One way speed of light measurement

In summary, Dale's comment is more fundamental and there is no possible way to measure the one-way speed of light independently of the synchronization convention.
  • #1
The Baron
23
0
TL;DR Summary
I have an idea on how to measure the one-way speed of light.
Hi so to those of you who don't know the problem here is a video that explains it very well. -

I have an idea on how to measure it, can someone please tell me if, and why it is incorrect. Thank you!

Okay so we will have a timer, and a lot of mirrors, set up in a circle, a light beam is fired from the timer and goes in the path of the mirrors in all directions until it eventually returns to the timer and the speed is measured. But here is the catch, the distance between each mirror is different, so if there is a deviation the measurement will give us a speed greater or smaller than the speed of light. And we will either prove the speed of light is different in all directions or prove it's the same.

I am sure there is something wrong with my logic, can you please tell me what it is.

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You are measuring a round trip time, so that's a two way measurement. And assuming you use modern SI unit definitions, you're actually calibrating your rulers rather than measuring the speed of light, which is a defined constant these days.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #3
We have had many many many threads on this topic. I would recommend reading over them.

The bottom line is that it is not a matter of clever experimental design. There is fundamentally no possible way to measure the one-way speed of light independently of the synchronization convention, because the one-way speed of light is defined based on the synchronization convention. Therefore, if you cleverly measure something that is independent of the synchronization convention then than measurement is not a measurement of the one-way speed of light, and if you cleverly measure the one-way speed of light then by definition it depends on the synchronization convention.
 
  • Like
Likes cianfa72, vanhees71, Motore and 1 other person
  • #4
Ibix said:
You are measuring a round trip time, so that's a two way measurement. And assuming you use modern SI unit definitions, you're actually calibrating your rulers rather than measuring the speed of light, which is a defined constant these days.
It's a round trip because it returns to the same location, but the distance the light travels is different in each direction, so if the speed of light is different In a certain direction we will see it in the measured speed. So I don't really get what is the problem?
 
  • #5
The Baron said:
but the distance the light travels is different in each direction,
No it isn't, or else the light can't return to where it started. For every metre it moves north it must move a metre south.

Dale's comment is much more fundamental. You cannot measure something that is a matter of definition without assuming your answer.
 
  • #6
It appears to me that you cannot even deduce that the one-way speed of light is always in the range of c/2 or greater. It could also be negative.
 
  • #7
The Baron said:
It's a round trip because it returns to the same location, but the distance the light travels is different in each direction, so if the speed of light is different In a certain direction we will see it in the measured speed. So I don't really get what is the problem?
The details of the setup are completely irrelevant, but @Ibix is right. What you describe is a round trip measurement. It is independent of any synchronization convention so by definition it is not the one way speed.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #8
Dale said:
The details of the setup are completely irrelevant, but @Ibix is right. What you describe is a round trip measurement. It is independent of any synchronization convention so by definition it is not the one way speed.
Yes, it is a round trip, but can't the round trip indicate about the one-way ?
 
  • #9
The Baron said:
Yes, it is a round trip, but can't the round trip indicate about the one-way ?
No.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #10
Dale said:
No.
why?
 
  • #11
The Baron said:
why?
I already explained why in post 3.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #12
Dale said:
I already explained why in post 3.
You explained that it is not a one way , to which I agree, where I disagree is that you say it is impossible to deduce information from round trip, to a one way.
 
  • #13
The Baron said:
You explained that it is not a one way , to which I agree, where I disagree is that you say it is impossible to deduce information from round trip, to a one way.
The round trip speed is independent of the synchronization. The one way speed depends on the synchronization. How do you propose to calculate a value which depends on the synchronization from one that does not?
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Ibix
  • #14
The Baron said:
Okay so we will have a timer, and a lot of mirrors, set up in a circle, a light beam is fired from the timer and goes in the path of the mirrors in all directions until it eventually returns to the timer and the speed is measured. But here is the catch, the distance between each mirror is different, so if there is a deviation the measurement will give us a speed greater or smaller than the speed of light. And we will either prove the speed of light is different in all directions or prove it's the same.
If you break each segment of the light path into three perpendicular components, one where "c is not c" and then two others, then it may be easier to see why you haven't gained anything. We can call the "c is not c" component the z axis. So if you track the path along that z axis, it is clearly two-way and eventually returns to light source. Then just do the speed computations for each segment based on normal x and y and the non-normal z.
 
