Consistency of the speed of light

[clj4]

I don't have an electronic copy, I merely have access to it in the library. I would have to scan each page in and post each page separately. Besides not having a scanner, this seems like the wrong order to approach things here. We should agree on the basics and build our way up.

If we try to do it the other way (paper by paper) we will never come to agreement. If I personally found the specific error in Gagnon's paper, would you even believe me?

Sure, if you do your calculations correctly. This is what you were asked all along. And, if you want to be thorough , find the error in Kirshner as well. It is only two papers, that's all.

 

[my_wan]

I will do a full review of my own set of litmus test. A general description of what parameters can and cannot transform in an unobservable manner could prove a very valuable piece of work in itself. It could also provide a very straightforward method of defining the emperical difference between any competing theory as well as any obscure test of SR not already tested. Before I leave this thread I want to give you a thought experiment to consider.

Using simultaneity and SR to measure distance.
Two telescopes A and B are pointed at a cepheid variable recording unique identifiable events. A is stationary relative to the cepheid. B in the vicinity of A is moving toward the cepheid at the velocity v. Given that the cepheid has sufficient distance even a small v can produce a shortening of relative distance of several light seconds.
For A d = d
For B d' = \gammad
Now we simply compare by how much A and B disagree on when a unique event occurred on the cepheid plug in the known \gamma and solve for d.

Question;
Why would the failure of this experiment not present a problem for simultaneity as dfined by SR?

 

[litlbunny]

It is the convention used for the synchronization of clocks which determines the outcome of a one-way speed of light measurement. If you postulate that the speed of light is isotropic, then clocks are synchronized by Einstein's convention, and...voila...all subsequent experiments measure a constant speed of light. That does not constitute experimental proof that the speed of light is constant; it is not possible to ever prove that by experiment. It is possible to disprove it upon the identification of a locally preferred frame, but that hasn't been done yet, and maybe it never will be.

What would each of you say if I told you with absolute certainty that the speed of light can be tested and proven to reach every observable angle by doing one simple experiment within a 3 dimensional mathematical formula?

However, after the initial experimental success with reference to a single “explosion of light” the experiment, as it is expanded, would prove several of the theories that I have seen argued/discussed within this thread, that each of them would become less believable?

Would any of you be interested in testing out this simple experiment to prove it to yourself? If you agree to do this experiment I must warn you, you will need to create a computer program in which to measure this experiment, and follow the guidelines I will be suggesting. If you agree to both of those requirements, would you like me to explain how?

Because the experiment I will be suggesting is not within “normal” theoretical teaching, I will not be able to post the experiment parameters within this forum, unless the moderators of this forum will allow for a little latitude with regards to a experimental suggestion. If not however, I could send you the “How To” in a PM

If you are interested either respond here or through a private PM.

 

[gregory_]

Sure, if you do your calculations correctly. This is what you were asked all along. And, if you want to be thorough , find the error in Kirshner as well. It is only two papers, that's all.

Only two papers. I will hold you to that.

Okay, I spent time on the Gagnon paper. The error is fairly obvious, but I wasted hours brushing up on this and that in order to feel confident enough to state it here.

The error is this: electrodynamics cannot be formulated with Maxwell's equations alone. It is Maxwell's equations (how the fields interact and are produced by the sources) _AND_ Lorentz's force law (how the fields act back on the sources). Gagnon used the transformed Maxwell's equations from reference 9 without using the transformed Lorentz force law. Reference 9 doesn't calculate it, so they must have (incorrectly) assumed that it retained the same form. This is incorrect.

Lorentz force law:
K^\mu = q n_\nu F^{\mu \nu}
where K is the Minkowski force, q the charge, n the proper velocity, F the field tensor.

Reference 9 chose the components of the covarient field tensor to define the electric and magnetic fields (instead of the contravarient field tensor, which is why the two source dependent Maxwell's equations come out horrid while the non-source dependent ones come out fairly clean). So we need to rewrite the equation to depend on that, as well as depend on the contravarient proper velocity (corresponds to the physical velocity as opposed to the covarient proper velocity).

K^\mu = q (g_{\nu a} n^a) (g^{\mu b}F_{b c}g^{c\nu})

Rearranging and noting that g^{c\nu} g_{\nu a} = \delta^c_{\ a} we have:

K^\mu = q n^a g^{\mu b}F_{b a}

Let's move to another frame and see how the dependence of the force on the fields and the velocity changes. (I'll use a bar to denote quantities in this other frame.)

