Consistency of the speed of light

[clj4]

Gagnon is wrong. I showed you why. Either admit this or point out where you feel I made a mistake.

You made several mistakes, not one. I'll get back with a full list. Ciao.

 

[clj4]

You conveniently "forgot" this one:

No. One way speed measurements are not valid.
If you'd take the time to step back and think about it you'd see this. I really think we should focus on the basics.

Well, with this kind of biased answer I suggest that our discussion is done. You may wish to take your findings on Gagnon and Kirshner and write a report to Phys Review. Be careful how you cook up your math in order to support your point. Good bye,

 

[gregory_]

You seemed to have missed this question:

Because theories invoking GGT agree with SR on the physical laws in one special frame BY DEFINITION, they cannot be distinuighed by experiment BY DEFINITION (unless we find some physical law that is not lorentz invarient, which we both know hasn't happenned as of yet).

Are you denying that by definition special relativity and theories invoking GGT agree on the physical laws in one inertial frame?

 

[clj4]

See post 282.

In the meanwhile, if I were you I would look over the Gagnon "disproof".

 

[gregory_]

You made several mistakes, not one. I'll get back with a full list. Ciao.

I look forward to seeing your "complaints". (This better not be on par with your "but how can you commute numbers?" complaint.)

I hope in researching this that you finally realize your mistakes.


Also, considering that I've been nice enough to answer all of your questions, I don't understand why you always insist on not answering mine. Please answer the following:

Are you denying that by definition special relativity and theories invoking GGT agree on the physical laws in one inertial frame?

 

[clj4]

Please answer the following:

Are you denying that by definition special relativity and theories invoking GGT agree on the physical laws in one inertial frame?

I agree that SR and GGT agree in the preferential frame of GGT.

OK, so answer this :

No. One way speed measurements are not valid.
If you'd take the time to step back and think about it you'd see this. I really think we should focus on the basics.

Well, with this kind of biased answer I suggest that our discussion is done. You may wish to take your findings on Gagnon and Kirshner and write a report to Phys Review. Be careful how you cook up your math in order to support your point.

While you are at it, ponder on this:

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v34/i3/p1708_1

You may have to add it to the growing refutations of Gagnon/Torr/Kirshner...

Try to be less arrogant, your counter on Gagnon might not hold. Use your time to double check it...

 

[Aether]

Would you agree that Eq. (8) of (Krisher et al., 1990) is the ultimate prediction for this paper, and that a null result is predicted when $$\alpha=-\frac{1}{2}$$, $$\beta=\frac{1}{2}$$ and $$\delta=0$$? That is exatly what I mean (e.g., $$\alpha=-\frac{1}{2}$$, $$\beta=\frac{1}{2}$$ and $$\delta=0$$) when I say that we're assuming perfect Lorentz symmetry for the purposes of this discussion. Note number 14 goes to what we're talking about here: "Notice that the result is independent of the synchronization procedure embodied in the vector $$\epsilon$$.[14]" And note 14 says this: "This had to be the case, since the experiment contains only two clocks. Because we look only for a variation in the relative phase with angle, the relative syncronization of the two clocks at an initial time is completely arbitrary."

 

[clj4]

I think that you are reading (8) wrong. The whole idea is to derive (8) assuming that the theory in cause is NOT SR (the authors tell you right above (8) that "in SR $$\alpha=-1/2,...$$") but a DIFFERENT one (i.e. Mansouri Sexl with a simplified clock synchro). The authors proceed with constraining $$1+2\alpha$$, etc through the proposed experiment. This is standard procedure in test theories.

 

[Aether]

I think that you are reading (8) wrong. The whole idea is to derive (8) assuming that the theory in cause is NOT SR (the authors tell you right above (8) that "in SR $$\alpha=-1/2,...$$") but a DIFFERENT one (i.e. Mansouri Sexl with a simplified clock synchro). The authors proceed with constraining $$1+2\alpha$$, etc through the proposed experiment. This is standard procedure in test theories.

