What happens when two photons travel at the speed of light?

[Raziel McCloud]

Einstein said nothing can go faster than the speed of light.If it did among other things time would slow you down to bring you back to 186,000 m/sec. Alright if you were going the speed of light and there is a beam of light right beside you,it would appear as if it wasn't moving right?Well if you had a flashlight with you in your ship,and you shined it would it leave the flashlight at 2X the speed of light or would it simply never leave the flashlight?

 

[Pengwuino]

The light beam would travel away from you at... bum bum bummmm... the speed of light! There's Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Someone else will be able to give you an explanation as to why that happens. I'm way too tired to try, took me about 30 seconds to spell 'relativity' correctly.

 

[Raziel McCloud]

but compared to something outside the ship not moving it would be 2Xthe speed of light right(1shipspeed+1flashlightspeed=2)Maybe?

 

[Galileo]

Einstein said nothing can go faster than the speed of light.If it did among other things time would slow you down to bring you back to 186,000 m/sec.

The speed of light is 300.000 km/s. Or did you mean miles?

Alright if you were going the speed of light and there is a beam of light right beside you,it would appear as if it wasn't moving right?

No. Light always travels at the speed of light, relative to the observer. If you are going very very close to the speed of light, you have to specify from which point of view (reference frame) that is. Say, as seen from a person on Earth you are flying very near the speed of light. A light beam would pass you at 300.000 km/s, but as seen from the Earth the light beam would only surpass you very slowly, since you are moving with such great speed.

There is no contradiction here, since observers moving relative to one another experience time and space differently.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Raziel McCloud]

yes,miles,I believe that's correct any way?but say we are away from any planet or other veiwers if both you and the beam left facing the same direction(like to cars drag racing)and you both left at the speed of light, it wouldn't be right beside you like two cars going 90kmh right beside each other, i thought it would seem to you the driver like them beam right beside you wasn't moving at all,but if not then you say it would still go the speed of light from you the driver? Then would it not be going 2X the speed of light and what about the flashlight?


Alright if you were going the speed of light and there is a beam of light right beside you,it would appear as if it wasn't moving right?Well if you had a flashlight with you in your ship,and you shined it would it leave the flashlight at 2X the speed of light or would it simply never leave the flashlight?

 

[JesseM]

Einstein said nothing can go faster than the speed of light.If it did among other things time would slow you down to bring you back to 186,000 m/sec. Alright if you were going the speed of light and there is a beam of light right beside you,it would appear as if it wasn't moving right?Well if you had a flashlight with you in your ship,and you shined it would it leave the flashlight at 2X the speed of light or would it simply never leave the flashlight?

It's not possible for a massive object like a ship to travel at the speed of light according to relativity (it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it to this speed). But we can take a variation on your question--let's pretend for the sake of the argument that light moves at exactly 186,000 miles/second, and suppose on Earth I observe a light beam flying by and then you in your ship chasing after it at 185,000 miles/second. Does this mean that from your own point of view, the light will only be moving at 1,000 miles/second away from you? The answer is no, because you use different rulers and clocks to measure speed, and from the Earth's point of view your rulers appear shrunk and your clocks appear slowed-down and out-of-sync. In fact, using your own rulers and clocks, you will still measure this same light beam to be moving at 186,000 miles/second away from you. In general, velocities don't translate between different observer's reference frames in relativity in the same way they do in Newtonian physics--if you observe an object moving at velocity v relative to yourself, and I observe your ship moving at velocity u in the same direction relative to me, then instead of me observing the object moving at velocity w = u+v relative to me as you'd expect in Newtonian physics, I would instead observe it moving at w = (u+v)/(1 + uv/c^2). You can see with a little algebra that if v=c (you observe a light beam moving at c relative to yourself), then w=c as well (I will also observe that same light beam to be moving at c relative to myself).

 

[Severian596]

...Then would it not be going 2X the speed of light and what about the flashlight?

Hi Raziel. Your questions are good questions, and they're the first questions we all ask at the threshold of studying the Special Theory of Relativity, or Special Relativity (SR). At this juncture in your career as a student you must keep some things in mind:

1) We (humans) have the luxury of using the Earth as a "rest frame" for much of what we see. The Earth doesn't move relative to us. Keep in mind that the Earth is the "neutral observer" in your race car example. Or maybe the neutral observer is a bug who's standing still on the track, or the start/finish line. Neither of your race cars are "neutral observers" of each other because they are both in motion. Now ask yourself this question...who's the neutral observer for the universe? Whose point of view to you use when you ask the question, "Would the flashlight beam of light not appear to be moving 2X the speed of light?"

