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.
 
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...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top