One of us is wrong about this, and our basic disagreement probably stems from that. Here's how I interpret this: the general Mansouri-Sexl transform (by design) reduces to SR when the four parameters are $$\alpha=-1/2,\ \beta=1/2,\ \delta=0,\ \epsilon=-v/c^2$$; and it reduces to GGT when the four parameters are $$\alpha=-1/2,\ \beta=1/2,\ \delta=0,\ \epsilon=0$$. This (at least the part about $$\epsilon$$) is explained very clearly at the bottom of page 355 of T.Chang et al.. The only difference is in the parameter $$\epsilon$$ which is not subject to empirical measurement (e.g., it is conventional, and entirely coordinate-system dependent). The other parameters are measureable in a coordinate-system independent way, but they are exactly the same for SR and GGT.

 

[clj4]

One of us is wrong about this, and our disagreement probably stems from that. Here's how I interpret this: the general Mansouri-Sexl transform (by design) reduces to SR when the four parameters are $$\alpha=-1/2,\ \beta=1/2,\ \delta=0,\ \epsilon=-v/c^2$$; and it reduces to GGT when the four parameters are $$\alpha=-1/2,\ \beta=1/2,\ \delta=0,\ \epsilon=0$$. This is explained very clearly on page 355 of T.Chang et al..

No argument with the above.
The Krisher (thank you for correction) experiment uses neither of the above.

 

[Hans de Vries]

One way speed measurement.

Maybe everybody can agree on this:


It's possible to do a one way speed measurement if you
can establish a reference coordinate system, that is,
assign a (t,x,y,z) to each event in space time.

-We can establish SR reference frames (think GPS)
-We can not (currently) establish a GGT reference frame
since we need to know the preferred frame.

The result of measurements in an SR frame may be know a priory
because of the way the reference frame was established.

It becomes different when we do high precision measurements
to test aberrations, non-linearities, violations. These aberrations
may prevent us to establish a sufficiently exact coordinate system
and thus prevent meaningful one way speed of light measurements
in the context of high precision measurement.


Regards, Hans.

 

[pervect]

My $.02 on isotropy (i.e. the one-way speed of light).

There is a real, testable prediction to be made. This is the prediction that when coordinates are chosen such that the speed of light is isotropic, so is "everything else". This is the prediction SR makes.

Example - to clarify the above vague statement by example. Consider a 100 Mev electron beam that travels very close to the speed of light. SR predicts that a choice of coordinates that make light isotropic also make this 100 Mev electron beam isotropic, i.e. light moves at 'c' in all directions, the electron beam also moves at a uniform velocity in all directions, at just a hair under 'c'. SR also makes the prediction that 1 ev electron beams should also move isotropically (at some very low velocity) - the exact energy of the beam isn't really relevant. There's nothing special about electrons, either - if one can prepare a beam of any sort of particle of known specific energy, SR predicts that this beam will be isotropic (i.e. have isotropic velocities) when light is isotropic.

Beams of a specific energy are not even the only way to define isotropy, one could look at specific momentum (momentum / unit mass) rather than energy, and make the statement that uniform beams of constant specific momentum also have isotopic velocities.

This is the prediction of relativity.

Other theories might make the prediction that something will be anisotropic even when light is isotropic. It's a bit ugly, but it's testable. So far experiment upholds relativity. Not only light, but everything else as well, appears to behave isotropically when the correct coordinates are used.

When looked at with this viewpoint, the isotropy of light is being used as a definition to make sure that velocities are being measured properly, and what is being measured is not the isotropy of light, but the isotropy of "something else", exactly which something else may depend on the exact experiment.

This seems to me to be not only the simplest way to formulate the problem, but one which has firm historical roots. Apparently, though, not everyone views things from this viewpoint.

[add]And I don't mean just as evidenced in this thread, either, I've read a number of papers which do not take the viewpoint I advocate either. I would still like to immodestly promote my viewpoint, though, because I think that it's reasonable and avoids extended discussions of a lot of non-issues.

 

[Aether]

Maybe everybody can agree on this:


It's possible to do a one way speed measurement if you
can establish a reference coordinate system, that is,
assign a (t,x,y,z) to each event in space time.

