Quiz: It’s noon on the spring equinox and you’re standing at the equator; the sun is directly overhead. Suppose that light takes exactly 8 minutes to travel the distance between us and the sun. Where would you have to point a laser in order to hit the sun dead-center?
-
Show this thread
-
^^^ a little physics/geometry puzzle I made up as a teenager I suggest trying to answer yourself before checking the replies for spoilers.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
The answer (near as I can reason): If we model the sun as stationary and the earth as doing all the movement, then to hit the sun, you just have to aim directly at it. The fact that the sun appears to move in the sky as light takes time to travel is a red herring.
3 replies 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @KevinSimler
I was thinking the only error should be from Earth's orbital velocity. Avg. appears to be 30 km/s, which the light would inherit, throwing it off by ~14,400 km by the time it gets to the Sun (only 1% of its diameter).
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @royhaddad
Thanks! This is something I’ve always wondered about, and am still confused by. Can you explain with a few more words?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KevinSimler @royhaddad
I'll take a shot at this. Whenever you trigger the laser, it's velocity can be decomposed into a vector of [very nearly c towards the sun, ~14km/s (sic) perpendicular to that]. The magnitude of that vector will be a speed of c, by relativity.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
30km/s*. And that's perpendicular to your aim because the Earth's velocity is tangential to the orbit, therefore perpendicular to the orbit's radius (your aim). Within the error factor of Earth orbit's ovalness.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
(I didn't check any of these numbers, but the explanation should hold.) I have no idea if relativity would meaningfully effect the result. Modeling light as Newtonian is a dangerous game. Solving the angle to actually hit dead center is some trig, or linear algebra?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Thanks, now I understand. You’re just modeling light as a very fast Newtonian particle which inherits the (almost negligible) lateral velocity of Earth. (I needed it spelled out as “Newtonian” to avoid getting confused by my hazy understanding of relativity.)
-
-
Replying to @KevinSimler @LaissezWhere
Yes, Adam has my thinking right. I figured the Newtonian model should work here because light carries momentum and it’s always conserved
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.