Author Topic: Speed of Light: Relative?  (Read 9862 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dysko

Re: Speed of Light: Relative?
1 au (light year, right?)
Wrong :p
1 AU is 1 Astronomic Unit = 150*106 km = average Sun-Earth distance.
My aviation photography website: GolfVictorSpotting.it

 

Offline jr2

  • The Mail Man
  • 212
  • It's prounounced jayartoo 0x6A7232
    • Steam
Re: Speed of Light: Relative?
Bah.  What is the light year official name/abbreviation?

EDIT: ly  ... Of course  :rolleyes:

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: Speed of Light: Relative?
Let's say you have a photon detector at point y, 1 au ly (light year, right?) away from point x.  You have a spacecraft travelling at .55c, and when it passes through point x traveling in a straight line towards point y, it fires a photon beam forwards at point y.  How much time will pass at the detector site before the photon detector at point y registers the beam that the spacecraft fired?  1 year?  Or 3/4 of a year?

ie, when the spacecraft shows up and says, we fired that beam two years ago, will the detector site say we detected it 1.25 years ago?

EDIT: Of course, time would be skewed for a person traveling at .55c, right?  darn this is confusing...

An observer at X would see the photon precicely one year after the ship passed point Y. Of course, that would be a simultaneous event in X's reference frame... :drevil:

But, for simplicity's sake, let's make the ship move at 0.5c since half is a nice round number (more so than 0.55 anyway).

X and Y are at the same reference frame, so time passes at same speed for both (but the concept of simultaneity is still different for distant points). Anyway, let's say they are a light year apart.

At t=0, a ship traveling at 0.5c passes point Y, vith velocity towards X, and fires a single photon towards Y.

This photon arrives at X exactly at t=1a (a=annum=year). The ship will arrive at X at t=2a.

On ship time (let's mark it with capital T), the photon is fired at T=0 as well. But the ship will arrive at (or pass) the point X at about ship time T=1.73a. They could rightfully claim that they fired the photon 1.73... years ago.

They would also claim that since they were moving at 0.5c, the distance between X and Y was not light year, but only about 0.865 ly, since they were able to pass it in less than two years at speed 0.5c...
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 

Offline jr2

  • The Mail Man
  • 212
  • It's prounounced jayartoo 0x6A7232
    • Steam
Re: Speed of Light: Relative?
This photon arrives at X exactly at t=1a (a=annum=year). The ship will arrive at X at t=2a.

I'm not catching how this is so.  It was fired from a moving object.  Along the path, it would be detected (if possible) traveling at 1c, I can get that, but shouldn't the speed of the beam be affected by its source?  Why not?

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: Speed of Light: Relative?
Because the only thing that affects the speed of light is the properties of the vacuum, and the vacuum appears exactly the same to all observers... Light propagates through the vacuum, and the emitter's velocity doesn't affect the photon's velocity once it's in "free space".

It's kinda the same way like if you were staying still on calm air. Every sound will seem to be moving at constant speed to you. If a train approaches you, the velocity of the sound it makes doesn't depend on the train's velocity, it will move in the air. As long as you remain still, the air is to sound just like vacuum is to light in space.

In space, though, things get a bit different, but essentially you could think that everyone moving at constant velocity has their own reference frame, which is analogous to having calm air around them. The analogy is not perfect, but will do for now.

Think about it this way - what if the ship that emits the photon doesn't move, but you do? Both approaches are perfectly valid when there is no universal reference frame to which you could compare velocities. You can only compare velocities in relation to other things.


However, the initial velocity does indeed affect the light; it just doesn't affect it's velocity. It goes straight into the energy (or rather, momentum) of the photon.

The initial velocity gives photon a boost (or leech) of energy, which means that the photon will have a different energy depending on the relative velocity between the emitter and the observer.

In short, if the emitter and the observer are at rest in relation to each other, the observer will observe the photons to have the expected energy and thus wave length. For example, let's say that there's a laser that emits exactly 500 nm photons (green light). We know that the device emits this wave length.

