this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59099 readers
3195 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
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It is just incredible to me that we have the ability and knowhow to send instructions to a 40 year old transistor computer to reprogram itself and get it working again with just radio signals.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What they did was close to wizardry.

With no way to fix the chip, the team instead split the code up so it could be stored elsewhere. Initially they focused on reacquiring the engineering data, sending an update to Voyager 1 on 18 April 2024.

It takes 22.5 hours for a radio signal to travel the 24 billion kilometres (15 billion miles) out to Voyager 1, and the same back, meaning the spacecraft’s operations team didn’t receive a message back until 20 April.

But when it arrived, they had usable data from Voyager 1 for the first time in five months.

https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-missions/how-fixed-voyager-1

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Here's a fun fact that I think of every time I read about light delay.

We assume the speed of light is the same in all directions but there's no way to prove that it is.

It could be light speed is instantaneous in one direction, and half the speed we think it is in the reverse. Any test we could devise depends on information traveling in two directions, nullifying any discrepancies in light speed.

[–] vvv@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

... but there is a way, and it has been proven.

One of the more memorable physics classes I've had went into the history of discoveries that led to our understanding of relativity. The relevant story here, starts with how sound travels though air.

Let's say you're standing at the bottom of a building shouting to your friend peeking out a window on the 5th floor. On a calm day, that friend will hear you at pretty much the same time as someone standing the same distance away, but on the street. However, if it's windy, the wind pushes around the air through which the sound of your voice is traveling, the friend up in the window will have a slight delay in receiving that sound. This can of course be verified with more scientific rigor, like a sound sent in two perpendicular directions activating a light.

Scientist at the time thought that light, like sound, must travel though some medium, and they called this theoretical medium the Aether. Since this medium is not locked to Earth, they figured they must be capable of detecting movement of this medium, an Aether wind, if you will. If somehow the movement of this medium caused the speed of light in one direction to be faster than another due to the movement of this medium, measuring the speed in two directions perpendicular to each other would reveal that difference. After a series of experiments of increasing distances and measurement sensitivities (think mirrors on mountain tops to measure the time for a laser beam to reflect), no change in the speed of light based on direction was found.

Please enjoy this wikipedia hole: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment , and please consider a bit of caution before you refer to things as facts in the future!

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The speed of light in a vacuum unaffected by external forces such as gravity should be the same no matter what direction it is in. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be. That's like saying a kilometer is longer if you go East than if you go West.

However, it's actually far more complicated than that, and much of it beyond my understanding.

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

That said, direction should not matter.

[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

...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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

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 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] abs_mess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

How would you sync them... ? Seems to beg the premise.

[–] Munkisquisher@lemmy.nz 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] abs_mess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ricdeh@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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 0 points 4 months ago

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