Experimental Tests of OWLS and Source Dependency
Jerry
format:
Crackpot: Nobody has ever measured OWLS!
NonCrackpot: Yes they have! Here is a <list of references>
Crackpot: They did them wrong!
NonCrackpot: No they didn't!
Crackpot: Yes they did!
NonCrackpot: No they didn't!
et cetera ad nauseam
I get the distinct impression that, with a few exceptions, NEITHER side
has ever actually gone to the library and read the research papers that
have firmly established the constancy of light in one-way measurements,
and which have disproven emission theory.
This results in a rather low level of discussion. I have often thought
that maybe I should email everybody scans of the papers from my
personal collection. Except that most everybody has false email
addresses.
OK, how about supplying links. Whoops, I bump into copyright law. I
cannot just go around photocopying copyrighted material and publishing
it on the web, that is verboten.
On closer reading, there is a loophole related to "fair use." I can
make personal copies, and reading between the lines (the rules don't
exactly say it, but they don't deny it), it appears that I may be able
to distribute a limited number of copies among the members of a small
group for educational purposes.
Assuming this to be true for a small web discussion group, I have done
the following. I have set up a web page which will be valid for a
one-week period.
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/LightSpeed.htm
Today is April 8. After April 15, I am deleting the page.
During this limited period, members of the sci.physics.relativity
discussion group may download, for their personal use,
Krisher et al. (1990)
Turner and Hill (1964)
Gagnon et al. (1988)
Beckmann and Mandics (1965)
Alvager et al. (1964)
Filipas and Fox (1964)
Brecher (1977)
Repeat: after April 15, I -will- delete the page. I have no desire to
get sued.
Let's see a higher level of discussion, guys. Let's discuss the actual
experiments instead of handwaving.
Jerry
Sam Wormley
Ever heard of the Global Positioning System?
SV -----------> ground station
"Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System" by Richard W. Pogge
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
"General Relativity in the Global Positioning System" by Neil Ashby
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
cadwgan...@yahoo.com
Exactly zero of your posted experiments pertained in any
way to the only one-way light speed experiment that counts,
namely, the simple and direct measurement of light's speed
between two clocks which are constantly at rest relative to
each other in the same inertial frame.
Here is exactly why this case is important:
Despite the fact (which your posted experiment list proved)
that no such experiment has ever been performed, SR still
claims that not only can such an experiment be performed,
but that its unique result must be or will be or should be
one-way light speed invariance and isotropy. Indeed, as
we all should know, SR is based solely on these claims,
so only this particular one-way experiment can test SR.
Get back to us when you have a copy of the only one-way
test of SR that means anything, namely, the one-way light
speed measured between two relatively-at-rest clocks in
the same inertial frame.
Or, to save both you and us some time, you could simply
post a picture of your own showing exactly how such an
experiment could be performed. (You can even use the
perfect or ideal clocks and rulers of theoretical physics.)
I agree with you that this very simple matter should be
settled once and for all, so why not give it one more shot!
I double-dog dare ya! ;-)
PS - all sane people agree on light's source-independency,
so that issue is settled. (As you noted, Brecher proved it.)
cadwgan...@yahoo.com
> Ever heard of the Global Positioning System?
> SV -----------> ground station
Yes. It works because of geometric corrections along
with general relativity corrections.
But SR does not pertain to the GPS system because
SR says absolutely nothing about any atomic clock's
internal atomic rhythm because a single atomic clock
cannot have more than _one_ such rhythm, and yet SR's
observers in various frames find _different_ "rhythms"
for one and the same passing atomic clock. This has
nothing to do with the clock's single physical rhythm,
but has everything to do with the fact that SR's own
clocks are asynchronous. (SR does not have absolute
synchronization.)
Besides, the GPS is irrelevant to SR's sole claim of
invariance and isotropy in the case of light's speed
between two clocks in an inertial frame.
But if you still think that the GPS is so important
to SR, then go ahead and tell us how GPS clocks are
synchronized, and prove that this synchronization
method correctly relates the clocks temporally.
Sam Wormley
See:
cadwgan...@yahoo.com
> See:
>
> "Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System" by Richard W.
Pogge
>
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
>
> "General Relativity in the Global Positioning System" by Neil
Ashby
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
Repeating bad info is bad policy.
To prove that none of the above tells us how to correctly
synchronize two clocks, I say that you cannot show us on
paper how this can be done.
Uncle Al
>
> A great many discussions on this newsgroup follow the following general
> format:
>
> Crackpot: Nobody has ever measured OWLS!
> NonCrackpot: Yes they have! Here is a <list of references>
> Crackpot: They did them wrong!
> NonCrackpot: No they didn't!
> Crackpot: Yes they did!
> NonCrackpot: No they didn't!
> et cetera ad nauseam
>
> I get the distinct impression that, with a few exceptions, NEITHER side
> has ever actually gone to the library and read the research papers that
> have firmly established the constancy of light in one-way measurements,
> and which have disproven emission theory.
All you need do is overturn all of physical theory plus its empirical
observational support. You are an idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Sam Wormley
Robert Kolker
> A great many discussions on this newsgroup follow the following general
> format:
>
> Crackpot: Nobody has ever measured OWLS!
Nobody has measured OWLS without first synchronizing clocks based on
isotropism of light velocity.
Produce a vetted, reproducded experiment described in a refereed physics
journal that shows otherwise.
Show is the evidence that TWLS is different from OWLS. Experiments only
please. Do not assert theories uncorroberated by experiment. That is
just another version of it is - it ain't.
Bob Kolker
Jerry
Gagnon et al. use ONE clock. Please download the paper that I have
provided and critique.
Jerry
Jerry
> Show is the evidence that TWLS is different from OWLS. Experiments
only
> please. Do not assert theories uncorroberated by experiment. That
is
> just another version of it is - it ain't.
Uh... could you please re-read my post? Why do you think I believe TWLS
is different from OWLS?
Jerry
Robert Kolker
>
> Uh... could you please re-read my post? Why do you think I believe TWLS
> is different from OWLS?
Explain to me in twnetyfive words or less how one measures the velocity
of light going in one direction with a single clock? If you reflect the
light you are measure two way velocity. If the light is guided around a
ring, it is not going in one direction. How is this magical thing
accomplished?
If one uses two clocks then the synchronization sneaks in the two way
speed of light.
Bob Kolker
Jerry
> speed of light.
75 words:
They used two parallel waveguides with different cutoff frequencies,
one close to the oscillator frequency, the other widely different from
the oscillator frequency. At the cutoff frequency, the wavelength in an
ideal waveguide becomes infinite, and there is no longitudinal position
dependence for the electrical phase of the wave along the waveguide. At
the far end of the waveguides was a phase comparator. Variation in OWLS
would have manifested itself as a change in phase.
They found no evidence for direction-dependent variation in the one-way
speed of light.
Jerry
Jan Panteltje
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote in <6dadnegcSJF...@comcast.com>:
>Explain to me in twnetyfive words or less how one measures the velocity
>of light going in one direction with a single clock?
You use 2 detectors, 10 meters apart.
Connect each detector with a same length cable via a resistor to an
oscilloscope.
Go shine a light so it falls first on the first, then on the second detector.
On the scope you will see something like this:
____
____|
|
----------------
t1 t2
The difference between t1 and t2 is the time it took the light from the first
to the second detector (10 m in this case).
The 'clock' is the timebase generator of the scope, there is only one in this
case.
Also fun is to put the pulses in an xor gate.
Maybe I misunderstood your challenge?
Robert Kolker
>
> You use 2 detectors, 10 meters apart.
> Connect each detector with a same length cable via a resistor to an
> oscilloscope.
Two cables. What assumption are you making? That the speeds in both
cables are the same?
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
> the far end of the waveguides was a phase comparator. Variation in OWLS
> would have manifested itself as a change in phase.
Seen from where? Is simulteneity being smuggled in here?
>
> They found no evidence for direction-dependent variation in the one-way
> speed of light.
Is the speed the same in all directions?
Bob Kolker
Jerry
> Jerry wrote:
>
> > the far end of the waveguides was a phase comparator. Variation in
OWLS
> > would have manifested itself as a change in phase.
>
> Seen from where? Is simulteneity being smuggled in here?
The signal is injected at one end of the two waveguides. The phase
difference is measured at the other end of the two waveguides. There
are no hidden assumptions concerning simultaneity.
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
@ >
===================================================
The top parallel set of hyphens represents the first waveguide.
The equal signs represents the second waveguide.
The @ represents the oscillator at one end.
The > represent the phase comparator at the other end.
(Cross my fingers that groups-beta doesn't trash my figure)
> > They found no evidence for direction-dependent variation in the
one-way
> > speed of light.
>
> Is the speed the same in all directions?
Isn't that what I said?
Jerry
Bill Hobba
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1112958791.5...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> A great many discussions on this newsgroup follow the following general
> format:
>
> Crackpot: Nobody has ever measured OWLS!
> NonCrackpot: Yes they have! Here is a <list of references>
> Crackpot: They did them wrong!
> NonCrackpot: No they didn't!
> Crackpot: Yes they did!
> NonCrackpot: No they didn't!
> et cetera ad nauseam
I have not seen that one. Got any examples? It is not possible to measure
OWLS because of the difficulty in syncing clocks. The problem with
crackpots is they claim it is a difficulty for SR - when of course it is
not.
>
> I get the distinct impression that, with a few exceptions, NEITHER side
> has ever actually gone to the library and read the research papers that
> have firmly established the constancy of light in one-way measurements,
> and which have disproven emission theory.
I get the impression you do not understand the debate.
Bill
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1112958791.5...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > A great many discussions on this newsgroup follow the following
general
> > format:
> >
> > Crackpot: Nobody has ever measured OWLS!
> > NonCrackpot: Yes they have! Here is a <list of references>
> > Crackpot: They did them wrong!
> > NonCrackpot: No they didn't!
> > Crackpot: Yes they did!
> > NonCrackpot: No they didn't!
> > et cetera ad nauseam
>
> I have not seen that one. Got any examples?
Well, the debate between me and Bob Kolker on this thread is an
example, except that Bob isn't a crackpot, to the best of my knowledge,
although he apparently thinks that I'm one. If he'd just download and
read Gagnon et al., a lot of his doubts would be answered. But he
refuses to read the paper, forcing me to explain the experimental setup
for him in "25 words or less" terms.
> It is not possible to measure
> OWLS because of the difficulty in syncing clocks.
Gagnon et al. used a setup that does not rely on syncing clocks, but is
capable of detecting -variations- in OWLS, although OWLS itself is not
measured.
They used two parallel waveguides with different cutoff frequencies,
one close to the oscillator frequency, the other widely different from
the oscillator frequency. At the cutoff frequency, the wavelength in an
ideal waveguide becomes infinite, and there is no longitudinal position
dependence for the electrical phase of the wave along the waveguide. At
the far end of the waveguides was a phase comparator. Variation in OWLS
would have manifested itself as a change in phase.
The signal is injected at one end of the two waveguides. The phase
difference is measured at the other end of the two waveguides. There
are no hidden assumptions concerning simultaneity.
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
@ >
===================================================
The top parallel set of hyphens represents the first waveguide.
The equal signs represents the second waveguide.
The @ represents the oscillator at one end.
The > represents the phase comparator at the other end.
They found no evidence for direction-dependent variation in the one-way
speed of light.
> The problem with
> crackpots is they claim it is a difficulty for SR - when of course it
is
> not.
<snip>
Jerry
Bill Hobba
Why? A reference for this astounding conclusion that goes in the face of a
well known scientific principle would be nice. My understanding of how
waveguides work is it is dependant of reflection of the EM fields down the
guide forming standing waves so it really is not an indication of one way
anything - eg they do not even work if they are not a multiple of the
wavelength because of this. Also waveguides is a case of EM fields
constrained to the guide - not free space.
>
> They found no evidence for direction-dependent variation in the one-way
> speed of light.
>
And no experimnet has - but that does not rule out a class of ateher
thories:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
'Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and find
isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of theories
in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic. These theories share
the property that the round-trip speed of light is isotropic in any inertial
frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic only in an ether frame. In all of
these theories the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the
effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame),
and all are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories
predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above,
especially Zhang (in which these theories are called "Edwards frames"). '
Bill
>
> Jerry
>
Bill Hobba
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112985465.90795215950a26bd7fe0f0211e81fe8e@teranews...
I think you did. What about the time it takes the signals to get from the
detectors to the scope? Look at it carefully enough an you will see it is
not a one way measurement of light speed - you are comparing it to a clock
at the same place - the clock in your case being the frequency sweep of the
scope. It is really a TWLS experiment in disguise as it must be if you are
using one clock. It is well known measuring OWLS is not possible.- see
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
and the section on measuring OWLS.
Thanks
Bill
Jerry
What "well known scientific principle"? In the first waveguide
(operating at close to cutoff frequency), the phase of the RF exiting
the waveguide would be essentially identical to the phase of the RF
entering the waveguide. In the second waveguide, variation in OWLS
would alter the phase of the RF exiting the waveguide as a first-order
effect. So the setup should be highly sensitive to variations in OWLS.