But if the emitter is moving fast towards the observer, the observer will measure the photon's energy to be more than expected, because the velocity of the emitter adds energy to individual photons... but since this energy cannot affect the photon's velocity due to it's constant nature, it goes to the wave length/frequency of the photon.

This is the source of blue shift and red shift that is talked of in cosmology. Objects that approach us fast (like Andromeda galaxy) have their light shifted towards the blue (higher energy) end of electromagnetic spectrum, whereas objects that are moving away have a red shift measurable.

At extreme velocities, the time dilation will also kick in and make things even more complex, though... the fast moving emitter's time will slow down in observer's perspective, which will affect the functionality of the laser - it will work "slower", so to say, which means that in it's own reference frame it'll keep producing photons that have steady frequency, but to outside observer the photons would appear to have lower frequency due to time dilation.
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 

Offline jr2

  • The Mail Man
  • 212
  • It's prounounced jayartoo 0x6A7232
    • Steam
Re: Speed of Light: Relative?
Interesting... I'll have to think about that for awhile..  Thx :)

 

Offline Flaser

  • 210
  • man/fish warsie
Re: Speed of Light: Relative?
This photon arrives at X exactly at t=1a (a=annum=year). The ship will arrive at X at t=2a.

I'm not catching how this is so.  It was fired from a moving object.  Along the path, it would be detected (if possible) traveling at 1c, I can get that, but shouldn't the speed of the beam be affected by its source?  Why not?

Both will measure the speed of light as the same.
Therefore if they measure different times, they will also measure different distances.
"I was going to become a speed dealer. If one stupid fairytale turns out to be total nonsense, what does the young man do? If you answered, “Wake up and face reality,” you don’t remember what it was like being a young man. You just go to the next entry in the catalogue of lies you can use to destroy your life." - John Dolan

  

Offline AlphaOne

  • !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 210
Re: Speed of Light: Relative?
I'm not really a math genios or anithing but I believe that the speed of light can be beaten or rather it will be beaten sometime in the distant future. Why? Simply because it is a barrier which we must overcome. And if history has tought us anithing is that whenever we hit a brick wall which we consider to be inpenetrable we find a way to brake it down or go around it.
Die shivan die!!
Then jumps into his apple stealth pie and goes of to war.What a brave lad....what a brave lad say the ladies in red.
 

(\_/)
(O.o)
(> < ) 

This is Bunny . Copy  Bunny  into your signature to help him on his way to world domination!

 

Offline Mika

  • 28
Re: Speed of Light: Relative?
Herr Doktor, bring on the heavy artillery; derive the transformation equations. Doing that myself was the only way to start understanding what is actually going on. No analogy will help in here.

The whole basis of Special Relativity rests on two assumptions:

1. The speed of light is constant (in the vacuum and does not depend on the motion of the reference frame as long as it is not accelerating). If you don't believe it, feel free to make your own measurements as this is an experimental result. It should be possible to repeat it with college level equipment. But before going any further, it might be good to read the situation before the Special Relativity, as the Physics had a huge unexplainable problems at hand before Einstein published his papers.

A common problem with Special Relativity is that it is many times seen like a separate block of Physics with no overlapping with Electromagnetics and Mechanics, when the opposite is true.

2. All coordinate systems are equal. There is no global reference coordinate system, only local coordinate systems.

When these principles are applied on the modified Galilean transformation equations, the resulting set of equations give the relativistic transformation equations. The nice thing about this is that you can do it yourself, as only college level understanding of Maths is needed and then some background in Physics.

Then General Relativity is something else. Can't wait to get to the Energy-momentum and Stress-tensors (what a name!)... and the choice of metrics to whatever suits the problem best. Boy those guys surely thought a lot hundred years ago. Sad thing that Schwarzschild died in the trenches during WWI - he, afterall, send the paper that solved Einstein's field equations for the first time during the time he actually was in the trenches.

Speaking of muddy waters in Physics, I would vote Lagrange Invariant / Optical Invariant / Etendue the most misunderstood conservation law of Physics ever.

Mika
Relaxed movement is always more effective than forced movement.

