Isotropic and anisotropic propagation of light

[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.

 

[clj4]

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.

You have been given about 9 papers published in refereed journals so far. All of them have the "ONE WAY" clearly in their title and in their content. Which part of "ONE WAY" don't you understand?
Let's refresh your memory:

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v38/i4/p1767_1

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v42/i2/p731_1?qid=6c4ab66eee46e0e8&...

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v45/i2/p403_1?qid=630b0f834f891ba4&...

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v34/i3/p1708_1

http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0508/0508097.pdf

 

[ZapperZ]

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.

Since you quoted Aether so much, you may be interested to know that he DISAGREES with your statement on this. So how many of "you" are left here for you to argue that you are in the "majority" with such a view?

Zz.

 

[pervect]

Anyone who thinks that wisp is NOT off in his own little world, please raise your hand...

 

[clj4]

Anyone who thinks that wisp is NOT off in his own little world, please raise your hand...

...and so is "Aether"

 

[pervect]

I'm going to have to pass on getting involved in your long-standing feud with Aether, cj4.

 

[wisp]

Clj4 thanks for the 5 links, but my position remains unchanged.

1) 1988 - Guided-wave measurement of the one-way speed of light. Gagnon, Torr, Kolen and Chang, 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 CMBR is used to define a preferred reference frame". And 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.
See Harold Aspden's Lecture No IIIb - One-way speed of light.
http://www.aspden.org/books/Poc/IIIb.html

2) 1990 - Test of the isotropy of the one-way speed of light using hydrogen-maser frequency standards. Krisher et al reported a negative result, but could not rule out an ether flow that is at rest with respect to the CMBR. This experiment shows the two-way speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed can only be isotropic with respect to a preferred frame (cosmic microwave background), which can be an ether frame.
So how can they claim an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100 m/s?

3&4) 1992 - Clock synchronization and isotropy of the one-way speed of light. Clifford M. Will.
And, 1986 - Nonequivalence of ether theories and special relativity. Spavieri.
It is well known that you can synchronize clocks using Einstein’s method that ensure the one-way speed of light stays constant, even though it may be anisotropic in an ether flow.

5) 2006 - Test of the isotropy of the speed of light using a continuously rotating optical resonator. Herrmann, Senger, Kovalchuk, Muller, and Peters.
This is a two-way isotropy test, not one-way. I believe Aether will agree with me that you are making a false claim here.

It must be worrying that scientists (Silvertooth, DeWitte, Navia and Augusto, see http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0604/0604145.pdf ) are reporting anisotropy in the one-way speed of light of around 400km/s, which is the Earth’s velocity relative to the CMB.

What are the consequences for relativity when the one-way speed of light anisotropy is formally verified?

 

[ZapperZ]

Aether: what do you have to say to the above. wisp is clearly claiming that there are experiments that have measured such one-way speed of light or are capable to do such, which contradicts your claim based on MS that such a measurement is impossible, even in principle.

Zz.

 

[Aether]

Aether: what do you have to say to the above. wisp is clearly claiming that there are experiments that have measured such one-way speed of light or are capable to do such, which contradicts your claim based on MS that such a measurement is impossible, even in principle.

Zz.

Clj4 thanks for the 5 links, but my position remains unchanged.

1) 1988 - Guided-wave measurement of the one-way speed of light. Gagnon, Torr, Kolen and Chang, 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 CMBR is used to define a preferred reference frame". And 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.
See Harold Aspden's Lecture No IIIb - One-way speed of light.
http://www.aspden.org/books/Poc/IIIb.html

2) 1990 - Test of the isotropy of the one-way speed of light using hydrogen-maser frequency standards. Krisher et al reported a negative result, but could not rule out an ether flow that is at rest with respect to the CMBR. This experiment shows the two-way speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed can only be isotropic with respect to a preferred frame (cosmic microwave background), which can be an ether frame.
So how can they claim an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100 m/s?

3&4) 1992 - Clock synchronization and isotropy of the one-way speed of light. Clifford M. Will.
And, 1986 - Nonequivalence of ether theories and special relativity. Spavieri.
It is well known that you can synchronize clocks using Einstein’s method that ensure the one-way speed of light stays constant, even though it may be anisotropic in an ether flow.

wisp, this last sentence should give you a clue that the one-way speed of light is a mathematical concept rather than a physical one.

5) 2006 - Test of the isotropy of the speed of light using a continuously rotating optical resonator. Herrmann, Senger, Kovalchuk, Muller, and Peters.
This is a two-way isotropy test, not one-way. I believe Aether will agree with me that you are making a false claim here.

Correct.

