Consistency of the speed of light

[clj4]

Thank you

In the meanwhile perhaps you can explain to us how:

(\vec{E}+\vec{v} \times \vec{B}) being different from
(\vec{E'}+\vec{v'} \times \vec{B'}) implies univocally that

\vec{E} is different from \vec{E'}

Miracles in vector algebra never cease to exist.

 

[clj4]

Sorry. Your understanding of electrodynamics is wrong.

- Reread that book you listed.
- Or, read this: http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/phys442/node6.html
- Or read Griffith's "Introduction to Electrodynamics" (page 405 in the 3rd edition).

Until you learn what a boundary conditions is and what the boundary conditions are here, it will be difficult to discuss this topic with you. Please take the time to read up on this topic.

Thank you, no need to get arrogant.

Maybe while I re-read the book I listed you can explain to all of us how:

q(\vec{E}+\vec{v} \times \vec{B}) being different from

q(\vec{E'}+\vec{v'} \times \vec{B'}) implies univocally that

\vec{E} is different from \vec{E'} ?


This is one of the pillars of your approach in using the Lorentz force.

 

[NotForYou]

Thank you

I assume this means you decline your claims about the boundary conditions?

In the meanwhile perhaps you can explain to us how:
(\vec{E}+\vec{v} \times \vec{B}) being different from
(\vec{E'}+\vec{v'} \times \vec{B'}) implies univocally that
\vec{E} is different from \vec{E'}

Miracles in vector algebra never cease to exist.

I have no clue what you are even saying here. In GGT the Lorentz force is not of the form \vec{F}=q(\vec{E}+\vec{v} \times \vec{B}) except for in one special frame. Are you somehow thinking that "not of the form" just means that E, v, and B have different values? No, it literally means that you cannot write the Lorentz force with that form.

You have already been shown what form the Lorentz force has in GGT. Do you still deny that it is NOT \vec{F}=q(\vec{E}+\vec{v} \times \vec{B}) ??

 

[Aether]

Yes, so you just added another one that you need to refute?

I don't think so, but let the chips fall where they may.

Would you care to share this one with all of us?

Sorry, I didn't see this at first. I'll make the paper available tomorrow: C.M. Will, Clock synchronization and isotropy of the one-way speed of light, Physical Review D 45(2), p.403.

If what you say is true, why have most of us never heard of this theory?

It is hard to find a modern experimental test of local Lorentz invariance that doesn't reference this theory. I don't know why most of you haven't heard of it before, but NotForYou's explanation sounds like a reasonable one.

If I'm mistaken about the breadth of knowledge, has anyone done quantum theory, the equivalent to the Dirac eq., or demonstrated full equivalence to verified SR results?

There are some indications "...that a consistent formulation of quantum mechanics demands the existence of a preferred frame." -- P. Caban et al., Lorentz-covariant quantum mechanics and preferred frame, Physical Review A 59(6), 4187 (1999); http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9808013.

From the abstract:
"In this paper the relativistic quantum mechanics (QM) is considered in the framework of the nonstandard synchronization scheme...Our results support expectations of other authors [J.S. Bell, in Quantum Gravity, edited by C.J. Isham, R. Penrose, and D.W. Sciama (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1981), p. 611; P.H. Eberhard, Nuovo Cimento B 46, 392 (1978)] that a consistent formulation of quantum mechanics demands the existence of a preferred frame.",

and, from the first page:
"The formulation of the Poincare-covariant quantum mechanics presented here seems to have a number of advantages over the standard formulation. First of all, the conflict between the causality and the quantum theory disappears. Second, the localization problem is solved."

The reason you haven't heard of it is because as a theory it has no predictive power (actually, due to the messiness, it probably hinders search for new physics if one constrains themselves to that theory). It is defined to have the same physical laws in one coordinate system as SR. In any other frame, you must transform back into this special frame, do the calculations, and transform back. So by definition the predictions for all experiments will agree with SR.

However it doesn't provide any predictive power for new physics, and makes calculations messy. So it has no real benefit except to remind us that if we really wanted to, we could describe the universe with any coordinate system we choose.

I'm not claiming that Mansouri-Sexl theory per se has any predictive power. It is necessary though to be clear about what is and what is not ruled-out by experiment for the sake of other theories that do make predictions.

 

[clj4]

I assume this means you decline your claims about the boundary conditions?I have no clue what you are even saying here. In GGT the Lorentz force is not of the form \vec{F}=q(\vec{E}+\vec{v} \times \vec{B}) except for in one special frame. Are you somehow thinking that "not of the form" just means that E, v, and B have different values? No, it literally means that you cannot write the Lorentz force with that form.