Of course we still have \bar{K}^\mu = q \bar{n}^a \bar{g}^{\mu b}\bar{F}_{b a} but this will correspond to the same dependence on the velocity and fields ONLY if g^{\mu b}=\bar{g}^{\mu b}. In special relativity, the metric is frame independent, so the force law maintains the same form (as expected). However, this is not true for GGT. In GGT the metric is frame dependent and thus the Lorentz force law changes form when we change frames (the metric is worked out in reference 9, so you can calculate the horrid form of the Lorentz force law using GGT if you so wish).

How does this affect Gagnon's paper? It means the boundary conditions they invoke when solving for the fields in the wave-guide are not correct. So their calculations are flawed right at the beginning.

EDIT: changed kronecker delta symbol for clarity

 

[gregory_]

It took me awhile to figure out what the other paper was (apparrently you made a small typo above?). I assume the next paper is:
Test of the isotropy of the one-way speed of light using hydrogen-maser frequency standards
Krisher, T.P.; Maleki, L.; Lutes, G.F.; Primas, L.E.; Logan, R.T.; Anderson, J.D.; Will, C.M.
Physical Review D (Particles and Fields), v 42, n 2, 15 July 1990, p 731-4

I'll take a look at it.


As a side note, I tried to look up that Gagnon paper where he contradicts and says that no effect to second order should be seen according to GGT. The library records show it should be there, but the first three volumes of Foundations of Physics Letters are missing. So I can't even read the whole article myself. Oh well. I guess it doesn't matter now anyway.

 

[gregory_]

Okay, I read the Krisher paper. I don't understand the issue here. They are constraining only a particular form of the one-way speed of light. They are NOT ruling out GGT theories. In fact, they specifically (and correctly) state "Notice that the result [(the predicted variation)] is independent of the synchronization procedure". GGT differs from Lorentz transformations only in the synchronization procedure. It is not ruled out here.

So now it is your turn. Please go back and read the post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=942326&postcount=214" and answer my questions here:

Question #1] Are you denying that by definition special relativity and theories invoking GGT agree on the physical laws in one inertial frame?

Question #2] Do you agree that one-way velocity cannot be defined independent of a coordinate system?

Question #3] In my explanation of why experiments cannot distinguish between "Generalized Galilean transformations / coordinate systems" and "Lorentz Transformations / Special Relativity's" definition of the one way speed of light, which parts do you disagree with and why?

 

[clj4]

Of course we still have \bar{K}^\mu = q \bar{n}^a \bar{g}^{\mu b}\bar{F}_{b a} but this will correspond to the same dependence on the velocity and fields ONLY if g^{\mu b}=\bar{g}^{\mu b}. In special relativity, the metric is frame independent, so the force law maintains the same form (as expected). However, this is not true for GGT. In GGT the metric is frame dependent and thus the Lorentz force law changes form when we change frames (the metric is worked out in reference 9, so you can calculate the horrid form of the Lorentz force law using GGT if you so wish).

How does this affect Gagnon's paper? It means the boundary conditions they invoke when solving for the fields in the wave-guide are not correct. So their calculations are flawed right at the beginning.

Thank you,

GGT is in effect a Mansouri-Sexl theory, it uses the same exact space-tiime transforms. So, the way it affects the Gagnon paper is that it proves a contradiction between the Mansouri-Sexl predictions and the result of the experiment (see the conclusion of the paper).

 

[clj4]

It took me awhile to figure out what the other paper was (apparrently you made a small typo above?). I assume the next paper is:
Test of the isotropy of the one-way speed of light using hydrogen-maser frequency standards
Krisher, T.P.; Maleki, L.; Lutes, G.F.; Primas, L.E.; Logan, R.T.; Anderson, J.D.; Will, C.M.
Physical Review D (Particles and Fields), v 42, n 2, 15 July 1990, p 731-4

I'll take a look at it.


As a side note, I tried to look up that Gagnon paper where he contradicts and says that no effect to second order should be seen according to GGT. The library records show it should be there, but the first three volumes of Foundations of Physics Letters are missing. So I can't even read the whole article myself. Oh well. I guess it doesn't matter now anyway.

So how did you get the quote if you cannot find the paper? How could you tell us about the content of the paper? How do you know that Gagnon spends 20 pages "analizing other experiments"? as per your post #238.