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
Re: Speed of Light: Relative?
no, you can get the jist of it without having to integrate sets of 3d diferential equations. it's simple the faster you go the slower your time moves, so a beam of light will seem to go the same speed no mater how fast you move because even if you are going at .5c your time is running half as fast, so the remaining .5c of the beam will to you be moveing at c not .5c. that's the "not very accurate but good enough to give you the jist of how it works without haveing to make you learn ubbermath" version. it is as you would expect a lot more complex than that, because space becomes warped as well and neither the time nor space warp is a simple linear scaler of speed, but unless you want to learn advanced calculus that's as good as your going to get.
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 

Offline Agent_Koopa

  • 28
  • These words make the page load that much slower.
Re: Speed of Light: Relative?
I don't get it.  If you jumped off of a spacecraft traveling at 40,000 mph, and your forward velocity was 5 mph, then your total velocity would be 40,005 mph.  Why is light different?


According to every layman's physics book I've ever read, the answer is "because it is".
Interestingly enough, this signature is none of the following:
A witty remark on whatever sad state of affairs the world may or may not be in
A series of localized forum in-jokes
A clever and self-referential comment on the nature of signatures themselves.

Hobo Queens are Crowned, but Hobo Kings are Found.

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: Speed of Light: Relative?
Long Post Ahead!

The mathematics is actually really simple. The most complex thing to do is handle some square roots and second exponents but otherwise it's just dividing, multiplying, adding and substracting... you don't even need to use calculus (or differential mathematics, whatever you want to call it), basic algebra will do.

Anyway, as it was asked, the easiest way to derive equations for time dilation and Fitzgerald-Lorenz-contraction is as follows. I think showing how these two are derived is actually more informative in this context, since Lorenz-transformations actually are only useful if you want to know what co-ordinates a certain known point in space and time has in another, moving co-ordinate system. Anyway... Gunnery control, charge photon beam cannons, commence plasma core insertion! Let us begin.



We have a ship with a mirror fixed to it's side some distance from the ship itself, so that it will reflect photons emitted from the ship back towards the ship. The ship travels at, let's say, velocity of v (arbitrary value, assign what you want to it) in relation to an observer. As it passes an arbitrary point (we'll call it A), the ship emits a photon perpendicularly to it's direction of velocity, ie. directly towards the mirror.

In the ship's reference frame, the photon simply travels to the mirror, reflects back and is observed back in the ship.

However, in the reference frame of an observer, the photon will move substantially more - this is a grossly exaggerated drawing and in fact the ship here would exceed the speed of light, but this will do for now. Observe:



On the upper level, there's how the situation appears to the ship itself, and on the lower level it shows how it looks like to the observer.

Note how there's two right-angled triangles there in the image? Let's concentrate on the first one of them - the one which has it's sides marked by points A, B and the point where the photon hits the mirror.

Now, the distance between B and the hit point is the distance the photon has travelled in ship's co-ordinates. Let's mark this length with d'.

On the other hand, in the observer's reference frame the photon has moved from point A to the mirror hitpoint. Since this is also the distance that the photon has traveled (in observer's co-ordinates), we'll mark this length as d without the '-mark. For convenience, we'll mark everything that happens in ship's reference frame with that mark and everything that happens in observer's frame without it.

Because we can assume that speed of light must be same for both observers - those inside the ship and the one outside, static in this case - we can form two simple equations. Since velocity is the distance divided by the time it took to travel that distance,

c = d / t and c = d'/t'

and subsequently,

d = c t
d' = c t'
.

In these equations, t is again the time that passes for the observer, and t' is the time that passes in the ship. Since c must be constant for both, these must be different. Now we just need to determine the difference between d and d', and we can determine the difference between t and t'...

At this point, we get back to the right-angled triangle. We now know the lengths of two edges - one is d and the other is d'. As it stands, we also do know the length of the third side, since we know the ship's velocity v. This third side of the triangle we will mark as dx, since that's convenient and we can say that the ship is moving along X axis of the observer's co-ordinates.

Now then... in observer's co-ordinates, the distance the ship moves between points A and B is obviously

dx = v t

But (this is important!) since the time in ship is different, they will measure the distance between A and B as

dx' = v t'. We'll get back to this later, but for now we need to first define the actual difference between t and t'.


