Is the Speed of Light Constant in All Reference Frames?

[Rupe]

Suppose we create an object which can cross the speed of light. Now, we can see an object when the light reflected from the object enters the eye. So, we can see the object moving at light only if the light from the object enter our eye. But its said every where that the speed of light is 3x10^8 mps. So if the object is moving at a speed x mps greater than the speed of the light, then with respect to the object, the light reflected from the object will be moving in the opposite direction as that of the object. Isnt it so? Or will the light reflected from the object will also have a speed of 3x10^8 mps with reference to the object, so that the total speed of the light with respect to an observer at rest with respect to the reference plane with which the object was measured to be moving at 3x10^8 mps, will be 6x10^8 mps?

also, I studied that the light has dual nature, both as a particle and a wave. If the light is considered as a particle, whatever kind of particle it turn out to be, at this speed, there should be some resistance posed on the particles not negligible, if it is passing through a medium, and hence, shall not it decelerate to a lower speed?

If any of the above statement given is just an utter nonsense, please provide me the answer of at least, with what reference plane do we take the speed of the light as 3x10^8 mps, because, as per Einstein, speed is relative.

 

[Doc Al]

Suppose we create an object which can cross the speed of light.

No can do. That's an unphysical assumption that violates what we know about how the world works. But you can make your point with an object moving at 0.99c.

Now, we can see an object when the light reflected from the object enters the eye. So, we can see the object moving at light only if the light from the object enter our eye. But its said every where that the speed of light is 3x10^8 mps. So if the object is moving at a speed x mps greater than the speed of the light, then with respect to the object, the light reflected from the object will be moving in the opposite direction as that of the object. Isnt it so? Or will the light reflected from the object will also have a speed of 3x10^8 mps with reference to the object, so that the total speed of the light with respect to an observer at rest with respect to the reference plane with which the object was measured to be moving at 3x10^8 mps, will be 6x10^8 mps?

If, with respect to some frame, the object moves to the East at 0.99c and light reflects off of it moving to the West (at speed c, of course), then the separation rate of the light and the object will be 1.99c according to the original frame. (But note that nothing moves faster than light in this example.)

If any of the above statement given is just an utter nonsense, please provide me the answer of at least, with what reference plane do we take the speed of the light as 3x10^8 mps, because, as per Einstein, speed is relative.

Light travels at that speed with respect to any inertial frame.

 

[HallsofIvy]

The fact that "speed is relative" goes back to Galileo. It was Maxwell's equations, that had the speed with which an electron was moving affected the electric field that seemed to contradict that. Then Einstein showed that the two were compatible if the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames.

 

[ZealScience]

Suppose we create an object which can cross the speed of light. Now, we can see an object when the light reflected from the object enters the eye. So, we can see the object moving at light only if the light from the object enter our eye. But its said every where that the speed of light is 3x10^8 mps. So if the object is moving at a speed x mps greater than the speed of the light, then with respect to the object, the light reflected from the object will be moving in the opposite direction as that of the object. Isnt it so? Or will the light reflected from the object will also have a speed of 3x10^8 mps with reference to the object, so that the total speed of the light with respect to an observer at rest with respect to the reference plane with which the object was measured to be moving at 3x10^8 mps, will be 6x10^8 mps?

No, in order for the object to observe the light moving at speed of light object moving at speed of light has a infinitively dialated time which means, the time frame of the object comes to a halt which is not possible. Simply use Lorentz transformation of mass you would see that object moving a tiny little bit slower than light would have huge mass which obstrude it from reaching the speed of light.

In my opinion, time must be negative, when object is moving faster than light (IF it is possible), for the sake of the same argument. Which means time is flowing back, but how do you observe a object traveling back in time?

also, I studied that the light has dual nature, both as a particle and a wave. If the light is considered as a particle, whatever kind of particle it turn out to be, at this speed, there should be some resistance posed on the particles not negligible, if it is passing through a medium, and hence, shall not it decelerate to a lower speed?

