| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
08 Mar 2007 01:50:11 AM |
| Object: |
RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
Sometimes relativity educators offer courses where they stake the
survival of Einstein's theory on the claim that no signal can travel
faster than c=300000km/s. See, for instance, Problem 6 ("Train in a
tunnel"), p. 47 (solution on p. 53), in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf :
"A train and a tunnel both have have proper lengths L. The train
speeds towards the tunnel, with speed v. A bomb is located at the
front of the train. The bomb is designed to explode when the front of
the train passes the far end of the tunnel. A deactivation sensor is
located at the back of the train. When the back of the train passes
the near end of the tunnel, this sensor tells the bomb to disarm
itself. Does the bomb explode?"
If the signal can travel faster than 300000km/s we have an absurdity
that follows directly from Einstein's concept of length contraction:
the bomb does explode in the frame of the train but does not in the
frame of the tunnel. The theory of relativity would have to be
abandoned. So Einsteinians have a duty: they should explain why any of
the countless "faster than light" movements reported in the press are
unable to deactivate the bomb. Lately the situation has become quite
strange: Einsteinians constantly shock the public by publishing their
"faster than light" discoveries but on the other hand constantly
repeat divine relativity remains divine. Here is one of those
discoveries:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2000/07/20/speedlight000720.html
"Scientists have finally exceeded the speed of light, causing a light
pulse to travel hundreds of times faster than normal. It raced so fast
the pulse exited a specially-prepared chamber before it even finished
entering it. The experiment is the first-ever evidence of faster-than-
light motion."
So what would prevent an equivalent pulse sent by the deactivation
sensor from "exiting", that is, deactivating, the bomb?
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
08 Mar 2007 09:10:46 AM |
|
|
So what would prevent an equivalent pulse sent by the deactivation
sensor from "exiting", that is, deactivating, the bomb?
How/when the deactiviting sensor will know when to send out the
deactivating signal?
It can not send it out as it coincides with the tunnel because such
GroupVelocity-SLS signals need to be sent prior to the event.
The signal reaching the bomb was at the bomb'slocation all the time.
It just manifested itself "suddenly" (when all signals became in
phase).
See http://webphysics.davidson.edu/applets/Superposition/GroupVelocity.html
under nonlineal dispersion. Have fun changing the values of the
functions to make the group speed even faster!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
08 Mar 2007 03:05:33 AM |
|
|
On Mar 7, 10:50 pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
So what would prevent an equivalent pulse sent by the deactivation
sensor from "exiting", that is, deactivating, the bomb?
Understanding the difference between phase velocity and group velocity
would be an excellent step towards answering that question.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
08 Mar 2007 03:17:31 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:50 pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
So what would prevent an equivalent pulse sent by the deactivation
sensor from "exiting", that is, deactivating, the bomb?
Understanding the difference between phase velocity and group velocity
would be an excellent step towards answering that question.
Bravo! Ask one of your masters (e.g. Master Tom Roberts) about the
next step.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
08 Mar 2007 05:59:25 AM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173345451.541829.128650@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:50 pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
So what would prevent an equivalent pulse sent by the deactivation
sensor from "exiting", that is, deactivating, the bomb?
Understanding the difference between phase velocity and group velocity
would be an excellent step towards answering that question.
Bravo! Ask one of your masters (e.g. Master Tom Roberts) about the
next step.
Pentcho Valev
The article says nothing of mass can ever travel faster the speed of
light. But mass will beat the time of the observation of it, from any
distance, to any point. Mass will get there first. It will arrive at some
point, then in some slight to long time afterward the observation will be
made of the arrival. Mass will always beat observation of arrival to any
destination. Always! Observation will always be behind in time. Nothing of
mass can travel slower than observation.
I may have just discovered the slowest zero mass thing in all the
Universe, "observation."
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
08 Mar 2007 06:11:23 AM |
|
|
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:S_-dnZ7SI5gBZ3LYnZ2dnUVZ_oernZ2d@insightbb.com...
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173345451.541829.128650@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:50 pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
So what would prevent an equivalent pulse sent by the deactivation
sensor from "exiting", that is, deactivating, the bomb?
Understanding the difference between phase velocity and group velocity
would be an excellent step towards answering that question.
Bravo! Ask one of your masters (e.g. Master Tom Roberts) about the
next step.
Pentcho Valev
The article says nothing of mass can ever travel faster the speed of
light. But mass will beat the time of the observation of it, from any
distance, to any point. Mass will get there first. It will arrive at some
point, then in some slight to long time afterward the observation will be
made of the arrival. Mass will always beat observation of arrival to any
destination. Always! Observation will always be behind in time. Nothing of
mass can travel slower than observation.
