Why does laser beam hit the same target when fired?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jt128
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Beam Laser
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of why a laser beam consistently hits the same target when fired, despite the Earth's rotation and other movements. Participants explore the implications of reference frames, the nature of light, and the calibration of laser setups, engaging in both conceptual and technical reasoning.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the laser beam hits the same target because it is calibrated to do so, and adjustments are made if any discrepancies are detected.
  • Others argue that once the laser beam leaves the setup, it is unaffected by the Earth's movements, implying that the speed of light is invariant and does not change based on the reference frame of the Earth.
  • A participant raises the question of whether calculations have been done to estimate the deflection caused by the Earth's rotation during the time it takes for light to travel a certain distance.
  • Some participants express confusion about the concept of reference frames and whether light can be considered "free" from them once emitted.
  • One participant uses a hypothetical scenario involving a slow-moving light source and a fast-moving target to illustrate their point about expected deviations, questioning why such deviations are not observed in reality.
  • Another participant emphasizes that if the laser setup remains unchanged, the laser will consistently hit the same spot, questioning the expectation of variation in results.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of light and reference frames, with no consensus reached on the fundamental reasons behind the laser's behavior. Some participants agree that the laser setup's calibration is important, while others challenge the assumptions about motion and reference frames.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include assumptions about the effects of Earth's rotation and the nature of light that remain unresolved. The discussion also reflects varying levels of understanding regarding the implications of special relativity and the calibration of experimental setups.

  • #91
jay t said:
can we stop this
Sure. I've just done so, by closing this thread.

jay t said:
why can you agree the obvious?
We all agree on what is obvious to us, who understand special relativity: that the light pulses in your original question will both hit the same target at the same place, since the light source and the target are at rest relative to each other.

You are the one who continues to be unable to agree to this obvious fact.

jay t said:
If two people are running to a finish line at constant speed, then of course they wont reach the same time.
Yes, we all agree on that.

jay t said:
And if the finishline is scrolling, then of course they wont reach the same point if the runners choose the direction of their run relative to the ground, rather than relative to the scrolling finish line.
Note the bolded addition to your statement in the quote above. It is crucial. Your logic has that bolded addition as an unstated assumption. And that unstated assumption, while you can declare that it is true for your runner example, is not true for your original question about the light source and the target. As your original question was stated, both the light source and the target are "scrolling", and the light's motion, viewed in the "ground" frame (the frame which, in your runner example, is not "scrolling"), will "scroll" right along with the source and the target. That is what the principle of relativity says, and countless experiments have shown that the principle of relativity is correct on this point.

So if your "logic" tells you anything else, your "logic" is wrong. At this point everyone else in this thread has spent more than enough effort in trying to explain why your "logic" is wrong. Enough is enough. At this point you're on your own. This thread is closed.

jay t said:
Why are you being so difficult with an obvious question? Is not like you will lose anything man. omg.
This kind of attitude is not going to help you at all. When you are the one who is wrong, accusing others who are right, and who have been very patient in trying to explain to you why they are right and you are wrong, of being "difficult" is only going to make things worse.

If you ask, how do I know we're right and you're wrong, see what I said above about what countless experiments have shown. (And in my post #52, as I've already noted, I gave you a simple everyday phenomenon that demonstrates that a key element of what you think you understand is simply wrong.)

Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy, phinds, jbriggs444 and 2 others

Similar threads

  • · Replies 128 ·
5
Replies
128
Views
7K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
8K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
6K