As conscious observers, are we moving at the speed of light relative to light?

[boy230]

Are we not moving relative to light as well?

[ajb]

Well, the trouble is when anyone makes statments about things being relative they are usually talking about measurements made in inertial frames of reference. That is frames in which Newton's laws would hold. In particular, any inertial observer can consider himself to be at rest with respect to himself and use that inertial frame for his measurements. This is the rest frame of that observer.

 

Light however does not have a rest frame, it will be measured to be moving at the speed c in any inertial frame. So the question "are we not moving relative to light as well?" is ill-posed.

[phyti]

Are we not moving relative to light as well?

Light emission may be considered an absolute rest frame for two reasons.

Events don't move, and light speed is an absolute value independent of all material motion.

If it was not, there could not be a defined invariant interval between events.

 

Light moves relative to the observer, just as any thing moves relative to another thing. It just can't be measured because of compensating phenomena.

 

ajb

 

any inertial observer can consider himself to be at rest with respect to himself

 

 

any observer is at rest relative to himself

 

any object is at rest relative to itself

[ajb]

Light emission may be considered an absolute rest frame for two reasons.

I disagree, there are no absolute rest frames.

[phyti]

I disagree, there are no absolute rest frames.

 

Many do.

Not being detectable is not equivalent to not existing.

Where were all those 'fundamental' particles before they were 'discovered'?

 

More convincing is developing the theory from a fixed frame, then transforming to relative values.

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Hi phyti, we try and keep non-mainstream ideas seperate on this forum. To follow the rules you agreed to when you signed up you need to not reply to other peoples threads, nor make posts outside of speculations that are not considered mainstream.

 

Thank you.

[Zvonko]

Well, the trouble is when anyone makes statments about things being relative they are usually talking about measurements made in inertial frames of reference. That is frames in which Newton's laws would hold. In particular, any inertial observer can consider himself to be at rest with respect to himself and use that inertial frame for his measurements. This is the rest frame of that observer.

 

Light however does not have a rest frame, it will be measured to be moving at the speed c in any inertial frame. So the question "are we not moving relative to light as well?" is ill-posed.

I definitely don't have the repeated experience with Lorenz transformation that many here do, but I do want to say that this type of thought experiment should be acknowledged as a good tool (or platform) to ask questions from. It actually extends Einstein's thought experiment process and asks what would reality (and all the fundamental building blocks) look like from the perspective of traveling at c.

Given that c is (apparently) the only constant according to relativity, no matter what is being proposed here, surely there's no doubting the intrinsic fascination with the proposed perspective. For me it's a mind bender, maybe one that leads nowhere in the end, but isn't science about trying as many things as needed until we come across that one idea that can't be disputed (or better still explains things better that to date). Even if it comes to naught, seems to me that the mental challenge required hasn't been wasted as the mind has done the equivalent exercise of marathon - if done right.

BTW, I'm new here but am interested in different ways of looking at things. If this is in the wrong folder, can somebody please point me in the right direction ( although atm the term direction seems rather illusive to me ?

[swansont]

Given that c is (apparently) the only constant according to relativity

While c is indeed a constant (the same value for all within one frame of reference), another term that applies here is invariant, meaning that it's the same in all reference frames. There are a number of terms that are constants of nature, and there are quantities that are invariant. Light speed is an example of one that is both constant and invariant.

[ajb]

I definitely don't have the repeated experience with Lorenz transformation that many here do, but I do want to say that this type of thought experiment should be acknowledged as a good tool (or platform) to ask questions from.

It is a good tool which quickly shows you that the question is ill-posed, which in itself is a very important point in relativity.

[BusaDave9]

Speeds and motion are relative. Except for the speed of light. No matter how fast a spaceship is traveling light will always pass it up exactly as if it's standing still.

[DimaMazin]

We are moving at c/2 relative to light.

[BusaDave9]

We are moving at c/2 relative to light.

If you are talking about E=MC²

This is not talking about our speed relative to light.

Energy = Mass X Speed of light squared

That means if mass is converted to energy (such as a nuclear explosion) that the energy resulting is equal to the mass times the speed of light squared.

 

In other words there is a LOT of energy in a little mass.

[DimaMazin]

If you are talking about E=MC²

This is not talking about our speed relative to light.

Energy = Mass X Speed of light squared

That means if mass is converted to energy (such as a nuclear explosion) that the energy resulting is equal to the mass times the speed of light squared.

 

In other words there is a LOT of energy in a little mass.

We discuss question about speed.We don't discuss energy question. I meant our speed is half of speed of light relative to light.

[John Cuthber]

We are moving at c/2 relative to light.

The OP is wrong, but understandable.

This is just wrong.

I think the modnote earlier in the thread would apply to it.

If you want to say something speculative, do it in the speculations forum.

[BusaDave9]

We are moving at c/2 relative to light.

 

Please explain.

Actually I don't think you are speculating. I think you are misunderstanding physics.

 

In 1887 Mikchelson and Morley set out to find out the absolute speed of Earth. They knew light traveled at 186,000 miles per second so they performed experiments to see how fast light was traveling relative to Earth. (actually they were comparing the speed of light coming from different directions)

Their experiments showed that the Earth was not moving. They showed that light always passed by Earth exactly as if we were standing still. This was very confusing since they knew the Earth was spinning on its axis and the earth was in orbit around the sun and the sun was moving in the galaxy.

 

Then Einstein Showed that, although motion and speed is relative, the speed of light is always absolute. Light will always pass up the fastest spaceship as if it's standing still.

[swansont]

We are moving at c/2 relative to light.

No, we are not, according to relativity.

[DimaMazin]

The OP is wrong, but understandable.

This is just wrong.

I think the modnote earlier in the thread would apply to it.

If you want to say something speculative, do it in the speculations forum.

I would like to see the wrong equation of OP.

 

 

Please explain.

Actually I don't think you are speculating. I think you are misunderstanding physics.

 

In 1887 Mikchelson and Morley set out to find out the absolute speed of Earth. They knew light traveled at 186,000 miles per second so they performed experiments to see how fast light was traveling relative to Earth. (actually they were comparing the speed of light coming from different directions)

Their experiments showed that the Earth was not moving. They showed that light always passed by Earth exactly as if we were standing still. This was very confusing since they knew the Earth was spinning on its axis and the earth was in orbit around the sun and the sun was moving in the galaxy.

 

Then Einstein Showed that, although motion and speed is relative, the speed of light is always absolute. Light will always pass up the fastest spaceship as if it's standing still.

You have forgotten contracted distances in light frame.The fastest spaceship motion has insignificant change of distance between the fastest spaceship and the Earth in light frame,though changes exist.

[swansont]

I would like to see the wrong equation of OP.

 

 

You have forgotten contracted distances in light frame.The fastest spaceship motion has insignificant change of distance between the fastest spaceship and the Earth in light frame,though changes exist.

The erroneous math can be inferred from the contradiction in getting conflicting answers.

 

You cannot discuss the light frame; it is not a valid inertial frame

[DimaMazin]

The erroneous math can be inferred from the contradiction in getting conflicting answers.

 

You cannot discuss the light frame; it is not a valid inertial frame

Photon has no energetically inertial frame,but it can have particular inertial frame.

Our clocks have some own kinematic slowing of time, it doesn't mean we have no particular inertial frame.

[swansont]

Photon has no energetically inertial frame,but it can have particular inertial frame.

Our clocks have some own kinematic slowing of time, it doesn't mean we have no particular inertial frame.

 

Clocks have mass. Massless particles have no inertial frame.