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

  • B
  • Thread starter Ian432
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Experiments
In summary, the speed of light can be thought-calculated using slow transport synchronization, but this calculation is only approximate and cannot be made perfectly accurate.
  • #1
Ian432
21
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
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
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.
 
  • #5
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.
 

1. What is the significance of calculating c in thought experiments?

Calculating c, the speed of light, in thought experiments is important because it allows scientists to explore and understand the fundamental principles of physics without the limitations of physical experiments. It also helps in developing theories and models that can be applied to real-world scenarios.

2. How is c calculated in thought experiments?

C is calculated by using equations and mathematical models that describe the behavior of light, such as the famous equation E=mc². These equations are based on the principles of special relativity and are used to predict the speed of light in different scenarios.

3. Can c be measured in thought experiments?

No, c cannot be measured in thought experiments as they are hypothetical scenarios and do not involve physical measurements. However, the calculated values can be compared to the actual measured values to validate the accuracy of the equations and models used.

4. How does the value of c in thought experiments relate to the speed of light in reality?

The value of c calculated in thought experiments is the same as the speed of light in reality. This is because the equations and models used in thought experiments are based on the principles of special relativity, which accurately describe the behavior of light in the real world.

5. What are some real-world applications of calculating c in thought experiments?

Calculating c in thought experiments has many practical applications in fields such as astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and cosmology. It has helped in developing technologies such as GPS, lasers, and particle accelerators, which rely on our understanding of the speed of light.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
716
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
28
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
253
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
50
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
805
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
670
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
23
Views
977
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
Back
Top