Ray of light through an elevator

DiracPool
Messages
1,242
Reaction score
515
The famous thought experiment that says that the path of light curves in a gravitational field uses the equivalence principle to demonstrate how, if you project a light beam through a hole in an elevator being accelerated through deep space, then to an observer inside the elevator, the path of the light beam would appear to be curved in a parabolic shape:

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Gedankenexperiment

"In that case, continued Einstein’s Gedankenexperiment, light must be affected by gravity. Imagine that the elevator has a hole bored straight through two opposite walls. When the elevator is at rest, a beam of light entering one hole travels in a straight line parallel to the floor and exits through the other hole. But if the elevator is accelerated upward, by the time the ray reaches the second hole, the opening has moved and is no longer aligned with the ray. As the passenger sees the light miss the second hole, he concludes that the ray has followed a curved path (in fact, a parabola)."

Take the same scenario and, instead of using an elevator undergoing constant acceleration, just send through an elevator moving at a constant velocity. The beam is still going to end up lower in the elevator on the opposite side. My question is what is the path through the elevator going to look like? Is it going to be curved or is it going took to look like a straight, sharp angle with no curvilinearity to it?

Edit: I just thought about it and I'm guessing it's going to look like a straight, sharp angle with no curvinearlity to it. But confirmation would be nice.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
DiracPool said:
Edit: I just thought about it and I'm guessing it's going to look like a straight, sharp angle with no curvinearlity to it. But confirmation would be nice.

It's just elementary Kinematics. If something is moving in a straight line at constant speed (from left to right, say) and you move towards it (at constant speed), then from your reference frame it will move from left to right at constant speed and towards you at constant speed. And that's a straight line.

If you accelerate towards it, then (from your reference frame) it will move at constant speed from left to right and acclerate towards you. And that's a curve.

This applies to anything moving in a straight line at constant speed (light, someone walking, a ball rolling along the ground). If you accelerate, things will change from moving in straight lines to (in your reference frame) moving in curves. Here's a video that shows this for circular motion:

 
  • Like
Likes DiracPool
PeroK said:
It's just elementary Kinematics. If something is moving in a straight line at constant speed (from left to right, say) and you move towards it (at constant speed), then from your reference frame it will move from left to right at constant speed and towards you at constant speed. And that's a straight line.

Thanks for the clarification. And thanks for the video, too, pretty cool. That Coriolis "fictive" force always gets me dizzy o0)
 
DiracPool said:
Take the same scenario and, instead of using an elevator undergoing constant acceleration, just send through an elevator moving at a constant velocity. The beam is still going to end up lower in the elevator on the opposite side.
No, the beam is not going to end up lower. If the elevator is moving at constant speed then it means it is at rest per se.
 
Snip3r said:
No, the beam is not going to end up lower. If the elevator is moving at constant speed then it means it is at rest per se.
It depends on the relative motion between the light's source and the elevator. If they are at rest with respect to each other, then the light goes straight across. If the light source and elevator have a relative motion with respect to each other, then the light enters the hole at, and travels across the elevator at an angle with respect to its floor.
 
Janus said:
It depends on the relative motion between the light's source and the elevator. If they are at rest with respect to each other, then the light goes straight across. If the light source and elevator have a relative motion with respect to each other, then the light enters the hole at, and travels across the elevator at an angle with respect to its floor.
Yeah..I thought the light is flashed from the elevator itself. But thanks for clarifying
 
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