Does Gravitational Time Dilation Affect the Speed of Light in Outer Space?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of gravitational time dilation on the speed of light, particularly whether the speed of light in outer space differs from that on Earth. Participants explore theoretical and conceptual aspects of this topic, including its relevance to astronomical measurements and general relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that gravitational time dilation causes the speed of light in outer space to be higher than on Earth.
  • Others argue that the speed of light is always ##c##, and any variation is dependent on the coordinate system used, suggesting that coordinate speed may differ but does not imply a change in the actual speed of light.
  • There is a discussion on whether GPS incorporates gravitational clock-speed corrections, with some asserting it does not relate to speed of light measurements.
  • Some participants reference the Shapiro delay as a phenomenon that could relate to coordinate speed but emphasize that the local speed of light remains constant.
  • Concerns are raised about the interpretation of statements from Wikipedia regarding the speed of light and gravitational potential, with some finding them misleading or overly simplistic.
  • Participants note that any differences in speed due to gravitational effects are minimal and often overshadowed by measurement errors in astronomical contexts.
  • There is a suggestion that the topic requires careful consideration of definitions and contexts, particularly regarding "apparent" versus "actual" speed of light.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement on whether gravitational time dilation affects the speed of light in a meaningful way, with multiple competing views remaining unresolved throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on coordinate systems, the nuances of measuring speed in gravitational fields, and the potential for misinterpretation of terms like "apparent speed" versus "actual speed." The discussion highlights the complexity of the topic without reaching a consensus.

  • #31
Ibix said:
I don't think there's a "corrected value", because the speed of light is always ##c##. You may find that the coordinate speed varies, but that would depend on your coordinate system (it's one possible interpretation of Shapiro delay, for example).

What measurement did you have in mind?
ooops...the speed of light in an absolute vacuum is c, that can only be calculated, never measured because there is no place in this universe that is an absolute vacuum. The speed of light is dependent on the permitivity of the substance it is traveling through and even extragalactic space is not empty. Einstein always was careful to say "near light speed". As an aside...in an absolute vacuum there would be no electromagnetic waves, i.e. no light from which to calculate it's speed. Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy, Astronuc and davenn
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
Gardiananj said:
ooops...the speed of light in an absolute vacuum is c, that can only be calculated, never measured because there is no place in this universe that is an absolute vacuum.
##c## is a defined quantity these days, so it can't be measured even in principle. You are welcome to calculate the effect of a hydrogen ion per cubic meter on the propagation of light if you wish. You will need a lot of decimal places, and it has nothing to do with time dilation which is what the OP asked about.
Gardiananj said:
in an absolute vacuum there would be no electromagnetic waves,
Unless you are defining space that contains only an electromagnetic wave as not an absolute vacuum because it contains an electromagnetic wave then your statement is not correct. Electromagnetic waves do not require a medium in which to travel.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50, berkeman and davenn
  • #33
This thread has run its course and is now closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
8K