Is relativity of simultaneity measurable?

[Tach]

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 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 $$k_e$$ and $$k_o$$ (page 3. left column).

 

[Tach]

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.

No, it isn't you are just making the same error as Fednis48. There are no "two light paths", there are two resonating cavities with standing waves, you simply do not understand the principle of the experiment.

 

[Undefined]

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.

That particular one involves two resonant cavities differently oriented in space. That is why this and all the "tests" using frequencies and resonators effectively using inherent "Clock Processes" like that are "circuitous" in effect because the colocation/comoving of those resonators (even if differently "oriented" in "space") will give no "difference" because the inherent clock processes (resonators) are THE SAME STATES irrespective of "orientation". That is why I ask for some references where the "tests" are not circuitous because of inherent "clock processes" making them give the "results" which they inherently start out with precisely because the inherent clocking/timing is "built into" the experimental construct as I pointed out to Tach about his "references" so far?

 

[Fednis48]

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 $$k_e$$ and $$k_o$$ (page 3. left column).

No, I saw page 4. In brief, I think your post 253 is deeply flawed, and when you say that $$\beta-\delta-1/2$$ is related to OWLS, I simply don't believe you. Thus far, you've given me no reason to.

On page 3, I find it suspect that you say the parameters $$k_e$$ and $$k_o$$ are the ones that constrain OWLS anisotropy, when they specifically go out of their way to say "$$\kappa_{tr}$$ is related to the one way speed of light," then never mention OWLS again. Once again, I have no reason to think that what you're saying is true.

Lastly, I am getting increasingly fed up with your refusal to answer my own arguments. Both the Stanford page and the Minguzzi paper say, in no uncertain terms, that OWLS isotropy cannot be show experimentally. Please explain why they don't.

 

[Tach]

No, I saw page 4. In brief, I think your post 253 is deeply flawed, and when you say that $$\beta-\delta-1/2$$ is related to OWLS, I simply don't believe you. Thus far, you've given me no reason to.

...and with this, you reached the absolute bottom. Here is a tutorial on the subject, practically the same thing I told you in post 253, read the paragraph on RMS framework. Maybe this reference will cure the fringe claims, once and for all.

On page 3, I find it suspect that you say the parameters $$k_e$$ and $$k_o$$ are the ones that constrain OWLS anisotropy, when they specifically go out of their way to say "$$\kappa_{tr}$$ is related to the one way speed of light," then never mention OWLS again. Once again, I have no reason to think that what you're saying is true.

Seriously?:

"The remaining matrices k_e and k_o contain 8 parameters that describe a boost dependent (k_o) , antisymmetric) and a boost independent ( k_e) , symmetric) anisotropy of the speed of light"

Now look at the fundamental formula : $$\frac{\delta(\nu_1(t)-\nu_2(t))}{\nu}=\frac{3}{4}k_e^{ZZ}.....$$

giving you the value of the anisotropy.

 

[OnlyMe]

...and with this, you reached the absolute bottom. Here is a tutorial on the subject, practically the same thing I told you in post 253, read the paragraph on RMS framework. Maybe this reference will cure the fringe claims, once and for all.



...and lower. Look at formula (2) : $$\frac{\delta(\nu_1(t)-\nu_2(t)}{\nu}=\frac{3}{4}k_e^{ZZ}.....$$ gives you the anisotropy.

Tach, you are claiming proof that OWLS = TWLS, and the paper you now cite begins with (middle of the first paragraph), In this paper we provide a theoretical analysis.... Someone somewhere will almost certainly write a theoretical paper on almost any subject...

But theory is more like OWLS (might be) = TWLS.

That's actually a step down from accepted assumption that the speed of light is isotropic one way.

 

[Tach]

Tach, you are claiming proof that OWLS = TWLS, and the paper you now cite begins with (middle of the first paragraph), In this paper we provide a theoretical analysis.... Someone somewhere will almost certainly write a theoretical paper on almost any subject...

But theory is more like OWLS (might be) = TWLS.

That's actually a step down from accepted assumption that the speed of light is isotropic one way.

What are you trying to say? What did you understand from the papers? What does your post have to do with Fednis48 fringe claim that " there never has been and never will be an experiment that shows OWLS is isotropic ". I am giving counter-examples to his claim.

 

[Fednis48]

...and with this, you reached the absolute bottom. Here is a tutorial on the subject, practically the same thing I told you in post 253, read the paragraph on RMS framework. Maybe this reference will cure the fringe claims, once and for all.

I looked through the first link, and found some useful description of the RMS parameters but nothing explaining how they are related to OWLS. I did notice that one of the experiments cited in that paper as constraining OWLS was listed on the "What is the experimental basis of relativity?" page you linked a while back, right under the statement that "[these tests] are inherently unable to rule out a large class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic." It sounds like there are experiments that put some constraints on OWLS anisotropy, but there are plenty of forms of OWLS anisotropy that experiments can't test for.

