Transitivity condition for Einstein synchronization and the one-way light speed

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of one-way light speed being anisotropic and the use of the Einstein method to synchronize all watches. It is noted that this method does not necessarily guarantee synchronization between all watches and the one-way speed of light remains an observable quantity. The conversation also touches on the relationship between synchronization and rotation, and concludes that it does not provide any insight on the one-way speed of light. Finally, the proposed algorithm for measuring the one-way speed of light is discussed and it is noted that it does not align with Einstein's theory.
  • #1
elisir
25
0
1) Consider that one way light speed is anisotropic.
2) Use the Einstein method to synchronize all the watches by the watch located at (x,y,z)=(0,0,0).

Now, all the watches are synchronized by the watch at (0,0,0) but they are not necessarily synchronized with each-other (Consider watches that are not in one line). This means that the transitivity condition is not met by the synchronization. So the synchronization is not an equivalence relation. If so, the one-way light-speed is an observable quantity regardless of how we synchronize watches. Perhaps you are not agree with me, but could you spare me what I am missing? Or do you also want to accept that one way light speed is a measurable quantity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
elisir said:
Now, all the watches are synchronized by the watch at (0,0,0) but they are not necessarily synchronized with each-other (Consider watches that are not in one line).
How do you figure? If all the watches are at rest relative to one another, then if two pairs A,B and A,C meet Einstein's synchronization condition, then it's guaranteed that the pair B,C will meet it too.
 
  • #3
elisir said:
1) Consider that one way light speed is anisotropic.
2) Use the Einstein method to synchronize all the watches by the watch located at (x,y,z)=(0,0,0).

These two conditions contradict each other. It's not possible for both to be true at the same time. If you use the Einstein method to sync all watches then you have forced the one-way speed of light to be isotropic. If you sync the watches in such a way that the one-way speed of light is anisotropic then you haven't used the Einstein method.
 
  • Like
Likes cianfa72
  • #4
Consider a non-rotating inertial frame of reference. Then you can synchronize all clocks with a central clock via Einstein's method, and find that they are all synchronized with each other.

Now, however, suppose you are on a rotating frame of reference, a rotating disk. Then if you synchronize all clocks via Einstein's method to the central clock, you will find that the clocks at the edge are not synchronized via the Einstein's convention.

So, transivity of Einstein synchronization tells us something interesting about rotation, but I don't see how it tells us anything about the one-way speed of light.
 
  • #5
pervect said:
Consider a non-rotating inertial frame of reference. Then you can synchronize all clocks with a central clock via Einstein's method, and find that they are all synchronized with each other.

Now, however, suppose you are on a rotating frame of reference, a rotating disk. Then if you synchronize all clocks via Einstein's method to the central clock, you will find that the clocks at the edge are not synchronized via the Einstein's convention.

So, transivity of Einstein synchronization tells us something interesting about rotation, but I don't see how it tells us anything about the one-way speed of light.

I totally agree with your points about rotation.

Suppose that we are in an inertial frame. Then consider the triangle ABC.
a) Synchronise A and B with the Einstein method.
b) Synchronise A and C with the Einstein method.
c) Measure the light speed that travels from B to C.
d) Measure the light speed that travels from C to B.
The Einstein synchronisation implemented in "a" and 'b" does not guarantee that the results of "c" and "d" coincide to each other. This means measuring the one-way speed of light in my eyes.
 
  • #6
DrGreg said:
If you use the Einstein method to sync all watches then you have forced the one-way speed of light to be isotropic.
Use the Einstein method to sync all watches for the observer sitting at the origin. Then this observer can not measure the one-way speed of light. The one way-light speed is isotropic for this observer. But you have synchronised all the watches, so please ask other observers to measure the one-way speed of light.
 