2) Newtonian physics are a subset of physics as defined by General Relativity. Newtonian physics explain many phenomena, General Relativity explains everything that Newtonian physics explain and more[b/]. To be more specific, Newtonian physics are okay as long as you are moving nowhere near the speed of light, like your race cars. As your subjects of study start to move faster and faster, your Newtonian calculations will start showing signs of inconsistency with your observed results. As you approach the speed of light Newtonian physics don't hold up any more. You need GR math to explain your observations.

 

[LeBrok]

Hi folks, I’ve got a good one.

Let’s clean up the space, no stars, light other matter, so we have no reference points but two bodies A and B. A and B fly away from each other with speeds close to c each, so they recede at close to 2c.
Now, looking from reference frame of body A; I could say that A is stationary and B is flying away faster than light. Only I’m not sure that I could see B (flashlight from B), because it is flying faster than light.
No light from B, no information, no violation of laws of physics?

Also from your discussion here it looks like the light is “escaping” relativity. No mater what reference frame c is always going constant speed. If I understood right, the clocks are ticking differently in different frames so that’s why this is happening. It’s like a grand illusion, lol.

Or maybe there is an universal reference frame based in quantum of space-time, fabric of space. The speed of light could be limited by a maximum speed that information can travel from one quantum to the other.

I appreciate any help in understanding this, thanks.

 

[pervect]

How do you add velocities in special relativity (FAQ)

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html

If you go through the details, you see that velocities do not add directly, so that the resulting velocity of .999c + .999c < c.

 

[Severian596]

A and B fly away from each other with speeds close to c each, so they recede at close to 2c.

See pervect's post and my earlier note. You mistakenly apply Newtonian physics's velocity addition to a situation that requires General Relativity (because you deal with speeds near c).

 

[jackle]

The slightly tricky bit to understand is that if I am in the middle of A and B, space ships traveling in opposite directions at nearly c, appear to me, after 10 seconds, to be separated by nearly 20 light seconds (10s x 2 x c)

A<-----10 light seconds----->ME<-----10 light seconds----->B

However, if you sit on one such space ship, you might think you would see a separation of nearly 20 light seconds, increasing at a speed of nearly 2c. You won't! Now is the right time to use your relativistic formula for adding velocities.

You can only get a sub-light velocity by adding two sub-light velocities. Two objects moving at nearly c relative to you in opposite directions can appear to be seperating at nearly 2c (but they won't see this from their own perspectives). It is a common misunderstanding that this would lead to relative speeds of up to 2c, and a lot of the general public seem to get stuck here. Use the relativistic formula to find out what you would see from the spaceships.

 

[LeBrok]

Thanks for the link.

Thanx guys, it sounds very intriguing and a new challenge in understanding the world, it should be a great reeding. As soon as I find some quiet moment or two, as it will require analyzing of those equations, and retraining my brain for relativistic thinking.

From the first glance at relativistic velocity equation it looks like the traveler on body A is seeing the flashlight from B, but in different frequencies like microwaves, caused by red shift due to B speed.
On the other hand the time on A traveling at speed almost c is slowed down. In this case the man on body A might see same frequencies light as is made by flashlight if they are traveling with same speed but in opposite directions. The slowed time could compensate fully for the red shift and allow to see flashlight with naked eye……hmmm, very interesting. Wrong or right it is a very good brain exercise, hehe!

Talk to you later.

 

[Severian596]

On the other hand the time on A traveling at speed almost c is slowed down...

Remember that this is only true for observers who do not travel with A. B will report that A's time is slowed by a certain factor (often referred to as \gamma\hspace{1}&#039;), and A will report that B's time is slowed by that same factor \gamma\:&#039;.

But neither A nor B says to themselves, "Hey, things are happening more slowly on my ship." They see time for themselves pass normally. Only other observers (who reside in a different rest frame or frame of motion) report that time passes more slowly for A and B.

Keep reading! It's interesting stuff.

