Is relativity of simultaneity measurable?

[Fednis48]

This is an error that you keep repeating.

Once again, the source you provided says that the validity of E-synch is equivalent to the isotropy of OWLS. Right there at the end of the first paragraph of section 1. It actually does a pretty good job of explaining why in a straightforward manner; I recommend that link to anyone reading this thread who is having trouble following along. Tach, do you think the link is wrong in that regard?

Let me try one last time to dispel your errors:

In order to measure OWLS you do not need E-synch, what you need is either:

1. a pair of synchronized clocks (if you keep reading the Stanford page you have been cherry-picking) you will get to the paragraph on "Slow clock transport", physicists have been using this method for quite a while, I pointed this out to you many posts ago

I read that bit. Slow clock transport is valid if and only if E-synch is valid, since they agree with each other. Either way, this method uses a clock, and we agree that clock synchronization is unverifiable, so this method can't work.

or

2. no clocks at all. Modern measurement of OWLS do not use any clocks, as I explained to you 4 times already. I already gave you two papers as reference, you obviously have not read the references or you stubbornly refuse to accept that they show that you are wrong. Here is one more reference, I suggest that you read it:

Evenson, KM; et al. (1972). "Speed of Light from Direct Frequency and Wavelength Measurements of the Methane-Stabilized Laser". Physical Review Letters 29 (19): 1346–49. Bibcode:1972PhRvL..29.1346E. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.29.1346

You clearly do not understand this subject, I recommend that you do some serious reading before you come back, I provided you with a lot of information, try to understand it.

I'll be perfectly frank here, because you keep making the same response. You say that "modern measurements of OWLS do not use any clocks", but I maintain that there are no measurements of OWLS, modern or otherwise. I read all three papers you provided. The first one from the old post claimed to tighten the error bounds on the Michelson-Morley experiment, which did not measure OWLS. The newer one claimed to measure c with cutting-edge precision, but said nothing about whether c is the same when going one- or two-ways. The second one from the old post made several conclusions about fundamental constants that I didn't completely get, but nothing I saw seemed to indicate that OWLS isotropy had been measured.

All in all, none of those papers, as far as I can tell, claim to measure OWLS isotropy. I could keep searching the literature for papers that do, but I think it would be more productive to first deal with the simple issue of deductive logic at hand:

Premise 1: The Stanford page says, with good explanation, that OWLS isotropy and E-synch validity are the same.
Premise 2: E-synch cannot be experimentally validated.
Conclusion: Either the Stanford page is wrong or OWLS isotropy cannot be measured experimentally.

Unless the Stanford page is wrong, then, there never has been and never will be an experiment that shows OWLS is isotropic.

 

[Tach]

there never has been and never will be an experiment that shows OWLS is isotropic.

I thought that the thread has reached rock bottom. I was wrong, the above post is the absolute bottom. Try reading these:

1. G. Saathoff, S. Karpuk, U. Eisenbarth, G. Huber, S. Krohn, R.M. Horta, S. Reinhardt, D. Schwalm, A.Wolf, G. Gwinner, “Improved test of time dilation in special relativity”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91(19),190403 (2003)
2. H. Müller, S. Herrmann, C. Braxmaier, S. Schiller, and A. Peters, "Modern Michelson-Morley experiment using cryogenic optical resonators", Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 020401 (2003)
3. H. Müller, S. Herrmann, C. Braxmaier, S. Schiller, and A.Peters: "Theory and technology for a modern Michelson-Morley Test of Special Relativity", invited paper for Appl. Phys. B (2003)
4. H. Müller, C. Braxmaier, S. Herrmann, O. Pradl, C. Lämmerzahl, J. Mlynek, S. Schiller, and A. Peters: "Testing the foundations of relativity using cryogenic optical resonators", Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 11, (2002)
5. H. Müller, C. Braxmaier, S. Herrmann, A. Peters, and C. Lämmerzahl: "Electromagnetic cavities and Lorentz invariance violation", Phys. Rev. D 67, 056006 (2003)
6. J.A. Lipa et al., "New Limit on Signals of Lorentz Violation in Electrodynamics", Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003)
7. C. Braxmaier, H. Müller, O. Pradl, J. Mlynek, A. Peters, S. Schiller, "Test of Relativity using a cryogenic optical resonator", Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, (2002)
8. S.Schiller, P.Antonini, M.Okhapkin “A precision test of the isotropy of the speed of light using rotating cryogenic optical cavities” , Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, (2005)
9. Wolf, P., Bize, S., Clairon, A., Santarelli, G., Tobar, M. E., and Luiten, A. N. “Improved Test of Lorentz Invariance in Electrodynamics” , Phys. Rev. D 70, (2004)
10. Antonini, P., Okhapkin, M., Goklu, E., and Schiller, S., “Test of constancy of speed of light with rotating cryogenic optical resonators”, Phys. Rev. A 71, 050101(2005)
11. Herrmann et al., “Test of the Isotropy of the Speed of light using a Continuously Rotating Optical Resonator”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 150401 (2005)

There are many more papers that contradict your fringe claim but the ones above should suffice for the time being.

