• Richard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Synchronise two high-precision clocks at different locations. Transmit the signal from A to a receiver at B and then send a signal back (or reflect the initial signal) from B to A. Both locations will record the synchronised time that their sensors picked up the transmission. Then, compare their clocks.

      • Munkisquisher@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Sync them right next to each other, then move one of them. The other way you could test this theory is to have one clock tell the other the time over an optical link and then have the other do the same. If the speed of light was different in different directions. Each would measure a different lag.

        • Tavi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Well, moving them is out of the question, since, you know, motion will change the clocks time. If you re-sync them, you bake the “error” into your framework. If you try a timer, the timer is offset. If you try and propagate a signal, the signal is offset. And eventually, you have to compare the two times, which muddies the waters by introducing a third clock.

          Basically, there is no way to sync two clocks without checking both clocks, ergo, no way of proving or disproving. That’s the premise.

          In practicality, I assume it is constant, but it’s like N=NP. You can’t prove it within the framework, even if you really, really want to believe one thing.

          • Richard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            If you move one clock very slowly away from the other, the error is minimised, perhaps even to a degree that allows for statistically significant measurements.

            To cite the Wikipedia entry that one of the other commenters linked:

            “The clocks can remain synchronized to an arbitrary accuracy by moving them sufficiently slowly. If it is taken that, if moved slowly, the clocks remain synchronized at all times, even when separated, this method can be used to synchronize two spatially separated clocks.”

            One-Way Speed of Light

            • hikaru755@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Except if you continue reading beyond your Quote, it goes on to explain why that actually doesn’t help.

            • InnerScientist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              And further down:

              Unfortunately, if the one-way speed of light is anisotropic, the correct time dilation factor becomes {isplaystyle {athcal {T}}={rac {1}{amma (1-appa v/c)}}}, with the anisotropy parameter κ between -1 and +1.[17] This introduces a new linear term, {isplaystyle im {eta o 0}{athcal {T}}=1+appa eta +O(eta ^{2})} (here {isplaystyle eta =v/c}), meaning time dilation can no longer be ignored at small velocities, and slow clock-transport will fail to detect this anisotropy. Thus it is equivalent to Einstein synchronization.