As for the second paper, I read though it but didn't quite get it. It sounded to me like they were talking about an experiment that actually detected anisotropy in the speed of light? If that's what they were saying, it seems like that'd be big enough news that I would have heard of it. Sorry for not being able to wrap my brain around the paper.

Of course, like I've been saying, if you would actually quote the part of a paper that proves you right instead of just dropping a link and telling me to find the arguments myself, you might have better luck.

Seriously?:

"The remaining matrices k_e and k_o contain 8 parameters that describe a boost dependent (k_o) , antisymmetric) and a boost independent ( k_e) , symmetric) anisotropy of the speed of light"

Now look at the fundamental formula : $$\frac{\delta(\nu_1(t)-\nu_2(t))}{\nu}=\frac{3}{4}k_e^{ZZ}.....$$

giving you the value of the anisotropy.

Yes, isotropy. Not "one-way isotropy", just "isotropy". As opposed to the one-way parameter that they specifically singled out as such earlier in the paragraph.

I admit, you've thrown enough papers at me that I'm starting to hit the limits of my comprehension. But what you haven't done is answered two very straightforward questions of mine that I've been posing for 4+ posts now. The Stanford page and the Minguzzi paper both say that there is a whole class of OWLS anisotropies that do not differ experimentally from SR, and they say so in words that are much clearer to a non-expert than the latest round of papers you linked to. Explain to me why both sources don't directly refute everything you've been saying.

 

[Fednis48]

Tach, you are claiming proof that OWLS = TWLS, and the paper you now cite begins with (middle of the first paragraph), In this paper we provide a theoretical analysis.... Someone somewhere will almost certainly write a theoretical paper on almost any subject...

But theory is more like OWLS (might be) = TWLS.

That's actually a step down from accepted assumption that the speed of light is isotropic one way.

I wouldn't go there if I were you. In every physics paper I've ever seen, "theoretical analysis" just means that they're applying math to existing data/theories rather than presenting new data. As far as I can tell with my limited expertise, the paper is legit, and Tach is just wrong about its conclusions.

 

[Tach]

I looked through the first link, and found some useful description of the RMS parameters but nothing explaining how they are related to OWLS. I did notice that one of the experiments cited in that paper as constraining OWLS was listed on the "What is the experimental basis of relativity?" page you linked a while back, right under the statement that "[these tests] are inherently unable to rule out a large class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic." It sounds like there are experiments that put some constraints on OWLS anisotropy, but there are plenty of forms of OWLS anisotropy that experiments can't test for.

I guess this is the closest you'll come to agreeing that you were wrong all along.

As for the second paper, I read though it but didn't quite get it. It sounded to me like they were talking about an experiment that actually detected anisotropy in the speed of light? If that's what they were saying, it seems like that'd be big enough news that I would have heard of it. Sorry for not being able to wrap my brain around the paper.

You got it wrong, they are simply telling you how they managed to put some very stringent constraints on one way light speed anisotropy. You gig is up.

 

[OnlyMe]

What are you trying to say? What did you understand from the papers? What does your post have to do with Fednis48 fringe claim that " there never has been and never will be an experiment that shows OWLS is isotropic ". I am giving counter-examples to his claim.

Tach, here is a quote from one of your early references, where they describe the resonator construction. Most of the papers do not go into as much detail, but when they say they are using optical resonators this is what they are talking about.

Rotating optical cavity experiment testing Lorentz invariance at 10^-17 level

Since the light in the cavities travels in both directions and c refers to the two-way speed of light,....

The experiment applies a pair of crossed optical high-finesse resonators implemented in a single block of fused silica (Figure 1). This spacer block is a 55 mm×55 mm×35 mm cuboid with centered perpendicular bore holes of 10 mm diameter along each axis. Four fused silica mirror substrates coated with a high-reflectivity dielectric coating at λ = 1064 nm are optically contacted to either side. The length of these two crossed optical resonators is matched to better than 2 µm.​

​

They begin by saying that light travels in both directions and that c refers to the two-way speed of light. Unless a paper specifies one-way light path, it is understood that they are talking about a two-way light path.

There is a small portion of your reference material that is directed toward testing one-way speed of light isotrophy, but most of these are all dealing with two-way light paths in the resonators.

Most of the papers you have cited are comparing the speed of light traveling two paths. Some are fixed rotating only with the earth and others physically rotate the apparatus or at least that portion containing the resonators.

This says nothing about OWLS, other than it averages out over a two way path to be equal to TWLS.

****

As a side note, I give you credit for the fact that even when discussions become somewhat "heated"(?) you don't seem to use the ignore function. The reason brucep did not respond directly to my post, is that he likely does. I did go back and add a correction and restatement of what I meant to be saying... I did not delete the offending sentence as it had already been quoted several times before I had time to address my error.

