Isotropic and anisotropic propagation of light

[bernhard.rothenstein]

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?

 

[JesseM]

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.

 

[pervect]

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?

No, light propagates isotropially in all inertial frames. This is fundamental to relativity.

 

[Garth]

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

 

[Jorrie]

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

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.

 

[wisp]

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?

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.

 

[Garth]

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.

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.

Garth

 

[bernhard.rothenstein]

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?

 

[Garth]

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.

Garth

 

[clj4]

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?

This is the assumption of the test theories of Robertson-Mansouri and Sexl.
It has been disproved by experiment multiple times.

 

[clj4]

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.

The above is wrong and misleading. Given your views about relativity is within character. You have been told repeatedly (by several people) that:

1. One way light speed experiments have proven the isotropy
2. Quoting scandal writers like DeMeo is not proof, moreover Dayton Miller has been completely refuted by the modern reenactments of his experiment.
3. De Witte experiment is a hoax
4. Silvertooth experiment could not be duplicated by anybody (including himself)

 

[Vadim Matveev]

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?

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?

 

[clj4]

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?

Nonsense, VadimFirst off, you did not understand Bernhard's question so you twisted it into your own question, exactly as "wisp" tried it.

Secondly, contrary to what you think, one way speed of light has been measured repeatedly to be equal to c INDEPENDENT of the RELATIVE movement of the observer and the source. Just go take a class in relativity before posting all this nonsense.
Or read paragreaph 3.2 here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way tests

There are many more experiments like this.

 

[ZapperZ]

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?

I will caution you to re-read (since you are emphasizing about reading here) our Guidelines that you have explicitly agreed to. If you believe that there are evidence contrary to the standard interpretation of physics, then it is your burden to provide valid citations to reputable work.

Things have CHANGED since the last time you posted here.

Zz.

 

[bernhard.rothenstein]

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?

I respect your point of view but i do not aggree with it

 

[wisp]

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."

 

[clj4]

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."

While the link is certainly interesting, you forgot to mention that:The Hatch paper was published in...Galilean Electrodynamics, a well known venue for crank publications. This in itself makes the paper you just quoted very questionable.

As to the link above, why don't you wait until there is :

1. independent experimental confirmation (this is the standard)

2. publication in a refereed journal?

As an aside, it looks as if the authors have "forgotten" that the speed of Earth exhibits a sine dependency. It may be very well that they are measuring this effect (remember the Dayton-Miller - Maurice Allais fiasco?) instead of measuring the one way light speed anisotropy. Contrary to what the authors show, the SRT prediction is not a horizontal line stuck on 0 but...a sine wave (because the Earth's speed is variable).
Give it a year or so, if the paper is still unpublished, then you have your answer.

 

[clj4]

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

Here is a third one:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/hep-ph/papers/0408/0408006.pdf

 

[Aether]

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

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?

Here is a third one:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/hep-ph/papers/0408/0408006.pdf

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]

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.

"Test of the isotropy of the speed of light using a continuously rotating optical resonator"

 

[clj4]

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.

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).

As an aside, did you figure out how to measure (k'+k)L/2 from the "refurbished" Gagnon experiment? Because I have figured at least two ways. Are you familiar with lab equipment at all ? Or are you just a theorethician?

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. Now, the first paper in the list is clearly a one way, so you strike out here. The third paper, while it only "suggests" a means of executing one way light speed measurements looks awfully close in approach to the one way experiment of Gagnon.



I quoted the newest 3 papers to show that RMS (Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl) and SR are NOT equivalent. Actually the field has moved past RMS and into the SME (Standard Model Extension) by A. Kostelecky. 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)

You can go on forever denying the obvious and clinging to your "aether" beliefs and to some quotes from Zhang's book. Or you can start understanding test theories. The choice is yours.

 

[Aether]

"Test of the isotropy of the speed of light using a continuously rotating optical resonator"

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).

You said "Here are two new experiments on one way light speed isotropy:".

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.

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.

Now, the first paper in the list is clearly a one way, so you strike out here.

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?

I quoted the newest 3 papers to show that RMS (Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl) and SR are NOT equivalent.

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."

