Consistency of the speed of light

[clj4]

Until you fulfill your commitment to show us a "disproof" of gregory's argument that Gagnon forgot to use the GGT form of the Lorentz force, then Gagnon (Phys Rev A) stands both as recanted by the authors and thoroughly refuted by gregory and myself for the purposes of this discussion. Does anyone besides clj4 disagree? Gregory and I have shown that for the purposes of this discussion the title of Krisher's paper is not justified. Does anyone besides clj4 disagree?

What are the other three papers that you are referring to?

1. I will disprove gregory, don't worry. His so-called disproof is mathematically incorrect at best, most likely irrelevant. I just wanted to give him time to recheck his calculations and reconsider.
But where is your promised disproof? Got stuck in partial differential equations? Or is it waveguide theory that got you stumped?

2. This is not a political poll, until you get the papers disproved, you have nothing (the other two papers are the two Gagnon papers and the one by Spavieri http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v34/i3/p1708_1 ). So you have 5 to work with. I bet that the members of this forum may be able to come up with more. And you need to refute all of them in order to prove your "aether" theory right :-)

3. You haven't shown anything on the Krisher paper either. Do you think that declaring your work done means that you are done?

4. You seem to forget that we are under the BAUT rules: if you advance an "Against the Mainstream Theory" you need to prove your point. We moved the thread here because of the LatEx capabilities such that you could prove your assertions mathematically, so far all we got from you was a collection of arithmetic errors.

 

[Aether]

1. I will disprove gregory, don't worry. His so-called disproof is mathematically incorrect at best, most likely irrelevant. I just wanted to give him time to recheck his calculations and reconsider.
But where is your promised disproof? Got stuck in partial differential equations? Or is it waveguide theory that got you stumped?

When you disprove greogry, then we'll have something to talk about.

2. This is not a political poll, until you get the papers disproved, you have nothing (the other two papers are the two Gagnon papers and the extra one from 1986-you'll have to find it on this thread).

Yes, it is a political poll. At least for the purposes of this discussion it is. Sure, we can take it to Physical Review later with a more rigorous paper.

3. You haven't shown anything on the Krisher paper either. Do you think that declaring your work done means that you are done?

Unless someone besides you disagrees, then for the purposes of this discussion, yes, my work is done. A rigorous paper on this subject could be submitted to Physical Review at some point, but what has been said seems sufficient for the purposes of this discussion.

4. You seem to forget that we are under the BAUT rules: if you advance an "Against the Mainstream Theory" you need to prove your point. We moved the thread here because of the LatEx capabilities such that you could prove your assertions mathematically, so far all we got from you was a collection of arithmetic errors.

Let's see if anyone here agrees with you that Gagnon (Phys Rev A) or Krisher's title is still viable for the purposes of this discussion. If so, then we'll continue discussing it. I'm not denying at all that we could do a more thorough and concise job in a Physical Review article, but you have not been fairly representing the mainstream position on this in any event.

 

[clj4]

OK, what the heck-we aren't going to get anything meaningful in terms of math out of you beyond of what you already did.
Let's make it a poll, this should be fun.
I will give the gregory disproof, this is sure going to be some fun as well.
In the meanwhile, why don't you send an email to C.M.Will , tell him that he doesn't "get" the MS theory and that his paper is all wrong? This should be even greater fun, maybe he weighs in.
You know, this guy:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9811/9811036.pdf

 

[Aether]

OK, what the heck.
Let's make it a poll, this should be fun.
I will give the gregory disproof, this is sure going to be some fun as well.

OK, great.

 

[Aether]

In the meanwhile, why don't you send an email to C.M.Will , tell him that he doesn't "get" the MS theory and that his paper is all wrong? This should be even greater fun, maybe he weighs in.
You know, this guy:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9811/9811036.pdf

Where does it say in that paper that SR and GGT are not empirically equivalent (e.g., predict different outcomes for any experiment)? That is what this discussion is about.

"Provided that one deals with observable quantities, the outcome of physical experiments of this type is unique in all cases and is independent of synchronization; thus the TPA and other such one-way experiments do provide valid tests of possible violations of SRT. It is important to emphasize that those violations are embodied in functional forms of a, b, and d that could differ from those quoted above not in the form of $$\epsilon$$, which is arbitrary and irrelevant." -- C.M. Will, Clock synchronization and isotropy of the one-way speed of light, Physical Review D 45(2), p.404 (1992).