It must be worrying that scientists (Silvertooth, DeWitte, Navia and Augusto, see http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0604/0604145.pdf ) are reporting anisotropy in the one-way speed of light of around 400km/s, which is the Earth’s velocity relative to the CMB.

What is worrying is that clj4 actually seems to buy the experimental results described in the Navia paper, and insists that where the authors went wrong is in their claim that said results are inconsistent with SR.

What are the consequences for relativity when the one-way speed of light anisotropy is formally verified?

One-way speed of light anisotropy is never going to be "formally verified" as it is a mathematical concept in the first place rather than a physical concept. There are consequences for relativity, or at least for most people's concept of what relativity actually is, but these have always been there. What is at stake in future experiments is local Lorentz symmetry.

 

[wisp]

It must be worrying that scientists (Silvertooth, DeWitte, Navia and Augusto, see http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0604/0604145.pdf ) are reporting anisotropy in the one-way speed of light of around 400km/s, which is the Earth’s velocity relative to the CMB.

More evidence: - Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited and the Cosmic Background Radiation Preferred Frame. Cahill re-analysis of the old results (1887) from the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment that was designed to detect absolute motion, and reveals an absolute speed of the Earth of v=359+/-54 km/s, which is in excellent agreement with the speed of v=365+/-18 km/s determined from the dipole fit, in 1991, to the NASA COBE satellite Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) observations.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205065

 

[ZapperZ]

More evidence: - Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited and the Cosmic Background Radiation Preferred Frame. Cahill re-analysis of the old results (1887) from the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment that was designed to detect absolute motion, and reveals an absolute speed of the Earth of v=359+/-54 km/s, which is in excellent agreement with the speed of v=365+/-18 km/s determined from the dipole fit, in 1991, to the NASA COBE satellite Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) observations.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205065

This came from a 2002 preprint. Could you please give a complete reference where this was published already so that I can do a complete citation index?

Zz.

 

[Aether]

It must be worrying that scientists (Silvertooth, DeWitte, Navia and Augusto, see http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0604/0604145.pdf ) are reporting anisotropy in the one-way speed of light of around 400km/s, which is the Earth’s velocity relative to the CMB.

More evidence: - Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited and the Cosmic Background Radiation Preferred Frame. Cahill re-analysis of the old results (1887) from the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment that was designed to detect absolute motion, and reveals an absolute speed of the Earth of v=359+/-54 km/s, which is in excellent agreement with the speed of v=365+/-18 km/s determined from the dipole fit, in 1991, to the NASA COBE satellite Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) observations.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205065

I wrote a paper on this subject last year and showed it to Reg Cahill. He made some suggestions, and after I addressed those within the paper he personally endorsed me at arxiv.org to post papers there. The paper discusses an experiment that I am preparing to carry out myself, and I'll post it when I have some definitive results.

Now, you and I both know that M-M experiments are two-way experiments, right? So why are you connecting this subject to one-way experiments?

 

[Hans de Vries]

More evidence: - Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited and the Cosmic Background Radiation Preferred Frame. Cahill re-analysis of the old results (1887) from the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment that was designed to detect absolute motion, and reveals an absolute speed of the Earth of v=359+/-54 km/s,

How can anyone believe this at all. Such huge relative deviations (>0.1%)
translate to errors of circa 40 km in the Global Positioning System which
would have to be corrected continuously every 24 hours when the Earth
rotates around its axis.

Regards, Hans

 

[Aether]

How can anyone believe this at all. Such huge relative deviations (>0.1%)
translate to errors of circa 40 km in the Global Positioning System which
would have to be corrected continuously every 24 hours when the Earth
rotates around its axis.

Regards, Hans

GPS satellites orbit at an altitude of 20,200km, so the fraction of time that the signal is propagating in "gas mode" through the atmosphere is relatively small. Also, the proposed effect is of second-order.

 

[clj4]

What is worrying is that clj4 actually seems to buy the experimental results described in the Navia paper, and insists that where the authors went wrong is in their claim that said results are inconsistent with SR.

No, I am not "buying" the Navia paper, quite the opposite I pointed out that it is most likely a hoax. So, please stop your lamentable diversions.
When you run out of scientific arguments you start resorting to outright lies? Are you getting that desperate ? See here, in this thread, my first answer to the Navia "masterpiece":

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=958066&postcount=17

One-way speed of light anisotropy is never going to be "formally verified" as it is a mathematical concept in the first place rather than a physical concept. There are consequences for relativity, or at least for most people's concept of what relativity actually is, but these have always been there. What is at stake in future experiments is local Lorentz symmetry.

Repeating the same lies do not make them into scientific truth. You have been given ample proof to the opposite. About 11 papers (and growing) on the subject. From reputable scientists, published in top tier journals.