  • #15
Dale said:
The round trip speed is independent of the synchronization. The one way depends on the synchronization. How do you propose to calculate a value which depends on the synchronization from one that does not?
I didn't study this subject well enough so some of the things I am saying might be stupid

I am trying to suggest a way NOT to calculate the one way, but to deduce from the two way whether there is a thing to calculate. meaning if my experiment will work perfectly we will either know that the speed of light is constant in all directions, or we will no it is different in some directions.
 
  • #16
Dale said:
How do you propose to calculate a value which depends on the synchronization from one that does not?
This is the key point, @The Baron. It does not matter how cleverly you arrange your mirrors, what you are trying to do is like trying to detect the Greenwich Meridian. You can only do it if you smuggle your answer in somewhere.
 
  • Like
Likes cianfa72, Nugatory and Dale
  • #17
The Baron said:
I am trying to suggest a way NOT to calculate the one way, but to deduce from the two way whether there is a thing to calculate.
And how can you do that? You have a round trip measure of ##c##. By definition it's independent of the direction or orientation of your experiment, so it will always spit out the value 3×108m/s. How will you use that unvarying number to deduce anything?
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50 and Dale
  • #18
The Baron said:
I didn't study this subject well enough so some of the things I am saying might be stupid

I am trying to suggest a way NOT to calculate the one way, but to deduce from the two way whether there is a thing to calculate. meaning if my experiment will work perfectly we will either know that the speed of light is constant in all directions, or we will no it is different in some directions.
And how exactly are you proposing to “deduce whether there is a thing to calculate”? Please use Reichenbach’s synchronization convention and derive how your measurement can “deduce whether there is a thing to calculate” regarding the synchronization vector that controls the one way speed of light.
 
  • #19
Dale said:
Reichenbach’s synchronization convention
I've heard you mention this a few times, but I don't know what it is. Do you have a good reference? A quick Google turns up quite a lot of ResearchGate and academia.edu stuff, but I'm not sure how reliable that is.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #20
Ibix said:
I've heard you mention this a few times, but I don't know what it is. Do you have a good reference? A quick Google turns up quite a lot of ResearchGate and academia.edu stuff, but I'm not sure how reliable that is.
Here is Reichenbach’s original 1924 book: https://books.google.com/books/about/Axiomatization_of_the_Theory_of_Relativi.html?id=OztALUF8EMoC but I don’t actually use it.

This paper is a much broader overview: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0370157397000513?via=ihub

It describes many different approaches that are equivalent but I just use Reichenbach’s name since he has priority. Note, this is paywalled but there are non paywalled versions on the web that I won’t link to directly.

Also, the Wikipedia page is decent and has good references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-w...ansformations_with_anisotropic_one-way_speeds
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix and romsofia
  • #21
Dale said:
Also, the Wikipedia page is decent and has good references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-w...ansformations_with_anisotropic_one-way_speeds
In the OPs video, at time 11:18, they show the same formulas for one-way speed of light and for generalized Lorentz time transformation as in this Wikipedia link.

I found two other links:

Reichenbach made an extension of Einstein’s synchronization procedure in which the one-way speed of light was undefined and it was just imposed a causality condition corresponding to taking tA’ > tB > tA. This led to a definition of coordinate time in terms of the expression tB = tA + ϵ(tA’ – tA), where 0 < ϵ < 1
Source (page 182):
https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/3397/339751454003.pdf

... and:
https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/significance_conv_sim/index.html#epsilon
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix and Dale
  • #22
The Baron said:
if my experiment will work perfectly we will either know that the speed of light is constant in all directions, or we will no it is different in some directions.
The problem is that due to the nature of how space/time works, both of those interpretations are equally valid descriptions of what is happening. Thus no experiment will ever disprove either possibility.
 
  • #23
Algr said:
The problem is that due to the nature of how space/time works, both of those interpretations are equally valid descriptions of what is happening. Thus no experiment will ever disprove either possibility.
Hmmm so you are saying we can't prove or disprove it based on...
 