Only if you're using the term "measurement" very loosely, because all real "measurements" are coordinate-system independent, although the result of a measurement can be interpreted with respect to a reference coordinate system. For example, a Doppler shift (e.g., $$\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_0}$$ is a real (e.g., coordinate-system independent) measurement. The relativistic Doppler equation (e.g., $$\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_0}=\gamma (1\pm \frac{v}{c})$$) can be used to solve for $$\frac{v}{c}$$ which is also a real measurement. However, solving for $$v$$ by assuming that $$c=c_0$$ necessarily requires one to choose a coordinate system, and $$v$$ does not represent a real measurement; it is a coordinate-system dependent interpretation of a real measurement.

-We can establish SR reference frames (think GPS)
-We can not (currently) establish a GGT reference frame
since we need to know the preferred frame.

Even in the absense of a violation of local Lorentz symmetry, we can still establish (currently) an arbitrarily preferred GGT frame. In the presence of any violation of local Lorentz symmetry (which we can not detect currently), we could futher establish a locally preferred Mansouri-Sexl frame, but that's a different issue.

The result of measurements in an SR frame may be know a priory
because of the way the reference frame was established.

It becomes different when we do high precision measurements
to test aberrations, non-linearities, violations. These aberrations
may prevent us to establish a sufficiently exact coordinate system
and thus prevent meaningful one way speed of light measurements
in the context of high precision measurement.

We can measure local Lorentz symmetry to ever increasing precision, but we need to keep the physical meaning of real measurements separate from the coordinate-system dependent interpretations of the measurements. GGT is important because it allows us to distinguish the coordinate-system dependent content of SR from it's physical content. There is a clear and present propensity for people to wrongly attribute physical significance to the coordinate-system dependent content of SR, and the more people strain against this distinction the more convinced I become that SR is misleading when it isn't viewed in light of GGT. Of course, Mansouri-Sexl goes beyond both SR & GGT and can be considered in terms of the search for violations of local Lorentz symmetry, but that's a different issue.

This seems to me to be not only the simplest way to formulate the problem, but one which has firm historical roots. Apparently, though, not everyone views things from this viewpoint.

I agree with you that this is an excellent way to formulate most practical problems.

 

[Aether]

No argument with the above.
The Krisher (thank you for correction) experiment uses neither of the above.

Immediately before Eq. (7) they say "The observable quantity is the variation in the phase differences as $$\theta$$ changes...". How does a series of such observations translate into a "test of the isotropy of the one-way speed of light" unless you pick a value for $$\epsilon$$ (see Eq. (3))? Theoretically at least, this appears to be an attempt to constrain both the rotational invariance component of Lorentz symmetry (e.g., $$(1/2+\delta-\beta)$$) as well as a first-order effect (e.g., $$(1+2\alpha)$$), and not really an attempt to measure the one-way speed of light per se.

 

[clj4]

Immediately before Eq. (7) they say "The observable quantity is the variation in the phase differences as $$\theta$$ changes...". How does a series of such observations translate into a "test of the isotropy of the one-way speed of light" unless you pick a value for $$\epsilon$$ (see Eq. (3))? Theoretically at least, this appears to be an attempt to constrain both the rotational invariance component of Lorentz symmetry (e.g., $$(1/2+\delta-\beta)$$) as well as a first-order effect (e.g., $$(1+2\alpha)$$), and not really an attempt to measure the one-way speed of light per se.

They are doing what everyone else does (did) , they are constraining the light speed anisotropy to within a few hundreds of m/s.

 

[Aether]

They are doing what everyone else does (did) , they are constraining the light speed anisotropy to within a few hundreds of m/s.

Assuming that $$\epsilon=-v/c_0^2$$, sure. Otherwise, no.

 

[clj4]

Assuming that $$\epsilon=-v/c_0^2$$, sure. Otherwise, no.

The correct statement is that each experiment measures one way light speed isotropy within the adopted clock synchro scheme. Makes sense?

 

[gregory_]

The correct statement is that each experiment measures one way light speed isotropy within the adopted clock synchro scheme. Makes sense?