> My understanding of how
> waveguides work is it is dependant of reflection of the EM fields
down the
> guide forming standing waves so it really is not an indication of one
way
> anything - eg they do not even work if they are not a multiple of the
> wavelength because of this.
What standing waves? You must be thinking of a closed cavity.
> Also waveguides is a case of EM fields
> constrained to the guide - not free space.
Please download Gagnon et al. from my web page.
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/LightSpeed.htm
You will find most of your concerns addressed there.
> > They found no evidence for direction-dependent variation in the
one-way
> > speed of light.
> >
>
> And no experimnet has - but that does not rule out a class of ateher
> thories:
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
> 'Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path
and find
> isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of
theories
> in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic. These theories
share
> the property that the round-trip speed of light is isotropic in any
inertial
> frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic only in an ether frame. In
all of
> these theories the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the
> effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial
frame),
> and all are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these
theories
> predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above,
> especially Zhang (in which these theories are called "Edwards
frames"). '
Jerry
Jerry
> Also waveguides is a case of EM fields
> constrained to the guide - not free space.
True. But the one-way speed of light through the waveguide would STILL
be modified by any hypothetical aether flow.
Jerry
Ben Rudiak-Gould
> Gagnon et al. (1988)
[This is "Guided-wave measurement of the one-way speed of light" in Physical
Review A, vol 38, no 4.]
The theoretical part of this paper appears to be little short of nonsense. I
can't believe it survived peer review in this form. I'm crossposting to
s.p.research in the hope of getting input from the experts, since I might be
missing something.
The authors introduce a "generalized Galilean transformation" given by
x' = gamma (x - v t) (gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2))
y' = y
z' = z
t' = gamma^-1 t
This is not even a group. They claim that the usual SR line element is
invariant under the GGT, which is obviously untrue, but it's not a serious
problem since they never try to use this. The serious problem is that they
don't say which physical laws are supposed to be invariant under the GGT.
They don't even seem to understand that this is an important question.
Instead they transform Maxwell's equations (in their usual Lorentz-invariant
form) using the GGT, and use the transformed equations for the rest of their
analysis, which is equivalent to assuming that the laws governing the
behavior of the experimental apparatus are in some sense invariant under the
GGT. But the experimental apparatus is made of ordinary matter which is
electromagnetically bound. This is a direct contradiction, and so the whole
analysis is worthless, as far as I can tell.
-- Ben
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1112958791.5...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>A great many discussions on this newsgroup
> follow the following general format:
>
> Crackpot: Nobody has ever measured OWLS!
This actually is not the crackpot. Actually many have claimed to
measure OWLS, but in fact OWLS cannot be measured. Length is
typically required (which is a remote synchronized clock, by the
current definition of a meter), and this forces any measurement
to be TWLS.
David A. Smith
Tom Roberts
> A great many discussions on this newsgroup follow the following general
> format:
> Crackpot: Nobody has ever measured OWLS!
Such people do not understand that measuring OWLS is useless, and cannot
be used in any useful way to distinguish among various theories of
physics. The basic problem is that any one-way measurement of any speed
requires the use of two synchronized clocks, and the method of
synchronization directly affects the answer.
> I get the distinct impression that, with a few exceptions, NEITHER side
> has ever actually gone to the library and read the research papers that
> have firmly established the constancy of light in one-way measurements,
> and which have disproven emission theory.
Well, I am certainly one of the "exceptions", but I would not phrase it
that way, because there are not any experiments I am aware of that have
"established the constancy of light in one-way measurements". There are
several that put upper limits on any anisotropy in OWLS, but that is not
the same. The basic metrological measurements that have established the
constancy of the speed of light inherently use round-trip light beams;
but metrologists know about clock synchronization and the fact that
given the constancy of TWLS, it is always possible to synchronize clocks
(in an inertial frame) so OWLS has the same value (and is necessarily
isotropic).
> Krisher et al. (1990)
> Turner and Hill (1964)
> Gagnon et al. (1988)
> Beckmann and Mandics (1965)
> Alvager et al. (1964)
> Filipas and Fox (1964)
> Brecher (1977)
Yep, I have copies of all of those, and about a zillion more (:-)) --
see the FAQ -- you missed the best ones.
> Gagnon et al. use ONE clock.
And measure TWLS. <shrug>
> They used two parallel waveguides with different cutoff frequencies,
> one close to the oscillator frequency, the other widely different from
> the oscillator frequency. At the cutoff frequency, the wavelength in an
> ideal waveguide becomes infinite, and there is no longitudinal position
> dependence for the electrical phase of the wave along the waveguide.
You misunderstand. At cutoff the wavelength does not "become infinite"
-- that would imply that inside the waveguide their RF source would
appear to be d.c., which most definitely does not happen. At any point
along the waveguide, the frequency of the wave is the same as it is at
the source.
What actually happens is the phase velocity of the wave approaches
infinity. But in order to determine that you need synchronized clocks
located at least at two points along the waveguide, and is thus
dependent on synchronizing clocks. That's why their measurement is
actually TWLS even though they (and you) seem to think it is OWLS.
Another way to look at it: imagine placing a probe inside the
near-cutoff waveguide to sample the wave, and connect it to one channel
of a two-channel oscilloscope located right next to the source, using a
lead long enough to reach to any point along the waveguide; the second
channel is connected by a short cable directly from the source. With an
idealizad infinite phase velocity of the wave the waveform displayed on
the oscilloscope compared to the source waveform will not vary as the
probe is moved along the waveguide. Note that the cable from probe to
oscilloscope _must_ be of constant length for this to occur, and also
TWLS in the cable must be constant (as you slide the probe along the
waveguide, the fraction of each direction in the cable varies). So this,
too, shows that this is using TWLS as a means of synchronizing the far
end of the waveguide with the source.
> At
> the far end of the waveguides was a phase comparator. Variation in OWLS
> would have manifested itself as a change in phase.
No. But anisotropy in TWLS would do so. They didn't see any variation
with orientation, implying that TWLS is independent of orientation. Like
a zillion other experiments. <shrug>
Bottom line: with a single clock and a single source, no matter what you
do to send two signals over different paths from source to
detector+clock, you will have a round trip or its equivalent and will
only be sensitive to TWLS. Measuring the phase difference between two
parallel paths in different media or waveguides always ends up being a
TWLS measurement in one way or another.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> You use 2 detectors, 10 meters apart.
> Connect each detector with a same length cable via a resistor to an
> oscilloscope.
> Go shine a light so it falls first on the first, then on the second detector.
>
> On the scope you will see something like this:
> ____
> ____|
> |
> ----------------
> t1 t2
>
> The difference between t1 and t2 is the time it took the light from the first
> to the second detector (10 m in this case).
Plus the travel time in the cables. Place the scope next to the first
detector, and the signal in the cable from the second will be going in
the opposite direction, so you are measureing TWLS (det1->det2 as light,
det2->det1 as signal in the cable). If you place the scope next to the
second detector, you are merely measuring the difference in propagation
speed between light and cable.
Bottom line: with a single clock and a single source it is not possible
to measure OWLS. No matter what you do you will have a closed loop and
the ultimate dependence of your measurement will be on TWLS.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Lady Chatterly
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
>Plus the travel time in the cables. Place the scope next to the first
>detector, and the signal in the cable from the second will be going in
>the opposite direction, so you are measureing TWLS (det1->det2 as light,
>det2->det1 as signal in the cable). If you place the scope next to the
>second detector, you are merely measuring the difference in propagation
>speed between light and cable.
Btw your refresh based page transitions suck.
>Bottom line: with a single clock and a single source it is not possible
>to measure OWLS. No matter what you do you will have a closed loop and
>the ultimate dependence of your measurement will be on TWLS.
Shrug.
>Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Com.
--
Lady Chatterly
"The yeah but I am the filling on a bot sandwich. Chatterly is above
us both." -- Aratzio
Jerry
I have lots others too. But the university library on main campus
doesn't have all the journals that you seem to have access to, and I
haven't used interlibrary loan much. Physics is strictly a hobby for
me, and I can't really afford to spend too much time on it. First year
medical school is a killer!
> > Gagnon et al. use ONE clock.
>
> And measure TWLS. <shrug>
>
>
> > They used two parallel waveguides with different cutoff
frequencies,
> > one close to the oscillator frequency, the other widely different
from
> > the oscillator frequency. At the cutoff frequency, the wavelength
in an
> > ideal waveguide becomes infinite, and there is no longitudinal
position
> > dependence for the electrical phase of the wave along the
waveguide.
>
> You misunderstand. At cutoff the wavelength does not "become
infinite"
That's a paraphrase of their phraseology.
> -- that would imply that inside the waveguide their RF source would
> appear to be d.c., which most definitely does not happen. At any
point
> along the waveguide, the frequency of the wave is the same as it is
at
> the source.
>
> What actually happens is the phase velocity of the wave approaches
> infinity.
Yes, I know.
> But in order to determine that you need synchronized clocks
> located at least at two points along the waveguide, and is thus
> dependent on synchronizing clocks. That's why their measurement is
> actually TWLS even though they (and you) seem to think it is OWLS.
At this point I -strongly- disagree! There is absolutely no need to use
a clock to verify that a waveguide is operating near its cutoff
frequency. You need only do signal strength versus frequency
measurements at the far end. EM theory can then be used to predict how
high a multiple of the speed of light the phase velocity is that is
traveling through the waveguide.
> Another way to look at it: imagine placing a probe inside the
> near-cutoff waveguide to sample the wave, and connect it to one
channel
> of a two-channel oscilloscope located right next to the source, using
a
> lead long enough to reach to any point along the waveguide; the
second
> channel is connected by a short cable directly from the source. With
an
> idealizad infinite phase velocity of the wave the waveform displayed
on
> the oscilloscope compared to the source waveform will not vary as the
> probe is moved along the waveguide. Note that the cable from probe to
> oscilloscope _must_ be of constant length for this to occur, and also
> TWLS in the cable must be constant (as you slide the probe along the
> waveguide, the fraction of each direction in the cable varies). So
this,
> too, shows that this is using TWLS as a means of synchronizing the
far
> end of the waveguide with the source.
Again, verification of near constant phase with an oscilloscope is not
necessary. You do -not- need to perfectly synchronize the far end of
the waveguide with the source. All you need is a high enough phase
velocity within the waveguide that the hypothetical effects of aether
drift on phase become relatively insignificant. One is measuring
-differences- in phase, not attempting absolute phase measurments.
> > At
> > the far end of the waveguides was a phase comparator. Variation in
OWLS
> > would have manifested itself as a change in phase.
>
> No. But anisotropy in TWLS would do so. They didn't see any variation
> with orientation, implying that TWLS is independent of orientation.
Like
> a zillion other experiments. <shrug>
I believe that is a false statement, for the reasons that I have given
above.
> Bottom line: with a single clock and a single source, no matter what
you
> do to send two signals over different paths from source to
> detector+clock, you will have a round trip or its equivalent and will
> only be sensitive to TWLS. Measuring the phase difference between two
> parallel paths in different media or waveguides always ends up being
a
> TWLS measurement in one way or another.
How would use of a signal strength meter at the far end be equivalent
to the hidden use of a synchronized clock?
Jerry
Jerry
Tom Roberts disagrees with me, but I believe that Gagnon et al.
provides a true demonstration of OWLS constancy, not subject to
criticisms regarding clock synchronization, etc.
-If- this is so, then OWLS = TWLS.
Stay tuned.
Jerry
Jerry
> Jerry wrote:
> > Gagnon et al. (1988)
>
> [This is "Guided-wave measurement of the one-way speed of light" in
> Physical Review A, vol 38, no 4.]
[Moderator's note: Badly formatted and superfluous text snipped. -P.H.]
The theoretical modeling may be defective, but I believe their
experimental results are solid. The observe no significant
direction-dependent phase shifts between the output of their two
waveguides, and this result stands regardless of any mistaken analysis.
I'll be interested in seeing the discussion in s.p.research...strictly
as a lurker, of course.
Thanks,
Jerry
Jerry
<snip>
By the way, thanks for actually downloading and reading the materials
that I've supplied. Your post is exactly the type of "higher level of
discussion" that I wanted to encourage, even if it -is- trashing a
paper that for years I've admired for its -experimental- content.
:-)
Jerry
Jerry
> Another way to look at it: imagine placing a probe inside the
> near-cutoff waveguide to sample the wave, and connect it to one
channel
> of a two-channel oscilloscope located right next to the source, using
a
> lead long enough to reach to any point along the waveguide; the
second
> channel is connected by a short cable directly from the source. With
an
> idealizad infinite phase velocity of the wave the waveform displayed
on
> the oscilloscope compared to the source waveform will not vary as the
> probe is moved along the waveguide. Note that the cable from probe to
> oscilloscope _must_ be of constant length for this to occur, and also
> TWLS in the cable must be constant (as you slide the probe along the
> waveguide, the fraction of each direction in the cable varies). So
this,
> too, shows that this is using TWLS as a means of synchronizing the
far
> end of the waveguide with the source.
