Why Haven't Two Clocks on a Table Been Used to Measure Light's One-Way Speed?

[outandbeyond2004]

Martin Miller does not address the observations of the binary pulsar systems. Why not? The pions - I sure wonder what he thinks about those observations of them.

Did Martin mean that he does not have any alternative to SR that he likes? Or did he simply mean that his focus is on proving SR wrong?

Well, SR is wrong all right. That's why Einstein went on to think up GR. What's more, GR is wrong, too. That's why E. was busy in his old age looking for better theories. The people following his path are busy too.

Martin should focus his energies on developing a theory to replace GR instead of repeating things to "deaf ears." He must show that he can "postdict" all relevant experimental facts, things to which he unfortunately seems to be blind.

 

[Nereid]

Nereid:
1) was there a specific, objective prediction made from SR?
2) did the experiment or observation produce a clear, unambiguous result?
3) was the result the same as that predicted by SR (within the errors of the observation)?[/color]

Martin Miller: I have seen that page [list of tests of SR] many times. It contains only round-trip cases, rotating clock cases, and intrinsic time dilation, not one of which applies to, supports, or tests SR. For example, *SNIP

What does SR predict?
To what does SR pertain?
What does SR say?
Not surprisingly, since SR is wrong, the website you referenced made no mention of the real SR, but, as you requested, I will not go into the "SR is wrong stuff" yet, but will merely explain what SR predicts.[/color]

So, let's see now. An example from 'that website':
"Kinematics is basically the study of how energy and momentum conservation laws constrain and affect physical interactions. The two basic predictions of SR in this regard are that massive objects will have a limiting velocity of c (the speed of light), and that their "relativistic mass" will increase with velocity. [...] This has become so obvious in particle experiments that few experiments test the SR equations, and virtually all particle experiments rely upon SR in their analysis.[/color]"

Taking the three simple questions above, the answers are Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Except that Martin feels we should perform the following substitution: replace "SR" with "a theory that is not SR"; let's call it "Theory X[/color]" for now.

I guess this is some kind of progress, but mustn't make assumptions. Questions for Martin:

a) Does Theory X[/color] predict that massive objects will have a limiting velocity of c? Have experiments been done to test this prediction? Are the experimental results consistent with the prediction, to the error limits of the experiment?

b) Who wrote Theory X[/color]?

 

[Eyesaw]

The MMX result is exactly the same as obtained if the
apparatus was not moving through space. Since the Earth
frame is not stationary, the MMX null result shows that physics
is the same in different inertial frames. This is not very surprising
since when we add velocity to a system of coordinates, we are adding velocity to all the coordinates (like a mobile ether) so that in the new inertial frame, all the coordinates remain at rest with respect with each other. So in the new frame, the light has to have a speed of c+v in one direction and c-v in the other, relative to the rest frame, in order that the new "rest coordinates" measure it to be c. This is Galilean Relativity. It is verified for every day
physics and also for light, vis a vis the MMX.

Here's an analogy:
Scenario 1:

In space is placed a silver baseball and a green bowling ball. A ruler is taped between the centers of the balls and measures off 25 inches of space. A photo is taken of this set up. We now blow up the photo 200%. The distance between the centers of the balls in this new frame still reads 25 inches from the ruler in the photograph. This ruler represents the speed of light and how it is constant in different inertial frames because its size is "frame dependent".

Imagine now the same set up in lieu that we omit the ruler and then take the photo. Blow up the photo 200%. Now we use a real ruler to measure off
the distance between the balls inside the photos. Of course we find the
distance in the first to be 25 inches and 50 inches in the larger photo. Again this ruler represents the speed of light, but now being "independent of source
frame". Clearly from the analogy, if the speed of light represents a law of physics, it is not the same in all frames if it is independent of source, but is if it is. Special Relativity proposes that we alter the second photo in a way that would make the real ruler measure the distances the same as the first. So, we'd have to cut the photo in half and trim the space between the balls. But since the balls are also larger according to the real ruler, we'd have to trim the balls as well. By the time we finish cutting and then pasting the second photo, we end up with a photo that is identical to the first. That's the only way physics can be made invariant in all inertial frames in SR- by making every inertial frame identical to each other- because its two postulates contradict each other logically. This is trivially proven false beccause I can drive my car to a 7-11 while my wife remainn sstationaryy at homme.