 

[Hans de Vries]

GPS satellites orbit at an altitude of 20,200km, so the fraction of time that the signal is propagating in "gas mode" through the atmosphere is relatively small. Also, the proposed effect is of second-order.

Well, looking at this paper,

Reginald T. Cahill claims that the MM experiment can be used after all
to measure the absolute motion through the aether, it however should
be done in a medium with a refractive index higher than 1.00 (vacuum)

He then claims that he can read the absolute speed through the aether
from MM's 1887 (120 year old) experiment because it was done in air
with a refractive index of 1.00029.

According to Cahill, the effect becomes more visible with $\sqrt{n-1}$
Why doesn't he just put the simplest MM setup in water which makes
it more than 30 times more sensitive as in air. Even the simplest
table-top experiment would reveal the absolute speed with better
than 1% accuracy.

Running LIGO without a vacuum would measure the absolute speed
with what? one-in-a-million? one-in-a-billion?
http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/G/G040436-00/G040436-00.ppt

Aether, please don't let me waste my time with reading this stuff.


Regards, Hans

 

[clj4]

More evidence: - Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited and the Cosmic Background Radiation Preferred Frame. Cahill re-analysis of the old results (1887) from the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment that was designed to detect absolute motion, and reveals an absolute speed of the Earth of v=359+/-54 km/s, which is in excellent agreement with the speed of v=365+/-18 km/s determined from the dipole fit, in 1991, to the NASA COBE satellite Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) observations.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205065

Reg Cahill is known as a kook, I will be surprised if his paper made it into any reputable journal. Here is a list of his "masterpieces":

http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html

"The Process Physics group and collaborators are conducting various experiments including new designs for absolute motion detectors; these include novel interferometer experiments and coaxial cable propagation-time experiments. The main aim of these experiments is the systematic study of the gravitational waves of the new theory of gravity. These have already been detected in the experiments by Miller, Torr and Kolen, and DeWitte."

 

[clj4]

I wrote a paper on this subject last year and showed it to Reg Cahill. He made some suggestions, and after I addressed those within the paper he personally endorsed me at arxiv.org to post papers there. The paper discusses an experiment that I am preparing to carry out myself, and I'll post it when I have some definitive results.

Now, you and I both know that M-M experiments are two-way experiments, right? So why are you connecting this subject to one-way experiments?

Yes, Reg Cahill is a well known antirelativist kook, so what did you expect ? Of course he endorsed your paper.You got the "seal of approval" from a nut. It doesn't mean anything.

 

[wisp]

Even the simplest table-top experiment would reveal the absolute speed with better than 1% accuracy.

Aether, please don't let me waste my time with reading this stuff.

Regards, Hans

Hans. I won't was your time discussing this with you but someone has done this simple water test, see: -

[Quack link deleted]

 

[JustinLevy]

Wisp and Aether,
SR has been proven quite well in many many tests. Please stop bringing debates of this into many relativity discussions. If you are going to complain about experimental proof of SR, please make one topic devoted to this, and keep the complaints in this topic.


In regards to Aethers comment: One-way speed of light anisotropy is never going to be \"formally verified\" as it is a mathematical concept in the first place rather than a physical concept.

This may be techincally true (I am not sure why clj4 is denying it), but that does not make SR incorrect as you are reading into it too much. I have already commented on this here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=968985&postcount=75

Do you agree with that?
So in effort to prevent everyone from arguing about two different things:


Clj4, do you agree that GR allows us to use any coordinate systems and even the speed of light is not invarient when considering general coordinate transformations?

Aether, do you understand that this does not mean SR is wrong, as SR is only applicable in inertial frames?



To this question Aether originally answered: I am not claiming here that SR is wrong.
But you now appear to have changed your mind? Please clarify.
And clj4 must have overlooked the question, maybe he can clarify his position as well.

You two should really agree what you are arguing about before continuing on for more and more posts.

 

[Aether]

In regards to Aethers comment: One-way speed of light anisotropy is never going to be \"formally verified\" as it is a mathematical concept in the first place rather than a physical concept.

This may be techincally true (I am not sure why clj4 is denying it), but that does not make SR incorrect as you are reading into it too much. I have already commented on this here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=968985&postcount=75

Do you agree with that?

No objection.

Aether, do you understand that this does not mean SR is wrong, as SR is only applicable in inertial frames?

Yes. My point is that it is coordinate-system dependent, and when that dependency is accounted for we may perform experiments to test local Lorentz invariance.

To this question Aether originally answered: I am not claiming here that SR is wrong.
But you now appear to have changed your mind? Please clarify.

I haven't changed my mind. To what exactly are you referring?