The Fundamental Postulate Of Special Relativity Is Self-Contradictory

[StarThrower]

Fundamental Postulate Of Special Relativity: The speed of a photon in any inertial reference frame must be measured as c, where c = 299792458 meters per second.

It is provable within the framework of the special theory of relativity, that

Theorem Of Special Relativity: If all coordinates of reference frame F2 are moving in a straight line at a constant speed in some inertial reference frame F1, then F2 is also an inertial reference frame.


Let F1 be an inertial reference frame. Let two photons be moving in the same direction in F1.

By the fundamental postulate of the theory of special relativity, the speed of photon A in inertial reference frame F1 is 299792458 meters per second.

By the fundamental postulate of the theory of special relativity, the speed of photon B in inertial reference frame F1 is 299792458 meters per second.

Since they are moving in the same direction, the difference in their velocity vectors (as defined in F1) is equal to zero. Thus, the two photons are not moving relative to each other.

Define coordinate system F2, to have photon A as origin, and let the unit vector on the positive x-axis point to photon B. By the previously mentioned theorem of SR, F2 is an inertial reference frame.

Now, since the photons are not moving relative to each other, the speed of photon B in F2 is equal to zero. And F2 is an inertial reference frame.
By the fundamental postulate of the special theory of relativity, the speed of photon B must equal 299792458 meters per second in any inertial reference frame, hence by the fundamental postulate of SR, the speed of photon B in F2 must equal 299792458 m/s, therefore the speed of photon B in F2 isn't equal to zero.

Hence, we arrive at the following explicit contradiction:

The speed of photon B in F2 is equal to zero, and the speed of photon B in F2 isn't equal to zero.

Therefore, the fundamental postulate of the theory of special relativity is false.

QED

Respectfully,

The Star

 

[Phobos]

In your first example, the two photons are in the same reference frame, so it's a non-issue.

In the second example, where you separate the two photons into two reference frames (no apparent reason why since they're both still moving in the same way relative to each other), there is no information exchange between the two reference frames so A can't measure anything from B. Non-issue.

There seems to be some confusion between measured speed and actual speed. A and B are still moving at c (same ref frame) even though they don't notice any difference between themselves. Not that photons can notice anything...

 

[Severian596]

StarThrower, unlike most of your posts this actually piqued my interest. I typed "photon as origin reference frame" in Google.com as I'd never considered trying to create an inertial frame of reference for a photon. The first link that came up (posted below) dealt with photon kinematics, and it seems that certain measures must be taken when using a photon's reference frame.

Consider the idea that perhaps two photons traveling parallel to the X-axis could never measure each others' speed because they would never observe each other. Any light leaving photon A would have to travel some distance \Delta y \ at speed c. If \Delta y \ > 0, it will never reach photon B.

Anyway those were my ramblings and I'm at work right now. Here's that link about photon kinematics:

http://www.comcity.com/distance-time/Photon%20Kinematics.html

Unlike your other posts this one did NOT involve changing frames of reference, acceleration, or other GR topics, claiming that they "debunked" SR. So at least I gave it more attention than I gave the others.

BTW, if you would explain who you are and what formal education you've had on the topics of SR and/or GR I'd be VERY curious. Every post you've created had some "SR is wrong" theme...would you mind elaborating on why we should believe that you have the knowhow to claim such things?

 

[StarThrower]

In your first example, the two photons are in the same reference frame, so it's a non-issue.

In the second example, where you separate the two photons into two reference frames (no apparent reason why since they're both still moving in the same way relative to each other), there is no information exchange between the two reference frames so A can't measure anything from B. Non-issue.

There seems to be some confusion between measured speed and actual speed. A and B are still moving at c (same ref frame) even though they don't notice any difference between themselves. Not that photons can notice anything...

You must have misunderstood something, since there is only one "example". In fact, it is not even an example. I will re-explain.

We have two photons, with the same velocity in inertial referemce frame F1.

Photon A *____________________________* Photon B
Velocity: 299792458 m/s ---> Velocity: 299792458 m/s --->

The difference in the velocity vectors is zero in this frame, hence it is zero in all reference frames. Thus, these two photons are at rest with respect to each other in all reference frames.

I then define reference frame (really rectangular coordinate system) F2 as follows:

The origin of F2 is photon A.
The direction of the i^ unit vector points from photon A to photon B. Thus, photon B lies on the positive x-axis of F2.

I then state (without proof yet) that by a theorem of special relativity, F2 is an inertial reference frame. It then follows by the fundamental postulate of the theory of special relativity that BOTH photons must be moving in F2, at a speed of 299792458 m/s (simply because F2 is an inertial reference frame).

An explicit contradiction follows. It doesn't get better than this.

 

[jdavel]

Severian596: "...I gave it (star thrower's post) more attention than I gave the others."