 

[eon_rider]

The slightly tricky bit to understand is that if I am in the middle of A and B, space ships traveling in opposite directions at nearly c, appear to me, after 10 seconds, to be separated by nearly 20 light seconds (10s x 2 x c)
A<-----10 light seconds----->ME<-----10 light seconds----->B
However, if you sit on one such space ship, you might think you would see a separation of nearly 20 light seconds, increasing at a speed of nearly 2c. You won't! Now is the right time to use your relativistic formula for adding velocities.
You can only get a sub-light velocity by adding two sub-light velocities. Two objects moving at nearly c relative to you in opposite directions can appear to be seperating at nearly 2c (but they won't see this from their own perspectives). It is a common misunderstanding that this would lead to relative speeds of up to 2c, and a lot of the general public seem to get stuck here. Use the relativistic formula to find out what you would see from the spaceships.

So well put. Agreed.

A<-----10 light seconds----->ME<-----10 light seconds----->B

EDIT: Forget what we see for a moment. Let's presume the 10 second .99c journey is over. And now A,B and the ME in the middle communicate with each other. (time dilation and length contraction are now pretty much zero. We've stopped)

Two further questions.

1) Is it correct that the reason ship A can’t see ship B moving faster than light because positional information on the location of the other ship can't be communicated at “faster than light" speed?

2) Regardless, will both ships A and B after stopping, then resting a moment, then sending communications to each other and the guy in the middle find out that they (A and B) are positioned just under 20 light seconds apart even though they both only saw each other travel for 10 seconds at sub light speed? (meaning they would think they were only 10 light seconds apart.)

The guy in the middle could confirm that they are indeed 20 light seconds apart. Is that right?

feww...hope that made sense.

Eon.

PS. When I say light speed I mean .999999999c

 

[JesseM]

1) Is it correct that the reason ship A can’t see ship B moving faster than light because positional information on the location of the other ship can't be communicated at “faster than light" speed?

No, even if A takes into account the light-speed delay she still won't conclude that B was moving faster than light. For example, A might see an image of B that appears to be 4.999 light-seconds away at t=9.999 seconds, and conclude that since the light took 4.999 seconds to reach her, B was actually 4.999 light-seconds away at t=9.999-4.999=5 seconds in her frame. Then A might later see an image of B that appears to be 9.998 light-seconds away at t=19.998 seconds, and conclude that B was actually 9.998 light-seconds away at t=19.998-9.998=10 seconds in her frame.

You could also imagine that, to avoid the issue of light delays, A constructs a large network of rulers at rest in her frame and synchronized clocks fixed at regular intervals along the rulers, so that to assign coordinates to an event, she looks at the marking on the ruler that was right next to the event when it happened and the reading on the clock that was right next to the event as it happened. This is how Einstein originally imagined that inertial coordinate systems should be physically constructed in his 1905 paper. The tricky part is that each observer must decide how to "synchronize" different clocks in their system-they can't just synchronize them at a single location and then move them apart, because moving them apart will introduce time dilation. Instead, Einstein suggested that each observer synchronize his clocks using the assumption that light travels at the same speed in all directions, so that if you set off a flash at the midpoint of two clocks in your system, you call them "synchronized" if both clocks read the same time at the moment the light from the flash hits them. But this implies that different observers must have different definitions of simultaneity (they will disagree about whether two distant events happened 'at the same time'), since if I see your clocks moving in my frame, I will see the back clock moving towards the point where the flash was emitted and the front clock moving away from it, so if I assume light travels at the same speed in all directions in my frame I must conclude that the light will catch up with the back clock before it catches up with the front one.

2) Regardless, will both ships A and B after stopping, then resting a moment, then sending communications to each other and the guy in the middle find out that they (A and B) are positioned just under 20 light seconds apart even though they both only saw each other travel for 10 seconds at sub light speed? (meaning they would think they were only 10 light seconds apart.)

The guy in the middle could confirm that they are indeed 20 light seconds apart. Is that right?

Yes, in his frame, although in other frames the distance would be different because of Lorentz contraction.

