B Question about the relative motion of an eye relative to light source

Chenkel
Messages
482
Reaction score
109
Hello everyone,

I've been thinking about 2nd postulate of relativity, it seems that and the Michaelson-Morley experiment seems to imply that there is no ether, but I was thinking about a special situation that doesn't seem to go against that postulate.

I think my question is basic so hopefully it makes sense and I don't make any major blunders.

Suppose there is an initial light source at distance D away from an eye and the light turns on at the start of the problem, and the eye moves with a relative velocity of v towards the light source, how long does it take light to reach the eye?

I was thinking about it and the gap seems to be closing at a rate of ##c + v## So I would expect the light to reach the eye at the time ##\frac {D} {c + v}##

If the eye is moving away from the light source at the start of the problem when it turns on at a distance D I would imagine the gap to be closing at a rate of ##{c - v}## so the time to cover the distance D should be ##\frac {D} {c - v}##

Hopefully I'm not making any major mistakes in my analysis, let me know what you think.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the rest frame of the light source where the eye is moving, yes, these are the expressions. It is unclear why you think this affects the results predicted by relativity.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and russ_watters
Orodruin said:
In the rest frame of the light source where the eye is moving, yes, these are the expressions. It is unclear why you think this affects the results predicted by relativity.
I don't think it affects the results predicted by relativity, I'm just trying to make sure I'm not making any mistakes regarding the postulates of relativity and the framework of it.
 
Chenkel said:
I don't think it affects the results predicted by relativity, I'm just trying to make sure I'm not making any mistakes regarding the postulates of relativity and the framework of it.
You have specified everything in one frame here, so the same intercept calculations you do in Newtonian physics apply. It's only when you want to do more complex physics (conservation laws or frame changes, for example) that you will find differences.
 
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...
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(...
Back
Top