- #1

- 9

- 0

## Main Question or Discussion Point

Hi All,

I am a bit confused about reference frames and inertial frames.

According to the first postulate of special relativity (if I'm right), all physical laws take their simplest form in an inertial frame,

Now if I imagine an inertial frame, from which I watch a photon -- according to the special theory of relativity -- I measure the velocity of this photon to be

The postulate says: "

Here comes the dilemma which confuses me:

In the Inertial Frame

I can think of only one resolution of my dilemma:

There's no sense of it, if we state, that

But by stating this (at least, for me it seams) we make the whole theory inexact.

I think it is only a misunderstanding of the theory from my side...

Any help would be appreciated.

Regards

I am a bit confused about reference frames and inertial frames.

According to the first postulate of special relativity (if I'm right), all physical laws take their simplest form in an inertial frame,

*and there exist multiple inertial frames interrelated by uniform translation*.Now if I imagine an inertial frame, from which I watch a photon -- according to the special theory of relativity -- I measure the velocity of this photon to be

*c*. Let's call this Frame*K*.The postulate says: "

*there exist multiple inertial frames interrelated by uniform translation*". If a translation of velocity*c*is a uniform one, then a frame of reference fixed to the photon would be an inertial frame as well. Let's call this Frame*K'*Here comes the dilemma which confuses me:

In the Inertial Frame

*K*the photon's velocity is*c*, like in any Inertial Frame. But how could the velocity of a photon be the same value,*c*, in*K'*, which is in fact fixed to it?I can think of only one resolution of my dilemma:

There's no sense of it, if we state, that

*any reference frame, which has a constant velocity viewing it from an inertial frame, is an inertial frame itself,*__except in the case when it is moving with the velocity of light__, viewing it from an inertial frame.But by stating this (at least, for me it seams) we make the whole theory inexact.

I think it is only a misunderstanding of the theory from my side...

Any help would be appreciated.

Regards