 

[Martin Miller]

Nereid gave the following quote from a website:
"The two basic predictions of SR in this regard are that massive
objects will have a limiting velocity of c (the speed of light),
and that their 'relativistic mass' will increase with velocity.
[...] This has become so obvious in particle experiments that
few experiments test the SR equations, and virtually all
particle experiments rely upon SR in their analysis."

MM replies:
SR does not pertain to actual, physical, intrinsic mass.
This is very easy to prove, as follows:

Any given massive object moving inertially cannot have but
_one_ intrinsic mass, but SR observers in various frames
find _different_ masses for one and the same passing object;
therefore, SR does not pertain to intrinsic masses.

The math comes out OK when using SR's formulas because the
Earth's speed is improperly assumed (or given) to be zero.
This works only because the Earth's speed is indeed nearly
zero when compared to the particles' speeds. But we do not
know how fast the Earth is really moving, and yet this is
needed if we want truly correct results regarding real masses.
(Note that SR does not even supply us with the real rest
mass of any particle because SR cannot measure intrinsic
mass, and yet the rest mass is the starting point for all of
the math done on the particles which are rapidly accelerated.)
(Further note that - as I mentioned above - one can obtain an
infinite number of answers from SR simply by using different
Earth speeds or by using observers in frames other than the
Earth frame.)

Can you tell us how a single object moving at a single steady
speed could possibly have 150,000,000 different actual masses?
(SR has an _infinite_ number, but I am trying to be nice!)

The only theory that pertains to all actual, intrinsic, physical
properties of inertial objects is Lorentz's twice-extended theory.
(Originally, it pertained only to intrinsic lengths, then
it was extended to cover intrinsic clock rhythms, and finally,
it was extended to cover intrinsic masses.)

But all of the above sidesteps the most important question,
which is How can we correctly synchronize two same-frame clocks?

I have proved experimentally the incorrectness of Einstein's
clocks, so we cannot look to SR for help. (Indeed, Herr Einstein
explicitly admitted that he did not possesses the means of measuring time!)

 

[Nereid]

Martin Miller wrote: *SNIP
The only theory that pertains to all actual, intrinsic, physical properties of inertial objects is Lorentz's twice-extended theory. (Originally, it pertained only to intrinsic lengths, then it was extended to cover intrinsic clock rhythms, and finally, it was extended to cover intrinsic masses.)
*SNAP

I'm guessing that Martin has given us a name for Theory X[/color]: "Lorentz's twice-extended theory". But, best to be sure - Martin, is this the replacement for "SR" in all the tests mentioned in 'that website'?

 

[Integral]

MM,
You would get a lot of interest in you ideas if you could give a reasonable theory as to why we would expect a difference in velocity for a 1 way trip.

Your theory would not and should not even mention Einstein or Michelson Morley, neither of these are the basis for a constant speed of light. You must address the term

c= \frac 1 {\sqrt {{\epsilon_0} {\mu_0}}}

and what is wrong with Maxwell's equations that it gives this incorrect expression for the propagation speed of E-M waves.

I am sure that if I designed an experiment that showed a consistent and constant speed of light for a one way trip, you would dismiss it as insufficiently accurate, the difference being 2 decimal places further out. That of course is the beauty of not having a theory. Since you do not make a measurable prediction you cannot be proven wrong.

 

[Nereid]

russ_watters wrote: This statement in particular shows a clear lack of understanding of what SR/GR does

Martin Miller wrote: A single inertially-moving atomic clock will always have only _one_ intrinsic atomic rhythm, but Einstein's observers in their various frames will find _different_ rhythms for the same passing atomic clock (just as you openly admitted above).[/color]

russ_watters wrote: A clear and incontrovertible example of SR/GR time dilation predictions comes from (again) GPS. Prior to launch, the tick rates of the clocks on GPS satellites are adjusted in accordance with the predictions of SR and GR in order that the clocks, once in orbit, will remain synchronized with similar clocks on the ground. That is a fact followed by data resulting from a prediction of Relativity and unless you can address that (and the dozen or so other points), you're not showing anything other than a lack of understanding of Relativity.

Martin Miller wrote: Listen to me: The above quote from me already addressed this issue. Don't blame me if you cannot understand this.

Which part of SR pertains to intrinsic clock rates?

Which part of SR proved that any clocks are synchronized?

Who has proved that the GPS clocks are synchronized?

Are you aware of the fact that GPS scientists simply and merely assume that c is the value of light's one-way speed?

Who has proved the invariance of light's one-way speed?