This quote from p. 523 of M-S II directly applies to the third paper (again, 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): "First-order tests cannot be used to distinguish between special relativity and ether theories, as has sometimes been stated. No such "experimentum crucis" is possible in principle, since the two classes of theories can be transformed into one another by a change of conventions about clock synchronization, as has been shown in I."

Where exactly in the three papers that you cited, all of which cite Mansouri-Sexl, do any of the author's claim that the quotes that I just gave from M-S are not valid?

Actually the field has moved past RMS and into the SME (Standard Model Extension) by A. Kostelecky.

Yes, it is a very exciting field.

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)

Not exactly. They are empirically equivalent when the \alpha, \beta, and \delta parameters are driven to the same values as in SR. However, no experiment can constrain the \epsilon parameter, and that is the difference between one-way and two-way light speeds.

 

[clj4]

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.

Do you have difficulties reading what I write? The first and third are clearly one-way.

"As we have shown quite generally in the first and second parts of this paper such a distinction is impossible in principle."

Ah, another quote that you take literally. The complete sentence is:
"As we have shown quite generally in the first and second parts of this paper such a distinction is impossible in principle within the framework of our kinematic theory." The moment you step out of the MS theory and into electrodynamics, as C.M.Will and Gagnon clealy show, the situation is reversed, they can tell the difference. Why do you think that all the experiments are electrodynamic? Gagnon and its derivatives should be stuck on your desk, in front of your eyes.

Not exactly. They are empirically equivalent when the \alpha, \beta, and \delta parameters are driven to near zero. However, no experiment can constrain the \epsilon parameter, and that is the difference between one-way and two-way light speeds.

Says who? You? Are you trying to say that the MS and SR are still equivalent when \alpha=\beta=\delta=0 and \epsilon is left unconstrained?

Besides, you seem to insist in missing the main point (this is why you keep fighting Krisher): what happens when
\alpha=\beta=\delta are NOT 0? Obviously the two theories ARE NOT equivalent.

The C.M.Will paper is quite clear on the subject.
BTW: you haven't answered my question on the "refurbished" Gagnon. This one is clearly a thorn in your argumentation.

 

[Aether]

Do you have difficulties reading what I write? The first and third are clearly one-way.

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?

Says who? You? Are you trying to say that the MS and SR are still equivalent when \alpha=\beta=\delta=0 and \epsilon is left unconstrained?

I have made a correction to that statement. MS and SR are equivalent when \alpha, \beta, and \delta are the same as in SR and \epsilon is left unconstrained.

Besides, you seem to insist in missing the main point (this is why you keep fighting Krisher): what happens when
\alpha=\beta=\delta are NOT 0? Obviously the two theories ARE NOT equivalent.

You mean, what happens when any experiment shows that they are not the same as in SR?

 

[clj4]

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?

Read the papers (TWO).

I have made a correction to that statement. MS and SR are equivalent when \alpha, \beta, and \delta are the same as in SR and \epsilon is left unconstrained.

So? What is your "corrected" point? Does leaving epsilon unconstrained make the one way light speed experiments invalid? Do MS and SR become magically equivalent?

 

[Aether]

Read the papers (TWO).

Answer the question.

Does leaving epsilon unconstrained make the one way light speed experiments invalid?

Yes, see http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=723660&postcount=102" .

Do MS and SR become magically equivalent?

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.

 

[clj4]

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 are applying the same tactics as the "gregory" sock puppets with a new twist : you repeatedly declare victory.
Well, the papers that I listed are valid and so are the experiments. I tried thru hundreds of posts to explain that to you but you seem more interested in defending your own beliefs. I suggest that you collect them into a paper trying to refute the long list of valid experiments and you try to publish it.

 

[clj4]

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 are applying the same tactics as the "gregory" sock puppets with a new twist : you repeatedly declare victory.
Well, the papers that I listed are valid and so are the experiments. I tried thru hundreds of posts to explain that to you but you seem more interested in defending your own beliefs. I suggest that you collect them into a paper trying to refute the long list of valid experiments and you try to publish it.


