Why do you need to measure the speed of light in two directions?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Measuring the speed of light requires consideration of synchronization conventions, particularly when assessing one-way speed. In an inertial frame, while light may travel from mirror A to B in one light second, this measurement is not definitive without synchronized clocks. The synchronization process itself is inherently circular, as it relies on the speed of light. To circumvent this issue, a round-trip measurement (ABA) using a single clock is recommended, which avoids the complications of synchronization and confirms the constancy of light speed as established by Einstein's Special Relativity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Einstein's synchronization convention
  • Familiarity with the principles of Special Relativity
  • Knowledge of inertial frames in physics
  • Basic concepts of time dilation and light propagation
NEXT STEPS
  • Research Einstein's synchronization method in detail
  • Explore the implications of time dilation in Special Relativity
  • Investigate experimental attempts to measure one-way speed of light
  • Study the historical context of Newton's corpuscular theory and its implications for light speed measurements
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the foundational principles of light speed measurement and the implications of synchronization in experimental physics.

  • #121
"my point is that even if both A and B are inertial reference frames, that does not imply they are stationary relative to each other. They may be moving together or apart at a constant rate, or one or both may be free falling with a net acceleration between them."

It's even worse than that Bahama :)

The definition of something being 'at rest' in relativity is that it has a uniform motion, nothing more.

You don't have any 'acceleration' at all in uniform motion, and your relative 'velocity' (I won't use speed here as that says nothing about a direction) doesn't mean a thing as I understands it for defining yourself as being 'at rest' relative something else.

There is no 'universal resting place', only relative ones. And what differs being 'at rest in a uniform motion relative being 'at rest' in a acceleration is that in a acceleration you know that you have inertia/gravity acting at you locally, constantly or intermediately, if now that is the right word to use?

If you introduce a third reference frame from where you define two comoving uniformly moving objects to be 'moving', you might do it relative a third frame, as the 'universe' at large for example. That doesn't change the fact that both can define themselves as being 'at rest' relative each other.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
6K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
6K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K