 

[clj4]

Where does it say in that paper that SR and GGT are not empirically equivalent (e.g., predict different outcomes for any experiment)? That is what this discussion is about.

The paper is listed simply to introduce you to the author, you know, the one that "made some mistakes" in the Krisher paper (in your opinion, listed at the bottom of post 313)

"...thus the TPA and other such one-way experiments do provide valid tests of possible violations of SRT. It is important to emphasize that those violations are embodied in functional forms of a, b, and d that could differ from those quoted above not in the form of $$\epsilon$$, which is arbitrary and irrelevant." -- C.M. Will, Clock synchronization and isotropy of the one-way speed of light, Physical Review D 45(2), p.404 (1992).

Yes, so you just added another one that you need to refute? You are simply reinforcing the point that the MS theory is a valuable tool for testing violations induced by the assumption that one way light speed may is considered to be anisotropic under MS. C.M.Will is practically saying the same thing he's saying in the Krisher paper.
You have been great in providing quotes, you have been very generous in buying and sharing the papers, for all this : thank you. Would you care to share this one with all of us?

 

[clj4]

OK, let's see the popular votes. In order to prevent fraud :

1. To vote, you have to have been a registered member on 3/7/06 when this thread was started:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=930823&postcount=107

This precludes "ballot stuffing"

2. People that registered after 3/7 (and especially after 3/27) should abstain from voting

In other words don't bring your colleagues, friends and family into this. I will not bring mine.

 

[clj4]

"gregory"'s incorrect and irrelevant disproof of Gagnon

I will divide this into two parts:

1. In the first part I will show that "gregory's" disproof of Gagnon is both incorrect and irrelevant.

2. Once we agree that point 1 has been demonstrated , I will show that Gagnon et. al did their calculations for the boundary conditions of their partial differential equation correctly.

Here goes part 1:

No. One way speed measurements are not valid.

B] The Lorentz force law is different. I have shown that.

1. While this is true, it will turn out to be irrelevant. Which nullifies your attack from the start.
The main reason is that the Lorentz force mixes E and H (B) in the same formula which turms out to mess up your proof.

The boundary conditions on a metal are such that: there is no force on charges in the material, there can only be a force on the surface charges perpendicular to the surface. Because the Lorentz force law normally looks like $$\vec{F} = q(\vec{E} + \vec{v} \times \vec{B})$$ this is equivalent to the boundary condition on the fields of $$\bf{E}_\parallel=0, \bf{B}_\perp=0$$.

2. This is both irrelevant AND incorrect.
The mode you are describing is TEM: $$\bf{E}_\parallel=0, \bf{B}_\perp=0$$, a mode that is NOT used by the paper and a mode that is most never used in practice. At this point your counter is NULLIFIED as IRRELEVANT.

The waveguide mode used by Gagnon is TE (page 1768 bottom). This mode has ONLY the boundary condition $$\bf{E}_\parallel=0$$, there is no boundary condition for $$\bf{B}_\perp$$
The TE mode DOES not have any boundary condition on B (this is why it is called TE). Another mode, TM has the boundary condition $$\bf{B}_\perp=0$$. This mode is NOT used in the experiment.
For detailed explanations on wave guide theory see [1]

Because the force law is not the same in GGT frames, the boundary condition is not the same either.

3. This statement is incorrect and irrelevant as well. First off, since E and H are mixed together in the expression of the Lorentz force, you cannot draw the conclusion that E,H do not conserve form under transformation just because the Lorentz force doesn't.

Either way, the Lorentz force is not the issue. Conservation of the condition $$\bf{E}_\parallel=0$$ AT THE BOUNDARY is the ONLY ONE. And Gagnon et. al treated the boundary condition $$\bf{E}_\parallel=0$$ correctly.
This will be demonstrated in a separate post once we get agreement on this post.

Summary:

The calculations in the Gagnon experiment have been shown to be wrong on their starting assumptions. They are wrong.

