Relative Simultaneity: Flashlight in Moving Ship

In summary, if you are in the center of a ship moving at V to the right relative to Earth and you turn on a flashlight with two perfect reflectors on each end, you will observe the reflected light from both ends to hit you simultaneously. However, someone on Earth's inertial frame of reference will see the light hit the rear part of the ship first, due to the ship's movement. This is because the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference and the speed of light in vacuum is constant.
  • #36
gmalcolm77 said:
Yes, it is a what if question, but wouldn't an outside observer see a light?

OK, so let's get rid of the spaceship since we don't need it anyway. A photon traveling at c undergoes spontaneous parametric down-conversion when it runs into a crystal(not moving) and splits into two new photons. Would the two new photons be seen?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
gmalcolm77 said:
An electron traveling at c
Nothing with non-zero mass can travel at c. Rocket, electron, whatever.
 
  • #38
Ibix said:
Nothing with non-zero mass can travel at c. Rocket, electron, whatever

Sorry, typo corrected.
 
  • #39
gmalcolm77 said:
Sorry, typo corrected.
OK.
gmalcolm77 said:
OK, so let's get rid of the spaceship since we don't need it anyway. A photon traveling at c undergoes spontaneous parametric down-conversion when it runs into a crystal(not moving) and splits into two new photons. Would the two new photons be seen?
Of course (assuming there's something there to see them).

Edit: The problem with your earlier scenario is two-fold. First that it has a massive object traveling at the speed of light. Second that you are trying to imagine riding along with the object at the speed of light. The second one is impossible, directly from the invariance of the speed of light. The first one is impossible because mass, in relativity, is the modulus of the energy-momentum four-vector. That is zero for things traveling at the speed of light and non-zero for all other things. In other words "has zero mass" and "travels at the speed of light" turn out to be two ways of saying the same thing. Parametric down conversion has neither of these issues, unless you try to imagine riding beside one of the photons.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
OK. Great answers, thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
657
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
892
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
689
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
98
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
4
Replies
116
Views
6K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
Back
Top