Measuring c from Earth: Is the Speed of Light Affected?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the measurement of the speed of light (c) from Earth and whether it is influenced by Earth's motion relative to a supposed fixed point in the universe. Participants explore the implications of relativity, the nature of reference frames, and the historical context of experiments like the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how the speed of light can be accurately measured from a moving reference point like Earth, suggesting that measurements might be affected by Earth's motion.
  • Others argue that there is no absolute "fixed" point in the universe, challenging the premise that measurements could be off due to relative motion.
  • A participant references the Michelson-Morley experiment, asserting that it demonstrates the speed of light remains constant regardless of the observer's motion.
  • Another participant discusses the relationship between speed, time, and gravity, noting that time dilation occurs at high velocities and in stronger gravitational fields.
  • Some contributions emphasize that the speed of light is absolute and not dependent on the observer's state of motion, citing the Principle of Relativity as foundational to this understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of measuring the speed of light from a moving reference frame. While some assert that the speed of light is constant and independent of motion, others remain uncertain about how to reconcile measurements with the concept of a "true" speed of light.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of measuring speed in a relative context, noting the absence of a truly stationary reference point and the challenges in defining "true" speed. The discussion also touches on the historical significance of experiments designed to test these concepts.

jahrudz
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I understand that c is the "ultimate speed" and that it is a result of the fundamental constant, the permeability of free space. But if this is a constant only to a "stationary" frame of reference, how can we accurately measure it from Earth? Since Earth is moving relative to a supposed "fixed" point in the Universe, shouldn't our measurement of the speed of light be off somehow? And is the difference between this measurement and the derived speed of light related to the relative speed of the Earth?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jahrudz said:
Since Earth is moving relative to a supposed "fixed" point in the Universe, shouldn't our measurement of the speed of light be off somehow?
There is no such point. Not in special relativity nor in classical mechanics.
 
Orodruin said:
There is no such point. Not in special relativity nor in classical mechanics.
Then how can we know if our measurement of light is off from the "true" speed of light since we're measuring from a moving reference point, Earth?
 
jahrudz said:
Then how can we know if our measurement of light is off from the "true" speed of light since we're measuring from a moving reference point, Earth?

Google for "Michelson-Morley experiment", and also check the sticky thread on experimental support for relativity at the top of this subforum: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/faq-experimental-basis-of-special-relativity.229034/

The speed of light is the same for all observers regardless of their speed, so we don't need a "really stationary" reference point to measure it.

The Michelson-Morley experiment confirms this by showing that the motion of the Earth does not affect the measured speed of light. In this experiment we compare the speed of light in a direction crosswise to the direction of the Earth's motion with the speed of light in the direction of the Earth's motion, ad it comes out the same both ways.
 
I think the point that confuses people is that the speed of light is distance divided by time. As your velocity increases, time slows down, so one second is only the same amount of time to those traveling at the same velocity. The general assumption is that time is a constant and one second is one second for everyone. Gravity also impacts time with higher gravity slowing time. The light from the sun takes about 8.5 minutes to reach us. However if you left the sun and traveled at the speed of light to Earth you would realize almost no time had passed for your journey, you would arrive almost instantaneously.
 
jahrudz said:
Then how can we know if our measurement of light is off from the "true" speed of light since we're measuring from a moving reference point, Earth?

We can't. Which is why you were asked to look at the Michealson-Morley experiment. It was done in 1889, but there have been been lots of others both like it and unlike it, all searching for the same answer you are searching for. The answer to the question, How fast are we really moving?

Earth's motion relative to the sun is pretty small compared to a light beam's motion. About one part in 10 thousand. And yet these experiments are sensitive enough to easily detect that small of a difference. Yet no such difference has ever been observed. Hence the explanation put forth in 1905 for why we'll never detect a difference. The speed of light is absolute, not relative. It makes no difference how fast we move, we will always measure the same speed for a light beam.

So, to answer your question, one way is to take the distance traveled by a light beam and divide it by the time spent travelling. That will give you the "true" speed of light. As for the "true" speed of Earth, that doesn't exist. There is nothing "truly" at rest for us to measure Earth's speed relative to. As long as the motion is along a straight line and is constant in magnitude, it's equivalent to a state of rest. That's known as the Principle of Relativity. It's the foundation for our understanding of how moving clocks behave and without it we wouldn't have a GPS. Or a lot of other things, either.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K