I may have just discovered the slowest zero mass thing in all the
Universe, "observation."
GLB
*Correction* Not just slowest zero mass thing, but slowest thing in all
the Universe, period! "Observation"!
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
08 Mar 2007 07:24:20 AM |
|
|
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:O4ednah_Cb_3YHLYnZ2dnUVZ_rylnZ2d@insightbb.com...
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:S_-dnZ7SI5gBZ3LYnZ2dnUVZ_oernZ2d@insightbb.com...
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173345451.541829.128650@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:50 pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
So what would prevent an equivalent pulse sent by the deactivation
sensor from "exiting", that is, deactivating, the bomb?
Understanding the difference between phase velocity and group velocity
would be an excellent step towards answering that question.
Bravo! Ask one of your masters (e.g. Master Tom Roberts) about the
next step.
Pentcho Valev
The article says nothing of mass can ever travel faster the speed of
light. But mass will beat the time of the observation of it, from any
distance, to any point. Mass will get there first. It will arrive at some
point, then in some slight to long time afterward the observation will be
made of the arrival. Mass will always beat observation of arrival to any
destination. Always! Observation will always be behind in time. Nothing
of mass can travel slower than observation.
I may have just discovered the slowest zero mass thing in all the
Universe, "observation."
GLB
*Correction* Not just slowest zero mass thing, but slowest thing in all
the Universe, period! "Observation"!
GLB
Geez! It is what I've said all along. 1) Mass will always beat light's
propagation to the point of propagation! 2) Propagation of light
instantaneous with causing event will always beat observation of event to
the punch! 3) Observation will always be the hindmost of all in space and
time; mass always the foremost. Again, it's what I've been saying all along.
GLB
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
08 Mar 2007 05:11:55 AM |
|
|
On Mar 8, 12:17 am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:50 pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
So what would prevent an equivalent pulse sent by the deactivation
sensor from "exiting", that is, deactivating, the bomb?
Understanding the difference between phase velocity and group velocity
would be an excellent step towards answering that question.
Bravo! Ask one of your masters (e.g. Master Tom Roberts) about the
next step.
There is no next step if you actually understand the difference.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
08 Mar 2007 04:32:31 AM |
|
|
On Mar 8, 1:17 am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:50 pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
So what would prevent an equivalent pulse sent by the deactivation
sensor from "exiting", that is, deactivating, the bomb?
Understanding the difference between phase velocity and group velocity
would be an excellent step towards answering that question.
Bravo! Ask one of your masters (e.g. Master Tom Roberts) about the
next step.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000610/fob7.asp
Scissors-closing and pulse twanging. You fell for popularized smoke
and mirrors yet again.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Seven Seas Oscirius" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
08 Mar 2007 05:38:30 AM |
|
|
On Mar 8, 1:05 am, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:50 pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
So what would prevent an equivalent pulse sent by the deactivation
sensor from "exiting", that is, deactivating, the bomb?
Understanding the difference between phase velocity and group velocity
would be an excellent step towards answering that question.
Same old stuff, huh?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
08 Mar 2007 07:10:55 AM |
|
|
On Mar 8, 4:05 am, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:50 pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
So what would prevent an equivalent pulse sent by the deactivation
sensor from "exiting", that is, deactivating, the bomb?
Understanding the difference between phase velocity and group velocity
would be an excellent step towards answering that question.
Actually, these experiments show both phase and group velocity can
exceed c.
Here is the currently accepted interpretation of these experiments,
which explains it without true superluminal signaling:
May 30, 2000
Light Exceeds Its Own Speed Limit, or Does It?
By JAMES GLANZ
"As most physicists interpret the experiment, it is a low-intensity
precursor (sometimes called a tail, even when it comes first) of the
incoming wave that clues the cesium chamber to the imminent arrival of
a pulse. In a process whose details are poorly understood, but whose
effect in Dr. Wang's experiment is striking, the cesium chamber
reconstructs the entire pulse solely from information contained in the
shape and size of the tail, and spits the pulse out early.
"If the side of the chamber facing the incoming wave is called the
near side, and the other the far side, the sequence of events is
something like the following. The incoming wave, its tail extending
ahead of it, approaches the chamber. Before the incoming wave's peak
gets to the near side of the chamber, a complete pulse is emitted from
the far side, along with a backward wave inside the chamber that moves
from the far to the near side."
