User talk:Ashword

Eiensteins's second postulate regarding the " constant of the speed of light irrespective of the motion of source and observor" has been always a hair splitting exercise for beginers,  including myself, at least so far as its exposition is concerned. All of us has been realising it only at the intution level (following the null result of Michelon Morley experiment) or explaining it through a plea that " If such a stalwart of science is saying it ,it must be true. Then the deductions or the result have been also verified." . I would like to share one of my explanation of the same which I have been harbouring in my heart but could never dare to share it with anyone because it is little conceited from scientific point of view.

I think the entire confusion in the comprehension of the second postulate is on account of the fact that we take light to be a continuous wave motion. If we consider it from quantum point of view then every quanta ,that has left off the source (reflector or emitter), is like bullet coming out of pistol. Here is the issue what will be relative velocity of light if either of the two ,source and observor, or both are in motion at a constant velocity or accelrated with respect to each other. Now here are two caveats. First is that quanta has left the source so the source motion can't affect the velocity of quanta. Second is that a distant observor watch the source, not the quanta , exactly at the location quanta has left off. So differentialy source is always at rest, even if it has been moved up or down, of course next to impossible thing. So whatever may be the velocity of observor the issue of its relativity with the light i.e quanta  does not arise. If we employ antenna kind of thing, for invisible elcetromagnetic radiation , then the measurement is absolute not the relative. Relativity is an apparent phenomena for the observor who takes oneself to be at rest, the absolute values remain as it is.

Myself:Ashword