Does the single speed of light mean an absolute frame of reference?

[xyzt]

 

I am trying to argue that, because light moves at a constant speed in all frames of reference, this means that light must first be moving at a constant speed to a 'universal frame of reference', as a first requirement to produce that result.

No, it doesn't. You have been at this for quite a while.

[LaurieAG]

However, there is no reason to think that there is any such absolute frame, is there?

 

Apart from inclusion of a common reference frame to anchor the practical application of the theory.

 

Does our system of dates have an 'absolute' frame of reference, or how about our time or latitude or longitude?

Just because their start points are arbitrary doesn't mean that they are not a form of 'absolute' reference frame for most practical intents and purposes.

[Strange]

 

Apart from inclusion of a common reference frame to anchor the practical application of the theory.

 

Does our system of dates have an 'absolute' frame of reference, or how about our time or latitude or longitude?

Just because their start points are arbitrary doesn't mean that they are not a form of 'absolute' reference frame for most practical intents and purposes.

 

That is not the same thing. You are using "absolute" to mean common or agreed upon.

 

There is no absolute calendar system that can tell you what the date "really" is. In the same way, there is no absolute frame of reference that can tell you what your speed or position "really" is.

[imatfaal]

 

Apart from inclusion of a common reference frame to anchor the practical application of the theory.

 

Does our system of dates have an 'absolute' frame of reference, or how about our time or latitude or longitude?

Just because their start points are arbitrary doesn't mean that they are not a form of 'absolute' reference frame for most practical intents and purposes.

 

Further to Strange's post which I agree with. Laurie - latitude and longitdue, and our system of dates are, by their very nature, relative not absolute.

 

You only need look at the discrepancy between the Gregorian Calendar, the Islamic (a lunar), the Hindu (a lunisolar), the Tax year, and Unix time to realise that any arbitrary starting point, progression speed, and division/subdivision length is useable; you just need people to understand what the relationship is between your arbitrary calendar and their arbitrary calendar. There is no "correct" day to start the year.

 

Similarly with lat. and long. - zero is only Greenwich because England won a battle of silly posturing against France - some countries still use their own meridians. Again you have to agree where to start from - that, in its nature, shows that the system is not absolute, it is relative; the position is 88 degrees West of Greenwich and 33 degrees north of the equator - all relative.

[between3and26characterslon]

 

Perhaps it would help if I reverse the question...

 

If two objects are side by side, and remain so, is it possible that they are NOT in the same reference frame?

 

If it is possible that they are not in the same reference frame, then I will re-assess my conclusion.

 

So the only way for you to accept you are wrong is if it is shown another area of physics is wrong?

 

Are you saying that the two photons are travelling at "c" relative to an absolute frame and everyone measures the speed of light to be "c" relative to this absolute frame regardless of their speed relative to the absolute frame?

 

Or are you simply mocking people on this forum by perpetuating a ridiculus notion that if a is true b must be true with no logical reason to support it.

 

Two photons are moving side by side therefore the Moon made of cheese!

[robinpike]

 

So the only way for you to accept you are wrong is if it is shown another area of physics is wrong?

 

Are you saying that the two photons are travelling at "c" relative to an absolute frame and everyone measures the speed of light to be "c" relative to this absolute frame regardless of their speed relative to the absolute frame?

 

Or are you simply mocking people on this forum by perpetuating a ridiculus notion that if a is true b must be true with no logical reason to support it.

 

Two photons are moving side by side therefore the Moon made of cheese!

 

I'm not sure how that has been concluded from my question?

 

My question was: if two photons are moving side by side, are they in the same reference frame?

 

Or the other way to ask the same question: if two photons are moving side by side, is it possible that they are not in the same reference frame?

 

The reason for wanting the answer agreed to that question, is because of this observation...

 

Two photons moving side by side need not have originated from the same point in space and time. For example, a photon from a star a thousand light years from us, reaches us and as it passes by, we can create a photon such that the two move side by side with each other.

