this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2024
871 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3199 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] InnerScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

And to calculate the offset needed to get them all synced up involves calculating time dilation, which involves knowing/assuming the speed of light. These synchronizations work just as well if the two way speed of light is different than the one way speed of light.

To know the speed of light you assume the speed of light is c, but you're trying to calculate c so all those clocks aren't verified synced.

Just read through the wiki or Harvard's books if you'd like, this is an unsolved "problem" in physics for a reason or do you think no one cares about how fast c is?

See also This or, more accessibly "Synchronization conventions"

[โ€“] Munkisquisher@lemmy.nz 4 points 5 months ago

I read all those and every test has reduced the amount that the speed of light could be anisotropic. From "it could be twice as fast in this direction to the other" to "it could be a small fraction of the relativistic effect of moving a clock through space." Every improvement in measurement trends towards isotropic.