Turns out that "gregory"'s disproof is both incorrect and irrelevant.
In the second post, I will show that Gagnon did his calculations correctly - you need to respect him and the reviewers of Phys Rev D more.

[1] Fundamentals of Electromagnetics with Engineering Applications – Stuart M. Wentworth (p338-355)

 

[clj4]

Gagnon did his calculations right

This is part 2.
Turns out that the boundary conditions conserve, Gagnon et al. had it right.
Please look at the attached file.
This by itself means that the Gagnon paper is right.
The consequences are clear. M-S were very careful in their paper when they asked for higher precision KT experiments. Gagnon gave them exactly this.

Hans, there is a chance that you may have a very good second order experiment in the spirit of what MS are asking for. If you couple it with a theoretical explanation (GGT would be the simplest, the parametrized MS use by Krisher would be the next more complex one) you could have a very nice paper worth publishing in Phys Rev.

 

[reilly]

Special relativity is empirically equivalent to "...an ether theory taking into account time dilation and length contraction but maintaining absolute simultaneity..." R. Mansouri & R.U. Sexl, A Test Theory of Special Relativity: I. Simultaneity and Clock Synchronization, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 8, No. 7 (1977), pp. 497-513. In such an empirically equivalent ether theory, the speed of light varies with direction.

This is not just some cherry-picked statement from an article that I pulled out of thin a- er, um air, it is the very crux of a famous paper referenced by most if not all of the experiments published over the past 30 years which measure local Lorentz invariance.

If what you say is true, why have most of us never heard of this theory? If I'm mistaken about the breadth of knowledge, has anyone done quantum theory, the equivalent to the Dirac eq., or demonstrated full equivalence to verified SR results?

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[NotForYou]

Because I am jumping in here, please have patience if I bring up points already agreed upon.

If what you say is true, why have most of us never heard of this theory? If I'm mistaken about the breadth of knowledge, has anyone done quantum theory, the equivalent to the Dirac eq., or demonstrated full equivalence to verified SR results?

The reason you haven't heard of it is because as a theory it has no predictive power (actually, due to the messiness, it probably hinders search for new physics if one constrains themselves to that theory). It is defined to have the same physical laws in one coordinate system as SR. In any other frame, you must transform back into this special frame, do the calculations, and transform back. So by definition the predictions for all experiments will agree with SR.

However it doesn't provide any predictive power for new physics, and makes calculations messy. So it has no real benefit except to remind us that if we really wanted to, we could describe the universe with any coordinate system we choose.

The mode you are describing is TEM: , a mode that is NOT used by the paper and a mode that is most never used in practice. At this point your counter is NULLIFIED as IRRELEVANT.

I am sorry, but you appear to be misunderstanding what a boundary condition even is. The boundary conditions gregory_ listed are true for any electromagnetic fields by a conductor (this includes all of TE, TM, and TEM waves in a waveguide). Just because $$B_\perp=0$$ on the boundary, does not require this to be true IN the waveguide.

So to repeat:
The boundary conditions on a metal are such that: there is no force on charges in the material, there can only be a force on the surface charges perpendicular to the surface. Because the Lorentz force law normally looks like $$\vec{F}=q(\vec{E}+\vec{v} \times \vec{B})$$ this is equivalent to the boundary condition on the fields of $$E_\parallel =0, B_\perp=0$$.

So clj4's misunderstanding of E&M lead him to incorrectly conclude that Gagnon's mistake didn't matter.


Also, clj4, please note that the boundary conditions come from the force on charges in the metal. Because the Lorentz force has a different form according to GGT, the boundary conditions on E and B are different. That is the point you seem to keep missing.

 

[clj4]

I am sorry, but you appear to be misunderstanding what a boundary condition even is. The boundary conditions gregory_ listed are true for any electromagnetic fields by a conductor (this includes all of TE, TM, and TEM waves in a waveguide). Just because $$B_\perp=0$$ on the boundary, does not require this to be true IN the waveguide.

I understand what a boundary condition is very well. The point is that TE mode does NOT have $$B_\perp=0$$ as a boundary condition. Clear?

