Speed of Light always remains constant ? think again.

In summary, Scientists before Einstein believed that speed was relative and time was constant. However, this is not the case. The speed of light is constant and time is relative, as proven by the measurement of both on a regular basis. The speed of each laser pulse is c, regardless of the actions of the rockets after firing. The frequency of the pulse from R1 will be increased by the relativistic Doppler effect. In an inertial frame, the speed of light will always be measured as c. However, in a non-inertial frame, the speed of light can be different, even 0. This is demonstrated by a specific example from Rindler's Introduction to Special Relativity, where a spaceship undergoing constant proper acceleration
  • #1
Anomalous
[SOLVED] Speed of Light always remains constant ? think again.

Take 3 points P1, P2 and D

Point D is at a fantastic distance from P1 P2.

Point P1 is very near to P2 and both are at equal distance from D.

A Rocket R2 is waiting at P2

Rocket R1 is approaching at tremendous velocity at point P1 and towards D.

At the instance when the rocket R1 reaches P1, both the rockets simultaneously fire a powerful laser beam ( may be a few meters in length ) towards D.

Few hours after firing the laser, R2 starts accelerating towards D and quickly showing its raw power, matches the speed and starts flying with R1.

Now, will the speed of already fired lasers that haven't yet reached D with respect to R2 decrease ? now that it has come closer to the R1 hours after firing the laser, and while both the lasers together are approaching D.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The speed of each laser pulse is c.
Whatever the rockets do after firing is irrelevant.
The frequency of the pulse from R1 will be increased by the relatilvistic Doppler effect.
 
  • #3
Like you, Anamalous, most scientists before Einstein assumed speed was relative (including the speed of light) and time was constant. As it turns out, they were wrong: time is relative and speed (of light) is constant.

How do we know? We measure both the (relative) rate of the passage of time and the speed of light on a virtually constant basis.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Meir Achuz said:
1) The speed of each laser pulse is c.

2) Whatever the rockets do after firing is irrelevant.

3) The frequency of the pulse from R1 will be increased by the relatilvistic Doppler effect.


1) LOL, obviously.

2) Why ?

3) But what about R2. And won't U care if R2 had achived 99% speed of light before catching up with R1 ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Anomalous said:
...Now, will the speed of already fired lasers that haven't yet reached D with respect to R2 decrease ? now that it has come closer to the R1 hours after firing the laser, and while both the lasers together are approaching D.

Its clear here that R2 covered the same distance that R1 did after firing the lasers yet laser fired by R2 is not going to over take laser fired by R1 and hence comapred to R1 speed of light for R2 was less when it was accelerating near R1.

I know that I am wrong here , but I don't know how, and until then for me anyone who doesnot explain that to me is wrong.
 
  • #6
Now, will the speed of already fired lasers that haven't yet reached D with respect to R2 decrease ?

The reason that no one can explain the flaw in your reasoning is that you show a complete ignorance of the special theory of relativity. Read a book about SR, look at the reasons why the speed of light is a constant from all points of view at all times, then see if you still have this question.
 
  • #7
Anomalous said:
Its clear here that R2 covered the same distance that R1 did after firing the lasers yet laser fired by R2 is not going to over take laser fired by R1 and hence comapred to R1 speed of light for R2 was less when it was accelerating near R1.

I know that I am wrong here , but I don't know how, and until then for me anyone who doesnot explain that to me is wrong.

Yes, according to R2, the speed of light is not constant because R2 is accelerating. But when R2 stays in a particular inertial frame it will measure the same speed of light as anyone else in an inertial frame.

Speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference.

In an non inertial frame the speed of light can be different, even 0.

Here's a specific example from Rindler's Introduction to Special relativity.
Take the example of a spaceship undergoing constant proper acceleration a (in it's own instantaneous frame it is always accelerating at a). Suppose that when the ship starts off from rest, a photon is emitted at a distance [itex]c^2/a[/itex] behind the ship just as it leaves. Now from the point of view of the ship, the photon remains at that same distance behind it at all times. In other words that relative to the ship, the speed of the photon is 0.

The idea is that in a particular inertial frame, we will always measure the speed of light in vacuum to be c.
 
  • #8
learningphysics said:
Yes, according to R2, the speed of light is not constant because R2 is accelerating. But when R2 stays in a particular inertial frame it will measure the same speed of light as anyone else in an inertial frame.

Speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference.

In an non inertial frame the speed of light can be different, even 0.

Here's a specific example from Rindler's Introduction to Special relativity.
Take the example of a spaceship undergoing constant proper acceleration a (in it's own instantaneous frame it is always accelerating at a). Suppose that when the ship starts off from rest, a photon is emitted at a distance [itex]c^2/a[/itex] behind the ship just as it leaves. Now from the point of view of the ship, the photon remains at that same distance behind it at all times. In other words that relative to the ship, the speed of the photon is 0.

The idea is that in a particular inertial frame, we will always measure the speed of light in vacuum to be c.

In its (sic!) "own instantaneous frame" it's (sic!) not moving...

Daniel.

P.S.Quote Rindler :grumpy: I'm sure that,if he's (sic!) that Rindler,he wouldn't have made that mistake.
 
  • #9
dextercioby said:
In its (sic!) "own instantaneous frame" it's (sic!) not moving...

Daniel.

P.S.Quote Rindler :grumpy: I'm sure that,if he's (sic!) that Rindler,he wouldn't have made that mistake.

Yes it is not moving. velocity = 0. But acceleration does not = 0. So can't I say it is accelerating?

Hmmm... maybe I should have said that in the inertial frame where the ship's velocity is 0, its acceleration is a (proper acceleration).

Here's how Rindler's writes it:
"If we define the proper acceleration [itex]\alpha[/itex] of P as that which is measured in P's instantaneous rest frame"
 
  • #10
Now, will the speed of already fired lasers that haven't yet reached D with respect to R2 decrease ? now that it has come closer to the R1 hours after firing the laser, and while both the lasers together are approaching D.
This is a pretty ambiguous statement. I would assume the lasers are in the different ships so will therefore be traveling with the ship. What is the point of this? How does this have anything to do with the initial pulses fired by the different lasers?

I assume that the initial pulses were fired when the moving ship was by passing the stationary ship so, according to Maxwell's equations the pulses will be traveling in the same (or nearly so) direction at the same speed. Let us assume that they are traveling side by side. Now if we further assume that the lasers are of the same type (frequency) then when the pulse arrive at point D the observer there will be able to tell which ship was moving at the time the pulse was initialized as it will be blue shifted by an amount related to the speed of the ship. Since the pulses of light have traveled the same distance and since they were initiated at the same time they will arrive at D at the same time.

It is not clear to me what your proposed mechanism is that the speeding up of the stationary ship will magically effect the laser pulse it previously initiated?
 
  • #11
It's unbelieveble.In its rest frame the ship's not moving,which means it has 0 velocity and 0 acceleration.He must refer to a comoving frame.

Daniel.
 
  • #12
Anomalous said:
Now, will the speed of already fired lasers that haven't yet reached D with respect to R2 decrease ? now that it has come closer to the R1 hours after firing the laser, and while both the lasers together are approaching D.
I'm following your thought experiment all the way up to this last paragraph. It is nonsensical. Can you restate and elaborate on your thinking?
 
  • #13
dextercioby said:
It's unbelieveble.In its rest frame the ship's not moving,which means it has 0 velocity and 0 acceleration.He must refer to a comoving frame.

Daniel.

If the accelerating observer carries an accelerometer, he will notice that it is not in its "center" position. His 4-acceleration is a nonzero spacelike vector.
 
  • #14
My $.02 on the accelerating spaceship. An accelerating spaceship can set up a coordinate system (which is not a frame) by using the coordinates (x,t) of an instantaneously co-moving observer.

Such a coordinate system is strictly limited in it's possible size. The coordinate system does not and cannot map every coordinate pair (xi, ti) of an inertial coordinate system to a coordinate pair (xa, ta) of the accelerated observer. This is covered in detail in MTW's section on "accelerated obsevers". There are two difficulties which prevent the coordinate system from covering all of space-time: the fact that geodesics allow multiple coordiantes for some events, and the existence of an event horizon.

The event horizon associated with the coordinate system of an accelerated observer is known as the "Rindler horizon". In the coordinate system of an accelerated obsever, a light beam exactly at the Rindler horizon will have a constant value for the distance coordinate, much as an outgoing light beam exactly at the event horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole will have a constant value for the 'R' coordiante.

