# Tag Info

0

The speed of light is invariable but the number or ratio of the frames of reference are variable as determined by the amount of gravity, the result of which is gravitational lensing.

0

Yes, Einstein knew about the Michelson-Morley experiment. Toward the end of his life, he saw it as increasingly important for relativity theory. Here's an excerpt from Clark, Ronald. 1971. Einstein: life and times. New York: World Pub. Co. p. 78: As Einstein said years later, talking to Sir Herbert Samuel in the grounds of Government House, Jerusalem:...

1

Aside from simply looking at the Lorentz transformation, seeing a divergence and concluding "meh, it doesn't work", another way to gain insight into the divergence is through the statement: no finite sequence of finite boosts will get you to a speed $c$ relative to your beginning inertial frame. Imagine yourself in a spaceship with orientation controls ...

3

To see what's going on, it's enough to do this in two dimensions, with the Lorentz form $\pmatrix{-1&0\cr 0&1\cr}$. (I've set $c=1$.) The Lorentz group is the group that preserves this form. A typical element is $$\pmatrix{\pm\sec\theta&\tan\theta\cr \tan\theta&\pm\sec\theta\cr}$$ where $\theta$ runs through the open interval from $-\pi/... -1 Lorentz transformations apply to objects with nonzero mass. For an object with mass, it would require an infinite amount of energy to reach light speed. 4 Fizeau in his paper page 92 wrote the following (rough translation) with regard to his experimental set up: The first telescope was placed in the belvedere of a house [an architectural structure sited to take advantage of a scenic view] in Suresnes , the second on the hill of Montmartre, a distance of approximately 8633 meters The disc with seven hundred ... -4 This link provides an answer to this and other questions on the experimental basis of special relativity: http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Tests_of_Einsteins_two_postulates There are several experiments using terrestrial sources, where the light source is moving, for example the speed of gamma rays from the decay of ... 3 The BIPM (Bureau International de Poids et Mesures) defines the meter as the distance traveled by light in$\frac{1}{299792458}$seconds. The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. The speed of light as$299792458$m/s is therefore exact and not a measured value. Similarily, ... 5 This is an exact value. Meter is defined by the speed of light. Meter is a distance that the light travels during$\frac{1}{299792458}$of a second. 4 To understand this you need to understand what we mean by speed. If I want to measure positions and times I need to set up a coordinate system. For example I can take my stopwatch and my metre rule and construct some Cartesian axes$t$,$x$,$y$and$z$, then I can describe every point in spacetime by its position in my coordinates$(t,x,y,z)$. Once I have ... 1 The solution to this interesting question has to involve both (a) the distortion of the electric field of point charges when they move close to the speed of light and (b) time (since the longer we wait the further apart the electrons become, so their mutual force becomes smaller). Since the electrons are moving along the same straight line we can reduce ... 16 It didn't. The key is that the wave is not point-like, it has an extended "wavefront". The wavefront/event just arrived at the two locations with that delay, which gives some information about its direction. You might also be interested in: Is it really possible to break the speed of light by flicking your wrist with a laser pointer?, which discusses ... 61 The time delay depends on the direction the wave is travelling. If it is travelling along the line connecting Livingston and Hanford then the delay time would indeed be the Livingston-Hanford distance divided by$c$: However suppose the wave was travelling normal to the line connecting the two detectors. In that case the wave would arrive at both of them ... 2 I think what he is saying is simply that if there exists a speed limit then the transformation law for velocity must be of such a nature that the speed that corresponds to the speed limit must remain invariant under such transformations. Because otherwise the law of the speed limit itself will be violated. As he has said, suppose the rule is that nothing ... 2 Question 1 is based on the false premise that B measurement does not always obey a 50:50 probability. In fact persons A and B both always have a 50:50 probability of getting a spin up. That particles A and B are entangled means that there is a correlation between the measurements of A and those of B: when A is up, B is down; when B is down, A is up. But this ... 1 Your question 1 has absolutely nothing to do with entanglement, and for that matter absolutely nothing to do with quantum mechanics. You can formulate exactly the same question this way: You and I each have in our pockets a tennis ball that is either red or green. We somehow each know for certain that they are of the same color (and that either color is ... 3 What kind of information are we talking about in superluminal information transport? It might be more intuitive to call it superluminal communication. For the prohibited kind of superluminal information transport, you need to be able to achieve the following. At the start of the protocol, A holds a classical bit which either has value 0 or 1, and which is ... 1 Yes, relative to a photon, all objects of mass$m$are moving at the speed of light in empty space. (Note however no observer can really travel at the speed of light, but as they approach the speed of light their observations approach what I've described) 5 The force between the charges goes to zero. To see this, work in the frame of one of the charges. From its perspective, the other point charge is moving rapidly away, and the field of a moving charge is weaker along the direction of motion, as shown below. One cheap way of seeing this is to pretend the field lines have been "length contracted". For ... 2 Let's be a little more clear about what we mean here. We can go down to a radioactive beam facility (these exist), or to a muon storage ring like Muon g-2 (now at Fermilab), or even climb a steep mountain and use cosmic muons (Halfdome is a scenic location, let's imagine doing it there).1 In any case, call the lifetime of the beam particles$\tau$. (For ... 2 Keep in mind that frequency is both the wave property that is preserved in a change of medium (both wavelength and velocity change) and the physical property of sound waves that we experience as pitch. So the frequencies you hear in both cases are ones produced by the vocal cords. Nor do we expect the gas environment of the vocal cords to have a large ... 3 To a very rough approximation we can say that frequencies of speech are selected by standing waves in the speakers mouth, larynx etc. If they breath helium the speed of these standing waves increases but their wave length, being constrained by dimensions of their body, remains the same. This results in higher frequency sounds produced. (think$f=v/\lambda$... 0 If you're going to give that many significant numbers, you might as well learn by heart that$c=299 792 458 m/s$But no, for many reasons. 1) Your clock is too heavy, it will collapse in on itself, even when outside of the pull of the earth. 2) The clock will tear itself apart, try stopping something that heavy, that fast in a fine system like a clock.$\...