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/053000sci-physics-light.html
However, it has been known since at least the 1930's with the
publication of the German edition of Reichenbach's _The Philosophy of
Space and Time_ that even true superluminal signaling need not require
causality violations. This is because, as Reichenbach noted, it is a
matter of convention that the *one-way* speed of light is a constant
c. The experimental results of relativity may just as well be
explained by assuming the speed of light is slowed in one direction
and correspondingly speeded-up in the other so that the average speed
is c. There have been no one-way measurements of the speed of light.
All experimental confirmations that light travels at c have been round
trip measurements.
Superluminal speeds would not require signaling back in time, but
they would require a preferred frame. This is well known among
researchers on the foundations of relativity but does not seem to have
filtered down among physicists in general.
In my opinion Reichenbach's book should be required reading for any
scientist doing research that test's the validity of relativity.
Some articles discussing the fact that the constancy of the one-way
speed of light is a convention are:
Conventionality of Simultaneity
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/
The Speed of Light - A Limit on Principle?
http://homepage.sunrise.ch/homepage/schatzer/space-time.html
Relativizing Relativity
http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/~svozil/publ/relrel.htm
Bob Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
08 Mar 2007 08:58:39 AM |
|
|
gets to the near side of the chamber, a complete pulse is emitted from
the far side, along with a backward wave inside the chamber that moves
from the far to the near
That is only one version of the experiment(s) and explanations. There
is also the case where the pulse INSIDE the chamber moves along in the
forward direction. When this pulse reaches the far side, a pulse
"exits" the chamber. Everything remains in the forward direction. That
is concluded by the interference equations (group speed) and even
simulations. However, since the time of exit empirically gives a
value less than its entrance, for some reason, they *say* that the
pulse travels in the backwards direction.
However, it has been known since at least the 1930's with the
publication of the German edition of Reichenbach's _The Philosophy of
Space and Time_ that even true superluminal signaling need not require
causality violations. This is because, as Reichenbach noted, it is a
matter of convention that the *one-way* speed of light is a constant
c. The experimental results of relativity may just as well be
explained by assuming the speed of light is slowed in one direction
and correspondingly speeded-up in the other so that the average speed
is c. There have been no one-way measurements of the speed of light.
All experimental confirmations that light travels at c have been round
trip measurements.
Superluminal speeds would not require signaling back in time, but
they would require a preferred frame. This is well known among
researchers on the foundations of relativity but does not seem to have
filtered down among physicists in general.
Correct on all that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
08 Mar 2007 09:45:02 AM |
|
|
On Mar 8, 6:58 am, "rot...@gmail.com" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
gets to the near side of the chamber, a complete pulse is emitted from
the far side, along with a backward wave inside the chamber that moves
from the far to the near
That is only one version of the experiment(s) and explanations. There
is also the case where the pulse INSIDE the chamber moves along in the
forward direction. When this pulse reaches the far side, a pulse
"exits" the chamber. Everything remains in the forward direction. That
is concluded by the interference equations (group speed) and even
simulations. However, since the time of exit empirically gives a
value less than its entrance, for some reason, they *say* that the
pulse travels in the backwards direction.
However, it has been known since at least the 1930's with the
publication of the German edition of Reichenbach's _The Philosophy of
Space and Time_ that even true superluminal signaling need not require
causality violations. This is because, as Reichenbach noted, it is a
matter of convention that the *one-way* speed of light is a constant
c. The experimental results of relativity may just as well be
explained by assuming the speed of light is slowed in one direction
and correspondingly speeded-up in the other so that the average speed
is c. There have been no one-way measurements of the speed of light.
All experimental confirmations that light travels at c have been round
trip measurements.
Superluminal speeds would not require signaling back in time, but
they would require a preferred frame. This is well known among
researchers on the foundations of relativity but does not seem to have
filtered down among physicists in general.
Correct on all that.
Nonsense, there are plenty of experiments that have shown that there
is no one way light speed anisotropy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
08 Mar 2007 11:43:13 AM |
|
|
On Mar 8, 10:45 am, wrote:
On Mar 8, 6:58 am, "rot...@gmail.com" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
gets to the near side of the chamber, a complete pulse is emitted from
the far side, along with a backward wave inside the chamber that moves
from the far to the near
That is only one version of the experiment(s) and explanations. There
is also the case where the pulse INSIDE the chamber moves along in the
forward direction. When this pulse reaches the far side, a pulse
"exits" the chamber. Everything remains in the forward direction. That
is concluded by the interference equations (group speed) and even
simulations. However, since the time of exit empirically gives a
value less than its entrance, for some reason, they *say* that the
pulse travels in the backwards direction.
However, it has been known since at least the 1930's with the
publication of the German edition of Reichenbach's _The Philosophy of
Space and Time_ that even true superluminal signaling need not require
causality violations. This is because, as Reichenbach noted, it is a
matter of convention that the *one-way* speed of light is a constant
c. The experimental results of relativity may just as well be
explained by assuming the speed of light is slowed in one direction
and correspondingly speeded-up in the other so that the average speed
is c. There have been no one-way measurements of the speed of light.
