Special Relativity: Light's Relative Speed Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter Poy
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Special relativity asserts that the speed of light is constant at c for all observers, regardless of their relative motion. This means that even if both an observer and a light source are moving away from each other, the observer will still measure the light's speed as c. The discussion highlights common misconceptions about the nature of light's speed and the implications of spacetime structure. Maxwell's Equations initially established the constancy of light speed, which Einstein later adopted as a postulate in his theory. Overall, the conversation clarifies the fundamental principles of special relativity and the consistent measurement of light's speed across different frames of reference.
Poy
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
I think this is the right place to put this question
Special relativity says light always seems to move at c. But wouldn't it (relative to you) be moving faster than c if its moving away from you and you are moving away from it? I might misundestdn something here, but if someone could clearify for me, thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Originally posted by Poy
Special relativity says light always seems to move at c. But wouldn't it (relative to you) be moving faster than c if its moving away from you and you are moving away from it?
No. Light moves at speed c in any reference frame. No matter how fast you move, you'll measure any light passing by to have speed c. It's a feature of the "spacetime" structure of the universe.
 
I know how that ussually works, but I wasn't sure in this one condition... thanks.
 
Originally posted by Poy
Special relativity says light always seems to move at c.
You may want to reconsider your conceptualization. SR says that light literally moves at c for every observer, not just appearing to do so.
 
If you want to be nit picky it is Maxwell's Equations which state that the speed of light is constant to all observers. Einstein was able to state a constant c as a postulate, because it was derived as such by Maxwell in 1867. The Constancy of c was a major dilemma for Physicists in the last half of the 1800s.
 
Originally posted by Integral
If you want to be nit picky ...
I wasn't trying to be "nit picky." There is a lot of misconception about what SR says concerning the nature of space-time, i.e., "time dilation is a consequence of the delay of light due to its finite speed," being such a misconception. From the wording, I thought that Poy might have such a misconception. Sorry for being presumptuous.




Originally posted by Integral
... it is Maxwell's Equations ...
I'll be nit picky only to point out that a statement by a set of equations does not exclude a statement by SR.
 
There really should be a sticky thread about this as variations of this one seems to be the most oft-asked question:

In special relativity velocities (u and v)are summed:

w = \frac{u + v}{1 + \frac{uv}{c^2}}

take the case where u = c

w = \frac{c + v}{1 + \frac{v}{c}} = \frac{c(c + v)}{c + v} = c

So the sum of the two velocites when one is equal to c is always equal to c.
 
Originally posted by turin

I'll be nit picky only to point out that a statement by a set of equations does not exclude a statement by SR.

There is a big difference between a derivation from basics and a postulate. Maxwell dervives, Einstein postulates. He was able to do that based on Maxwell's derivation.

Special Relativity does not contain a reason for the constancy of c, it is the starting point. From there SR explores the results of a constant c.
 
Originally posted by Integral
There is a big difference between a derivation from basics and a postulate. Maxwell dervives, Einstein postulates. He was able to do that based on Maxwell's derivation.

Special Relativity does not contain a reason for the constancy of c, it is the starting point. From there SR explores the results of a constant c.
So what? I didn't claim a derivation of any sort. SR says that the speed of light is literally the same in every inertial frame of reference. Do you disagree with this?

I thought that Poy misunderstood this statement, based on his wording. I didn't want to make an issue of whether or not SR is true, and why.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top