Here is another counterexample. Instead of using a signal-strength
meter at the far end to monitor how close to cutoff we are, let us use
the phase comparator itself.
Far from cutoff, let us imagine that the frequency and phase velocity
within the two waveguides is such that we estimate approximately 1000
wavecrests fit within both. The phase comparator shows some arbitrary
amount of phase difference between the two output signals.
As we tune the oscillator to approach the cutoff frequency of waveguide
A, we note that the phase of the output signal from waveguide A
advances relative to waveguide B. Let us imagine that we need to lower
the frequency by 10 percent, and as we do so, we observe that the phase
of the output signal from waveguide A advances 1782 pi radians relative
to the output signal from waveguide B.
At this point, we can calculate that approximately 9 wavecrests fit
within waveguide A, and approximately 900 wavecrests fit within
waveguide B. The phase velocity of light within waveguide A is roughly
100x the phase velocity of light from waveguide B.
At this point, we already have an arrangement that should be sensitive
to OWLS anisotropy. We do not need "infinite" phase velocity within
waveguide A, nor do we need anything but a -rough- idea that the phase
velocity of the light within waveguide A is "very large."
If we are moving in an aether sea at 0.01 percent of the speed of light
parallel to the two waveguides, the phase of the output of waveguide B
would shift by approximately 0.18 pi radians (not directly measurable),
and the output of waveguide A would shift by approximately 0.0018 pi
radians (not directly measurable). The difference of the outputs would
shift by approximately 0.18 pi radians (measurable) relative to their
outputs with the apparatus turned at right angles relative to the
aether sea.
Thanks,
Jerry
Jan Panteltje
<tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in
<7zI5e.31299$hU7....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>:
>Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> You use 2 detectors, 10 meters apart.
>> Connect each detector with a same length cable via a resistor to an
>> oscilloscope.
>> Go shine a light so it falls first on the first, then on the second detector.
>>
>> On the scope you will see something like this:
>> ____
>> ____|
>> |
>> ----------------
>> t1 t2
>>
>> The difference between t1 and t2 is the time it took the light from the first
>> to the second detector (10 m in this case).
>
>Plus the travel time in the cables. Place the scope next to the first
>detector, and the signal in the cable from the second will be going in
>the opposite direction, so you are measureing TWLS (det1->det2 as light,
>det2->det1 as signal in the cable). If you place the scope next to the
>second detector, you are merely measuring the difference in propagation
>speed between light and cable.
It is funny Tom, this question was asked many years ago in ..relativity,
I gave a similar answer to the one I did now, and you got into some wild
rethoric saying it was not possible.
You are more down to the facts now it seems, but why not use a pulsed light
source, and walk around with the scope cart (use long cables of same length),
and see that it does not change, neither in the 'middle' or anywhere else.
Jan Panteltje
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote in <YY6dnYPsRPL...@comcast.com>:
Yes, and if you do not think so, it can be calibrated very easy.
I DID say same length.
Jan Panteltje
<bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in
<P6D5e.4345$5F3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
OK, in that link I find:
<quote>
Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and find
isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of theories
in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic. These theories share
the property that the round-trip speed of light is isotropic in any inertial
frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic only in an ether frame. In all of
these theories the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the
effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame),
and all are experimentally indistinguishable from SR.
</quote>
Problem with 'theories' is that they are theories.
The signal speed in the cables in my experiment may be (is) slower then C.
They just need to be same length.
Explain in 25 words or less why this does not measure one way speed ;-)
Tom Roberts
> The signal speed in the cables in my experiment may be (is) slower then C.
> They just need to be same length.
> Explain in 25 words or less why this does not measure one way speed ;-)
You must _assume_ that the signal speed in your cables is independent of
orientation. But that is just what you're trying to measure.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Jerry
> Problem with 'theories' is that they are theories.
> The signal speed in the cables in my experiment may be (is) slower
then C.
> They just need to be same length.
> Explain in 25 words or less why this does not measure one way speed
;-)
75 words:
You must assume that the universe is not involved in a conspiracy. :-)
If you use a stationary clock (oscilloscope), the signal speed in the
return path through your cables could vary in exactly such a way as to
cancel your ability to measure OWLS.
If you move the clock around, the movement of the clock through space
could alter the clock readings in exactly such a way as to cancel your
ability to measure OWLS.
Jerry
Jan Panteltje
<tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in
<PRQ5e.16880$ZB6....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>:
Nice try, but the signal in the cables does not travel through your aether,
it travels in copper, and at less then C.
So how come it then should cancel exactly the aether effect you propose?
Jan Panteltje
<Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in
<1113057537.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
>> Problem with 'theories' is that they are theories.
>> The signal speed in the cables in my experiment may be (is) slower
>then C.
>> They just need to be same length.
>> Explain in 25 words or less why this does not measure one way speed
>;-)
>
>75 words:
>
>You must assume that the universe is not involved in a conspiracy. :-)
>
>If you use a stationary clock (oscilloscope), the signal speed in the
>return path through your cables could vary in exactly such a way as to
Yes it could, but the signal travels at less then C in copper.
So that would be an incredible coincidence?
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1113040482.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
...
> At this point, we already have an
> arrangement that should be sensitive to
> OWLS anisotropy. We do not need
> "infinite" phase velocity within
> waveguide A, nor do we need anything
> but a -rough- idea that the phase velocity
> of the light within waveguide A is "very
> large."
>
> If we are moving in an aether sea at 0.01
> percent of the speed of light parallel to
> the two waveguides,
The two waveguides, whose length would be maintained by
c-moderated forces that are also constrained to propagate in this
proposed aether sea, shrink/expand to provide a constant light
speed determination. You will neither find nor invalidate
Lorentz aether this way.
Length is a remote synchronized clock. Once you understand that,
you will realize that OWLS determinations are impossible.
David A. Smith
bz
I have been trying to make the same point that you have.
A few people around here think that the doppler shift is due to an actual
change in speed of the photons, and the wavelength is constant.
I proposed an experiment similar to yours, adding a spinning disk with the
source (an LED or diode laser) on it. It would allow falsification of the
theory that doppler shift is due to differences in the speed of the
photons.
By the way, in your case, as in mine, it doesn't matter how long the cables
to the scope are, as long as they are the same length. You could even put
extra lenght (say 100 meters or so) in each cable.
If the OWLS that you measure continues to be the same, then I would say
that the theory that the length of the cables makes it a TWLS measurement
would be falsified.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"bz" <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9633880C41C69WQ...@130.39.198.139...
> Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1113058992.95c4f9571509d30a98b394cc920ab841@teranews:
>
>> On a sunny day (9 Apr 2005 07:38:57 -0700) it happened "Jerry"
>> <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> <1113057537.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
...
>>>If you use a stationary clock (oscilloscope), the
>>>signal speed in the return path through your
>>>cables could vary in exactly such a way as to
>>Yes it could, but the signal travels at less then
>>C in copper. So that would be an incredible
>> coincidence?
No, it is a consequence of c_medium = k *
c_in_the_direction_determined_through_the_aether_sea.
> I have been trying to make the same point
> that you have.
>
> A few people around here think that the
> doppler shift is due to an actual change in
> speed of the photons, and the wavelength
> is constant.
Easy enough to disprove that... simply use a diffraction grating.
Diffraction is a function of wavelength alone, and not wave
speed.
> I proposed an experiment similar to
> yours, adding a spinning disk with the
> source (an LED or diode laser) on it.
> It would allow falsification of the
> theory that doppler shift is due to
> differences in the speed of the
> photons.
You'll not dissuade those "ballistic photon" guys that easily.
They'd find some way not to believe any results you might get.
>
> By the way, in your case, as in mine, it
> doesn't matter how long the cables to
> the scope are, as long as they are the
> same length. You could even put extra
> lenght (say 100 meters or so) in each
> cable.
>
> If the OWLS that you measure continues
> to be the same, then I would say that the
> theory that the length of the cables makes
> it a TWLS measurement would be falsified.
No, it wouldn't. There is no way to disprove Lorentz's aether
(which is what OWLS vs. TWLS debate is about). Just as there is
no modelling *requirement* for it.
David A. Smith
Jan Panteltje
<bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in
<Xns9633880C41C69WQ...@130.39.198.139>:
Yes, this seems the case.
From the theoretical point of view, say if we move left 'against an aether',
and LENGTH contracts, then also the cable (in that direction) would contract.
And you measure nothing.
In such a case I cannot just come up with an experiment.
Only thing that argues against that is the experiment I did here:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/lorentz/
It was not very accurate, but somebody repeated it with rather expensive HP
equipment, and also found zero (to some small part in noise).
I personally think there MUST be some mechanismm, be it an aether, or
'something'.
Newton suggested we look for it....
bz
> Yes, this seems the case.
> From the theoretical point of view, say if we move left 'against an
> aether', and LENGTH contracts, then also the cable (in that direction)
> would contract. And you measure nothing.
If you have 100 meters of cable, it could be configured in many different
ways. If you stretch one cable out and back in various directions, while
keeping another coiled up (and oriented differently), if there is any
effect, you should see it.
> In such a case I cannot just come up with an experiment.
> Only thing that argues against that is the experiment I did here:
> http://panteltje.com/panteltje/lorentz/
Interesting. What kind of crystals did you use? I suspect that if physical
orientation of the crystal made a difference, it would have been noticed
before now as crystals have been used for a LONG time to control
transmitter frequencies.
> It was not very accurate, but somebody repeated it with rather expensive
> HP equipment, and also found zero (to some small part in noise).
> I personally think there MUST be some mechanismm, be it an aether, or
> 'something'.
> Newton suggested we look for it....
>
--
Jerry
Er, no, David. Lorentz contraction is second order in v, while one-way
light speed anisotropy would be first order in v. So Lorentz
contraction will not mask out the detection of deltaOWLS in Gagnon et
al.'s experiment.
Please download the paper and read it for yourself first hand.
-----------------
For the benefit of people jumping in this thread just now:
I set up a web page which will be valid for a one-week period
from April 8.
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/LightSpeed.htm
Today is April 9. After April 15, I am deleting the page.
During this limited period, members of the sci.physics.relativity
discussion group may download, for their personal use, the following
papers dealing with experimental tests of OWLS and emission theory:
Krisher et al. (1990)
Turner and Hill (1964)
Gagnon et al. (1988)
Beckmann and Mandics (1965)
Alvager et al. (1964)
Filipas and Fox (1964)
Brecher (1977)
Repeat: after April 15, I -will- delete the page. I have no desire
to get sued for violating copyright law by exceeding the bounds
of "fair use."
Jerry
Jan Panteltje
<bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in
<Xns96339F90CEB05WQ...@130.39.198.139>:
>Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:1113077807.02dc4ab310b1cc9a9cdfd983d91133d7@teranews:
>
>> Yes, this seems the case.
>> From the theoretical point of view, say if we move left 'against an
>> aether', and LENGTH contracts, then also the cable (in that direction)
>> would contract. And you measure nothing.
>
>If you have 100 meters of cable, it could be configured in many different
>ways. If you stretch one cable out and back in various directions, while
>keeping another coiled up (and oriented differently), if there is any
>effect, you should see it.
No, because if everything is compressed in the direction 'against' the aether,
then you can see no difference.
It is like your yardstick has shrunk as much as the object you are trying to
measure.
On the other hand, if I move the scope so it is below the 'down wind' detector,
(from the aether), then the signal from the 'up wind' detector,
via a cable to me. should move faster, going 'down wind', arrive X seconds
earlier.
If I move the scope so it is under the 'up wind' detector, then the signal
from the 'down wind' detector needs to travel 'up wind' and would be slower,
and arrive Y seconds later.
As the pulse length is the difference t2 - t1, it is t2 - t1 - X + Y.
As X and Y are the same (distance between detectors has not changed), the
effect cancels.
As for the crystals, those are normal 9 MHz radio oscillator xtals.
You are looking for VERY small differences, normally this would be in the
tolerance area, a radio would not be affected in any way.
Facinating stuff, will we ever find out?
Jan Panteltje
<Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in
<1113081553....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
>I set up a web page which will be valid for a one-week period
>from April 8.
>http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/LightSpeed.htm
>Today is April 9. After April 15, I am deleting the page.
>
>During this limited period, members of the sci.physics.relativity
>discussion group may download, for their personal use, the following
>papers dealing with experimental tests of OWLS and emission theory:
>
>Krisher et al. (1990)
>Turner and Hill (1964)
>Gagnon et al. (1988)
>Beckmann and Mandics (1965)
>Alvager et al. (1964)
>Filipas and Fox (1964)
>Brecher (1977)
>Jerry
Thank you, Jerry, downloaded it. some reading for the sunday :-)
Has anybody copyrighted the aether yet? ;-)
bz
> As for the crystals, those are normal 9 MHz radio oscillator xtals.
> You are looking for VERY small differences, normally this would be in the
> tolerance area, a radio would not be affected in any way.
>
sorry I was not clear. What type (cut) crystal and how mounted?