 

[Taviii]

This topic is so interesting

 

[eon_rider]

JesseM writes: No, even if A takes into account the light-speed delay she still won't conclude that B was moving faster than light. For example, A might see an image of B that appears to be 4.999 light-seconds away at t=9.999 seconds, and conclude that since the light took 4.999 seconds to reach her, B was actually 4.999 light-seconds away at t=9.999-4.999=5 seconds in her frame. Then A might later see an image of B that appears to be 9.998 light-seconds away at t=19.998 seconds, and conclude that B was actually 9.998 light-seconds away at t=19.998-9.998=10 seconds in her frame.
You could also imagine that, to avoid the issue of light delays, A constructs a large network of rulers at rest in her frame and synchronized clocks fixed at regular intervals along the rulers, so that to assign coordinates to an event, she looks at the marking on the ruler that was right next to the event when it happened and the reading on the clock that was right next to the event as it happened. This is how Einstein originally imagined that inertial coordinate systems should be physically constructed in his 1905 paper. The tricky part is that each observer must decide how to "synchronize" different clocks in their system-they can't just synchronize them at a single location and then move them apart, because moving them apart will introduce time dilation. Instead, Einstein suggested that each observer synchronize his clocks using the assumption that light travels at the same speed in all directions, so that if you set off a flash at the midpoint of two clocks in your system, you call them "synchronized" if both clocks read the same time at the moment the light from the flash hits them. But this implies that different observers must have different definitions of simultaneity (they will disagree about whether two distant events happened 'at the same time'), since if I see your clocks moving in my frame, I will see the back clock moving towards the point where the flash was emitted and the front clock moving away from it, so if I assume light travels at the same speed in all directions in my frame I must conclude that the light will catch up with the back clock before it catches up with the front one.

Yes this makes sense. Brilliantly put. Thank you. I believe I get it.
Now onwards below.

Quote:
eon_rider writes
2) Regardless, will both ships A and B after stopping, then resting a moment, then sending communications to each other and the guy in the middle find out that they (A and B) are positioned just under 20 light seconds apart even though they both only saw each other travel for 10 seconds at sub light speed? (meaning they would think they were only 10 light seconds apart.)
The guy in the middle could confirm that they are indeed 20 light seconds apart. Is that right?

JesseM writes: "Yes, in his frame, although in other frames the distance would be different because of Lorentz contraction."

It's the bolded part just seems so strange. A paradox.
Because after the journey we don't have to think of frames anymore. We can communicate over these distances normally and easily establish positions. Can't we? Mars is just 180 light seconds away. So what's to disagree about when working out our true positions relative to "ME" after a .999c 10 or 20 second journey.

Why would A,B and the "ME" in the middle not be able to agree on where they actually are. (AFTER the trip's done).

I guess I'm just not getting this part.

I was thinking it was due to length contraction and time dilation that would have the "ME" in the middle measure that because time had slown down and distance had contracted for A and B as they traveled away from him/her that his/her final findings would agree with A and B's final findings.

So... I get the first part about nothing traveling faster than light , but I don't understand the second part about them all disagreeing on their final locations due to frame differences. (eg. Why can't they agree on positions AFTER the short and fast trip with normal communications gear?)

best, :)

Eon.

 

[JesseM]

It's the bolded part just seems so strange. A paradox.
Because after the journey we don't have to think of frames anymore. We can communicate over these distances normally and easily establish positions. Can't we? Mars is just 180 light seconds away. So what's to disagree about when working out our true positions relative to "ME" after a .999c 10 or 20 second journey.

Why would A,B and the "ME" in the middle not be able to agree on where they actually are. (AFTER the trip's done).

A, B and "Me" would agree after the trip because they are all at rest wrt each other and are thus in the same frame. But I meant that in the frame of some other observer C who has been moving at constant velocity relative to "Me" the whole time, the final distance when A and B come to rest relative to "Me" would be different. And note that A and B themselves have not stuck to a single inertial frame, and in non-inertial coordinate systems it is quite possible that the distance between you and some other object can increase faster than c.

 

[Severian596]

And note that A and B themselves have not stuck to a single inertial frame, and in non-inertial coordinate systems it is quite possible that the distance between you and some other object can increase faster than c.

This is the point where General Relativity steps in. Special Relativity assumes a very strict set of conditions, the foremost of which is no acceleration (and therefore no gravity). If, at any point in your experiment, you break these rules and someone experiences an acceleration, you must use General Relativity to complete the experiment and break the paradox.

The most classic example of breaking this paradox is the twins paradox. The twin who underwent the acceleration (from speed zero to near-c and back to zero) is the one whose time slowed down, and the twin who experienced no acceleration is referred to as the "rest frame". If you never broke this symmetry, neither twin would serve as a reference frame and both would report that their brother was aging slower than they were! This would not end until one of them underwent an acceleration.