The fact that the rate of change of the coordinate with respect to time is zero could be called a "zero velocity", I suppose. However, if you put any inertial observer moving at any rate at the same point in space-time, he will still find that the speed of light is equal to 'c' in his local coordinate system.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Integral said:
... 1) I would assume the lasers are in the different ships so will therefore be traveling with the ship.

2) What is the point of this?

3) How does this have anything to do with the initial pulses fired by the different lasers?

4) I assume that the initial pulses were fired when the moving ship was by passing the stationary ship so, according to Maxwell's equations the pulses will be traveling in the same (or nearly so) direction at the same speed. Let us assume that they are traveling side by side. Now if we further assume that the lasers are of the same type (frequency) then when the pulse arrive at point D the observer there will be able to tell which ship was moving at the time the pulse was initialized as it will be blue shifted by an amount related to the speed of the ship. Since the pulses of light have traveled the same distance and since they were initiated at the same time they will arrive at D at the same time.

5) It is not clear to me what your proposed mechanism is that the speeding up of the stationary ship will magically effect the laser pulse it previously initiated?

1) right.

2) It shows that moving of R1 won't change speed of light ( according to established evidence ) when the lasers were fired and hence both Lasers will always travell together.

3) That they were fired by rockets with a speed difference.

4) Bingo.

5) U tell me, I am a Rookee.
 
  • #16
DaveC426913 said:
I'm following your thought experiment all the way up to this last paragraph. It is nonsensical. Can you restate and elaborate on your thinking?

Can U ask which part didnt make sense to U sir.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
Anomalous:
That the speed of light is constant for different observers is a postulate; the maths used in relativity uses this as one of its axioms, if you like (it is a necessarily true statement within relativity theory).

Thus, if you disagree to that, you've basically to complete one of two tasks:
1) Prove that relativity is mathematically inconsistent in some damaging way.
You've not done that.

2) Provide empirical results which must be interpreted as meaning that the speed of light cannot be regarded as constant.
You've not done that, either.
 
  • #18
Anomalous: Now, will the speed of already fired lasers that haven't yet reached D with respect to R2 decrease ? now that it has come closer to the R1 hours after firing the laser, and while both the lasers together are approaching D.

Meir Achuz: The speed of each laser pulse is c.

Anomalous: LOL, obviously.

Well what exactly are you looking for? Are you looking for someone to do the calculation for you in both SR and Galilean relativity? Are you looking for someone to convince you that the SR prediction is correct? Are you looking for someone to do the experiment?

You asked a very cut-and-dry question, and you have been given an answer. You aren't going to get anywhere by snickering at the respondents. If you want something else, then ask for it.
 
  • #19
Whatever man, U have all the powers, but that's not the answer to my question, Can U please tell Mr. Corsson to answer my question now that he has read so many books, I mean what will inspire me to read now that I know that she can't answer me.

I would advise you to read "A brief history of time" by stephen hawking, to understand more about the constancy of the speed of light.

In a nutshell, the distance traveled by light, and the time taken, are different from different points of view (called frames of reference). But, the speed is always the same from everyones point of view.
 
  • #20
I think it's an important distinction to make... that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames, but not from all points of view.
 
  • #21
Speed of light constancy

Anomalous said:
Take 3 points P1, P2 and D

Point D is at a fantastic distance from P1 P2.

Point P1 is very near to P2 and both are at equal distance from D.

A Rocket R2 is waiting at P2

Rocket R1 is approaching at tremendous velocity at point P1 and towards D.

At the instance when the rocket R1 reaches P1, both the rockets simultaneously fire a powerful laser beam ( may be a few meters in length ) towards D.

Few hours after firing the laser, R2 starts accelerating towards D and quickly showing its raw power, matches the speed and starts flying with R1.

Now, will the speed of already fired lasers that haven't yet reached D with respect to R2 decrease ? now that it has come closer to the R1 hours after firing the laser, and while both the lasers together are approaching D.


Actually, under certain conditions, the signal velocity of a photon can minutely exceed c, but not for the reasons you propose. See references:

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw43.html

http://www-com.physik.hu-berlin.de/~scharnh/cite16.htm


Maaneli Derakhshani
 
  • #22
arildno said:
...
You've not done that, either.
Well , I don't have the capacity to do that as I am not from a maths profession, I am just an amature, How can U expect something like that from me ? I did my best and no one told me why its wrong and I am happy of it. As long as I am happy that's what matters the most.
 
