Re: Asynchronous Anisotropy Experiment
From: shevek (shevek4_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/16/05
- Next message: shevek: "Re: Electrodynamics from the Brownian motion of a relativistic aether."
- Previous message: LEJ Brouwer: "Re: Electrodynamics from the Brownian motion of a relativistic aether."
- In reply to: Tom Roberts: "Re: Asynchronous Anisotropy Experiment"
- Next in thread: Tom Roberts: "Re: Asynchronous Anisotropy Experiment"
- Reply: Tom Roberts: "Re: Asynchronous Anisotropy Experiment"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 16 Jan 2005 08:01:04 -0800
Tom Roberts wrote:
> shevek wrote: [..]
>
> Not necessarily -- you are asuming a specific "moving space-time"
> theory. One that is experimentally refuted.
>
Thanks for your reply Tom. Sorry I was not very precise in my post.
The moving space-time theory I am considering is isotropic in round
trip light travel time, or as you put it round trip speed of light.
The isotropy comes from the usual source in such ether theories, length
contraction and time dilation.
> [..]
>
> In fact, these two requirements are sufficient:
> 1. There is some (unknown) inertial frame in which the one-way
> speed of light is isotropic (presumably this is the "ether
> frame" or the "non-moving space-time frame").
> 2. The round-trip speed of light is isotropic in any inertial
frame.
The ether theory I am considering is compatible with your well stated
two requirements.
> Any theory obeying those two requirements is experimentally
> indistinguishable from SR.
But I fail to see how the ether theory for the experiment I outlined
predicts the same as the SR prediction.. sometihng I am missing
perhaps?
> The first is basically the essence of any
> ether or "moving space-time" theory, and the second is a clear
> experimental result for labs on earth. A theory obeying those two
> constraints can have any anisotropy whatsoever for the one-way speed
of
> light; it's just that the theoretically-anisotropic value is
> unmeasurable -- all such theories yield measurements
indistinguishable
> from SR.
>
I'm with you so far. But now rotate the apparatus and try the one-way
ansitropy measurement again, and then subtract the two values.
> Basically these theories differ from SR only in the way their
> coordinate clocks are synchronized, but real measurements
> use real clocks and when you include the analysis of the
> method of synchronizing those real clocks you obtain the same
> result you would get using SR.
>
Again agreed. This is why I specifically chose not to synchronize the
clocks at all. The offset is kept but cancels in the final
subtraction.
>
> Your "moving space-time" theory does not yield isotropy for
round-trip
> measurements. There's little point in discussing it when it is
> experimentally refuted by many real measurements.
>
Sorry again for my sloppy post, I am considering a round trip isotropy
theory of light, in the style of Lorentz and Fitzgerald.
> [Yes, there is a "hole" in my argument: isotropy is only
> measured for labs at rest on earth, and they all have an
> error bar. It is conceivable that there is an as yet
> unknown ether theory that "lives in the error bars" and
> has only approximate isotropy in the round-trip speed of
> light. So far nobody has presented such a theory, and the
> error bars are small enough it is highly unlikely.]
>
I'm not looking for life in those barren error bars, but I applaud your
optomism that there could be viable material there :)
THanks again for your help -
- Next message: shevek: "Re: Electrodynamics from the Brownian motion of a relativistic aether."
- Previous message: LEJ Brouwer: "Re: Electrodynamics from the Brownian motion of a relativistic aether."
- In reply to: Tom Roberts: "Re: Asynchronous Anisotropy Experiment"
- Next in thread: Tom Roberts: "Re: Asynchronous Anisotropy Experiment"
- Reply: Tom Roberts: "Re: Asynchronous Anisotropy Experiment"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|