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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether the velocity of light is the same in all reference frames, particularly focusing on the implications of light's behavior in inertial versus non-inertial frames. Participants explore theoretical aspects, definitions, and implications of relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if a photon could observe another photon, it would measure the velocity of the other photon as zero, raising questions about the nature of reference frames.
  • Others clarify that there is no reference frame in which light is at rest, as this notion contradicts the principles of relativity.
  • It is noted that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, but can differ in non-inertial frames, prompting requests for explanations of non-inertial frames.
  • Some participants argue that the term "all" should encompass all reference frames, while others assert that it only applies to inertial frames.
  • A distinction is made between light-cone coordinates and inertial frames, with some asserting that light-cone coordinates do not represent valid inertial frames.
  • There is a discussion about the definitions of "frame" and "coordinate system," with differing opinions on whether light-cone coordinates can be considered inertial.
  • One participant challenges a mathematical analogy related to the speed of light, suggesting it is incomplete and emphasizing the importance of non-zero values in certain laws.
  • Another participant agrees with the need for precision in statements regarding the speed of light in relation to inertial frames and the concept of gamma.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of reference frames, the applicability of the speed of light in various contexts, and the definitions of terms used in the discussion. No consensus is reached on these issues.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved distinctions regarding the definitions of inertial and non-inertial frames, as well as the implications of light-cone coordinates. The discussion also highlights the complexity of mathematical analogies in the context of physical laws.

  • #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 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K