Light Reflection Question: Velocity and the Infinite Mirror

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the behavior of light reflecting off an infinite mirror while an observer moves at a significant fraction of the speed of light. It is clarified that the geometry and relative speeds are crucial to determine where the reflected beam will hit the observer. When the observer shines a laser perpendicular to the mirror's surface in their rest frame, the light will return to them. However, in the mirror's frame, the light's path is altered due to the observer's motion. The conversation also touches on misconceptions about stationary ether, ultimately affirming that there is no evidence supporting its existence.
Snip3r
Messages
102
Reaction score
0
Consider i m moving at a velocity considerable to the speed of light. Above me there is a mirror stretching to infinity . It doesn't move with me. Now if i shine light on the mirror where will the reflected beam hit me?right on me, back of me or infront of me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You'll need to be more specific in the geometry / distances / speeds for there to be an answer

EDIT: but if I understand your general drift, it will be "back of you"
 
Snip3r said:
Consider i m moving at a velocity considerable to the speed of light. Above me there is a mirror stretching to infinity . It doesn't move with me. Now if i shine light on the mirror where will the reflected beam hit me?right on me, back of me or infront of me?
I assume you move parallel to the mirrors surface and you shine a laser perpendicular to the mirror surface as measured in your rest frame? The laser will hit you then. In the mirrors rest frame it will not be perpendicular to the mirror surface.
 
A.T. said:
I assume you move parallel to the mirrors surface and you shine a laser perpendicular to the mirror surface as measured in your rest frame? The laser will hit you then. In the mirrors rest frame it will not be perpendicular to the mirror surface.

Assume he is a light year from the mirror and is traveling at half of c. Now do you see why I content that geometry/speed/etc are required in order to answer the question?

EDIT: DOH! Ok, I'm a doofus. I even have a diagram that explains time dilation that also answers this question, and I forgot about it:

http://www.phinds.com/time%20dilation/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A.T. said:
I assume you move parallel to the mirrors surface and you shine a laser perpendicular to the mirror surface as measured in your rest frame?
thats correct. As far as distance u can take any distance between me and mirror

also you can take my velocity any value considerable to speed of light
 
Snip3r said:
thats correct. As far as distance u can take any distance between me and mirror

also you can take my velocity any value considerable to speed of light

see my link in the above post. As AT said, it will hit you
 
phinds said:
EDIT: but if I understand your general drift, it will be "back of you"

haha that's exactly the reason i asked. Although now you have taken back this, for a moment you were convinced of some stationary ether isn't it?i want to know what convinced you about both the stands? because i am perplexed
 
Snip3r said:
haha that's exactly the reason i asked. Although now you have taken back this, for a moment you were convinced of some stationary ether isn't it?i want to know what convinced you about both the stands? because i am perplexed

No, I have never believed in the "ether" since before I ever had a chance to believe in it I read that it was nonsense.

I just got the geometry wrong because I forgot to keep the beam of light in your frame of reference.
 
Snip3r said:
haha that's exactly the reason i asked. Although now you have taken back this, for a moment you were convinced of some stationary ether isn't it?i want to know what convinced you about both the stands? because i am perplexed
Why do you think the answer would be any different if there were a stationary ether?
 
  • #10
Snip3r said:
haha that's exactly the reason i asked. Although now you have taken back this, for a moment you were convinced of some stationary ether isn't it?i want to know what convinced you about both the stands? because i am perplexed
Don't read anything into that. Phinds corrected his statement as soon as he understood the setup clearly.

There is no evidence for a luminiferous aether.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K