 

[clj4]

Okay, I read the Krisher paper. I don't understand the issue here. They are constraining only a particular form of the one-way speed of light. They are NOT ruling out GGT theories. In fact, they specifically (and correctly) state "Notice that the result [(the predicted variation)] is independent of the synchronization procedure". GGT differs from Lorentz transformations only in the synchronization procedure. It is not ruled out here.

So now it is your turn. Please go back and read the post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=942326&postcount=214" and answer my questions here:

Question #1] Are you denying that by definition special relativity and theories invoking GGT agree on the physical laws in one inertial frame?

Question #2] Do you agree that one-way velocity cannot be defined independent of a coordinate system?

Question #3] In my explanation of why experiments cannot distinguish between "Generalized Galilean transformations / coordinate systems" and "Lorentz Transformations / Special Relativity's" definition of the one way speed of light, which parts do you disagree with and why?

Aren't you missing a few things?

1. they are using the most general form of the MS spacetime transformation, with all the parameters in place

2. the result of the experiment puts a very hard boundary on the parameters (makes them effectively zero within the experimental error bars)

3. so the NET effect is a light speed anisotropy of 100m/s !

In case you missed it , the subject of the discussion is:
- the validity of one way speed measurement (do such experiments exist? yes, they do and they are valid)
- the possibility of explaining such experiments from the perspective of a Mansouri-Sexl theory (sure you can , if as a result of analyzing the experimental data all the parameters come out zero or as near to zero as the equipment permits- this is the main role of a test theory)

 

[clj4]

In special relativity, the metric is frame independent, so the force law maintains the same form (as expected). However, this is not true for GGT. In GGT the metric is frame dependent ...

You sure about that? This is where you stop calculating and you start talking. Based on the formulation of GGT I would be inclined to believe that the metric is frame independent. Can you prove the above statement mathematically? It should be simple.

 

[clj4]

The generalized Galilean transformations "mimic" SR in the sense that we still restrict ourselves to inertial frames (for this discussion I will define an inertial coordinate system as one in which a freely moving body moves at a constant velocity). It turns out that being an inertial coordinate system is fairly restrictive and the only freedoms we have are: origin, axis placement, and simultaneity convention.

a. Aren't you forgetting the parametrization of the transforms?

In summary, yes there are compelling reasons to choose Lorentz transformations over generalized galilean transformations. "Unfortunately" experimental proof is not one of them.

b. The correct and complete statement is that all the experiments meant to prove the Mansouri-Sexl (or GGT) reformulations of relativity result into severely constraining the parameters, i.e. they are proven to be zero within the experimental error bars.

Question #1] Do you agree that one-way velocity cannot be defined independent of a coordinate system?

yes, this is a silly question

if not
Question #2] In my explanation of why experiments cannot distinguish between "Generalized Galilean transformations / coordinate systems" and "Lorentz Transformations / Special Relativity's" definition of the one way speed of light, which parts do you disagree with and why?

Thank you.

See points (a,b) above: because your statements tend to be incomplete and your resulting questions are misleading (if you get incorrect or incomplete initial conditions there is no solution to your problem).

 

[clj4]

1. However, this is not true for GGT. In GGT the metric is frame dependent and thus the Lorentz force law changes form when we change frames (the metric is worked out in reference 9, so you can calculate the horrid form of the Lorentz force law using GGT if you so wish).

2. How does this affect Gagnon's paper? It means the boundary conditions they invoke when solving for the fields in the wave-guide are not correct. So their calculations are flawed right at the beginning.

A. Can you prove statement 1 to be true?

B. Can you prove the connection between the two statements (1 and 2)? In my experience many "horrid forms" tend to cancel out when it matters and to produce nice symmetrical results. Look at the "horrid form" of the Mansouri-Sexl transforms...

 

[clj4]

Only two papers. I will hold you to that.

Okay, I spent time on the Gagnon paper. The error is fairly obvious, but I wasted hours brushing up on this and that in order to feel confident enough to state it here.

The error is this: electrodynamics cannot be formulated with Maxwell's equations alone. It is Maxwell's equations (how the fields interact and are produced by the sources) _AND_ Lorentz's force law (how the fields act back on the sources). Gagnon used the transformed Maxwell's equations from reference 9 without using the transformed Lorentz force law. Reference 9 doesn't calculate it, so they must have (incorrectly) assumed that it retained the same form. This is incorrect.