Save your time on this one too; once you cut through star thrower's obfuscation (deliberate or not) his argument is:

1) The postulate says all photons move at c

2) Suppose I have a photon that's not moving at c

3) Therefore the postulate is wrong

 

[StarThrower]

StarThrower, unlike most of your posts this actually piqued my interest. I typed "photon as origin reference frame" in Google.com as I'd never considered trying to create an inertial frame of reference for a photon. The first link that came up (posted below) dealt with photon kinematics, and it seems that certain measures must be taken when using a photon's reference frame.

Consider the idea that perhaps two photons traveling parallel to the X-axis could never measure each others' speed because they would never observe each other. Any light leaving photon A would have to travel some distance \Delta y \ at speed c. If \Delta y \ > 0, it will never reach photon B.

Anyway those were my ramblings and I'm at work right now. Here's that link about photon kinematics:

http://www.comcity.com/distance-time/Photon%20Kinematics.html

Unlike your other posts this one did NOT involve changing frames of reference, acceleration, or other GR topics, claiming that they "debunked" SR. So at least I gave it more attention than I gave the others.

BTW, if you would explain who you are and what formal education you've had on the topics of SR and/or GR I'd be VERY curious. Every post you've created had some "SR is wrong" theme...would you mind elaborating on why we should believe that you have the knowhow to claim such things?

Since the photons must have the same speed in reference frame F1, it necessarily follows that if they are moving in the same direction in F1, that they are not in relative motion (whether an experiment could prove they aren't in relative motion is another issue). But, I have stipulated that they have the same velocity precisely so that they aren't in relative motion.

Now, if there is to be some measurement of the relative speed, that measurement has to be zero, in order to be a perfect measurement. If photon C (next to and moving parallel to photon A) emitted photon D in the direction of photon B, the speed of photon D in reference frame F1 would exceed the speed of light (299792458 m/s), contrary to the fundamental postulate of SR. Hence, if SR is correct then the hypothetical experiment is impossible to carry out.


The entire question then, is whether or not F2 is an inertial reference frame. All attention must then be shifted to the theorem I stated without proof yet.

As for who I am... that doesn't matter right now.

As for my familiarity with SR/GR, that does matter.
I studied at an excellent university in the northeastern US, for approximately ten years. For now, this is all I'll say on this.

 

[StarThrower]

Severian596: "...I gave it (star thrower's post) more attention than I gave the others."

Save your time on this one too; once you cut through star thrower's obfuscation (deliberate or not) his argument is:

1) The postulate says all photons move at c

2) Suppose I have a photon that's not moving at c

3) Therefore the postulate is wrong

No, that isn't the argument, in fact what you said doesn't make sense.

First of all, the postulate doesn't say that all photons move at speed c=299792458 m/s. The postulate says that in any INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME the speed of a photon must be 299792458 m/s. Certainly, there are non-inertial reference frames in which the speed of a photon isn't equal to 299792458 m/s.

The issue then becomes whether or not a reference frame moving along with a photon is an inertial reference frame or not.

I then clearly say that if the fundamental postulate of SR is true, then any reference frame moving along with a photon is an inertial reference frame. In any such frame the speed of a photon is zero, and not c=299792458 m/s.

It now follows that SR self contradicts.

Kind regards,

The Star

 

[DrChinese]

There is no inertial reference frame that can move at c=299792458m/s. Even if you try to define one at such a velocity, it does not exist. There are no reference frames at 1000000000 m/s either.

SR is not self contradictory, but it does have limits of applicability. No secret that.

 

[StarThrower]

There is no inertial reference frame that can move at c=299792458m/s. Even if you try to define one at such a velocity, it does not exist. There are no reference frames at 1000000000 m/s either.

SR is not self contradictory, but it does have limits of applicability. No secret that.

This is just you saying things.


Kind regards,

The Star

 

[DrChinese]

This is just you saying things.

Kind regards,

The Star

Me saying things? You are the one violating the speed limit. Write yourself a ticket. Don't worry: it won't affect your insurance.

 

[JJ]

A high schooler butting in here:

CAN a photon be an inertial reference frame? The fact that the photon always travels at c means that it cannot accelerate or otherwise be affected by a force, only distortions; therefore, according to my limited knowledge, it cannot not be an inertial reference system. So the photon would be an absolute speed limit. Saying that photons are moving at the identical speed is incorrect, since their speed is imaginary. You can't force it beyond c, or force it back, so for all intents and purposes, the second photon is always traveling at the speed of light relative to the first.

I admit I'm out of my league, so I'm only asking for a simple yes or no answer. And I do realize that what I've written is incoherent.

 

[StarThrower]

A high schooler butting in here:

CAN a photon be an inertial reference frame? The fact that the photon always travels at c means that it cannot accelerate or otherwise be affected by a force, only distortions; therefore, according to my limited knowledge, it cannot not be an inertial reference system. So the photon would be an absolute speed limit. Saying that photons are moving at the identical speed is incorrect, since their speed is imaginary. You can't force it beyond c, or force it back, so for all intents and purposes, the second photon is always traveling at the speed of light relative to the first.

I admit I'm out of my league, so I'm only asking for a simple yes or no answer. And I do realize that what I've written is incoherent.

