Light as a semi-absolute reference frame

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 15
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 94
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10

The reason measurements of velocity are relative is because the measurer has its own non-zero velocity that affect the measurement. A car has a total velocity larger than what we measure on the surface because the observer isn't taking into account his own movement as the Earth spins. If you could know your own velocity perfectly, you could calculate the velocity of everything else. The problem is that to know your own velocity you must measure it from another reference frame, which also isn't sure of its own velocity. We need a constant reference frame to find absolute velocity. 

Light might be that constant reference frame.

Light moves at a constant speed; its not affected by the movement of its source, only the direction of travel. If you wanted to know whether or not your spaceship was moving, you could aim a laser beam at the wall and see if it missed the mark; which it would only do if the spaceship itself was moving. If you came to the point where the laser would always hit its target perfectly (and I mean, perfectly), then your spaceship would be AT REST, RELATIVE TO THE UNIVERSE ITSELF. Any movement external observers measured from your spaceship would be caused by their velocity relative to the universe, not yours. You would experience no time dilation.

Why?

Light is a wave in the electromagnetical field. It has no mass and is moving at the maximum speed the universe allows. Light moves at C, relative to the universe itself. For this reason, it can be used to measure absolute velocity with some calculations and knowledge of this principle. 
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,152
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Benjamin
When light passes through some mediums, such as water, it slows down considerably. In the case of diamond, its speed is cut by over 50 per cent. But according to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, the speed of light in the vaccum of empty space is said to be the same for all observers, at just short of 300,000km/s.

This is undoubtedly weird, as every other speed is measured relative to something else. For example, a train can move at 150km/h relative to someone on a platform, but to the train’s passengers its speed is pretty much zero. The speed of light is no ordinary speed, however: it’s a universal constant that emerges from the laws of physics. 

Specifically, it’s the speed at which electromagnetic waves travel through the vacuum of space – and its value can be predicted by equations unifying our understanding of electricity and magnetism, as discovered over 150 years ago by the Scottish physicist and mathematician James Clerk Maxwell.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,326
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
Voyager suggests that empty space, might not be as empty as we thought.

And semi-absolute is a contradiction in terms.

A bit like half-full or half-empty.
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 94
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
Excatly. C is the speed of electromagnetic propagation; and not only that, gravity also moves at the speed of light. One could say that it is the speed of causality. And since we can calculate it without needing measurements or reference frames, it can act as an objective standard for comparison of velocity. By knowing your velocity relative to C, you could use the measured velocities of objects relative to you to calculate their objective velocity. If two independent observers did this, they would agree on the velocity of each other relative to C. 
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Benjamin
Here's a thinker... Can you design an experiment that can prove the statement "Light moves at a constant speed"? For two given points A and B it is possible to measure how long it takes light to go from A to B then back again then assume light moves at a constant speed and divide that your result by two to find that speed, but is it possible to design an experiment that can directly measure the speed from A to B without relying on it going back from B to A and that doesn't run into relativity time dialation problems (since velocity is distance/time and therefore relies on velocity as a factor)?
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
 (since velocity is distance/time and therefore relies on velocity as a factor)?
I meant to say time. Velocity relies on time as a factor.
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 94
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The evidence for Einsteins theory of relativity is overwhelming; and it assumes the speed of light to be constant. The slowing of light in different enviroments is due to its path being affected, as evidenced by the slowing of light in water causing refraction. Time dilation is a result of processes slowing down when an object moves faster; and they slow down specifically because causation is limited by the speed of light. Interactions happen less frequent when electromagnetic waves have to spend alot of travelling time just to reach the other particles in an object.

If an object moved faster than light, internal interactions would stop completely as the particles would not be able to communicate with each other via electromagnetism.


So yeah, the fact that no experiment can prove lightspeed to be constant is only explainable by the very theory that assumes it is. Hope that answers your question.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,152
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Can you design an experiment that can prove the statement "Light moves at a constant speed"?
Yes,  the most famous of these was the Michaelson-Morley experiment, which showed that the speed of light did not vary with direction or velocity by using the earth's own motion and rotation.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Benjamin
The evidence for Einsteins theory of relativity is overwhelming; and it assumes the speed of light to be constant. 
I am not arguing against relativity, just asking you to do a simple thought experiment. See if you can design a one-directional measurement of light speed. Einstein himself stated that very assumption was just an assumption of convenience. Exercise your brain a little bit, it's fun.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
I don't know the specifics of that experiment. I know that it's goal and published results were not an attempt to measure the speed of light, though common sense also tells me that experiments can lead to discoveries outside of their specific goals. How specifically then was a one-way measurement of light speed made?
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,152
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The Foucault Method:

  1. The first observation is made when the rotating mirror is not rotating. Light from a He-Ne laser is reflected from the rotating mirror and focused onto the fixed mirror. The fixed mirror reflects the image back onto the rotating mirror, which in turn reflects the light back through the lenses to reform the image, where it can be observed with the microscope.
  2. The second observation is made when the rotating mirror is rotating. Since it takes a finite amount of time for the light to traverse the distance between the fixed and rotating mirrors, the rotating mirror is in a slightly different position when the light returns after reflecting off the fixed mirror. This produces a displacement, which can be measured with the microscope.
  3. The displacement between the first and second observations is proportional to the transit time of the light to the angular velocity of the rotating mirror. With a very straightforward calculation, the speed of light can be calculated.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,326
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
Foucault's Method flawed from the outset.

Because despite it's potential.....If a mirror isn't rotating, then it's not a rotating mirror.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
By one-way measurement I mean a measurement method that requires the light to travel in only one direction. Sorry if that wasn't clear...
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't think you fully understand the proposed idea, which is okay given I don't think I really did either based on just the brief summary given so had to look it up. You can read more about it online but given that method was used over 170 years ago with 1800s instrumentation and arrived at a value for C that was only about 5% off of the currently accepted value I would say that's not bad. I don't think it was explained well here and I don't think I could do better without taking about an hour out of my night since I type so slow, which I don't feel like doing.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,326
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I understand the basic idea I think.

A scientific experiment whereby comparative data is used to calculate something......Standard methodology.

In this case the action of light in a variable environment, to determine lightspeed.


I just think that it would have been better to have said, when the rotatable mirror is not rotating, or is fixed.

A rotating mirror that is not rotating, is something of a contradiction.