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

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.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...

Similar threads

Back
Top