  • #23
removed non-content remarks

Tom Mattson said:
Well what exactly are you looking for? Are you looking for someone to do the calculation for you in both SR and Galilean relativity? Are you looking for someone to convince you that the SR prediction is correct? Are you looking for someone to do the experiment?

You asked a very cut-and-dry question, and you have been given an answer. You aren't going to get anywhere by snickering at the respondents. If you want something else, then ask for it.

What I am asking is that , without knowledge of all that super science, What seems so obvious to me seems so wrong to others here.

In my thought experiment it seems impossible that speed of light should remain at C for R2 as it covered vast distance after firing the lasers, hence while it was in acceleration its impossible that speed of light of the fired lasers was C at that time, Thats all I am saying.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
Anomalous said:
Now, will the speed of already fired lasers that haven't yet reached D with respect to R2 decrease ? now that it has come closer to the R1 hours after firing the laser, and while both the lasers together are approaching D.

Anomalous

In a non-Einstein world you could say that R2 measures both light pulses traveling at speed c towards D.
If R2 moves towards D at speed V. Then R2 would measure the light pulses speed as u=lambda(c-V). Since R2 is moving the measured results are relative ones, because R2 experiences time dilation (lambda). In absolute time (which R2 cannot experience because of motion) the approach speed is simply c-V.
However, these my views and they do not agree with those of Einstein.
 
  • #25
I was interested in finding out what the accelerating observer measures as the speed of light in this particular situation.
Can you check my calculations below?

Suppose that in some inertial frame S, we have two ships and a photon.

The equation of motion of ship 1 is: x = 0 (0<=t<=1)
[tex]x = (1/2)(0.4c)(t-1)^2[/tex] (t>1) (in other words acceleration = 0.4c)

The equation of motion of ship 2 is: x = 0.1ct

The equation of motion of the photon is: x = ct

We see that at t=1... ship 1's rest frame is this particular inertial frame (since its velocity at t=1 is 0).
At t=1, the distance between ship 1 and the photon is c.

The two ships meet at t = 2.
The spacetime coordinates of this event are x=0.2c, t=2

At t=2 the velocity of ship 1 is 0.4c.

Use lorentz transformation to transform the coordinates of this event to a frame S' moving at 0.4c relative to frame S :
[tex]x' = \gamma(x-vt) = \gamma (0.2c - 0.4c(2)) [/tex]
[tex]x'= -0.6c\gamma[/tex]

[tex]t' = \gamma (t-vx/c^2) = \gamma (2 - 0.4c(0.2c)/c^2)) = 1.92\gamma[/tex]

The equation of motion of the photon transforms in this frame to simply:
x' = c t'

So at [tex]t' = 1.92 \gamma, x' = 1.92 c \gamma[/tex]

So when ship 1 catches up with ship 2, it will measure a distance of [itex]1.92 c \gamma + 0.6 c \gamma =2.52c \gamma [/itex] between itself and the photon.

So the change in distance that ship 1 sees is [tex] 2.52c \gamma - c[/tex]

Now we need to find the time that passes for ship 1 from the moment it starts accelerating to the moment it catches up with ship 2.

[tex]d\tau = \sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}dt[/tex]
[tex]d\tau = \sqrt{1 - (0.4c(t-1))^2/c^2} dt[/tex]
[tex]d\tau = \sqrt{1 - 0.16(t-1)^2}dt[/tex]

If we integrate both sides from t=1 to t=2 we get:
[tex]\delta \tau = 0.97265 s[/tex]

So the average speed measured by ship 1 from the moment it starts accelerating up to when it catches ship 2 is:

[tex]\frac{2.52c \gamma - c}{0.97265} = 1.799c [/tex]

So for the accelerating observer the speed of light is on average greater than c(during the acceleration) ? Is the above correct?
 
  • #26
This attitude is going to make a common man like me to dismiss these technocrats as bluffs.


If they know something greate then they should be able to Rationaly explain it to a common man

Alright, I except your challenge.

Suppose their is a maximum speed in the universe c (not having to do with light).

I see a bird flying across the sky (to the left) at this maximum speed c. You are running past me in the oposite direction (to the right), at the close to the maximum speed 0.99*c.