Lorentz force law:
K^\mu = q n_\nu F^{\mu \nu}
where K is the Minkowski force, q the charge, n the proper velocity, F the field tensor.

Reference 9 chose the components of the covarient field tensor to define the electric and magnetic fields (instead of the contravarient field tensor, which is why the two source dependent Maxwell's equations come out horrid while the non-source dependent ones come out fairly clean). So we need to rewrite the equation to depend on that, as well as depend on the contravarient proper velocity (corresponds to the physical velocity as opposed to the covarient proper velocity).

K^\mu = q (g_{\nu a} n^a) (g^{\mu b}F_{b c}g^{c\nu})

Rearranging and noting that g^{c\nu} g_{\nu a} = \delta_{ca} we have:

K^\mu = q n^a g^{\mu b}F_{b a}

Let's move to another frame and see how the dependence of the force on the fields and the velocity changes. (I'll use a bar to denote quantities in this other frame.)

Of course we still have \bar{K}^\mu = q \bar{n}^a \bar{g}^{\mu b}\bar{F}_{b a} but this will correspond to the same dependence on the velocity and fields ONLY if g^{\mu b}=\bar{g}^{\mu b}. In special relativity, the metric is frame independent, so the force law maintains the same form (as expected). However, this is not true for GGT. In GGT the metric is frame dependent and thus the Lorentz force law changes form when we change frames (the metric is worked out in reference 9, so you can calculate the horrid form of the Lorentz force law using GGT if you so wish).

How does this affect Gagnon's paper? It means the boundary conditions they invoke when solving for the fields in the wave-guide are not correct. So their calculations are flawed right at the beginning.

Ahh, just a moment, what allows you to permute the expressiion:(g_{\nu a} n^a) (g^{\mu b}F_{b c}g^{c\nu})

i.e. what makes it commutative? You moved the tensor g_{\nu a} all the way to the right end of the expression.

 

[masudr]

Ahh, just a moment, what allows you to permute the expressiion:


(g_{\nu a} n^a) (g^{\mu b}F_{b c}g^{c\nu})

i.e. what makes it commutative? You moved the tensor g_{\nu a} all the way to the right end of the expression.

These quantities are just components and components are just numbers. As far as I know, numbers have always been commutative. It's the ordering of the indices and the fact that a certain index is contracted over another that preserves the original operations between the tensors.

 

[Aether]

What would each of you say if I told you with absolute certainty that the speed of light can be tested and proven to reach every observable angle by doing one simple experiment within a 3 dimensional mathematical formula?

That depends on what sort of litlbunny is telling me this.

Would any of you be interested in testing out this simple experiment to prove it to yourself?

No.

If you agree to do this experiment I must warn you, you will need to create a computer program in which to measure this experiment, and follow the guidelines I will be suggesting.

Now I'm scared.

If you agree to both of those requirements, would you like me to explain how?

No.

Because the experiment I will be suggesting is not within “normal” theoretical teaching, I will not be able to post the experiment parameters within this forum, unless the moderators of this forum will allow for a little latitude with regards to a experimental suggestion. If not however, I could send you the “How To” in a PM

If you are interested either respond here or through a private PM.

You could post it to the Independent Research forum. However, if you haven't done your "homework" on this already, you should try to develop the concept on your own as far as possible before submitting it to that forum. If you need to learn some things along the way, you can ask questions and get all the help that you need here at PF.

 

[russ_watters]

Because the experiment I will be suggesting is not within “normal” theoretical teaching, I will not be able to post the experiment parameters within this forum, unless the moderators of this forum will allow for a little latitude with regards to a experimental suggestion. If not however, I could send you the “How To” in a PM.

Experiments are not theories - you are welcome to post any experiment you wish. However, when you go and start predicting outcomes that don't mesh with what physics predicts, then you may have a problem.

My gut: the experiment you are thinking of has either already been done or is already covered by other similar but not exactly the same experiments. So predicting a different outcome from what physics would predict would require that other experimental results be different.

 

[Aether]

Thanks for locating these papers gregory, they really help!