Who has proved that SR has made any predictions that are not totally based upon a mere definition? (All times and speeds in both the Einsteinian transformation equations and the Einsteinian composition of velocities equation were found by using Einstein's clocks which were related per his definition of "synchronization."). [/color]

Hmm, GPS works, and Galileo will likely work too. The designers and operators used a number of physics theories to build the GPS system and keep it working, among them “SR” and “GR”. Since they system works, and the designers presumably didn’t get it all right by getting the math all wrong, can we conclude that SR and GR are pretty good physics theories?

Not according to Martin, because (he says) SR is wrong.

So how did the designers get it all right, even though they were working with a theory that cannot be correct? From reading Martin’s posts, I guess the answer would be “because the math they used gives the same results as the ‘correct’ theory, which is “Lorentz's twice-extended theory” (LTET). Further, the (maths) steps one takes to get the results which make the GPS work are so closely the same in SR and LTET that the designers didn’t even know they were following LTET and not SR.”

Am I close Martin?

 

[Martin Miller]

Integral wrote:
"MM,
You would get a lot of interest in you ideas if you could give
a reasonable theory as to why we would expect a difference in
velocity for a 1 way trip."

Well, this is direct proof that you meatheads are just
playing games here because I gave an experimental proof
of one-way variance long ago.

I outta here! Cling to your precious disproved dogmas!

 

[Integral]

MM,
Do you fail to understand the difference between theory and experiment?

 

[outandbeyond2004]

Readers of this topic might profit from a reading or rereading of The Universe and Dr. Einstein by Lincoln Barnett, which should be easy to obtain from the library or on Amazon or on BN.com. A quote I think is apropos here:
"Einstein . . . [showed] that even space and time are forms of intuition, which can be no more divorced from consciousness than can our concepts of color, shape, or size. Space has no objective reality except as an order or arrangement of the objects we perceive in it, and time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it."

 

[Nereid]

It's a pity Martin Miller has gone. I have re-read this thread, and am quite curious as to how people have been able to physics and engineering in domains where SR (and GR) is important - even the data pipeline for HIPPARCOS includes GR corrections! - in Martin's (and Eyesaw's and wisp's) view.

It also occurred to me that VLBI would be a good test of Martin's 'one-way, two-clock light speed invariance', and now that serious optical 'LBI' is underway, perhaps the precision is good enough for Martin's (and wisp's) concerns.

Where does this leave Eyesaw's concern?

 

[outandbeyond2004]

Nereid, perhaps it would be good to have a detailed explanation of why LBI (and VLBI) would be a good test of the idea that one-way EM speed is not always the same as two-way EM speed.

 

[Nereid]

Nereid, perhaps it would be good to have a detailed explanation of why LBI (and VLBI) would be a good test of the idea that one-way EM speed is not always the same as two-way EM speed.

The details of how radio astronomers do VLBI (very long baseline interferometry) will surely matter, and I would need to go look them up (oh for a better memory!). So, a brief description of an idealised observation.

Two radio telescopes observe a distant object. The observed radio signals from the object are processed, recorded on mag tape, along with very accurate (local clocks) time stamps. Later - up to several months later - the mag tapes are brought together, and processed. The processing essentially involves combining the phase information in the recorded signals, to reproduce interference, as if the two telescopes were but small elements of a giant telescope. 'One-way light, two (local) clock light speed' assumed invariant.

If one-way light speed were different in some way from two-way light speed, VLBI would produce different 'images' of the distant object, depending upon the nature of the one-way vs two-way difference.

 

[outandbeyond2004]

Nereid, the speed of light in the opposite direction (from Earth to distant object) is not involved in any way. If it is not involved, LBI cannot be a test. That GR seems to predict what happens earns points for it, but no test can be the decisive test, one that establishes a theory for once and all. A fortiori, no test can validate any part of the foundation of a theory (principles and/or postulates and/or assumptions).

 

[outandbeyond2004]

So far we have not met MM's demand. In reality, it is an impossible demand, and unfortunately he perhaps does not understand that. I do not pretend any confidence that I know his reasoning (if it could be called that), but he seems to think we should reject SR simply because it cannot answer some questions or because we cannot know that its logical foundation is built on the very bedrock of truth. It is simply that we hope SR is true because otherwise we are wasting time on it. I am sorry that MM cannot accept that and be content to work within the limitations of science. His refusal to offer an alternative to SR coupled with a demand like his is a bad attitude, because we cease to do physics if we reject SR with no alternative to it.

