- #1
bernhard.rothenstein
- 991
- 1
Do you aggree that there is an inertial reference frame in which light in free space propagates isotropically whereas in all other inertial reference frames its propagation is anisotropic?
Not if you use the Einstein clock synchronization convention when defining your coordinate system. Also, if you have two observers in windowless boxes which are both moving inertially at different velocities, then if each observer measures the velocity of light in the same way within their box, they will both get the same answer.bernhard.rothenstein said:Do you aggree that there is an inertial reference frame in which light in free space propagates isotropically whereas in all other inertial reference frames its propagation is anisotropic?
bernhard.rothenstein said:Do you aggree that there is an inertial reference frame in which light in free space propagates isotropically whereas in all other inertial reference frames its propagation is anisotropic?
Observing the CMB as isotropic is not the same thing as observing light propagation to be isotropic. Observers moving relative to the SLS will observe anisotropy in the CMB, but they will still observe light propagation (i.e. speed) as isotropic.Garth said:The question is a little ill defined.
Does it not depend on how the light originated? i.e. The CMB was emitted by the Surface of Last Scattering (SLS). An observer co-moving with that SLS sees the CMB isotropically whereas all others, including ourselves moving relative to the SLS at about 0.1%c, sees a dipole anisotropy of 10-3.
Garth
bernhard.rothenstein said:Do you aggree that there is an inertial reference frame in which light in free space propagates isotropically whereas in all other inertial reference frames its propagation is anisotropic?
In which case I have read the question wrongly, I was confused as to this use of the word "isotropic" in regard to radiation.Jorrie said:Observing the CMB as isotropic is not the same thing as observing light propagation to be isotropic. Observers moving relative to the SLS will observe anisotropy in the CMB, but they will still observe light propagation (i.e. speed) as isotropic.
Garth said:In which case I have read the question wrongly, I was confused as to this use of the word "isotropic" in regard to radiation.
I see what Bernhard means now and I have to say that I disagree with his statement.
What I posted is a question and not a statement. With what do you disagree?
Okay, my slip of the tongue/finger, your question was, "Do you agree..." I was simply saying (IMHO) that I didn't.bernhard.rothenstein said:Garth said:In which case I have read the question wrongly, I was confused as to this use of the word "isotropic" in regard to radiation.
I see what Bernhard means now and I have to say that I disagree with his statement.
What I posted is a question and not a statement. With what do you disagree?
bernhard.rothenstein said:Do you aggree that there is an inertial reference frame in which light in free space propagates isotropically whereas in all other inertial reference frames its propagation is anisotropic?
wisp said:Yes, I fully agree with this.
Others that agree are:
1991 Roland DeWitte (Ether wind detected using an electrical one-way test).
1988, Gagnon, Torr, Kolen and Chang (Guided-wave measurement of the one-way speed of light. Although they reported, "Our results have not yielded a measurable direction-dependent variation of the one-way speed of light. A clear null result is obtained for a hypothesis in which anisotropy of the cosmic background radiation is used to define a preferred reference frame", Harold Aspden's considers their work important, as their experimental data clearly shows an eastward motion effect. And so it is possible to sense the speed of a test device using optical speed-of-light sensing wholly confined within the enclosure housing the apparatus).
In 1986, E W Silvertooth claimed to have measured the 378 km/s cosmic motion using an optical sensor that measures the spacing between standing wave nodes. Although the experiment has not been confirmed.
Dayton Miller's ether drift experiments (similar to Michelson-Morley type experiments but more sensitive) A review of his work by James DeMeo shows indisputable evidence that data collected by Miller was affected by the sidereal period and this is clear proof of a cosmological ether drift effect.
It will be interesting to see if the newer more accurate clocks in space detect anisotropy in the one-way speed of light. My bet is they will.
bernhard.rothenstein said:Do you aggree that there is an inertial reference frame in which light in free space propagates isotropically whereas in all other inertial reference frames its propagation is anisotropic?
Nonsense, VadimFirst off, you did not understand Bernhard's question so you twisted it into your own question, exactly as "wisp" tried it.Vadim Matveev said:Yes, I do, Bernhard. You are absolutely right!
One way light speed is relative. It is equal to c in the reference system K, that is at RELATIVE rest, and is different in different directions in the systems, which are moving RELATIVE to the system K.
I shake your hand!
Einstein absolutized the rest state of the own systems of the different observers. Einsteins observers have fear of moving. They think, as the people on Earth before Copernicus, that they can ONLY rest and NEVER move.
The people, who write that “One way light speed experiments have proven the isotropy”, do not read good books. Nobody never measured one way speed of light. Einstein understood it and wrote that it was impossible. But the people don’t read Einstein. They read only the interpreters of Einstein.
Einstein understood the problem with one way speed of light, but he did not understand that one way speed of light is relative. You do!
Do I right understand you?
Vadim Matveev said:Yes, I do, Bernhard. You are absolutely right!
One way light speed is relative. It is equal to c in the reference system K, that is at RELATIVE rest, and is different in different directions in the systems, which are moving RELATIVE to the system K.
I shake your hand!