The first thing to say is that it isn't a fact that a photon always moves at speed c.

Yes, a photon can be in an inertial reference frame. An inertial reference frame is a reference frame in which Newton's law of inertia is valid.

In order to discuss the motion of something using mathematics, physicists use coordinate systems. These are extensively studied in mathematics, and the concept of the cartesian (rectangular) coordinate system dates back to Rene Descartes.

A rectangular coordinate system consists of three mutually perpendicular number lines, with a unit of distance in real space chosen. The international unit of distance is the meter.

So, the three lines are number lines, and are called the axes of the coordinate system.

Now, the fundamental postulate of the special theory of relativity is that the speed of a photon in any inertial reference frame must be 299792458 meters per second. Suppose you have a reference frame set up, which you know for a fact is an inertial reference frame, and that currently there is a photon located at the origin of this reference frame (or coordinate system).

ASSUMING that the special theory of relativity is correct, it must be the case that after one second has elapsed, the distance from the origin of this coordinate system to the location of the photon in this coordinate system must be 299792458 meters. And the time measurement (which I am saying is one second) is to be measured by a clock which isn't moving in this coordinate system.

The point is, that certainly a photon can move through some inertial reference frame/coordinate system.

A different question is whether or not a reference frame which is 'attached' to a photon is an inertial reference frame.

If special relativity is correct then the answer is no.
If the answer is yes then special relativity is incorrect.


Also, photons can be accelerated. Keep in mind that if a photon changes direction of travel, it has been accelerated. Thus, when photons strike a mirror, they were accelerated.

Regards,

Star

 

[DrChinese]

A high schooler butting in here:

CAN a photon be an inertial reference frame? The fact that the photon always travels at c means that it cannot accelerate or otherwise be affected by a force, only distortions; therefore, according to my limited knowledge, it cannot not be an inertial reference system. So the photon would be an absolute speed limit. Saying that photons are moving at the identical speed is incorrect, since their speed is imaginary. You can't force it beyond c, or force it back, so for all intents and purposes, the second photon is always traveling at the speed of light relative to the first.

I admit I'm out of my league, so I'm only asking for a simple yes or no answer. And I do realize that what I've written is incoherent.

Sounds pretty good to me.

P.S. I would not take Star's comments as gospel. There is a good reason why this thread was moved to Theory Development.

 

[ahrkron]

Very good post JJ.

As DrChinese wrote, StarThrower is not the best guide you can find (for physics at least). Relativity is extremely well established (both in terms of internal consistency and of agreement with experiment); physicists are nowadays working on quite different problems. Special relativity is just your basic "bread and butter" stuff.

 

[jdavel]

star thrower: "...the postulate doesn't say that all photons move at speed c=299792458 m/s.

Einstein: "We will...also introduce another postulate...namely that light is always propagated through empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"

Your argument falls apart as soon as you say "the speed of photon B in F2 is equal to zero" According to the postulate of SR, photons don't EXIST at zero speed; they don't even exist at c/10 or c/2 or .999c. They only exist at speed c. If it's not going at speed c, it's not a photon!

Is that counter intuitive? Of course it is! Does it seem wrong based on our everyday experience? Of course it does! But it's just a postulate. The only way to disprove it, is to find an example in the physical world where it's not true. You don't get to disprove it with a thought experiment. Gallileo didn't disprove that the Earth was at the center of the solar system by just saying "Let the sun be at the center of the solar system. Now doesn't that seem more reasonable?" He disproved it by building himself a telescope and looking at the solar system. That's how physcial science is done.

In a more positive vein, you seem interested in this theory. Why not just agree with yourself to pretend you believe the postulate. Believe it conditionally for awhile. Then get yourself an introductory textbook on SR and read it from cover to cover. Do all the problems until you can get the answers the book says are right (even if you think they're wrong). At that point, you'll understand the theory well enough to decide whether or not to abandon it. Keep us posted!

 

[Integral]

In the frame of reference of a photon there is no distance or time. As far as the photon is concerned it is adsorbed the instant it is emitted. Since it has traveled no distance in no time there is no problem.

Any argument made from the frame of reference of a photon must take this into consideration. We live in the world of distance and time, the photon does not. So when you

With this in mind let us look at Stars argument.

Since they are moving in the same direction, the difference in their velocity vectors (as defined in F1) is equal to zero. Thus, the two photons are not moving relative to each other.

Since photons do not know about length there is no such thing as direction. Since photons do not know motion the conclusion that the are not moving with respect to each other is trivial.

the speed of photon B must equal 299792458 meters per second in any inertial reference frame,

Ok let's measure the speed of photon B in the frame of reference of photon A. It moves no distance in no time, remember time and distance do not exist for a photon.

now let's measure the speed of photon A in the frame of reference of photon B. It moves no distance in no time, because, again, time and distance do not exist for a photon.

