At school, people commonly think about momentum and conservation of energy using the example of a car collision. A common phrase is "Do not try to think of two objects moving, think of one moving at the sum of both speeds and the other stopped. After all you are in one of the cars, and from your point of view, your are still and the wall is coming really fast!".  Does that principle apply to near light speeds? Will I see the other guy "growing" in my field of view and by projection, calculate his speed at $2c$ or will time dilatation work some kind of really cool phenomenon there?
28797
I understand that nothing can move faster than light due to time dilation. I want to build upon my understanding of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, so I came up with this hypothetical problem for myself:  If both particles are moving at 0.9c towards each other (according to an observer on Earth), what speed does each particle have relative to the other?  I'm stumped since I am only familiar with Newtonian classical mechanics to solve this (which would be wrong). I am aware of Lorentz' factor $\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}$ and the time dilation equation $t_m = \frac{t_o}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}$, but I'm not sure how to apply it in this instance. I'm just looking for a gentle push in the right direction. Edit: My prior research:  This article, ,  talks about the effect of a baseball thrown at 0.9c would have as it traveled towards a batter. This is not what I'm looking for since it doesn't explain the math behind finding the collision speed between two high velocity entities.  This question on Yahoo, , asks a similar question to mine, but no math is involved to demonstrate the calculations behind the reasoning.  This question on Physics.SE, , does not answer my question either. I have not been able to find a similar Physics.SE question which can provide me to clues to my own hypothetical question.  I have also Googled the following phrases:    i. &quot;collision faster than the speed of light&quot; ii. &quot;collision of high speed particles&quot; iii. &quot;lorentz transformation in a collision&quot; iv. &quot;collision analysis at light speed&quot;
114005
In an electromagnetic theory class, my professor introduced the concept of "action at a distance in physics". He said that:     If two charges are at some very large distance, and if any one of the charge moves, then the force associated with the charges changes instantaneously.   But according to Einstein, no information can travel faster than the speed of light.   So photons (the information carriers in electromagnetic force) cannot instantaneously deliver information.   So that we associate a field with the two charges and if any charge moves, there is a deformation in that field and this deformation travels with the speed of light and conveys the information.   If the field deformation information cannot travel more than the speed of light, how does the force instantaneously change at very large distances?
61731
No matter how fast you go, you will aways perceive the speed of light as constant. Taking that as a fact, the special relativity theory was formulated. Now, for what I understand about general relativity, just by standing here on the surface of the planet under the effect of gravity, my frame of reference is a little different from someone in geostationary orbit, and time goes by a little slower for me.  So, considering me and someone in geostationary orbit, does both of us would perceive light at the same speed? If so, does that means that the light is slower down here than up there?
5487
I'm in a freshmen level physics class now, so I don't know much, but something I heard today intrigued me. My TA was talking about how at the research facility he worked at, they were able to accelerate some certain particle to "99.99% the speed of light". I said why not 100%, and I didn't quite understand his explanation, but he said it wasn't possible. This confused me. Since the speed of light is a finite number, why can we go so close to its speed but not quite?  Edit: I read all the answers, and I think I'm sort of understanding it. Another silly question though: If we are getting this particle to 99.99% the speed of light by giving it some sort of finite acceleration, and increasing it more and more, why cant we increase it just a little more? Sorry I know this is a silly question. I totally accept the fact we cant reach 100%, but I'm just trying to break it down. If we've gotten so close by giving it larger and larger acceleration every time, why cant we just supply it with more acceleration? And how much of a difference is there between 99.99% the speed of light, and the speed of light? (I'm not really sure if "difference" is a good word to use, but hopefully you get what I'm asking).
17206
I'm studying special relativity and saw the 2 postulates of Einstein. The most remarkable one for me is the universal speed of light. Einstein postulated that the speed of light in vacuum is the same for all inertial observers, regardless of the motion of the source. But what if we are accelerating and we are changing from one inertial frame to another, how will we observe the speed of light? Is it still the same? I suggest it's not? Because I alread saw a small introduction to general relativity where the light will bend in a gravitational field and therefore also when you accelerate. So does the speed of light change because it bends?
