Relativistic Interpretation of the Kennedy Thorndike Experiment?

[clj4]

I learned recently that there is quite a bit of disagreement on the relativistic interpretation of the KT experiment. I have my own ideas that I would like to calibrate against published material. Are there any:

-articles published in American Journal of Physics (they tend to publish this sort of stuff) ?

-textbooks?

-free papers on the web

that you can recommend?

Thank you

 

[ZapperZ]

The only paper that I have in easy reach (meaning its in my file cabinet) is this:

C. Braxmaier et al., PRL v.88, p.010401 (2002).

Can't find that on ArXiv, but the same first author has at least a couple of similar papers on it, such as

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0401103
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0305117

Zz.

 

[Meir Achuz]

I saw none on the arxiv, but 153 with google.
I guess you already looked there though.

 

[clj4]

I saw none on the arxiv, but 153 with google.
I guess you already looked there though.

Yes, and there is nothing, this is why I am asking.

 

[clj4]

The only paper that I have in easy reach (meaning its in my file cabinet) is this:

C. Braxmaier et al., PRL v.88, p.010401 (2002).

Can't find that on ArXiv, but the same first author has at least a couple of similar papers on it, such as

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0401103
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0305117

Zz.

Yes, I have these, they start from a description in the framework of the Mansouri-Sexl (not SR). The description is not quite right, this is why I was looking for the textbook (SR) one which should be the starting point. Interesting, eh? No SR description...

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, I have these, they start from a description in the framework of the Mansouri-Sexl (not SR). The description is not quite right, this is why I was looking for the textbook (SR) one which should be the starting point. Interesting, eh? No SR description...

But I think that's the whole point of doing those experiments - to test out the MS extra terms that are not contained in SR.

Zz.

 

[clj4]

But I think that's the whole point of doing those experiments - to test out the MS extra terms that are not contained in SR.

Zz.

Yes, I agree. The problem is that MS did not formalize the KT experiment quite right. They also made some mistakes on Ives-Stilwell which they dismissed before doing the complete and correct calculations. Anybody has access to the original KT paper?

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, I agree. The problem is that MS did not formalize the KT experiment quite right. They also made some mistakes on Ives-Stilwell which they dismissed before doing the complete and correct calculations. Anybody has access to the original KT paper?

Humm.. I must have messed up which one is the chicken and which one is the egg. I didn't realize that MS formulated their results to suit the KT experiment. I thought it was the other way around, where MS came out, people who knew about KT method decided to use it to test out MS's predictions.

Was KT originally published in Phys. Rev.? If it is, I can get it. I'll check.

Zz.

Edit: I have it. KT Phys. Rev. 42, 400–418 (1932). I can e-mail to you if you don't have access to it.

 

[clj4]

Humm.. I must have messed up which one is the chicken and which one is the egg. I didn't realize that MS formulated their results to suit the KT experiment. I thought it was the other way around, where MS came out, people who knew about KT method decided to use it to test out MS's predictions.

Correct. The problem is that MS wrote about KT and IS in their paper. Certain things are not quite right, this is why I am looking for the original 1932 paper.

Was KT originally published in Phys. Rev.? If it is, I can get it. I'll check.

Yes, I think so. Thank you for helping me out.

Edit: I have it. KT Phys. Rev. 42, 400–418 (1932). I can e-mail to you if you don't have access to it.

Please do, can you attach it to a private message? If not, I'll send you my email address.

 

[ZapperZ]

Please do, can you attach it to a private message? If not, I'll send you my email address.

I don't think I can attach it via PM. So if you PM me your e-mail address, I'll send it to you. It's 1.9 MB, though.

Zz.

 

[clj4]

I don't think I can attach it via PM. So if you PM me your e-mail address, I'll send it to you. It's 1.9 MB, though.

Zz.

thank you, I just sent it in a PM.

 

[ZapperZ]

OK, I hope you got it.

Zz.

 

[JustinLevy]

I learned recently that there is quite a bit of disagreement on the relativistic interpretation of the KT experiment.