 

So in that situation, assuming the answer to the question above is that they are moving in the same reference frame, what is the connection between how those two photons have been created?

 

So getting back to my opening question: Is it possible that these two photons were created against the same reference frame? And then, since there is nothing special with how those two photons were chosen, does that mean that all photons are created against the same reference frame? i.e. an absolute frame of reference?

Edited August 27, 2014 by robinpike

[Strange]

My question was: if two photons are moving side by side, are they in the same reference frame?

 

No. Because the photon does not have a valid frame of reference.

 

Or the other way to ask the same question: if two photons are moving side by side, is it possible that they are not in the same reference frame?

 

 

No. Because the photon does not have a valid frame of reference.

 

Two photons moving side by side need not have originated from the same point in space and time. For example, a photon from a star a thousand light years from us, reaches us and as it passes by, we can create a photon such that the two move side by side with each other.

 

Possible. Perhaps inevitable that some light from the Earth will be moving parallel to some light from a distant star, I suppose.

 

So in that situation, assuming the answer to the question above is that they are moving in the same reference frame, what is the connection between how those two photons have been created?

 

There is no connection between them. Why should there be? And as neither of them are in a reference frame, then they cannot be in the same one.

 

Is it possible that these two photons were created against the same reference frame? And then, since there is nothing special with how those two photons were chosen, does that mean that all photons are created against the same reference frame? i.e. an absolute frame of reference

 

I kind of see what you are thinking now. It is wrong because there is no reference frame. It is also wrong because, even if that were a valid reference frame, it would just be one of an infinite number for every possible direction that light could move in. And these would all be different for different observers.

 

So, in at least three ways: not a reference frame and not absolute.

[robinpike]

 

No. Because the photon does not have a valid frame of reference.

 

 

No. Because the photon does not have a valid frame of reference.

 

 

Possible. Perhaps inevitable that some light from the Earth will be moving parallel to some light from a distant star, I suppose.

 

 

There is no connection between them. Why should there be? And as neither of them are in a reference frame, then they cannot be in the same one.

 

 

I kind of see what you are thinking now. It is wrong because there is no reference frame. It is also wrong because, even if that were a valid reference frame, it would just be one of an infinite number for every possible direction that light could move in. And these would all be different for different observers.

 

So, in at least three ways: not a reference frame and not absolute.

 

This is good - I now understand the replies to my question.

[Strange]

 

This is good - I now understand the replies to my question.

 

Phew!

[phyti]

 

I'm not sure how that has been concluded from my question?

 

My question was: if two photons are moving side by side, are they in the same reference frame?

 

Or the other way to ask the same question: if two photons are moving side by side, is it possible that they are not in the same reference frame?

 

The reason for wanting the answer agreed to that question, is because of this observation...

 

Two photons moving side by side need not have originated from the same point in space and time. For example, a photon from a star a thousand light years from us, reaches us and as it passes by, we can create a photon such that the two move side by side with each other.

 

So in that situation, assuming the answer to the question above is that they are moving in the same reference frame, what is the connection between how those two photons have been created?

 

So getting back to my opening question: Is it possible that these two photons were created against the same reference frame? And then, since there is nothing special with how those two photons were chosen, does that mean that all photons are created against the same reference frame? i.e. an absolute frame of reference?

Why does the absolute fixed frame keep coming up?

Not because people can’t think. There are many creative minds in the world, but all aren’t interested in physics. It could be because given the fact of constant light speed in space, the inquiring mind expects a constant feature in space itself. If we begin with the obvious, events don’t move, then it’s simple to form a hypothetical fixed frame of events. An analogy would be watching fireflies at night in your yard.

If you are a forming a theory involving light and object motion, you would require such a frame when expressing relative light motion using terms like (c±v). After developing the theory, you find that the moving frames behave like the fixed frame, with respect to the rules of physics. The fixed frame served a purpose, but because it is not observable does not imply it is non existent.