Here's an interesting paper appearing right before the new Gagnon paper:

T. Chang and D. G. Torr, Dual properties of spacetime under an alternative Lorentz transformation, Foundations of Physics Letters 1(4), 343 (1988); http://www.springerlink.com/(hnie2i...l,100,103;browsepublicationsresults,484,1560;

Abstract:
In flat spacetime, the fourth space coordinate in special relativity (SR) is equivalent to the coordinate time t_E. We will show, however, that this definition of physical time is not unique. Another natural choice of coordinate time, t_A, with absolute synchronization is allowed. Spacetime would exhibit dual properties, namely relativistic and absolute. In an arbitrary inertial frame, the relationship of the above two kinds of coordinate time corresponds to a resynchronization, and the Lorentz transformations can be written in an alternative form, which is called the generalized Galilean transformation (GGT). Although the absolute property is still hidden in nearly all types of experiments, the advantages of the above approach are as follows: (1) It will give us a deeper understanding of SR, including the basis of length contraction, time dilation and the interaction between moving objects and the physical vacuum. (2) It will provide a wider research domain than SR; for example, superluminal motion is predicted and has obtained growing experimental support.

Here is the more recent Gagnon paper:

T. Chang, D. G. Torr and D. R. Gagnon, A modified Lorentz theory as a test theory of special relativity, Foundations of Physics Letters 1(4), 353 (1988); http://www.springerlink.com/(hnie2i...l,100,103;browsepublicationsresults,484,1560;

Abstract:
A modified Lorentz theory (MLT) based on the generalized Galilean transformation has recently received attention. In the framework of MLT, some explicit formulas dealing with the one-way velocity of light, slow-clock transport and the Doppler effect are derived in this paper. Several typical experiments are analyzed on this basis. The results show that the empirical equivalence between MLT and special relativity is still maintained to second order terms. We confirm recent findings of other works that predict the MLT might be distinguished from special relativity at the third order by Doppler centrifuge experiments capable of a fractional frequency detection threshold of 10^{–15}.

 

[clj4]

Excellent , thank you.

Doesn't sound as a retraction, does it? Sounds as a confirmation of the earlier paper we are discussing.

The results show that the EMPIRICAL equivalence between MLT and special relativity is still maintained to second order terms.

EMPIRICAL, as in EXPERIMENTAL. This is exactly what the Gagnon (Phys Rev) claims. EMPIRICAL (experimental) yes. THEORETICAL=no.(see the gagnon paper we are talking about)

We CONFIRM recent findings of other works that PREDICT the MLT MIGHT be distinguished from special relativity at the third order by Doppler centrifuge experiments capable of a fractional frequency detection threshold of 10^(–15)

Aha, now the assault on Mansouri-Sexl resumes. This time is on the theoretical plane, at third order of : \frac{v}{c}.

A very interesting paper, anyone has a scan that would care to share?
Gregory, how did you get the idea that it might be a retraction?

 

[Aether]

Doesn't sound as a retraction, does it? Sounds as a confirmation of the earlier paper we are discussing.

It sounds like a retraction (or at least a contradiction) to me, but we can hold that judgement in reserve until we're looking at the full paper(s). I'll try to buy both of these papers and post them (sharing for educational purposes only as allowed under the "fair use" provision of the copyright law as I understand it -- someone correct me if I'm wrong).

EMPIRICAL, as in EXPERIMENTAL. This is exactly what the Gagnon (Pghys Rev) claims. EMPIRICAL (experimental) yes. THEORETICAL=no.(see the gagnon paper we are talking about)

Wrong.

Aha, now the assault on Mansouri-Sexl resumes. This time is on the theoretical plane, at level : (\frac{v}{c})^3.

Sure, we can talk about violations of Lorentz symmetry, and refining models all we want later, but that is not the issue at hand.

 

[clj4]

It sounds like a retraction to me, but we can hold that judgement in reserve until we're looking at the full paper. I'll try to buy both of these papers and post them (sharing for educational purposes only as allowed under the "fair use" provision of the copyright law as I understand it -- someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Appreciate it.

 

[chroot]

What would each of you say if I told you with absolute certainty that the speed of light can be tested and proven to reach every observable angle by doing one simple experiment within a 3 dimensional mathematical formula?

I'd say you deserve another warning for posting crackpot crap on our website. Computer simulations aren't experiments, either.