I would expect that some of the older cuts and types of crystal holders
might experience some shift due to gravity and the mass of the crystal
holder.
I have hundreds of crystals in my radio shack, many just bare quarts
slices. Back in the 60's I bought quite a few mil. surplus crystals and
ground some of them to put them inside the ham bands.
Some suggestions:
Start with a set of much lower frequency crystals, so you have more bulk
mass to be effected.
Look at a high order harmonic.
If you used 100 KHz crystals and look at a harmonic that falls in the
microwave frequencies [you should be able to get a receiver that would
reject other harmonics that are 100 KHz away] you should be able to get
many orders of magnitude improvement in sensitivity.
Perhaps you could start with 10 KHz, select the 10th harmonic[100 kHz],
amplify, select the 10th harmonic [1 MHz], amplify, select the 10th...etc.
What do you think?
Jan Panteltje
<bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in
<Xns9633B0E065C25WQ...@130.39.198.139>:
>Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:1113082997.f937bd65a6a66b1606062c538edd6941@teranews:
>
>> As for the crystals, those are normal 9 MHz radio oscillator xtals.
>> You are looking for VERY small differences, normally this would be in the
>> tolerance area, a radio would not be affected in any way.
>>
>
>sorry I was not clear. What type (cut) crystal and how mounted?
Neither was I, they are 6 MHz ... long time ago I did that (years).
I do not remember the cut.. these are serial resonance I think, the ones you
use in a microprocessor with 2 22pF capacitors to ground.
>I would expect that some of the older cuts and types of crystal holders
>might experience some shift due to gravity and the mass of the crystal
>holder.
I have opened some (I had loads of these), and it is just a thin quartz
plate, with gold electrodes vapoured on, hanging from 2 thin wires soldered
on it, in a metal case.
>I have hundreds of crystals in my radio shack, many just bare quarts
>slices. Back in the 60's I bought quite a few mil. surplus crystals and
>ground some of them to put them inside the ham bands.
>
>Some suggestions:
>Start with a set of much lower frequency crystals, so you have more bulk
>mass to be effected.
Eh, no, this is not the way it works in this system.
I use 2 6MH xtals, and mix them, then use the difference frequency.
This eliminates (to some extend) a lot of other parameters, and is measured
much more easy.
You get a diff frequency, and the duration of a period of that (say 1 Hz =
1 second) can be measured with a digital counter to microsecond precision.
See the diagram on my site.
>Look at a high order harmonic.
Yes, radio stuff, but this difference stuff is better, automatic temp
compensation too.
We are only interested in the DIFFERENCE, so that is what I use.
bz
but if you take the DIFFERENCE between the high order harmonics, you will
have multiplied the effect by 2 times the order of the harmonic.
You might also look at phase locked loop technology.
You can get a phase error signal that might be useful for comparing two
signals rather than keeping a free running oscillator locked to the
crystal's frequency.
bz
> I have opened some (I had loads of these), and it is just a thin quartz
> plate, with gold electrodes vapoured on, hanging from 2 thin wires soldered
> on it, in a metal case.
>
Yes, I know the type you mean. Older crystals had a slice of quartz between
two metal plates and a spring holding things together. You could actually
change the frequency by changing the spring tension, the mass of the metal
plates, the thickness of the crystal, the parallel capacitance, the series
capacitance or, [of course] the temperature.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1113081553....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Not talking about "Lorentz contraction", but the phenomenon
Lorentz was modelling with his formula. This is first order.
David A. Smith
Cephalobu...@comcast.net
> Jerry wrote:
> > Gagnon et al. (1988)
>
> [This is "Guided-wave measurement of the one-way speed of light"
> in Physical Review A, vol 38, no 4.]
>
> nonsense. I can't believe it survived peer review in this form.
> I'm crossposting to s.p.research in the hope of getting input
> from the experts, since I might be missing something.
To allow others in this group quick access to Gagnon et al.,
I have set up a web page which will be valid for a one-week
period from April 8.
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/LightSpeed.htm
Today is April 9. After April 15, I am deleting the page.
During this limited period, members of the sci.physics.research
discussion group may download, for their personal use only,
a number of papers dealing with tests of OWLS anisotropy and
tests of emission theory.
Krisher et al. (1990)
Turner and Hill (1964)
Gagnon et al. (1988)
Beckmann and Mandics (1965)
Alvager et al. (1964)
Filipas and Fox (1964)
Brecher (1977)
Repeat: after April 15, I -will- delete the page. I have no
Bill Hobba
> > >
> > > Robert Kolker wrote:
> > > > Jerry wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Uh... could you please re-read my post? Why do you think I
> believe
> > > TWLS
> > > > > is different from OWLS?
> > > >
> > > > Explain to me in twnetyfive words or less how one measures the
> > > velocity
> reflect
> > > the
> > > > light you are measure two way velocity. If the light is guided
> around
> > > a
> > > > ring, it is not going in one direction. How is this magical thing
> > > > accomplished?
> > > >
> > > > If one uses two clocks then the synchronization sneaks in the two
> way
> > >
> > > > speed of light.
> > >
> > > 75 words:
> > > They used two parallel waveguides with different cutoff
> frequencies,
> > > one close to the oscillator frequency, the other widely different
> from
> > > the oscillator frequency. At the cutoff frequency, the wavelength
> in an
> > > ideal waveguide becomes infinite, and there is no longitudinal
> position
> > > dependence for the electrical phase of the wave along the
> waveguide. At
> > > the far end of the waveguides was a phase comparator. Variation in
> OWLS
> > > would have manifested itself as a change in phase.
> >
> > Why? A reference for this astounding conclusion that goes in the
> face of a
> > well known scientific principle would be nice.
>
> What "well known scientific principle"?
The well known scientific principle that if you wish to measure the one way
speed of anything you need synced clocks at different points.
> In the first waveguide
> (operating at close to cutoff frequency), the phase of the RF exiting
> the waveguide would be essentially identical to the phase of the RF
> entering the waveguide.
Waveguides do not even work unless they are a multiple of a wavelength due
to standing waves created by reflection
> In the second waveguide, variation in OWLS
> would alter the phase of the RF exiting the waveguide as a first-order
> effect. So the setup should be highly sensitive to variations in OWLS.
It is obvious it would not eg even assuming you get around the reflection
issue to compare the frequency that comes out with what goes in you need a
single clock source which implies two way.
>
> > My understanding of how
> > waveguides work is it is dependant of reflection of the EM fields
> down the
> > guide forming standing waves so it really is not an indication of one
> way
> > anything - eg they do not even work if they are not a multiple of the
> > wavelength because of this.
>
> What standing waves? You must be thinking of a closed cavity.
Look up something called the waveguide standing wave ratio -
http://www.madmadscientist.com/html/Theory.htm
It is only by careful impedance matching at can be minimized - but never
entirely eliminated. That alone indicates we are not doling with free field
EM waves.
>
> > Also waveguides is a case of EM fields
> > constrained to the guide - not free space.
>
> Please download Gagnon et al. from my web page.
> http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/LightSpeed.htm
> You will find most of your concerns addressed there.
Had a quick look. It states the clocks used were speared by 21km. That is
the immediate dead giveaway - separated clocks need to be synced.
Bill
>
> > > They found no evidence for direction-dependent variation in the
> one-way
> > > speed of light.
> > >
> >
> > And no experimnet has - but that does not rule out a class of ateher
> > thories:
> > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
> >
> > 'Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path
> and find
> > isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of
> theories
> > in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic. These theories
> share
> > the property that the round-trip speed of light is isotropic in any
> inertial
> > frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic only in an ether frame. In
> all of
> > these theories the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the
> > effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial
> frame),
> > and all are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these
> theories
> > predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above,
> > especially Zhang (in which these theories are called "Edwards
> frames"). '
>
> Jerry
>
Bill Hobba
> Bill Hobba wrote:
>
> > Also waveguides is a case of EM fields
> > constrained to the guide - not free space.
>
> be modified by any hypothetical aether flow.
Since LET in mathematically the same as SR and LET has an anther the above
is obviously false. See the following excellent posts by Tom Roberts.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838AC00.87B78404%40lucent.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838A838.81CE8090%40lucent.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838AA2A.829F46AD%40lucent.com
Bill
>
> Jerry
>
Jerry
Yes, quite an incredible coincidence. But "Test theories" have been
developed in which this is exactly the case.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
"Test theories" are an experimental tool. They offer mathematically
consistent alternatives to SR, with the magnitude of parameterized
deviations from SR to be determined by experiment.
Jerry
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1112999530....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Bill Hobba wrote:
> >
> > > Also waveguides is a case of EM fields
> > > constrained to the guide - not free space.
> >
> > True. But the one-way speed of light through the waveguide would
STILL
> > be modified by any hypothetical aether flow.
>
> Since LET in mathematically the same as SR and LET has an anther the
above
> is obviously false.
Uh, Bill. The point is, that this is an experimental -test- of SR/LET.
If SR/LET were an invalid description of the universe, then aether flow
and OWLS anisotropy would be detectable. It is not. Gagnon et al.'s
experiment yielded a null result.
Download Gagnon et al. and other papers at
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/LightSpeed.htm
Today is April 10. I will delete the page after April 15.
> See the following excellent posts by Tom Roberts.
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838AC00.87B78404%40lucent.com
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838A838.81CE8090%40lucent.com
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838AA2A.829F46AD%40lucent.com
I've read them. Excellent.
Jerry
Jerry
Whoops. Misread your post as something entirely different. Sorry. You
are right. If SR/LET is correct, then deltaOWLS determination is
impossible.
But this is an EXPERIMENTAL TEST of SR/LET!!! If SR/LET were wrong,
then deltaOWLS determination should be possible.
Gagnon et al. performed a one-clock determination of deltaOWLS, and
obtained a null result.
Jerry
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
<snip>
> > What "well known scientific principle"?
>
> The well known scientific principle that if you wish to measure the
> one way speed of anything you need synced clocks at different points.
Gagnon et al. didn't measure OWLS. They measured deltaOWLS. That's
a -very- different measurement.
<snip>
> > Please download Gagnon et al. from my web page.
> > http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/LightSpeed.htm
> > You will find most of your concerns addressed there.
>
> Had a quick look. It states the clocks used were speared by 21km.
> That is the immediate dead giveaway - separated clocks need to be
> synced.
Uh, Bill. It's obvious that you downloaded and read Krisher et al.,
which is indeed subject to the criticism that you raise.
Please download Gagnon et al. (1988).
Jerry
Jan Panteltje
<bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in
<Xns9633C831829F7WQ...@130.39.198.139>:
>>>Look at a high order harmonic.
>> Yes, radio stuff, but this difference stuff is better, automatic temp
>> compensation too.
>> We are only interested in the DIFFERENCE, so that is what I use.
>
>
>but if you take the DIFFERENCE between the high order harmonics, you will
>have multiplied the effect by 2 times the order of the harmonic.
Yes, but here is my question:
If the frequency is proportional to the quarz thickness,
say 1 unit for 100 kHz, and .5 units for 200 kHz, then when using 6 MHz
the effect would be the same?
I had some 100 kHz xtal, it was rather large.
>You might also look at phase locked loop technology.
>You can get a phase error signal that might be useful for comparing two
>signals rather than keeping a free running oscillator locked to the
>crystal's frequency.
No, nothing needs to be locked.
The difference frequency will change.
You measure its period time.
If the difference is 1 Hz, then you have a measurement every second, and
can rotate the experiment and watch the readout.
This is actually one of the objectives.
1 Hz difference is a lower limit.
10 Hz is more convenient from a practical point of view, as you update
10 times a second, but now you have less pulses you can count, so accuracy
of the measurement drops (for the given setup).
bz
> On a sunny day (Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:40:47 +0000 (UTC)) it happened bz
> <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in
> <Xns9633C831829F7WQ...@130.39.198.139>:
>
>>>>Look at a high order harmonic.
>>> Yes, radio stuff, but this difference stuff is better, automatic temp
>>> compensation too.
>>> We are only interested in the DIFFERENCE, so that is what I use.
>>
>>
>>but if you take the DIFFERENCE between the high order harmonics, you
>>will have multiplied the effect by 2 times the order of the harmonic.
>
> Yes, but here is my question:
> If the frequency is proportional to the quarz thickness,
That depends on the cut and how the crystal is mounted, but in general it
is true.
> say 1 unit for 100 kHz, and .5 units for 200 kHz, then when using 6 MHz
> the effect would be the same?
At the fundamental frequency, this is true, but if you beat together the
60th harmonic of two nominal 100 kHz crystals, and you get 10 Hz as a beat
note, the original crystals are 10/60 or 1/6 Hz different in frequency.
When you compare the harmonics, you multipy your effect. That is why I
suggest starting with a pair of 10 kHz xtals and through selective
multiplication getting the 1 GHz harmonic. You have a tremendous gain in
sensitivity.
> I had some 100 kHz xtal, it was rather large.
That is good for the experiment.
>>You might also look at phase locked loop technology.
>>You can get a phase error signal that might be useful for comparing two
>>signals rather than keeping a free running oscillator locked to the
>>crystal's frequency.