So you are saying: using Einstein synchronization we find the light speed to be isotropic? OF COURSE, since you defined the light speed to be isotropic to setup the coordinate system.

The point is that the Krishner experiment does not distinguish between synchronization schemes. We can use the GGT synchronization scheme and it will agree with their experiment.

Read this:

As you already admitted yourself, one way velocities are a coordinate system dependant thing. Krishner himself states that they can't distinguish between coordinate systems that differ only in clock synchronization. Therefore they did not distinguish between the GGT or SR coordinate systems which have different one-way speeds of light.

Do you agree with that?
If not, please state specifically what you disagree with and why.

I agree that SR and GGT agree in the preferential frame of GGT.

Good.

Now answer this:
How can you claim SR and GGT make different predictions for any experiment then? Are you trying to claim GGT is mathematically inconsistent?


I am also still waiting for your "disproof" of the fact that Gagnon forgot to use the GGT version of the Lorentz force which made his calculations incorrect.

 

[clj4]

No. One way speed measurements are not valid.
If you'd take the time to step back and think about it you'd see this.

With such an embarassing biased statement all you'll get is the disproof for your Gagnon disproof. It will take me some time, in the meanwhile you may want to double check your disproof.

 

[clj4]

How can you claim SR and GGT make different predictions for any experiment then? Are you trying to claim GGT is mathematically inconsistent?

Read post 286. If you have difficulties with comprehension, read it again.

I am also still waiting for your "disproof" of the fact that Gagnon forgot to use the GGT version of the Lorentz force which made his calculations incorrect.

You'll have to wait. In the meanwhile double check your "disproof".

 

[gregory_]

With such an embarassing biased statement all you'll get is the disproof for your Gagnon disproof.

I am always willing to consider that I may be wrong. But your claims are tantamount to saying "we measured the REAL/CORRECT coordinate system of the universe".

We can use whatever coordinate system we want to describe the universe. Yes, I strongly agree with you that some coordinate systems are easier to use than others. But the fact remains that one-way velocities do not have a coordinate free meaning. That is why I feel such statements are reasonable here.

If this offended you, I appologize.
Since you agreed that one-way velocities are a coordinant system dependent quantity, and you even agreed that SR and GGT predict the same results for experiments ... I am baffled as to why we still need to discuss details. It is as if you agree to these and then deny their consequences.

This is where our disagreement is: at the basics. So I feel we should discuss there. I am sorry if suggesting that offended you. I have taken much time to explain my point of view and back it up... I feel this discussion is still very much alive. I don't appreciate you trying to kill it because you don't like my statement of what the mainstream view is.

 

[Aether]

The correct statement is that each experiment measures one way light speed isotropy within the adopted clock synchro scheme. Makes sense?

Please explain this in more detail. Experiments do not directly measure one-way speeds, period. One-way speeds are mathematical artifacts of the overlay of a coordinate system (including a clock synchro scheme $$\epsilon$$) onto an experiment/measurement. Krisher et al. stipulate in note 14 that "the relative synchronization of the two clocks at an initial time is completely arbitrary", and immediately following Eq. (4) they say "$$\epsilon$$ is the vector determined by the procedure adopted for the global syncrhonization of clocks in S". I could write a program to show that Eqs. (3) through (8) of Krisher et al. yield substantially isotropic one-way speeds when $$\epsilon=-v/c_0^2$$, and substantially anisotropic one-way speeds when $$\epsilon=0$$ if you wish. That should settle it, wouldn't you agree? This has been a good exercise, but it would be nice to resolve the issue at some point.