A key to understanding SR is the ability to use the Lorentz transforms. We can compute what the photon know of our time by

t_{photon} = \sqrt { 1 - {\frac v c}^2}t_{us}
similar for the length
x_{photon} = \sqrt { 1 - {\frac v c}^2}x_{us}

insert v=c in these relationships to see that real time and distance does not exist for a photon. If you wish to measure time and distance as known by a photon you need to use these formulas.

SR is self consistent.

 

[StarThrower]

Sounds pretty good to me.

P.S. I would not take Star's comments as gospel. There is a good reason why this thread was moved to Theory Development.

My comments shouldn't be taken as gospel, nor randomly dismissed. My advice to JJ would be to continue thinking for himself, and do it by using binary logic correctly.

And the reason the thread was moved, is because the moderators believe the the theory of special relativity is correct. They want to be in the majority. That is the herd instinct in them winning out over binary logic.

Kind regards,

The Star

 

[StarThrower]

Very good post JJ.

As DrChinese wrote, StarThrower is not the best guide you can find (for physics at least). Relativity is extremely well established (both in terms of internal consistency and of agreement with experiment); physicists are nowadays working on quite different problems. Special relativity is just your basic "bread and butter" stuff.

Ahrkron, you don't know what kind of guide I am. For all you know, I am an alien from a world approximately 83 million light years away, that came here on a spaceship which can break the speed of light. Obviously, my civilization knows the time dilation formula is incorrect, and to us you sound foolish.

The whole point of this thread, is to inform your species that the theory of special relativity is not internally consistent. Where is your head?

Lastly, the phrase "bread and butter stuff" is total nonsense. I know of no analog for this phrase in my language.

Kind regards,

The Star

 

[StarThrower]

star thrower: "...the postulate doesn't say that all photons move at speed c=299792458 m/s.

Einstein: "We will...also introduce another postulate...namely that light is always propagated through empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"

Your argument falls apart as soon as you say "the speed of photon B in F2 is equal to zero" According to the postulate of SR, photons don't EXIST at zero speed; they don't even exist at c/10 or c/2 or .999c. They only exist at speed c. If it's not going at speed c, it's not a photon!

Is that counter intuitive? Of course it is! Does it seem wrong based on our everyday experience? Of course it does! But it's just a postulate. The only way to disprove it, is to find an example in the physical world where it's not true. You don't get to disprove it with a thought experiment. Gallileo didn't disprove that the Earth was at the center of the solar system by just saying "Let the sun be at the center of the solar system. Now doesn't that seem more reasonable?" He disproved it by building himself a telescope and looking at the solar system. That's how physcial science is done.

In a more positive vein, you seem interested in this theory. Why not just agree with yourself to pretend you believe the postulate. Believe it conditionally for awhile. Then get yourself an introductory textbook on SR and read it from cover to cover. Do all the problems until you can get the answers the book says are right (even if you think they're wrong). At that point, you'll understand the theory well enough to decide whether or not to abandon it. Keep us posted!

Ummm no.

 

[StarThrower]

In the frame of reference of a photon there is no distance or time. As far as the photon is concerned it is adsorbed the instant it is emitted. Since it has traveled no distance in no time there is no problem.

Any argument made from the frame of reference of a photon must take this into consideration. We live in the world of distance and time, the photon does not. So when you

With this in mind let us look at Stars argument.


Since photons do not know about length there is no such thing as direction. Since photons do not know motion the conclusion that the are not moving with respect to each other is trivial.







Ok let's measure the speed of photon B in the frame of reference of photon A. It moves no distance in no time, remember time and distance do not exist for a photon.

now let's measure the speed of photon A in the frame of reference of photon B. It moves no distance in no time, because, again, time and distance do not exist for a photon.

A key to understanding SR is the ability to use the Lorentz transforms. We can compute what the photon know of our time by

t_{photon} = \sqrt { 1 - {\frac v c}^2}t_{us}
similar for the length
x_{photon} = \sqrt { 1 - {\frac v c}^2}x_{us}

insert v=c in these relationships to see that real time and distance does not exist for a photon. If you wish to measure time and distance as known by a photon you need to use these formulas.

SR is self consistent.

This is not a refutation of my argument. This is just you telling everyone here that you believe the theory of special relativity is self-consistent. We already knew you believed that.


Kind regards,

The Star

 

[Chen]

Ummm no.

Oh, the eloquence!

 

[Integral]

This is not a refutation of my argument. This is just you telling everyone here that you believe the theory of special relativity is self-consistent. We already knew you believed that.


Kind regards,

The Star

Do the math and weep. Photons do not know time or distance. Therefore do not know velocity. That is proper applcation of SR. If you do not use the tools correctly you do not get meaningful results. SR does not specify a number for c it only says that it is constant. In the frame of reference of a photon the velocity of all photons is zero. That is a constant and satisfies the postulate of SR.

Edit:
Added a lost negation.

