Special Relativity Q: Choosing Light as Ref

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of special relativity, particularly focusing on the constancy of the speed of light and the concept of reference frames. Participants explore the relationship between light, reference frames, and the effects of time and space dilation, while questioning the feasibility of using a photon as a reference point.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the speed of light is constant across all inertial reference frames, regardless of the observer's state of motion.
  • There is a question regarding whether the constancy of light speed is due to space and time dilation effects.
  • One participant argues that it is impossible to choose a photon as a reference frame, as no inertial frame exists where light is at rest.
  • Another participant discusses the possibility of deriving time dilation and length contraction from the invariance of light speed, suggesting that the proof could be approached in reverse.
  • Some participants inquire about the concept of an object's worldline and its relation to light, noting that light follows a "null" path through spacetime, unlike massive particles which follow "timelike" paths.
  • A question is raised about whether a particle moving close to the speed of light would perceive the speed of light as being c, to which a participant confirms that it would, while also emphasizing the relativity of all velocities.
  • There is a discussion about the difficulty of answering "why" questions in the context of special relativity, with one participant explaining that the Principle of Relativity implies that all inertial frames are equivalent.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying views on the feasibility of using a photon as a reference frame, with some agreeing that it is not possible. The discussion includes multiple competing ideas regarding the relationship between light speed, time dilation, and reference frames, indicating that no consensus has been reached.

Contextual Notes

Some concepts, such as the nature of worldlines and the distinction between null and timelike paths, may require further clarification for those unfamiliar with advanced relativity topics. The discussion also highlights the complexity of deriving principles of special relativity from different starting points.

Cathr
Messages
67
Reaction score
3
Special relativity states that the speed of light is constant for all the references, as long as they are not accelerating. For example, the speed of light would be c for a train moving linearly with a constant speed and would also be c for an observer who's not moving at all (I took the Earth as reference).

I know that it was proved experimentally, but I don't completely understant it. Is it true because of space and time dilation?

But what if we choose a photon as reference? How would the light itself perceive the movement of other objects, of the train and the observer for example? Wouldn't they be perceived as moving with the same speed?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Cathr said:
But what if we choose a photon as reference?
We can't. This would mean that there is an inertial reference frame in which the photon (or pulse of light) is at rest. However, there is no such reference frame, because the speed of light is always c, in any inertial reference frame.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Cathr
Cathr said:
Is it true because of space and time dilation?
Usually the proof is written the other way. You start with the invariance of c and then you derive time dilation (TD) and length contraction (LC) and the relativity of simultaneity (RS). However, you certainly could write the proof backwards starting with TD, LC, and RS and then proving the invariance of c. I am pretty sure that nobody would find that proof particularly compelling.

Cathr said:
But what if we choose a photon as reference?
There is no such thing as the reference frame of a pulse of light. An object's frame is a tetrad where the timelike vector is tangent to the object's worldline. The worldline of a pulse of light has a null tangent, and a null vector cannot be equal to a timelike vector.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Cathr

Never thought of that, thank you!
 
Last edited:

Thank you!

What did you mean by the object's worldline? Is this the set of space vectors? And why does it have a null tangent for the pulse of light?
 
Cathr said:
Thank you!

What did you mean by the object's worldline? Is this the set of space vectors? And why does it have a null tangent for the pulse of light?

If you haven't come across the term "worldline" yet, then the answer from @Dale may be a bit advanced. The basic answer is that light follows a special type of path through spacetime (it's called "null", because no proper time passes along its path). Particles with mass, on the other hand, follow "timelike" paths through spacetime, where proper time is experienced.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Cathr and vanhees71
What if we take, as reference, a particle that moves really fast, with a speed very close to the one of light, will if also perceive the speed of light as being c?
 
Cathr said:
What if we take, as reference, a particle that moves really fast, with a speed very close to the one of light, will if also perceive the speed of light as being c?

Yes. But, more fundamentally, there is no such thing as a particle that moves fast. All velocities are relative. That particle would perceive you as moving near the speed of light.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Douglas Sunday
Cathr said:
I know that it was proved experimentally, but I don't completely understant it. Is it true because of space and time dilation?

It's hard to answer a "why" question, because it's not always clear what that means. But it is possible to start with the notions of time dilation, length contraction, and the relativity of simultaneity and use them to show that if something moves with speed ##c## in one inertial reference frame, it moves with speed ##c## in all inertial reference frames. The idea that all inertial reference frames are in this sense equivalent is the called the Principle of Relativity.

Once you grasp the idea that the speed ##c## is the same in all inertial reference frames you conclude that it's the fastest possible speed and that no reference frame can ever have that speed. Thus it's not possible to understand what things would look like from such a non-existent frame.

If you are familiar with space-time graphs you know that, for example, you can make a graph of time versus (one-dimensional) position. If you plot the position and time of a particle on such a graph you create the worldline of that particle.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K