 

[Fednis48]

Let's say that the east-to-west light speed is fastest, and the west-to-east speed is slowest. I guess you are saying that the north-to-south speed would not necessarily come out to be the average of the east-to-west and west-to-east speeds? Yes, that makes sense. But if it did come out to be the average, (somehow), then you would find isotropic TWLS without isotropic OWLS.

That's a fair point - some types of OWLS isotropy can be measured experimentally. Dependence of c on compass direction is apparently one of them. As far as I can tell, the un-measurable OWLS anisotropies are of forms such that light moving away from an observer goes at a different speed from light approaching the observer. Or to put it another way, the changes made when boosting to a new frame depend not only on the velocity of the new frame, but also on the location of its origin. Take that with a grain of salt, but that's the impression I've been getting.

BTW...no one here is going to like hearing this but...Motor Daddy's version of reality falls within this "large class of theories".

I actually respect MD a bit more knowing his views are at least self-consistent.

Wrong. At the time when I flash the two bulbs simultaneously in the ground frame, the observers M and M' are co-located. By the time the light from the flashes reaches M simultaneously, the train passenger at M' has moved away from M in the same direction that the train is moving. Therefore M' will see the light from the front of the train first, even though M sees both lights at the same time. Hence, RoS.

In the Eram experiment, the light reaches the AND gate simultaneously in all frames, but it could not have been EMITTED simultaneously in all frames, as Fednis showed you mathematically. Hence, RoS.

Thank you! Good to see someone here understands that an experiment can show an effect without designing a measurement apparatus that records that effect directly.

 

[Undefined]

8. S.Schiller, P.Antonini, M.Okhapkin “A precision test of the isotropy of the speed of light using rotating cryogenic optical cavities” , Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, (2005)

Are you just posting "references" again without reading them? I looked up one of your referenced papers/experiments and could not find where they established isotropy of OWLS. Here is the conclusion paragraph of the above paper:

1.5 Conclusions
The experiment described in this work was performed in order to improve
the previous rotating laser experiment by Brillet and Hall, exploiting some
of advances in laser stabilization techniques developed since. Our experiment
yielded a significant improvement. Similar to their experiment, a strong limit
for β − δ − 1/2 required exploiting the modulation by Earth’s rotation. At
the same time the present experiment provided an approach to the task of
measuring (˜
κe−)ZZ with high accuracy (a weaker limit on this quantity can
also be extracted from the experiment of Brillet and Hall).
Limitations of the experiment were the sensitivity of the optical path
length to temperature, and the limited laser lock quality as a consequence
of the relatively weak cavity throughput. This made the beat frequency more
sensitive to optical path length variations. In addition, a certain level of me-
chanical noise was present. In an upgraded experiment, obvious improvements
are resonators of higher finesse and throughput, optical path length stabiliza-
tion, and rotations with shorter period and lower tilt modulation.
In discussing a ”null” experiment, it may be argued that a nonzero value
of the measured parameter may have been (partially) canceled by an un-
known systematic effect, so that the bounds provided by an experiment may
be questioned. We emphasize the importance of the fact that three experi-
ments [8, 19, 20] have recently been reported whose results are consistent with
each other. Because they were performed by independent groups with different
techniques, it is unlikely that they all exhibit a strong cancellation between
the respective systematics and a substantial nonzero value of (˜
κe−)ZZ .

Can you point to where they "showed" or "demonstrated" or "otherwise established" isotropy of OWLS please?

 

[Tach]

Good to see someone here understands that an experiment can show an effect without designing a measurement apparatus that records that effect directly.

In mainstream physics that type of thing doesn't qualify as "experiment".

 

[Tach]

Are you just posting "references" again without reading them?

What gives you this idea? I work with these people.

I looked up one of your referenced papers/experiments and could not find where they established isotropy of OWLS. Here is the conclusion paragraph of the above paper:

The fact that you couldn't is not a valid indicator that it isn't there, it simply means that you aren't qualified to understand the paper. For someone knowledgeable in the field , it is quite apparent.

