For us to measure any movement, the "something" has to have a different position to some reference frame. now speed is defined by the amount of changed position( which we can tell by the reference frame) inside a certain amount of time. now assuming light moves at a certain speed, now has a reference frame implied by the very definition of speed. Following this, anything that has displacement over time can so on measure different speeds depending on the frame. However the "speed of light" does not follow these same rules in logic, so my question would be why call it speed when it clearly devies what speed is supposed to represent?
-
2If you send a flash of light (using e.g. a flashlight or a laser) from a source to a camera sensor that is placed a certain distance away from the source, the camera sensor doesn't react until a few moments (that we can measure!) after the source was turned on. How do you interpret that? – Marius Ladegård Meyer Oct 02 '23 at 12:24
-
So the light is traveling a distance. what is this distance its some space, so it would be moving relative to whatever inertial frame of reference you place the experiment however, it doesnt move relative so what distance are we then talking about? – michaeloppenheimer Oct 02 '23 at 12:33
-
2"however, it doesnt move relative". I don't understand this statement. The fundamental postulate of special relativity is not "light does not move relative to anything". It is "in any inertial frame of reference, light in vacuum moves at speed $c$ relative to any observer." – Marius Ladegård Meyer Oct 02 '23 at 12:36
-
1Maybe you are confusing this with the fact that light does not propagate through any medium, like the old aether concept...? – Marius Ladegård Meyer Oct 02 '23 at 12:38
-
1"it shouldt travel any distance. because the definition of moving is always relative." This is a non-sequitur. From the fact that motion is relative we cannot conclude that it doesn't travel any distance. In fact, there is no frame where that is true. – Dale Oct 02 '23 at 12:55
-
@MariusLadegårdMeyerIts not relative because light is constant now matter where you are so that would be the same as saying that its absolute aka not relative. adding on, No I am not talking about moving through anything, I am just confused on how motion is defined the way that it is and how this does not apply to "the speed of light". How can something have motion AKA speed, and not be relative. maybe its not moving over distance but some other way so that it could be constant without having an actual " relative" speed but moving over time in some non relative way. – michaeloppenheimer Oct 02 '23 at 13:01
-
@Dale I did not mean it in the literal sense i meant it as a deviation. – michaeloppenheimer Oct 02 '23 at 13:09
-
1It sounds like this question might be rewritten as "What is speed? How is it measured? What does relative motion mean?" – mmesser314 Oct 02 '23 at 13:17
-
Alright @mmesser314, now how about you just explain it to me instead of just insulting me! – michaeloppenheimer Oct 02 '23 at 13:24
-
1" How can something have motion AKA speed, and not be relative." This is the non-intuitive feature of relativity that we can't understand using models from everyday life. The same beam of light travels at the same speed no matter what inertial frame you are in. – garyp Oct 02 '23 at 13:30
-
2BTW, @michaeloppenheimer is asking for clarification of the question. To me it doesn't sound like an insult. It sounds like reframing the question or trying to understand what you mean by the terms you use. – garyp Oct 02 '23 at 13:31
-
I'm voting to reopen. – garyp Oct 02 '23 at 14:11
-
Your mistake is to assume that the speed of light is relative to nothing. It is relative to any reference point you care to pick. If you flash a light and I walk after it, the speed of light is the same relative to you as it is relative to me. – Marco Ocram Oct 02 '23 at 14:42
2 Answers
You are quite wrong to say that light does not move relative to anything. If you and I stand together and flash a light, it moves relative to both of us at the speed c. If you walk at a metre per second in the direction of the light, then light moves at a speed c relative to me and at a speed c relative to you. The fact is that light moves at a speed c relative to everything, which is not the same as your claim that it moves relative to nothing.
The speed c is about a foot per nano-second. If you were to flash a light at a detector a thousand feet away, it would be detected after a microsecond. There is no conceptual difficulty in defining the speed relative to you- it is simply the distance travelled by the light in your frame divided by the time taken in your frame. If were to speed past you at 0.5c toward the detector just at the moment you flashed the light, the speed of light would be c relative to me too. In my frame the light would have travelled less than 1000 feet to reach the detector, and it would have taken less than a microsecond to do so- the distance and the time would both be reduced in my frame so that dividing the former by the latter would still be c.
Conversely, if I sped past you at 0.5c in the opposite direction just as you flashed the light, then in my frame the light would travel a longer distance to reach the detector and take a longer time, but again the ratio between the two would still give the same speed, c, in my frame.
So the speed of light is the same in every frame, and is simply the distance travelled in any given frame divided by the time taken in that frame.
- 26,161
-
-
However I still have a few questions; For us to measure any movement, the "something" has to have a different position to some reference frame. now speed is defined by the amount of changed position( which we can tell by the reference frame) inside a certain amount of time. now assuming light moves at a certain speed, now has a reference frame implied by the very definition of speed. Following this, anything that has displacement over time can so on measure different speeds depending on the frame. – michaeloppenheimer Oct 02 '23 at 22:36
-
However the "speed of light" does not follow these same rules in logic, so my question would be why call it speed when it clearly devies what speed is supposed to represent? – michaeloppenheimer Oct 02 '23 at 22:43
-
One of the counterintuitive things about special relativity is that there is no inertial reference frame in which light is at rest. Light moves in every inertial reference frame. You can measure the speed of light in any inertial reference frame. It is always moving at c. You can run faster and faster to try to catch up to light. You never get any closer to catching it. See A photon travels in a vacuum from A to B to C. From the point of view of the photon, are A, B, and C at the same location in space and time? – mmesser314 Oct 02 '23 at 23:37
-
But light does follow the same rules as all other speeds! The relativistic law of velocity addition means that speeds do vary between reference frames, but they vary less and less as they approach c, and c just happens to be the limiting case. – Marco Ocram Oct 03 '23 at 05:21
This question really shouldn't receive down votes (punctuation notwithstanding) since it is entirely logical for Galilean relativity. You fire a laser pulse with wavenumber $\vec k$, and then just boost along $c\hat k$, et voila: the laser is stationary.
Of course Galilean relativity is wrong, and there are no reference frames at $c$, and we need to use Lorentz transformations.
Back to the question: distance over time. Say you fire the laser at
$$ E_0 = (ct_0=0, x_0=0) $$
and then detect at the end of your length $L$ table:
$$ E_1 = (ct_1 = cL/c = L, x_1=L) $$
and measure the speed:
$$ v_S = \frac{x_1-x_0}{t_1-t_0} = \frac{L}{L/c} = c $$
($S$ is the lab frame).
Now boost to a frame moving along $x$ at $v$:
$$ E_0 = (ct_0'=0, x'_0 = 0) $$ $$ E_1 = (ct_1' = c\gamma[t_1-\frac{vx_1}{c^2}], x'_1 = \gamma[x_1-vt_1]) $$ so $$ v_{S'} = \frac{x_1-x_0}{t_1-t_0} = \frac{\gamma L}{\gamma L/c} = c $$
No problem. Everyone agrees, $c$ is the limit.
- 33,420
-
Thank you for your explanation and comment on down votes, thanks for that !however how did you go from saying cL/c to just L/c,. for the calculating speed Vs – michaeloppenheimer Oct 02 '23 at 22:56
-
and also using the Lorentz transformations and so using gamma, doesnt that assume the speed of light to be constant. Thank you – michaeloppenheimer Oct 02 '23 at 22:58
-
- it assumes relativity, so yes. 1) I didn't do the math, I just went from memory, so check for mistakes when you work it out on your own.
– JEB Oct 03 '23 at 13:53