  • #24
Dale said:
And how exactly are you proposing to “deduce whether there is a thing to calculate”? Please use Reichenbach’s synchronization convention and derive how your measurement can “deduce whether there is a thing to calculate” regarding the synchronization vector that controls the one way speed of light.
As i have said before, i suggest we deduce it from the deviation in the calculated speed.
 
  • #25
The Baron said:
As i have said before, i suggest we deduce it from the deviation in the calculated speed.
Show your math please, using Reichenbach’s synchronization convention or another similar convention. Mathematically, how can your measurement provide any information about ##\epsilon##?

I have told you that it cannot work and why it cannot work. You want to ignore that, so back up your claim rigorously.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
  • #26
The Baron said:
As i have said before, i suggest we deduce it from the deviation in the calculated speed.
But you haven't shown any mechanism for calculating a speed, except for looking at the round-trip speed which would always be ##c##. As you've described it there is no way to use your experiment to derive anything - so you need to do as Dale says and provide details of what measurements you would take and what calculations you would do with them. Otherwise, you are just repeating "I am sure it's possible to do the impossible" with no justification.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #27
Dale said:
Show your math please, using Reichenbach’s synchronization convention or another similar convention. Mathematically, how can your measurement provide any information about ##\epsilon##?

I have told you that it cannot work and why it cannot work. You want to ignore that, so back up your claim rigorously.
i don't know what is Reichenbach’s synchronization convention

But here is a "calculation" because I really don't know how to do this
 

Attachments

  • Light speed one way.docx
    71.2 KB · Views: 147
  • #28
The Baron said:
I really don't know how to do this
Then why do you think it will work? I'm not being snarky - I'm asking you to reflect on your thinking process. We've told you several times why no experiment can do what you want, and you admit that you don't really understand what you are doing. Why are you pursuing something you don't understand instead of asking questions about our answers (answers from people who do understand what we're doing), which might advance your understanding?

I don't have anything on this phone that can read docx files. It would have been helpful to use the LaTeX feature of this forum. There is a howto linked just below the reply box.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and Vanadium 50
  • #29
Ibix said:
It would have been helpful to use the LaTeX feature of this forum.

It would not. There's no calculation there other than distance over time.
 
  • #30
The Baron said:
As i have said before
Repeating a wrong (and unsubstantiated) statement does not make it right.
 
  • #31
Does anyone know how to close a thread?
i don't want to argue anymore.
 
  • #32
The Baron said:
i don't know what is Reichenbach’s synchronization convention
Maybe you should start there then. Your calculation does not show anything about what information can be gained about Reichenbach’s ##\epsilon## with your approach. Therefore, it sheds no information whatsoever on the one way speed of light.

The Baron said:
Does anyone know how to close a thread?
i don't want to argue anymore.
Done
 
  • Like
Likes The Baron
  • #33
The Baron said:
here is a "calculation
Calculations need to be posted directly in the thread using the PF LaTeX feature (you will see a "LaTeX Guide" link at the lower left of the post window if you need help with that), not in an attachment.
 

1. What is the one way speed of light measurement?

The one way speed of light measurement is a scientific experiment that aims to determine the speed of light in a single direction, rather than the commonly measured round-trip speed. This measurement is important for understanding the fundamental properties of light and its role in the laws of physics.

2. How is the one way speed of light measured?

The one way speed of light is typically measured using precise instruments, such as lasers and mirrors, in a controlled laboratory setting. The measurement involves sending a beam of light in a single direction and recording the time it takes to travel a known distance.

3. Why is the one way speed of light important?

The one way speed of light is important because it helps to validate the theories of relativity and the fundamental laws of physics. It also has practical applications in fields such as telecommunications and navigation.

4. Has the one way speed of light ever been measured?

Yes, the one way speed of light has been measured by various scientists and research groups over the years. However, due to the complexity and precision required for the measurement, there is still ongoing research and debate about its exact value.

5. What are the implications of a change in the one way speed of light?

A change in the one way speed of light would have significant implications for our understanding of the laws of physics and the universe. It could potentially challenge the theories of relativity and require a re-evaluation of many scientific principles. However, any changes in the one way speed of light have not been conclusively proven and are still a topic of ongoing research.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
5
Replies
146
Views
6K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
52
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
Back
Top