Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,862 answers , 20,637 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
502 active unimported users
More ...

If two ends were a certain "length" apart were they therefore at rest (or at least rigid) to each other?

+ 2 like - 1 dislike
594 views

Considering the definition of the SI unit of "length" [1] and [2 (" method a.")] I'm missing any requirements about the two "ends" of the required "path travelled by light" being "at rest to each other", or at least "rigid to each other".

Are such requirements perhaps presumed to be understood implicitly?

Accordingly, if some particular pair of "ends", $A$ and $B$, in some particular trial, were characterized as having been a certain "lenght of $x \, \text{m}$ apart from each other", where "$x$" is some particular positive real number and "$\text{m}$" denotes the SI base unit "metre", is it then understood:

  • that ends $A$ and $B$ had observed exchanging signal pings between each other; and not only once for each trial, but for any of their signal indications throughout a sufficiently extended trial?,

  • that for any two (distinct) signal indications $A_J$ and $A_K$ of end $A$ during this trial the corresponding ping durations of end $A$ were equal to each other:
    $\tau_A[ \,_J, \,_{\circledR}^{B \circledR AJ} ] = \tau_A[ \,_K, \,_{\circledR}^{B \circledR AK} ]$ ?,

  • that for any two (distinct) signal indications $B_P$ and $B_Q$ of end $B$ during this trial the corresponding ping durations of end $B$ were equal to each other:
    $\tau_B[ \,_P, \,_{\circledR}^{A \circledR BP} ] = \tau_B[ \,_Q, \,_{\circledR}^{A \circledR BQ} ]$ ?, and

  • that for any signal indications $A_J$ of end $A$ and any signal indication $B_P$ of end $B$ during this trial the corresponding ping durations were equal to each other:
    $\tau_A[ \,_J, \,_{\circledR}^{B \circledR AJ} ] = \tau_B[ \,_P, \,_{\circledR}^{A \circledR BP} ] = \frac{2 x}{c} \text{m} $ ?.

References:
[1] SI brochure (8th edition, 2006), Section 2.1.1.1; http://www.bipm.org/en/si/base_units/metre.html ("The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.").

[2] "the mise en pratique of the definition of the metre"; http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/mep.html

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 07:33 (UCT), posted by SE-user user12262
asked Feb 14, 2014 in Experimental Physics by Frank Wappler (0 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Apr 24, 2014
Most voted comments show all comments
Is your notation (particularly the use of the circled R) explained in the links?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 07:33 (UCT), posted by SE-user Kyle Kanos
Most incomprehensible question ever. Also, most incomprehensible mathematical notation ever.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 07:33 (UCT), posted by SE-user DumpsterDoofus
@Kyle Kanos: "Is your notation [...] explained in the links?" -- Certainly not in the two linked pages themselves (I'm not sure about secondary literature). They just write "path travelled by light" without mentioning its "ends" (such as "sender" and "receiver") at all; hence there's no notation given for such "ends" (I chose "$A$", and "$B$"), nor for "duration" (a.k.a. "proper time") of any one of them (my "$\tau_A$" and "$\tau_B$"), nor for the corresponding arguments ("from some particular indication, until another"; e.g. my "from $A_J$ until $A_{\circledR}^{B \circledR AJ}$").--contd.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 07:33 (UCT), posted by SE-user user12262
@Kyle Kanos: "(particularly the use of the circled R)" -- It's read here "received" or "observed"; as in "$A_{\circledR}^{B \circledR AJ}$" being read as "$A$ received the signal of $B$'s indication of having received the signal of $A$ and $J$ having met and passed each other." Do you have any other suggestion and preference for denoting a "signal round trip" (a.k.a. "ping") "from $A$, to $B$, and back to $A$" ??

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 07:33 (UCT), posted by SE-user user12262
@DumpsterDoofus: "Most incomprehensible question ever." -- Well, might it help if I give explicit names to the two "ends" of the "path travelled by light" required in the SI definition; e.g. "sender" and "receiver"? Is the/my question not comprehensible whether a particular sender and receiver, in some particular trial, had been "rigid" to each other, or even "at rest" to each other? Don't you comprehend the question concerning "mutual rigidity" as asking about ping durations being constant; and "mutual rest" as asking about ping durations being constant and (moreover) equal?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 07:33 (UCT), posted by SE-user user12262
Most recent comments show all comments
@Kyle Kanos: Those parts of my question which can unambigously expressed using the notation of Synge mentioned above I've extracted here: physics.stackexchange.com/q/99779

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 07:33 (UCT), posted by SE-user user12262

To close, nonsense.

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar\varnothing$sicsOverflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...