>
> No, nothing needs to be locked.
> The difference frequency will change.
> You measure its period time.
> If the difference is 1 Hz, then you have a measurement every second, and
> can rotate the experiment and watch the readout.
> This is actually one of the objectives.
> 1 Hz difference is a lower limit.
> 10 Hz is more convenient from a practical point of view, as you update
> 10 times a second, but now you have less pulses you can count, so
> accuracy of the measurement drops (for the given setup).
>
The technology for phase locking a free running oscillator to a crystal
oscillator is well developed.
I suggest that you use that technology to determine the phase difference
between two crystal oscillators. They can then be at the same frequency
and you can look at the phase difference between them. Again, a much more
sensitive indicator than the time for one cycle.
There are ICs that will do the phase comparison and yield a continuous
voltage output with a DC level proportional to the phase difference. This
would be a more sensitive indicator that the time for 1 Hz or 10 Hz, and
would be continuous.
I suggest that the phase comparison be done with the high order harmonics,
that way you may well have enough sensitivity to do the experiment and get
worthwhile results.
Jan Panteltje
<bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in
<Xns963455C3E5143WQ...@130.39.198.139>:
>> Yes, but here is my question:
>> If the frequency is proportional to the quarz thickness,
>
>That depends on the cut and how the crystal is mounted, but in general it
>is true.
>
>> say 1 unit for 100 kHz, and .5 units for 200 kHz, then when using 6 MHz
>> the effect would be the same?
>
>At the fundamental frequency, this is true, but if you beat together the
>60th harmonic of two nominal 100 kHz crystals, and you get 10 Hz as a beat
>note, the original crystals are 10/60 or 1/6 Hz different in frequency.
Wait a minute :-)
Say your 100 kHz xtal decreases 1 % in thickness due to length contraction.
(bit much, but for the sake of argument).
Then you have 101 kHz
You multiply with the PLL loop 100 x, then you have 10 MHz and 10.1 MHz
If a 10 MHz xtal decreases 1 %, then you have 10 Mhz and 10.1 MHz.
I do not see the difference?
>When you compare the harmonics, you multipy your effect. That is why I
>suggest starting with a pair of 10 kHz xtals and through selective
>multiplication getting the 1 GHz harmonic. You have a tremendous gain in
>sensitivity.
That is known here, I have designed many a radio and many a PLL, and many
a transmitter.
Bill Hobba
Read Gagnon. I disagree with it - it is simply and quit obviously not
possible to measure OWLS using a single clock. And so does Tom Roberts who
gave the following response from earlier in the thread -
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f23553bda65d2d1e
Now exactly what part of what Tom wrote do you disagree with?
Bill
>
> Jerry
>
bz
> On a sunny day (Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:25:51 +0000 (UTC)) it happened bz
> <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in
> <Xns963455C3E5143WQ...@130.39.198.139>:
>
>>> Yes, but here is my question:
>>> If the frequency is proportional to the quarz thickness,
>>
>>That depends on the cut and how the crystal is mounted, but in general
>>it is true.
>>
>>> say 1 unit for 100 kHz, and .5 units for 200 kHz, then when using 6
>>> MHz the effect would be the same?
>>
>>At the fundamental frequency, this is true, but if you beat together the
>>60th harmonic of two nominal 100 kHz crystals, and you get 10 Hz as a
>>beat note, the original crystals are 10/60 or 1/6 Hz different in
>>frequency.
>
> Wait a minute :-)
>
> Say your 100 kHz xtal decreases 1 % in thickness due to length
> contraction. (bit much, but for the sake of argument).
> Then you have 101 kHz
Yes, you have a 1 kHz beat note.
> You multiply with the PLL loop 100 x, then you have 10 MHz and 10.1 MHz
>
> If a 10 MHz xtal decreases 1 %, then you have 10 Mhz and 10.1 MHz.
> I do not see the difference?
You have a 100 kHz beat note.
If the smallest discrepancy you can measure, at any frequency, is 1 Hz,
you have just increased your sensitivity from 1/1000 to 1/100,000.
Isn't that worthwhile?
Go up to 1 GHz and 1% is 1e7 Hz. A 10 MHz beat note.
Your sensitivity has increased to 1/1e7. Wasn't that the limit of your
sensitivity at 6 MHz?
If you apply the same resolution to 1 cycle at 1 GHz, haven't you just
gone to 1e14 on your sensitivity?
>>When you compare the harmonics, you multipy your effect. That is why I
>>suggest starting with a pair of 10 kHz xtals and through selective
>>multiplication getting the 1 GHz harmonic.
>>You have a tremendous gain in sensitivity.
> That is known here, I have designed many a radio and many a PLL, and
> many a transmitter.
Good for you. Then you should have a better understanding of them than I
do. I have just fixed a few.
I don't understand why you bothered looking at how long it takes for 1
cycle. The phase comparator error voltage, when your 6 MHz crystals are
adjusted for zero beat and compared for phase would be more sensitive,
wouldn't it?
Jan Panteltje
<bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in
<Xns963465C845C9CWQ...@130.39.198.139>:
>> Wait a minute :-)
>>
>> Say your 100 kHz xtal decreases 1 % in thickness due to length
>> contraction. (bit much, but for the sake of argument).
>> Then you have 101 kHz
>
>Yes, you have a 1 kHz beat note.
OK
>> You multiply with the PLL loop 100 x, then you have 10 MHz and 10.1 MHz
>>
>> If a 10 MHz xtal decreases 1 %, then you have 10 Mhz and 10.1 MHz.
>> I do not see the difference?
>
>You have a 100 kHz beat note.
OK
>If the smallest discrepancy you can measure, at any frequency, is 1 Hz,
>you have just increased your sensitivity from 1/1000 to 1/100,000.
No, that is not how it works AT ALL.
I will try to explain again.
I subtract f1 and f2 : fdiff = f1 - f2
I can ADJUST for a very low fdiff, by slightly tuning one of the xtals
with a variable cap (trimmer) (See diagram).
I DELIBERATELY adjust for such a low frequency difference that I can still
move the thing without having to wait hours for the readout (because
if diff 0.01 Hz, you have to wait hundred seconds after moving).
So I use 1 Hz or .1 Hz.
Say I adjust the thing so in position 1 it is 1 Hz.
Now I use the 1 Hz as GATE to a 10 MHz clock (counter).
It counts: 10 000 000 pulses.
Then I move the experiment 90 degrees (for example), and wait 1 second
(in fact just watch the display).
Again I see 10 000 000 on the display.
The accuracy is here 1 in 10 000 000
If I had used a 10 Hz difference frequency, then only 1 000 000 pulses
would be available, and teh accuracy would have been 1 in 1 000 000
The SMALLER the difference frequency, the longer the measurement time,
the better the accuracy, the more problems doing the experiment (as
vibration, temp changes, supply changes, air pressure changes, what not,
get more of a chance.
In case of a phase detector, if the xtals are 1 Hz apart it will
also output 1 Hz (not sure if that is what you mean).
>Good for you. Then you should have a better understanding of them than I
>do. I have just fixed a few.
I dunno, I have worked as a repair technician too for many years...
best way to learn the state of the art.
>I don't understand why you bothered looking at how long it takes for 1
>cycle. The phase comparator error voltage, when your 6 MHz crystals are
>adjusted for zero beat and compared for phase would be more sensitive,
>wouldn't it?
I hope I did explain that?
Jerry
> Read Gagnon. I disagree with it - it is simply and quit obviously
not
> possible to measure OWLS using a single clock. And so does Tom
Roberts who
> gave the following response from earlier in the thread -
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f23553bda65d2d1e
> Now exactly what part of what Tom wrote do you disagree with?
First of all, Gagnon et al. were not attempting to measure OWLS
with a single clock. That is an impossibility. They were attempting
to measure delta OWLS.
If Greg Maddux simultaneously throws a baseball and a paper airplane
to you against the wind, you do not need a clock synchronized to
Maddux's watch to determine that they arrive at your location
at different times.
Gagnon et al. "threw" two continuous RF beams simultaneously in the
same direction, one, like the baseball, almost completely insensitive
to any hypothetical aether wind, the other, like the paper airplane,
completely sensitive to the hypothetical aether wind.
What I disagree with in Tom's post is where he writes the following:
"But in order to determine that [the phase velocity approaches
infinity] you need synchronized clocks located at least at two
points along the waveguide, and is thus dependent on synchronizing
clocks. That's why their measurement is actually TWLS even though
they (and you) seem to think it is OWLS."
There is absolutely no need to use a clock to verify that a
waveguide is operating near its cutoff frequency. You need only do
signal strength versus frequency measurements at the far end.
EM theory can then be used to predict how high a multiple of the
speed of light the phase velocity is that is traveling through
the waveguide.
Nor do you need to know exactly high a multiple of the speed of
light the phase velocity may be. All you need is a high enough
phase velocity within the waveguide that the hypothetical effects
of aether drift on phase become relatively insignificant.
Suppose we have two parallel waveguides. Through waveguide A,
the phase velocity is approximately 50 to 200 times the speed of
light. Through waveguide B, the phase velocity is close to the
speed of light.
At one end of the two waveguides, we have an oscillator producing
RF signal. At the other end, we have a phase comparator.
Suppose that waveguide B is 1000 wavecrests long. If the waveguides
are moving parallel through the aether at 0.01 percent of the
speed of light, the phase of the output of waveguide B would shift
by 0.2 pi radians (not directly measurable) while the phase of
the output of waveguide A would shift by between 0.001 to 0.004
pi radians (not directly measurable) relative to the phases
with the waveguides moving perpendicular to the aether.
The measurable difference would be 0.2 pi radians compared to
the waveguides moving perpendicular to the aether.
It doesn't matter that, in the example above, we don't know to
within a factor of four the phase velocity through waveguide A.
The measurable difference comes out to 0.2 pi radians in any case.
Jerry
bz
Then if you were multiplying up from 10 kHz to 6 MHz with each of two 10
kHz crystals, you would multiply your sensitivity by a factor of 600.
1 in 6 000 000 000
>
> If I had used a 10 Hz difference frequency
You readjust the oscillators so that you get a 1 Hz difference at the
harmonic frequency. You still get your 10 000 000 pulses.
> , then only 1 000 000 pulses
> would be available, and teh accuracy would have been 1 in 1 000 000
> The SMALLER the difference frequency, the longer the measurement time,
> the better the accuracy, the more problems doing the experiment (as
> vibration, temp changes, supply changes, air pressure changes, what not,
> get more of a chance.
>
> In case of a phase detector, if the xtals are 1 Hz apart it will
> also output 1 Hz (not sure if that is what you mean).
Not if you look at the phase difference between the harmonics rather than
the fundamentals.
Jan Panteltje
<bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in
<Xns96346E453365CWQ...@130.39.198.139>:
>> It counts: 10 000 000 pulses.
>>
>> Then I move the experiment 90 degrees (for example), and wait 1 second
>> (in fact just watch the display).
>> Again I see 10 000 000 on the display.
>>
>> The accuracy is here 1 in 10 000 000
>
>Then if you were multiplying up from 10 kHz to 6 MHz with each of two 10
>kHz crystals, you would multiply your sensitivity by a factor of 600.
>1 in 6 000 000 000
of cause not, we had already shown proof that using 10 kHz or 10 MHz
has the same effect.
Note the REAL sensitivity in my experiment = 1 (Hz) in 6 000 000 (Hz)
(for the xtal freq diff),
and 1 / 10 000 000 pulses thereof (in the counter), so
1 in 60 000 000 000 000
This is really 'beyond' whatever...
You cannot get there, noise etc.. will do you in.
This is what I mention in the experiment.
>> If I had used a 10 Hz difference frequency
>
>You readjust the oscillators so that you get a 1 Hz difference at the
>harmonic frequency. You still get your 10 000 000 pulses.
Yes in the end it makes no difference, buty is much more complicated
with PPL or tuning to a harmonic, and that introduces errors.
>> In case of a phase detector, if the xtals are 1 Hz apart it will
>> also output 1 Hz (not sure if that is what you mean).
>Not if you look at the phase difference between the harmonics rather than
>the fundamentals.
The 'pahse' can only be looked at iof the oscillators were locked.
they are not.
You 'phase signal' (the output of your phase comparator) cylces trough
a sinewave at 1 Hz :-)
You gained nothing, and added complexity :-)
Bill Hobba
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113058972.15688fd5adb952331d798e9cc78e73b6@teranews...
> On a sunny day (Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:34:39 GMT) it happened Tom Roberts
> <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in
> <PRQ5e.16880$ZB6....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>:
>
> >Jan Panteltje wrote:
> >> The signal speed in the cables in my experiment may be (is) slower then
C.
> >> They just need to be same length.
> >> Explain in 25 words or less why this does not measure one way speed ;-)
> >
> >orientation. But that is just what you're trying to measure.
> Nice try, but the signal in the cables does not travel through your
aether,
> it travels in copper, and at less then C.
> So how come it then should cancel exactly the aether effect you propose?
