Relative Motion of two cars are moving with constant velocities

AI Thread Summary
Two cars moving with constant velocities will observe a ball thrown straight up and down in the same manner, but an outside observer will see the ball travel differently due to the cars' motion. When a beam of light is sent from the bottom to the top of a car, an observer inside sees it travel straight up and down, while an outside observer sees it travel a longer path. Both observers will measure the speed of light as constant, despite the differing distances traveled, indicating a complex relationship between time and space. The discussion emphasizes that relativity involves more than just light lag; it fundamentally alters the perception of time and simultaneity between observers. This complexity highlights the intriguing nature of relativity and its effects on our understanding of physics.
uzair_ha91
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
Before I start studying the relativity theories, I have to grasp this concept:
Suppose two cars are moving with constant velocities in any direction and a ball is thrown straight up and comes back straight down. This will happen in both cars.
But what if a person in one car observes the experiment done in the other car, will he observe the same?
ALSO please explain this in terms of frame of references.
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Someone observing the ball from outside the car - i.e. in a different frame of refernce - will indeed see the ball go straight up and down **with respect to the car** (this is the key bit - they won't see the ball land in the back seat or something daft... they will see it land in the same place as an observer inside the car will see it)

Where it gets interesting is when you try it with a beam of light - so instead of a ball, you send a beam up from the bottom of the car to a mirror at the top of the car and back down again. So far so good...

Outside the car you will still see the beam go straight up and down **with respect to the car**, but with respect to you, the car has moved forward in the interviening time and so you see the beam of light travel further than an observer in the car would see it (inside the car: straight up and down... from outside the car: up, down and along a bit).

So... two observers in different frames of reference, see the same beam of light travel different distances. Not a problem until the observers measure the speed of light. Both of them will come up with the same speed.

Same speed, same light beam, different distance travelled. Something has gone weird with time. And space :-)
Welcome to the highly entertaining world of relativity!

Enjoy!
 
Last edited:
Also, if you are about to start studying relativity, please keep in mind something that I've found isn't made very clear in relativity textbooks and is a very common misconception among new students:

The effects of relativity are not simply a result of light "lag". Although the finite speed of light does result in interesting observed effects, the real study of relativity has to do space and time itself being experienced in a relative way. In fact, even after having corrected measurements of observations for light lag, two observers can still disagree on the simultaneity of two events.
 
Good point! The effects of lag are interesting in their own right, but the more you get into the subject, the more fascinating - not to mention mind bending - it becomes.

Have you ever wanted to store a 10 metre pole in a 5 meter shed? Well travel fast enough and you can do. For a fraction of a second anyway:-)
 
What is light "lag"?
 
Me being lazy... I meant the difference in observation caused by two observers being different distance from an event :-)

Many reletavistic effects can be explained by this, but many others have to be explained through changes to spacetime.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top