Never, resistance like air resistance is caused by collision with air molecules, simply think about air molecules, they are constantly colliding with others but are gas molecules decelerating?

Also, photons (particles of light in quantum mechanics) only change mass (together with frequency) when there is a change in KE or momentum. While deceleration is simply losing KE, thus speed doesn't change.

If any of the above statement given is just an utter nonsense, please provide me the answer of at least, with what reference plane do we take the speed of the light as 3x10^8 mps, because, as per Einstein, speed is relative.

? How can light travel at 3x10^8 mps? If you say Einstein, you are wrong. Einstein only said to EVERY reference frame, speed of light is CONSTANT!

 

[ZealScience]

So, you can say that speed is relative in different coordinates, but they are relative following the Lorentz Transformation, NOT the Gallileo transformation. Afterall, the basic idea of Einstein is that speed of light is always constant, EVEN to objects that are traveling at the speed of light or even faster (again if possible).

 

[ZealScience]

The fact that "speed is relative" goes back to Galileo. It was Maxwell's equations, that had the speed with which an electron was moving affected the electric field that seemed to contradict that. Then Einstein showed that the two were compatible if the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames.

I think they are only compatible at low speed, because at low speed, Lorentz transformation makes no difference with Galileo's. Lorentz transformation makes light always travel at c.

 

[Rupe]

Dear Doc Al, What we know are limited to our universe. Nothing Beyond that has been considered yet. But something called anti-matter has been suggested(I hope). The properties of antimatter might be completely different. So you can't prove it unphysical assumption.

And, A scientist named Dr.Sudarsan had theorytically proved the presence of some matter which has a speed greater than that of light! I don't think it has been disproved, though not proved practically.(This is what i heard, and don't really know if the information is completely correct or not)

 

[ZealScience]

Dear Doc Al, What we know are limited to our universe. Nothing Beyond that has been considered yet. But something called anti-matter has been suggested(I hope). The properties of antimatter might be completely different. So you can't prove it unphysical assumption.

And, A scientist named Dr.Sudarsan had theorytically proved the presence of some matter which has a speed greater than that of light! I don't think it has been disproved, though not proved practically.(This is what i heard, and don't really know if the information is completely correct or not)

Antimatter has been dicovered for long time. I think you are talking about the matter that can annilate with normal matter (If you are not talking about it then another story here). Do you know any thing about mesons? They consist of quarks and the anti-particles of quarks. Antimatter is not mysterious to us any more. Instead dark matter and dark energy, as well as virtual matter and particles (with negative energy) introduced by quantum mechanics are more mysterious. I don't think Dr.Sudarsan isn't winning, as he is against a more complete physics system than 100 years ago, it's harder for him than Mr Planck to win.

 

[Doc Al]

Dear Doc Al, What we know are limited to our universe. Nothing Beyond that has been considered yet. But something called anti-matter has been suggested(I hope). The properties of antimatter might be completely different. So you can't prove it unphysical assumption.

As ZealScience points out, antimatter is well known. It has mass just like ordinary matter, so it too cannot exceed the speed of light.

And, A scientist named Dr.Sudarsan had theorytically proved the presence of some matter which has a speed greater than that of light! I don't think it has been disproved, though not proved practically.(This is what i heard, and don't really know if the information is completely correct or not)

You're thinking of tachyons, a hypothetical particle that always travels greater than light speed. As far as I know there's no evidence that they actually exist.

Regardless, the speed of reflected light will just be c, as usual.

 

[Fredrik]

Suppose we create an object which can cross the speed of light.

It's OK to start a question with "suppose I eat a trillion hamburgers" or something equally unrealistic, but you're asking us to assume that the theory we need to use to answer your question is logically inconsistent. That doesn't make sense, because if the theory is logically inconsistent, it doesn't answer any questions.