From a theoretical aspect it is a very simple interferometer experiment, so I would be very surprised to learn there is "quite a bit of disagreement on the relativistic interpretation". Can you cite some of the disagreement? It would be very interesting to read. Thanks.

 

[clj4]

From a theoretical aspect it is a very simple interferometer experiment, so I would be very surprised to learn there is "quite a bit of disagreement on the relativistic interpretation". Can you cite some of the disagreement? It would be very interesting to read. Thanks.

I'm surprised you don't know, you seem to know everything. Look it up on your own.

 

[JustinLevy]

I'm surprised you don't know, you seem to know everything. Look it up on your own.

I see no evidence of disagreement regarding relativity's predictions for such a simple interferometry experiment. When you make a bold statement such as "I learned recently that there is quite a bit of disagreement on the relativistic interpretation of the KT experiment", I think I am quite justified in asking for sources.

And considering your statement: "I have my own ideas that I would like to calibrate against published material." I am worried that you have your own pet theory you are working on. Relativity agrees with the KT experiment, that has and always will be the standard "interpretation" since it follows directly from SR's first postulate (the equivalency of all inertial frames - physics is the same in all inertial frames). You can not measure your speed in any absolute sense.

 

[clj4]

I see no evidence of disagreement regarding relativity's predictions for such a simple interferometry experiment. When you make a bold statement such as "I learned recently that there is quite a bit of disagreement on the relativistic interpretation of the KT experiment", I think I am quite justified in asking for sources.

And considering your statement: "I have my own ideas that I would like to calibrate against published material." I am worried that you have your own pet theory you are working on. Relativity agrees with the KT experiment, that has and always will be the standard "interpretation" since it follows directly from SR's first postulate (the equivalency of all inertial frames - physics is the same in all inertial frames). You can not measure your speed in any absolute sense.

No need to worry, I don't have any pet theory.

 

[JustinLevy]

No need to worry, I don't have any pet theory.

That is good to hear (seriously).

But you seem to have ignored my request for some links / sources for your original statement. I see no evidence of disagreement regarding relativity's predictions for such a simple interferometry experiment as KT. When you make a bold statement such as "I learned recently that there is quite a bit of disagreement on the relativistic interpretation of the KT experiment", I think I am quite justified in asking for sources.

 

[clj4]

That is good to hear (seriously).

But you seem to have ignored my request for some links / sources for your original statement. I see no evidence of disagreement regarding relativity's predictions for such a simple interferometry experiment as KT. When you make a bold statement such as "I learned recently that there is quite a bit of disagreement on the relativistic interpretation of the KT experiment", I think I am quite justified in asking for sources.

Tough, you project the fact you know everything so I'll let you find this one on your own.

 

[JustinLevy]

Tough, you project the fact you know everything so I'll let you find this one on your own.

I never claimed to know everything. The very fact that I have asked questions in this very forum show that I realize this. So I am not sure where you are getting that impression.

I give people the benefit of the doubt. I did search your claim. I see nothing.

And ultimately, it isn't my task to find such things. If you are going to be making statements that there are now disputes on the relativistic interpretations for a simple experiment that for decades physicists have agreed on, then it is your onus to produce proof of real debates.

If we had to search around everytime a false claim was made so that we could dismiss it, it would be a waste of everyone's time. So if you continue to insist your statement is correct, please back it up with sources.

 

[Moonbear]

Tough, you project the fact you know everything so I'll let you find this one on your own.

If YOU make a claim, YOU need to provide support for it, not shift the burden of proof to someone else. That is the way things work around here. If you do not have support for your claim, then there is no reason for anyone else to believe it.

 

[clj4]

If YOU make a claim, YOU need to provide support for it, not shift the burden of proof to someone else. That is the way things work around here. If you do not have support for your claim, then there is no reason for anyone else to believe it.

I never asked anyone to believe any claim, I simply asked for some help in getting a reference and I got it. As far as I am concerned, the issue is closed.