Questioning Light Speed: An Advanced Physics Mystery

wilders
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

First I want to say that I hardly know anything about advanced physics, and I'm just looking to ask something that I've been thinking about for a while. So I'd also appreciate if you kept the explanation somewhat understandable :P

Anyway, here's my question:

If light from one source goes in the opposite direction of light of another source, wouldn't that mean that they would go 2 times the speed of light (2c), RELATIVE to each other?
I'm pretty sure this is not the case, but what I do not understand is why it isn't the case.

Hopefully you understand what I mean x_x
Thanks in advance :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When we say "velocity of object A relative to object B," we mean "the velocity of A as 'seen' by B" (or more technically "the velocity of A in a reference frame in which B is at rest"). This can never be greater than c.

You're asking about "the difference in the velocities of A and B as 'seen' by a third object C which is not moving along with either A or B." This is a different thing, and it's OK for this to be greater than c. In fact it can be as great as 2c, as in your example.

The reason they're different is that velocities don't "add" in relativity the same way as they do in classical mechanics:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel2.html

There's another issue in that the "velocity of an object relative to a photon", using the definition in the first paragraph above, doesn't make any sense, because there is no reference frame in which a photon is at rest.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511170
 
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...

Similar threads

Back
Top