I can't remember exact timelines, but SR took a fraction of the time that GR took to develop. Hmmm...wonder why?

Anyway, to stress, any time you start a SR experiment and then you find yourself saying, "Then A slows down...or A turns around...or A's direction changes..." these all kick the experiment out of the realm of SR and into more complicated GR.

 

[JesseM]

This is the point where General Relativity steps in. Special Relativity assumes a very strict set of conditions, the foremost of which is no acceleration (and therefore no gravity). If, at any point in your experiment, you break these rules and someone experiences an acceleration, you must use General Relativity to complete the experiment and break the paradox.

Only if you want to analyze the experiment from the point of view of a coordinate system where the guy who accelerated (from the point of view of inertial systems) is at rest the whole time. It is certainly possible to analyze situations involving acceleration from the point of view of inertial observers, you don't need GR for that.

 

[Severian596]

I learned something new today, then. I have been operating under the misconception that SR excludes all acceleration. This page supports what you said, JesseM.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html

Is this view fundamentally...I don't want to say flawed, but...is it less-than-perfect because you must pick a preferred "accelerator" and a preferred "rest frame" in order to analyze the situation? It looks like GR never picks preferred observers and therefore reflects reality more closely...

 

[JesseM]

Is this view fundamentally...I don't want to say flawed, but...is it less-than-perfect because you must pick a preferred "accelerator" and a preferred "rest frame" in order to analyze the situation? It looks like GR never picks preferred observers and therefore reflects reality more closely...

Well, SR does require you to distinguish absolutely between who's accelerating and who's not, but then it is true that the one who accelerates in SR will feel G-forces so that gives you a good way to distinguish them...in GR these G-forces could instead be explained in terms of an observer at rest feeling a gravitational field, so it is more "general" in this sense. You don't need a single preferred rest frame to analyze acceleration in SR though, any inertial frame is equally good and will give the same answers to objective physical questions like what the clocks of the two twins will read when they reunite.

 

[eon_rider]

Good points

JesseM and Severian596,

You guys work through this stuff really well.
Thank you for all the helpful replies.
It's all very very interesting.

Till later,

best,

Eon.

 

[Severian596]

Thanks eon_rider. JesseM knows more than me (obviously), I just try to contextualize things now and then.

 

[LeBrok]

Is that right, guys?

Let’s say, in Earth frame the speed of light is 300,000 km/s. Now when we fly close to speed of light and the clock goes slow, will the speed of light change according to onboard clock? The speed of light is same for all frames, but clocks work with different speed for all frames.
My instinct tells me that when traveling close to speed of light I would measure the speed of light to be faster according to onboard clock, let's say 300,000,000km/s (of course a wild guess example).

 

[JesseM]

Let’s say, in Earth frame the speed of light is 300,000 km/s. Now when we fly close to speed of light and the clock goes slow, will the speed of light change according to onboard clock? The speed of light is same for all frames, but clocks work with different speed for all frames.
My instinct tells me that when traveling close to speed of light I would measure the speed of light to be faster according to onboard clock, let's say 300,000,000km/s (of course a wild guess example).

Nope, all observers will measure the speed of light to be the same, assuming each observer uses rulers and clocks which are at rest relative to himself, and with each observer synchronizing his own clocks using the procedure given by Einstein that I described in post #16.

 

[Severian596]

[...]Now when we fly close to speed of light and the clock goes slow[...]

Careful here. This tripped me up when I started on the topic of SR. I kept mixing up exactly whose time slows down and whose stays the same. The key is that it's all relative, so the answer is neither. When we fly close to the speed of light we don't perceive a change in our clocks; everyone else's clocks appear to move slowly.

 

[MichaelW24]

all you have to remember is the two postulates, and derive everything from them:

1: it is not possible to determine your velocity.. this is the same as "it is not possible to determing your velocity to a SPECIAL inertial frame". If you're in a plane, then you automatically assume your velocity is the velocity of the plane, but this is meaningless - you can only specify relative velocities. this means there is no "absolute" velocity or absolute inertial frame, only relative frames. There is no benchmark to record your velocity against.

the next thing people say is that this means "if you are in a box, without windows, you cannot do any experiment to determine your velocity".. I am new to this compared to some people here but I think this is a bit confusing and misleading. You may interpret this as "well, if we had windows, we would be able to determine out velocity!", but if you had windows, you'd only be able to determine relative velocity. there is no such thing as "velocity, full stop"!