That is the point - in the aether theories that are the spoiler the signal
travels though an aether (in those theories everything does) and nature
somehow has conspired to hide it from us. Think of LET - in that theory rod
shortening is caused by motion though an actual aether but is mathematically
equivalent to SR and can not by any means be differentiated from it. The
same for the electrons or EM fields traveling down the copper - or indeed
the copper itself.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> Bill Hobba wrote:
>
> > Read Gagnon. I disagree with it - it is simply and quit obviously
> not
> > possible to measure OWLS using a single clock. And so does Tom
> Roberts who
> > gave the following response from earlier in the thread -
> >
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f23553bda65d2d1e
> > Now exactly what part of what Tom wrote do you disagree with?
>
> First of all, Gagnon et al. were not attempting to measure OWLS
> with a single clock. That is an impossibility. They were attempting
> to measure delta OWLS.
>
> If Greg Maddux simultaneously throws a baseball and a paper airplane
> to you against the wind, you do not need a clock synchronized to
> Maddux's watch to determine that they arrive at your location
> at different times.
Sure - in that frame. In other frames thay may not be the case.
>
> Gagnon et al. "threw" two continuous RF beams simultaneously in the
> same direction, one, like the baseball, almost completely insensitive
> to any hypothetical aether wind,
That is the point of the aether theories like LET - nothing can be
insensitive to the effects of the aether. You are confused.
Bill
Bill Hobba
> Bill Hobba wrote:
> > "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:1112999530....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > Bill Hobba wrote:
> > >
> > > > Also waveguides is a case of EM fields
> > > > constrained to the guide - not free space.
> > >
> > > True. But the one-way speed of light through the waveguide would
> STILL
> > > be modified by any hypothetical aether flow.
> >
> > Since LET in mathematically the same as SR and LET has an anther the
> above
> > is obviously false.
>
> Uh, Bill. The point is, that this is an experimental -test- of SR/LET.
> If SR/LET were an invalid description of the universe, then aether flow
> and OWLS anisotropy would be detectable. It is not. Gagnon et al.'s
> experiment yielded a null result.
That is simply not true. As Tom points out in the posts I reference there
are theoreis other than LET that are also not distinguishable from SR
experimentally.
>
> Download Gagnon et al. and other papers at
> http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/LightSpeed.htm
> Today is April 10. I will delete the page after April 15.
>
> > See the following excellent posts by Tom Roberts.
> > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838AC00.87B78404%40lucent.com
> > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838A838.81CE8090%40lucent.com
> > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838AA2A.829F46AD%40lucent.com
>
> I've read them. Excellent.
Yes they are. Now note how he mentioned aether theories can be divided into
two classes - those that are mathematically equivalent to SR and those that
are experimentally equivalent to it. It is obvious that no experiment can
tell the difference between SR and theories of either type. That is simple
logic. Gagnon can not rule theories in either of those classes by their
very definition. If he could then they would not be experimentally
indistinguishable.
Bill
>
> Jerry
>
Bill Hobba
> Bill Hobba wrote:
> > "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:1112999530....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > Bill Hobba wrote:
> > >
> > > > Also waveguides is a case of EM fields
> > > > constrained to the guide - not free space.
> > >
> > > True. But the one-way speed of light through the waveguide would
> STILL
> > > be modified by any hypothetical aether flow.
> >
> > Since LET in mathematically the same as SR and LET has an anther the
> above
> > is obviously false.
>
> Uh, Bill. The point is, that this is an experimental -test- of SR/LET.
> If SR/LET were an invalid description of the universe, then aether flow
> and OWLS anisotropy would be detectable. It is not. Gagnon et al.'s
> experiment yielded a null result.
BTW it just occurred to me - are you now claiming there are some aether
theories it can not rule out? LET is an aether theory where OWLS is
different in different frames except that nature conspired by length
contraction and time dilation due to motion through the aether to hide it
from us. Exactly what theories are you claiming the experiment can
distinguish between? AFAICS you are claiming it can detect OWLS for those
theories it can. That however is a trivial tautological observation.
Bill
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1113150008.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Bill Hobba wrote:
> >
> > > Read Gagnon. I disagree with it - it is simply and quit
obviously
> > not
> > > possible to measure OWLS using a single clock. And so does Tom
> > Roberts who
> > > gave the following response from earlier in the thread -
> > >
> >
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f23553bda65d2d1e
> > > Now exactly what part of what Tom wrote do you disagree with?
> >
> > First of all, Gagnon et al. were not attempting to measure OWLS
> > with a single clock. That is an impossibility. They were attempting
> > to measure delta OWLS.
> >
> > If Greg Maddux simultaneously throws a baseball and a paper
airplane
> > to you against the wind, you do not need a clock synchronized to
> > Maddux's watch to determine that they arrive at your location
> > at different times.
>
> Sure - in that frame. In other frames thay may not be the case.
In Gagnon et al., the phase comparator -is- in the same frame as the
source. What is this nitpick about except to be argumentative?
> > Gagnon et al. "threw" two continuous RF beams simultaneously in the
> > same direction, one, like the baseball, almost completely
insensitive
> > to any hypothetical aether wind,
>
> That is the point of the aether theories like LET - nothing can be
> insensitive to the effects of the aether. You are confused.
I used figurative language and an imperfect, but visually evocative
analogy.
Bill, please answer me the following question in item #8.
1) You have two horizontal waveguides A and B, both 1000 meters long.
2) Inject 3x10^8 Hz RF into the two waveguides at their left.
3) The phase velocity of RF in waveguide A is approx. 1x SOL.
4) The phase velocity of RF in waveguide B is approx. 100x SOL.
5) Let x be the initial measured phase difference between the output
signals from A and B.
6) Assume that SR/LET and like theories are false, and that aether flow
is detectable via a simple linear addition of velocities.
7) Set the two waveguides in motion to the right, parallel to their
axes at 0.01x SOL.
8) What will the final measured phase difference be between the output
signals of the two waveguides? Will it still be x or will it be
something different? Justify your answer.
Bill Hobba
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:RgS5e.6046$EX4.1766@fed1read01...
> Dear Jerry:
> ...
> > At this point, we already have an
> > arrangement that should be sensitive to
> > OWLS anisotropy. We do not need
> > "infinite" phase velocity within
> > waveguide A, nor do we need anything
> > but a -rough- idea that the phase velocity
> > of the light within waveguide A is "very
> > large."
> >
> > If we are moving in an aether sea at 0.01
> > percent of the speed of light parallel to
> > the two waveguides,
>
> The two waveguides, whose length would be maintained by
> c-moderated forces that are also constrained to propagate in this
> proposed aether sea, shrink/expand to provide a constant light
> speed determination. You will neither find nor invalidate
> Lorentz aether this way.
David I suspect Jerry is not thinking clearly enough - either that or is
simply being argumentative. In posts to me he has already admitted it can
not distinguish SR from LET. So now I want to know exactly what his beef
is. AFAICS he is claming it is possible to distinguish SR and aether
theories for which experiments can tell the difference - hardly an earth
shattering observation. He also seems to be totally unaware that to derive
the Lorentz transforms it is usual to assume isotropy - which means OWLS is
the same by fiat. The issue is if we are in an inertial frame how we can
experimentally show OWLS is the same - we can't.
Thanks
Bill
>
> Length is a remote synchronized clock. Once you understand that,
> you will realize that OWLS determinations are impossible.
>
> David A. Smith
>
>
Bill Hobba
> Bill Hobba wrote:
> > "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:1113150008.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Bill Hobba wrote:
> > >
> > > > Read Gagnon. I disagree with it - it is simply and quit
> obviously
> > > not
> > > > possible to measure OWLS using a single clock. And so does Tom
> > > Roberts who
> > > > gave the following response from earlier in the thread -
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f23553bda65d2d1e
> > > > Now exactly what part of what Tom wrote do you disagree with?
> > >
> > > First of all, Gagnon et al. were not attempting to measure OWLS
> > > with a single clock. That is an impossibility. They were attempting
> > > to measure delta OWLS.
> > >
> > > If Greg Maddux simultaneously throws a baseball and a paper
> airplane
> > > to you against the wind, you do not need a clock synchronized to
> > > Maddux's watch to determine that they arrive at your location
> > > at different times.
> >
> > Sure - in that frame. In other frames thay may not be the case.
>
> In Gagnon et al., the phase comparator -is- in the same frame as the
> source. What is this nitpick about except to be argumentative?
Becuase AFAICS you are not reasoning correctly. In such cases it is wise to
be carefull.
>
> > > Gagnon et al. "threw" two continuous RF beams simultaneously in the
> > > same direction, one, like the baseball, almost completely
> insensitive
> > > to any hypothetical aether wind,
> >
> > That is the point of the aether theories like LET - nothing can be
> > insensitive to the effects of the aether. You are confused.
>
> I used figurative language and an imperfect, but visually evocative
> analogy.
Ok.
>
> Bill, please answer me the following question in item #8.
> 1) You have two horizontal waveguides A and B, both 1000 meters long.
> 2) Inject 3x10^8 Hz RF into the two waveguides at their left.
> 3) The phase velocity of RF in waveguide A is approx. 1x SOL.
> 4) The phase velocity of RF in waveguide B is approx. 100x SOL.
Phase velocity is not a velocity in the usual sense - it is simply an
artifact of the math - as you will find out if you try and use 100xSOL
phase velocity to send information -
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath210/kmath210.htm
> 5) Let x be the initial measured phase difference between the output
> signals from A and B.
> 6) Assume that SR/LET and like theories are false, and that aether flow
> is detectable via a simple linear addition of velocities.
So now what is your claim? That it can not possible to distinguish between
SR and LET? But SR is an aether theory so you are now admitting the
experiment can not rule it out? Is your claim that it can distinguish
between aether theories that are experimentally indistinguishable from SR
but are not mathematically equivalent like LET is? But by definition
theories that are experimentally indistinguishable from LET will trivially
and tautologically fail your test. So are you claiming that no theory
exists that is not mathematically identical to SR but is experimentally
indistinguishable? In that case I must ask you to be specific. Exactly
which theory are you claiming it can tell the difference between and SR?
AFAICS what your are claming is that the experiment will detect an aether if
it is detectable by the experiment - big deal.
> 7) Set the two waveguides in motion to the right, parallel to their
> axes at 0.01x SOL.
> 8) What will the final measured phase difference be between the output
> signals of the two waveguides? Will it still be x or will it be
> something different? Justify your answer.
Justify what? For me to comment you need to be specific about which aether
theory you are exclaiming it can rule out. You have already admitted it can
not rule out LET which is an aether theory.
Bill
Jerry
> BTW it just occurred to me - are you now claiming there are some
aether
> theories it can not rule out? LET is an aether theory where OWLS is
> different in different frames except that nature conspired by length
> contraction and time dilation due to motion through the aether to
hide it
> from us. Exactly what theories are you claiming the experiment can
> distinguish between? AFAICS you are claiming it can detect OWLS for
those
> theories it can. That however is a trivial tautological observation.
The distinction is between
1) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy exists
-a) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy exists and is detectable
in TWLS experiments (pre-Michelson aether theories)
-b) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy exists, but can never be
detected in any conceivable experiment (LET and other aether
theories experimentally indistinguishable from SR)
-c) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy exists, although not at the
levels predicted by pre-Michelson aether theories, but in which
the residual anisotropy might be detectable by high sensitivity
experiments measuring changes in OWLS between two synchronized
clocks.
-d) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy exists, but in which the
effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects
of anisotropic OWLS, such that OWLS anisotropy can not be
detected in any arrangement that relies on two synchronized
clocks (Edwards frames). However, if an experiment could be
set up that did not rely on synchronized clocks, OWLS
anisotropy might be detectable.
2) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy does not exist (SR)
Most OWLS anisotropy determinations (such as Krisher et al.)
address 1(c). Their null results could be explained by 1(d).
Gagnon et al. addresses 1(d).
For that matter, Moessbauer effect measurements of OWLS anisotropy
(such as Turner and Hill) don't use synchronized clocks, either.
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/LightSpeed.htm
Jerry
Bill Hobba
> Bill Hobba wrote:
>
> > BTW it just occurred to me - are you now claiming there are some
> aether
> > theories it can not rule out? LET is an aether theory where OWLS is
> > different in different frames except that nature conspired by length
> > contraction and time dilation due to motion through the aether to
> hide it
> > from us. Exactly what theories are you claiming the experiment can
> > distinguish between? AFAICS you are claiming it can detect OWLS for
> those
> > theories it can. That however is a trivial tautological observation.
>
> The distinction is between
> 1) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy exists
> -a) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy exists and is detectable
> in TWLS experiments (pre-Michelson aether theories)
Yep.
> -b) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy exists, but can never be
> detected in any conceivable experiment (LET and other aether
> theories experimentally indistinguishable from SR)
Yep
> -c) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy exists, although not at the
> levels predicted by pre-Michelson aether theories, but in which
> the residual anisotropy might be detectable by high sensitivity
> experiments measuring changes in OWLS between two synchronized
> clocks.
Can you name one of these theoreis?
