Measuring distances between a moving object and a stationary object using light

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter peterspencers
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light Measuring
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around measuring distances between a moving spacecraft and a stationary object, specifically Earth, using light. Participants explore the implications of special relativity on distance measurements, time dilation, and the synchronization of clocks in different reference frames. The conversation includes theoretical considerations and challenges related to the accuracy of measurements at relativistic speeds.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose using a laser and mirror to measure distance based on the round-trip time of a light pulse, suggesting that this method is known as 'radar distance'.
  • Others argue that if the pulses are synchronized in Earth's timeframe, the measurements from Earth and the spacecraft will not yield the same distance, with the spacecraft measuring a shorter distance due to relativistic effects.
  • A participant questions the reversibility of distance measurements, noting that Earth experiences no acceleration and thus its spacetime differs from that of the spacecraft.
  • Another participant asserts that the situation is not symmetrical due to the acceleration of the spacecraft when it turns around, which breaks the symmetry of the reference frames.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of Doppler effects on distance measurements and how they can be used to correct radar measurements.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the concept of radar time and distance, seeking clarification on the mathematical treatment of these concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the implications of reference frames and the symmetry of measurements. There is no consensus on whether the distance measurements can be considered reversible or how time dilation affects these measurements.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the assumptions underlying their arguments, particularly concerning the effects of acceleration and the definitions of inertial reference frames. There are unresolved mathematical steps in the discussion of radar time and distance.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in the implications of special relativity on measurements, particularly in the context of high-speed travel and the synchronization of clocks across different reference frames.

peterspencers
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
Hi there
When measuring the distance between 2 objects, say, the Earth and a spacecraft traveling very close to the speed of light. If I used a laser and a mirror to bounce a light beam between the 2 objects, I would take the time the light took to return to me, multiplied by the speed of light, to obtain my distance at the time the light pulse bounced back and was received.

If I performed this from both the Earth and the spacecraft , and had synchronised the 2 measuring pulses to be activated at Earth's timeframe (so onboard the craft we use a special clock that can calculate Earth's timeframe by knowing how fast the craft is going) would the pulse released from Earth and the one from the craft give the same distance measurement?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
peterspencers said:
Hi there
When measuring the distance between 2 objects, say, the Earth and a spacecraft traveling very close to the speed of light. If I used a laser and a mirror to bounce a light beam between the 2 objects, I would take the time the light took to return to me, multiplied by the speed of light, to obtain my distance at the time the light pulse bounced back and was received.
You would use the round-trip time of the pulse times c and divide that by two. This is called the 'radar distance'.

If I performed this from both the Earth and the spacecraft , and had synchronised the 2 measuring pulses to be activated at Earth's timeframe (so onboard the craft we use a special clock that can calculate Earth's timeframe by knowing how fast the craft is going) would the pulse released from Earth and the one from the craft give the same distance measurement?
If you also use Doppler to estimate the speed of the distant object, you can correct your radar measurement to get the distance.
I don't follow.
 
peterspencers said:
If I performed this from both the Earth and the spacecraft , and had synchronised the 2 measuring pulses to be activated at Earth's timeframe (so onboard the craft we use a special clock that can calculate Earth's timeframe by knowing how fast the craft is going) would the pulse released from Earth and the one from the craft give the same distance measurement?
The answer is no. The spaceship will measure a shorter distance. If the pulse were sent simultaneously in the spaceship rest frame then the Earth would measure the shorter distance. It is only if the pulses are sent simultaneously in a reference frame that measures the Earth and spacecraft to equal speeds (but going in opposite directions), that the radar distances would be equal.
 
I am confused as to how the 2 distance measurements are reverseable, given that the Earth has had no acceleration present and no inertia, Earth has not had its time dilated and therefore its spacetime will be different to that of the spacecraft s regardless of the reference frame. Also, by that logic, if the distances measured are reverseable by switching reference frames, surely the time dilation would be interchangable by switching referance frames, but surely that isn't the case as the returning ship 'will' find that more time has passed on earth? I apologise if this is wildly off key, I am very new to this concept and am trying to reconsile many confusing concepts, please bear with me.
 
peterspencers said:
I am confused as to how the 2 distance measurements are reverseable, given that the Earth has had no acceleration present and no inertia, Earth has not had its time dilated and therefore its spacetime will be different to that of the spacecraft s regardless of the reference frame.
Given that the Earth orbits around the Sun and the Sun orbits around the Galaxy, what makes you so sure that the Earth has no inertia?
peterspencers said:
Also, by that logic, if the distances measured are reverseable by switching reference frames, surely the time dilation would be interchangable by switching referance frames,
Yes.
peterspencers said:
but surely that isn't the case ..
It is the case.
peterspencers said:
.. as the returning ship 'will' find that more time has passed on earth? I apologise if this is wildly off key, I am very new to this concept and am trying to reconsile many confusing concepts, please bear with me.
Everything changes when the spaceship turns around and returns to Earth. There is no single inertial reference frame where the spaceship is always at rest for the entire journey, but there is one for the Earth, so the situation is no longer symmetrical when the spaceship accelerates mid flight and returns to Earth.
 
Ok, i think I'm nearly there, thankyou. Surely the spaceship turning round is also a reversable situation? As in the ships reference frame it is the Earth that turns around and returns?
 
peterspencers said:
Ok, i think I'm nearly there, thankyou. Surely the spaceship turning round is also a reversable situation? As in the ships reference frame it is the Earth that turns around and returns?
The ship is aware that it was the one that turned around because it can feel the acceleration or measure the acceleration with an accelerometer. This breaks the symmetry of the situation. The basic equations of SR assume an inertial reference frame, which is a frame in which no proper acceleration occurs. If the Earth and the rocket send timing signals regularly to each other, the spaceship sees an immediate increase in the frequency of the signals from Earth as it turns around while the Earth does not see an increase in the signal frequency from the rocket until much later. This is more evidence that the situation is non reversible.
 
YES! I am with you, thankyou so much for taking the time to answer my questions so thoroughly. I am incredibly grateful, you have helped me immensely :)
 
peterspencers said:
Hi there
When measuring the distance between 2 objects, say, the Earth and a spacecraft traveling very close to the speed of light. If I used a laser and a mirror to bounce a light beam between the 2 objects, I would take the time the light took to return to me, multiplied by the speed of light, to obtain my distance at the time the light pulse bounced back and was received.

Mentz114 said:
You would use the round-trip time of the pulse times c and divide that by two. This is called the 'radar distance'.

Hi Your explanation here makes perfect sense. I have been trying to understand the Dolby -Gull presentation but have found it difficult

RADAR TIME AND RADAR DISTANCE
Consider an observer traveling on path \gamma
with proper time \tau. Define:
\tau+(x) ≡ (earliest possible) proper time at which a light ray
(technically, a null geodesic) leaving point x could intercept .
\tau-(x) ≡ (latest possible) proper time at which a light ray
(null geodesic) could leave \gamma, and still reach point x.

\tau(x) ≡ 1/2 (\tau+(x) + \tau-(x)) = ‘radar time’.

p(x) ≡ 1/2 (\tau+(x) - \tau-(x)) = ‘radar distance’.

I don't get their radar distance.
Why is the proper time going to the target subtracted from the return time?
Also I have found no reference to multiplying by c to obtain the distance. What am I missing?
I have searched but have found no, more elementary, treatment of radar time and its implementation.
Thanks
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
6K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
963
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
  • · Replies 128 ·
5
Replies
128
Views
7K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 146 ·
5
Replies
146
Views
11K