Say i had a flashlight moving NSOL(Near speed of light), and shot a light beam forward at the SOL(Turn flash light on). From my reffrence point, a set point in space...x, y, z.... If i could use a radar gun to clock those photos from my point of view, will they be moving faster than light....The speed of the flash light + the speed of light?
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
quick light speed question
- Thread starter Cheeto
- Start date
I guess they would just be going slightly faster than you, so from your point of view just a few kms/hour, and from the point of view of another stopped observer, you would be at NSOL and the light would be at SOL. Also because of course the speed of light (supposedly) cant be violated, so a photon couldnt be moving at faster than SOL.
(This is just what came to my mind, but im not a physicist. Experts please correct me if im wrong
)
(This is just what came to my mind, but im not a physicist. Experts please correct me if im wrong
)
The speed of light would always be measured as going at the speed of light. Both from the moving flashlight as from the outside observer.
I guess nobody knows exactly whether this is only because the laws of nature dictate our observation of light, or whether it is because light itself is doing something that defies our observation of space and time.
Relativity says that space and time are relative and thus, when the speed of light is always the same, part of the whole complex that makes the observation.
Nobody knows though, what exactly the nature IS of space and time. As long as we don't know the answer to that question, we'll only have our observations.
I guess nobody knows exactly whether this is only because the laws of nature dictate our observation of light, or whether it is because light itself is doing something that defies our observation of space and time.
Relativity says that space and time are relative and thus, when the speed of light is always the same, part of the whole complex that makes the observation.
Nobody knows though, what exactly the nature IS of space and time. As long as we don't know the answer to that question, we'll only have our observations.
fraterS.O.L.
Bill Nye
I recently heard that not all light moves at the same speed. Some photons moving slower/faster than others. Because of this I think the only reason we still have the constant is because nobody has figured out how this effects the laws of physics
Newfound_wonder
Harvie Krumpet
From what I was told, assuming you shot that beam of light out in the vacuum of space, then that light will travel at speed c in the direction you point regardless of your initial velocity. If one flashlight was traveling NSOL going north and another flashlight was traveling NSOL going south and they both shone their lights facing north, the light from both flashlights would still travel north at the same speed. If I remember correctly, the speed of light has to do with the permittivity constant and permeability constant.
But I could be wrong.
But I could be wrong.
alzabo
Rising Star
fraterS.O.L. said:
My own theory is that not even light goes as fast as "the speed of light". This is because it would take infinite energy to accelerate anything to the speed of light and photons do not have infinite energy.
It's also worth noting that nothing can reach or exceed the speed of light in a vacuum but particles can exceed the speed of light in other mediums such as in water, electrons can move faster than light for example.
alzabo said:
Photons always move at the speed of light because photons ARE light. Photons are basic units of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation.
SOL may vary depending on the medium. The denser the medium the slower SOL in it. SOL is highest in vacuum.
Photon's mass is exactly zero, that's why it cannot stay put and ALWAYS moves at the speed of light.
Trickster isnt tricking you he's right photons have no mass and thus why they move at the speed of light. Anything with mass cannot reach the speed of light because the closer you get to it the more energy you need till the point to where it becomes infinite. The LHC gets close but even it cannot speed particles to the speed of light. There have been debates that some other things can move faster than light like neutrinos but they also have 0 mass.
vovin said:
Yep. 10 years of hard science is no joke
.
zubidlo
Rising Star
This relativity theory is quite interesting. If I remember it properly from university way back, in higher speed reality is not so real anymore. Time is not so timeish, space is not so spaceish as in slower speed. Like you sent photon(or any particle) to travel for one year at very high speed and when he comes back he is only few days older. But his slow lazy twin brother is really one year older. Than speedy photon traveled close to one light year distance in few days from his point of view. Does it mean he traveled much faster that light? Probably not, because during his trip length at his speed was really lengthish. And because he doesn't have any mass and lenght is longer and time is slower he was able to fool scientists by having the same properties as a wave. And they are still not actually sure what he really is. Is photon a wave or a particle?
I don't know. Someone here knows?
Regards.
I don't know. Someone here knows?
Regards.
zubidlo said:
Photons are quite different from most other particles, because their rest mass is zero. So your results will be VERY different if you take a different particle.
zubidlo said:
There are no lazy photons. All of them move at the same speed. In vacuum it is = c.
zubidlo said:
Both. This is the beauty and strangeness of quantum physics.
alzabo
Rising Star
its a wave that behaves like a particle.Sublime said:
question- is it possible to have a particle with zero mass? how is that possible?