The other points are that you or gregory_ or whoever cannot infer boundary condition mismatches from Lorentz force mismatches

Because the Lorentz force has a different form according to GGT, the boundary conditions on E and B are different. That is the point you seem to keep missing.

You cannot infer that. E and H are mixed together in the expression of force. You cannot even use the force mismatch in order to infer the boundary condition mismatch under transformation. You need to do it from base principles. And when you do that you find that E as a boundary condition is invariant (zero transforms into a zero)

 

[quantumdude]

Let's stick to physics. I've just edited out the recent extracurricular activity, which has no place in this thread.

 

[clj4]

Let's stick to physics. I've just edited out the recent extracurricular activity, which has no place in this thread.

Thank you, sounds good to me. Let's stick to physics.

 

[NotForYou]

I understand what a boundary condition is very well. The point is that TE mode does NOT have $$B_\perp=0$$ as a boundary condition. Clear?

Sorry. Your understanding of electrodynamics is wrong.

- Reread that book you listed.
- Or, read this: http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/phys442/node6.html
- Or read Griffith's "Introduction to Electrodynamics" (page 405 in the 3rd edition).

Until you learn what a boundary conditions is and what the boundary conditions are here, it will be difficult to discuss this topic with you. Please take the time to read up on this topic.

 

[clj4]

Thank you

In the meanwhile perhaps you can explain to us how:

$$(\vec{E}+\vec{v} \times \vec{B})$$ being different from
$$(\vec{E'}+\vec{v'} \times \vec{B'})$$ implies univocally that

$$\vec{E}$$ is different from $$\vec{E'}$$

Miracles in vector algebra never cease to exist.

 

[clj4]

Sorry. Your understanding of electrodynamics is wrong.

- Reread that book you listed.
- Or, read this: http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/phys442/node6.html
- Or read Griffith's "Introduction to Electrodynamics" (page 405 in the 3rd edition).

Until you learn what a boundary conditions is and what the boundary conditions are here, it will be difficult to discuss this topic with you. Please take the time to read up on this topic.

Thank you, no need to get arrogant.

Maybe while I re-read the book I listed you can explain to all of us how:

$$q(\vec{E}+\vec{v} \times \vec{B})$$ being different from

$$q(\vec{E'}+\vec{v'} \times \vec{B'})$$ implies univocally that

$$\vec{E}$$ is different from $$\vec{E'}$$ ?


This is one of the pillars of your approach in using the Lorentz force.

 

[NotForYou]

Thank you

I assume this means you decline your claims about the boundary conditions?

In the meanwhile perhaps you can explain to us how:
$$(\vec{E}+\vec{v} \times \vec{B})$$ being different from
$$(\vec{E'}+\vec{v'} \times \vec{B'})$$ implies univocally that
$$\vec{E}$$ is different from $$\vec{E'}$$

Miracles in vector algebra never cease to exist.

I have no clue what you are even saying here. In GGT the Lorentz force is not of the form $$\vec{F}=q(\vec{E}+\vec{v} \times \vec{B})$$ except for in one special frame. Are you somehow thinking that "not of the form" just means that E, v, and B have different values? No, it literally means that you cannot write the Lorentz force with that form.

You have already been shown what form the Lorentz force has in GGT. Do you still deny that it is NOT $$\vec{F}=q(\vec{E}+\vec{v} \times \vec{B})$$ ??

 

[Aether]

Yes, so you just added another one that you need to refute?

I don't think so, but let the chips fall where they may.

Would you care to share this one with all of us?

Sorry, I didn't see this at first. I'll make the paper available tomorrow: C.M. Will, Clock synchronization and isotropy of the one-way speed of light, Physical Review D 45(2), p.403.

If what you say is true, why have most of us never heard of this theory?

It is hard to find a modern experimental test of local Lorentz invariance that doesn't reference this theory. I don't know why most of you haven't heard of it before, but NotForYou's explanation sounds like a reasonable one.

If I'm mistaken about the breadth of knowledge, has anyone done quantum theory, the equivalent to the Dirac eq., or demonstrated full equivalence to verified SR results?

There are some indications "...that a consistent formulation of quantum mechanics demands the existence of a preferred frame." -- P. Caban et al., Lorentz-covariant quantum mechanics and preferred frame, Physical Review A 59(6), 4187 (1999); http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9808013.