 

[outandbeyond2004]

I have been thinking that no better test for meeting MM's demand could be found than observation of the binary pulsar systems. It is in fact my favorite GR test. It would be nice if y'all could come up with a better test, tho.

 

[Nereid]

Nereid, the speed of light in the opposite direction (from Earth to distant object) is not involved in any way. If it is not involved, LBI cannot be a test. That GR seems to predict what happens earns points for it, but no test can be the decisive test, one that establishes a theory for once and all. A fortiori, no test can validate any part of the foundation of a theory (principles and/or postulates and/or assumptions).

But with VBLI you can, in principle, measure as many distant objects with your telescopes as you wish! And they can be located anywhere in the sky. You can have hundreds of telescopes, at all kinds of distances from each other. The processing of the signals is the same, no matter which source is being looked at, or which pair of telescopes recorded the signals. Since the distant objects we are observing are all identical (in principle), any anisotropy in the speed of light will show up in (differences in) the images. Of course, the universe could cruelly be structured so that distant objects vary, and the speed of light varies, in just the right way so all the images are the same.

BTW, I think you'll find that Martin didn't want to consider binary pulsars because the reference frames are clearly not inertial (so whatever is observed may be irrelevant wrt SR).

 

[outandbeyond2004]

2 replies to Nereid's last post: Oh, right, similar objects in all parts of the sky. Well, not "any anisotropy." We still don't have observations of EM signals going from Earth to some distant point.

Any test of GR also constitutes in a deep way a test of SR. Everywhere and everywhen GR is locally SR. Also, if one were clever and industrious enough, one can apply SR to non-inertial observations.

 

[outandbeyond2004]

Oops, I forgot lunar laser ranging to the moon; Shapiro time delay experiments; ranging to the Pioneer and Voyager space crafts, etc. If we combine results from these experiments with LBI results . . . Only Solar system, not intergalactic, but still powerful.

 

[wisp]

It also occurred to me that VLBI would be a good test of Martin's 'one-way, two-clock light speed invariance', and now that serious optical 'LBI' is underway, perhaps the precision is good enough for Martin's (and wisp's) concerns.

I'm surprised that this thread lasted so long. You say that Martin's gone! At which point did he give up? Or has he argued his case enough?

I'm involved with some local politics now and have had less time to argue a case against SR. But my view hasn't changed. I'm 100% convinced that a simple one-way light speed test using 2 clocks will falsify SR.

 

[Nereid]

I'm surprised that this thread lasted so long. You say that Martin's gone! At which point did he give up? Or has he argued his case enough?

I'm involved with some local politics now and have had less time to argue a case against SR. But my view hasn't changed. I'm 100% convinced that a simple one-way light speed test using 2 clocks will falsify SR.

To what extent is VLBI not 'a simple one-way light speed test using 2 clocks'?

 

[outandbeyond2004]

One source of experimental error lies in the synchronization bw the two clocks. No two clocks are ever in exact synch. Every clock rate may vary unpredictably. Won't wisp explain the experiment in detail so that we can understand all the possible experimental errors and judge how well it must be done in order to falisfy SR? How much would it cost, etc? What overall experimental error can we achieve?

Wisp may possibly have a lack of understanding of the limits of science and technology. No one experiment can invalidate any theory ever. It's always possible that the experimenter overlooked something or did something wrong, for one thing. The results of anyone experiment should never be relied on 100%.

 

[outandbeyond2004]

It occurs to me that it may be rather more technologically more feasible to test for anisotropy than to measure the one-way speed directly. Would this be acceptable to Wisp, MM, and Eyesaw? Why not?

 

[wisp]

To what extent is VLBI not 'a simple one-way light speed test using 2 clocks'?

This test falls into the category of GPS. I had a discussion "SR and one-way speed of light tests" on Tom's Metaresearch forum some months back. After much discussion I concluded that GPS cannot be used to verify a one-way speed of light test. See
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html
and go to the end of the page.
So on this basis VLBI equally cannot be use as a one-way test.
The reason a one-way test using two clocks is important is because it is simple to do and will prove one and for all if the speed of light is really constant, and hence if SR is true or false.

 

[Nereid]

This test falls into the category of GPS. I had a discussion "SR and one-way speed of light tests" on Tom's Metaresearch forum some months back. After much discussion I concluded that GPS cannot be used to verify a one-way speed of light test. See
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html
and go to the end of the page.
So on this basis VLBI equally cannot be use as a one-way test.
The reason a one-way test using two clocks is important is because it is simple to do and will prove one and for all if the speed of light is really constant, and hence if SR is true or false.

