- #1

- 2

- 0

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Thunder Foot
- Start date

- #1

- 2

- 0

- #2

cristo

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

- 8,107

- 73

The speed of light. What makes you think it is anything different?

- #3

- 2

- 0

- #4

cristo

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

- 8,107

- 73

There's no need to worry about black holes until you start studying general relativity.

- #5

DaveC426913

Gold Member

- 19,297

- 2,784

Light is not a particle that is attracted by gravity. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime such that light follows the shortest distance between two points. Near a black hole, the curvature is such that the light's path will lead into - and never out of - the black hole.

- #6

- 9,978

- 1,155

We've had this discussion before.

However, the coordinate speed of light is not necessarily equal to 'c'.

One has to be very precise as to how the 'speed' is being measured.

Thus if you carry a clock, ruler, and a light source with you, and jump into a black hole, you will always measure the speed of the light from your light source (or from any external source, for that matter) to be equal to 'c', even when you fall into a black hole.

- #7

- 5,428

- 292

Is it not possible for light to have orbits in the Schwarzschild geometry ?

- #8

- 2,946

- 0

That rule belongs to

Pete

- #9

- 1,525

- 10

We've had this discussion before.

Using local clocks and rulers, the speed of light in a vacuum is always equal to 'c', even in GR.

However, the coordinate speed of light is not necessarily equal to 'c'.

One has to be very precise as to how the 'speed' is being measured.

.

Pervect - can you give some examples - e.g., do you consider the one way sagnac correction used in GPS to be an example of a non "c" coordinate light speed?

- #10

- 9,978

- 1,155

Pervect - can you give some examples - e.g., do you consider the one way sagnac correction used in GPS to be an example of a non "c" coordinate light speed?

That's one example, I suppose. Another example would be the use of clocks and rulers "at infinity" in the Schwarzschild coordinate system, i.e. using schwarzschild r and t coordinates to measure 'speed'. It turns out that the 'speed' of light (or any other object falling into a black hole) is zero at the event horizon using this particular definition.

The point is that coordinate speeds vary all over the place in GR - only when you use local clocks and rulers is the speed of light constant.

To even talk about measuring the speed of light, one has to use a somewhat outdated notion of distance (basically, using a replica of the standard meter bar in Paris as the definition of distance). But if one does use this outdated definition of distance, and caries around a meter bar and a clock, relativity predicts that the measured speed of light is constant wherever one goes, including falling into a black hole.

- #11

- 1,525

- 10

Thanks

Yogi

- #12

- 1,525

- 10

This would seem to indicate a possible conflict with SR

Last edited:

- #13

DaveC426913

Gold Member

- 19,297

- 2,784

Is this helping the OP get his answer? Side discussions are one thing, but do you think discussions about the "sagnac correction" (which *I*'ve never even heard of) will help the OP?

- #14

- 1,525

- 10

- #15

- 9,978

- 1,155

If I mention that in order to measure the sort of velocity I'm talking about that one needs two clocks (rather than just one), a ruler, and a method of synchronizing the two clocks (the Einstein convention), will everyone be happy?

To measure the velocity of an object, one needs to mark out a course of known length (with the ruler), have one clock (at the start of the course), and another clock at the end of the course (the finish line). One synchronizes the two clocks at the instance the object whose velocity one is measuring crosses the starting line, and reads out the duration of the trip on the second clock at the finish line.

If one is timing anything other than light, one can make a similar measurement with an "onboard" clock, using only one clock. This sort of measurement will not give a velocity less than 'c', it will give a number known as a 'rapidity' that can be arbitrarily high. Rapidity and velocity can be thought of as two different ways of measuring the same abstract idea, "speed", but they are numerically different.

Note that we've talked about all of this before, too :-).

There's a little more to be said about "fair" methods of clock synchroization, the general idea as presented in Einstein's original paper is "isotropy". One way of describing isotropy is to say that the relation between the one-clock method of measuring rapidity and the two-clock method of measuring velocity must not depend on the direction in which one traverses the course. This is a "fair" method of synchronizing clocks. For an example of an "unfair" method of synchronizing clocks, imagine that one defined clocks to be synchronized on the Earth whenever the sun was directly overhead. Note that taking this idea seriously will break Newton's laws, among a number of other non-features.

At this point, we've probably confused the OP, and yogi has heard all this before, I think.

To measure the velocity of an object, one needs to mark out a course of known length (with the ruler), have one clock (at the start of the course), and another clock at the end of the course (the finish line). One synchronizes the two clocks at the instance the object whose velocity one is measuring crosses the starting line, and reads out the duration of the trip on the second clock at the finish line.

If one is timing anything other than light, one can make a similar measurement with an "onboard" clock, using only one clock. This sort of measurement will not give a velocity less than 'c', it will give a number known as a 'rapidity' that can be arbitrarily high. Rapidity and velocity can be thought of as two different ways of measuring the same abstract idea, "speed", but they are numerically different.

Note that we've talked about all of this before, too :-).

There's a little more to be said about "fair" methods of clock synchroization, the general idea as presented in Einstein's original paper is "isotropy". One way of describing isotropy is to say that the relation between the one-clock method of measuring rapidity and the two-clock method of measuring velocity must not depend on the direction in which one traverses the course. This is a "fair" method of synchronizing clocks. For an example of an "unfair" method of synchronizing clocks, imagine that one defined clocks to be synchronized on the Earth whenever the sun was directly overhead. Note that taking this idea seriously will break Newton's laws, among a number of other non-features.

At this point, we've probably confused the OP, and yogi has heard all this before, I think.

Last edited:

Share: