Will the velocity of light be the same in all reference frames?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the constancy of the speed of light across all inertial reference frames, as established by Einstein's theory of relativity. Participants clarify that there is no valid reference frame where light is at rest, as such a frame contradicts the principles of relativity. They emphasize that while light travels at speed c in inertial frames, it behaves differently in non-inertial frames, such as rotating reference frames. The conversation also touches on the mathematical implications of defining speed and the importance of precise terminology in discussing these concepts.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Einstein's theory of relativity
  • Familiarity with inertial and non-inertial reference frames
  • Basic knowledge of light-cone coordinates
  • Mathematical concepts related to speed and velocity
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Einstein's second postulate of relativity
  • Explore the differences between inertial and non-inertial reference frames
  • Learn about light-cone coordinates and their applications in physics
  • Investigate the mathematical foundations of speed and velocity in relativity
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the fundamental principles of light and motion in the context of modern physics.

  • #31
Aswin Sasikumar 1729 said:
If the photon has eye, then?
Then it can't travel at speed c. Which was your premise. So your argument is self-contradictory.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
vanhees71 said:
The relative velocity for two particles, where at least one particle (say particle 1) has non-zero mass is the velocity of the other particle in the rest frame of particle 1 (which is called the lab frame in scattering theory for historical reasons, when the accelerator experiments where fixed-target experiments). It's easy to formulate this in a manifestly covariant way. In the lab frame we have for the four-momenta (I use natural units, ##c=1##)
$$p_1^*=(m_1,0)^T, \quad p_2^*=(E_2^*,\vec{p}_2^*) \; \Rightarrow \; v_{\text{rel}}=\frac{|\vec{p}_2^*|}{E_2^*}=\sqrt{E_2^{*2}-m_2^2}{E_2^*}.$$
Now we have for the Minkowski product in this frame and thus for any other frame
$$p_1^* \cdot p_2^*=p_1 \cdot p_2=m_1 E_2^* \; \Rightarrow \; E_2^*=\frac{p_1 \cdot p_2}{m_1},$$
and thus
$$E_2^{*2}-m_2^2=\frac{(p_1 \cdot p_2)^2}{m_1^2}-m_2^2=\frac{(p_1 \cdot p_2)^2-m_1^2 m_2^2}{m_1^2},$$
which leads to
$$v_{\text{rel}}=\frac{\sqrt{(p_1 \cdot p_2)^2-m_1^2 m_2^2}}{p_1 \cdot p_2}.$$
Now, if ##m_1=m_2=0## you have two possibilities: ##p_1 \cdot p_2=0##; then the relative velocity is undefined because then ##p_1 \propto p_2## or ##p_1 \cdot p_2 \neq 0##, and the relative velocity is 1. If ##m_1 \neq 0## but ##m_2=0## you have always ##v_{\text{rel}}=1##.

Also note that ##v_{\text{rel}}## is only ##|\vec{v}_1-\vec{v}_2|## if ##\vec{v}_1 \propto \vec{v}_2##. The general expression in an arbitrary frame is
$$v_{\text{rel}}=\frac{1}{1-\vec{v}_1 \cdot \vec{v}_2} \sqrt{(\vec{v}_1-\vec{v}_2)^2-(\vec{v}_1 \times \vec{v}_2)^2}.$$
For a derivation, see

http://th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/pf-faq/srt.pdf

Sect. 1.5 and 1.6.
Nice. This is eqivalent to the first formula in a post of mine a while ago: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/generalized-velocity-addition-and-aberration-formulas.821733/ , where I note that the cross product term is a relativistic correction for orthogonal component of the relative motion, while the denominator not being 1 is a correction for the parallel component.

Also note that, as you are well aware, your statement " ##v_{\text{rel}}## is only ##|\vec{v}_1-\vec{v}_2|## if ##\vec{v}_1 \propto \vec{v}_2##" neglects the denominator, which 'implements' parallel velocity addition. Thus, norm of vector difference isn't even true for the parallel case.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
  • #33
Nugatory said:
As asked, that question makes no sense. If two things are moving towards one another and there exists a coordinate system in which one of them is at rest, then they necessarily have a non-zero relative velocity using that coordinate system.

(If there is no such coordinate system, as is the case with flashes of light, then their relative velocity is undefined, although t
a
vanhees71 said:
The relative velocity for two particles, where at least one particle (say particle 1) has non-zero mass is the velocity of the other particle in the rest frame of particle 1 (which is called the lab frame in scattering theory for historical reasons, when the accelerator experiments where fixed-target experiments). It's easy to formulate this in a manifestly covariant way. In the lab frame we have for the four-momenta (I use natural units, ##c=1##)
$$p_1^*=(m_1,0)^T, \quad p_2^*=(E_2^*,\vec{p}_2^*) \; \Rightarrow \; v_{\text{rel}}=\frac{|\vec{p}_2^*|}{E_2^*}=\sqrt{E_2^{*2}-m_2^2}{E_2^*}.$$
Now we have for the Minkowski product in this frame and thus for any other frame
$$p_1^* \cdot p_2^*=p_1 \cdot p_2=m_1 E_2^* \; \Rightarrow \; E_2^*=\frac{p_1 \cdot p_2}{m_1},$$
and thus
$$E_2^{*2}-m_2^2=\frac{(p_1 \cdot p_2)^2}{m_1^2}-m_2^2=\frac{(p_1 \cdot p_2)^2-m_1^2 m_2^2}{m_1^2},$$
which leads to
$$v_{\text{rel}}=\frac{\sqrt{(p_1 \cdot p_2)^2-m_1^2 m_2^2}}{p_1 \cdot p_2}.$$
Now, if ##m_1=m_2=0## you have two possibilities: ##p_1 \cdot p_2=0##; then the relative velocity is undefined because then ##p_1 \propto p_2## or ##p_1 \cdot p_2 \neq 0##, and the relative velocity is 1. If ##m_1 \neq 0## but ##m_2=0## you have always ##v_{\text{rel}}=1##.

Also note that ##v_{\text{rel}}## is only ##|\vec{v}_1-\vec{v}_2|## if ##\vec{v}_1 \propto \vec{v}_2##. The general expression in an arbitrary frame is
$$v_{\text{rel}}=\frac{1}{1-\vec{v}_1 \cdot \vec{v}_2} \sqrt{(\vec{v}_1-\vec{v}_2)^2-(\vec{v}_1 \times \vec{v}_2)^2}.$$
For a derivation, see

http://th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/pf-faq/srt.pdf

Sect. 1.5 and 1.6.
whether these equations are dimensionally correct?
 
  • #34
Aswin Sasikumar 1729 said:
a

whether these equations are dimensionally correct?
Yes. As @vanhees71 noted he is using natural units in which c=1, and therefore suppressing the factors of c, or including them in the units if you prefer to see it that way.

I do think there's a typo in the last part of the first equation - I think he should be dividing by ##E^*_2## rather than multiplying.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Aswin Sasikumar 1729
  • #35
Ibix said:
I do think there's a typo in the last part of the first equation - I think he should be dividing by ##E^*_2## rather than multiplying.
Thanks, I've corrected the typo.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Aswin Sasikumar 1729 and Ibix

Similar threads

  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
4K