But then (and I am a bit vague here) Maxwell's equations show that it is possible to determine, from your motion relative to light, (this is pre-2nd postulate light), your absolute velocity, so you might say "hey, this photon travels a bit slower than it should! we must be moving in the same direction as the medium of light!". This clearly contradicts the first postulate, so we make a second one,

2: the speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all inertial frames. This now resolves that. You'd say "hey, this photon moves at exactly c! we must be at rest in the frame of the medium of light!". Then the box changes velocity, you feel it by being thrown to one side of the wall, and you measure it again: "hey! the photon is still moving at c, but we can't be in the frame anymoe!". Again, you are cruelly bashed around in the box, and again find that the velocity of light is c! What's going on? What is your velocity relativ to the medium?

Well like you'd expect from the first postulate, there is no medium (this was called the ether and there is experimental evidence against it), and again the two postulates are consistent with experimental data.


...

then this leads to loads of funny things! if some friends are watching tv and you run across the TV, you have to observe the photons traveling at a speed c. But to you, the photons travel further! They travel to your friends, but according to you this is not a straight line but a diagonal line backwards (due to your motion), so you conclude that more time must have elapsed in order that the photon makes the longer length journey at the same speed!

there are loads more things.. length contraction, velocity transformations (which limit the relative speeds of all inertial frames at v<c, eg. you see two cars moving towards each other at 0.6c.. perfectly consistent. but what does one car see? not another car moving towards it at 1.2c, but actually a bit less than c (in fact aout 0.88c), kinetic energy is not only 0.5*mv^2, and a particle can have energy when at rest...)

sorry. that went on for ages! But I just thought I'd summarise what I know for a laugh. If its not accurate please tell me or modify it because its the worst thing when you're learning something confusing to have conflicting things told to you.

 

[why2everything]

Question About Speed Of Light

Hello Everyone

This is my first post here. I am definitely an amateur where Physics are concerned; however, this does not mean I cannot be really interested in such things; or that I cannot ask a lot of sometimes foolish questions. Most of the math I see here is like another language to me; I don't get a lot of it, but I am really interested in the basic principles and philosophies of physics.

In a newer "theory of everything" being developed; (sometimes coined as "Standard Theory); there is a challenge to the Theory Of Relativity, which basically claims that gravity is faster than lightspeed. It is being said by proponents of Standard Theory that "gravity is instant;" while lightspeed takes time. Does this make sense? And if so; what does it mean regarding our use of lightspeed in measuring spacetime? And, I am wondering: Is electromagnetism related to gravity?

I guess I am just wondering how spacetime is related to lightspeed, as opposed to gravity. Please forgive me if these questions seem elementary; and let me know if I posted this in the right forum. I appreciate anything you can offer to help me learn more!

 

[pervect]

Hello Everyone
This is my first post here. I am definitely an amateur where Physics are concerned; however, this does not mean I cannot be really interested in such things; or that I cannot ask a lot of sometimes foolish questions. Most of the math I see here is like another language to me; I don't get a lot of it, but I am really interested in the basic principles and philosophies of physics.
In a newer "theory of everything" being developed; (sometimes coined as "Standard Theory); there is a challenge to the Theory Of Relativity, which basically claims that gravity is faster than lightspeed.

The proponents of this theory may call it "Standard theory", but have no dobut - it is in no way, shape, or form "standard". It's basically yet another crank theory.

It is being said by proponents of Standard Theory that "gravity is instant;" while lightspeed takes time. Does this make sense? And if so; what does it mean regarding our use of lightspeed in measuring spacetime? And, I am wondering: Is electromagnetism related to gravity?
I guess I am just wondering how spacetime is related to lightspeed, as opposed to gravity. Please forgive me if these questions seem elementary; and let me know if I posted this in the right forum. I appreciate anything you can offer to help me learn more!

I would suggest that you read http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html"

for what relativity has to say about the speed of gravity. To put it in a nutshell, we measure the speed of light by timing how far it takes a light wave to travel a certain distance. We would therefore measure the speed of gravity in the same way. Unfortunately, to date we have not been able to detect gravitational waves, so we don't have any direct experimental evidence of the speed of gravity.

The decay of the orbit of a pair of pulsars does give us some indirect information, that suggests that relativity is probably correct.