 

[Eyesaw]

This is just another example of the violation of simple logic by the
SR postulates. Inside an arbitrary set of "rest coordinates", if J is moving at c with respect to M and M is moving at v with respect to L then J- whether it represent jumping frogs, waffling ducks, bald eagles, flying beagles, or photons- must be moving at c +/-v with respect to L, else it would lead to reductio absurdum- i.e. you start
out with the assumption that there is velocity between M and L but because
of the logic of SR, you end up with the conclusion that there is no velocity between
M and L.

A photon, after emitted in vacuum, is not in anyone's inertial frame unless we pondered an ether- thus, it is painfully obvious that different observers moving
through the empty vacuum at different velocities must have a different velocity
with respect to the photon because 2+2 = 4, 3+3 = 6, 4+4 = 8, 5+5 =10 and 6+6
= 12. Sure, one can still obtain the speed of the photon through space as a constant
after subtracting the velocity of the observer through space but this was not the
method chosen by Einstein in SR, even though it is the most simple way to achieve
constancy of c that is independent of source. In lieu of using simple math and
commmon sense, the physics community have decided warping space and time is cooler so nevermind that it is wrong.

 

[Integral]

Eyesaw,
Do you by any chance speak English? You do not make a single coherent sentence. I refuse to waste my time interpreting garbled language.

 

[Integral]

Star,
Let me but this way, your assertion that you can measure the velocity of a photon from the frame of reference of a photon is incorrect. In SR there are no meaningful measurements that can be made in the frame of reference of a photon. So your example is erronous, a photon cannot see the speed of a second photon.

But then since you have convinced yourself that SR is invalid without the ability to correctly apply it or even understand it. I do not expect you to accept it.

But then since it is incorrect in would not any application of it lead to incorrect results. You applied it therefore your results are incorrect.

 

[outandbeyond2004]

Let's be realistic. An inertial reference frame is one that an observer like you or me can set up. Not one that can be set up in imagination like Starry's fast moving frame. Just in reality. No observer can move at c (because he has some rest mass, unlike photons). So, no such thing as an inertial rf that moves at c --except in Starry's imagination (just joshing, mind you).

 

[Hurkyl]

I find it interesting that (to my knowledge) there are exactly zero anti-SR arguments that assign space-time coordinates to events and analytically derive a fallacious conclusion.

 

[outandbeyond2004]

Hurkyl, by 'analytically' you mean 'with sound logic'?

 

[Hurkyl]

That's a given.

But no, I meant that they never attempt to do any sort of geometry or calculus to derive results.

 

[outandbeyond2004]

Hurkyl, perhaps you meant 'derive a contradiction' for 'derive a fallacious conclusion'?

 

[Chen]

I really hope StarThrower hasn't spend all ten years studying Special Relativity.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Certainly, light always travel in c. Here SR right.
But Einstein had not made a suitable explanation, why it so.
Naturally, absence of a convincing explanation results in doubts in validity of this postulate. The constant mess with frames of reference does not promote the understanding of this the postulate also. In my opinion, there is the best way for an explanation of the light’s speed independence from the speed of radiator.
It is necessary to take into account, that the photon can be found out only face to face. It can’t be observed, and therefore can’t be measured from the “sideways”.
ST (StarThrower),
You are right too (though it can sound strange).
The photons radiated by a short laser pulse will achieved the target
SIMULTANEOUSLY. This an experience shows, that they have passed this way with an identical
speed.
The concept "relativity" is applicable to any material objects, except of light.
They exist in RELATIVE TIME.
Speed of Light is ABSOLUTE.
Light exist in ABSOLUTE TIME.

 

[Integral]

Michael,
You fail to understand the meaning of postulate. Einstein is not obligated to prove anything about his postulate. That is the nature of a postulate. You most certainly cannot learn anything other then the results of a constant c by studying Relativity. It is after all a development that explores the implications of a constant speed of light.

If you wish to find the roots of the constancy of c you need to study and understand the work of Clerk Maxwell. The origins of a velocity that is independent of the source, is Maxwell's equations cast in the form of the wave equation. When this result was published in the late 1860s the world of Physics was changed forever. How to rectify the source independence of the speed of Electromagnetism with the accepted and well understood precepts of Classical Mechanics was the single largest issue in Physics of that era. Due to that Einstein was able to postulate a constant c. Physicist of that era did not blink an eye at the postulate because they had spend a generation attempting to disprove the constancy of c. They failed.

 

[Integral]

Ok Eyesaw, you win, let's attempt to make some sense of this post.

This is just another example of the violation of simple logic by the SR postulates.

What is an example of the SR postulates. Or are you saying the SR postulates are an example of a violation of logic.

Do you even know what the postulates of SR are?

Inside an arbitrary set of "rest coordinates", if J is moving at c with respect to M and M is moving at v with respect to L then J- whether it represent jumping frogs, waffling ducks, bald eagles, flying beagles, or photons- must be moving at c +/-v with respect to L, else it would lead to reductio absurdum- i.e. you start
out with the assumption that there is velocity between M and L but because
of the logic of SR, you end up with the conclusion that there is no velocity between
M and L.

