Is this situation possible??!!!

A

ash64449

Registered Senior Member
Hello friends,

I have seen many videos that explain time dilation like this. you imagine a two mirrors which are apart by 186000 miles. a light goes and hits the mirror and reflected and hits the other mirror and goes on. This is used to explain a tick of the clock,if it hits the mirror,it is considered as one tick. Think that these mirrors are two points in y-axis. let is move in the direction of x-axis. Well,it the context of who is moving in IRF, Those two ticks travel straight and they consider as two ticks of clock. for an observer, that "light" needs to go in slant direction,so it needs to travel a longer direction,so time dilation to IRF that is moving can be understood in reference to the observer. But my question is: whether the second situation possible. I mean Light moving in slant direction? If you think that it is possible, then you will have to say what caused light to move in slant direction??!!
 
Tach said:
It is something called "relativistic aberration".
Click to expand...

http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/aberration.html

in this video,it gives example related to rain. But the aberration meant here is different. Rain moving slant to the observer who is moving. In light's perspective,it takes place to the observer who is not moving. In this article it says that rain is going straight but it "appears" slant because of our motion. So light is moving slant or appears slant?
 
Tach said:
It is something called "relativistic aberration".
Click to expand...

You just described the phenomenon not the reason for that.

From wikipedia:
" It results in aberration of light when the relative motion of observer and light source changes the position of the light source in the field of view of the observer."

I think friend,it is appearing effect. That is light moves in slant direction. I got this idea from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light.

In Explanation section,first paragraph...

My actual question is how light moves with respect to the train from frame of reference of observer? How it moves. I agree it "appears" slant but who that moves with train itself???
 
ash64449 said:
My actual question is how light moves with respect to the train from frame of reference of observer? How it moves. I agree it "appears" slant but who that moves with train itself???
Click to expand...

It's similar to the Doppler effect. If the observer and the light source are moving with respect to each other, then the light can suffer a Doppler shift, and an aberration (slant). Otherwise, everything is normal.
 
Neddy Bate said:
It's similar to the Doppler effect. If the observer and the light source are moving with respect to each other, then the light can suffer a Doppler shift, and an aberration (slant). Otherwise, everything is normal.
Click to expand...

I don't think aberration is the answer.Because I am not emitting photons continuously. This experiment has only one photon of light.Aberration needs continuous emitting of light. And relativistic aberration involves relative motion between the observer and the one who is continuously emitting the light.Here no source and nothing continuous emitting. just a photon of light that bounces off without being absorbed.

Anything else?
 
If it wasn't seen to move in this slant direction then an observer in constant motion would see that light went in slanted directions from his own frame, because someone else at a relative velocity viewed him sending the beams. So then you can say that all degrees of constant motion are equal, they can all assume they are at rest and that light doesn't go in a slanted direction in their own frame. So in this way it seems as though even though an objects motion doesn't add to the total velocity of light, it can add a vector in the directions of motion that is the objects velocity. But, adding this vector does not increase the total velocity. This way all observers could send a beam of light and then observe it to travel out in a straight line from their own frame. This happens because there is no absolute frame.
 
Prof.Layman said:
So in this way it seems as though even though an objects motion doesn't add to the total velocity of light, it can add a vector in the directions of motion that is the objects velocity. But, adding this vector does not increase the total velocity.
Click to expand...

How can it add a vector to light but not add speed to it? Are both independent?
 
ash64449 said:
I don't think aberration is the answer.Because I am not emitting photons continuously. This experiment has only one photon of light.Aberration needs continuous emitting of light. And relativistic aberration involves relative motion between the observer and the one who is continuously emitting the light.Here no source and nothing continuous emitting. just a photon of light that bounces off without being absorbed.

Anything else?
Click to expand...

I am on a train bouncing a ball up and down. You are standing on the platform watching the train pass by. According to you, the ball travels a path which is slanted. According to me, the path is not slanted. Why do yo think light will be any different? The light postulate only requires that the speed of light is the same in all frames, not the direction. If the direction were required to be the same in all frames, then "absolute motion" would also become a requirement. That's not relativity. :)
 
Neddy Bate said:
I am on a train bouncing a ball up and down. You are standing on the platform watching the train pass by. According to you, the ball travels a path which is slanted. According to me, the path is not slanted. Why do yo think light will be any different? The light postulate only requires that the speed of light is the same in all frames, not the direction. If the direction were required to be the same in all frames, then "absolute motion" would also become a requirement. That's not relativity. :)
Click to expand...

the reason i said why light can't go in slant direction is because light is different from balls or other objects. If ball is bouncing up and down in moving train,if an observer outside looks,ball is moving with large speed and slant too.. Well,light is not like ball. So why should we expect to slant when it is not like ball.. I know this contradicts relativity.. But i want right answers why it slants

ball is different from light. Ball is affected by motion of train while light is not.
 
ash64449 said:
the reason i said why light can't go in slant direction is because light is different from balls or other objects. If ball is bouncing up and down in moving train,if an observer outside looks,ball is moving with large speed and slant too.. Well,light is not like ball. So why should we expect to slant when it is not like ball.. I know this contradicts relativity.. But i want right answers why it slants

ball is different from light. Ball is affected by motion of train while light is not.
Click to expand...

simple, treat light like a ball :)
 
eram said:
simple, treat light like a ball :)
Click to expand...

no eram!! We cannot!! Because dutch astronomer de sitter showed that velocity of light cannot depend on the velocity of moving body emitting the light. Inother words,light cannot work just like ball
 
ash64449 said:
no eram!! We cannot!! Because dutch astronomer de sitter showed that velocity of light cannot depend on the velocity of moving body emitting the light. Inother words,light cannot work just like ball
Click to expand...

Yes we can. Think of photons.

The Lorentz Transformation ensures that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top