All experimental confirmations that light travels at c have been round
trip measurements.
Superluminal speeds would not require signaling back in time, but
they would require a preferred frame. This is well known among
researchers on the foundations of relativity but does not seem to have
filtered down among physicists in general.
Correct on all that.
Nonsense, there are plenty of experiments that have shown that there
is no one way light speed anisotropy.
A good online explanation of this fact is here:
Conventionality of Simultaneity
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/
See the references at the end for a more detailed examination.
The basic idea is that to measure one-way light speed you have to
make sure your clocks at the start and at the end are synchronized so
that you can tell how long it took for the light ray to traverse the
distance.
But how do you know when the two separated clocks are synchronized?
The method Einstein suggested and has been followed since by
researchers measuring light speed is to send light rays midway between
them in opposite directions and start the clocks when the light rays
hit them and *assume* the speed of light is the same in both
directions.
Or you could dispense with the need to synchronize separated clocks
by just reflecting the light ray back to the origin point and
measuring only the round trip speed.
As discussed in that reference, all the experimental results of
relativity would still be satisfied if in fact light travels faster
than c in one direction and slower than c in the reverse direction so
that only the average round trip speed is c.
Bob Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
09 Mar 2007 07:31:09 AM |
|
|
<rgregoryclark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173375793.423592.206590@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 8, 10:45 am, wrote:
On Mar 8, 6:58 am, "rot...@gmail.com" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
gets to the near side of the chamber, a complete pulse is emitted
from
the far side, along with a backward wave inside the chamber that
moves
from the far to the near
That is only one version of the experiment(s) and explanations. There
is also the case where the pulse INSIDE the chamber moves along in the
forward direction. When this pulse reaches the far side, a pulse
"exits" the chamber. Everything remains in the forward direction. That
is concluded by the interference equations (group speed) and even
simulations. However, since the time of exit empirically gives a
value less than its entrance, for some reason, they *say* that the
pulse travels in the backwards direction.
However, it has been known since at least the 1930's with the
publication of the German edition of Reichenbach's _The Philosophy
of
Space and Time_ that even true superluminal signaling need not
require
causality violations. This is because, as Reichenbach noted, it is a
matter of convention that the *one-way* speed of light is a constant
c. The experimental results of relativity may just as well be
explained by assuming the speed of light is slowed in one direction
and correspondingly speeded-up in the other so that the average
speed
is c. There have been no one-way measurements of the speed of light.
All experimental confirmations that light travels at c have been
round
trip measurements.
Superluminal speeds would not require signaling back in time, but
they would require a preferred frame. This is well known among
researchers on the foundations of relativity but does not seem to
have
filtered down among physicists in general.
Correct on all that.
Nonsense, there are plenty of experiments that have shown that there
is no one way light speed anisotropy.
A good online explanation of this fact is here:
Conventionality of Simultaneity
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/
See the references at the end for a more detailed examination.
The basic idea is that to measure one-way light speed you have to
make sure your clocks at the start and at the end are synchronized so
that you can tell how long it took for the light ray to traverse the
distance.
But how do you know when the two separated clocks are synchronized?
The method Einstein suggested and has been followed since by
researchers measuring light speed is to send light rays midway between
them in opposite directions and start the clocks when the light rays
hit them and *assume* the speed of light is the same in both
directions.
This procedure already assumes the isotropy of the speed of light. A better
procedure is as follows:
1. Clocks A and B are synchronized and are side by side.
2. Move A and B with the same slow velocity simultaneously in the opposite
directions.
3. Stop A and B simultaneously.
4. According to SR and ether theories, A and B will remain synchronized.
The above procedure is described in details in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Or you could dispense with the need to synchronize separated clocks
by just reflecting the light ray back to the origin point and
measuring only the round trip speed.
As discussed in that reference, all the experimental results of
relativity would still be satisfied if in fact light travels faster
than c in one direction and slower than c in the reverse direction so
that only the average round trip speed is c.
The proposed experiments in the following link will definitely confirm or
refute the validity of the assumption that one-way isotropy and two-way
isotropy means that one-way speed and two-way speed have the same value c.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
Bob Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
09 Mar 2007 08:59:26 AM |
|
|
This procedure already assumes the isotropy of the speed of light. A better
procedure is as follows:
1. Clocks A and B are synchronized and are side by side.
2. Move A and B with the same slow velocity simultaneously in the opposite
directions.