Can you point to where they showed or demonstrated or otherwise established isotropy of OWLS please?

Post 253.

 

[Undefined]

In mainstream physics that type of thing doesn't qualify as "experiment".

You mean like SR inferences for effects on particle beams in particle accelerator (high E-M Energy flux and Accelerated Frames) systems being "interpreted" as "proof" of SR hypothesized "length contraction"? You mean "non experiments" like that?

 

[Tach]

You mean like SR inferences for effects on particle beams in particle accelerator systems being "interpreted" as "proof" of SR hypothesized "length contraction"? You mean "non experiments" like that?

Nope

 

[Undefined]

What gives you this idea? I work with these people.



The fact that you couldn't is not a valid indicator that it isn't there, it simply means that you aren't qualified to understand the paper. For someone knowledgeable in the field , it is quite apparent.




Post 253.

That post #253 reference says "constrain" but it uses "clock" system in resonance cavity and maser frequency. So it still depends on "inherent clock processes" for timings, doesn't it?

Now exactly how does it "show" isotropy of OWLS in your other referenced article I referred to in my post? Please explain clearly.

When you say: "I work with these people", do they know you fail to realize that "clock processes" of one sort or another are inherent when using frequencies and resonators and such as part of the experimental constructs which effectively includes such clock processes INSIDE the experiment rather than the usual clock processes externally used in other experiments?

 

[Undefined]

Nope

Playing Games again? Please explain and support your "nope" or admit your earlier claim of such things as "proof" of SR "length contraction" is bogus?

 

[Fednis48]

I thought that the thread has reached rock bottom. I was wrong, the above post is the absolute bottom. Try reading these:

[so many papers!]

There are many more papers that contradict your fringe claim but the ones above should suffice for the time being.

I've already read three of your papers and failed to find anything that supports your position. Throwing ten more at me won't help, especially when several of them contain the term "Michelson-Morley" (which did not show OWLS isotropy) right in the title. It would really be more convincing if you would choose one paper, then actually quote the part where it says it rules out all forms of OWLS anisotropy to within x uncertainty.

In the mean time, please address my 3-step logical deduction from the last post. To summarize: the Stanford page says you're wrong, with good explanation and in fairly unambiguous language. Where is my mistake in deducing this?

Finally, if you really want to go with papers, try this one by Minguzzi. I hadn't heard of it before, but as far as I can tell, it's a reasonably major paper in the field. It's long, but you don't have to read far; equation 3 shows the complete class of OWLS that give identical predictions to SR in all reference frames. In essence, they're obtained by combining the isotropic OWLS with the gradient of an arbitrary potential. The important part is that there are multiple expressions for OWLS that give identical predictions for all experiments, so at least within that class, OWLS is just as conventional as E-synch.

 

[Fednis48]

You mean like SR inferences for effects on particle beams in particle accelerator (high E-M Energy flux and Accelerated Frames) systems being "interpreted" as "proof" of SR hypothesized "length contraction"? You mean "non experiments" like that?

TWO people who get it now! My faith in humanity is restored just a little bit.

 

[Tach]

I've already read three of your papers and failed to find anything that supports your position. Throwing ten more at me won't help, especially when several of them contain the term "Michelson-Morley" (which did not show OWLS isotropy) right in the title. It would really be more convincing if you would choose one paper, then actually quote the part where it says it rules out all forms of OWLS anisotropy to within x uncertainty.

In the mean time, please address my 3-step logical deduction from the last post. To summarize: the Stanford page says you're wrong, with good explanation and in fairly unambiguous language. Where is my mistake in deducing this?

Finally, if you really want to go with papers, try this one by Minguzzi. I hadn't heard of it before, but as far as I can tell, it's a reasonably major paper in the field. It's long, but you don't have to read far; equation 3 shows the complete class of OWLS that give identical predictions to SR in all reference frames. In essence, they're obtained by combining the isotropic OWLS with the gradient of an arbitrary potential. The important part is that there are multiple expressions for OWLS that give identical predictions for all experiments, so at least within that class, OWLS is just as conventional as E-synch.

You are becoming seriously fringe in your denial. Try reading a few of these:

1. S.Schiller, P.Antonini, M.Okhapkin “A precision test of the isotropy of the speed of light using rotating cryogenic optical cavities” , Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, (2005)

2. Antonini, P., Okhapkin, M., Goklu, E., and Schiller, S., “Test of constancy of speed of light with rotating cryogenic optical resonators”, Phys. Rev. A 71, 050101(2005)

3. Herrmann et al., “Test of the Isotropy of the Speed of light using a Continuously Rotating Optical Resonator”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 150401 (2005)

Take your time. If, after reading them , you continue to claim that :

Unless the Stanford page is wrong, then, there never has been and never will be an experiment that shows OWLS is isotropic.

then you have a very serious problem. Once you have read and understood them, we can talk. I'll address the Minguzzi paper after that.