In order not to leave the readers of this thread in siuspension I will explain things one last time:

1. There are two main classes of experiments that deal with light speed isotropy:
-one way (Krisher, Gagnonx3, C.M.Will, the THREE new papers from post 18, the ones that "Aether" keeps asking me to interpret for him)
-two way

2. All the papers use electrodynamics experiments beacuse, as can be clearly seen from both the MS papers and from the CMWill paper one would need ADDITIONAL, AD-HOC assumptions to be made in order to make the MS theory indistinguishable from SR. WITHOUT the AD-HOC assumptions, the two theories can be distinguished and the experiments proceed in showing how this distinction is being made.

3. The above papers resolve to work with a simplified form of RMS, called GGT that assumes absulute simultaneity (the \epsilon parameter is 0) and either:

-refute a parametrized version of GGT by constrainiing the other parameters to virtual 0 (\alpha, \beta,\delta... as in Krisher, Peters, etc)

-refute an non-parametrized version outright , as in Gagnon

4. Some of the newer papers (A.Peters) do the same type of work on a more modern theory, SME, and conclude by constraining a much larger number of the parameters in the so-called "photon section"

5. By proving experimentally that the light speed is isotropic, these papers set very severe experimental bars on the RMS and SR test theories. These bars do not exist for SR since SR assumes light speed to be isotropic.

"Aether" seems to believe that anything short of constraining \epsilon to be within the SR value of v/c^2 proves that these papers and the experiments describe within are invalid. This is in the context of showing the opposite over more than 400 posts that include mathematical calculations. "Aether" choice has been battling the math with selective quotes from Zhang and the MS papers (though MS papers, when read carefully show clearly the limitations of their theory).
Well, sorry to disappoint you, it looks like there is a rekindled interest in high precission light speed experiments that measure its isotropy. So, "Aether", you will have to battle them all, one by one, alone.
One thing is for sure, the world of "prefrential/absolute reference frame" is shrinking every day. In terms of 10^m
I hope that this was useful.

 

[Aether]

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)

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]

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.

 

[pervect]

My $.02

I think that as a source, the journal of Galillean electrodynamics is slightly less credible than The National Enquirer.

[edit]
But before I get off track questioning the validity of this "journal", where does it say that this paper came from "The Journal of Gallielean Electrodynamics"?

Looking at the pre-print, it doesn't appear to have been cited as being published anywhere.

 

[clj4]

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".

Here are THREE new experiments on one way light speed isotropy:

1. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508097

(this one was just published in Phys.Rev.Lett Oct 2005:

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/serv...cvips&gifs=yes

2. Here is the second one:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510169

3. Here is a third one:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/hep-ph/papers/0408/0408006.pdf

 

[clj4]

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.

You've been told in a few posts earlier that this is probably a gross mistake and that you should wait for independent confirmation as well as publication in a refereed journal. You have also been told that the paper is based on R.Hatch crackpot ether theory called EGT. You have even been given R.Hatch's website.

 

[wisp]

Here are THREE new experiments on one way light speed isotropy:

1. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508097
[/url]

This tests the isotropy of the speed of light using a continuously rotating optical resonator.

Light in the resonators travels two-ways, and the moving and stationary resonators are compared to measure variations to Local Lorentz Invariance. But this is not a “real” one-way light speed test, as you are comparing two things, both in which light has traveled two-ways.
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.

 

[clj4]

It is possible for systems to be 100% in agreement with LLI, and display c+/-V anisotropy in the one-way light speed.

Correct. The RMS theory was "crafted" such that:

a. one way light speed is anisotropic
b. the anisotropy gets canceled in two-way light speed experiments

The experiment I quoted showcases the anisotropy through a comparison of frequency measurements between a refrence laser and a continously rotating laser. It is very similar with the idea of the Gagnon experiment , it replaces the phase differential with the frequency differential. Given b. (above) and the fact that there is predicted anisotropy, it is clearly a one way experiment.

We need more simple one-way tests, not ones measuring LLI with resonators or rotating cryogenic optical cavities.

There are 7 more one way light speed experiments listed in this thread. It is likely that many more will follow since the U of Berlin group started taking interest in such experiments.

In order to get things more interesting and productive, would you and "Aether" care to try to disprove this experiment? Again, with math, not with literary prose.

