Undergrad Verifying Speed of Light Varies by Direction

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the verification of whether the speed of light varies by direction using a single clock method. It outlines three cases (T1, T2, T3) for measuring light travel times, demonstrating that without a medium, T1 equals T2 equals T3, making verification impossible. However, when a medium is introduced to slow the inbound light, the results show T3 < T1 < T2, allowing for potential verification of directional variance. The conversation also emphasizes the challenge of proving that the medium consistently slows light by the same fraction regardless of direction.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts related to the speed of light.
  • Familiarity with the principles of light propagation in different media.
  • Knowledge of experimental design in physics, particularly in measuring time and speed.
  • Awareness of scientific literature regarding light speed and directional variance.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the effects of different media on the speed of light, focusing on refractive index.
  • Study experimental methods for measuring light speed, including the use of lasers and timing devices.
  • Explore the implications of light speed variance in the context of modern physics theories.
  • Examine peer-reviewed articles on the speed of light and directional dependence in scientific journals.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, researchers in optics, and students studying the properties of light and its behavior in various media will benefit from this discussion.

Andy Lee
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
A method for measuring the one way speed of light.
Note, it possible to determine if the speed of light varies depending on direction, with the use of a single clock. Simply send a beam and reflect it back, but on the return trip introduce a medium to slow the beam.

Three cases, T1, T2, T3 are total travel times.

T1: assume light is the same speed in both directions (prior to introducing medium).
T2: assume light is faster on the outbound trip (prior to introducing medium).
T3: assume light is faster on the inbound trip (prior to introducing medium).

Let T1 = T2 = T3 without the medium.

Calculations show that with the medium, it is necessarily the case that T3 < T1 < T2

Sample below with c = 300,000 km/s and distance 1 km for convenience.

First without the medium

T1: Outbound 300,000 km/s, 1 km then inbound 300,000 km/s, 1km. T1 = 1/150,000 seconds.

T2: Outbound 600,000 km/s, 1 km then inbound 200,000 km/s, 1 km. T2 = 1/150,000 seconds.

T3: Outbound 200,000 km/s, 1 km then inbound 600,000 km/s, 1 km. T3 = 1/150000 seconds.

T1 = T2 = T3 ... impossible to verify which case exists.

Second with the medium (inbound velocity slowed by 50%)

T1: Outbound 300,000 km/s, 1 km then inbound 150,000 km/s, 1km. T1 = .00001 seconds.

T2: Outbound 600,000 km/s, 1 km then inbound 100,000 km/s, 1 km. T2 = .000017 seconds.

T3: Outbound 200,000 km/s, 1 km then inbound 300,000 km/s, 1 km. T3 = .0000083 seconds.

T3 < T1 < T2 ... possible to verify which case exists.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
And how, pray tell, do you verify that your medium slows the light by 50% irrespective of direction?
 
50% is for example only. Use any medium, guaranteed to slow light.
We're slowing the light only in one direction in each case (inbound).
 
That doesn't plug the hole in your argument. How do you verify that your medium slows light by the same fraction irrespective of direction.
 
In all cases the light is traveling through the medium in the same (inbound) direction.
 
I'm wasting my time, aren't I. There is aboslutely nothing that will convince you that everyone else is right and you are wrong, is there.

Your medium has to slow light that is traveling in the 300,000 km/s diresction to 150,000 km/s, light that is traveling in the 200,000 km/s direction to 100,000 km/s , light that is traveling in the 600,000 km/s direction to 300,000 km/s, etc. How do you prove this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This isn’t a one way measurement.

This isn’t a QM question.

This isn’t correctly analyzed (as already pointed out)

This isn’t consistent with the professional scientific literature

This is closed
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
Replies
53
Views
36K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K