From the abstract:
"In this paper the relativistic quantum mechanics (QM) is considered in the framework of the nonstandard synchronization scheme...Our results support expectations of other authors [J.S. Bell, in Quantum Gravity, edited by C.J. Isham, R. Penrose, and D.W. Sciama (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1981), p. 611; P.H. Eberhard, Nuovo Cimento B 46, 392 (1978)] that a consistent formulation of quantum mechanics demands the existence of a preferred frame.",

and, from the first page:
"The formulation of the Poincare-covariant quantum mechanics presented here seems to have a number of advantages over the standard formulation. First of all, the conflict between the causality and the quantum theory disappears. Second, the localization problem is solved."

The reason you haven't heard of it is because as a theory it has no predictive power (actually, due to the messiness, it probably hinders search for new physics if one constrains themselves to that theory). It is defined to have the same physical laws in one coordinate system as SR. In any other frame, you must transform back into this special frame, do the calculations, and transform back. So by definition the predictions for all experiments will agree with SR.

However it doesn't provide any predictive power for new physics, and makes calculations messy. So it has no real benefit except to remind us that if we really wanted to, we could describe the universe with any coordinate system we choose.

I'm not claiming that Mansouri-Sexl theory per se has any predictive power. It is necessary though to be clear about what is and what is not ruled-out by experiment for the sake of other theories that do make predictions.

 

[clj4]

I assume this means you decline your claims about the boundary conditions?I have no clue what you are even saying here. In GGT the Lorentz force is not of the form $$\vec{F}=q(\vec{E}+\vec{v} \times \vec{B})$$ except for in one special frame. Are you somehow thinking that "not of the form" just means that E, v, and B have different values? No, it literally means that you cannot write the Lorentz force with that form.

You have already been shown what form the Lorentz force has in GGT. Do you still deny that it is NOT $$\vec{F}=q(\vec{E}+\vec{v} \times \vec{B})$$ ??

Let's try a different way:

1. $$\bf{B}_\perp=0$$ is not a necessary boundary condition for the partial differential equation that describes the wave
2. $$\bf{E}_\parallel=0$$ is the only necessary boundary condition for the partial differential equation in TE mode
3. If $$\bf{E}_\parallel=0$$ transforms identically in GGT , then the boundary conditions are determined correctly

 

[NotForYou]

1. $$\bf{B}_\perp=0$$ is not a necessary boundary condition for the partial differential equation that describes the wave
2. $$\bf{E}_\parallel=0$$ is the only necessary boundary condition for the partial differential equation in TE mode

Because of the form of Maxwell's equations in standard/Lorentz frame, choosing the electric field along the waveguide axis to be zero in the waveguide and enforcing the boundary condition on the electric field automatically enforces the boundary condition on the magnetic field. This is not equivalent to saying the boundary condition is "unnecessary".

Also, please note that the boundary condition is still satisfied. (And that we could have chosen to use the magnetic field boundary condition instead, and it would have automatically enforced the electric field boundary condition.)

Also, please note that this in no way implies that we may ignore one boundary condition when choosing whatever the equivalent of TE waves is in GGT. You can never ignore a boundary condition, you must always verify that it is satisfied.

3. If $$\bf{E}_\parallel=0$$ transforms identically in GGT , then the boundary conditions are determined correctly

You are still missing the point.

- The boundary conditions are determined from the force law. Do you agree with this?

- The force law has a different form in GGT. Do you agree with this?

- Do you understand that $$\bf{B}_\perp=0, \bf{E}_\parallel=0$$ are not the boundary conditions in GGT?


I still don't understand all the fuss here. By definition, GGT theories agree with SR predictions for experiments ... they merely use a different coordinate system. Are you trying to claim they did the transformations wrong? Or are you seriously trying to claim that you can't work in another coordinate system?

 

[clj4]

Because of the form of Maxwell's equations in standard/Lorentz frame, choosing the electric field along the waveguide axis to be zero in the waveguide and enforcing the boundary condition on the electric field automatically enforces the boundary condition on the magnetic field. This is not equivalent to saying the boundary condition is "unnecessary".