- Warren

 

[Aether]

Quoting from p. 370 of: T. Chang and D. G. Torr, Dual properties of spacetime under an alternative Lorentz transformation, Foundations of Physics Letters 1(4), 343 (1988); http://www.springerlink.com/(hnie2i...l,100,103;browsepublicationsresults,484,1560;

The theoretical results derived from MLT [modified Lorentz (ether) theory] are consistent with experiments to the same degree as SR. Therefore, MLT and SR are empirically equivalent to date. Furthermore, the above analysis has shown that the relativistic time is not the only possible definition of physical time in flat spacetime. Besides the relativistic time, a natural choice of coordinate time with absolute synchronization is allowed, whether or not violations of SR at the third order are found...This implies that physics is not necessarily limited to a domain defined by SR. The physics may be extended to a domain defined by MLT.

Quoting from p. 350 of: T. Chang, D. G. Torr and D. R. Gagnon, A modified Lorentz theory as a test theory of special relativity, Foundations of Physics Letters 1(4), 353 (1988); http://www.springerlink.com/(hnie2i...l,100,103;browsepublicationsresults,484,1560;

As is well known, all kinds of elementary particles have the dual properties of particles and waves. Historically formal recognition of this more complete and more correct description was a slow process. A similar situation may prevail with spacetime theories; namely, 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 definition of physical time is not unique.

This is the mainstream view! So, please, get with the program.

 

[clj4]

Quoting from p. 370 of: T. Chang and D. G. Torr, Dual properties of spacetime under an alternative Lorentz transformation, Foundations of Physics Letters 1(4), 343 (1988); http://www.springerlink.com/(hnie2i...l,100,103;browsepublicationsresults,484,1560;

The theoretical results derived from MLT [modified Lorentz ether theory] are consistent with experiments to the same degree as SR. Therefore, MLT and SR are empirically equivalent to date. Furthermore, the above analysis has shown that the relativistic time is not the only possible definition of physical time in flat spacetime. Besides the relativistic time, a natural choice of coordinate time with absolute synchronization is allowed, whether or not violations of SR at the third order are found...This implies that physics is not necessarily limited to a domain defined by SR. The physics may be extended to a domain defined by MLT.

Quoting from p. 350 of: T. Chang, D. G. Torr and D. R. Gagnon, A modified Lorentz theory as a test theory of special relativity, Foundations of Physics Letters 1(4), 353 (1988); http://www.springerlink.com/(hnie2i...l,100,103;browsepublicationsresults,484,1560;

As is well known, all kinds of elementary particles hae the dual properties of particles an waves. Historically formal recognition of this more complete and more correct description was a slow process. A similar situation may prevail with spacetime theories; namely, 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 definition of physical time is not unique.

This is the mainstream view! So, please, get with the program.

I just skimmed thru the papers.

1. Neither quotes Gagnon (Phys Rev) , nor do they contain any retraction of it. This is the main point. So you cannot use any of the two papers against Gagnon (Phys Rev)

2. The authors actually raise the stakes by showing that MLT predicts a third order effect in (v/c) (chapter 6) that "does not reduce the result to SR as might have been intuitively expected" (page 368).Ref (25) shows that Gagnon had already done this experiment (in 1984) with a precision of 10^(-15). (page 369)

In conclusion it looks like you bought yourself another Gagnon et al paper to refute.

 

[Aether]

I just skimmed thru the papers.

1. Neither quotes Gagnon (Phys Rev) , nor do they contain any retraction of it. This is the main point. So you cannot use any of the two papers against Gagnon (Phys Rev)

Yes, and that seems strange. They do clearly contradict the first paper however which claims that GGT predicts a 19-degree phase shift, a second order effect.

2. The authors actually raise the stakes by showing that MLT predicts a third order effect in (v/c) (chapter 6) that "does not reduce the result to SR as might have been intuitively expected" (page 368).

On page 370 they say: "Besides the relativistic time, a natural choice of coordinate time with absolute synchronization is allowed, whether or not violations of SR at the third order are found". So, while this may be an interesting issue for a later discussion, it doesn't have any impact on what we're talking about here.

Ref (25) shows that Gagnon had already done this experiment (in 1984) with a precision of 10^(-15). (page 369)

He seems to be saying that he actually dectect a violation of Lorentz symmetry at that precision. Again, this may be an interesting issue for a later discussion, but it doesn't have any impact on what we're talking about here.

In conclusion it looks like you bought yourself another Gagnon et al paper to refute.

No, that's not what it looks like to me at all.

 

[clj4]

Yes, and that seems strange. They do clearly contradict the first paper however which claims that GGT predicts a 19-degree phase shift, a second order effect.

