Q: Special Relativity: Moving Light w/ Mass & Reference Frames

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of Special Relativity and how it affects the idea of a frame of reference. The participants discuss a thought experiment involving two spaceships and a beam of light, and come to the conclusion that a beam of light cannot be taken as a frame of reference due to the principles of Special Relativity. They explain that this is because the speed of light has no metric, making it impossible to measure a speed in relation to it.
  • #1
Rapt0rzzz
2
0
I have a very basic question about Special Relativity. I am very limited on my knowledge of physics and math and even more so on SR so please keep that in mind when answering.

I have read the basic example many times of two spaceships traveling towards each other with a constant velocity. The observer on ship A could say that his ship is moving while ship B is at rest and he could also say that his ship is at rest while ship B is moving. The observer in ship B could also say the same things. That was all fine until I thought about one of the ships changing into a beam of light. If a beam of light is used the observer on the ship could still say that he is at rest and the light is moving but it doesn't seem that he can say that the light is at rest and he is moving. This would cause his ship to be moving at c which is impossible since it has mass.

Someone pointed out that the observer couldn't see the light until it reached him but you could easily fix that by saying the light has already hit the observer on the ship and continues to pass him. In other words, the beam of light is arbitrarily long and continues to pass by the ship. Thus the observer should be able to say he is moving or the light is moving.

If even that won't work, what if it were a beam of light as one reference frame, and then another beam of light and the rest of the cosmos as another? Then the light and cosmos could say the other light beam is moving and they are all at rest, or that they are moving and the other beam of light is at rest - which again causes the matter in the cosmos to be moving at c. I just don't see how a beam of light can be a frame of reference. The only thing I can think of is that maybe when taking the frame of the light time for the other frame (the ship) stops. But that seems to just enforce the idea that the light must be moving and no other reference can be taken. And you still couldn't take the reference frame of the ship and say the light is at rest because you would have to be moving at c. I don't see how any affect on time would change this for the ship. I'm sure I'm looking over something obvious but I just don't understand. I'd appreciate some help.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Rapt0rzzz said:
I just don't see how a beam of light can be a frame of reference.
You are correct--It can't! You've just deduced some of the nonsense that would ensue if you attempt to attach a reference frame to a beam of light.
 
  • #3
Rapt0rzzz:

Welcome to PF. You have got yourself in a tangle because in your thought-experiment you've transgressed one of the axioms of special relativity here

That was all fine until I thought about one of the ships changing into a beam of light. If a beam of light is used the observer on the ship could still say that he is at rest and the light is moving but it doesn't seem that he can say that the light is at rest and he is moving.
It is only possible to define regular motion of matter with respect to other matter, and all matter travels at less than the speed of light. If one of your spaceships 'turned into light', the other spaceship could no longer define motion wrt to the (now gone) other ship. The essential thing is that one cannot define a frame of reference using light.

If you stick to two spaceships, with a constant ( steady) relative velocity, then everything is fine, they will see time dialtion and length contraction when the look into each others frames.
 
  • #4
Welcome to PF!

Rapt0rzzz said:
{snip} I just don't see how a beam of light can be a frame of reference. {snip}

Hi Rapt0rzzz! Yes … welcome to PF! :smile:

I don't see any tangle … you're basically asking about the symmetry of different parts of the "space of velocities".

As you point out, the STL region has symmetry, in the sense that, for any pair of STL observers, either can regard himself as at rest … one is the same as the other in that sense.

But, you point out, for a pair comprising one STL and one SOL observer, there is no symmetry … their two velocities are fundamentally different.

Then you pose the interesting question of a pair of SOL observers … can either regard itself as at rest, with the other moving at c?

I think the answer is that the SOL region of the "space of velocities" has a topological structure, but has no metric (no distance) … so, while there is a concept of "between-ness", no sensible concept of size can be applied to it.

In particular, no SOL observer could say that the speed of another SOL observer is c (whatever "c" might be), because there is no metric by which it could measure a speed. :smile:
 
  • #5
Doc Al said:
You are correct--It can't! You've just deduced some of the nonsense that would ensue if you attempt to attach a reference frame to a beam of light.

Well I pretty much figured it can't be taken as a reference frame as soon as I thought of the above example. I'm interested to know exactly why it can't. I know there must be a reason other than the fact that nonsense would ensue. That would only mean it proves SR contradictory which we all know full well it is not. So could anyone explain the reason why light cannot be taken as a reference frame? I don't see any condition that says "any two inertial frames can be used except light" Or that all frames must contain mass. Is there a simple way to explain this?
 
  • #6
Rapt0rzzz said:
Well I pretty much figured it can't be taken as a reference frame as soon as I thought of the above example. I'm interested to know exactly why it can't. I know there must be a reason other than the fact that nonsense would ensue. That would only mean it proves SR contradictory which we all know full well it is not. So could anyone explain the reason why light cannot be taken as a reference frame? I don't see any condition that says "any two inertial frames can be used except light" Or that all frames must contain mass. Is there a simple way to explain this?

Here's an old post of mine that might address some of your concerns:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=899778#post899778 (#17)
 

1. What is special relativity?

Special relativity is a theory developed by Albert Einstein in 1905 that explains the relationship between space and time in the presence of moving objects. It describes how the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers and explains phenomena such as time dilation and length contraction.

2. How does special relativity explain the movement of light?

In special relativity, it is proposed that the speed of light is constant for all observers, regardless of their relative motion. This means that no matter how fast an observer is moving, they will always measure the speed of light to be the same value. This is a fundamental concept in special relativity and has been proven through numerous experiments.

3. Can objects with mass travel at the speed of light?

According to special relativity, objects with mass cannot travel at the speed of light. As an object's speed approaches the speed of light, its mass increases infinitely and would require infinite energy to accelerate further. This is why the speed of light is often referred to as the universal speed limit.

4. How do reference frames play a role in special relativity?

Reference frames are used to describe the position and motion of objects in space and time. In special relativity, different observers in different reference frames may measure different values for the same event due to their relative motion. This is known as the relativity of simultaneity and is a key concept in understanding the effects of special relativity.

5. How has special relativity been confirmed through experiments?

Special relativity has been confirmed through numerous experiments, including the famous Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 which showed that the speed of light is constant regardless of the observer's motion. Other experiments such as the muon decay experiment and the time dilation experiment have also provided evidence for the principles of special relativity.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
939
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
22
Views
954
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
28
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
747
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
614
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
Back
Top