> -d) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy exists, but in which the
> effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects
> of anisotropic OWLS, such that OWLS anisotropy can not be
> detected in any arrangement that relies on two synchronized
> clocks (Edwards frames). However, if an experiment could be
> set up that did not rely on synchronized clocks, OWLS
> anisotropy might be detectable.
Now we are getting somewhere. I know of the existence of such theories but
have not actually studied one. To set the stage how about pointing us to an
actual theory so we can see how the theory applies to the experimental
setup? Depending on the complexity of the issue it may be advisable to
start a new thread so some the experimental physicists who post here can
have a say. The bottom line however is no experiment can rule out the
existence of an aether or that light is really not isotropic but simply
measures as though it is.
Thanks
Bill
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1113190590.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > The distinction is between
> > 1) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy exists
> > -a) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy exists and is detectable
> > in TWLS experiments (pre-Michelson aether theories)
>
> Yep.
>
> > -b) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy exists, but can never be
> > detected in any conceivable experiment (LET and other aether
> > theories experimentally indistinguishable from SR)
>
> Yep
>
> > -c) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy exists, although not at the
> > levels predicted by pre-Michelson aether theories, but in which
> > the residual anisotropy might be detectable by high sensitivity
> > experiments measuring changes in OWLS between two synchronized
> > clocks.
>
> Can you name one of these theoreis?
Krisher et al. analyzed the results of their experiment in
terms of the "test theory" of Mansouri and Sexl, which I have
not studied except to the extent that it is presented in
their paper, since the publication in which it appears is not
available in the university library on main campus.
> > -d) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy exists, but in which the
> > effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects
> > of anisotropic OWLS, such that OWLS anisotropy can not be
> > detected in any arrangement that relies on two synchronized
> > clocks (Edwards frames). However, if an experiment could be
> > set up that did not rely on synchronized clocks, OWLS
> > anisotropy might be detectable.
>
> Now we are getting somewhere. I know of the existence of such
> theories but have not actually studied one. To set the stage
> how about pointing us to an actual theory so we can see how the
> theory applies to the experimental setup?
Gagnon et al. analyzed their results in terms of a test theory that
they developed in their paper, which they called "generalized Galilean
transformation", or GGT. Another participant on this thread,
Ben Rudiak-Gould, downloaded Gagnon et al. and states that GGT is
inconsistent. He's crossposted the thread to s.p.research, and I
posted my temporary link to my scanned papers there.
The theoretical modeling in Gagnon et al. may be defective, but I
believe their experimental results are solid. They observe no
significant direction-dependent phase shifts between the output of
their two waveguides, and this result stands regardless of any
mistaken analysis.
> Depending on the complexity of the issue it may be advisable
> to start a new thread so some the experimental physicists who
> post here can have a say. The bottom line however is no
> experiment can rule out the existence of an aether or that light
> is really not isotropic but simply measures as though it is.
The new thread in s.p.research should hopefully shed light on
these issues. It is not a thread on which I plan to participate
too much, since I would be out of my depth.
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > 8) What will the final measured phase difference be between
> > the output signals of the two waveguides? Will it still be x
> > or will it be something different? Justify your answer.
>
> Justify what? For me to comment you need to be specific about
> which aether theory you are exclaiming it can rule out. You
> have already admitted it can not rule out LET which is an
> aether theory.
My two core questions are:
1) Would Gagnon et al.'s experimental setup be capable of
detecting, at the very least, a pre-Michelson aether wind
(and presumably other forms of aether wind where the universe
is not overly conspiratorial, i.e. not LET)?
2) Where is the second, synchronized clock that you and Tom
Roberts claim must exist hidden somewhere in the experimental
arrangement? I believe that I have adequately shown that
Tom's answer was unsatisfactory.
Jerry
Jerry
> To set the stage how about pointing us to an
> actual theory so we can see how the theory applies to the
> experimental setup?
I think that I might be able to find the Edwards paper on main
campus. I have to study for some tests, so it will be a few days
before I can look it up and post via a temporary link. Tom lists
several "test theories" in his FAQ. Maybe you can look as well?
Zhang would be nice, but it looks like it's a book, not a paper.
Thanks,
Jerry
Tom Roberts
> I think that I might be able to find the Edwards paper on main
> campus. I have to study for some tests, so it will be a few days
> before I can look it up and post via a temporary link. Tom lists
> several "test theories" in his FAQ. Maybe you can look as well?
> Zhang would be nice, but it looks like it's a book, not a paper.
Zhang wrote several papers leading up to his book. The book is best.
Note his English is rather poor at times. In particular he repeatedly
says "the 0one way speed of light cannot be measured" when he really
means that it cannot be measured without reference to a clock
synchronization method which makes the result useless. It can quite
clearly be measured, but the problem is giving a meaning for the
measurement.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> On a sunny day (Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:34:39 GMT) it happened Tom Roberts
> <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in
> <PRQ5e.16880$ZB6....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>:
>>orientation. But that is just what you're trying to measure.
>
> Nice try, but the signal in the cables does not travel through your aether,
> it travels in copper, and at less then C.
It's not "my aether". And if, supposedly, EM radiation is indeed waves
in the aether, then such propagation MUST occur in the aether,
presumably modified or influenced by the presence of the copper in the
cables. Note that in cables carrying EM waves, the wave does not really
travel "in the copper", but rather in the dielectric or space between
the copper conductors (at least in classical electrodynamics; aether
theories tend to make radical changes in such things, however).
> So how come it then should cancel exactly the aether effect you propose?
Ask the people who support aether theories.
But I will point out that any aether theory for which this does not
cancel exactly is refuted by numerous experiments.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Jan Panteltje
<tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in <d3euf2$9...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>:
>It's not "my aether". And if, supposedly, EM radiation is indeed waves
>in the aether, then such propagation MUST occur in the aether,
>presumably modified or influenced by the presence of the copper in the
>cables. Note that in cables carrying EM waves, the wave does not really
>travel "in the copper", but rather in the dielectric or space between
>the copper conductors (at least in classical electrodynamics; aether
>theories tend to make radical changes in such things, however).
>
>
>> So how come it then should cancel exactly the aether effect you propose?
>
>Ask the people who support aether theories.
>
>But I will point out that any aether theory for which this does not
>cancel exactly is refuted by numerous experiments.
OK, a little (?) challenge.
You in fact seem to state (if I understand correctly) that we will never
be able to measure OWLS (?) (be it with one clock or not) to prove or disprove
all (except yours ;-) ) aether?
Then what is the point of discussing it here.
You are then as much into dogma as Einstein was into 'C is max speed, and
there is no need for a mechanism'.
So what is the objective of the discussion then?
Jim Greenfield
What can be done to show c'=c+v , is to arrange a race between two
short pulses (slugs) of emr. One slug from a stationary source ref us
at large distance (Jupiter) is emitted at "the same time" as another
from a moving source ref us at a close location to source S. Let's see
which slug arrives first!
If rocket moving ref us had say, 30km/sec as it passed S, and they
exchanged a signal between themselves to fire their slugs, then about
.5 sec time of flight will be seen (difference in arrival times here).
There is NO OTHER POSSIBILITY for the delay than differing c due to
source motion ref observer!!!
Jim G
c'=c+v
Jerry
> What can be done to show c'=c+v , is to arrange a race between two
> short pulses (slugs) of emr. One slug from a stationary source ref us
> at large distance (Jupiter) is emitted at "the same time" as another
> from a moving source ref us at a close location to source S. Let's
see
> which slug arrives first!
> If rocket moving ref us had say, 30km/sec as it passed S, and they
> exchanged a signal between themselves to fire their slugs, then about
> .5 sec time of flight will be seen (difference in arrival times
here).
> There is NO OTHER POSSIBILITY for the delay than differing c due to
> source motion ref observer!!!
The experiments have been done, far more definitively than your
naive proposal, which doesn't take into account extinction effects.
The experiments quite definitively show that emission theory is wrong.
Check out Filipas and Fox (1964) and Brecher (1977)
A few days ago, I set up a web page which will be valid for a
one-week period starting from April 8.
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/LightSpeed.htm
Today is April 12. After April 15, I am deleting the page.
During this limited period, members of the sci.physics.relativity
discussion group may download, for their personal use,
Krisher et al. (1990)
Turner and Hill (1964)
Gagnon et al. (1988)
Beckmann and Mandics (1965)
Alvager et al. (1964)
Filipas and Fox (1964)
Brecher (1977)
Repeat: after April 15, I -will- delete the page. I have no desire to
get sued for exceeding the bounds of "fair use."
Jerry
Tom Roberts
> What can be done to show c'=c+v , is [...]
If that were true, the GPS could not possibly work with the accuracy it
is observed to have. Any model or theory with this property is soundly
refuted experimentally.
GPS satellites near the horizon have a significant velocity
relative to the earth projected onto the line-of-sight. If
the speed of light for its signal was c+v, this would cause
errors of several hundred meters in positions, far larger
than observed.
Tom Roberts thjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> On a sunny day (Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:41:37 -0500) it happened Tom Roberts
> <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in <d3euf2$9...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>:
>>cancel exactly is refuted by numerous experiments.
>
> be able to measure OWLS (?) (be it with one clock or not) to prove or disprove
There are aether theories that are solidly rejected by existing
experiments. There are aether theories that are not, and there are
theories not based on aether such as SR/GR (and others). All of the
unrefuted theories share the property that they predict that the
round-trip speed of light will be measured as c in any locally-inertial
frame. The fact that measuring the one-way speed of light inherently
requires two synchronized clocks means that one must specify the
synchronization method, and which method you choose will directly affect
your result.
Every unrefuted theory has a natural method of synchronizing clocks, so
that synchronized clocks reflect the theory's time coordinate everywhere
in the inertial frame. But this does not mean that is the only
synchronization method for a given theory, it just means that for other
methods the synchronization must also be analyzed using the theory. The
unrefuted theories all behave the same when this is included, and no
experiment can distingush among them.
> Then what is the point of discussing it here.
Once one understands the above, not much.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> First of all, Gagnon et al. were not attempting to measure OWLS
> with a single clock. That is an impossibility. They were attempting
> to measure delta OWLS.
That, too, is an impossibility, unless one has a "stand-in" for a pair
of clocks. Gagnon et al use a wave in a waveguide near cutoff as such a
stand-in. Ask yourself: for what synchronization method of the clocks is
this a stand-in? the answer should be clear: this will stand in for
clocks synchronized in an inertial frame via slow clock transport. So is
it any wonder they obtained a null result?
> If Greg Maddux simultaneously throws a baseball and a paper airplane
> to you against the wind, you do not need a clock synchronized to
> Maddux's watch to determine that they arrive at your location
> at different times.
Such objects do not behave like EM waves.
> Gagnon et al. "threw" two continuous RF beams simultaneously in the
> same direction, one, like the baseball, almost completely insensitive
> to any hypothetical aether wind, the other, like the paper airplane,
> completely sensitive to the hypothetical aether wind.
Not true. The beam you claim is "almost completely insensitive to any
hypothetical aether wind" is really standing-in for E-synched clocks. I
suppose in some sense that is indeed "completely insensitive to any
hypothetical aether wind", but not in the way you think -- in any viable
aether theory, it is _compensating_ for the aether wind, not insensitive
to it (:-)).
You are confusing yourself by becoming mesmerized with a supposed
"infinite velocity" in the waveguide near cutoff. Rather than using
sound bites like that, you need to understand what really happens to
that wave, and how it behaves relative to clocks.
Bottom line: Regardless of any stand-ins, what we mean by a one-way
speed is inherently measured by two synchronized clocks.
> The distinction is between
> 1) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy exists
> -a) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy exists and is detectable
> in TWLS experiments (pre-Michelson aether theories)
All of these are refuted experimentally. So nobody cares.
> -b) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy exists, but can never be
> detected in any conceivable experiment (LET and other aether
> theories experimentally indistinguishable from SR)
As they are indistinguishable from SR, there is also no serious interest
in these (except by a handful of people in this newsgroup).
> -c) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy exists, although not at the
> levels predicted by pre-Michelson aether theories, but in which
> the residual anisotropy might be detectable by high sensitivity
> experiments measuring changes in OWLS between two synchronized
> clocks.
The experimental resolution for two clocks will be hopelessly too large
to detect the difference between such theories and SR. Compare, for
instance, the resolution of Krisher et al to that of Brillet and Hall
(not to mention Chen et al, or the recent cryogenic resonator experiments).
Besides, to date nobody has presented such a theory in any believable
way. Remember that such a theory must "live in the error bars" of _all_
existing experiments; that is an enormous challenge....
> -d) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy exists, but in which the
> effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects
> of anisotropic OWLS, such that OWLS anisotropy can not be
> detected in any arrangement that relies on two synchronized
> clocks (Edwards frames). However, if an experiment could be
> set up that did not rely on synchronized clocks, OWLS
> anisotropy might be detectable.