Einstein absolutized the rest state of the own systems of the different observers. Einsteins observers have fear of moving. They think, as the people on Earth before Copernicus, that they can ONLY rest and NEVER move.
The people, who write that “One way light speed experiments have proven the isotropy”, do not read good books. Nobody never measured one way speed of light. Einstein understood it and wrote that it was impossible. But the people don’t read Einstein. They read only the interpreters of Einstein.
Einstein understood the problem with one way speed of light, but he did not understand that one way speed of light is relative. You do!
Do I right understand you?
Vadim Matveev said:Yes, I do, Bernhard. You are absolutely right!
One way light speed is relative. It is equal to c in the reference system K, that is at RELATIVE rest, and is different in different directions in the systems, which are moving RELATIVE to the system K.
I shake your hand!
Einstein absolutized the rest state of the own systems of the different observers. Einsteins observers have fear of moving. They think, as the people on Earth before Copernicus, that they can ONLY rest and NEVER move.
The people, who write that “One way light speed experiments have proven the isotropy”, do not read good books. Nobody never measured one way speed of light. Einstein understood it and wrote that it was impossible. But the people don’t read Einstein. They read only the interpreters of Einstein.
Einstein understood the problem with one way speed of light, but he did not understand that one way speed of light is relative. You do!
Do I right understand you?
wisp said:I've just come across this paper (published yesterday) on another forum and I believe it answers Bernhard's question.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0604/0604145.pdf
It supports my view that there is a preferred reference frame and observers moving through this frame measure anisotropy in light's oneway speed.
Quoted from the paper: -
"The main objective of this paper is to present experimental results on an “one-way light path” laser diffraction experiment mounted in the shell of the TUPI muon telescope [7] and that shows clearly that the speed of light depends on the propagation direction."
also
"The analysis of The Global Positioning System (GPS) carried out by Hatch [10] provides also strong indirect evidence for the presence of an ether-drift velocity."
I asked you here to show "Where exactly in the paper you cited do the author's claim that they are measuring the isotropy of the one-way speed of light as opposed to the isotropy of the two-way speed of light?", and you didn't respond. Now you're repeating this apparently false claim here, so I'll ask you again: Where exactly in these two papers you cited do the author's claim that they are measuring the isotropy of the one-way speed of light as opposed to the isotropy of the two-way speed of light?clj4 said:Here are two new experiments on one way light speed isotropy:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508097
(this one was just published in Phys.Rev.Lett Oct 2005:
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000095000015150401000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
Here is the second one:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510169
This appears to be a proposal for a future experiment rather than a report on the results of an already completed experiment. I'll read the paper and comment further after you have answered my question.
Aether said:I asked you http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=723706&postcount=107" to show "Where exactly in the paper you cited do the author's claim that they are measuring the isotropy of the one-way speed of light as opposed to the isotropy of the two-way speed of light?", and you didn't respond. Now you're repeating this apparently false claim here, so I'll ask you again: Where exactly in these two papers you cited do the author's claim that they are measuring the isotropy of the one-way speed of light as opposed to the isotropy of the two-way speed of light?
This appears to be a proposal for a future experiment rather than a report on the results of an already completed experiment. I'll read the paper and comment further after you have answered my question.
Aether said:I asked you http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=723706&postcount=107" to show "Where exactly in the paper you cited do the author's claim that they are measuring the isotropy of the one-way speed of light as opposed to the isotropy of the two-way speed of light?", and you didn't respond. Now you're repeating this apparently false claim here, so I'll ask you again: Where exactly in these two papers you cited do the author's claim that they are measuring the isotropy of the one-way speed of light as opposed to the isotropy of the two-way speed of light?
This appears to be a proposal for a future experiment rather than a report on the results of an already completed experiment. I'll read the paper and comment further after you have answered my question.
clj4 said:"Test of the isotropy of the speed of light using a continuously rotating optical resonator"
You said "Here are two new experiments on one way light speed isotropy:".Ah, you are again on your crusade on asking for "one way" tests. For that you need to read the other two Gagnon papers, Krisher (and accept it, otherwise there is nothing I can do for you) and, most importantly, C.M.Will (the same applies here).
They are two-way tests, and they do tightly constrain the two-way light speed isotropy. It is the "one way" part you added-in that is wrong.I get your angle, the new experiments I quoted "may" be two-way measurements, NEVERTHELESS the prove the ISOTROPY of light speed, and this is what counts.
Then answer my question: Where exactly in the paper you cited do the author's claim that they are measuring the isotropy of the one-way speed of light as opposed to the isotropy of the two-way speed of light?Now, the first paper in the list is clearly a one way, so you strike out here.
This quote from p. 811 of M-S III direclty applies to the experiments in the first two papers that you quoted (not that the authors claim anything contrary to this quote; rather, it is you who are putting words into the author's mouths to contradict this quote): "Another experiment similar to the Michelson-Morley experiment has been performed by Fox and Shamir [9]. According to these authors this experiment is able to decide between the special theory of relativity and an ether theory incorporating Lorentz contraction and time dilation. As we have shown quite generally in the first and second parts of this paper such a distinction is impossible in principle."I quoted the newest 3 papers to show that RMS (Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl) and SR are NOT equivalent.