Question: What is the speed of the bird from your point of view?

Well, if you don't think to hard, you will add the velocities and get 1.99c. But I told you to suppose c was the maximum speed! The correct answer is that you see the bird traveling at c.

The point of this is to show that IF there is a maximum speed THEN anything traveling at that speed from one point of view must travel at that speed from everyones point of view.

It turns out that in a universe with a maximum speed, space (distances) and time (durations) must be relative to your point of view! Spacetime is a cone, rather then a flat sheet.
 
  • #27
To make the answer simple for whomever is listening (if you are listening and you don't understand already...)...

Variations in velocity of the source of light affect WAVELENGTH (and hence FREQUENCY), they do not affect the SPEED of light. The SPEED of LIGHT is CONSTANT. That is the whole point of relativity. You cannot understand this unless you understand simple wave concepts such as FREQUENCY and WAVELENGTH. Light is not sound, if it is traveling through a medium, we have not yet detected that medium. All OBSERVERS "see" the SPEED of LIGHT as c (~126,000 mps) but they observe different frequencies depending upon gravity and the velocity of the light source RELATIVE to the OBSERVER.

This was all demonstrated quite nicely by Albert Einstein in the early 20th century and is only scientifically disputed by a few (rather strange, IMHO) scientists. There are plenty of SPECIAL RELATIVITY experiments demonstrating these concepts and they are quite nicely represented by the GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY which states that E=mc^2.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
Yes! Tell us your theories!

BTW, SHtRO: E=mc^2 was a conclusion of SR, not GR. And one of the observations that also needs to be explained by alternative theories is why the Universe is expanding as we go forward in time (hence gets smaller and smaller the further back in time you go).
 
  • #29
Hmm, let's see now, Anomalous is using a computer and the internet to post onto Physics Forums. These things don't grow on trees, so how did they come about? The methods used to make Anomalous' life interesting and rewarding (computers, the internet; the medicines he may have taken to keep healthy, the food he enjoys eating, and so on) are the same used to determine that the speed of light is constant.

May we now expect Anomalous to foreswear use of all things which come from the application of a method he doesn't believe in? Perhaps there's no need to ban him ... his own sense of morality, fair-play, and honesty will compel him to leave us (after all, bearing the shame of realising he's naught more than a cynical hypocrite may be more intolerable to him than seeing the reflection of his 'tude mirrored in others' eyes?).
 
  • #30
That was almost poetic Nereid :smile:
 
  • #31
Mnetor note:

I just spent a considerable amount of time cleaning this thread of off topic comments. Let's try and keep it this way.
 
  • #32
Anomalous said:
Can U ask which part didnt make sense to U sir.
OK, the above also doesn't make sense. I can figure out what you meant to say, but Jeez, that's the problem with your initial question too. It is confusing to read, particularly the second, run-on sentence. Just rewrite it, using shorter sentences and filling in details of your thinking.
 
  • #33
Anomalous said:
The redshift blue shift thing that's all due to difference in speed of light; its just that I believe that when number of protons hit us at a faster rate, we get a higher frequency and viceversa. Naa, there is no ether.
No. Red light and blue light travel at the same speed.

Are you looking for answsers, or are you developing your own hypotheses?
 
  • #34
It's o.k Anomalous. If you spend your time thinking about SR, I'm sure you can come up with paradoxes. How about the pole-in-the-barn paradox with a twist? The solution given is based on relativity of simultaneity. In the barn's rest frame the doors close at the same time, where as in the pole's rest frame the doors close at different times. Now, let's say that there is a grenade in the back of the barn and there is fishing line running from the pin in the grenade to one of the doors and more fishing line running from the rest of the grenade to the other door. Now, if both doors close then the line is pulled tight and *KABOOM*. But, if only one door closes then the grenade does not explode. So, how can the barn simultaneously be exploded and not exploded?
 
  • #35
Anomalous said:
No I was talking about what's out there, What is obvious dosent need to be doubted.

When it comes to Relativity, common sense (what is 'obvious' to us) often fails. Our common sense is developed from our everyday experience here on Earth where everything we interact with is moving slowly relative to us. In Relativity, you're dealing with extremes (e.g., speed of light, gravitational fields of massive objects) that we just don't think about in our "common" experience.
 

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
28
Views
1K
Replies
130
Views
7K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
Back
Top