  • #7
It is not possible for anyone to ever measure the one-way speed of light. We can only measure the "average" round trip speed of light using a mirror at some measured distance away and it always calculates to the constant c. Einstein postulates that each half of the round trip measurement takes the same amount of time and this enables us to use his method to synchronize all the clocks that are stationary with respect to each other. If we synchronize clocks A and B and we also synchronize clocks A and C, then we know that clocks B and C will also be synchronized. Remember, the process of "synchronizing clocks" is nothing more than "defining" the two directions of light travel time between two points to be equal. If, after applying this definition, we attempt to measure the one-way speed of light, of course we will get c, but that is because we defined it that way.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
ghwellsjr said:
It is not possible for anyone to ever measure the one-way speed of light. We can only measure the "average" round trip speed of light using a mirror at some measured distance away and it always calculates to the constant c. Einstein postulates that each half of the round trip measurement takes the same amount of time and this enables us to use his method to synchronize all the clocks that are stationary with respect to each other. If we synchronize clocks 1 and 2 and we also synchronize clocks 1 and 3, then we know that clocks 2 and 3 will also be synchronized.

I repeat myself. What is wrong with the algorithm below:
Suppose that we are in an inertial frame. Then consider the triangle ABC.
a) Synchronise A and B with the Einstein method.
b) Synchronise A and C with the Einstein method.
c) Measure the light speed that travels from B to C.
d) Measure the light speed that travels from C to B.
The Einstein synchronisation implemented in "a" and 'b" does not guarantee that the results of "c" and "d" coincide to each other. This means measuring the one-way speed of light in my eyes.
 
  • #9
Opps, I edited my post while you added your last post, but I answered your question in my previous post.

You need to edit your post again to be consistent since you have added "d" where I think you mean "b".
 
  • #10
ghwellsjr said:
You need to edit your post again to be consistent since you have added "d" where I think you mean "b".
I mean "d"

ghwellsjr said:
If we synchronize clocks A and B and we also synchronize clocks A and C, then we know that clocks B and C will also be synchronized.
I disagree with this point. If one-way light speed is anisotropic, synchronisation of A and C, and synchronisation of B and C does not necessarily imply synchronisation of A and B.

As a simplified example: Please draw a triangle. Assume a clockwise speed and an anti-clockwise one for light on the edge of the triangle. The light pulse that travels clockwise shall go faster or slower than the one on the anti-clockwise direction. This difference is independent of how you synchronise your watches on this special case placed on the corner of the triangle. This difference is a physical quantity, while you are arguing it is not.
 
  • #11
elisir said:
I repeat myself. What is wrong with the algorithm below:
Suppose that we are in an inertial frame. Then consider the triangle ABC.
a) Synchronise A and B with the Einstein method.
b) Synchronise A and C with the Einstein method.
c) Measure the light speed that travels from B to C.
d) Measure the light speed that travels from C to B.
The Einstein synchronisation implemented in "a" and 'b" does not guarantee that the results of "c" and "d" coincide to each other. This means measuring the one-way speed of light in my eyes.
It does guarantee it, at least if the two-way speed is still c. Try coming up with an example and doing the math, you'll see (for example, suppose that in your chosen coordinate system, light has a speed of c+v in one direction and c-v in the opposite direction)
 
  • #12
elisir said:
I mean "d"
Sorry, I didn't notice the difference in your lower-case nomenclature vs your upper-case.
elisir said:
I disagree with this point.
What specifically do you disagree with? That you cannot measure the one-way speed of light OR that you cannot define the two halves of the round-trip measured speed of light to take the same time OR just that synchronizing different pairs of clocks does not guarantee that other pairs will also be synchronized OR something else?
elisir said:
If one-way light speed is anisotropic, synchronisation of A and C, and synchronisation of B and C does not necessarily imply synchronisation of A and B.
Very true but Einstein defined light speed to be isotropic not anisotropic. If you want to define light speed to be anisotropic, then why do you care about Einstein's clock synchronization method?
elisir said:
As a simplified example: Please draw a triangle. Assume a clockwise speed and an anti-clockwise one for light on the edge of the triangle. The light pulse that travels clockwise shall go faster or slower than the one on the anti-clockwise direction. This difference is independent of how you synchronise your watches on this special case placed on the corner of the triangle. This difference is a physical quantity, while you are arguing it is not.
Are you suggesting a three-segment speed of light test in which we have two mirrors and one source/detector? First you aim the light at one mirror which reflects it over to the second mirror which then reflects it back to the source/detector and measure the time it takes for the pulse to get around back to the source/detector and then you repeat with the light aimed at the other mirror so that the light travels the same path in the reverse direction? Are you saying that if you perform this experiment you will get two different answers for the time it takes for the light to go around the triangle in the two different directions? If I understand your experiment correctly, why do you need to synchronize any watches when you can do the whole experiment with just one watch located at the source/detector of the light? Please clarify.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
ghwellsjr said:
Very true but Einstein defined light speed to be isotropic not anisotropic. If you want to define light speed to be anisotropic, then why do you care about Einstein's clock synchronization method?
Well, you can still analyze what will happen with clocks synchronized according to Einstein's method from the perspective of a coordinate system where the speed of light is anisotropic, you'll still get the same predictions about physical events like whether two clocks that have been previously synchronized with a third clock will be synchronized with each other (not 'synchronized' relative to this coordinate system, but 'synchronized' in the sense that if a signal is sent from one clock to the other and back, the midpoint of the readings when the signal left and returned to one clock is equal to the reading when the signal bounced off the other clock).
 