2

The answer is that it has nothing to do with light, c, black holes, event horizons or relativity. It is simply escape velocity. We know that two bodies attract each other with a force $f = G\frac{M m}{d^2}$ and we know that something is in a stable orbit when its potential energy $PE = -GMm/d$ matches its kinetic energy $KE = m{v^2}/2$. Solve these two for ...

3

Not through our normal sight. First of all, doppler shift will totally change the color of everything, objects ahead of us shifting towards blue/ultraviolet, and these left behind becoming more red/infrared. Then, Lorenz Contraction combined with changed time and distance it takes light reflected off objects (and separately, emitted by objects) to reach our ...

2

The explanation I like is thus: In GR, all things, from planets to photons, travel in straight lines through curved space bent by mass. Black holes bend and distort spacetime so severely that the curvature captures the photon. Scale things down and it behaves much the same way passing asteroids can be captured by a star. For us, the speed of the asteroid(...

1

The picture I always liked is for an observer free-falling into the black hole, when they're just outside of the event horizon, it looks like the event horizon is propagating outward at nearly the speed of light. After the observer falls just inside, the event horizon now looks like it's propagating outward at greater than the speed of light.

-3

The short answer is the speed of light is constant until its not. Its constant until it runs into a wall and its constant until effected by gravity. The extreme gravity of a black hole will deflect the path of the photons more and more until finally at the event horizon all deflection is toward the black hole.

33

Suppose you are floating in a river, and you have with you a model boat, called the SS Lightray, that can do 3 m/sec through the water. When you set the boat travelling upstream as far as you're concerned it is doing 3 m/sec. But I'm standing on the bank watching the river flowing at 1 m/sec, so when I look at your boat I see it travelling at a net speed of ...

6

To explain it in layman's terms, without using advanced concepts: Space is warped in the "inside" of the black hole (that is, under the event horizon) so much, that it behaves completely different than what we perceive hear on Earth. The "outward direction" simply does not exist. For example, here on Earth, we can go in the three spacial dimensions in both ...

-3

Isn't the saying "The speed of light is constant 'in a vacuum'"? The 'in a vacuum' bit is commonly missed off (in the same way, "'The love of' money is the root of all evil", is often commonly misquoted). If a black hole isn't a vacuum (because at some point, particles are close enough together it is no longer a vacuum), then the speed of light slows ...

66

The speed $c$ that is constant is so when measured locally relative to a freefalling frame (i.e. one for which all points follow spacefime geodesics wrt to the metric $g$). Local means that the frame's extent must be "small" enough that it can be thought of as flat: think of this as zooming in on the spacetime manifold, which is a smooth object, with enough ...

2

Not surprisingly, physicists have looked for variations in the speed of light as a function of frequency in vacuum. The state of the art in 1972 can be found in Z. Bay and J. A. White, 'Frequency Dependence of the Speed of Light in Space', Phys. Rev. D 5(4) 796-799 (1972). Using data from pulsar emissions (radio, visible, x-ray) and other sources (see paper),...

0

As John stated, the relation is not constant. Where does the need to "show that $\frac{i}{r}$ is constant come from? You know that if $i=0\rightarrow r=0$. You know that $$n_i\sin{i}=n_r\sin{r}$$ From this you should be able to see clearly that there's no linear relation except when $i$ approaches $0$, or $n_r$ approaches $n_i$. You should never go into ...