 

[clj4]

The Mansouri-Sexl "test theory" gives you a set of parametrized transforms. In its most general form the parameters are obviously not fixed.
The $$\epsilon$$ parameter is tied to the clock synchro scheme. For
$$\epsilon=0$$ the MS test theory reduces to GGT theory (and the transforms reduce to the so-called "Tangerlini" transforms) that imply absolute simulataneity.
For $$\epsilon=-v/c_0^2$$, you recover the Lorentz transforms and the absence of absolute simultaneity.
In between these two values lies an infinite number of values for
$$\epsilon$$ , an infinite number of clock synchronization schemes and an infinite number of theories different from SR.
It is common practice to use these fully parametrized theories (BTW, there are two more parameters $$\alpha$$ and $$\beta$$) as "test theories" of SR. The Krisher paper is an example of application of such a test theory. There are many more papers , especially in particle physics, that employ the fully parametrized MS theory as a means of testing SR. They employ more or less the same mechanism:
-an experiment is outlined
-the fully parametrized MS theory is used to make a prediction for the experiment outcome that will differ from SR
-a set of expressions in the $$\alpha,\beta,\epsilon$$ parameters is being obtained
-the theoretical data is compared with the experimental data and the parameters are constrained to values that are very close to zero

The experiments do not need to measure the one way speed of light, they measure its anisotropy (for example, in both the Gagnon and the Krisher experiments they measure a phase difference) and compare it against the prediction of the "test theory" (in both the Gagnon and the Krisher case this is GGT, the Krisher paper uses the more sophisticated parametrized form while the gagnon paper doesn't). It is interesting to note that Gagnon/Torr come back with a parametrized GGT a little later. Since the experiments invariably come back with experimental values that disagree from the predictions of the test theory, the conclusion is invariably that there is no one way light speed anisotropy and that SR has it over the test theory in cause.
This is why no one in mainstream relativity supports any of the "aether" theories (preferential reference frame). Everyone understands the class of MS theories for what they are , a very valuable tool to test SR to higher and higher levels of precision, never as a viable rival to SR.

As an interesting aside, the experiment proposed by Hans might be a good candidate for separating MS from GR, it needs more work in terms of casting it in the MS formalism.

 

[gregory_]

Since the experiments invariably come back with experimental values that disagree from the predictions of the test theory, the conclusion is invariably that there is no one way light speed anisotropy

No. Again, the Krisher experiment does not (and CAN NOT) constrain the $$\bf{\epsilon}$$ value. They even admit this themselves. This experiment DOES NOT distinguish between a GGT theory and SR.

The authors admit this, I don't understand why you refuse to admit it.
Just admit it so we can focus on Gagnon.

Please answer this question:
Do you agree that the Krisher experiment can not distinguish between a GGT theory and SR?

 

[clj4]

Read again:

...the Krisher paper uses the more sophisticated parametrized form while the gagnon paper doesn't)

Krisher-Will constrain $$\alpha,\beta$$. This is what the declared intention is, this is what they do. As per the explanation at post 303 there are THREE parameters to work with.

 

[Aether]

This is why no one in mainstream relativity supports any of the "aether" theories (preferential reference frame). Everyone understands the class of MS theories for what they are , a very valuable tool to test SR to higher and higher levels of precision, never as a viable rival to SR.

Gagnon himself said that "both Newton's purely absolute view and Einstein's purely relative view seem incomplete. We suggest here that spacetime has dual properties: both absolute and relative. The defintion of physical time is not unique" (see post #262).

Read again:



Krisher-Will constrain $$\alpha,\beta$$. This is what the declared intention is, this is what they do. As per the explanation at post 303 there are THREE parameters to work with.

They claim to constrain only $$\alpha$$ and $$(1\2+\delta-\beta)$$, and explicitly state that "synchronization of the two clocks at an initial time is completely arbitrary". The synchronization of the two clocks at an initial time, embodied in the parameter $$\epsilon$$, is the only difference between SR and GGT.

 

[clj4]

They claim to constrain only $$\alpha$$ and $$(1\2+\delta-\beta)$$ , and explicitly state that "synchronization of the two clocks at an initial time is completely arbitrary". The synchronization of the two clocks at an initial time, embodied in the parameter $$\epsilon$$, is the only difference between SR and GGT.

Good, so at least you admit that the authors have a valid experiment and that they constrain two parameters.
You asked me to explain how test theories work and I did that for you. A MS violation is a violation by any parameter you measure it by (in this case $$\alpha$$ AND $$\beta$$).
1. So the MS theory used by Krisher et. al produces a violation as per formula (8).
2. This violation is infirmed by experiment.
So light speed IS isotropic (look at the paper title).