You have already been shown what form the Lorentz force has in GGT. Do you still deny that it is NOT \vec{F}=q(\vec{E}+\vec{v} \times \vec{B}) ??

Let's try a different way:

1. \bf{B}_\perp=0 is not a necessary boundary condition for the partial differential equation that describes the wave
2. \bf{E}_\parallel=0 is the only necessary boundary condition for the partial differential equation in TE mode
3. If \bf{E}_\parallel=0 transforms identically in GGT , then the boundary conditions are determined correctly

 

[NotForYou]

1. \bf{B}_\perp=0 is not a necessary boundary condition for the partial differential equation that describes the wave
2. \bf{E}_\parallel=0 is the only necessary boundary condition for the partial differential equation in TE mode

Because of the form of Maxwell's equations in standard/Lorentz frame, choosing the electric field along the waveguide axis to be zero in the waveguide and enforcing the boundary condition on the electric field automatically enforces the boundary condition on the magnetic field. This is not equivalent to saying the boundary condition is "unnecessary".

Also, please note that the boundary condition is still satisfied. (And that we could have chosen to use the magnetic field boundary condition instead, and it would have automatically enforced the electric field boundary condition.)

Also, please note that this in no way implies that we may ignore one boundary condition when choosing whatever the equivalent of TE waves is in GGT. You can never ignore a boundary condition, you must always verify that it is satisfied.

3. If \bf{E}_\parallel=0 transforms identically in GGT , then the boundary conditions are determined correctly

You are still missing the point.

- The boundary conditions are determined from the force law. Do you agree with this?

- The force law has a different form in GGT. Do you agree with this?

- Do you understand that \bf{B}_\perp=0, \bf{E}_\parallel=0 are not the boundary conditions in GGT?


I still don't understand all the fuss here. By definition, GGT theories agree with SR predictions for experiments ... they merely use a different coordinate system. Are you trying to claim they did the transformations wrong? Or are you seriously trying to claim that you can't work in another coordinate system?

 

[clj4]

Because of the form of Maxwell's equations in standard/Lorentz frame, choosing the electric field along the waveguide axis to be zero in the waveguide and enforcing the boundary condition on the electric field automatically enforces the boundary condition on the magnetic field. This is not equivalent to saying the boundary condition is "unnecessary".

Also, please note that the boundary condition is still satisfied. (And that we could have chosen to use the magnetic field boundary condition instead, and it would have automatically enforced the electric field boundary condition.)

Also, please note that this in no way implies that we may ignore one boundary condition when choosing whatever the equivalent of TE waves is in GGT. You can never ignore a boundary condition, you must always verify that it is satisfied.You are still missing the point.

- The boundary conditions are determined from the force law. Do you agree with this?

- The force law has a different form in GGT. Do you agree with this?

- Do you understand that \bf{B}_\perp=0, \bf{E}_\parallel=0 are not the boundary conditions in GGT?I still don't understand all the fuss here. By definition, GGT theories agree with SR predictions for experiments ... they merely use a different coordinate system. Are you trying to claim they did the transformations wrong? Or are you seriously trying to claim that you can't work in another coordinate system?

Gregory,

What I'm saying is that your new "disproof" is as content free as the first one.
I.e. you have not shown that there is any connection between the Lorentz force being different and the boundary conditions of the Gagnon equations being inconsistent.Try some math instead of words.
While you are at it try explaining how for a TE waveguide \bf{E}_\parallel=0 is no longer the boundary condition in GGT. What defines a TE under GGT then? You mean TE is no longer TE? Again, try some math, not words.

 

[clj4]

I still don't understand all the fuss here. By definition, GGT theories agree with SR predictions for experiments ...

Ah, the "fuss" is about a few guys (Gagnon, T. Cheng, Krisher, Will) who read a little more carefully the MS papers and who would beg to differ with your interpretation of what the papers REALLY say. Not even MS are as sure as you are...Therefore, they (Gagnon,...) setup a few one-way-light speed measurements that fly in the face of what you write and what you seem to believe. And no, the experiments are not wrong. Your interpretation of the MS papers is what is wrong.

 

[NotForYou]

Gregory,

Sorry. As I said before, I'm his roommate (also a graduate student in physics). I'm already getting sick of this (I don't know how anyone has the patience for this), so he may have to bug a different student to defend him tomorrow.

