I Is the Fizeau-Type Experiment Valid for Measuring the One-Way Speed of Light?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter lightarrow
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiment
lightarrow
Messages
1,966
Reaction score
64
TL;DR Summary
A Fizeau-type experiment were they claim to be able to measure the one-way speed of light.
Can't see how in this experiment they claim to be able to measure the one-way speed of light:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/50908639_To_Re-Consider_the_One-Way_Speed_of_Light_UsingFizeau-Type-Coupled-Slotted-Disks

Can you help me to debunk it?

--
lightarrow
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They seem to have neglected the fact that an anisotropic one-way speed of light will result in a stress-free twisting of the apparatus. This stress-free twisting happens in ordinary relativity in reference frames where the apparatus is translating. But when using anisotropic one-way speed of light then it will happen also in reference frames where the apparatus is not translating, depending on its orientation with respect to the light speed anisotropy.

The authors should have analyzed their results using Reichenbach’s ##\epsilon## or some other similar framework which explicitly supports an anisotropic one way speed of light. Then they could see that their measured results are independent of the ##\epsilon## anisotropy parameter.

Plus, it is researchgate, so does it really need to be debunked anyway?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Ibix
You can easily measure the one-way speed of light. What you can't do is measure it in an assumption-free way.

I haven't dug much into their paper (a ten year old paper that hasn't found a publisher is not a great sign) but my skim read reached the same conclusion Dale did. The wheels are effectively clocks and are Einstein synchronised in their rest frame. In any other frame or under any other synchronisation convention the rod connecting them is twisted and they are desynchronised.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Dale
Incidentally, Marinov (cited in the paper) is criticised in the Experimental Basis of SR FAQ (linked from a sticky thread in this very forum) for exactly this error. These guys seem to be simply repeating it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
lightarrow said:
Can you help me to debunk it?
We usually do not allow threads just for debunking crackpottery - if we did , there wouldn't be room for anything else.

We have made an exception for this one as the misunderstanding is common and easily explained. However, now that it has attracted reasonably complete and accurate explanations we can close it. As with all thread closures, if you believe that it is premature and have more to say, you can ask any mentor to reopen it for your contribution.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes berkeman, vanhees71 and Dale
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...
Back
Top