Since space and time are relative shouldn't matter and energy be also?

Gregory.gags
Messages
31
Reaction score
2
Its known that the speed of light is constant...(if you emit a light Eastward while your physically traveling East c will still be the same as if you were still) but also, through an experiment i am imagining, the speed of matter should be relative as well...(if your traveling Eastward and you shoot a bullet to the East it will travel at the same speed as a shooter facing East standing still would). But HOW can matter have the same properties as energy is one has mass and the other not? could matter=energy/frequency?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Gregory.gags said:
(if your traveling Eastward and you shoot a bullet to the East it will travel at the same speed as a shooter facing East standing still would).

This is not correct. If a person fires a bullet while moving with respect to some stationary observer, the bullet will travel faster with respect to the stationary observer than it would have if the shooter was standing still.
 
If you replace 'bullet' with 'photon', then you'ld be correct.
 
elfmotat said:
This is not correct. If a person fires a bullet while moving with respect to some stationary observer, the bullet will travel faster with respect to the stationary observer than it would have if the shooter was standing still.

but what would the mathematics behind this be? would the kinetic force of the car be ADDED to the velocity of the bullet?
also
if the bullet is already in motion, as per the moving car, wouldn't the thrust of the gunpowder need to be greater to overcome the *inertia?* of the bullet?

ps I'm probably not making a lot of sense since I only know a little bit about a lot of stuff, but please bear with me :)
 
Gregory.gags said:
but what would the mathematics behind this be? would the kinetic force of the car be ADDED to the velocity of the bullet?

From a Newtonian standpoint, you just add the velocity of car to that of the bullet with respect to the shooter in the car. If a car is moving at velocity vcar and a passenger fires a bullet that travels at velocity u, then the velocity of the bullet with respect to a stationary observer is just:

vbullet = vcar + u

In special relativity, "adding" velocities isn't quite this simple, but it's the same general principle.

Gregory.gags said:
also
if the bullet is already in motion, as per the moving car, wouldn't the thrust of the gunpowder need to be greater to overcome the *inertia?* of the bullet?

Nope, for the same reason you don't fly backwards at over 300 mph when you stand up in an airplane.
 
Responding to the original post: yes, energy is relative. The kinetic energy of a bullet is 0 in the frame of reference of the bullet. It's much larger in the frame of a person who has shot it. As far as matter, that depends on how you define matter. The rest mass doesn't change with reference frame, but the relativistic mass does change.

What doesn't change is the length of the energy-momentum 4-vector. This is the rest mass for an atomic particle, but includes internal energies for a composite system.
 
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...
Back
Top