Have you considered doing this test yourself? A laser can be purchased for <US$10, but two atomic clocks would be a bit more expensive. Still less than US$100k I should think, and prices are falling all the time. Then you may have missed a good opportunity; with the collapse of so many telephone/telecom start-up companies - to compete with BT, AT&T, FT, DT, Verizon, ... - there were surely bargains to be had as the receivers auctioned off their large numbers of very accurate clocks. There are probably (UK) high schools or (US) colleges which might be interested in organising such an experiment, if done as part of larger project into SR; they may not have the $/£ to buy the equipment, but they would have several good students who may be willing to do the leg work.

 

[outandbeyond2004]

Wisp, some questions:
1. (Just curious. This question may or may not be quite relevant to this topic.) The GPS satellites have to move through the Earth's atmosphere. It is extremely rarified at the GPS satellite altitude, but I believe space-and-time varying atmospheric drag is a significant and somewhat unpredictable factor as far as trying to determine the speed of light to high precision. Correct? You never mentioned it as a reason to reject GPS data for one-way light measurement.

2. Have you performed a detailed analysis of your proposed one-way light speed experiment using unsynch'd clocks that takes into account anisotropic gravitational effects, such as the rotation of the experiment relative to the Milky Way center?

3. What about ring lasers? For those who don't know about them, they use 3 mirrors in an equilateral triangle arrangement, with each mirror angled so that any correctly aimed light signal between them travels on the triangle formed by the mirrors. A laser is mounted between two mirrors. It shoots mono & coherent light out of either end, equally. One set of light rays travels the triangle one way. Let's label the mirrors A, B, and C. So the set goes A, B, C and finally back to where it started from. Another set goes the other way, C, B, A, and finally back to its start. This can be a table-top device. I don't know today's state of art, so I cannot say how sensitive advanced ring lasers are to anistropy.

 

[wisp]

Have you considered doing this test yourself?

I think a professional body should do this experiment. Amateurs like Roland DeWitte have carried out a similar experiment with positive results. But professional bodies have ignored this without good reason.

 

[Nereid]

Wisp, some questions:
1. (Just curious. This question may or may not be quite relevant to this topic.) The GPS satellites have to move through the Earth's atmosphere. It is extremely rarified at the GPS satellite altitude, but I believe space-and-time varying atmospheric drag is a significant and somewhat unpredictable factor as far as trying to determine the speed of light to high precision. Correct? You never mentioned it as a reason to reject GPS data for one-way light measurement.

2. Have you performed a detailed analysis of your proposed one-way light speed experiment using unsynch'd clocks that takes into account anisotropic gravitational effects, such as the rotation of the experiment relative to the Milky Way center?

3. What about ring lasers? For those who don't know about them, they use 3 mirrors in an equilateral triangle arrangement, with each mirror angled so that any correctly aimed light signal between them travels on the triangle formed by the mirrors. A laser is mounted between two mirrors. It shoots mono & coherent light out of either end, equally. One set of light rays travels the triangle one way. Let's label the mirrors A, B, and C. So the set goes A, B, C and finally back to where it started from. Another set goes the other way, C, B, A, and finally back to its start. This can be a table-top device. I don't know today's state of art, so I cannot say how sensitive advanced ring lasers are to anistropy.

For all readers, FYI:
1) One of the things that GRACE will determine, to great precision, is the distortion in radio signals through the ionosphere (inc those from GPS satellites)
2) ring lasers are the heart of many modern gyroscopes, including those in commercial airliners. To underline outandbeyond2004's point, if there were any anisotropies, or other deviations of the kind that wisp and Eyesaw have described, it would seem remarkable that they'd cancel out perfectly in devices like ring lasers. But maybe that's exactly what wisp et al expect?

 

[outandbeyond2004]

A ringlaser project that is able to detect the anistropy of the sort theorized by Wisp? http://www.wettzell.ifag.de/LKREISEL/CII/precise.htm

This group says it hopes to achieve resolution of the Earth's rotation to a few parts in a billion! That's much more than we need, if the wisp ether speed of the ring laser on the equator is totally due to Earth's rotation. speed of the r.l/c is about 1 per million or maybe much more. I forgot what the speed of the solar system (divide by c) is wrt the CRB, but it must be much more, I think.

 

[Nereid]

outandbeyond2004: I forgot what the speed of the solar system (divide by c) is wrt the CRB ...

Well, the speed is approx 385 km/sec, so the ratio you're looking for is >1:1,000.