That is one heck of a sentence, but what does it say? This looks to be some kind stawman construction that really means nothing.

What I say is that you cannot measure time or space from the frame of reference of a photon, therefore you cannot measure the speed of a photon.

A photon, after emitted in vacuum, is not in anyone's inertial frame unless we pondered an ether- thus,

it is painfully obvious that different observers moving
through the empty vacuum at different velocities must have a different velocity
with respect to the photon because 2+2 = 4, 3+3 = 6, 4+4 = 8, 5+5 =10 and 6+6
= 12.
[ Sure, one can still obtain the speed of the photon through space as a constant
after subtracting the velocity of the observer through space but this was not the
method chosen by Einstein in SR, even though it is the most simple way to achieve
constancy of c that is independent of source. In lieu of using simple math and
common sense, the physics community have decided warping space and time is cooler so never mind that it is wrong.

Wow, an even better sentence. Are you saying that the speed of light is not constant to all observers?

Does the piece in bold really say what I think it does? Welcome to the world of Aristotle, your logic is impeccable your science is non existent.

In view of learning anything about the modern state of physics you choose to talk nonsense.

 

[Hurkyl]

Hurkyl, perhaps you meant 'derive a contradiction' for 'derive a fallacious conclusion'?

I didn't want to say contradiction because, in principle, a counter-argument could simply derive a disagreement with reality instead of a contradiction within SR. Fallacious was probably the wrong word because it's generally inferred to be speaking about the logic and not the result, but I suppose most adjectives used there are the same.

 

[StarThrower]

Do the math and weep. Photons do not know time or distance. Therefore do not know velocity. That is proper applcation of SR. If you do not use the tools correctly you do not get meaningful results. SR does not specify a number for c it only says that it is constant. In the frame of reference of a photon the velocity of all photons is zero. That is a constant and satisfies the postulate of SR.

Edit:
Added a lost negation.

No sir. Photons, like other things, move relative to each other. It certainly is meaningful to view motion from the reference frame of a photon, regardless of whether or not the reference frame is inertial. So, regardless of whether or not a coordinate system whose origin is a photon is inertial, certainly other photons move in this frame relative to the origin with different velocities.

Kind regards,

The Star

 

[Integral]

Star.
What is the basis of your words? Are these your personal thoughts? What experimental evidence do you base your ideas on? Please provide some references to your sources.

 

[StarThrower]

Star,
Let me but this way, your assertion that you can measure the velocity of a photon from the frame of reference of a photon is incorrect. In SR there are no meaningful measurements that can be made in the frame of reference of a photon. So your example is erronous, a photon cannot see the speed of a second photon.

But then since you have convinced yourself that SR is invalid without the ability to correctly apply it or even understand it. I do not expect you to accept it.

But then since it is incorrect in would not any application of it lead to incorrect results. You applied it therefore your results are incorrect.

The issue in this thread isn't about measuring photon speed in the frame of reference of a photon. It is about whether or not the fundamental postulate of the special theory of relativity self-contradicts. At any rate, when a photon moves in any reference frame, it moves through that frame with some velocity, regardless of whether or not that velocity can be measured. And so we can use binary logic to at least check the consistency of the theory, because we are supposed to know the meaning of the term 'velocity'.

Kind regards,

The Star

 

[Integral]

Then why are you attempting use the incorrect example of a photons frame of reference. It is YOU who have proposed that argument. I have only shown you why your argument is incorrect. You are not applying binary logic you are attempting to tell us how one photon perceives another. I have provided you with what SR has to say about that situation. That is a photon cannot perceive motion, therefore does not see other photons moving at c. Your basic hypothesis is incorrect. Therefore your conclusions are invalid.

Are you

 

[StarThrower]

Then why are you attempting use the incorrect example of a photons frame of reference. It is YOU who have proposed that argument. I have only shown you why your argument is incorrect. You are not applying binary logic you are attempting to tell us how one photon perceives another. I have provided you with what SR has to say about that situation. That is a photon cannot perceive motion, therefore does not see other photons moving at c. Your basic hypothesis is incorrect. Therefore your conclusions are invalid.

Are you

You are getting off track. The question is this:

Is a reference frame whose origin is a photon an inertial reference frame?

Kind regards,

The Star

 

[Eyesaw]

Ok Eyesaw, you win, let's attempt to make some sense of this post.




What is an example of the SR postulates. Or are you saying the SR postulates are an example of a violation of logic.

Do you even know what the postulates of SR are?


That is one heck of a sentence, but what does it say? This looks to be some kind stawman construction that really means nothing.

What I say is that you cannot measure time or space from the frame of reference of a photon, therefore you cannot measure the speed of a photon.


Wow, an even better sentence. Are you saying that the speed of light is not constant to all observers?

Does the piece in bold really say what I think it does? Welcome to the world of Aristotle, your logic is impeccable your science is non existent.

In view of learning anything about the modern state of physics you choose to talk nonsense.