People have explained to you quite clearly, but you don't understand. So please help us by answering some questions so that we can see where your misunderstanding stems from.

1] You agreed that SR and theories using GGT agree on the physical laws in one frame. Therefore if calculations are done in that frame, the two theories by definition would agree on the predictions, correct?

2] Yet you claim that the two can be experimentally distinguished. Are you trying to claim the experimenters did the transformations wrong? Or are you seriously trying to claim that we can't do physics with a different coordinate system?

I don't understand/know what your stance is on this issue, and it is the core issue in the argument over the Gagnon paper. Please explicitly answer those questions.


Also, since it will help you feel better to understand the details as well. Help us understand where your misunderstanding stems from regarding the details as well:

3] Do you agree that the Lorentz force law has a different form in GGT?

4] Do you agree that the boundary conditions are different in GGT?

 

[clj4]

Sorry. As I said before, I'm his roommate (also a graduate student in physics). I'm already getting sick of this (I don't know how anyone has the patience for this), so he may have to bug a different student to defend him tomorrow.

People have explained to you quite clearly, but you don't understand. So please help us by answering some questions so that we can see where your misunderstanding stems from.

1] You agreed that SR and theories using GGT agree on the physical laws in one frame. Therefore if calculations are done in that frame, the two theories by definition would agree on the predictions, correct?

2] Yet you claim that the two can be experimentally distinguished. Are you trying to claim the experimenters did the transformations wrong? Or are you seriously trying to claim that we can't do physics with a different coordinate system?

I don't understand/know what your stance is on this issue, and it is the core issue in the argument over the Gagnon paper. Please explicitly answer those questions.Also, since it will help you feel better to understand the details as well. Help us understand where your misunderstanding stems from regarding the details as well:

3] Do you agree that the Lorentz force law has a different form in GGT?

4] Do you agree that the boundary conditions are different in GGT?

Sorry Gregory

You are the one who needs to defend your "disproof" of Gagnon. So far , nothing. Remember, the math (or lack of thereof) gives you away.

 

[NotForYou]

Sorry Gregory

Have you forgotten how to read? I am gregory's roommate. Stick to the physics, remember?


I showed that your "complaint" about gregory's work was invalid because you didn't understand boundary conditions. So it is you that needs to prove yourself.

Also, we're under "BAUT" rules remember? You need to answer direct questions. No discussion can work if you refuse to answer questions. So go back and answer the four questions.

 

[clj4]

Gregory,

You have not shown that there is any connection between the Lorentz force being different and the boundary conditions of the Gagnon equations being inconsistent.

1. Please try explaining mathematically how the Lorentz force lack of form conservation induces that \bf{E}_\parallel=0 is no longer the boundary condition for a TE waveguide in GGT(the case of Gagnon) .
2. What defines a TE under GGT then?
3. You mean TE is no longer TE?
Again, try some math, not words.

 

[NotForYou]

Gregory,

What is your issue? I told you that I am not gregory. Do I need to prove it somehow before you shut up? Stick to the physics.


Now stop avoiding my four simple questions. Please answer them.

 

[Hans de Vries]

What is your issue? I told you that I am not gregory. Do I need to prove it somehow before you shut up? Stick to the physics.Now stop avoiding my four simple questions. Please answer them.

Stick to the physics and stay nice is the idea.
The whole discussion seems to be about nothing now...Yes, of course:

If you change to any arbitrary non-SR reference frame and
Correctly adapt the laws of physics accordingly then
You'll get exactly the same results, undistinguishable.

but,

One can not expect the experimenters to change the laws of physics
accordingly for a GGT frame because one needs to know the preferred
reference frame!

One can only define a test-theory by assuming the laws of physics
equal and then determine the measurable differences which would
occur in a GGT reference frame. This doesn’t mean that any papers
are therefore wrong.
Regards, Hans.

 

[ZapperZ]

If people involved would not just stick to the physics (which everyone seems to want people to do) but prefer to do some editorializing, then this thread will be shut down and a few warning points distributed for good measure. I believe no one wants that.

So the fate of this thread is in your hands.

Zz.

 

[clj4]

Gregory,

You have not shown that there is any connection between the Lorentz force being different and the boundary conditions of the Gagnon equations being inconsistent.

1. Please try explaining mathematically how the Lorentz's force lack of form conservation induces that \bf{E}_\parallel=0 is no longer the valid boundary condition for a TE waveguide in GGT(the case of Gagnon) .

2. What defines a TE under GGT then?

3. You mean TE is no longer TE?

4. Please explain how the boundary condition E should transform in the Gagnon paper. I.e. what does E=0 transform into when we transform between frames?