 

[Aether]

It is very similar with the idea of the Gagnon experiment

Not only was the Gagnon experiment quickly recanted by the authors, but it has also been thoroughly refuted in our recent discussion here and at BAUT. That discussion is now closed, and despite your continual insistence that our previous conversation was subject to "BAUT rules", you were ultimately declared by unanimous consent as being the only visibly against-the-mainstream party to that conversation, permanently banned from BAUT for uncivil behavior, and http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=724212&postcount=124" is the correct and undisputed technical summary for that conversation.

Given b. (above) and the fact that there is predicted anisotropy, it is clearly a one way experiment.

It is not, it is a modern Michelson-Morley experiment. You have repeatedly refused to answer my simple question with respect to this false claim, and it has already been declared within this thread, by unanimous consent, as being refuted.

In order to get things more interesting and productive, would you and "Aether" care to try to disprove this experiment? Again, with math, not with literary prose.

No. AFAIK at this time there is nothing wrong with the experiment or the PRL paper. The problem is that you are misrepresenting it as a one-way light speed experiment, and refusing to answer simple questions. I really think that some more aggressive moderation is called for here. I don't want to see you banned from PF too, clj4, but I think that you should definitely be expected to answer simple questions in a timely manner from now on.

 

[clj4]

Not only was the Gagnon experiment quickly recanted by the authors, but it has also been thoroughly refuted in our recent discussion here and at BAUT. That discussion is now closed, and despite your continual insistence that our previous conversation was subject to "BAUT rules", you were ultimately declared by unanimous consent as being the only visibly against-the-mainstream party to that conversation, permanently banned from BAUT for uncivil behavior, and http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=724212&postcount=124" is the correct and undisputed technical summary for that conversation.

Really? As far as everybody else can read on their own I have proven that:

1. The math errors in the Gagnon paper were fixed.
2. The fixed Gagnon experiment clearly demonstrates that RMS and SR theories are not equivalent.

BTW1 : have you figured how to extract the phase differential in the fixed Gagnon experiment? You never answered this thorny question.

BTW2 : why don't you drop the rhetoric with "You have been declared..." I simply called out the BAUT sock puppets that were "helping" you (the same one suspended in this forum) , this is how the discussion was ended after I have proven to you that the fixed Gagnon paper can be used in separating RMS from SR. Last I remember I offered to involve the authors of the more modern experiments in the discussion. I do not remember you and the "socks" being declared winners by anyone. When you loose a dispute on scientific grounds try not to move it on political grounds, it does'n look good and it doesn't reverse the scientific truth.

It is not, it is a modern Michelson-Morley experiment. You have repeatedly refused to answer my simple question with respect to this false claim, and it has already been declared within this thread, by unanimous consent, as being refuted.

Physics is about experiment and theory, it is not about prose and psychobabble. You have had several explanations about the differences between RMS and SR and about the validity of the 8 or so one-way light speed experiments. There is nothing I can do if you refuse to see the reality and continue to cling to your "aetherist" views. I have answered hundreds of your questions, I have corrected your faulty calculations, I have posted the correct calculations, etc. Right here, in this forum:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=88636&page=27

The 8 papers on one way light speed experiments published in Phys. Rev. I quoted and the hundreds of explanations I have given are sufficient.
As to what most members of this forum think about this issue, let me redirect you to the beginning of the thread, in case you forgot:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=111485

 

[Aether]

Really? As far as everybody else can read on their own I have proven that:

1. The math errors in the Gagnon paper were fixed.
2. The fixed Gagnon experiment clearly demonstrates that RMS and SR theories are not equivalent.

...this is how the discussion was ended after I have proven to you that the fixed Gagnon paper can be used in separating RMS from SR.

The Gagnon paper stands as both recanted by the authors and thoroughy refuted here. The experiment has not been "fixed", and if you believe you have done so then please submit a paper to Physical Review A (or at least to the IR forum at PF, I'll be glad to discuss the matter further with you there). It is absurd that you are trying to contradict Zhang and Mansouri-Sexl here with a "refurbished Gagnon" paper that does not even exist.

BTW1 : have you figured how to extract the phase differential in the fixed Gagnon experiment? You never answered this thorny question.