 

[Undefined]

You are becoming seriously fringe in your denial. Try reading a few of these:

1. S.Schiller, P.Antonini, M.Okhapkin “A precision test of the isotropy of the speed of light using rotating cryogenic optical cavities” , Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, (2005)

2. Antonini, P., Okhapkin, M., Goklu, E., and Schiller, S., “Test of constancy of speed of light with rotating cryogenic optical resonators”, Phys. Rev. A 71, 050101(2005)

3. Herrmann et al., “Test of the Isotropy of the Speed of light using a Continuously Rotating Optical Resonator”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 150401 (2005)

Take your time. If, after reading them , you continue to claim that :



then you have a very serious problem.

You keep posting such references to Fednis48, but they say test. Where do they show isotropy of OWLS? That is the question. Can you point clearly and unambiguously to where they "show" that rather than just "test" for it? What is the actual "conclusion" as to "showing" isotropy of OWLS? And how do you get away from the inherent clock processes built into such experimental "tests" using frequency and resonators etc which effectively are inbuilt clocks processes?

 

[Fednis48]

You are becoming seriously fringe in your denial. Try reading a few of these:

1. S.Schiller, P.Antonini, M.Okhapkin “A precision test of the isotropy of the speed of light using rotating cryogenic optical cavities” , Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, (2005)

2. Antonini, P., Okhapkin, M., Goklu, E., and Schiller, S., “Test of constancy of speed of light with rotating cryogenic optical resonators”, Phys. Rev. A 71, 050101(2005)

3. Herrmann et al., “Test of the Isotropy of the Speed of light using a Continuously Rotating Optical Resonator”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 150401 (2005)

Take your time. If, after reading them , you continue to claim that :



then you have a very serious problem. Once you have read and understood them, we can talk. I'll address the Minguzzi paper after that.

Again, it would really be more convincing if you would pick a paper and quote the part that supports you, rather than just posting titles and claiming that they support you. The first paper doesn't mention the one-way speed of light at all, and the third only mentions it once: to explain why it doesn't put any constraints on the parameter $$\kappa_{tr}$$, which depends on OWLS. I couldn't find the second paper on the arXiv, but I expect that it's similarly silent on the isotropy of OWLS.

On a related note, it's disingenuous to say "read these papers, then see if you still think the Stanford link disagrees with me." The Stanford link explains clearly why you're wrong, and the fact that it does is quite independent of the literature. If you think the Stanford link is mistaken, that's another story, and I'd be curious to hear why. But unless you're willing to explicitly disagree with the Stanford link, you should be able to explain why it doesn't refute your position without referencing any other sources.

Lastly, I would like to hear what you have to say about the Minguzzi paper, if and when you get around to it.

 

[Fednis48]

You keep posting such references to Fednis48, but they say test. Where do they show isotropy of OWLS? That is the question. Can you point clearly and unambiguously to where they "show" that rather than just "test" for it? What is the actual "conclusion" as to "showing" isotropy of OWLS? And how do you get away from the inherent clock processes built into such experimental "tests" using frequency and resonators etc which effectively are inbuilt clocks processes?

There's actually a mistake in your reasoning, here. At least in physics contexts, a "test" of something means an experiment that determines (to within some experimental uncertainty) whether that effect exists. So if a paper is labeled as "A test of [some property] of the speed of light ..." you can bet that the results section will say "We've confirmed SR's predictions of [property] to a new level of accuracy." Or it might say "Our test has come up with a negative result, and [property] violates SR." in which case the authors will probably win a Nobel Prize. Either way, in the physics sense of testing, it would make no sense to say that an experiment could "test" something without "showing" it.

Edit: The problem with Tach's citations is not that they "test" rather than "show" isotropy. It's that they test isotropy of "the speed of light" (implicitly two-way) rather than "the one-way speed of light". The former is valuable science; the latter would be impossible.

 

[Tach]

Again, it would really be more convincing if you would pick a paper and quote the part that supports you, rather than just posting titles and claiming that they support you. The first paper doesn't mention the one-way speed of light at all,

That is patently false, you need to pay attention to the abstract, any time you see $$\beta-\delta-1/2$$, that is a dead giveaway.

and the third only mentions it once: to explain why it doesn't put any constraints on the parameter $$\kappa_{tr}$$, which depends on OWLS.