 

[gregory_]

So light speed IS isotropic

No. One-way velocities are a coordinant system dependent quantity (as you admitted yourself). Many qualifications need to be added to any statement where an experiment claims to have measured or constrained a one-way velocity. You continue to deny this no matter how much explanation and evidence is shown to you. It appears you have some kind of metaphysical belief that you cannot bear to let go of. You really want the Lorentz transformations to be the ONE REAL transformations between coordinant systems. There is no such thing and your claims are only metaphysical nonsense (you are beginning to sound like rfnorgan).

We can choose ANY coordinant system we wish to describe the universe. Do you deny this?

Let me take the time to explain more explicitly what some common added requirements are used to be able to make such "one way velocity constraints".

#1 - first these usually restrict themselves to inertial coordinate systems (which I'll define as one in which the velocity of a free moving object is constant), and consider gravity effects negligible

#2 - The next most common qualification is that the coordinate t correspond to the time as measured by a "standard" stationary clock. This allows us to eliminate the ordinary galilean transformations and many others.

Note: we still have GGT and Lorentz transformations.

#3 - We add the requirement that a) space is described isotropically or b) physical laws have the same form in all frames.

Ignoring the quantum gravity mess, it appears Lorentz transformations satisfy this.


Only by going through many successive qualifications to the statement of "one-way velocity measurement" can we even discuss such things. Usually we stop at #2, because going to #3 is so restrictive that we have just DEFINED what the velocity of light is, not measured it.

clj4,
Krisher even takes the time to mention in the paper that they don't restrict the value of $$\epsilon$$. Do you deny this? This allows the one-way speed of light to be any value one chooses. Do you deny this as well?


Also, can you give us an update on your Gagnon "disproof" of the fact that they forgot to use the GGT form of the Lorentz force?

 

[clj4]

Ah, coming from you:

No. One way speed measurements are not valid.

...how can it have any credibility?

As to the scientific process of "proof" via selective quoting:

Krisher even takes the time to mention in the paper that they don't restrict the value of $$\epsilon$$

You left out the immediately following sentence in reference to the derivation of (7) and (8):

"In SR, the w-dependent terms vanish identically."

The disproof of your irrelevant disproof is coming. I suggest that you use this time to recheck your "disproof".

 

[gregory_]

The disproof of your irrelevant disproof is coming. I suggest that you use this time to recheck your "disproof".

What makes my disproof irrelevant?
I seem to remember someone claiming that they could actually admit Gagnon was wrong if I showed why mathematically ... seems I had good cause to be skeptical. You seem incapable of considering the possibility that you are wrong. You must first consider this possibility if you ever hope to learn anything.

Until then, I look forward to your "disproof" that Gagnon forgot to use the GGT form of the Lorentz force.

 

[Aether]

Good, so at least you admit that the authors have a valid experiment and that they constrain two parameters.

I have said nothing about their experiment. I am only talking about their theoretical interpretation.

You asked me to explain how test theories work and I did that for you.

No I didn't, I asked you to explain a statement that you made.

A MS violation is a violation by any parameter you measure it by (in this case $$\alpha$$ AND $$\beta$$).
1. So the MS theory used by Krisher et. al produces a violation as per formula (8).
2. This violation is infirmed by experiment.

What violation? Eq. (8) is identically zero for both SR and GGT.

So light speed IS isotropic (look at the paper title).

For both SR and GGT the isotropy or anisotropy of all one-way speeds is determined by $$\epsilon$$. I offered to show that to you using Eqs. (3) through (8). The paper title is not justified.

 

[clj4]

What violation? Eq. (8) is identically zero for both SR and GGT.

You sure about this one? If this were true, then the whole construction of the paper would be irrelevant. Why would the authors bother to write such a paper and why would the reviewers accept it?

For both SR and GGT the isotropy or anisotropy of all one-way speeds is determined by $$\epsilon$$. I offered to show that to you using Eqs. (3) through (8). The paper title is not justified.