35119
Time dilation, increase in mass, Lorentz contraction calcs all involve velocity of light in vacuum. But in optical media light slows down. So what of relativity calcs in media? Do we ever need to adjust the speed of light?
67769
As a lowly physics undergrad who has been chewing on this 2nd postulate of special relativity for a year or more, I simply can't wrap my head around reasons why it is true or how Einstein might have been convinced enough to propose this postulate.  Consider Alfred who is riding in a car travelling at 88 m/s with his headlights on and Bernard who is on the side of the road hitch hiking. Why does the light propagating from Alfred's car move at $c$ relative to both Alfred and Bernard, and not at $c$ + 88 m/s relative to Bernard?   The nifty results of special relativity all kind of hinge on this idea, and asking my professors in class hasnt really yielded an answer much more than "because we have never observed a case otherwise".
37590
Greatings!  I'm trying to understand special relativity and have one question bugging me.  In almost every book or video about the subject there is a thought experiment with moving light clock. I hope I need not elaborate on the sutup and the outcome of the experiment.  So the question is this: When a light source on the MOVING light clock emits a photon of light the path of the photon is triangular.   How this can be?   I thought since light speed is constant in every reference frame the movment of the "emmiter" can't affect the movment of the light so light should shoot right up (from the point of stationary observer) and thus move backward and up from the point of moving observer.  So you see my logic is: light speed is invariant => you can't make it move UP &amp; FORWARD only UP. i.e. you can't change it's direction once it's emited in UP direction. Why the hell light moves sideways then?  And I'm puzzeled. There is flaw in the logic but I don't see it.  Thanks for help.
8788
I'm guessing you're all familiar with the classic intuitive way of explaining time dilation: with a light clock traveling at velocity v directed at a parallel direction to the mirrors that make up the light clock.   Now, what happens if we have a light clock that goes upwards at v? That is to say, what if its velocity is in a direction perpendicular to the mirrors' orientations? As far as I can tell, this situation wouldn't present any time dilation. Thoughts?
121167
Let’s say you have a 3000 lb vehicle moving very slow at 1 kilometer per hour. It seems obvious that you could simultaneously determine its position and momentum at any point along the way but does the uncertainty principle still apply even here?  You should be able to calculate this at a future point. If not then why not? If so then at what point do you revert back to uncertainty?
94175
If an observer approaches a clock at a significant fraction of the speed of light, would they see the clock's hands moving at a faster or slower than usual rate?  I figure there are two competing effects at play - time dilation and diminishing distance.
66800
There is a problem with my logic and I cannot seem to point out where. There's a rocket ship travelling at close-to-c speed v without any acceleration (hypothetically), and there is an observer AA with a clock A on Earth, and there's another observer on the rocket BB with a clock B and these two clocks were initially in sync when the rocket was at rest with a FoR (frame of reference) attached to Earth. Now, this rocket's moving and AA tells us that B is running slower than A by a factor of$$ \gamma = 1 /(1-v^2/c^2)^{1/2} $$ $$ t_A/t_B = \gamma $$ where v is the relative 1d- velocity between the two i.e the earth and the rocket! That would mean the time elapsed on A is greater than that on B but this will happen only in the FoR of AA? So $t_B$ in this equation must be the time on B as observed by AA? Is this correct? What do the terms mean in the equations? If the symmetry holds and BB doesn't accelerate, then BB could say that $$ t_B/t_A = \gamma $$ right? where $t_B$ and $t_A$ are the times on B and A with respect to FoR of BB? But I was solving this problem and I took the earth FoR of A, but the prof took the rocket FoR of B? Like how will I know which FoR to solve the problem from? It'd greatly help if the terms in all the above equations were laid down neatly! DO we even need these FoRs?? Because in all the solved problems the prof is't specifying any and is using random ones! Please help!!!! This is the question where I messed up. The first rocket bound for Alpha Centauri leaves Earth at a velocity (3/5)c. To commemorate the ten year anniversary of the launch, the nations of Earth hold a grand celebration in which they shoot a powerful laser, shaped like a peace sign, toward the ship.  According to Earth clocks, how long after the launch (of the rocket) does the rocket crew first see the celebratory laser light?  This must be 25 years. My reasoning is: If v = 3c/5 10v + vt = ct where t is time taken by the light to reach the rocket from Earth as calculated from Earth.. and I solved that for t. and added 10 years to that because the time starts at the launch of the rocket!  According to clocks on the rocket, how long after the launch does the rocket crew first see the celebratory laser light?  This is 20 years. Here, I say: If it takes 25 years as observed by clocks on earth for the laser to reach the rocket, what should be the corresponding time as seen on a clock on the rocket? Using the formula: 25 = $\gamma$t where $\gamma$= 5/4 solved for t!  According to the rocket crew, how many years had elapsed on the rocket's clocks when the nations of Earth held the celebration? That is, based on the rocket crews' post-processing to determine when the events responsible for their observations took place, how many years have passed on the rocket's clocks when the nations of Earth hold the celebration?  For this, I did the following: 10 years on earth = T years on rocket ship where T must be lesser than 10 as observed from Earth FoR! Therefore, T= 4(10)/5 years = 8 years! But, prof says, 10 years on Earth = T years in rocket ship where T must be GREATER than 10 as observed from the rocket FoR??? Therefore, T = 10(5/4) years = 12.5 years!! What does this question actually want?
