SR and one-way speed of light tests

[wisp]

Nereid

Thanks for the info. This is a challenge to wisp theory and maybe it will show SR is correct, and wisp theory wrong.
The experiment looks like it has professional credibility, and I hope the results are conclusive.
However, my bet is that the results are inconclusive due to large tolerances, and given doubt the experiment will bias towards SR being correct.
I know the DeWitte experiment used six atomic clock standards and ran over 178 days, and did detect a sidereal variation in frequency difference.
Both can't be right. It is likely that the one with the larger tolerance is wrong.
I will try and find the answer.
If anyone knows of any independent reviews on the JPL results I would welcome your input.

 

[Nereid]

centrifuge and TPA?

wisp, Will also mentions the centrifuge and TPA (two-photon absorbtion) experiments as being one-way tests. Have you looked into these too? Maybe they're not relevant to wisp.

From the same website as my earlier Will quote (Sect 2.2.3); the 'observed limit' refers to the JPL experiment:
"The observed limit on a diurnal variation in the relative phase resulted in the |c^-2 - 1 | < 3 X 10^-4. Tighter bounds were obtained from a ``two-photon absorption'' (TPA) experiment, and a 1960s series of ``Mössbauer-rotor'' experiments, which tested the isotropy of time dilation between a gamma ray emitter on the rim of a rotating disk and an absorber placed at the center"

 

[wisp]

Nereid
I don't think wisp theory has any issues with the centrifuge and TPA (two-photon absorption) experiments. Wisp theory covers the 1963 Kundig rotating turntable experiment and supports the predicted effects (Wisp theory - Section 9.2.3). I think the two-photon absorption relates to Local Lorentz Invariance, and this is also supported.


However, there is an issue with the T.P.Krisher et al “laser optic one way light experiment” 1990

I came across this info on the net written by D.J.Larson.
" 10.3 The Experiment of Krisher et al.
A recent experiment by Krisher et al. has tested for the anisotropy of the oneway speed of light by using two hydrogen maser standards separated by 21 km. The light from each maser is split, with one-half sent to a local detector and the other half used to modulate a laser carrier signal that is sent to a detector at the distant location. The light from the local maser and the distant maser are combined, and their relative frequency difference monitored. Since all light propagation is oneway in this experiment, the node enforcement hypothesis, Postulate DJL-II, is no longer easily motivated by an analogy with a pinned string, and it is possible that the Krisher et al. experiment could yield a non-null result. (There are no longer mirrors enforcing boundary conditions at both ends of a light path, so nodes may no longer be forced to move along with the apparatus in this case.) An analysis of the Krisher et al. result using the theory presented herein shows that experimental noise is too large at present to be able to detect the Earth’s motion through an ether at rest with respect to the 3 K microwave background radiation. However, further refinements in the experiment may detect such motion."

http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/fis/larson3.htm

It seems that the experiment was not accurate enough to detect the motion of the Earth through the ether, and the experiment only ran for 5 days. I believe the DeWitte experiment was more accurate because it ran for much longer and was able to extract the sidereal period variations from the data. Only modern one-way tests will resolve the issue.

 

[outandbeyond2004]

Wisp, the following quotation is from your website:

http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/wisp_ch_5/wisp_ch_5.html


5.3.9 Bending light
The curvature of wisp space by matter or energy will affect the path of light. Light is a pattern of oscillating transverse wisp waves, which lack zero-state spheres. Because they do not possesses zero-state spheres they are unaffected by gravitational force. But their paths will undoubtedly follow the curvature of wisp space.


Shapiro travel-time delay experiments have been going on for some time now. See section 3.4.2 "The time delay of light" in this webpage: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html

Now if jiggle and the curvature of space in the solar system could be neglected as far as the trip time delay effect is concerned, then your theory only predicts a null result for Shapiro-type experiments. I would like to see some detailed calculations from your theory that does predict something like what Shapiro and other experimenters measured (see graphic http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/fig05.html (the purple lines and arrows))

Until you come up with an explanation, I am sorry to tell you that I will not spend any more time on wisp theory.