I think that you should re-read the paragraph 2 of the third MS paper. What they state is something entirely different see the italics below):

The mean velocity of light along a closed path has been calculate in equation (36) of Paper I and it is independent of the synchronization coefficient $$\epsilon$$.

We are not talking mean, we are talking one way

OK. Why don't you prove this to us? While you are at it, please explain why
$$\alpha(w)$$ and $$\beta(w)$$ have no effect (see above). And please do not pick $$\epsilon=-v/c_0^2$$ for your exercise.

Before you launch into your calculations, please take a second pass at the third of the MS papers, the one that deals with second order effects.
Please note that this paper is very different from the first two:1. The authors state clearly (top of page 810) that "No assuptions concerning synchronization will be made in the analysis of these experiments" (Michelson Morley, Kennedy Thorndike).

2. The authors proceed with the analysis and, in stark contrast with the other two papers make no assertion of equivalence of SR and their theory. (they do that in the paper on first order effects)

3. Moreover , the authors make an analysis of the possible violations as expressed in the "remaining parameters" $$\beta$$ and $$\delta$$ (top of page 805)

5. Furthermore they (MS) lobby for a higher precision Kennedy Thorndike experiment for the purpose of constraining $$\beta$$ (bottom of 813 and top of 814)Interestingly enough, both the Gagnon paper and the Krisher one are...higher precision forms of Kennedy Thorndike (I said this many times in this thread). Do you really think that the authors, reviewers and editors didn't know what they were doing? What are the odds of this being true?
And if things fell through the cracks, don't you think that MS would have come back to point out the incorrectness of the two papers? They (MS) seem quite capable in analyzing experiments...

 

[Aether]

You sure about this one? If this were true, then the whole construction of the paper would be irrelevant. Why would the authors bother to write such a paper and why would the reviewers accept it?

Yes, I'm sure. Constraining $$(1+2\alpha)$$ and $$(1/2+\delta-\beta)$$ by experiment is a fine goal, it's just not accurate to say that's a test of the isotropy of the one-way speed of light.

I think that you should re-read the paragraph 2 of the third MS paper. What they state is something entirely different see the italics below):

The mean velocity of light along a closed path has been calculate in equation (36) of Paper I and it is independent of the synchronization coefficient $$\epsilon$$.

We are not talking mean, we are talking one way

I don't disagree with that (see post #94 and others). I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

OK. Why don't you prove this to us? While you are at it, please explain why
$$\alpha(w)$$ and $$\beta(w)$$ have no effect (see above). And please do not pick $$\epsilon=-v/c_0^2$$ for your exercise.

Show you that Eq. (8) is identically zero for SR, GGT, and any arbitrary value of $$\epsilon$$?

Here's Eq. (8):

$$\delta \phi/\phi_0=w(1+2\alpha)cos\theta+w^2(1/2+\delta-\beta)cos^2\theta$$​

For both SR and GGT: $$\alpha=-1/2$$, $$\beta=1/2$$, and $$\delta=0$$.

Variations of these parameters from SR and GGT would indicate violations of both (e.g., a violation of local Lorentz symmetry); we're assuming perfect Lorentz symmetry in this discussion.

$$(1+2\alpha)=0$$

$$(1/2+\delta-\beta)=0$$

$$\delta \phi/\phi_0=0$$​

Before you launch into your calculations, please take a second pass at the third of the MS papers, the one that deals with second order effects.
Please note that this paper is very different from the first two:

1. The authors state clearly (top of page 810) that "No assuptions concerning synchronization will be made in the analysis of these experiments" (Michelson Morley, Kennedy Thorndike).