14407
I read that an object at rest has such a stupendous amount of energy, $E=mc^2$ because it's effectively in motion through space-time at the speed of light and it's traveling through the time dimension of space-time at 1 second per second as time goes forward.  What troubles me here, is the fact that it is traveling through space-time at the speed of light. Why is it at the speed of light?
72397
I don't fully understand what would happen if we could travel at the speed of light. But I saw somewhere here that it would mean events happen out of order. But why is this a problem. It is said that cause has to happen before the effect, but why does this have to be linear?   And why is it that the speed of light is the maximum? I take it that light (photons?) are massless, so why can't they travel faster?
106628
I've been trying to learn about the speed of light and time dilation, but I'm at an impasse.  The presented facts say that if I travel around the solar system at 50% the speed of light and then come back to earth I will have experienced less local passage of time than them. I will effectively have traveled to their future. I've also read that gravity causes time dilation too.  I understand that space-time is a sort of unified thing and that affecting space affects time. It makes sense then that gravitational forces bending space will also bend time. But velocity? I can't wrap my head around it and I can't find a good explanation for it.  People cite orbiting craft and planes as proof of time dilation, since their clocks will go slower than those in the surface (and vice-versa). This certainly explains gravitational time-dilation, but not necessarily velocity. Can't the change in local time passage be caused solely by the gravitational bending of space-time?   Trying to find an answer, I came to a very recurring and frustrating example in texts that seek to explain time dilation. A man on a moving train throws a ball forward. Since he's moving with the train and the train is his point of reference, the ball to him only moves at the speed he threw it. But to a woman on the station the ball is moving at the speed of the train plus the speed it was thrown with. To some authors, this seems to open the mind to time-dilation understanding. To me it only explains the relative nature of motion. It says nothing of time.  Another example I've found: if person A speeds away from person B very quickly, A's clock will seem to advance slower from B's point of view. How is this time dilation, though? The difference can be explained by the longer time it takes light to get to B, can't it?  I realize I can't be right against the fine physicists out there, so I was hoping someone here could enlighten me. Where does the notion that velocity causes time-dilation come from?
29658
I have looked online to no avail.  There is two competing answers and I am curious to know which one is right.  Someone asked me this question.  If you are traveling at the speed of light can you see your reflection in a mirror in front of you?  My answer to the question is no, I would figure that in order for that to happen the light reflecting off you that would appear in the mirror must travel faster than the speed of light to actually reach the mirror (which we all know is impossible).  He says the answer is yes, that it is all relative to the current frame of reference.   Can anyone validate the correct answer with possible references?
52708
I am having a bit of confusion, let us say there are two observers observing two simultaneous lightning strikes with a finite distance between them. Now one observer is located such that he is in between the two lightning strikes, while the other is near to one strike and away from the other. In this scenario, the observer situated in between will perceive the lightning strikes to be simultaneous while the other will perceive them differently, since he is close to one and far from the other. Does this mean the Principle of Relativity holds even without actual motion?