This goes as follows. We now have all three sides of the triangle in our knowledge, in observer's reference frame.

side 1 = d = c t
side 2 = d' = c t'
side 3 = dx = v t

and from the Pythagoran theorem we can deduce that

d = Sqrt ( d'² + dx² )

which we can now solve by inserting the above lengths into this equation:

(c t) = Sqrt ( [c t']² + [v t]² )  || (...)²

(c t)² = (c t')² + (v t)²

c² t² = c² t'² + v² t²

c² t'² = c² t² - v² t²

c² t'² = (c² - v²)  t²

t'² = (c² - v²) / c² * t²  Sqrt (...)

t' = Sqrt(c² - v²) / c * t

t' = Sqrt( 1 - v²/ c² ) * t


...and there's the equation for time dilation.


Now, back to the distance part - this defines the Fitzgerald-Lorenz-contraction of the axis aligned to the direction of velocity. We know that in the observer's reference frame, the ship moves the distance

dx = v t.

But since for the ship the time passed is different, the same distance will be measured differently by the ship crew. Specifically,

dx' = v t'.

Now, to define the difference between perceived distances, we simply insert the equation of time dilation to the latter one. Like this:

dx' = v Sqrt( 1 - v²/ c² ) * t

We can write this as

dx' = Sqrt( 1 - v²/ c² ) * v t

and since dx = v t, we can insert it into the equation:

dx' = Sqrt( 1 - v²/ c² ) * dx


And there we got the equation for Fizgerald-Lorenz contraction.

In fact, the term Sqrt( 1 - v²/ c² ) is often marked with the greek letter gamma for convenience, since it pops up all the time in calculatiosn that take relativity into account properly. It allows such easy markings as

t' = γ t  and
x' = γ x.

Lorenz transformations are actually a way to bind co-ordinate systems with a relative velocity to each other, so that you can insert an XYZT co-ordinate values into the transformation equations and out comes X'Y'Z'T' values for another co-ordinate system, which is moving in relation to the other. They are a bit different from these ones, but basically once you get the idea clear for time dilation and Fitzgerald-Lorenz-contraction, you should have no problem with them. Basically, you first have two co-ordinates with their origos aligned, and the other origo is moving along the other one's X axis at velocity v. With Lorenz co-ordinate transformations you can simply transform one system's co-ordinates into another systems co-ordinates, very much similar to Galilei-transformations allow you to do with objects moving at subrelativistic speeds.
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 

Offline Mongoose

  • Rikki-Tikki-Tavi
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
  • This brain for rent.
    • Steam
    • Something
Re: Speed of Light: Relative?
*applauds* :)

It's funny seeing all of this here, as I was working with special relativity in the final portion of my 600-level E&M II class over the last few weeks of the semester.  I did get a bit lost when we started moving into all sorts of wonderfully horrific tensor transformations (Einstein's summation notation may be tidy, but it hides one hell of a long slog of matrix math), but it was amazing to see in the end how Maxwell's equations, energy, momentum, space, and time all boiled down into one neat package.  I think the most illuminating 50 minutes of my college experience thus far came when my professor explained an alternate way of looking at the mechanics of special relativity via Euclidean spacetime (it's an artificial construct that's similar to Minkowski spacetime, but with a sign reversal on the time coordinate).  All of the usual mental puzzles of special relativity become brilliantly clear when looking at motion in this light.  "Paradoxes" like length contraction, time dilation, the "twins" problem...it can all be drawn out in a simple manner as the difference between the slopes of lines.  I came out of that lecture almost in awe, and I felt like I'd understood more by being there than I had after taking an entire 300-level course on modern physics. :p

 

Offline Mika

  • 28
Re: Speed of Light: Relative?
Sorry to spoil your fun, but then the reality kicks in and some graduated person tells you that Relativity has very limited number of applications in normal Physics, unless you happen to work with something that travels in Space. When you look at it, classical electrodynamics hold their own quite nicely as even Maxwell Equations are an overkill for most of the time. FDTD modelling uses Maxwell Equations as a basis, but most of circuitry stuff has been derived from (or even before!) Maxwell Equations long time ago and is sufficient for electrical engineering. And I'm not even starting about Optics here, suffice to say that I work with photons but I don't need to use relativistic equations at all.

