Question about light and relativity

  • Thread starter Thread starter thunderchicken
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light Relativity
thunderchicken
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Another question about light and relativity:

The way I “understand” the theory of relativity is that it is based on the fact that light always moves at a constant speed in the direction which you perceive it to be traveling. This is how (I think?) Einstein’s light-clock and spaceship analogy works.

My question is this: If relativity is based on the observer’s perception of light’s direction, does optical perspective (reality) have an effect?

As the light clock gets farther and farther away from the observer, the distance the light is traveling appears to decrease dramatically until it eventually disappears. If the perceived vertical distance the light has to travel becomes shorter, and light continued to travel at the same speed as always, would the clock not tick faster and faster the farther away it gets?

It seems to me that the thought experiment only works if the two clocks can be perceived as being exactly equal in height – something that is simply not possible. In reality, shouldn’t the person the spaceship age way faster??

Thanks for your help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So, what would the observer see then as the clock moves away?
 
in special relativity to "see" means to detect at the same time light signals that have left a luminous object at different times. special relativity is involved with many clocks. The light clock you have singled out measures a proper time interval whereas the stationary clocks it meets during its trip measure by the difference between theirs readings a non-
proper time interval.
I think you should rephrase your question. Please have a look at a paper of mine "Illustrating Einstein's special relativity" arxiv phyhsics education 2005.
 
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top