  • #14
ghwellsjr said:
source/detector? First you aim the light at one mirror which reflects it over to the second mirror which then reflects it back to the source/detector and measure the time it takes for the pulse to get around back to the source/detector and then you repeat with the light aimed at the other mirror so that the light travels the same path in the reverse direction? Are you saying that if you perform this experiment you will get two different answers for the time it takes for the light to go around the triangle in the two different directions? If I understand your experiment correctly, why do you need to synchronize any watches when you can do the whole experiment with just one watch located at the source/detector of the light? Please clarify.

Thank you. We don't need synchronisation. Synchronisation is not needed in closed path. But there seems to be an unhappy/redundant marriage between one-way speed of light and synchronisation in mind of people.
Thank you. It is exactly the method that directly measures the one-way speed of light. This is the Trimmer experiment. But I have faced a large inertia which keeps repeating that the one-way light speed is not a measurable quantity. But the Trimmer method measures anisotropy in the one way light speed, in fact it has measured it about 40 years ago.
 
  • #15
elisir said:
Thank you. We don't need synchronisation. Synchronisation is not needed in closed path. But there seems to be an unhappy/redundant marriage between one-way speed of light and synchronisation in mind of people.
Thank you. It is exactly the method that directly measures the one-way speed of light. This is the Trimmer experiment. But I have faced a large inertia which keeps repeating that the one-way light speed is not a measurable quantity. But the Trimmer method measures anisotropy in the one way light speed, in fact it has measured it about 40 years ago.
But I'm pretty sure the only way this experiment could fail to give equal times for the path in different directions would be if the two-way speed along any leg of the triangle (or any other straight-line path) was not equal to c. If that's correct, then I would say this experiment is not measuring anisotropy in the one way speed, rather it is just a particular type of test of the two-way speed.
 
  • #16
JesseM said:
But I'm pretty sure ..
I would highly appreciate it if you first would possibly put your "assurance" on a test on the simplified case I described above, repeated below:

Consider a triangle wherein the light speed in not the same for clockwise direction and anticlockwise one. In this example, the two-way speed of light is isotropic but it is the one-way speed which is not isotropic.
 
  • #17
elisir said:
I would highly appreciate it if you first would possibly put your "assurance" on a test on the simplified case I described above, repeated below:

Consider a triangle wherein the light speed in not the same for clockwise direction and anticlockwise one. In this example, the two-way speed of light is isotropic but it is the one-way speed which is not isotropic.
You're right, I was thinking of the type of anisotropic speed that results from doing a non-Lorentzian coordinate transformation on an inertial frame where the speed of light is isotropic (an example would be the Mansouri-Sexl transformation), but more generally it would be possible to have a theory where there is no frame in which the speed of light is isotropic.

An issue here is that if you have a theory with an anisotropic speed of light that isn't physically equivalent to SR (i.e. you can't do a coordinate transformation to get an SR inertial frame where the speed of light is isotropic), then even if you have one frame where observers at rest in that frame will measure the two-way speed to be c, I have my doubts that it'd be possible to have such a theory where observers moving at arbitrary constant velocities in this frame will also measure the two-way speed to be c regardless of which direction they aim the beam. And if there is only one preferred frame where the two-way speed is c, then experiments like the Michelson-Morley experiment should not be expected to show the two-way speed is constant when the experiment is performed at different points in the Earth's orbit.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
elisir said:
Consider a triangle wherein the light speed in not the same for clockwise direction and anticlockwise one. In this example, the two-way speed of light is isotropic but it is the one-way speed which is not isotropic.
That sounds like a test of rotation, not anisotropy. I.e. the Sagnac effect. You are correct that the Einstein synchronization is not transitive in a rotating reference frame.

