the origin(0,0) at present
    (i mean its nearby to me)...
    ....There is no object anywhere...Its just the single ray of light...
    Can I still see that..?

    Assume linear propogation as I said single light ray...Dont consider huygen's wave or imaginary spheres.....
     
  14. Sep 17, 2012 #13

    hi ghwellsjr,
    Thanx 4 the reply...
    Actually I am afraid its not about that....This is the situation I was talking of:
    I am standing at (0,-2) and facing X-axis....
    A light ray is moving along positive X-axis direction and is at the origin(0,0) at present
    (i mean its nearby to me)...
    ....There is no object anywhere...Its just the single ray of light...
    Can I still see that..?

    Assume linear propogation as I said single light ray(like a LASER source,,etc)...Dont consider huygen's wave or imaginary spheres.....
     
  15. Sep 17, 2012 #14


    HI HallsofIvy,
    Actually thats not exactly my doubt..Yeah,ofcourse wen i say 'assuming speed of 'c', imean 0.99c or somthing like that......

    This is the situation I was talking of:
    Consider the co-ordinate system...
    .I am standing at (0,-2) and facing X-axis....
    A light ray is moving along positive X-axis direction and is at the origin(0,0) at present
    (i mean its nearby to me)...
    ....There is no object anywhere to reflect it.etc...Its just the single ray of light...
    Can I still see that..?

    Assume linear propogation as I said single light ray(like a LASER source,,etc)...Dont consider huygen's wave or imaginary spheres.....
     
  16. Sep 17, 2012 #15
    When I say moving at 'c',obviously i mean 0.99c...NOt breaking any relativity laws..
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2012
  17. Sep 17, 2012 #16

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Cola bottle + light video together with the corresponding TED talk.

    Light is moving away from you? No, you cannot see it.
    Why did you ask this in 3 posts in a row?
    That is not obvious at all, as it is a completely different situation.
     
  18. Sep 17, 2012 #17
    --------------------------------------------
    Well I had 2 reply differently to different answers.So asked in 3 posts..Could hav written one instead...Anyways,....so u say we cant see that light ray...

    (yup ..by 'obviously' , I meant it is understood that you cant move your eyeballs at more than 'c'.So it shud b a bit less than 'c'..Thats wat i meant...)

    Anyways, thanx 4 d answer bro..
     
  19. Sep 17, 2012 #18

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    No. You only ever see light that is moving towards you, you can never see light which is moving away from you.
     
  20. Sep 17, 2012 #19

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Then say "near c" !

    But you say "0.99c or something like that" relative to what frame of reference. In any case, as several people have said, the speed of light, relative to any frame of reference is "c". How you are moving, relative to anything, is irrelevant to light.

    Once again the ONLY light you "see" is light that goes into your eye and to your retina. If the light was " moving along positive X-axis direction" and you are at (-2, 0), it is moving away from you and cannot go into your eye. You cannot see it at all.

    You may be thinking of a situation in which a person in front of you is shining a flash light and you see a beam of light going out from the flash light. What you are seeing is light that has reflected of water globules, dust, etc. in the air and has been reflected back to your eyes. If this were done in a perfect vacuum, you would see nothing at all.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2012
  21. Sep 17, 2012 #20

    ghwellsjr

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Your explanation is very confusing. What does (0,-2) stand for?

    What does it mean that you are facing the X-axis?

    But as I answered before: "we cannot see the light as it is traveling away from us" and then you said that's not what you are asking about and then you asked if you can see a single ray of light which I presume is either traveling away from you or traveling across your field of view, and it is not hitting any object so that it cannot reflect off of anything, but even if it is traveling toward you, you will not see it unless it enters your eye.

    Somehow, I don't think I have answered your question but that is because I don't understand your question. You have to be very precise when you ask a question like this. Assume I'm really stupid and have no idea what you are talking about. Don't take anything for granted.

    Please note in the Coke bottle video that they showed a ray of light coming from a laser and they pointed out that the only reason you could see it is because it is reflecting off of particles in the air. At first this was a constant ray of light so you could see it as a steady beam. But then they changed it to a very short pulse so that you could see its progress as if it were a bullet. That's why I used the word "flash of light". You need to do something similar in your explanation. Are you talking about a constant ray of light or a short burst of light?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Can we see light if we move our eyes at speed of light?
  1. We see light? (Replies: 19)

Loading...