Calculating c in Thought Experiments: Q&A for Physics Community

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ian432
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiments
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the speed of light (c) in a thought experiment involving two synchronized clocks and the implications of their movement in an inertial frame. Participants explore the legitimacy of this calculation and the conditions under which it may or may not hold true.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a method to calculate the speed of light by measuring the time it takes for light to travel between two clocks, A and B, which are initially synchronized and then separated by a distance of 10 km.
  • Another participant questions whether clock B is brought to rest relative to clock A at the distance of 10 km, seeking clarification on the setup.
  • A participant suggests that while the proposed calculation may yield an approximate value for the one-way speed of light, it cannot be perfectly accurate due to the movement of clock B, which introduces measurement errors.
  • It is mentioned that the calculation's validity depends on the synchronization method used, with a reference to "slow transport synchronization" being equivalent to "Einstein click synchronization." This raises questions about the legitimacy of the calculation in different inertial frames.
  • One participant notes that using the current definition of the meter, which is based on the speed of light, would render the calculation circular and suggests using a pre-1983 definition instead.
  • A participant expresses interest in the historical context of event synchronization, referencing its study dating back to Augustine in the 4th century.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the legitimacy of the proposed calculation of the speed of light, with some asserting it is approximate and others emphasizing the conditions under which it may be valid. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of synchronization methods and definitions of measurement.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about synchronization and the definition of the meter, which may affect the validity of the calculations presented. The discussion highlights the dependence on specific definitions and the potential for measurement errors.

Ian432
Messages
21
Reaction score
1
Let's say that, for the purpose of a thought experiment, I want to use the following as a calculation of the speed of light. Assume the following scene is an inertial, non-accelerated frame.
1. I have two clocks, A and B, which start out one millimeter from each other, and are perfectly synchronized.
2. I slowly displace clock B until it is 10 km away from clock A.
3. I shine a light beam from clock A to clock B.
4. I compute time T as the difference between the time the beam was shone from clock A, to the time the beam hits clock B.
5. I compute the speed of light as (10 km) / T.

Q1. Would the physics community consider the calculation in step 5 to be a legitimate calculation of the speed of light (for the purposes of a thought experiment)?
Q2: Is there any inertial, non-accelerated frame of reference in which the above calculation would NOT be considered a legitimate calculation of the speed of light?

I am setting the stage for future questions, but first I want to make sure I have a basic understanding of the way c can be "thought-calculated."
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ian432 said:
2. I slowly displace clock B until it is 10 km away from clock A.

I assume you also bring clock B to rest relative to clock A at this distance, correct?

Ian432 said:
4. I compute time T as the difference between the time the beam was shone from clock A, to the time the beam hits clock B.

I assume you mean by this that you compute the difference between the reading on clock A when the beam is emitted, and the reading on clock B when the beam is received, correct?

Ian432 said:
Q1. Would the physics community consider the calculation in step 5 to be a legitimate calculation of the speed of light (for the purposes of a thought experiment)?

A legitimate approximate calculation of the one-way speed of light. But only approximate; there will be some error involved because you moved clock B. The error can be made small by moving B slowly, but it cannot be made zero; there is always some measurement accuracy at which the difference becomes detectable. It is impossible to make a perfectly accurate measurement of the one-way speed of light by this method.

Ian432 said:
Q2: Is there any inertial, non-accelerated frame of reference in which the above calculation would NOT be considered a legitimate calculation of the speed of light?

The comments I made above are valid for any inertial frame.
 
Ian432 said:
1. I have two clocks, A and B, which start out one millimeter from each other, and are perfectly synchronized.
2. I slowly displace clock B until it is 10 km away from clock A.
This is called slow transport synchronization. It turns out that it is equivalent to Einstein click synchronization.
Ian432 said:
Q2: Is there any inertial, non-accelerated frame of reference in which the above calculation would NOT be considered a legitimate calculation of the speed of light?
It is the same as Einstein synchronization, so it would only be legitimate in the frame in which they are synchronized. In all other frames the clocks would be desynchronized and the distance contracted, so the calculation would be wrong, even though the errors cancel out.
 
Also, you'd need to use a pre-1983 definition for the meter since now it is defined based on the speed of light so it would be circular to measure the speed of light as distance / time with the current definition.
 
PeterDonis, both of your assumptions are correct.
Dale, you've pointed me in an interesting direction--by searching on the term "slow transport synchronization" I find that event synchronization is a ripe area of study dating back at least to Augustine in the 4th century. I will need to do some further reading, and will come back to this post after I do so.

Many thanks to all of you for these thoughtful replies.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K