That said, there has been some research in this area:
http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v31/i7/p482_s1?isAuthorized=no [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
DaleSpam said:
That sounds like a test of rotation, not anisotropy. I.e. the Sagnac effect. You are correct that the Einstein synchronization is not transitive in a rotating reference frame.

I agree that it can be used to test rotation too. But in this set-up, we do not need to keep something rotating. We just display the triangle a bit. Make it at rest with an inertial frame and perform the measurement. This is somehow similar to Sagnac effect, but it is not this effect.
 
  • #20
Can you demonstrate mathematically what the difference is? It sounds exactly the same to me.

Also, the triangle cannot be at rest in an inertial reference frame since an inertial reference frame by definition is one in which the one-way speed of light is isotropic and equal to c. So you are by definition considering non-inertial reference frames. From your description it sounds like the specific non-inertial reference frame you are considering is a rotating reference frame (i.e. same metric as a rotating frame).
 
  • #21
DaleSpam said:
Can you demonstrate mathematically what the difference is? It sounds exactly the same to me.

The mathematical framework for the triangular system is that of Trimmer experiment, extended to resonators in section II of
http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.2057

DaleSpam said:
Also, the triangle cannot be at rest in an inertial reference frame since an inertial reference frame by definition is one in which the one-way speed of light is isotropic and equal to c.
This is your assumption. If you assume that there exists a frame in which the Lightspeed is isotropic, you confine yourself to theories similar to that of Robertson-Mansuori-Sexl model. In these subset of theories, one-way light speed is isotropic.

DaleSpam said:
So you are by definition considering non-inertial reference frames. From your description it sounds like the specific non-inertial reference frame you are considering is a rotating reference frame (i.e. same metric as a rotating frame).
If so, please assume that this sound of my writing is accidental. I did not mean it.

If we measure the one-way light speed and its anisotropy's profile coincides to that predicted by being in a rotating frame we than conclude that our frame is rotating. The one-way light speed anisotropy chosen by nature, may not necessarily coincide to that of any rotating frame.
 
  • #22
When you described your triangular experiment in earlier posts, you didn't mention a piece of optical medium in one leg to slow down the speed of light which is what the Trimmer experiment had. Why? Do you consider it insignificant?

And from everything I could find about the Trimmer experiment, it yielded a null result, just like MMX. Why are you suggesting otherwise?

I looked at the paper that you linked to and it does not describe the results of an experiment but rather a proposed new experiment. Why did you reference it?

Finally, I cannot find enough information on the Trimmer experiment to understand what they actually did so could you please explain it?
 
  • #23
ghwellsjr said:
When you described your triangular experiment in earlier posts, you didn't mention a piece of optical medium in one leg to slow down the speed of light which is what the Trimmer experiment had. Why? Do you consider it insignificant?
Imagine an arbitrary deviation from one-way anisotropy. The glass is there, to measure just one particular deviation. Measuring the rest of deviations, do not need a glass.

ghwellsjr said:
And from everything I could find about the Trimmer experiment, it yielded a null result, just like MMX. Why are you suggesting otherwise?
I am not suggesting otherwise. The Trimmer experiment returned null results for one-way light speed. The MMX returns null results for anisotropy of two-way light speed.

ghwellsjr said:
I looked at the paper that you linked to and it does not describe the results of an experiment but rather a proposed new experiment. Why did you reference it?
You asked a mathematical framework for Sagnot and Trimmer experiment. I pinpoint to the mathematical framework for the Trimmer experiment. I hoped that this would helped you realize the distinction between Trimmer and Sagnot experiment.

ghwellsjr said:
Finally, I cannot find enough information on the Trimmer experiment to understand what they actually did so could you please explain it?
They considered a triangular interferometer. They measured how the phase difference between light moving clockwise and anticlockwise on the perimeter of the triangle, as function of the configuration of the triangle to the constant starts. They find no deviation for anisotropy of one way light speed with the precision of cm/s.