Also, please note that the boundary condition is still satisfied. (And that we could have chosen to use the magnetic field boundary condition instead, and it would have automatically enforced the electric field boundary condition.)

Also, please note that this in no way implies that we may ignore one boundary condition when choosing whatever the equivalent of TE waves is in GGT. You can never ignore a boundary condition, you must always verify that it is satisfied.You are still missing the point.

- The boundary conditions are determined from the force law. Do you agree with this?

- The force law has a different form in GGT. Do you agree with this?

- Do you understand that $$\bf{B}_\perp=0, \bf{E}_\parallel=0$$ are not the boundary conditions in GGT?I still don't understand all the fuss here. By definition, GGT theories agree with SR predictions for experiments ... they merely use a different coordinate system. Are you trying to claim they did the transformations wrong? Or are you seriously trying to claim that you can't work in another coordinate system?

Gregory,

What I'm saying is that your new "disproof" is as content free as the first one.
I.e. you have not shown that there is any connection between the Lorentz force being different and the boundary conditions of the Gagnon equations being inconsistent.Try some math instead of words.
While you are at it try explaining how for a TE waveguide $$\bf{E}_\parallel=0$$ is no longer the boundary condition in GGT. What defines a TE under GGT then? You mean TE is no longer TE? Again, try some math, not words.

 

[clj4]

I still don't understand all the fuss here. By definition, GGT theories agree with SR predictions for experiments ...

Ah, the "fuss" is about a few guys (Gagnon, T. Cheng, Krisher, Will) who read a little more carefully the MS papers and who would beg to differ with your interpretation of what the papers REALLY say. Not even MS are as sure as you are...Therefore, they (Gagnon,...) setup a few one-way-light speed measurements that fly in the face of what you write and what you seem to believe. And no, the experiments are not wrong. Your interpretation of the MS papers is what is wrong.

 

[NotForYou]

Gregory,

Sorry. As I said before, I'm his roommate (also a graduate student in physics). I'm already getting sick of this (I don't know how anyone has the patience for this), so he may have to bug a different student to defend him tomorrow.

People have explained to you quite clearly, but you don't understand. So please help us by answering some questions so that we can see where your misunderstanding stems from.

1] You agreed that SR and theories using GGT agree on the physical laws in one frame. Therefore if calculations are done in that frame, the two theories by definition would agree on the predictions, correct?

2] Yet you claim that the two can be experimentally distinguished. Are you trying to claim the experimenters did the transformations wrong? Or are you seriously trying to claim that we can't do physics with a different coordinate system?

I don't understand/know what your stance is on this issue, and it is the core issue in the argument over the Gagnon paper. Please explicitly answer those questions.


Also, since it will help you feel better to understand the details as well. Help us understand where your misunderstanding stems from regarding the details as well:

3] Do you agree that the Lorentz force law has a different form in GGT?

4] Do you agree that the boundary conditions are different in GGT?

 

[clj4]

Sorry. As I said before, I'm his roommate (also a graduate student in physics). I'm already getting sick of this (I don't know how anyone has the patience for this), so he may have to bug a different student to defend him tomorrow.

People have explained to you quite clearly, but you don't understand. So please help us by answering some questions so that we can see where your misunderstanding stems from.

1] You agreed that SR and theories using GGT agree on the physical laws in one frame. Therefore if calculations are done in that frame, the two theories by definition would agree on the predictions, correct?

2] Yet you claim that the two can be experimentally distinguished. Are you trying to claim the experimenters did the transformations wrong? Or are you seriously trying to claim that we can't do physics with a different coordinate system?

I don't understand/know what your stance is on this issue, and it is the core issue in the argument over the Gagnon paper. Please explicitly answer those questions.Also, since it will help you feel better to understand the details as well. Help us understand where your misunderstanding stems from regarding the details as well:

3] Do you agree that the Lorentz force law has a different form in GGT?

4] Do you agree that the boundary conditions are different in GGT?

Sorry Gregory

You are the one who needs to defend your "disproof" of Gagnon. So far , nothing. Remember, the math (or lack of thereof) gives you away.

 

[NotForYou]

Sorry Gregory

Have you forgotten how to read? I am gregory's roommate. Stick to the physics, remember?


