Everything travels at the speed-of-light ?

  • Thread starter trewsx7
  • Start date
  • #1
10
1

Main Question or Discussion Point

I've been reading various articles about the speed-of-light and I came across a statement that intrigued me: Everything travels at the speed of light.

Now, I realize that most of this motion for everyday objects is diverted in both the time and space directions, so that theoretically an object at rest is travelling through spacetime at light-speed through the time direction while light travels at this speed through space.

But my question is this: "objects at rest" that travel at the speed-of-light through time DO NOT apply to me sitting here at my desk, correct, since I am moving with the orbit of the earth, correct? These "objects at rest" travelling at 100% lightspeed though the TIME DIMENSION ONLY only apply to hypothetical objects in a vaccuum (like empty space), and not anything here on Earth?

Please tell if I am right or wrong on this. And if I am wrong, please elaborate objects at perfect rest and give me an example (all travel is done through time and none through space).

Thanks!:smile:
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
robphy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
5,476
693
  • #3
28,907
5,171
The direction in spacetime that corresponds to "TIME DIMENSION ONLY" is completely arbitrary, just like the direction in space that corresponds to "X AXIS ONLY". So any inertially moving objest is moving through time only in some reference frame.
 
  • #4
A.T.
Science Advisor
9,902
1,680
But my question is this: "objects at rest" that travel at the speed-of-light through time DO NOT apply to me sitting here at my desk, correct, since I am moving with the orbit of the earth, correct? These "objects at rest" travelling at 100% lightspeed though the TIME DIMENSION ONLY only apply to hypothetical objects in a vaccuum (like empty space), and not anything here on Earth?
It all depends how you define "travel". When you observe an inertially moving clock and compare it to a clock at rest by measuring

[tex]dt[/tex] : time passed on the clock at rest
[tex]d\tau[/tex] : time passed on the moving clock (it's proper time)
[tex]dx[/tex] : the spatial displacement of the moving clock

you will find that

[tex](c\,dt)^2[/tex] = [tex](c\,d\tau)^2[/tex] + [tex]dx^2[/tex]

for every velocity of the moving clock. And since this looks very much like Pythagoras, one could interpret it geometrically by assuming [tex]c\,d\tau[/tex] and [tex]dx[/tex] to be orthogonal dimensions of something called "space-(proper)time". So that [tex]c\,dt[/tex] would be the distance "traveled" by every object through this space-(proper)time during the time [tex]dt[/tex]. In simple words: Everything travels with c trough this space-(proper)time.

Here a visualization:
http://www.adamtoons.de/physics/relativity.swf
 
Last edited:
  • #5
robphy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
5,476
693
In simple words: Everything travels with c trough this space-(proper)time.
That would only be for "things with non-zero mass"
... whose spacetime-tangent-vector is timelike (and can be normalized).

For "things with zero-mass" (like light), it would [in analogy] "travel with speed 0"
... since a light-signal's spacetime-tangent-vector is null (and can't be normalized).
 
  • #6
A.T.
Science Advisor
9,902
1,680
For "things with zero-mass" (like light), it would [in analogy] "travel with speed 0"
... since a light-signal's spacetime-tangent-vector is null (and can't be normalized).
In space-propertime light is not a special, but the most trival case. If you assume [tex]d\tau[/tex] for light to be zero, then it simply moves only along the spatial dimensions of space proper-time, and [tex](c\,dt)^2[/tex] = [tex](c\,d\tau)^2[/tex] + [tex]dx^2[/tex] simplifies to the obvious [tex]c\,dt = dx[/tex]

As I said, it all depends how you define "travel speed". If you define it as displacement in space-propertime divided by coordinate time (dt), then everything (including light) travels at c.
 
  • #7
robphy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
5,476
693
In space-propertime light is not a special, but the most trival case. If you assume [tex]d\tau[/tex] for light to be zero, then it simply moves only along the spatial dimensions of space proper-time, and [tex](c\,dt)^2[/tex] = [tex](c\,d\tau)^2[/tex] + [tex]dx^2[/tex] simplifies to the obvious [tex]c\,dt = dx[/tex]

As I said, it all depends how you define "travel speed". If you define it as displacement in space-propertime divided by coordinate time (dt), then everything (including light) travels at c.
That is why Minkowski's [i.e., the original] spacetime formulation is much more natural, more geometrical, and more consistent... with fewer ambiguities than any other "space and time" formulation. Its reduction to the Galilean case follows easily... and its analogue with Euclidean analytic geometry and trigonometry is also natural. All of these claims can be made precisely.
 
  • #8
A.T.
Science Advisor
9,902
1,680
That is why Minkowski's [i.e., the original] spacetime formulation is much more natural, more geometrical, and more consistent...
Most laymen find Minkowski's space-time rather counter intuitive. Mainly due to it's non-Euclidean signature, which makes it different from what they know as "natural geometry".
 
  • #9
robphy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
5,476
693
Most laymen find Minkowski's space-time rather counter intuitive. Mainly due to it's non-Euclidean signature, which makes it different from what they know as "natural geometry".
Yes, that's unfortunate... but because it naturally generalizes to general relativity, it is necessary for anyone who wants to really understand relativity [and not merely one aspect of it]. The required mathematics (and physics) relies on this non-Euclidean signature.

"Anyone who studies relativity without understanding how to use simple space-time diagrams is as much inhibited as a student of functions of a complex variable who does not understand the Argand diagram."

J.L. Synge in Relativity: The Special Theory (1956), p. 63
In my opinion, one way to make Minkowski's spacetime less counter-intuitive is to make more use of it [which few introductory textbooks do]... and to find better ways to explain it [as I am trying to do]... hopefully tying it to one's more familiar Euclidean-geometric and Galilean-kinematic intuition.
 

Related Threads for: Everything travels at the speed-of-light ?

  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
36
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
560
Replies
13
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
639
  • Last Post
2
Replies
48
Views
7K
Top