The whole aim of this post, is to rise the question and debate why now, today, some of us say and keep repeating that the one-way light speed can not be measured.
 
  • #24
When I keep repeating that the one-way speed of light cannot be measured, I am merely pointing out what Einstein said in his 1905 paper. He described the experimental method of measuring the round-trip speed of light using a source/detector and a mirror a measured distance away and timing the round trip and calculating the speed. He then explained that this does not say anything about the one-way speed of light and then made the bold statement that in any inertial reference frame, we are free to define the two halves of the round-trip measurement to take the same amount of time. This is the essence of SR.

Many people don't realize that this is what he is saying because they think the statement that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames is referring to something that has been measured and confirmed (which is true for the round-trip but not the one-way). If we could measure the one-way speed of light, we could identify an absolute rest frame and relativity would be out the window.
 
  • #25
ghwellsjr said:
When I keep repeating that the one-way speed of light cannot be measured, I am merely pointing out what Einstein said in his 1905 paper.

Einstein wrote his paper correctly. In page 3, of the english translation of his paper, here
www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
After defining synchronisation he writes that
We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions,
and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are
universally valid:
1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A syn-
chronizes with the clock at B.
2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock
at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.​
A general anisotropy of the one-way light speed contradicts these assumptions (provided that you use the Einstein method to synchronise all watches with the one at the origin, as this method is assumed in the paper). Nonetheless, the Einstein's work that introduces SR is right by itself.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
Prior to Einstein, everyone believe that there was an absolute aether rest frame and only in that one frame was light isotropic, in all other frames, light is anisotropic. They attempted to build a science on that concept.

Einstein said, you can define light to be isotropic in anyone of those other frames and it will be exactly the same as if it were the absolute aether rest frame.

So the issue of whether light is "really" anisotropic or isotropic in any inertial frame is moot in SR.

Einstein agreed that a general anisotropy of the one-way light speed apparently contradicts these assumptions but that it was only apparent and not a real contradiction.
 
  • #27
elisir said:
The mathematical framework for the triangular system is that of Trimmer experiment, extended to resonators in section II of
http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.2057
Thanks for the link. This is exactly what I thought you meant and it is what is known as a ring-laser. This type of device is well understood and uses the Sagnac effect to measure rotation. Note the discussion in the ArXiv about the beat frequency, which is the way a ring-laser measures rotation. You are, in fact, describing a rotating reference frame and you are, in fact, correct that Einstein synchronization is not transitive in rotating reference frames.

Your proposed experiment generates a shift (beat frequency) which is related to the rotation of the device in an inertial frame and not anyone way anisotropy. There is simply not enough information available from this experiment to measure anything more.

elisir said:
This is your assumption. ...
If we measure the one-way light speed and its anisotropy's profile coincides to that predicted by being in a rotating frame we than conclude that our frame is rotating. The one-way light speed anisotropy chosen by nature, may not necessarily coincide to that of any rotating frame.
No, it is not my assumption, it is the DEFINITION of an inertial frame that the speed of light is isotropic and equal to c.

I don't think that you understand the situation. There is NO WAY to measure the one-way speed of light, and there is no such thing as the one way speed of light "chosen by nature". The one way speed of light is something that a human being DEFINES by virtue of CHOOSING an arbitrary synchronization convention.

elisir said:
Imagine an arbitrary deviation from one-way anisotropy. The glass is there, to measure just one particular deviation.
That would introduce a deviation in the two-way anisotropy of the speed of light.
 
  • #28
DaleSpam said:
Your proposed experiment generates a shift (beat frequency) which is related to the rotation of the device in an inertial frame and not anyone way anisotropy. There is simply not enough information available from this experiment to measure anything more..
Do not keep the system rotating. Rotate the triangle. stop rotating. Now every thing is in inertial system. Measure the beat frequency. Does the beat frequency depend on the configuration of the triangle? if yes, you have detected the one-way anisotropy of light.