 

[wisp]

Outandbeyond2004

I would like to see some detailed calculations from your theory that does predict something like what Shapiro and other experimenters measured

Wisp theory matches SR predictions completely and produces a model of gravity that is different to the GR model.
I did match inertial and gravitational mass as being the same to an order of 1 part in 10^21 and produced a model that shows how time dilation works from a mechanical perspective. I don't think the theory will have any problems predicting gravitational effects on clock speeds. But I haven't gone into this.
I'm waiting for someone to do one-way light speed tests before I consider taking wisp theory into the GR domain.
Much of the work on wisp theory was spent building its foundations.

 

[outandbeyond2004]

"matches SR predictions completely" - (incredulous chuckle) well, I guess that was rather loose wording or carelessness, I will assume that. However, if SR or GR predicts a null result and wisp theory predicts a non-null result, I will not consider that a match.

Also, if you wind up with a theory that matches everything that GR and QM has predicted, you have not really accomplished anything except to give us another way to make predictions and give us another way to picture how the universe works. Perhaps that will be the ultimate benefit of wisp theory -- no more than that. If the math is much harder to do or it's harder to picture the universe, people will continue to use GR/standard QM or one of these other newfangled theories people are busy hammering out.

Why wait? It seems to show a lack of confidence in your theory -- perhaps justifiably. You should realize that GR has to be used instead of SR, unless the frame is inertial or the experimental arena is sufficiently limited temporally and spatially. You will eventually have to venture into the jungle.

 

[wisp]

Outandbeyond2004

loose wording

Yes, a bit loose. However, wisp theory does produce all the SR doppler equations in terms of an ether model. And it explains the cause of time dilation ...

 

[wisp]

Why wait? It seems to show a lack of confidence in your theory -- perhaps justifiably. You should realize that GR has to be used instead of SR, unless the frame is inertial or the experimental arena is sufficiently limited temporally and spatially. You will eventually have to venture into the jungle.

From the idea of the concept of wisp theory to placing on the web was 10 years. Includes -
1 year draft theory, 6 years doing physics degree, and 1 year off work writing/developing theory/publishing.
The fundamental structure of the theory is as good as any ether theory can get and I hope others find it a useful tool.
I will wait until SR starts cracking up before considering developing it. But when SR fails many physicists will change course and begin to take the ether seriously and the development of an ether theory into the GR domain will happen quickly.

wisp

"particles of nothingness"

 

[Hurkyl]

The problem I have with wisp theory is that nothing is ever derived, and no methods are presented. Not even the simplest toy problem is presented that let's the reader actually work with the fundamental ideas!

I opted to skim through some of the chapters again, and it seems not to have changed: not a single fact is derived from wisps. Instead the MO seems to be to present equations, then give a vague suggestion how this might be consistent with wisps.

Thus, I don't give wisp theory any serious consideration because I can't really see any theory to consider.

 

[Hurkyl]

And another thing: how does one conclude that you can't accelerate something faster than light simply because force carrier particles move at light speed?

(a) an object can accelerate itself by ejecting mass in the direction opposite to travel.

But, and I'm just guessing becuase no explanation is given, it seems that they are implying that this cannot happen because it doesn't work classically... but this is absurd as this simple example shows:


Suppose I have a frictionless environment, and a ball rolling north at 10 MPH. (think of this as your object)

I'm sitting someplace northeast of the ball, and I have a second ball which I roll northwest at 5 MPH. (think of this as your force carrier particle)

If my second ball connects with the first ball, it will accelerate the first ball so it has a greater northernly speed (and some westerly speed as well).


In fact, if I can arragne a similar situation with inelastic collisions, the momentum gained by the object from the force carrier particle is identical whether the object is stationary, going 10 MPH, or going light speed! (remember I'm talking classically)

 

[wisp]

Hurky

The speed of light through the ether is c. If an object travels at close to light-speed it feels the effects of force and time dilation. The result is that it cannot eject matter forwards passed the speed of light, as the push force is dilated to almost zero. Similarly ejecting matter backwards will have the same weakened force. At the speed of light the forces needed to eject matter are zero.

I've had some good feedback on wisp theory. One saying it's one of the best alternative theories they have come across, but had reservations about the wisp binding force being called the nuclear force. I'm not sure whether I should call it by a different name!