The FAQ above also gives several incorrect ways to measure the speed of gravity that have received a lot of publicity recently - ways that give wrong values for the speed of light, just as they give wrong values for the speed of gravity.

Correct notions of speed are based on the generation and detection of some sort of signal (as with a lightbeam) - incorrect notions of speed don't involve any actual propagation of a signal or of information.

 

[why2everything]

My Opinion

The proponents of this theory may call it "Standard theory", but have no dobut - it is in no way, shape, or form "standard". It's basically yet another crank theory.
I would suggest that you read http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html"
for what relativity has to say about the speed of gravity.

Thankyou pervect; I am already learning much just by reading this article and your answer. In the article you referred me to, it says:

In general relativity, on the other hand, gravity propagates at the speed of light; that is, the motion of a massive object creates a distortion in the curvature of spacetime that moves outward at light speed.

Now, in my elementary understandings; I thought that if something were to travel at the speed of light, it would require an infinite amount of energy? Where would this energy come from, in the case of gravity? And does light require energy to travel? Where does that energy come from? To me, if it would require this much energy to travel at lightspeed; then relativity must be correct in saying that lightspeed is the fastest thing going. How could anything acquire that much energy on a constant, sustained basis, such as gravity would have to do if it is faster than light? Would we not have to say that it is only possible for something to travel at close to the speed of light? What do you think?

 

[russ_watters]

Now, in my elementary understandings; I thought that if something were to travel at the speed of light, it would require an infinite amount of energy?

That's only true of objects with mass. Light doesn't require an infinite amount of energy to propogate either.

And does light require energy to travel? Where does that energy come from?

I don't think it's useful to think of light as requiring energy to travel, so much as simply carrying energy with it.

 

[cd27]

i have read before about exceeding the speed of light. here is a quote from the article i read:

The Time Barrier

During our history there have been many impossibilities and along with those impossibilities came broken records and new limits. First it was to go around the world and prove it wasn’t flat, then it was to fly, then it was to drive a vehicle, control water, make light, control electricity, to communicate with someone on the other side of the world, then to break the sound barrier, then to go into outer space, then to land a man on the moon, and now…now we break the time barrier.

Many scientists have contributed to all of the above accomplishments, each giving a little along the way. But…for each man to contribute his work and get recognized for it, he had to think of the word differently from everyone else. Einstein once said, “The speed of light can never be reached, or even surpassed.” Oh how wrong Einstein was. The entire phrase is a contradiction in itself. If light can reach light speed, then it is a highly possible accomplishment!

Einstein used this formula to base his findings: Time equals time divided by the square root of one minus the velocity squared divided by the speed of light squared, or T=T’/sqrt 1-(V Sq./C Sq). When T=the change in time for the stationary mover, T’=the change in time for the motionary mover, V=velocity, and C=speed of light (186,000 mi./sec.). Now, as long as your velocity never reaches your speed of light, you’re absolutely fine; however, if your velocity reaches or surpasses that speed, well, the speed of light will have to be changed, but since it’s an impossible accomplishment, we won’t go any further…or so said Einstein. You see, 186,000-mi./sec. Divided by 186,000 mi./sec. Equals 1, and 1-1=0. The square root of 0 is a “syntax error” (says my calculator). It cannot be done. Therefore, the speed of light can never be reached.

It is believed (and even proven through mathematical reasoning) that this formula doesn’t work for speeds faster than that of the speed of light or equal to it. Have you ever wondered how fast you’d go in space if you first went 50% the speed of light, then stopped the engines (not the ship, only engines) in mid space and then restarted them at 49% the speed of light? You’d be going 90% the speed of light, right? Wrong, you’d only be going 49% of C (C=the speed of light) because your reference frame had stopped and then continued on 49% of C. In someone else’s reference frame, you are going 99% of C, but in yours you’re only going 49% of C. But if you continually went up to 99% of C in your reference frame, you’d be going precisely that. If you go 100% or above of C, time will no longer exist for you and the formula would no longer work, because you can’t dilate time that doesn’t exist! So there you have it, the time barrier.

i don't know what you guys would think about it, i think it relates to this thread. then again, some may have a completely different view, or may know something i do not, please share it with me if you do.

cd

 

[MichaelW24]

well I'm not too good at this stuff yet, but that seems to say basically:

"well now we can break the time barrier... blah blah blah some special relativity... blah blah... so there you have it, the time barrier"

He seems to have proven himself wrong...?