I showed that your "complaint" about gregory's work was invalid because you didn't understand boundary conditions. So it is you that needs to prove yourself.

Also, we're under "BAUT" rules remember? You need to answer direct questions. No discussion can work if you refuse to answer questions. So go back and answer the four questions.

 

[clj4]

Gregory,

You have not shown that there is any connection between the Lorentz force being different and the boundary conditions of the Gagnon equations being inconsistent.

1. Please try explaining mathematically how the Lorentz force lack of form conservation induces that $$\bf{E}_\parallel=0$$ is no longer the boundary condition for a TE waveguide in GGT(the case of Gagnon) .
2. What defines a TE under GGT then?
3. You mean TE is no longer TE?
Again, try some math, not words.

 

[NotForYou]

Gregory,

What is your issue? I told you that I am not gregory. Do I need to prove it somehow before you shut up? Stick to the physics.


Now stop avoiding my four simple questions. Please answer them.

 

[Hans de Vries]

What is your issue? I told you that I am not gregory. Do I need to prove it somehow before you shut up? Stick to the physics.Now stop avoiding my four simple questions. Please answer them.

Stick to the physics and stay nice is the idea.
The whole discussion seems to be about nothing now...Yes, of course:

If you change to any arbitrary non-SR reference frame and
Correctly adapt the laws of physics accordingly then
You'll get exactly the same results, undistinguishable.

but,

One can not expect the experimenters to change the laws of physics
accordingly for a GGT frame because one needs to know the preferred
reference frame!

One can only define a test-theory by assuming the laws of physics
equal and then determine the measurable differences which would
occur in a GGT reference frame. This doesn’t mean that any papers
are therefore wrong.
Regards, Hans.

 

[ZapperZ]

If people involved would not just stick to the physics (which everyone seems to want people to do) but prefer to do some editorializing, then this thread will be shut down and a few warning points distributed for good measure. I believe no one wants that.

So the fate of this thread is in your hands.

Zz.

 

[clj4]

Gregory,

You have not shown that there is any connection between the Lorentz force being different and the boundary conditions of the Gagnon equations being inconsistent.

1. Please try explaining mathematically how the Lorentz's force lack of form conservation induces that $$\bf{E}_\parallel=0$$ is no longer the valid boundary condition for a TE waveguide in GGT(the case of Gagnon) .

2. What defines a TE under GGT then?

3. You mean TE is no longer TE?

4. Please explain how the boundary condition E should transform in the Gagnon paper. I.e. what does E=0 transform into when we transform between frames?

Yes, you are correct, we are under BAUT rules.
"Aether" opened this thread in BAUT in the "Against the Mainstream" section in order to defend his idea that the Gagnon, Kirsher,C.M.Will, etc experiments are all wrong.
Under BAUT rules he needs to defend his ideas.
We moved the discussion here in order to exploit the LateEx capabilities of this site and to prove things mathematically.
You are helping him defend, so you are supposed to answer questions. We ask, you and "Aether" defend. These are the rules.
Again, try some math, not words.

 

[Hans de Vries]

While you are at it try explaining how for a TE waveguide $$\bf{E}_\parallel=0$$ is no longer the boundary condition in GGT. What defines a TE under GGT then? You mean TE is no longer TE? Again, try some math, not words.

The boundery conditions $$\bf{B}_\perp=0, \bf{E}_\parallel=0$$ are only valid if the waveguide is
at rest remember? For a moving waveguide the boundery conditions change
according to the Lorentz transformations on $F^{\mu\nu}$. They change directions.
In the GGT frame this should still be visible.

Since we always observe $$\bf{B}_\perp=0, \bf{E}_\parallel=0$$ for a wave guide at rest proves how
well SR and non-simultaneity are working.Regards, Hans.

 

[clj4]

The boundery conditions $$\bf{B}_\perp=0, \bf{E}_\parallel=0$$ are only valid if the waveguide is
at rest remember? For a moving waveguide the boundery conditions change
according to the Lorentz transformations on $F^{\mu\nu}$. They change directions.
In the GGT frame this should still be visible.

Since we always observe $$\bf{B}_\perp=0, \bf{E}_\parallel=0$$ for a wave guide at rest proves how
well SR and non-simultaneity are working.Regards, Hans.