 

[Neddy Bate]

Even though all this talk of OWLS is interesting, Tach has already stipulated that OWLS=TWLS. So his claim that "RoS cannot be measured" does not rely upon the argument that OWLS might not be equal to TWLS. That is why his only refuge is to say that thought experiments do not count as real experiments. What I find most bizarre is his claim that if a thought experiment predicts RoS, then that thought experiment cannot be performed in real life. No explanation as to why not, he just says it can't be done. We are supposed to accept "So says Tach" as the explanation.

 

[Tach]

Even though all this talk of OWLS is interesting, Tach has already stipulated that OWLS=TWLS. So his claim that "RoS cannot be measured" does not rely upon the argument that OWLS might not be equal to TWLS. That is why his only refuge is to say that thought experiments do not count as real experiments. What I find most bizarre is his claim that if a thought experiment predicts RoS, then that thought experiment cannot be performed in real life. No explanation as to why not, he just says it can't be done. We are supposed to accept "So says Tach" as the explanation.

No, you are supposed to read the pages that explain why. Yet, you wouldn't do it. I wonder why.
I also wonder why you never answered why do you think that there is no RoS "test" in the list of "SR tests". Instead , you responded with a laughable attempt at measuring RoS, one that produces a zero measurement. So, I wonder why ?

 

[Neddy Bate]

No, you are supposed to read the pages that explain why. Yet, you wouldn't do it. I wonder why.
I also wonder why you never answered why do you think that there is no RoS "test" in the list of "SR tests". Instead , you responded with a laughable attempt at measuring RoS, one that produces a zero measurement. So, I wonder why ?

My "laughable" attempt at measuring RoS was just Einstein's thought experiment from chapter 9 of his 1920 book. I'm glad you admit that you think it is laughable. I will add that assessment to your earlier description that chapter 9 is "not much use" because it is "metaphysics". Welcome to the fringe, Tach!

Oh, by the way, it would not produce zero measurement. But you'd have to understand the thought experiment to know why, so that's not something I expect you to be able to do.

 

[Tach]

My "laughable" attempt at measuring RoS was just Einstein's thought experiment from chapter 9 of his 1920 book.

No, the one in the book is different (still not runnable). The one that you made up is the "eram experiment" that results into a Ros of zero.

Oh, by the way, it would not produce zero measurement. But you'd have to understand the thought experiment to know why, so that's not something I expect you to be able to do.

Actually, it does, the math is very simple, if you go back about 100 posts you'll find out why. Fednis48 had already to admit to it, a bitter pill.


So, why no physicist to date has managed to put together a "RoS test"? Eh?

 

[Neddy Bate]

I also wonder why you never answered why do you think that there is no RoS "test" in the list of "SR tests".

I don't know why no one has tried to measure it, but I am sure it is measurable. Every experiment which measures length contraction is also a measurement of RoS, because if there are events at the endpoints of the length-contracted entity, the timing of those events must be frame-dependent just as the length is. But obviously you won't understand that, considering you spent the first 5 pages of this thread arguing that Pete's experimental setup was flawed due to the fact that his clock's would not line up simultaneously in both frames.

 

[Neddy Bate]

No, the one in the book is different (still not runnable).

That's the one I suggested in post #310.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?134678-Is-relativity-of-simultaneity-measurable&p=3072640&viewfull=1#post3072640

Please tell me why the experiment described in that post is "not runnable".

The one that you made up is the "eram experiment" that results into a Ros of zero.

Eram made that one up, not me. That is why we call it the "Eram experiment". Hello?

 

[Tach]

I don't know why no one has tried to measure it, but I am sure it is measurable.

Ignorance is bliss. I am sure the Nobel Prize is yours.

Every experiment which measures length contraction is also a measurement of RoS, because if there are events at the endpoints of the length-contracted entity, the timing of those events must be frame-dependent just as the length is. But obviously you won't understand that, considering you spent the first 5 pages of this thread arguing that Pete's experimental setup was flawed due to the fact that his clock's would not line up simultaneously in both frames.

LOL, this is a new one, for sure you'll get the Nobel, not only for experiment but also for the new "theories". You must have made this up all by yourself, I take it.

 

[Fednis48]

I guess this is the closest you'll come to agreeing that you were wrong all along.

You got it wrong, they are simply telling you how they managed to put some very stringent constraints on one way light speed anisotropy. You gig is up.

You have refused to answer my question about the Stanford link six times in a row. If your strategy is to throw citations at me until I admit that I don't understand one, I have nothing further to say to you in this thread.

 

[Neddy Bate]

LOL, this is a new one, for sure you'll get the Nobel, not only for experiment but also for the new "theories". You must have made this up all by yourself, I take it.

No, Einstein made it up. It is called SR. Length contraction and RoS go hand-in-hand.