Actually its a particle/wave, it has propeties of both a wave and a particle. A particle is not defined as an object of mass, hence the term "massless paritcle".
I have seen(Not first hand) experiments where with electromagnets and absolute zero temp has the ability to stop light in its tracts..the light was barely moving. So right there an observer saw light nearly stop, yet scientists go by a theory that says light will always travel at a constant speed? Am i missing something?
the idea of the radar gun was simply to suggest that i, in some way, am going to measure how fast the photons are moving.
What i would had figured is, me, an observer standing in one non-moving spot, would see the photons traveling near double SOL, Flash light speed + Light Speed. If i where to all of a sudden see light adjusted(slowed to SOL), then the impossible would happen......flash light going near SOL, light going SOL = light slowly climbing out of flashlight.
What i thought was like someone else said, The speed of light limit is only a limit from a starting point, no matter weather the object is already moving or not. Example: We, the milky way are supose to be moving near SOL from other galaxies, our sun shoots light out at the SOL in all directions, despite we are already going near SOL.
So, Trickster, would i get rich if i could , in any situation, meassure the speed of a light beam and come up with a speed a few hundred miles an hour faster than Light Speed? and it not be an error.
Edit:
Im assuming others would have had the same concern in the past....what changed their minds. Could someone point me to an expeirement where they proved light was always a constant speed, lots of scientists do think that for some reason....i want to know why. I want to see where they tried to break the limit by attaching a lazer to a moving object in a vacuum and meassure the speed of the light beam while its already traveling. Or tried to break it in some other fasion, i just want to see for myself, thats to weird to take in without observing it for myself, so far i have not seen it.
I have seen(Not first hand) experiments where with electromagnets and absolute zero temp has the ability to stop light in its tracts..the light was barely moving. So right there an observer saw light nearly stop, yet scientists go by a theory that says light will always travel at a constant speed? Am i missing something?
the idea of the radar gun was simply to suggest that i, in some way, am going to measure how fast the photons are moving.
What i would had figured is, me, an observer standing in one non-moving spot, would see the photons traveling near double SOL, Flash light speed + Light Speed. If i where to all of a sudden see light adjusted(slowed to SOL), then the impossible would happen......flash light going near SOL, light going SOL = light slowly climbing out of flashlight.
What i thought was like someone else said, The speed of light limit is only a limit from a starting point, no matter weather the object is already moving or not. Example: We, the milky way are supose to be moving near SOL from other galaxies, our sun shoots light out at the SOL in all directions, despite we are already going near SOL.
So, Trickster, would i get rich if i could , in any situation, meassure the speed of a light beam and come up with a speed a few hundred miles an hour faster than Light Speed? and it not be an error.
Edit:
Im assuming others would have had the same concern in the past....what changed their minds. Could someone point me to an expeirement where they proved light was always a constant speed, lots of scientists do think that for some reason....i want to know why. I want to see where they tried to break the limit by attaching a lazer to a moving object in a vacuum and meassure the speed of the light beam while its already traveling. Or tried to break it in some other fasion, i just want to see for myself, thats to weird to take in without observing it for myself, so far i have not seen it.
S^2 - T^2
Watch this:
PETER RUSSELL
Beyond it being a very interesting video about consciousness, it touches on almost the exact question posed in the OP.
Skip to THIS, at 3 minutes to 8 minutes, for a succinct explanation if you choose not to watch the whole video.
Curiouser and curiouser,
JBArk
Watch this:
PETER RUSSELL
Beyond it being a very interesting video about consciousness, it touches on almost the exact question posed in the OP.
Skip to THIS, at 3 minutes to 8 minutes, for a succinct explanation if you choose not to watch the whole video.
Curiouser and curiouser,
JBArk
1664
Rising Star
Cheeto, I think I have recomended it to you before, but you really should read a book called The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. It explains Special relativity (amongst lots of other concepts) fantastically well.
It takes a fair bit of concentration to get through, but it's worth it. All of the questions I have seen you post on the nexus are answered with a much better explanation than anyone on the nexus can offer. These are not easy concepts to grasp and you are better off reading a book like this for answers than posting here IMO.
It takes a fair bit of concentration to get through, but it's worth it. All of the questions I have seen you post on the nexus are answered with a much better explanation than anyone on the nexus can offer. These are not easy concepts to grasp and you are better off reading a book like this for answers than posting here IMO.
1664 said:
There is also a BBC special series based on the book, also entitled "the elegant universe". Great for the layman who likes his science entertaining!