Yes, it is the difference in the two phases as opposed to half of the sum of the two phases as you keep claiming.

BTW2 : why don't you drop the rhetoric with "You have been declared..."

I do not remember you and the "socks" being declared winners by anyone. When you loose a dispute on scientific grounds try not to move it on political grounds, it does'n look good and it doesn't reverse the scientific truth.

Because you won't answer our questions. The declarations are by "unanimous consent", that means that nobody present (not counting you) disagrees with them. There isn't anything unusual about this procedure as it is how most proper meetings are conducted (e.g., according to the "rules of order"). Specifically, this procedure relieves me of any reponsibility to continue refuting your false claims.

I simply called out the BAUT sock puppets that were "helping" you (the same one suspended in this forum),

Your responsibilities in this discussion include answering questions about the claims that you make, and they do not include calling out alleged sock puppets.

Last I remember I offered to involve the authors of the more modern experiments in the discussion.

They are welcome to give their input to that/this discussion at any time. They have so far chosen not to contradict the technical summary given http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=724212&postcount=124".

Physics is about experiment and theory, it is not about prose and psychobabble.

When you repeatedly refuse to answer simple questions that are put to you about claims that you are making, then you forfeit your claims. Period.

You have had several explanations about the differences between RMS and SR and about the validity of the 8 or so one-way light speed experiments. There is nothing I can do if you refuse to see the reality and continue to cling to your "aetherist" views. I have answered hundreds of your questions, I have corrected your faulty calculations, I have posted the correct calculations, etc. Right here, in this forum:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=88636&page=27

The 8 papers on one way light speed experiments published in Phys. Rev. I quoted and the hundreds of explanations I have given are sufficient.

Why haven't you answered the direct questions asked of you here, here, and here? Do you disagree with any of the answers given within the technical summary http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=724212&postcount=124"?

Is there anyone here (besides clj4) who disagrees with http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=724212&postcount=124"?

 

[clj4]

The Gagnon paper stands as both recanted by the authors and thoroughy refuted here. The experiment has not been "fixed", and if you believe you have done so then please submit a paper to Physical Review A. It is absurd that you are trying to contradict Zhang and Mansouri-Sexl here with a "refurbished Gagnon" paper that does not even exist.

...and the other two Gagnon papers, and the Krisher paper, and the C.M.Will paper (did you ever get around reading and accepting it?), and the 3 new papers from the U of Berlin.

Yes, it is the difference in the two phases as opposed to half of the sum of the two phases as you keep claiming.

Wrong answer. There are at least 3 ways of extracting the (k+k')L/2 term. You are not restricted to work with the (k-k")L/2 term that absconds the dependency wrt the Earth velocity. When you focus so hard to prove your point you risk missing the obvious.
And this makes the new Gagnon paper very useful in rejecting the "equivalence" between RMS and SR. We've gone thru this, in excruciating mathematical detail.

Your responsibilities in this discussion include answering questions about the claims that you make, and they do not include calling out alleged sock puppets.

Not "alleged". Proven.

They are welcome to give their input to that discussion at any time. They have so far chosen not to contradict the summary given http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=724212&postcount=124".

I warned you that they (the people from U of Berlin) may find the discussion ridiculous and that they may elect not to waste their time on something that it well known. Besides, the 3 quoted papers by the very same people fly in the face of what you keep maintaining. And so does the C.M.Will paper that I commented for you. And so does the second MS paper that I commented for you . Etc, etc. "Aetheritis" is not an easily curable disease, luckily it looks that a lot of people are becoming interested in curing it with well chosen experiments.

When you repeatedly refuse to answer simple questions that are put to you, then you forfeit your claims. Period.

You got your answers, it is just that they disagree with your beliefs. Try post 28. Or go back here:https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=111485

 

[pervect]

I really haven't been following the argument, which has been extremely long.

I thought that Hans De Vries made an interesting point that any conductor must have a notion of simultaneity, that frame in which the electric field is zero. This is not any sort of "ether" frame, because it is attached to a physical object. However, it does suggest to me that there is yet another reason for using standard Einstein clock synchronization in any inertial frame - because it shares the same notion of simultaneity that a conductor does.