1

I think your point of view needs a little correction. You are thinking in terms of 3D space but it was shown by relativity that space and time are actually related and make a 4D world. The relative speed between two persons also alters the rate of change of time in their frames hence the photons do not accelerate or deaccelerate to 'maintain their speed'. ...

3

In a vacuum all frequencies and amplitudes of light travel at the same speed of c = 299 792 458 m/s. Frequency is equivalent to colour. Amplitude relates to intensity. When light travels in material mediums (air, water, glass, etc) it travels at a slower speed v < c which depends on frequency. The ratio of c/v is what we measure as the refractive ...

2

The observed wavelength does change, and this is called the doppler effect. But the speed does not change. The statement "...the wavefront of a short pulse emitted like this will reach a given distance along y before it will along x" does not follow from any logical reasoning. Following the same logic you will conclude that when the source is next to the ...

2

According to all observational evidence (including the original Michelson-Morley experiment) speed of light is constant in all directions. The confusion comes from misinterpretation of the picture you attach. I propose to understand it as follows. Say, you have a lightsource that emits pulses at a given frequency. Each pulse propagates at a constant speed ...

2

No. It means that the energy content of a particle at rest whose mass is $m$ is equal to $mc^2$. In general, $E=\dfrac{mc^2}{\sqrt{1-\dfrac{v^2}{c^2}}}$ represents the energy content of a particle of mass $m$ moving with a speed $v$. If it is at rest, i.e. $v=0$, then $E=mc^2$.

2

No. It means that when one is accounting for the total energy of the system one must account for the energy contribution of the mass. It also means that the mass isn't necessarily conserved in a system, while energy and momentum will be. In special cases, energy and/or momentum may even be constant in an defined subsystem. The quantity $E^2- p^2c^2$ of a ...

2

No, it doesn't. It just means that particle of mass $m$ can be converted to $mc^2$ of energy. You can find a good popular article on that topic here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

11

Imaginary things can "travel" faster than light A shadow or a light spot can seem to travel faster than light, because it's not a particular physical thing, but a series of separate things, separate physical particles emitted at different time and at different locations. Imagine that you have launched a lot of tiny bots into space with a very accurate ...

7

I think you've said a lot of things that are correct, you've just come to the wrong conclusion. You're right that that it will take us three seconds to SEE the shadow moving across the moon, because that's how long it takes the light to get there and back. But what we'll see is not the shadow slowly moving across the moon over a period of three seconds. ...

3

It is known that moving a lantern will result in a spot or projected light that travels faster than light is the screen is far enough. However, this effect and similar ones do not refer to the motion of actual objects at faster than light speeds, nor this process allows transfer of information faster than light.

0

"The stationary person would see him accelerating from 0.5c to 1.499c, faster than light" The statement itself is a large mistake... The person in the space ship knows that he had accelerated from 0.5 to 0.99 time the speed of light, but the person outside would only see him accelerating from 0.5c to 0.99665551839c. It is because relative velocity is given ...

1

Yes. Any general relativity textbook will have a section where they derive that the proportionality constant between the Einstein tensor and the stress-energy tensor is $8 \pi G$. They do so by showing that in the limit $c \rightarrow \infty$, all the components of Einstein's field equation become zero except for the 00 component. In this limit, $G^{00}$ ...

2

That is the case for central gravity fields. You can derive Newtonian gravitation from a spacetime metric $$ds^2 = c^2d\tau^2 = c^2\left(1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}\right)dt^{2} - dr^2 - r^2d\Omega^2$$ where the only metric element different than unity is $g_{tt} = c^2 - GM/r$. The relevant Christoffel symbol is  \Gamma^r_{tt} = \frac{1}{2}g^{rr}\frac{\partial ...

-2

If I may simplify this a bit.........I will compare to a gong. When you stike that gong sound propagates though air. Photons are the end result of gamma radiation. When you 'bang a gong' that energy is released. 'It' must radiate out. Same as with light energy or photons.

2

One may calculate the time that light (electromagnetic waves) need to go through the arms of the interferometer. If the speed of light relatively to the aether is $c$, then $c$ is also the approximate speed through the arm that is approximately orthogonal to the velocity $\vec v$ of the Earth (or interferometer) relatively to the aether. Well, the speed is a ...

2

To answer this, You can't add velocities as in Newtonian mechanics. In relativity, If frame B is moving at velocity u and C is moving at velocity v both with respect to an inertial frame A, then relative velocity between B and C is $\frac{u+v}{1+ uv/c^2}$. So substituting your arguments here would now leave us with relative speed less than c. Just because ...

Top 50 recent answers are included