3. Stop A and B simultaneously.
4. According to SR and ether theories, A and B will remain synchronized.
Just to point ou, yes, accoding to SR and ether theories, A and B will
remain EINSTEIN synchronized. They will not remain absolutely synch
(in the ehter sense).
That procedure will not permit to verify anisotropy of light.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
09 Mar 2007 12:53:16 PM |
|
|
<rotchm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173452365.913115.195300@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
This procedure already assumes the isotropy of the speed of light. A
better
procedure is as follows:
1. Clocks A and B are synchronized and are side by side.
2. Move A and B with the same slow velocity simultaneously in the
opposite
directions.
3. Stop A and B simultaneously.
4. According to SR and ether theories, A and B will remain synchronized.
Just to point ou, yes, accoding to SR and ether theories, A and B will
remain EINSTEIN synchronized. They will not remain absolutely synch
(in the ehter sense).
That procedure will not permit to verify anisotropy of light.
You are wrong. They will remain absolutely synched......they will run at the
same rate and no difference in elapsed time will be shown when they are
brought together simultaneously again. This is not designed to show
anisotropy. It is designed to measure the one-way speed of light directly
without the current assumption that one-way isotropy is the same as two-way
isotropy and thus one-way speed of light is the same as two-way speed of
light c.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
09 Mar 2007 06:39:07 PM |
|
|
You are wrong. They will remain absolutely synched......
No they wont.
they will run at the
same rate and no difference in elapsed time
No they wont. Your two clocks have different speeds within the ether
frame, thus the two clocks do not run at the same rate, no?
1. Clocks A and B are synchronized and are side by side.
Ok.
2. Move A and B with the same slow velocity simultaneously in the opposite
directions.
Slow or not is irrelevant. Use "v". Do not use "slow" and do not
approximate equations.
You say "same velocity". How to you make sure that they have a same
velocity? You mean "measured velocity"?
3. Stop A and B simultaneously.
The word "simultaneously" means simultaneous in the einstein sense, as
used in physics. Is it that what you really mean? And simultaneous wrt
which frame?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
10 Mar 2007 07:08:48 AM |
|
|
<rotchm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173487147.450569.212580@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
You are wrong. They will remain absolutely synched......
No they wont.
they will run at the
same rate and no difference in elapsed time
No they wont. Your two clocks have different speeds within the ether
frame, thus the two clocks do not run at the same rate, no?
Yes they will.....if there is no difference in elapsed time between the two
clocks when they are rejoined then they are running at the same rate when
they are apart.
1. Clocks A and B are synchronized and are side by side.
Ok.
2. Move A and B with the same slow velocity simultaneously in the
opposite
directions.
Slow or not is irrelevant. Use "v". Do not use "slow" and do not
approximate equations.
You say "same velocity". How to you make sure that they have a same
velocity? You mean "measured velocity"?
3. Stop A and B simultaneously.
The word "simultaneously" means simultaneous in the einstein sense, as
used in physics. Is it that what you really mean? And simultaneous wrt
which frame?
Your questions are answered by reading the procedure described in the
following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "herbzet" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
11 Mar 2007 12:19:44 AM |
|
|
"rotchm@gmail.com" wrote:
You are wrong. They will remain absolutely synched......
No they wont.
they will run at the
same rate and no difference in elapsed time
No they wont. Your two clocks have different speeds within the ether
frame, thus the two clocks do not run at the same rate, no?
1. Clocks A and B are synchronized and are side by side.
Ok.
2. Move A and B with the same slow velocity simultaneously in the opposite
directions.
Slow or not is irrelevant. Use "v". Do not use "slow" and do not
approximate equations.
You say "same velocity". How to you make sure that they have a same
velocity? You mean "measured velocity"?
You have a measured course of 7200 feet -- 3600 to the
east and 3600 to the west, with a hash mark at each foot.
When the side by side clocks show noon, you move them east and west at
a rate of one foot per tick (per second) of the clock itself. When
each clock says one o'clock, you stop
moving it.
Unfortunately, if you want to measure the speed of light with
these two clocks thus "synchronized", it seems that you have
assumed an isotropy of time dilation (or lack of time dilation)
already.
3. Stop A and B simultaneously.
The word "simultaneously" means simultaneous in the einstein sense, as
used in physics. Is it that what you really mean? And simultaneous wrt
which frame?
--
hz
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
11 Mar 2007 10:22:55 AM |
|
|
You say "same velocity". How to you make sure that they have a same
velocity? You mean "measured velocity"?
You have a measured course of 7200 feet -- 3600 to the
east and 3600 to the west, with a hash mark at each foot.
