The experiment was performed.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
This is Isaac Asimov's mental experiment.Reference please.
If Asimov is unfamiliar with relativity physics, I'd think him intelligent enough to consult with somebody who is before publishing something that's wrong. SR predicts the two clocks will read the same at every meeting.QuoteWhen A is preferred as the reference frame, according to SR, its clock will run at proper tempo and B's clock will fall behind.This is blatantly false. You seem to be attempting to apply an inertial relation to a non-inertial frame.
In their first meeting astronout A will say to B "Your clock has been lost 2 hours". Also Astronout B will answer: "Your clock has been lost 2 hours too".
In their second meeting A will say " your clock has been lost 4 hours" B will answer the same,
Well, I'm still thinking of doing the experiment. Driving a laser with a 10 MHz square wave isn't trivial.
What do you think I will get if I do the experiment as I suggested.
I will have with 2 sensors - one feeding each of the 2 channels on my 'scope.
One sensor sampling the light before it's sent across the room and back (about 10 metres round trip) , and the other sampling it after it has made the trip.
Do you agree that what I should expect to get is a pair of signals, one of which is delayed WRT the other by about 30nS?
We are now looking for the increasing speed of the distance between a single/identified photon and its source; so, our problem is this.Not quite.
If I send a brief flash of light consisting of many photons through empty space, they all arrive at the same time.
So there is no difference between timing a single photon (which is exceptionally difficult) and timing a group of photons.They all travel at the same speed anyway.
The speed of light can be determined with marshmallows and a microwave.
This is technically neither a two-way measurement nor a one-way measurement but a zero-way since it is measuring the (half) wavelength of a standing wave. The speed of light (EM radiation, which includes microwaves) is calculated by wavelength times frequency of the microwave oven.
That's an interesting, perhaps even an amusing coincidence.
As an exercise during the covid lockdown, I'm thinking of doing that experiment (well, one very much like it) .
I'm thinking about measuring the speed of light by timing it as it bounces across the room a couple of times.
I was planning to do something very much like the first experiment you have there with one inconsequential difference, I was going to use a 2 channel oscilloscope and two detectors connected to the 'scope with identical amplifiers and cables. (I wanted to avoid long cables- they are "lossy" and so they distort the signal)
I will drive the laser from a signal generator, for simplicity lets say I can drive the laser to emit a square wave light amplitude with a frequency of 10 MHz.
I bounce the light round the room a bit, to get a longer time interval to measure- something like 10 metres will give me a delay of about 30 nanoseconds.
So I will get two traces on my oscilloscope screen In principle they will be the same except that one will be delayed by 30 nS.
Do you agree that's what we expect to happen (if I ever set it up)?
It's not something that I'm going to get a Nobel prize for.
I designed experiments for the speed of moving away from the source of the photon.Show us the designs.
More support for special relativity in recent experiment: https://scitechdaily.com/cosmic-cataclysm-allows-precise-test-of-einsteins-theory-of-general-relativity/