DaleSpam said:
No, it is not my assumption, it is the DEFINITION of an inertial frame that the speed of light is isotropic and equal to c..
Could you please spare me why you expect to find what you have defined as intertial frame in nature?

DaleSpam said:
I don't think that you understand the situation.
I totally disagree. Should I start to insult back? I understand you, I expect you reflect and try to understand me.

DaleSpam said:
There is NO WAY to measure the one-way speed of light.
You are wrong. There exist some ways. Your assumptions or pre-assumptions are not consistent.

DaleSpam said:
There is no such thing as the one way speed of light "chosen by nature". The one way speed of light is something that a human being DEFINES by virtue of CHOOSING an arbitrary synchronization convention.
If you refer to Einstein synchronisation, kindly refer to page three of the English translation of his original paper. He had been extremely careful to state his assumptions. Please take cautious, under the circumstances that his assumptions are violated you can not use the output of his assumptions.

DaleSpam said:
That would introduce a deviation in the two-way anisotropy of the speed of light.
This is hypocrisy, I was answering how a piece of glass is needed in that particular method to measure a particular profile of one-way light anisotropy. Your reply indicates that you are saying that for a piece of glass, light speeded changes in both directions inside it. We are both right. Please don't employ hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
elisir said:
1) Consider that one way light speed is anisotropic.
2) Use the Einstein method to synchronize all the watches by the watch located at (x,y,z)=(0,0,0).

Now, all the watches are synchronized by the watch at (0,0,0) but they are not necessarily synchronized with each-other (Consider watches that are not in one line). This means that the transitivity condition is not met by the synchronization. So the synchronization is not an equivalence relation. If so, the one-way light-speed is an observable quantity regardless of how we synchronize watches. Perhaps you are not agree with me, but could you spare me what I am missing? Or do you also want to accept that one way light speed is a measurable quantity?

My problem is, like many others, that although I realize that the speed of light may not be isotropic, the one way speed cannot even in principle be measured.

Irrespective of whether or not it can be done, it certainly has not been done. I am not familiar with modern methods of measuring c, but I would imagine that, if you can measure the average two way speed, then the technical ability to measure the one way speed is available, should it be possible in principle.

My knowledge of simple physics is not large but as far as I know, to measure speed you must know distance and time. Distance presumably is no problem, but time?

How do you break the circle of time and synchronization?

Please indulge the uninitiated amongst us, and provide an answer to this basic question, or tell me why it is not a problem or why the measurement has not been done.

Matheinste.
 
  • #30
matheinste said:
My knowledge of simple physics is not large but as far as I know, to measure speed you must know distance and time. Distance presumably is no problem, but time?
How do you break the circle of time and synchronization?
Imagine that streets have an upper speed limit and this speed limit is the light speed.
Imagine that you have a car that could instantly reach the speed of light.
Imagine that you don't want to get any speed ticket, but you will derive as fast as possible.
Imagine that streets are not symmetric. They do not have the same upper speed limit in opposite direction.

Now the one-million dollar question is that, can anyone measure the one-way speed limit by just looking at where and when you start deriving and when and where you stop?

Now look at this picture:
streets.jpg
This is the situation I described by words above.

If you derive in one direction and come back on the same path, reach to the point you started deriving from and tell us how much time your journey takes, we can not deduce the one-way upper speed in your path.

If you derive in a triangle, and tell us whether you rotated clockwise or anticlockwise, we can measure the one-way upper speed limit. Look at the picture, rotating clockwise takes less time or anticlockwise direction? the answer is clear.

Only in the case that you don't come back to the point that you started deriving from, we need clock synchronisation. So, please derive back to the point you started deriving from. This is the point that you break what you call the circle of time and synchronisation. Once you reach to the point you started from, we do not need synchronisation.

matheinste said:
Please indulge the uninitiated amongst us, and provide an answer to this basic question, or tell me why it is not a problem or why the measurement has not been done.
Matheinste.
This experiment has been done by Trimmer in 1973. But Trimmer et al. reported two results at one paper, one of them is wrong. The results on the one-way anisotropy is correct. Placing both the right and wrong results in one place might be a reason that people have not noticed the Trimmer's work
ref. : Phys.Rev.D8:3321-3326,1973, Erratum-ibid.D9:2489-2489,1974
 
  • #31
Hello elisir,

How does this differ essentially from having a light source next to a clock and a mirror at a known distance. You don't synch clocks but all you measure is the average speed of light. Your more complex path can be broken down in many ways into components which have equal path lengths in opposite directions, the same as the mirror scenario.