You obviously missed page 4, left column where they explain the limits on the RMS parameter $$\beta-\delta-1/2$$. In post 253 I already explained to you its significance. Do you remember it?
Not only that, you are looking at the wrong $$k$$ parameter, the parameter that constrains OWLS anisotropy is $$k_e$$ (page 3. left column).

I couldn't find the second paper on the arXiv, but I expect that it's similarly silent on the isotropy of OWLS.

I don't think you understand, all papers on light speed anisotropy refer to OWLS, this is standard mainstream. The authors do not have to say "one way", anyone working in the field already knows that.

The Stanford link explains clearly why you're wrong, and the fact that it does is quite independent of the literature. If you think the Stanford link is mistaken, that's another story, and I'd be curious to hear why. But unless you're willing to explicitly disagree with the Stanford link, you should be able to explain why it doesn't refute your position without referencing any other sources.

You simply made a fringe inference from the "Stanford link", that's all.

Lastly, I would like to hear what you have to say about the Minguzzi paper, if and when you get around to it.

I said I will, once you realize the enormity of your claims.

 

[Undefined]

There's actually a mistake in your reasoning, here. At least in physics contexts, a "test" of something means an experiment that determines (to within some experimental uncertainty) whether that effect exists. So if a paper is labeled as "A test of [some property] of the speed of light ..." you can bet that the results section will say "We've confirmed SR's predictions of [property] to a new level of accuracy." Or it might say "Our test has come up with a negative result, and [property] violates SR." in which case the authors will probably win a Nobel Prize. Either way, in the physics sense of testing, it would make no sense to say that an experiment could "test" something without "showing" it.

Edit: The problem with Tach's citations is not that they "test" rather than "show" isotropy. It's that they test isotropy of "the speed of light" (implicitly two-way) rather than "the one-way speed of light". The former is valuable science; the latter would be impossible.

Yes, I know what you mean. But what I naively mean and ask for clearly is what and where are the "results" or "conclusions" that "show" OWLS isotropy etc? That is what Tach's references need to "show" for my naive understandings to grasp properly if they are not circuitous etc? The results that it has confirmed or not or otherwise "resolved" the OWLS question? Especially in a way that does not in itself use the "timings" based on inherent "clock processes" like LIGHT frequency and resonators etc? That's what I want explained properly, and not just some assumed "understandings" which may not be based on what the references claim (or rather, what Tach claims for them)?

 

[Fednis48]

I don't think you understand, all papers on light speed anisotropy refer to OWLS, this is standard mainstream. The authors do not have to say "one way", anyone working in the field already knows that.

You presented this claim with no evidence, and I assert that it is false. If "anyone working in the field already knows" something, it shouldn't be hard to find a source that states it explicitly. Moreover, the third paper you cited specifically singles out the OWLS-dependence of a parameter ($$\kappa_{tr}$$) as an explanation for why they can't put constraints on it. If the paper was referring to OWLS to begin with, this section would make no sense.

You simply made a fringe inference from the "Stanford link", that's all.

If it's a "fringe inference", you should be able to explain what about the text I misunderstood.

I said I will, once you realize the enormity of your claims.

So in essence, you will address this argument after I admit that my other arguments are wrong. I've made a consistent effort to answer each of your arguments as soon as they are made, and would appreciate if you would extent me the same courtesy.

 

[OnlyMe]

Again, it would really be more convincing if you would pick a paper and quote the part that supports you, rather than just posting titles and claiming that they support you. The first paper doesn't mention the one-way speed of light at all, and the third only mentions it once: to explain why it doesn't put any constraints on the parameter $$\kappa_{tr}$$, which depends on OWLS. I couldn't find the second paper on the arXiv, but I expect that it's similarly silent on the isotropy of OWLS.

On a related note, it's disingenuous to say "read these papers, then see if you still think the Stanford link disagrees with me." The Stanford link explains clearly why you're wrong, and the fact that it does is quite independent of the literature. If you think the Stanford link is mistaken, that's another story, and I'd be curious to hear why. But unless you're willing to explicitly disagree with the Stanford link, you should be able to explain why it doesn't refute your position without referencing any other sources.

Lastly, I would like to hear what you have to say about the Minguzzi paper, if and when you get around to it.

Here a link to the second paper, http://cds.cern.ch/record/833791/files/0504109.pdf?version=2

BTW these are all references to experiments in the M&M class. They all are measuring the anisotropy of the speed of light by comparring two light paths. Even if they found isotropy, the OWLS would not have to be isotropic. The speed of light in all of these experiments, though not measured, is the average of the TWLS.