Redshift and blue shift are probably the most common relativistic phenomena, along with exact synchronization problems where the signal speed has to be taken account.

Ahem, maybe I should stop before I kill the interest totally. Wait I already did that. Tomorrow I'll write something about the history before Relativity was introduced, I found that it helped me quite a lot to understand when, how and why relativity became the official truth. Maybe someone else finds it interesting here.

Mika
Relaxed movement is always more effective than forced movement.

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: Speed of Light: Relative?
Redshift and blue shift are probably the most common relativistic phenomena, along with exact synchronization problems where the signal speed has to be taken account.


Well yeah, as far as special relativity is concerned... General relativity then again actually has to be taken into consideration in, for example, precise timing in different gravity fields... like, say, satellite location systems like GPS. If the difference in time passage would not be taken into account, those systems would get serious issues with accumulating errors.
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: Speed of Light: Relative?
The speed of light is relative...depending on the medium it's traveling through.

People have managed to reduce it to a speed you could outrun on a bicycle. So there.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Nuke

  • Ka-Boom!
  • 212
  • Mutants Worship Me
Re: Speed of Light: Relative?
yes light can be slowed down, but there are atomic processes involved. it takes light in the sun thousands of years to reach the surface. but thats because the photon has to be tossed from atom to atom on the way out, shifting energystates along the way, exciting the atom and causing it to want to shed off another photon. im not exactly how it works so i may be completely wrong about how this all works. anyway whatever processes theese photons go through, it will resume going the speed of light once it hits mostly empty space. anyway its not light thats relative its time. people seem to get confused about that.
I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Nuke's Scripting SVN

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: Speed of Light: Relative?
The speed of light is relative...depending on the medium it's traveling through.

People have managed to reduce it to a speed you could outrun on a bicycle. So there.


Yeah, that's why we're been talking about the speed of light in a vacuum... and a word of advice - taking the phase velocity of light in medium into discussion is only going to make your few remaining hair more pale than the last rider of Apocalypse.

Because, you know, in medium light becomes a rather complex thing. It's not just photons any more - it's a combination of mechanical vibrations of charged particles in the medium and photons between them, and the average speed of the combination defines the velocity of the wave formation, which defines the phase velocity of the light in the transparent medium. The propagation of mehcanical vibrations (or oscillations) forms virtual particles such as phonons and excitons, which couple with photons to form a combinatory particle called polariton, which, due to it's partially material form, has a small effective mass and therefore cannot travel at c. Basically, the higher the energy of the photon, the more virtual mass it gains when propagating through transparent matter, and the more it's velocity slows... which causes dispersion of colours in simple lenses and prisms. Individual photons on the other hand always do travel at c, though.


Then again, there are some pretty wild stuff done with light and quantum physical experiments such as using the Bose-Einstein condensate as medium. That stuff has some *interesting* characteristics; first of which is the mentioned very low phase velocity of light. Also, apparently it's state of transparency can be altered by changing the energy level of the cloud with a laser - and the knowledge of the photons happening to be inside the cloud at the moment is stored into the cloud. When the modifier laser is released, the light that had been propagating through the cloud when the modifier laser was activated, will simply start from where it left off, with same properties...

Can you say "optical transistor"? ;7
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 

Offline jr2

  • The Mail Man
  • 212
  • It's prounounced jayartoo 0x6A7232
    • Steam
Re: Speed of Light: Relative?
Hmm, HT, what about their supposed making light travel faster than c?  I heard they did that, too, I think it was before they slowed it below c...

EDIT:
www.scienceblog.com/light.html
www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2796

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: Speed of Light: Relative?
IIRC that was also about the phase velocity, which can exceed the speed of light c, but it cannot transmit information, so causality is unbroken... But I don't remember the details.

In other words, c as a constant means that with electromagnetic radiation in vacuum, signal velocity is always exactly c.
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.