This last is simply not possible. Mathematically, the only difference
among such theories is the way coordinate clocks are synchronized. But
there is no way to construct coordinate clocks, one only has real clocks
synchronized by some specified procedure. When one includes the
synchronization procedure in the analysis, all theories in this class
are experimentally indistinguishable from SR (and therefore from each
other). Clock synchronization is _conventional_, and Nature has no need
for it, so any valid physical theory must be independent of one's choice
of synchronization convention.
Note that all theories in this set predict TWLS is isotropically c in
every inertial frame. That's a consequence of slow clock transport
exactly offsetting the anisotropic OWLS of the theory.
As I said before, OWLS inherently requires two synchronized clocks.
While various stand-ins are possible, to discuss OWLS you must refer
back to a pair of synchronized clocks. How the stand-in relates to a
specific synchronization procedure will determine the outcome.
IOW: There is no magic.
> 2) Theories in which OWLS anisotropy does not exist (SR)
These theories are experimentally indistinguishable from theories in
your sets 1b and 1d above.
> Most OWLS anisotropy determinations (such as Krisher et al.)
> address 1(c). Their null results could be explained by 1(d).
No. See above.
> Gagnon et al. addresses 1(d).
No. See above.
> For that matter, Moessbauer effect measurements of OWLS anisotropy
> (such as Turner and Hill) don't use synchronized clocks, either.
Sure. They also look for anisotropy rather than actually measuring a
specific value. It should be easy for you to figure out what apparatus
they use to stand in for a pair of synchronized clocks.
> My two core questions are:
> 1) Would Gagnon et al.'s experimental setup be capable of
> detecting, at the very least, a pre-Michelson aether wind
> (and presumably other forms of aether wind where the universe
> is not overly conspiratorial, i.e. not LET)?
Yes. Just figure out what synchronization procedure their stand-in
represents (see above), and how that relates to the theory.
> 2) Where is the second, synchronized clock that you and Tom
> Roberts claim must exist hidden somewhere in the experimental
> arrangement?
See above. The "hidden" clock is the one for which the near-cutoff wave
is standing in; the first clock is, of course, the source of the wave.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Bill Hobba
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:d3gn8k$i...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> Jerry wrote:
> > First of all, Gagnon et al. were not attempting to measure OWLS
> > with a single clock. That is an impossibility. They were attempting
> > to measure delta OWLS.
>
> That, too, is an impossibility, unless one has a "stand-in" for a pair
> of clocks. Gagnon et al use a wave in a waveguide near cutoff as such a
> stand-in. Ask yourself: for what synchronization method of the clocks is
> this a stand-in? the answer should be clear: this will stand in for
> clocks synchronized in an inertial frame via slow clock transport. So is
> it any wonder they obtained a null result?
Having read Gagnon I see, as far as I actually understand his approach, that
it is not measuring one way light speed using a single clock which is
logically not possible. The problem I see was that the workings of
waveguides inherently involve standing waves ie EM fields traveling up and
down the guide. I wonder if you could elaborate on why it is a stand in for
slow clock transport?
Thanks
Bill
Jerry
Good question. I don't see it at all. A receiver at the far end of a
waveguide does not count as a slowly transported clock. Instead, it is
a forced oscillator. Since it does not operate independently of the
source oscillator, it cannot be considered a separate clock.
You are confusing waveguides with cavity resonators. Waveguides are a
form of transmission line, simpler than two-conductor cable such as
coaxial cable.
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_13/8.html
Gagnon et al. do not attempt to measure one way light speed. They
measure difference in phase between the output RF at the far ends of
the two waveguides.
Jerry
Jim Greenfield
> Jim Greenfield wrote:
>
> > What can be done to show c'=c+v , is to arrange a race between two
> > short pulses (slugs) of emr. One slug from a stationary source ref us
> > at large distance (Jupiter) is emitted at "the same time" as another
> > from a moving source ref us at a close location to source S. Let's
> see
> > which slug arrives first!
> > If rocket moving ref us had say, 30km/sec as it passed S, and they
> > exchanged a signal between themselves to fire their slugs, then about
> > .5 sec time of flight will be seen (difference in arrival times
> here).
> > There is NO OTHER POSSIBILITY for the delay than differing c due to
> > source motion ref observer!!!
>
> The experiments have been done, far more definitively than your
> naive proposal, which doesn't take into account extinction effects.
> The experiments quite definitively show that emission theory is wrong.
> Check out Filipas and Fox (1964) and Brecher (1977)
Who cares about "extinction effects"? That has Jack S* to do with the
time light takes to travel the same distance in a VACUUM! Delete that
Filipas Fox immediately, and prevent wasted time for others (as it has
for me).
(from the link)
1) "medium"
2) assumptions made that all waves / particles (gamma photons) behave
identically.
3)"Only a detailed analysis of its effect on the interpretation of the
results would permit a conclusion as to just what, if anything, the
results proved about the constancy of light".
NB: "IF ANYTHING"
Jim G
c'=c+v
Jim Greenfield
And does not that "significant velocity rel to the earth" manifest
itself as a Doppler change in the signal?
Hint: The satellite is NOT emitting a different signal to someone who
sees it on the horizon, and another who is observing it straight
above. Both observers get a different f / u BECAUSE the velocity of
the emr is different!
Jim G
c'=c+v
>
>
> Tom Roberts thjro...@lucent.com
bz
news:e7b5cc5d.0504...@posting.google.com:
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:<d3gihm$g...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>...
>> Jim Greenfield wrote:
>> > What can be done to show c'=c+v , is [...]
>>
>> If that were true, the GPS could not possibly work with the accuracy it
>> is observed to have. Any model or theory with this property is soundly
>> refuted experimentally.
>>
>> GPS satellites near the horizon have a significant velocity
>> relative to the earth projected onto the line-of-sight. If
>> the speed of light for its signal was c+v, this would cause
>> errors of several hundred meters in positions, far larger
>> than observed.
>
> And does not that "significant velocity rel to the earth" manifest
> itself as a Doppler change in the signal?
yes.
> Hint: The satellite is NOT emitting a different signal to someone who
> sees it on the horizon, and another who is observing it straight
> above. Both observers get a different f / u BECAUSE the velocity of
> the emr is different!
NO. You just proved that the signal is traveling the same speed, no matter
which direction it is going. Then you turn around and imagine that the
speed of the observer changes the speed of the wave. This is wrong.
The "wave crests" [or photons] arrive at a different frequency, but each
arrives at the exact same time it would have arrived, IF the observer and
satellite were stationary wrt each other BUT at the same locations.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Sam Wormley
> And does not that "significant velocity rel to the earth" manifest
> itself as a Doppler change in the signal?
> Hint: The satellite is NOT emitting a different signal to someone who
> sees it on the horizon, and another who is observing it straight
> above. Both observers get a different f / u BECAUSE the velocity of
> the emr is different!
>
Wrong again, Greenfield, the velocity of light is constant, independent
the the relative motion between source and observer. Read up on Doppler
shift as it pertains to light.
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:<d3gihm$g...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>...
>> relative to the earth projected onto the line-of-sight. If
>> the speed of light for its signal was c+v, this would cause
>> errors of several hundred meters in positions, far larger
>> than observed.
>
> And does not that "significant velocity rel to the earth" manifest
> itself as a Doppler change in the signal?
Sure. So what? It is not important because the signal remains in the
capture band of the receiver. By design, of course.
> Hint: The satellite is NOT emitting a different signal to someone who
> sees it on the horizon, and another who is observing it straight
> above.
Yes, of course.
> Both observers get a different f / u BECAUSE the velocity of
> the emr is different!
No. Doppler is not a change in the speed of the signal, it is a change
in the frequency of the signal (or its wavelength).
Just _THINK_ about it:
Each satellite emits a "time now" tick periodically (this is a
simplification that is irrelevant to this discussion), giving the time
of its onboard atomic clock (adjusted ~daily by the ground station,
another simplification irrelevant here). If the speed of the signal from
satellite to receiver traveled at c+v (really the _vector_ sum of a
speed=c 3-velocity and the 3-velocity of the satellite source, such that
the result is headed toward the receiver), then for a satellite near the
horizon that is approaching the receiver, the signal would arrive early,
and for a satellite near the opposite horizon that is traveling away
from the receiver the signal would arrive late, and for a satellite
directly above the receiver the signal would arrive on time. Here "on
time", "early" and "late" are relative to the speed c used by the
receiver software. This would become an increase in the "circle of
confusion" at the receiver of many hundreds of meters. Actual receivers
have circles of confusion of a few meters; this becomes an error
estimate of the receiver's location. The observed operation of the GPS
completely refutes any model in which signals from satellites travel at
"c+v".
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:d3gn8k$i...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
>>stand-in. Ask yourself: for what synchronization method of the clocks is
>>this a stand-in? the answer should be clear: this will stand in for
>>clocks synchronized in an inertial frame via slow clock transport.
>
> waveguides inherently involve standing waves ie EM fields traveling up and
> down the guide.
This is a wave guide carrying a true traveling wave, not a standing
wave. At least that is so above cutoff; below cutoff the "traveling
wave" is exponentially attenuated, and cannot "travel" very far.
> I wonder if you could elaborate on why it is a stand in for
> slow clock transport?
Consider such a waveguide and source at rest in an inertial frame; next
to the source place a detector+clock that will remain there. Add a
movable detector+clock and place them next to the fixed detector+clock;
synchronize the adjacent clocks. Now have the clocks record the times of
successive rising edges of the wave -- clearly with them next to each
other and synchronized their list of rising-edge times will be
identical. Now slowly move the movable clock+detector down the
waveguide, while both clocks keep recording the rising-edge times. Let
this continue until it reaches the end of the waveguide. Now carry both
clocks' lists together and compare: they are identical (because that's
how this waveguide with "infinite phase velocity" and "infinite
wavelength" behaves).
(this is exact only in the limit as speed -> zero and
"right at" the cutoff of the waveguide.)
So using the rising edge of the signal in this waveguide is equivalent
to using clocks synchronized in this inertial frame via slow clock
transport. The argument remains approximately true for a wave that is
just above cutoff (as the experimenters used).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
p.ki...@imperial.ac.uk
> The authors introduce a "generalized Galilean transformation" given by
> x' = gamma (x - v t) (gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2))
> y' = y
> z' = z
> t' = gamma^-1 t
> This is not even a group.
I'm going to go off at a tangent here. In optics, when propagating
light pulses around, we tend to use a different frame -- like this:
x' = x
y' = y
z' = z
t' = t - z/v
Where v is some sort of pulse velocity, typically the group velocity
of the pulse (or maybe even the phase velocity, which in a vacuum is c).
The pulse is travelling along z.
Any comments on this kind of frame? One obvious annoying feature
is the lack of a sensible limit as the frame speed v tends to
zero. But will it cause relativistos to go pale and exclaim:
"This is not even a group!" (or similar).
--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (QOLS) (ph) +44-20-759-47520 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London, Dr.Paul...@physics.org
SW7 2BW, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/
Tom Roberts
> A receiver at the far end of a
> waveguide does not count as a slowly transported clock.
But as I showed, it remains in synch with a collocated clock that was
synchronized with the source via slow clock transport. So one can
analyze this experiment with such clocks. There is no magic.
> Gagnon et al. do not attempt to measure one way light speed. They
> measure difference in phase between the output RF at the far ends of
> the two waveguides.
Right.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Jerry
No, Tom.
One would only be interested in using synchronized clocks if one
desired to know the exact phase relationship between the emergent
RF relative to the incident RF signal, and then the interpretation
would be subject to the major uncertainties that you have rightly
pointed out arise from the effects of slow clock transport.
You are fixated on the "infinite phase velocity" of Gagnon's
reference waveguide, and somehow believe that I am fixated
on the notion of infinite phase velocity as well. -Any-
difference in phase velocity between the two waveguides should
result in an experimental arrangement that is sensitive, at the
very least, to a pre-Michelson aether drift.
Indeed, I would argue that Gagnon's use of a reference waveguide
driven extremely close to cutoff was an experimental flaw. The
major source of uncertainty and instrumental drift in their
experiment was from heating of their reference waveguide; being
driven at extremely close to cutoff, practically all of the
RF was absorbed by the waveguide walls. If Gagnon et al. had
designed their waveguides so that the phase velocities were, say,
1.2 and 2.4 times lightspeed rather than 1.2 and near "infinity",
their instrumental sensitivity would have been only halved,
while their instrumental stability would have been far superior.
Consider your synchronized movable detector+clock. At the far
end of the reference waveguide, let the phase difference between
a movable detector+clock and the source be M, while at the far
end of the test waveguide, let the phase difference between a
movable detector+clock and the source be N.
Gagnon et al. couldn't have cared less about the absolute values
of M and N. The only value they cared about was N - M - 2*pi*n,
with n being some unknown integer value. Look at their graphical
data.
Your hypothetical synchronized clocks completely drop out of
the difference.
> (this is exact only in the limit as speed -> zero and
> "right at" the cutoff of the waveguide.)
>
> So using the rising edge of the signal in this waveguide is
equivalent
> to using clocks synchronized in this inertial frame via slow clock
> transport. The argument remains approximately true for a wave that is
> just above cutoff (as the experimenters used).
Jerry