Yes, you are correct, we are under BAUT rules.
"Aether" opened this thread in BAUT in the "Against the Mainstream" section in order to defend his idea that the Gagnon, Kirsher,C.M.Will, etc experiments are all wrong.
Under BAUT rules he needs to defend his ideas.
We moved the discussion here in order to exploit the LateEx capabilities of this site and to prove things mathematically.
You are helping him defend, so you are supposed to answer questions. We ask, you and "Aether" defend. These are the rules.
Again, try some math, not words.

 

[Hans de Vries]

While you are at it try explaining how for a TE waveguide \bf{E}_\parallel=0 is no longer the boundary condition in GGT. What defines a TE under GGT then? You mean TE is no longer TE? Again, try some math, not words.

The boundery conditions \bf{B}_\perp=0, \bf{E}_\parallel=0 are only valid if the waveguide is
at rest remember? For a moving waveguide the boundery conditions change
according to the Lorentz transformations on F^{\mu\nu}. They change directions.
In the GGT frame this should still be visible.

Since we always observe \bf{B}_\perp=0, \bf{E}_\parallel=0 for a wave guide at rest proves how
well SR and non-simultaneity are working.Regards, Hans.

 

[clj4]

The boundery conditions \bf{B}_\perp=0, \bf{E}_\parallel=0 are only valid if the waveguide is
at rest remember? For a moving waveguide the boundery conditions change
according to the Lorentz transformations on F^{\mu\nu}. They change directions.
In the GGT frame this should still be visible.

Since we always observe \bf{B}_\perp=0, \bf{E}_\parallel=0 for a wave guide at rest proves how
well SR and non-simultaneity are working.Regards, Hans.

Yes, Hans

You are correct but the issue at hand is a different one. "Gregory" contents that Gagnon et. al did not perform the correct GGT transformation of the boundary conditions. That is, they transformed the partial differential equation under GGT but somehow "forgot" to transform the boundary conditions.If that were true, it would invalidate the Gagnon paper.
But this is false, Gagnon and the reviewers of Phys Rev would have caught this immediately. As an aside , the paper spent two years in reviews...ample time to catch such an elementary oversight. I would like "gregory" to prove his statement.

At the very root of the issue lies a much bigger thing: the incorrect belief that the Mansouri-Sexl "aether" theory is indistiguishable from SR under ANY circumstances. This is also false. The proponents of this idea "Aether" and "gregory=NotForYou" read into the M-S papers in a way that was never intended by the authors. M-S are very careful about their statements and they spell out very clearly the RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS under which the two theories are equivalent. "Aether" and "gregory=NotForYou" elected to ignore the asterisks so, when faced with the Gagnon, Kirsher, C.M.Will experiments that fly in the face of their beliefs they elect to either:
-declare the experiments invalid/irrelevant
-find imagined faults with the above mentioned experiment

 

[Aether]

C.M. Will, Clock synchronization and isotropy of the one-way speed of light, Physical Review D 45(2), p.403.

This paper will be available here http://69.13.172.13/Will, Phys. Rev. D 45(2), 403 (1992).pdf for the next 24 hours. Please do not quote this link in your reply as I will be deleting it later.

At the very root of the issue lies a much bigger thing: the incorrect belief that the Mansouri-Sexl "aether" theory is indistiguishable from SR under ANY circumstances. This is also false.

We're talking only about the special case of GGT which differs from SR only in the clock synchronization convention that is embodied by the parameter \epsilon.

The proponents of this idea "Aether" and "gregory=NotForYou" read into the M-S papers in a way that was never intended by the authors. M-S are very careful about their statements and they spell out very clearly the RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS under which the two theories are equivalent. "Aether" and "gregory=NotForYou" elected to ignore the asterisks so, when faced with the Gagnon, Kirsher, C.M.Will experiments that fly in the face of their beliefs they elect to either:
-declare the experiments invalid/irrelevant
-find imagined faults with the above mentioned experiment

We are simply comparing the known empirical equivalence of SR and GGT to contrary claims which are made or implied in one or more of these papers. Exactly which restrictive condition of M-S are we ignoring?

 

[clj4]

C.M. Will, Clock synchronization and isotropy of the one-way speed of light, Physical Review D 45(2), p.403.

This paper will be available here http://69.13.172.13/Will, Phys. Rev. D 45(2), 403 (1992).pdf for the next 24 hours. Please do not quote this link in your reply as I will be deleting it later.

