The forum discussion centers on the historical measurement of the speed of light by Ole Rømer using Jupiter's moons, which resulted in a 26% error. Modern techniques, such as radar observations of the Galilean moons, have the potential to yield more accurate measurements, though the results remain assumption-dependent due to the choice of clock synchronization procedures. A 1970 analysis by Karlov was referenced, suggesting that further exploration of this paper could provide additional insights. The consensus is that while Rømer's method was pioneering, contemporary methods can achieve significantly lower error margins.
PREREQUISITESAstronomers, physicists, and students interested in historical and modern methods of measuring the speed of light, as well as those studying the implications of experimental error in scientific measurements.
I think we have some limitations to measure all variables for romer experiment so that make scientist to abandon this experiment.Ibix said:Not that I'm aware of, although I haven't searched very hard. A former poster named Bartolomeo provided a reference to a 1970 analysis of Romer's work (see here) which I'm sure I've read online but can't currently find. It might have relevant citations. You might also want to look at the one-way speed of light section at in the experimental evidence for SR FAQ linked from a thread pinned at the top of this forum.
I'd be a little surprised if anyone has repeated it, however. Romer's work is a "one way" measurement of the speed of light, and therefore assumption dependent (not something he could have been aware of). We've got better ways of doing it these days.
But I think romer experiment is only the one experiment which measure speed of light using time of flight.Ibix said:Not that I'm aware of, although I haven't searched very hard. A former poster named Bartolomeo provided a reference to a 1970 analysis of Romer's work (see post #71 here) which I'm sure I've read online but can't currently find. It might have relevant citations. You might also want to look at the one-way speed of light section at in the experimental evidence for SR FAQ linked from a thread pinned at the top of this forum.
I'd be a little surprised if anyone has repeated it, however. Romer's work is a "one way" measurement of the speed of light, and therefore assumption dependent (not something he could have been aware of). We've got better ways of doing it these days.
We've made radar observations of the Galilean moons, so I suspect we could do better than your guess. The problem is that the answer depends on your choice of clock synchronisation procedure, so the result is assumption dependent.Sandeep T S said:I think we have some limitations to measure all variables for romer experiment so that make scientist to abandon this experiment.
I guess that if we measure all variables accurately, we get valve with 7-10% error. ( My guess)
Did you look for the 1970 paper by Karlov?Sandeep T S said:I searched lot in online but I couldn't find anything more.
How would you measure speed apart from time of flight?Sandeep T S said:But I think romer experiment is only the one experiment which measure speed of light using time of flight.
I didn't got karlov's paper, could you share that?Ibix said:We've made radar observations of the Galilean moons, so I suspect we could do better than your guess. The problem is that the answer depends on your choice of clock synchronisation procedure, so the result is assumption dependent.
Did you look for the 1970 paper by Karlov?
How would you measure speed apart from time of flight?
See the post linked in #2.Sandeep T S said:I didn't got karlov's paper, could you share that?
I just checked Wikipedia to see if it had been done - here. I note that it cites several references on radar ranging to the inner planets (which I knew about) but none to back up its claim of radar ranging of Jupiter or its moons, so I could be misleading you.Sandeep T S said:Please also share reference of your first statement
(Radar observation).
Precise distances to the moons. Of course, this just ends up meaning that you are assuming your answer, but that's always going to be the case with a one-way measurement. If you are only interested in showing that Romer could have got smaller error bars, however, that's fine.Sandeep T S said:How could radar observation help our experiment?