When the side by side clocks show noon, you move them east and west at
a rate of one foot per tick (per second) of the clock itself. When
each clock says one o'clock, you stop
moving it.
Ok. That procedure assures that wrt ground frame, the *measured*
speeds of the clocks are the same. Therefore, these two clocks will
have a different "real" speed in the ether frame and thus 'tick' at
different rates. These different speeds, 'ticking' and length
contraction once again conspires to make that setup to produce
Einstein synch wrt the "ground" frame. It produces e-synch, not abs
synch.
.
|
|
|
| User: "herbzet" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
12 Mar 2007 10:49:13 PM |
|
|
"rotchm@gmail.com" wrote:
You say "same velocity". How to you make sure that they have a same
velocity? You mean "measured velocity"?
You have a measured course of 7200 feet -- 3600 to the
east and 3600 to the west, with a hash mark at each foot.
When the side by side clocks show noon, you move them east and west at
a rate of one foot per tick (per second) of the clock itself. When
each clock says one o'clock, you stop
moving it.
Ok. That procedure assures that wrt ground frame, the *measured*
speeds of the clocks are the same. Therefore, these two clocks will
have a different "real" speed in the ether frame and thus 'tick' at
different rates. These different speeds, 'ticking' and length
contraction once again conspires to make that setup to produce
Einstein synch wrt the "ground" frame. It produces e-synch, not abs
synch.
OK. I'm not an expert at this, but I think Einstein's point
was that defining "simultaneity" in a usable, operational sense
is, necessarily, stipulative.
--
hz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
09 Mar 2007 02:38:41 AM |
|
|
<rgregoryclark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173375793.423592.206590@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 8, 10:45 am, wrote:
On Mar 8, 6:58 am, "rot...@gmail.com" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
gets to the near side of the chamber, a complete pulse is emitted
from
the far side, along with a backward wave inside the chamber that
moves
from the far to the near
That is only one version of the experiment(s) and explanations. There
is also the case where the pulse INSIDE the chamber moves along in the
forward direction. When this pulse reaches the far side, a pulse
"exits" the chamber. Everything remains in the forward direction. That
is concluded by the interference equations (group speed) and even
simulations. However, since the time of exit empirically gives a
value less than its entrance, for some reason, they *say* that the
pulse travels in the backwards direction.
However, it has been known since at least the 1930's with the
publication of the German edition of Reichenbach's _The Philosophy of
Space and Time_ that even true superluminal signaling need not
require
causality violations. This is because, as Reichenbach noted, it is a
matter of convention that the *one-way* speed of light is a constant
c. The experimental results of relativity may just as well be
explained by assuming the speed of light is slowed in one direction
and correspondingly speeded-up in the other so that the average speed
is c. There have been no one-way measurements of the speed of light.
All experimental confirmations that light travels at c have been
round
trip measurements.
Superluminal speeds would not require signaling back in time, but
they would require a preferred frame. This is well known among
researchers on the foundations of relativity but does not seem to
have
filtered down among physicists in general.
Correct on all that.
Nonsense, there are plenty of experiments that have shown that there
is no one way light speed anisotropy.
A good online explanation of this fact is here:
Conventionality of Simultaneity
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/
See the references at the end for a more detailed examination.
The basic idea is that to measure one-way light speed you have to
make sure your clocks at the start and at the end are synchronized so
that you can tell how long it took for the light ray to traverse the
distance.
But how do you know when the two separated clocks are synchronized?
The method Einstein suggested and has been followed since by
researchers measuring light speed is to send light rays midway between
them in opposite directions and start the clocks when the light rays
hit them and *assume* the speed of light is the same in both
directions.
Or you could dispense with the need to synchronize separated clocks
by just reflecting the light ray back to the origin point and
measuring only the round trip speed.
As discussed in that reference, all the experimental results of
relativity would still be satisfied if in fact light travels faster
than c in one direction and slower than c in the reverse direction so
that only the average round trip speed is c.
Bob Clark
No, it will be c in both directions. This measurement is not actually in
our measuring equipment but within the message / messenger itself. As I read
somewhere, supposed to have come from some experimenter, each particle of
light seems to "know" its light-time distance in a precisely straight line
from point of propagation. I've assumed that the knowledge would not be
knowledge as we know it of course, but knowledge as a continuous gain in
message periphery by light over any distance of space. The space per time
gain always equating to c.
