• vithigar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    There’s no reason it wouldn’t be. The point is that it’s impossible to prove that it is. There is no conceivable experiment that can be performed to prove the two-way speed of light is symmetric.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s not how anything works. It’s impossible to prove that the universe wasn’t created last Thursday with everything in place as it is now. There’s no point in assuming anything that can’t be proven has validity.

      • vithigar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        …but that’s exactly what you’re doing. The fact that light travels at the same speed in all directions cannot be proven. You’re the one insisting that it does.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          I’m not insisting anything. I’m saying that, based on everything we know, the direction of light has no bearing on its speed.

          Suggesting that it does just because we don’t have evidence that it doesn’t is no different, as I said, as claiming the universe was created last Thursday.

          Maybe the speed of light doubles when it goes through the exact right type of orange. You can’t prove it doesn’t.

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

            This is slighlty different though, we only know the two-way speed of light, not the one way speed of light.

            We only know that this trip, to and back, takes x seconds. We cannot prove that the trip to the mirror takes the same length of time as the way back.

            The special theory of relativity for example does not depend on the one way speed of light to be the same as the two way speed of light.

            Wiki

            • ricdeh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 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
                  ·
                  4 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
                    ·
                    4 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.