Relative velocity of electron moving

AI Thread Summary
An electron moving at 0.85c in the same direction as a photon cannot have a relative velocity calculated with respect to the photon, as photons do not have a rest frame. From the electron's perspective, light always moves at c, while an observer at rest sees the light moving away at 0.15c. The concept of relative velocity requires a rest frame, which is impossible for a photon. Therefore, any attempt to define the electron's velocity relative to the photon is fundamentally flawed. Understanding these principles is crucial in discussions of relativistic physics.
rajan rana
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
an electron is moving with a velocity of 0.85c in the same direction as that of photon.the relative velocity of the electron with respect to photon is... and why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
From the electrons frame, the photon moves away at c. This is because light ALWAYS moves at c relative to an inertial frame.

From an observer at rest, the light moves away from the electron at 0.15 c.
 
rajan rana said:
an electron is moving with a velocity of 0.85c in the same direction as that of photon.the relative velocity of the electron with respect to photon is... and why?

This question "with respect to the photon" cannot be answered, because it requires that one transforms to the photon's REST FRAME", and we can't do that!

Zz.
 
Last edited:
Just to put my oar in (and basically repeat what Drakkith and ZapperZ said) when we talk about "A"s velocity "relative to B", we mean A's velocity as measured in B's rest frame. As ZapperZ said, it is impossible to talk about any motion "relative to a photon" because a photon does NOT HAVE a "rest frame". On the other hand, the speed of a photon relative to anything that does have a rest frame is c, as Drakkith said.
 
thanks for replying sir. but the answer given is -ve c is it right
 
rajan rana said:
thanks for replying sir. but the answer given is -ve c is it right

You appear to not have understood the responses that you were given.

Whoever gave you that "answer" have not understood the flaw in your question.

Zz.
 
Susskind (in The Theoretical Minimum, volume 1, pages 203-205) writes the Lagrangian for the magnetic field as ##L=\frac m 2(\dot x^2+\dot y^2 + \dot z^2)+ \frac e c (\dot x A_x +\dot y A_y +\dot z A_z)## and then calculates ##\dot p_x =ma_x + \frac e c \frac d {dt} A_x=ma_x + \frac e c(\frac {\partial A_x} {\partial x}\dot x + \frac {\partial A_x} {\partial y}\dot y + \frac {\partial A_x} {\partial z}\dot z)##. I have problems with the last step. I might have written ##\frac {dA_x} {dt}...
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (Second part)'
I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8. I want to understand some issues more correctly. It's a little bit difficult to understand now. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. In the page 196, in the first paragraph, the author argues as follows ...
Back
Top