Is Synchronizing Clocks at Different Positions Neglecting Light Travel Delays?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the synchronization of clocks located at different positions within a one-dimensional frame. Participants explore the implications of light travel time on the synchronization process, questioning whether the delays introduced by light propagation are adequately accounted for in the synchronization method described.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that when synchronizing clocks, the observer at the origin must consider the light travel time, suggesting that clocks should be set to t = 2x/c to account for delays.
  • Others argue that the synchronization method described, where clocks are set to t = x/c and start ticking upon receiving a light signal, is valid and does account for light travel time, asserting that the clocks will be synchronized as intended.
  • A later reply questions whether an observer can truly consider the clocks synchronized if they are not in the same reference frame, highlighting the relativity of simultaneity.
  • Some participants emphasize that the interpretation of observations must always take light travel time into account, regardless of the observer's frame of reference.
  • There are conflicting views on whether the observer at the origin needs to wait for information from the distant clocks, with some asserting that the arrangement is made in advance to avoid such delays.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of accounting for light travel time in synchronization. While some agree on the method of synchronization proposed, others challenge its validity and question the implications of reference frames, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the definitions of synchronization and reference frames, as well as the unresolved nature of how light travel time affects the perception of synchronized clocks from different frames.

ehj
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
The idea is that you have a clock at the origin of some frame O. In order to synchronize this clock with 2 other clocks placed at x = -X and x = X (one dimensional) these two clocks are fixed to show the time t = x/c and they start ticking when they receive a light flash from when the clock at the origin when it is started.
My question then is, doesn't this neglect the fact that an observer at the origin O needs to wait for the information about the "starting" of the clocks at x = -X and x = X? Won't these two clocks be delayed with t = x/c ? I would think you would need to fix the two clocks for times given by t = 2x/c?
I'm probably wrong, so please explain in what way the clocks are synchronized.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ehj said:
The idea is that you have a clock at the origin of some frame O. In order to synchronize this clock with 2 other clocks placed at x = -X and x = X (one dimensional) these two clocks are fixed to show the time t = x/c and they start ticking when they receive a light flash from when the clock at the origin when it is started.
My question then is, doesn't this neglect the fact that an observer at the origin O needs to wait for the information about the "starting" of the clocks at x = -X and x = X? Won't these two clocks be delayed with t = x/c ? I would think you would need to fix the two clocks for times given by t = 2x/c?
I'm probably wrong, so please explain in what way the clocks are synchronized.


Yes, you have to allow for light propagation delays.

Say we send a radar signal from the origin to the +x clock and the return signals takes 2 seconds for the round trip then we assume the distance x is 1 light second. We pause both clocks and set the +x clock to +1 seconds and the clock at the origin to 0 seconds. We then start the origin clock and simultaneously send a start signal to the +x clock which is preset at 1 seconds. When the start signal arrives at the +x clock and starts it ticking, both the +x clock and the clock at the origin read 1 second and are syncronised.
 
So when assigning a coordinate to an event, you must take the delay into consideration?
Let's say that an observer at the origin of a frame observes two clocks, one at the distance of X and another at the distance 2X for instance. If the observer (stationary to the clocks) observes the watches as being synchronized, they in reality aren't because the signal he sees is delayed, and therefore won't have same time coordinates?
 
No, in reality they ARE (and by reality I mean HIS reference frame).

There is no REALITY reference frame, you are required to choose one. In his reference frame they are synched, but in both clocks ref frames they are not. Who is right? Is that even a valid question to ask? I don't think so.

You are required to choose a reference frame, and then only talk about observables in that frame.
 
ehj said:
So when assigning a coordinate to an event, you must take the delay into consideration?
Absolutely. Assuming, of course, that the "event" you would like to assign coordinates to is the emission of the light. (Reception of the light can also be an event.)

Let's say that an observer at the origin of a frame observes two clocks, one at the distance of X and another at the distance 2X for instance. If the observer (stationary to the clocks) observes the watches as being synchronized, they in reality aren't because the signal he sees is delayed, and therefore won't have same time coordinates?
Right. In order to interpret the raw "observations" you must always take the light travel time into account.
 
Thanks doc, you answered my question!
 
synchronization

ehj said:
The idea is that you have a clock at the origin of some frame O. In order to synchronize this clock with 2 other clocks placed at x = -X and x = X (one dimensional) these two clocks are fixed to show the time t = x/c and they start ticking when they receive a light flash from when the clock at the origin when it is started.
My question then is, doesn't this neglect the fact that an observer at the origin O needs to wait for the information about the "starting" of the clocks at x = -X and x = X? Won't these two clocks be delayed with t = x/c ? I would think you would need to fix the two clocks for times given by t = 2x/c?
I'm probably wrong, so please explain in what way the clocks are synchronized.

Is there something wrong when I consider a ticking clock C(0) located at the origin O of I and a stopped clock C(x) located at the point M(x) and fixed to diplay a t=x/c time. A light signal starts from O towsrds clock C(x) starting it. I think they are synchronized a la Einstein.
 
ehj said:
The idea is that you have a clock at the origin of some frame O. In order to synchronize this clock with 2 other clocks placed at x = -X and x = X (one dimensional) these two clocks are fixed to show the time t = x/c and they start ticking when they receive a light flash from when the clock at the origin when it is started.
My question then is, doesn't this neglect the fact that an observer at the origin O needs to wait for the information about the "starting" of the clocks at x = -X and x = X? Won't these two clocks be delayed with t = x/c ? I would think you would need to fix the two clocks for times given by t = 2x/c?
I'm probably wrong, so please explain in what way the clocks are synchronized.
There's nothing wrong with setting the clocks fixed at t = x/c and triggering them to start when a light signal from the clock at the origin (emitted at t = 0) reaches them. They will be perfectly synchronized in the usual manner. (Don't set them to to t = 2x/c.) The observer at the origin doesn't have to wait for any information from the clocks--it's all arranged in advance; light travel time has already been accounted for. (If you set them at t = 2x/c, then the clocks would merely appear synchronized with the clock at the origin from the view of the observer at the origin--but he knows better! He knows that to interpret what he sees, he must take into account light travel time.)

bernhard.rothenstein said:
Is there something wrong when I consider a ticking clock C(0) located at the origin O of I and a stopped clock C(x) located at the point M(x) and fixed to diplay a t=x/c time. A light signal starts from O towsrds clock C(x) starting it. I think they are synchronized a la Einstein.
I agree.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
5K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K