You are the one repeating the nonsense that a "moving observer" will make the same observations of any event, be it photon speed or whatever, observed by the "stationary observer". What a load of crap- there is no difference between a moving observer and a stationary one then, therefore everything is standing still just like Zeno said. You are really stupid, I mean really stupid to think the time dilation and length contraction effects are real changes in physical space and time and not just artificacts of the transformation method. The theory you support is nothing short of mysticism.

 

[Severian596]

You are getting off track. The question is this:
Is a reference frame whose origin is a photon an inertial reference frame?

According to the University of Dallas, the second postulate of SR (I'm not calling it the fundamental postulate, that sounds very flowery as there are two equally-important postulates) is:

Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c, which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

A second source on this postulate is Wikipedia's definition, which states:

The speed of light in vacuum is the same to all inertial observers. This postulate has been verified experimentally.

As far as you're concerned, StarThrower, the part about EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION will be totally useless, so you'll ignore that. In any case we have to define what an inertial observer is. I found this rather expansive definition provided by a retired nuclear engineer here:

To be inertial, the observer, or coordinate system must satisfy the
following properties:

1) The distance between any two points in the coordinate system must be
time independent, the distance is not different for different times,

2) The clocks, assumed distributed throughout the coordinate system, are
synchronized (the time reported is not dependent on the location of the
clock) and run at the same rate throughout the coordinate system (the
observer), and

3) The geometry of space at any constant t is Euclidean. The simplest
way to think of a Euclidean space is that it is a space (a coordinate
system) in which the geometry most people are familiar with is
applicable. If you were a mathematician, you would probably take issue
with that last sentence, claiming it to be an oversimplification, but it
should work in this instance.

There are further stipulations placed on inertial frames of reference, namely they must take up VERY small volumes of space (because otherwise parallel lines tend to converge due to the gravitational affect of nearby massive bodies and the curvature of space...this is addressed by #3 above stipulating that space must be "flat" in the inertial frame), and they must be nonrotating with respect to distant cosmic mass.

I can accept that we could concentrate on a very small distance traveled by a photon, so #3 COULD apply to a photon, but how are #1 and #2 applied to a photon? Photons don't even experience time, so there is no distance between any two points as far as a photon is concerned. Therefore it could not define a frame of reference (which is a system of coordinates) because the length of the ct, x, y, z axes would be zero. As far as a clock, would it ever tick once (assuming it's massless and traveling at c)? Could there ever be more than one clock in the reference frame, because there are no points in the reference frame OTHER than the origin?

 

[Severian596]

Since they are moving in the same direction, the difference in their velocity vectors (as defined in F1) is equal to zero. Thus, the two photons are not moving relative to each other.

This is from your first post, StarThrower. I challenge you to tell me the difference in their velocity vectors if photons A and B are traveling in

a) perpendicular directions
b) directions separated by angle \theta where \theta = 45^\circ
c) opposite directions

EDIT:
Show your work, please.

 

[Hurkyl]

And let's further expand upon this. Suppose photonic rest frames are valid.

Allow me to specify the worldlines of two photons in the reference frame of an ordinary observer:

In the coordinate system (t, x) of the ordinary observer:

Photon 1's worldline is given by the equation x = ct.
Photon 2's worldline is given by the equation x = ct.

Now, transform into the coordinates (t', x') of photon 1's rest frame. What are the worldlines of photon 1 and photon 2?

(again, please show your work)

 

[StarThrower]

According to the University of Dallas, the second postulate of SR (I'm not calling it the fundamental postulate, that sounds very flowery as there are two equally-important postulates) is:

Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c, which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

A second source on this postulate is Wikipedia's definition, which states:

The speed of light in vacuum is the same to all inertial observers. This postulate has been verified experimentally.

As far as you're concerned, StarThrower, the part about EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION will be totally useless, so you'll ignore that. In any case we have to define what an inertial observer is. I found this rather expansive definition provided by a retired nuclear engineer here:

There are further stipulations placed on inertial frames of reference, namely they must take up VERY small volumes of space (because otherwise parallel lines tend to converge due to the gravitational affect of nearby massive bodies and the curvature of space...this is addressed by #3 above stipulating that space must be "flat" in the inertial frame), and they must be nonrotating with respect to distant cosmic mass.

I can accept that we could concentrate on a very small distance traveled by a photon, so #3 COULD apply to a photon, but how are #1 and #2 applied to a photon? Photons don't even experience time, so there is no distance between any two points as far as a photon is concerned. Therefore it could not define a frame of reference (which is a system of coordinates) because the length of the ct, x, y, z axes would be zero. As far as a clock, would it ever tick once (assuming it's massless and traveling at c)? Could there ever be more than one clock in the reference frame, because there are no points in the reference frame OTHER than the origin?