 

[clj4]

I really haven't been following the argument, which has been extremely long.

I thought that Hans De Vries made an interesting point that any conductor must have a notion of simultaneity, that frame in which the electric field is zero. This is not any sort of "ether" frame, because it is attached to a physical object. However, it does suggest to me that there is yet another reason for using standard Einstein clock synchronization in any inertial frame - because it shares the same notion of simultaneity that a conductor does.

In a nutshell, after hundreds of posts "Aether"+the two sock puppets on one side and I on the other side have agreed that (see https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=953407&postcount=394) the correct wave vector in the Gagnon experiment is linearly dependent on the Earth composite speed (orbital and rotational) as in :

k(v_z,\omega)=\frac{v_z}{c}*\frac{\omega}{c}+... (1)

In SR, the term in v_z does not exist. IN GGT (an aether theory derived from the Mansouri-Sexl theory), the term in v_z is present.

What followed in the BAUT ("Against the Mainstream"!) forum was a disagreement as to whether one could extract the quantity (k+k')L/2 from the two waves of the form :
A*cos(kL-\omega*t) and respectively A*cos(k'L-\omega*t)
There are at least 3 ways to do exactly that : extract (k+k')L/2 . I am sure that there are more. The quantity (k+k')L/2, being dependent of v_z gives an excellent tool for separating the SR predictions from the GGT (MS) predictions and from the experimental measurements that agree with SR and disagree with GGT. ("Aether" insists on using the term (k-k')L/2 that is obviously independent of v_z)
Formula (1) "fixed" the errors in the original Gagnon paper and added it back to the list of 8 papers, published Phys. Rev. that demonstrate how to measure one-way light speed isotropy. All these experiments are executed outside the domain of applicability of the MS theory. As outlined by CM Will in his paper, this is for good reason, the MS theory STOPS at kinematics. Mansouri and Sexl never developed their theory past kinematics. Now, "Aether" please stop and contrast the MS 1977 papers with, let's say, the Einstein 1905 paper. Where is the dynamic section in MS? Where is the electromagnetic section?
If one wanted to disprove the MS theory, one had to operate in the "photon sector" (electrodynamics). The much quoted book by Y.Y.Zhang, in effect says the same thing but a little differently: MS and SR agree WITHIN the scope of kinematics ONLY. Once you take MS OUTSIDE kinematics two things (maybe more) happen:

1. One can construct electrodynamic experiments that showcase the differences between GGT(MS) and SR as in the case of Gagnon, Krisher, Will, Peters

2. One can attempt to reconcile MS with SR by ADDING AH-HOC assumptions that MAY or MAY NOT be correct (see the CM Will paper). This is perfectly in line with what we've known about "aether" theories all along : they can be made to predict the same results as SR BUT we need to ADD AD-HOC explanations for EACH new experiment. This is the main reason "aether" theories have been abandoned in the favor of SR.We all know that SR does NOT need ANY ad-hoc additional explanation. If "Aether" wanted to disprove the one way light isotropy he would have to refute all 8 papers. The above mathematical and experimental reasoning stopped him after the first one (Gagnon). It was an interesting and somewhat unique exercise of "refurbishing" a paper that had some easily correctable math errors but has a sound experimental basis.

 

[wisp]

Correct. The RMS theory was "crafted" such that:

a. one way light speed is anisotropic
b. the anisotropy gets canceled in two-way light speed experiments

If (a) is true as you state, then the special theory of relativity is false.

You've always refuted the one-way light speed is anisotropic. But now you seem to be accepting it as part of RMS theory. And to argue that the above test is a one-way test is absurd.

 

[clj4]

If (a) is true as you state, then the special theory of relativity is false.

You've always refuted the one-way light speed is anisotropic. But now you seem to be accepting it as part of RMS theory. And to argue that the above test is a one-way test is absurd.

a is false (light speed IS isotropic) as it has been disproved by several one way light speed experiments. RMS and SR are not indistinguishable from each other. Plain enough?So it looks like

a. you don't understand what you read (RMS is a "test theory" of SR, can you understand the quotes in : 'RMS theory was "crafted" '?)
b. you understand somewhat but you twist it to conform to your views (you need SR "refuted" in order to push your own "wisp" theory)

Either a or b, you are wrong. Judging by your posts you are a AND b.