2. The authors proceed with the analysis and, in stark contrast with the other two papers make no assertion of equivalence of SR and their theory. (they do that in the paper on first order effects)

3. Moreover , the authors make an analysis of the possible violations as expressed in the "remaining parameters" $$\beta$$ and $$\delta$$ (top of page 805)

5. Furthermore they (MS) lobby for a higher precision Kennedy Thorndike experiment for the purpose of constraining $$\beta$$ (bottom of 813 and top of 814)

OK, but I would just like to know exactly what it is that you want me to show by calculations first. I said from the beginning (see post #1 here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=38765) that: "There are two completely separate issues here: 1) that the various "test theories" of special relativity are typically applied to guide the design of experiments that probe for violations of Lorentz symmetry, and 2) that the interpretation of any one-way speed measurement is always coordinate-system dependent. Although I am personally interested in designing experiments that probe for unique violations of Lorentz symmetry, whether or not any such violation exists is not the primary issue here. For the purposes of this thread, we are only concerned with understanding the coordinate-system dependent (or otherwise) nature of one-way speed of light measurements.".

Interestingly enough, both the Gagnon paper and the Krisher one are...higher precision forms of Kennedy Thorndike (I said this many times in this thread). Do you really think that the authors, reviewers and editors didn't know what they were doing?

What are the odds of this being true?
And if things fell through the cracks, don't you think that MS would have come back to point out the incorrectness of the two papers? They (MS) seem quite capable in analyzing experiments...

I think that they made some mistakes.

 

[clj4]

Show you that Eq. (8) is identically zero for SR, GGT, and any arbitrary value of $$\epsilon$$?

Here's Eq. (8):

$$\delta \phi/\phi_0=w(1+2\alpha)cos\theta+w^2(1/2+\delta-\beta)cos^2\theta$$​

For both SR and GGT: $$\alpha=-1/2$$, $$\beta=1/2$$, and $$\delta=0$$.

Variations of these parameters from SR and GGT would indicate violations of both (e.g., a violation of local Lorentz symmetry); we're assuming perfect Lorentz symmetry in this discussion.

$$(1+2\alpha)=0$$

$$(1/2+\delta-\beta)=0$$

$$\delta \phi/\phi_0=0$$​

We are still talking the Krisher paper, right? The Krisher paper is not GGT.
See again posting 303:

In between these two values lies an infinite number of values for
$$\epsilon$$ , an infinite number of clock synchronization schemes and an infinite number of theories different from SR.
It is common practice to use these fully parametrized theories (BTW, there are two more parameters $$\alpha$$ and $$\beta$$) as "test theories" of SR. The Krisher paper is an example of application of such a test theory. There are many more papers , especially in particle physics, that employ the fully parametrized MS theory as a means of testing SR. They employ more or less the same mechanism:
-an experiment is outlined
-the fully parametrized MS theory is used to make a prediction for the experiment outcome that will differ from SR
-a set of expressions in the $$\alpha,\beta,\epsilon$$ parameters is being obtained
-the theoretical data is compared with the experimental data and the parameters are constrained to values that are very close to zero

I think that they made some mistakes.

duh...

Look, there are 5 papers, all written to the standards of Physical Reviews A and D. You would need to refute all of them (if one is correct, your whole theory collapses). Try to give the authors the respect and refute the papers in a way that is tractable (i.e. with mathematical formulas, not with words, we have gone thru 300 posts and there is no such mathematical refutation in sight). Imagine that you were going to submit your refutation to Phys Rev A or D and you were hoping to have them publish it. Until you do this, the papers stand.

 

[Aether]

Look, there are 5 papers, all written to the standards of Physical Reviews A and D. You would need to refute all of them (if one is correct, your whole theory collapses). Try to give the authors the respect and refute the papers in a way that is tractable (i.e. with mathematical formulas, not with words, we have gone thru 300 posts and there is no such mathematical refutation in sight). Imagine that you were going to submit your refutation to Phys Rev A or D and you were hoping to have them publish it. Until you do this, the papers stand.

Until you fulfill your commitment to show us a "disproof" of gregory's argument that Gagnon forgot to use the GGT form of the Lorentz force, then Gagnon (Phys Rev A) stands both as recanted by the authors and thoroughly refuted by gregory and myself for the purposes of this discussion. Does anyone besides clj4 disagree? Gregory and I have shown that for the purposes of this discussion the title of Krisher's paper is not justified. Does anyone besides clj4 disagree?

What are the other three papers that you are referring to?