Yes, Hans

You are correct but the issue at hand is a different one. "Gregory" contents that Gagnon et. al did not perform the correct GGT transformation of the boundary conditions. That is, they transformed the partial differential equation under GGT but somehow "forgot" to transform the boundary conditions.If that were true, it would invalidate the Gagnon paper.
But this is false, Gagnon and the reviewers of Phys Rev would have caught this immediately. As an aside , the paper spent two years in reviews...ample time to catch such an elementary oversight. I would like "gregory" to prove his statement.

At the very root of the issue lies a much bigger thing: the incorrect belief that the Mansouri-Sexl "aether" theory is indistiguishable from SR under ANY circumstances. This is also false. The proponents of this idea "Aether" and "gregory=NotForYou" read into the M-S papers in a way that was never intended by the authors. M-S are very careful about their statements and they spell out very clearly the RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS under which the two theories are equivalent. "Aether" and "gregory=NotForYou" elected to ignore the asterisks so, when faced with the Gagnon, Kirsher, C.M.Will experiments that fly in the face of their beliefs they elect to either:
-declare the experiments invalid/irrelevant
-find imagined faults with the above mentioned experiment

 

[Aether]

C.M. Will, Clock synchronization and isotropy of the one-way speed of light, Physical Review D 45(2), p.403.

This paper will be available here http://69.13.172.13/Will, Phys. Rev. D 45(2), 403 (1992).pdf for the next 24 hours. Please do not quote this link in your reply as I will be deleting it later.

At the very root of the issue lies a much bigger thing: the incorrect belief that the Mansouri-Sexl "aether" theory is indistiguishable from SR under ANY circumstances. This is also false.

We're talking only about the special case of GGT which differs from SR only in the clock synchronization convention that is embodied by the parameter $$\epsilon$$.

The proponents of this idea "Aether" and "gregory=NotForYou" read into the M-S papers in a way that was never intended by the authors. M-S are very careful about their statements and they spell out very clearly the RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS under which the two theories are equivalent. "Aether" and "gregory=NotForYou" elected to ignore the asterisks so, when faced with the Gagnon, Kirsher, C.M.Will experiments that fly in the face of their beliefs they elect to either:
-declare the experiments invalid/irrelevant
-find imagined faults with the above mentioned experiment

We are simply comparing the known empirical equivalence of SR and GGT to contrary claims which are made or implied in one or more of these papers. Exactly which restrictive condition of M-S are we ignoring?

 

[clj4]

C.M. Will, Clock synchronization and isotropy of the one-way speed of light, Physical Review D 45(2), p.403.

This paper will be available here http://69.13.172.13/Will, Phys. Rev. D 45(2), 403 (1992).pdf for the next 24 hours. Please do not quote this link in your reply as I will be deleting it later.

Thank you

this is very generous of you

We are simply comparing the known empirical equivalence of SR and GGT to contrary claims which are made or implied in one or more of these papers. Exactly which restrictive condition of M-S are we ignoring?

The number of papers stands to 6 or more (the C.M.Will paper lists a few more). The restrictive conditions are clearly stated in the Mansouri-Sexl papers that you also very generously supplied. They are there, in plain view, for everyone that cares to see and accept. I suggest that we all go back and read the papers, if I spell them out it would result into another storm of arguments. If you cannot see them, please take the papers to someone who knows more about the MS theory. I will give a hint:
-when Einstein wrote his 1905 paper he had a section dedicated on kinematics, one on dynamics, one on electromagnetism...

-MS stopped after the kinematics section (and they give the reason), they promised to write a dynamics section, it never happened (think about it)

So , no, the MS theory and SRT are not indistinguishable under ALL conditions. There are some very severe restrictions under which they produce the same predictions.
It is precisely these restrictions that people who understand the theory (C.M.Will is a best example) decided to exploit in their experiments that expose the differences.

MS theory is not equivalent to SRT, being an "aether" theory it requires additional ad-hoc assumptions to make the same predictions as SR (like all the other aether theories).
MS is a very valuable tool to test for SR violations but it is not going to supplant SR.

You have enough hints to start thinking.