Re: Idiot Proof Aether Drift Experiment (OWLS)

From: luke (funk420_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/07/04 

Date: 7 Jun 2004 09:36:07 -0700

Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message news:<mRGwc.20043$eH1.9187435@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
> luke wrote:
> > Thomas J Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message news:<40BF5B13.5070506@lucent.com>...
> >
> >>The point of my question to you is: you made a claim that no viable ether
> >>theory
> >>I know of supports. So I ask: On what ether theory do you base this claim?
> >
> > The claim quoted above (sorry I wasn't very clear) just says that even
> > if the "preferred rest frame" as used by the paper (i.e. a light
> > carrying medium not dragged with the Earth's rotation) is that of our
> > sun, and not that of the CMBR, an ether theory will still predict a
> > difference in the transit times as the orientation varies with the
> > rotation of the earth.
> >
> > As for "which ether theory" lets call it my own for the sake of
> > argument; others more familiar with the literature e.g. greywolf42 can
> > point out how old these ideas really are.
>
> My point is this: to analyze this experiment you must also compute the
> effects on the clocks of the "slow clock transport" of the earth's rotation.
>
> In the class of ether theories in which the round-trip speed of light is
> isotropic in every inertial frame, the effects of slow clock transport
> EXACTLY cancel the effects of the one-way speed of light, for EVERY
> possible measurement of this type. IOW: for every ether theory of this
> class, slow clock transport preserves Einstein synchronization of the
> clocks. This is just one example of the fact that all such theories are
> experimentally indistinguishable from SR.

OK, I think I see what you are saying here. Yet another wrinkle..
But I don't quite get it (yet). Suppose the clocks are not
sychnronized, but do have the same frequency standard (with some error
bars of course). 'Clock' A emits a laser pulse, recording the exact
nanosecond of its release. 'Clock' B receives the pulse, recording
the exact nanosecond of its release. Messengers bring the recorded
times together and do a subtraction. Of course because the clocks are
not synchronized the result is almost meaningless. However, 12 hours
later the same procedure is repeated. SR predicts the results are the
same, while an ether theory with a bulk velocity over the light path
predicts the results are not the same.

>
> That is a rather remarkable property of these ether theories,
> one that completely befuddles most ether advocates around here.
>

I will admit to being a bit befuddled :) If they are experimentally
indistiguishable than what was the point of all of those experiments
listed in the FAQ?
 
> Moreover, existing experiments put quite stringent conditions on any
> theory that predicts the round-trip speed of light is not isotropic in
> some inertial frame occupied by the earth. If v is the velocity of the
> earth around the sun, then such a theory can differ from SR only in
> sixth order in (v/c) and above -- that is highly unusual, and requires a
> "conspiracy" to make the second- and fourth-order terms agree with SR's.
> So far, nobody has attempted to present such an ether theory that "lives
> in the error bars" of existing experiments.

Now I am more confused. First you said that all ether theories are
experimentally indistinguishable from standard SR, and now you say
ether theories do not live within error bars of experiments. How can
both be true?

>
> The combination of this and the structure of the class of ether
> theories I mentioned above negates completely naive attempts to
> discredit SR via ether theory. Around here all such attempts
> are indeed naive.
>

I agree. I am certainly not attempting to discredit SR, rather to
understand it, build upon it, and answer the questions it raises.

>
> > Sorry, I still see a difference in measured one way travel time
> > (anisotropy) according to "my ether theory". Tell me where I go
> > wrong.
> > [...long]
>
> You did not compute the effects of slow clock transport on the clocks.
>

You're right, I did not say how the clocks could be synchronized to
measure the one way light speed travel time. Thanks for pointing out
that problem in my analysis. However synchronization may not be
necessary for an experiment like Krisher et al. to indicate an ether
flow or lack therof.. do you agree?

Thanks - luke

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Idiot Proof Aether Drift Experiment (OWLS)
    ... > bars of course). ... 'Clock' A emits a laser pulse, ... for any ether theory that predicts that the round-trip speed of light is ... First you said that all ether theories are ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Idiot Proof Aether Drift Experiment (OWLS)
    ... For some ether theories, sure. ... A light pulse is sent from clock A to ... > measurements are brought together with sneakernet. ... independent of synchronization. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Roberts destroys SR
    ... >> about clock synchronization because it is simply physically ... and is therefore not a scientific theory. ... it is a mere definition of clock synchronization; ... When the two observers briefly meet, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Whereis NTP (client) config file in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.
    ... > If you right click on the clock applet on the GNOME panel, ... But reading about NTP, it suggests using three to five NTP servers, ... # Permit time synchronization with our time source, ... # permit the source to query or modify the service on this system. ...
    (linux.redhat.misc)
  • Re: Any theory that yields a twin paradox must be dubbed bullshit
    ... anisotropy is INDEPENDENT of the clock synchronization scheme. ... B says that light has different speeds in different directions, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)