Clarification of Romer's Calculation

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter etotheipi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on Romer's calculation of the time delay in observing eclipses of Io, one of Jupiter's moons, due to the finite speed of light. It establishes that the intervals between successive detections of eclipses are affected by the Earth's motion relative to Jupiter, resulting in a measurable delay of approximately 22 minutes. The calculations involve the absolute times at which light from successive eclipses reaches Earth, incorporating adjustments for the increased distance as Earth moves away from Jupiter. The participants seek a rigorous method to demonstrate that the sum of time increments converges to the diameter of Earth's orbit.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of celestial mechanics and orbital dynamics.
  • Familiarity with the concept of light travel time and its implications in astronomy.
  • Basic knowledge of calculus for summing time increments.
  • Experience with observational astronomy, particularly regarding eclipses of celestial bodies.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of light travel time in astrophysics.
  • Learn about the mathematical modeling of celestial orbits and their effects on observation.
  • Explore the historical context and implications of Romer's measurements of light speed.
  • Investigate advanced techniques for calculating time delays in astronomical observations.
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, astrophysicists, and students of physics interested in the historical measurements of light speed and the dynamics of celestial observations.

etotheipi
Please see the below diagram. I make the assumptions that the orbit of Jupiter around the sun is fairly unimportant for this problem, and that the period of Io is also much smaller than that of the Earth. I also assume everything is nice and circular and in the same plane.

IMG_7689.JPG


The intervals between observations of eclipses are greater than average on traveling away from Jupiter, and smaller than average when traveling toward Jupiter. The average ##T_{Io}## could then be calculated over a whole year.

I now consider the half-cycle period during which Earth travels exclusively away from Jupiter. Suppose light is emitted from an eclipse at absolute ##t=0##, which arrives at Earth at ##t = t_{1}##. The absolute time at which light from the second eclipse reaches Earth, ##t_{2}##, is ##t_{2} = T_{Io} + t_{1} + \Delta t_{1}##, where ##\Delta t_{1}## is the extra time the light needs to cover the slightly increased distance. Likewise, the absolute time at which light from the third eclipse reaches Earth is ##t_{3} = 2T_{Io} + t_{1} + \Delta t_{1} + \Delta t_{2}##.

The two intervals between successive detections are then ##T_{Io} + \Delta t_{1}##, and then ##T_{Io} + \Delta t_{2}##, and this pattern would continue onward like so.

Now over a half cycle of Earth's orbit, if the speed of light were infinite, we would expect the absolute time elapsed to be an integer multiple of ##T_{Io}##. However, the final eclipse actually will occur later by ##\Delta t_{1} + \Delta t_{2} + ...##, which Romer measured to be about 22 minutes.

This sum of time increments is supposed to represent the time for light to traverse the diameter of Earth's orbit, and whilst this seems somewhat reasonable (I've sketched some loci on the diagram), I can't find a rigorous way of showing that this sum does indeed converge to the diameter. I was wondering how I could go about finishing this off?

N.B. In the diagram I have put ##t_{1}## at an arbitrary point so that the lines are clearer, but evidently from what I have described it should be at the right-most point of Earth' orbit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
etotheipi said:
This sum of time increments is supposed to represent the time for light to traverse the diameter of Earth's orbit,
Where did you read this?

Do you need to prove anything? Imagine a satellite deployed at the start of the experiment, with zero orbital velocity. It sees Io appear for the ##n##th time at ##nT_{Io}##. You've argued that the Earth sees it emerge at ##nT_{Io}+\sum_{i=1}^n\Delta t_i##. What must the difference be?

As you note, we're approximating Jupiter as stationary. You could correct for that if you wanted.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi
Ibix said:
Do you need to prove anything? Imagine a satellite deployed at the start of the experiment, with zero orbital velocity. It sees Io appear for the ##n##th time at ##nT_{Io}##. You've argued that the Earth sees it emerge at ##nT_{Io}+\sum_{i=1}^n\Delta t_i##. What must the difference be?

That is definitely a more direct approach...!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
7K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
11K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K