 

[wisp]

Correct. The RMS theory was "crafted" such that:

a. one way light speed is anisotropic

Clj4. So now you are saying that (a) is wrong. I guess you are at odds with RMS theory.

 

[clj4]

Clj4. So now you are saying that (a) is wrong. I guess you are at odds with RMS theory.

Try reading (and understanding) for a change. RMS is a test theory of SR, as such it makes certain assumptions (like absolute simultaneity, one way light speed anisotropy) that are contrary to SR. The experiments discussed in this thread (and others) disprove one way light speed anisotropy. RMS is just a tool for testing SR.

 

[wisp]

clj4

You seem to be the only one who believes the two-way tests quoted are one-way tests.

Aether has asked you many times to provide evidence that tests are one-way, and you have failed to do this. For example,
#19 Aether - 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?
#22 Aether - 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.
and - 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?
#24 Aether - 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?
#26 Aether - 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.
#36 Aether - No. AFAIK at this time there is nothing wrong with the experiment or the PRL paper. The problem is that you are misrepresenting it as a one-way light speed experiment, and refusing to answer simple questions. I really think that some more aggressive moderation is called for here. I don't want to see you banned from PF too, clj4, but I think that you should definitely be expected to answer simple questions in a timely manner from now on.

There seems to be a majority vote against your claim. I concur with Aether that your claim for making these two-ways tests into one-way tests is false. Is there anyone on this forum that will support your claim?

 

[ZapperZ]

There seems to be a majority vote against your claim. I concur with Aether that your claim for making these two-ways tests into one-way tests is false. Is there anyone on this forum that will support your claim?

wisp: you, OF ALL PEOPLE, should not be playing with such games, because I could ask the SAME thing regarding your view. Would you like to have a vote on how many of us here think you're barking up the wrong tree? Or would you prefer to do a literature count on how many published papers back your claim and how many don't? Would a majority "vote" silence your opinion? No? Then why do you expect such a thing now?

And may I point out to you that you have also played your part in making twisted claims. Did you wipe out completely from memory your Sagnac thread that you never bothered to even follow through?

Zz.

 

[clj4]

clj4

You seem to be the only one who believes the two-way tests quoted are one-way tests.

Aether has asked you many times to provide evidence that tests are one-way, and you have failed to do this. For example,
#19 Aether - 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?
#22 Aether - 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.
and - 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?
#24 Aether - 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?
#26 Aether - 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.
#36 Aether - No. AFAIK at this time there is nothing wrong with the experiment or the PRL paper. The problem is that you are misrepresenting it as a one-way light speed experiment, and refusing to answer simple questions. I really think that some more aggressive moderation is called for here. I don't want to see you banned from PF too, clj4, but I think that you should definitely be expected to answer simple questions in a timely manner from now on.

There seems to be a majority vote against your claim. I concur with Aether that your claim for making these two-ways tests into one-way tests is false. Is there anyone on this forum that will support your claim?

If physics were psychobabble the above would make sense.
But physics is about two things (neither of which you understand): experimentation and mathematical explanation. So, go back to post 41 and re-read it.

 

[wisp]

clj4

You’ve avoided answering the question. Yes relativists do bash etherists, and we get put up with that because we know we're right. The real one-way light speed tests are supporting our claim that the speed of light is anisotropic.

Your defense that the speed of light is isotropic is only supported by your two-way tests, which you falsely claim are one-way tests.

 

[JustinLevy]

Yes relativists do bash etherists, and we get put up with that because we know we\'re right.

That is a strong statement. \"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof\" (Carl Sagan).

There are many many experiments that agree with relativity.
There are only a few that disagree and these have shown to not be repeatable (and therefore most likely attributable to systematic or human errors).

The real one-way light speed tests are supporting our claim that the speed of light is anisotropic.

Please elaborate.
I am worried about your qualification of stating that the \"real\" tests support your claim. I truly hope you are not defining \"real\" to only be the tests that agree with your claims.