On page 370 they say: "Besides the relativistic time, a natural choice of coordinate time with absolute synchronization is allowed, whether or not violations of SR at the third order are found". So, while this may be an interesting issue for a later discussion, it doesn't have any impact on what we're talking about here.

He seems to be saying that he actually dectect a violation of Lorentz symmetry at that precision. Again, this may be an interesting issue for a later discussion, but it doesn't have any impact on what we're talking about here.

No, that's not what it looks like to me at all.

Looks like you want to split hairs, so we'll get to business: neither of the papers retracts gagnon (Phys Rev). This is how this got started. So, please refute Gagnon (Phys Rev). Would be a good idea to deal with Kirshner as well.

 

[clj4]

Yes, and that seems strange. They do clearly contradict the first paper however which claims that GGT predicts a 19-degree phase shift, a second order effect.

You mean 1.9 degrees, I think that we established that together.
Can you point the direct quote (like I did), not thru inferences?



Looks like you want to split hairs, so we'll get to business: neither of the papers retracts Gagnon (Phys Rev). This is how this side conversation got started. So, please refute Gagnon (Phys Rev). Would be a good idea to deal with Kirshner as well while you are at it.

 

[Aether]

You mean 1.9 degrees, I think that we established that together.
Can you point the direct quote (like I did), not thru inferences?

Page 370: "The theoretical results derived from MLT are consistent with experiments to the same degree as SR. Therefore, MLT and SR are empirically equivalent to date." This paper was submitted on 8/22/1988, and the first Gagnon paper was published on 8/15/1988 (submitted 8/12/1986; revised manuscript received 3/11/1988).

Looks like you want to split hairs, so we'll get to business: neither of the papers retracts Gagnon (Phys Rev). This is how this side conversation got started. So, please refute Gagnon (Phys Rev). Would be a good idea to deal with Kirshner as well while you are at it.

I think it is a good idea to examine both of those papers (and I think it's Krisher), but the quote that I just gave above from three of the same four authors as Gagnon et al. (Phys Rev A) seems entirely sufficient (to me) to settle the issue at hand once and for all.

 

[clj4]

Page 370: "The theoretical results derived from MLT are consistent with experiments to the same degree as SR. Therefore, MLT and SR are empirically equivalent to date." This paper was submitted on 8/22/1988, and the first Gagnon paper was published on 8/15/1988 (submitted 8/12/1986; revised manuscript received 3/11/1988).

I think it is a good idea to examine both of those papers (and I think it's Krisher), but the quote that I just gave above from the same three authors as Gagnon (Phys Rev) seems entirely sufficient (to me) to settle the issue at hand once and for all.

Not at all. You would like to get off the hook that easily. The authors are simply examining experiments DIFFERENT from the Gagnon (Phy Rev) with a set of transforms DIFFERENT from Gagnon (Phy Rev).
In the conclusion of Gagnon (Phys Rev, top of page 1772) the authors say:

"Our results are consistent with the special theory of relativity and do not tend to support the semiclassical theory of the existence of a preferred frame of reference". The authors assumed by absurd that such a frame existed, they predicted a second order effect, they got none. Refute that.
Mathematically, not by waiving another paper.

 

[Aether]

The authors are simply examining experiments DIFFERENT from the Gagnon (Phy Rev) with a set of transforms DIFFERENT from Gagnon (Phy Rev).

On p. 355 they actually present the general Mansouri-Sexl transformation, and Gagnon et al. (Phys Rev A) they do not even reference Mansouri-Sexl. So what is your point?

In the conclusion of Gagnon (Phys Rev, top of page 1772) the authors say:

"Our results are consistent with the special theory of relativity and do not tend to support the semiclassical theory of the existence of a preferred frame of reference". The authors assumed by absurd that such a frame existed, they predicted a second order effect, they got none. Refute that.
Mathematically, not by waiving another paper.

GGT doesn't predict any second order effect different from SR, three of these same four authors readily admit that.

 

[clj4]

On p. 355 they actually present the general Mansouri-Sexl transformation, and Gagnon et al. (Phys Rev A) they do not even reference Mansouri-Sexl. So what is your point?

GGT doesn't predict any second order effect different from SR, three of these same four authors readily admit that.

Disprove Gagnon (Phys Rev). With your own calculations.
If you cannot do it (there has been already three weeks of failed attempts, errors, missteps), then admit it and we move to Kirshner. Same drill: mathematical disproof. Might be easier for you, it is not as terse as Gagnon.