GLB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
08 Mar 2007 12:18:04 PM |
|
|
On Mar 8, 9:43 am, "rgregorycl...@yahoo.com" <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Mar 8, 10:45 am, wrote:
On Mar 8, 6:58 am, "rot...@gmail.com" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
gets to the near side of the chamber, a complete pulse is emitted from
the far side, along with a backward wave inside the chamber that moves
from the far to the near
That is only one version of the experiment(s) and explanations. There
is also the case where the pulse INSIDE the chamber moves along in the
forward direction. When this pulse reaches the far side, a pulse
"exits" the chamber. Everything remains in the forward direction. That
is concluded by the interference equations (group speed) and even
simulations. However, since the time of exit empirically gives a
value less than its entrance, for some reason, they *say* that the
pulse travels in the backwards direction.
However, it has been known since at least the 1930's with the
publication of the German edition of Reichenbach's _The Philosophy of
Space and Time_ that even true superluminal signaling need not require
causality violations. This is because, as Reichenbach noted, it is a
matter of convention that the *one-way* speed of light is a constant
c. The experimental results of relativity may just as well be
explained by assuming the speed of light is slowed in one direction
and correspondingly speeded-up in the other so that the average speed
is c. There have been no one-way measurements of the speed of light.
All experimental confirmations that light travels at c have been round
trip measurements.
Superluminal speeds would not require signaling back in time, but
they would require a preferred frame. This is well known among
researchers on the foundations of relativity but does not seem to have
filtered down among physicists in general.
Correct on all that.
Nonsense, there are plenty of experiments that have shown that there
is no one way light speed anisotropy.
A good online explanation of this fact is here:
Conventionality of Simultaneityhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/
See the references at the end for a more detailed examination.
The basic idea is that to measure one-way light speed you have to
make sure your clocks at the start and at the end are synchronized so
that you can tell how long it took for the light ray to traverse the
distance.
But how do you know when the two separated clocks are synchronized?
The method Einstein suggested and has been followed since by
researchers measuring light speed is to send light rays midway between
them in opposite directions and start the clocks when the light rays
hit them and *assume* the speed of light is the same in both
directions.
Or you could dispense with the need to synchronize separated clocks
by just reflecting the light ray back to the origin point and
measuring only the round trip speed.
As discussed in that reference, all the experimental results of
relativity would still be satisfied if in fact light travels faster
than c in one direction and slower than c in the reverse direction so
that only the average round trip speed is c.
Bob Clark
The experiments measure one way light speed anisotropy, not one way
light speed. Capisci?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
13 Mar 2007 12:29:03 PM |
|
|
On Mar 8, 2:18 pm, wrote:
...
Nonsense, there are plenty of experiments that have shown that there
is no one way light speed anisotropy.
A good online explanation of this fact is here:
Conventionality of Simultaneityhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/
See the references at the end for a more detailed examination.
The basic idea is that to measure one-way light speed you have to
make sure your clocks at the start and at the end are synchronized so
that you can tell how long it took for the light ray to traverse the
distance.
But how do you know when the two separated clocks are synchronized?
The method Einstein suggested and has been followed since by
researchers measuring light speed is to send light rays midway between
them in opposite directions and start the clocks when the light rays
hit them and *assume* the speed of light is the same in both
directions.
Or you could dispense with the need to synchronize separated clocks
by just reflecting the light ray back to the origin point and
measuring only theroundtripspeed.
As discussed in that reference, all the experimental results of
relativity would still be satisfied if in fact light travels faster
than c in one direction and slower than c in the reverse direction so
that only the averageroundtripspeed is c.
Bob Clark
The experiments measure one way light speed anisotropy, not one way
light speed. Capisci?
Here's an entry from the Physics faq written by Tom Roberts, a
frequent contributor to this group:
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
"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").
Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), p821.
Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for
variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated.
Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s.
Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pp. 731-734, (1990).
Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the earth and separated by a 21 km
fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between them.
They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100 m/s.
Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.
Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583 (1965).
Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to place an
upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s.
Turner and Hill, Phys. Rev. 134 (1964), B252.
Uses a rotating source and fixed Moessbauer detector to place an upper
limit on any one-way anisotropy of 10 m/s.
Gagnon, Torr, Kolen, and Chang, Phys. Rev. A38 no. 4 (1988), p1767.
A guided-wave test of isotropy. Their null result is consistent with
SR."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way%20tests
Bob Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
13 Mar 2007 03:58:47 PM |
|
|
On Mar 13, 10:29 am, "rgregorycl...@yahoo.com"
<rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 8, 2:18 pm, wrote:
...
Nonsense, there are plenty of experiments that have shown that there
is no one way light speed anisotropy.
A good online explanation of this fact is here:
Conventionality of Simultaneityhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/
See the references at the end for a more detailed examination.
The basic idea is that to measure one-way light speed you have to
make sure your clocks at the start and at the end are synchronized so
that you can tell how long it took for the light ray to traverse the
distance.