Thank you

this is very generous of you

We are simply comparing the known empirical equivalence of SR and GGT to contrary claims which are made or implied in one or more of these papers. Exactly which restrictive condition of M-S are we ignoring?

The number of papers stands to 6 or more (the C.M.Will paper lists a few more). The restrictive conditions are clearly stated in the Mansouri-Sexl papers that you also very generously supplied. They are there, in plain view, for everyone that cares to see and accept. I suggest that we all go back and read the papers, if I spell them out it would result into another storm of arguments. If you cannot see them, please take the papers to someone who knows more about the MS theory. I will give a hint:
-when Einstein wrote his 1905 paper he had a section dedicated on kinematics, one on dynamics, one on electromagnetism...

-MS stopped after the kinematics section (and they give the reason), they promised to write a dynamics section, it never happened (think about it)

So , no, the MS theory and SRT are not indistinguishable under ALL conditions. There are some very severe restrictions under which they produce the same predictions.
It is precisely these restrictions that people who understand the theory (C.M.Will is a best example) decided to exploit in their experiments that expose the differences.

MS theory is not equivalent to SRT, being an "aether" theory it requires additional ad-hoc assumptions to make the same predictions as SR (like all the other aether theories).
MS is a very valuable tool to test for SR violations but it is not going to supplant SR.

You have enough hints to start thinking.

 

[Hans de Vries]

At the very root of the issue lies a much bigger thing: the incorrect belief that the Mansouri-Sexl "aether" theory is indistiguishable from SR under ANY circumstances.

I agree.

This belief may look defendable from a pure theoretical point of view,
for practical purposes it becomes problematic. A good example is the
boundary condition of \bf{E}_\parallel=0.

If one uses a voltmeter with two probes to measure a static electric
field in the neighborhood of a conductor then one finds that the parallel
component is zero. However, it’s not supposed to be zero in a GGT
frame

To do the same measurement correctly for GGT one needs to measure
in the past with one probe and in the future with the other probe. The
problem is that one can't measure absolute voltages with a voltmeter
and subtract the results later. The voltmeter can't be used anymore.

One can theoretically proclaim that the synchronization between clocks
(or probes) is arbitrary, however, in the real world each reference frame
has its preferred way of synchronization between clocks. (and probes)

So the claim that one can not experimentally distinguish between SR and
MS is hard to keep. A simple voltmeter can do the trick.


Regards, Hans

 

[Aether]

-when Einstein wrote his 1905 paper he had a section dedicated on kinematics, one on dynamics, one on electromagnetism...

-MS stopped after the kinematics section (and they give the reason), they promised to write a dynamics section, it never happened (think about it)

So , no, the MS theory and SRT are not indistinguishable under ALL conditions. There are some very severe restrictions under which they produce the same predictions.

This is a good point.

It is precisely these restrictions that people who understand the theory (C.M.Will is a best example) decided to exploit in their experiments that expose the differences.

Where exactly?

MS theory is not equivalent to SRT, being an "aether" theory it requires additional ad-hoc assumptions to make the same predictions as SR (like all the other aether theories).
MS is a very valuable tool to test for SR violations but it is not going to supplant SR.

You have enough hints to start thinking.

What ad-hoc assumptions, that a locally preferred frame exists?

 

[Aether]

I agree.

This belief may look defendable from a pure theoretical point of view,
for practical purposes it becomes problematic. A good example is the
boundary condition of \bf{E}_\parallel=0.

If one uses a voltmeter with two probes to measure a static electric
field in the neighborhood of a conductor then one finds that the parallel
component is zero. However, it’s not supposed to be zero in a GGT
frame

To do the same measurement correctly for GGT one needs to measure
in the past with one probe and in the future with the other probe. The
problem is that one can't measure absolute voltages with a voltmeter
and subtract the results later. The voltmeter can't be used anymore.

One can theoretically proclaim that the synchronization between clocks
(or probes) is arbitrary, however, in the real world each reference frame
has its preferred way of synchronization between clocks. (and probes)

So the claim that one can not experimentally distinguish between SR and
MS is hard to keep. A simple voltmeter can do the trick.


Regards, Hans

Hans,
Please describe your experiment with the voltmeter mathematically.

 

[clj4]

This is a good point.

Where exactly?

What ad-hoc assumptions, that a locally preferred frame exists?

I will answer (I already answered quite a bit) after you answer the question that you signed up to answer weeks ago:

How does the alleged incorrect derivation of the boundary conditions in Gagnon affect the outcome of formula (9). If you cannot prove that mathematically, admit it and we can move on to my answering the two questions you just asked. We are under BAUT rules, you started this "Against the Mainstream" thread...Fair?