Yes, it is a very exciting field.Actually the field has moved past RMS and into the SME (Standard Model Extension) by A. Kostelecky.
Not exactly. They are empirically equivalent when the [tex]\alpha[/tex], [tex]\beta[/tex], and [tex]\delta[/tex] parameters are driven to the same values as in SR. However, no experiment can constrain the [tex]\epsilon[/tex] parameter, and that is the difference between one-way and two-way light speeds.Same deal here: "aether" theories can be "made" equivalent to SR provided that their parameters are driven to orders of 10^-15. (i.e ZERO)
Aether said:You said "Here are two new experiments on one way light speed isotropy:".
They are two-way tests, and they do tightly constrain the two-way light speed isotropy. It is the "one way" part you added-in that is wrong.
Not exactly. They are empirically equivalent when the [tex]\alpha[/tex], [tex]\beta[/tex], and [tex]\delta[/tex] parameters are driven to near zero. However, no experiment can constrain the [tex]\epsilon[/tex] parameter, and that is the difference between one-way and two-way light speeds.
The third one seems to be, but the experiment hasn't been carried out yet and I haven't read the paper very closely. Please answer my question with respect to the first two: Where exactly in these two papers you cited do the author's claim that they are measuring the isotropy of the one-way speed of light as opposed to the isotropy of the two-way speed of light?clj4 said:Do you have difficulties reading what I write? The first and third are clearly one-way.
I have made a correction to that statement. MS and SR are equivalent when [tex]\alpha[/tex], [tex]\beta[/tex], and [tex]\delta[/tex] are the same as in SR and [tex]\epsilon[/tex] is left unconstrained.Says who? You? Are you trying to say that the MS and SR are still equivalent when [tex]\alpha=\beta=\delta=0[/tex] and [tex]\epsilon[/tex] is left unconstrained?
You mean, what happens when any experiment shows that they are not the same as in SR?Besides, you seem to insist in missing the main point (this is why you keep fighting Krisher): what happens when
[tex]\alpha=\beta=\delta[/tex] are NOT 0? Obviously the two theories ARE NOT equivalent.
Aether said:Then please answer my question: Where exactly in these two papers you cited do the author's claim that they are measuring the isotropy of the one-way speed of light as opposed to the isotropy of the two-way speed of light?
I have made a correction to that statement. MS and SR are equivalent when [tex]\alpha[/tex], [tex]\beta[/tex], and [tex]\delta[/tex] are the same as in SR and [tex]\epsilon[/tex] is left unconstrained.
Answer the question.clj4 said:Read the papers (TWO).
Yes, see http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=723660&postcount=102" .Does leaving epsilon unconstrained make the one way light speed experiments invalid?
See post #22.Do MS and SR become magically equivalent?
Aether said:Answer the question.
Yes, see http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=723660&postcount=102" .
See post #22.
You are directly contradicting both Zhang and Mansouri-Sexl. You have repeatedly refused to answer my simple question about a false claim that you keep making. Unless there is an objection by a moderator of this forum, including PF science advisors, then I declare by unanimous consent that your claim is refuted.
Aether said:Answer the question.
Yes, see http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=723660&postcount=102" .
See post #22.
You are directly contradicting both Zhang and Mansouri-Sexl. You have repeatedly refused to answer my simple question about a false claim that you keep making. Unless there is an objection by a moderator of this forum, including PF science advisors, then I declare by unanimous consent that your claim is refuted.
You cited three papers in post #18 and described them as "new experiments on one way light speed isotropy"; these were not Krisher, Gagnonx3, and C.M.Will. The first of these was "(the new paper by Achim Peters and Hermann, the foremost expersts in experimental disproof of Lorentz symmetry violations)" which you are now describing as "two way".clj4 said:1. There are two main classes of experiments that deal with light speed isotropy:
-one way (Krisher, Gagnonx3, C.M.Will, the two new paper, no 1 and 3 that "Aether" keeps asking me to interpret for him)
-two way (the new paper by Achim Peters and Hermann, the foremost expersts in experimental disproof of Lorentz symmetry violations)
Aether said:You cited three papers in post #18 and described them as "new experiments on one way light speed isotropy"; these were not Krisher, Gagnonx3, and C.M.Will. The first of these was "(the new paper by Achim Peters and Hermann, the foremost expersts in experimental disproof of Lorentz symmetry violations)" which you are now describing as "two way".
wisp said:I think there's confusion over what are "real" one-way tests. Generally tests in which light resonates, gets reflected from mirrors or rotating surfaces, generally is a two-way test. Using these tests to impose constraints on the supposed ether is unjustified.
The recent one-way test that has just been done shows the motion of the Earth with respect to the CBMR affects the speed of light.
clj4 said:Here are THREE new experiments on one way light speed isotropy:
1. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508097
[/url]
wisp said:It is possible for systems to be 100% in agreement with LLI, and display c+/-V anisotropy in the one-way light speed.
We need more simple one-way tests, not ones measuring LLI with resonators or rotating cryogenic optical cavities.