I am a little short on time and so will take a closer look later but it looks a non starter to me.

Matheinste.
 
  • #32
matheinste said:
How does this differ essentially from having a light source next to a clock and a mirror at a known distance. You don't synch clocks but all you measure is the average speed of light. Your more complex path can be broken down in many ways into components which have equal path lengths in opposite directions, the same as the mirror scenario.

I am a little short on time and so will take a closer look later but it looks a non starter to me.

The geometry you describe, in the closed path you propose, the light speed in both direction exist. In triangular geometry, once you choose clockwise or anti-clockwise direction only one direction of the light speed exists. You can not break down let's say the clockwise direction on the triangular path into superposition of two-way round trip on straight lines.
 
  • #33
Your pictures are the same ones from the link you provided in which you said that you only provided the link to answer DaleSpam's request for a mathematical demonstration of the Trimmer experiment. I didn't think you were promoting this new proposed experiment.

When I looked at the paper and saw the diagrams with the cars on the streets and read the explanation, it made absolutely no sense to me but I didn't ask for an explanation because you didn't indicate you were putting any confidence in this proposed new experiment but now it appears that you are. But, your explanation makes no sense. I have questions:

Why are there two lanes going one way but only one lane going the other way?
Why is there only one car shown in the top graphic but two cars shown in the bottom graphic?
Is there any significance to the fact that the two-lane direction is outside the one-lane direction in the triangle and therefore a longer distance?
Are these graphics applicable to the Trimmer experiment or only to the new proposed experiment?
Isn't it the case that in the Trimmer experiment and the new proposed experiment, the light traverses exactly the same path in the two directions?
Why doesn't the graphic show something equivalent to the piece of glass or other optical device that is present in the real experiments?

But to answer your million dollar question: of course, we super-beings looking down on this graphic could measure the one way speed of the cars because we have super clocks and super rulers that allow us to determine the real graphic distances and times. But graphic-beings can't "see" ahead to know when the car reaches the other end of the track.

That is our problem when we try to measure the one-way speed of light. Once the light leaves our source, we have no idea where it "really" is until something (a detector or mirror) a known distance away communicates back to us that it has arrived at that point and then it takes time to communicate that information back to us so unless we make some assumptions about how long it takes for the communication of that information back to us, we cannot determine absolutely when the light reached our detector or mirror.

How does your graphic (or the Trimmer experiment or the new proposed experiment) solve this problem?
 
  • #34
elisir said:
The geometry you describe, in the closed path you propose, the light speed in both direction exist. In triangular geometry, once you choose clockwise or anti-clockwise direction only one direction of the light speed exists. You can not break down let's say the clockwise direction on the triangular path into superposition of two-way round trip on straight lines.

My basic geometry may be a bit rusty but is it not the case that in a journey, starting from and returning to the same point, the total integrated displacement by all paths is zero, or better to say in this case, that in all directions, the components, referred to a set of coordinates, of a journey by any arbitrarily chosen path to any point, and the components of an arbitrarily chosen return path, referred to the same coordinate axes, sum to zero. They are all in principle analogous to a straighline path out and back. Of course such an "integration " of paths may not be true in a non conservative field or spacetime, but we are dealing with such advanced scenarios here, are we?.

Matheinste
 
  • #35
It seems to me that describing this as a measurement of the one-way speed of light is misleading (and why everyone else in this thread has objected). It would be more reasonable to describe it as a measurement of the "three-way" speed of light (round a triangle in each direction).

Special relativity asserts that the three-way speed of light should be the same either way round an inertial triangle, but not for a rotating triangle. So this experiment is really to confirm that the Sagnac effect is zero when the angular velocity is zero. It says nothing at all about the one-way speed of light which is determined purely by your choice of coordinates (or synchronization convention) and can't be determined experimentally.
 

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
741
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
8
Replies
264
Views
11K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
747
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
5
Replies
146
Views
6K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
1K
Back
Top