 

[clj4]

Where exactly?

OK, I'll answer one question : CMW sets the theoretical foundation of the the Krisher paper.

Now, your turn. Please defend your statements about the Gagnon paper.(see the previous post)

 

[clj4]

What ad-hoc assumptions, that a locally preferred frame exists?

Nope, this is part of the main theory. Remember : additional ad-hoc assumptions. You can even find them yourself. You can find them in both the MS papers and in the C.M.Will one.

 

[Aether]

I will answer (I already answered quite a bit) after you answer the question that you signed up to answer weeks ago:

How does the alleged incorrect derivation of the boundary conditions in Gagnon affect the outcome of formula (9). If you cannot prove that mathematically, admit it and we can move on to my answering the two questions you just asked.

I can't contribute anything in the near term to analyzing the PDE in Gagnon, and will learn what I can from the discussion. Nevertheless, that point is moot because the authors have recanted.

We are under BAUT rules, you started the "Against the Mainstream" thread...Fair?

You asked me to start that thread, and you are currently banned (for a week) from BAUT while I'm not, so what's your point?

 

[clj4]

I can't contribute anything in the near term to analyzing the PDE in Gagnon, and will learn what I can from the discussion.

Good, this is a major progress.

You asked me to start that thread, and you are currently banned (for a week) from BAUT and I'm not, so what's your point?

Right, what's your point?
Anyways , I gave you the answers to your questions.

 

[NotForYou]

The proponents of this idea "Aether" and "gregory=NotForYou" ...

Um, hello? How many times do I need to tell you that I am not gregory. Seriously, stick to the physics.


I must admit that I'm getting more curious about this topic. I worked out some of the math and disagree with gregory on where Gagnon's error is. When I worked it out, of course the Lorentz force law changes. And if I define the electromagnetic fields from the contravarient field tensor (to conserve the form of the 2 "source" Maxwell equations), the boundary conditions do not stay the same. However, if I define the electromagnetic fields from the covarient field tensor (to conserve the form of the 2 "non source" Maxwell equations), the boundary conditions do stay the same. Interestingly enough, the "wave equations" obtained from the standard method of evaluating\nabla \times (\nabla \times E) and \nabla \times (\nabla \times B), are the same regardless of whether you choose the contravarient or covarient field tensor to define the fields (should that be obvious for some reason?).

In case there is any confusion, clj4, in his https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=950704&postcount=324" he attached ... he used the contravarient field tensor to define the electromagnetic fields (this is forced by his choice in his eq 3.6). Therefore the boundary conditions do not stay the same with that definition, ruining his arguement. However, Gagnon's paper uses the covarient field tensor to define the electromagntic fields, so if my calculations are correct (I think I see gregory's error, but I'll discuss this with him tomorrow), then the boundary conditions do stay the same using that particular definition (and therefore, clj4's error is moot since gregory is wrong as well).


Anyway, I read over the paper today and my calculation agrees with equation 5 (the wave equation in B is also of the same form). Equation 8 however is wrong, and unfortunately, they do not explain their calculation explicitly enough ... so while unsatisfying, we can not see the details of their mistake.

I found the form of physics in GGT frames not worth the effort. So instead I chose to do the calculations in a "lorentz frame", transform to some arbitrary "special frame" (where GGT and SR are defined to agree), then transform back to the "lab GGT frame". Because GGT and SR have identical metrics in the special frame, and have identical definitions of proper time (invarient interval ds^2=c^2 dt^2 is always true in the clock's rest/"proper" frame according to both SR and GGT), the frequency measured in a GGT frame agrees with the SR value (independent of the choice of "special frame"). They will however disagree on the value of k since that depends on the simultaneity convention.




To help this discussion along, I was wondering if anyone knew what the full form of E(x,y,z) is in equation 6. (ie. what is the result that they obtain for E(x,y) after applying their boundary conditions and the remaining maxwell's equations?). If they had included this in their paper, we could double check their intermediate results easier. So if you somehow figured out what they claim the full form of E(x,y,z) is in eq. 6, let us know.

 

[clj4]

Making progress in (re) establishing the truth

I see gregory's error, but I'll discuss this with him tomorrow), then the boundary conditions (for the Gagnon equations) do stay the same using that particular definition

Can you share your calculations with the rest of us? You know, like in an attachment?
Such that we can all see how you derive your conclusions.