The source which you cited is not reputable. The definition given is not the internationally accepted definition. I did a search on google (inertial reference frame definition) here you go:

Web Definition

Definition 1: a coordinate system in which Newton's first law of motion is valid

Source 2

Definition 2: inertial frame, inertial reference frame - a coordinate system in which Newton's first law of motion is valid

http://appletree.mta.ca/courses/physics/4701_97/EText/Inertial.html

Definition 3: An inertial reference frame is one in uniform motion (all accelerometers read zero). In special relativity we think of inertial reference frames as those which are moving at a constant velocity. An observer, without being able to make reference to the rest of the universe (e.g. in a windowless room) cannot determine his or her velocity. Within special relativity we think of inertial referenceframes as reference frames in constant velocity motion.

http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/mechanics/framesOfReference/inertialFrame.html

Definition 4: An inertial frame of reference has a constant velocity. That is, it is moving at a constant speed in a straight line, or it is standing still. Understand that when something is standing still, it has a constant velocity. Its velocity is constantly zero meters per second.

The following source (Stanford university) is reputable:

Source 5
Definition 5:

Space and Time: Inertial Frames
A “frame of reference” is a standard relative to which motion and rest may be measured; any set of points or objects that are at rest relative to one another enables us, in principle, to describe the relative motions of bodies. A frame of reference is therefore a purely kinematical device, for the geometrical description of motion without regard to the masses or forces involved. A dynamical account of motion leads to the idea of an “inertial frame,” or a reference frame relative to which motions have distinguished dynamical properties. For that reason an inertial frame has to be understood as a spatial reference frame together with some means of measuring time, so that uniform motions can be distinguished from accelerated motions. The laws of Newtonian dynamics provide a simple definition: an inertial frame is a reference-frame with a time-scale, relative to which the motion of a body not subject to forces is always rectilinear and uniform, accelerations are always proportional to and in the direction of applied forces, and applied forces are always met with equal and opposite reactions. It follows that, in an inertial frame, the center of mass of a system of bodies is always at rest or in uniform motion. It also follows that any other frame of reference moving uniformly relative to an inertial frame is also an inertial frame. For example, in Newtonian celestial mechanics, taking the “fixed stars” as a frame of reference, we can determine an (approximately) inertial frame whose center is the center of mass of the solar system; relative to this frame, every acceleration of every planet can be accounted for (approximately) as a gravitational interaction with some other planet in accord with Newton's laws of motion.

This appears to be a simple and straightforward concept. By inquiring more narrowly into its origins and meaning, however, we begin to understand why it has been an ongoing subject of philosophical concern. It originated in a profound philosophical consideration of the principles of relativity and invariance in the context of Newtonian mechanics. Further reflections on it, in different theoretical contexts, had extraordinary consequences for 20th-century theories of space and time.

End of source quotes

As you can see, some sources say that an inertial reference frame is a reference frame in which Newton's first law is true, other more reputable sources say that an inertial reference frame is a reference frame in which all three of Newton's laws are true.

What matters here, is the definition which Einstein used in his formulation of the fundamental postulate of the special theory of relativity, which is this:

An inertial reference frame is a reference frame in which a body which is not subjected to an outside force will either

A. Remain at rest (if at rest).
B. Continue to move in a straight line (if already moving in a straight line).

And a body which is subjected to an outside force F, will obey the following equation:

F = dP/dt = d(mV)/dt

Where m is the object's mass, and V is the objects velocity vector.

And there will be an action/reaction pair for this object. The other object will experience the same force F, but in the opposite direction.


Regards,

The Star

 

[Hurkyl]

The source which you cited is not reputable. The definition given is not the internationally accepted definition.

You'll notice, however, that the three facts listed are true in both Newtonian and SR inertial reference frames. You'll recognize that they (partially) specify a spatial reference frame together with some means of measuring time.

 

[Hurkyl]

And a body which is subjected to an outside force F, will obey the following equation:

F = dP/dt = d(mV)/dt

Assuming, of course, P = mV.

 

[outandbeyond2004]

Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism assumed the very same inertial frames that Newtonian mechanics assumed. Don't let all the different definitions of inertial frames fool you. (Though, to be sure, one definition may be better than another.) Yet, Maxwell's equations predicted just one value, c, for the speed of light. Logically, StarThrower has to assert that Maxwell's equations are invalid, contrary to 200 years of experiment.

 

[StarThrower]

Assuming, of course, P = mV.

That is the equation to focus on Hurkyl. When Einstein originally formulated the fundamental postulate of the special theory of relativity, he had not yet developed the concept of mass which depends upon speed.

This early oversight on Einstein's part does not alter the definition of inertial reference frame which he used, and this brings me back to the original question.

Is a reference frame whose origin is a photon an inertial reference frame?

Kind regards,

The Star

 

[StarThrower]

Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism assumed the very same inertial frames that Newtonian mechanics assumed. Don't let all the different definitions of inertial frames fool you. (Though, to be sure, one definition may be better than another.) Yet, Maxwell's equations predicted just one value, c, for the speed of light. Logically, StarThrower has to assert that Maxwell's equations are invalid, contrary to 200 years of experiment.

I would argue as follows:

Maxwell's equations predict one universal value for the speed of light relative to the source. They do not say that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source.

Kind regards,

The Star