 

[Severian596]

cd27, this article discusses velocity addition in special relativity. And it does so in a confusing manner! I started wrinkling my brow at all the, "Stop the engines then restart them at 49%, but your frame had stopped, in someone else's reference frame you're going..." Ugh. The last paragraph should really be a series of paragraphs, not just one.

I'm not sure what the point of the article was, but it described how traveling at the speed of light (or above it) results in undefined or imaginary mathematical results (i.e., dividing by 0 or taking the square root of a negative number). Look up "velocity addition relativity" for more info. In short you cannot add velocities in SR or GR like you do in Newtonian physics.

Some links to scratch your itch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel.html
http://patsy.hunter.cuny.edu/CORE/CORE4/LectureNotes/relativity/relativity6.htm

 

[Severian596]

well I'm not too good at this stuff yet, but that seems to say basically:
"well now we can break the time barrier... blah blah blah some special relativity... blah blah... so there you have it, the time barrier"
He seems to have proven himself wrong...?

Yes, strike the last two sentences especially. Actually, just strike the article and read some of the other articles out there instead.

 

[why2everything]

That's only true of objects with mass. Light doesn't require an infinite amount of energy to propogate either. I don't think it's useful to think of light as requiring energy to travel, so much as simply carrying energy with it.

What you are saying here makes sense; as far as I can understand all this stuff; I guess I am thinking that light does carry energy with it atleast; but wondering where that energy comes from & what kind of "energy" would that be? Also, I see it as you do, regarding objects with mass - How can they possibly travel as fast as light if to reach that velocity would require infinite energy? It would be impossible to acquire or sustain such velocity...now I am wondering too though...what is there, that does not have "mass" and could possibly attain lightspeed or greater velocity?

 

[cd27]

thank you for those links, i will most definitely read them. i am just beginning in this field, and i only know bits and pieces. I've been looking for all kinds of stuff to study, but i have no internet at home, a 60 year old encyclopedia, and absolutely no books or people i can talk to about it, so i must do it here at school and come on forum sites to get what i need.

i will study this in depth, the above article was a simple thought, nothing really huge.

cd

 

[why2everything]

Is Light "Entropy?"

You stated:

I don't think it's useful to think of light as requiring energy to travel, so much as simply carrying energy with it.

Do we then, class light as some kind of entropy?

 

[RogerAshford]

In a sense, there's no point in trying to figure out what anyone will observe when they are traveling at the speed of light, because from their frame of reference, Lorentz contraction will have made the size of the universe (in the direction of their travel) zero: the universe will be, to them, an exceedingly thin pancake. They will take zero time to travel from one end of the universe to the other, and so will therefore have no time in which to measure how fast anything else seems to be traveling relative to themselves.

I have sometimes wondered whether this is how certain aspects of quantum indeterminacy: if a proton takes zero time (self-measured) to move from A to B via possible alternative paths, perhaps it can wait until it is observed before it "decides" which path it has taken (decoherence) because, to the photon, the start and end of its journey are one instant? (I guess this belongs in another forum).

 

[JesseM]

In a sense, there's no point in trying to figure out what anyone will observe when they are traveling at the speed of light, because from their frame of reference, Lorentz contraction will have made the size of the universe (in the direction of their travel) zero: the universe will be, to them, an exceedingly thin pancake. They will take zero time to travel from one end of the universe to the other, and so will therefore have no time in which to measure how fast anything else seems to be traveling relative to themselves.

Like I said on the "more light questions" thread, light can't have its own reference frame. You can talk about what the limit would be as an object's speed approached c relative to some other frame, like the galaxy's rest frame; it is true that in this limit, the length of the galaxy along the direction it's moving relative to the object would approach zero, and therefore the time required for the object to cross it would approach zero as well. But some quantities don't have a well-defined limit as you approach c, like the velocity of a second object whose velocity approaches c as your own velocity approaches c; if you take the limit by letting the second object's velocity be fixed at c while yours approaches c, you'll conclude the second object's velocity is c in this limit, but if you let the other object be at rest relative to you and have both your velocities approach c, then you'll conclude the second object's velocity is 0 in the limit. So there's no way to meaningfully answer the question of what the velocity of one photon would be as seen by another photon, even if you're just talking about a limit rather than a genuine reference frame.