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

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter lightarrow
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiment
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the validity of a Fizeau-type experiment proposed for measuring the one-way speed of light. Participants examine the assumptions and implications of the experiment, focusing on its theoretical underpinnings and potential flaws.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the ability of the experiment to measure the one-way speed of light, suggesting a need for debunking the claims made in the referenced paper.
  • Another participant argues that the authors of the experiment neglected the implications of an anisotropic one-way speed of light, which could lead to a stress-free twisting of the apparatus in various reference frames.
  • It is proposed that the authors should have utilized Reichenbach’s ##\epsilon## framework to analyze their results, which might reveal independence from the anisotropy parameter.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that while the one-way speed of light can be measured, it cannot be done without assumptions, pointing out that the apparatus behaves differently under various synchronization conventions.
  • Reference is made to criticisms of Marinov, cited in the paper, indicating that similar errors have been previously identified in the context of special relativity.
  • A participant expresses skepticism about the paper's credibility due to its age and lack of publication, implying that this might affect the validity of its claims.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the experiment and the interpretations of its results. There is no consensus on whether the claims made in the paper are valid or if they require debunking.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the dependence on specific assumptions and the implications of different synchronization methods, which remain unresolved in the discussion.

lightarrow
Messages
1,966
Reaction score
64
TL;DR
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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: berkeman, vanhees71 and Dale

Similar threads

  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
6K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
6K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
6K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K