But how do you know when the two separated clocks are synchronized?
The method Einstein suggested and has been followed since by
researchers measuring light speed is to send light rays midway between
them in opposite directions and start the clocks when the light rays
hit them and *assume* the speed of light is the same in both
directions.
Or you could dispense with the need to synchronize separated clocks
by just reflecting the light ray back to the origin point and
measuring only theroundtripspeed.
As discussed in that reference, all the experimental results of
relativity would still be satisfied if in fact light travels faster
than c in one direction and slower than c in the reverse direction so
that only the averageroundtripspeed is c.
Bob Clark
The experiments measure one way light speed anisotropy, not one way
light speed. Capisci?
Here's an entry from the Physics faq written by Tom Roberts, a
frequent contributor to this group:
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
"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.
Yes, I know, I talked with Tom, this statement is wrong but he never
got around to edit the website and correct it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
14 Mar 2007 12:41:58 PM |
|
|
On Mar 13, 4:58 pm, wrote:
...
The experiments measure one way light speed anisotropy, not one way
light speed. Capisci?
Here's an entry from the Physics faq written by Tom Roberts, a
frequent contributor to this group:
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
"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.
Yes, I know, I talked with Tom, this statement is wrong but he never
got around to edit the website and correct it.
Here are some posts by Roberts from August and September of last year
where he says the same thing as in the faq:
******************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:59:45 GMT
Local: Thurs, Aug 31 2006 2:59 pm
Subject: Re: What become the LT transforms if the speed of light
depends on the observers' velocity ?
rambus2...@yahoo.com wrote:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Rambus2005, are you claiming that the relations
5) x' = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) * (x - vt)
6) t' = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) * t
are experimentally refuted?
I am also saying is that you got the Tangherlini transforms. They are
the basis of one of the many "aether" theories that claim absolute
simultaneity. Only to be refuted by experiments
Hmmm. Those are NOT the Tangherlini transforms, which are:
x' = g * (x - v*t)
t' = t / g
g = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
The Tangherlini transforms are experimentally indistinguishable from
SR
and have never been refuted within their domain of applicability.
Luttgens's transforms above have the wrong multiplier for x' and are
solidly refuted experimentally.
In essence the Tangherlini transforms differ from SR only in the way
coordinate clocks are synchronized. But physical phenomena are
completely independent of coordinates, and also completely
independent
of how one might choose to synchronize clocks. So it's no surprise
these
transforms are experimentally indistinguishable from those of SR.
There is a large class of ether theories that are experimentally
indistinguishable from SR, and none are refuted. They are also
useless,
more difficult to use, and with few exceptions have no sensible
theoretical foundation. Their basic characteristic is that the
round-trip speed of light is isotropically c in every inertial frame,
but the one-way speed of light can be anisotropic in moving frames;
the
theories differ in how this anisotropy is parameterized. I posted 3
articles on this to this newsgroup in 1999-2000; google the subject
"theories equivalent to SR" (plus the 2 other titles given in its
intro).
Tom Roberts
*****************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:17:40 GMT
Local: Fri, Sep 1 2006 1:17 pm
Subject: Re: What become the LT transforms if the speed of light
depends on the observers' velocity ?
rambus2...@yahoo.com wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
There is a large class of ether theories that are experimentally
indistinguishable from SR, and none are refuted. They are also useless,
more difficult to use, and with few exceptions have no sensible
theoretical foundation. Their basic characteristic is that the
round-trip speed of light is isotropically c in every inertial frame,
but the one-way speed of light can be anisotropic in moving frames; the
theories differ in how this anisotropy is parameterized. I posted 3
articles on this to this newsgroup in 1999-2000; google the subject
"theories equivalent to SR" (plus the 2 other titles given in its intro).
Ah, please stop saying this. All these theories require additional
ad-hoc assumptions in order to make them "indistinguishable" from SR.
No, they don't. They require no more assumptions than SR. Clock
synchronization is all that is different from SR. However for all but
SR
and LET the synchronization method is quite weird....
I do not claim these other theories are useful or sensible, but they
do
serve to point out that there are viable theories other than SR.
Tom Roberts
****************************************************
Bob Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
14 Mar 2007 01:08:27 PM |
|
|
On Mar 14, 10:41 am, "rgregorycl...@yahoo.com"
<rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 13, 4:58 pm, wrote:
...
The experiments measure one way light speed anisotropy, not one way
light speed. Capisci?
Here's an entry from the Physics faq written by Tom Roberts, a
frequent contributor to this group:
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
"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.
Yes, I know, I talked with Tom, this statement is wrong but he never
got around to edit the website and correct it.
Here are some posts by Roberts from August and September of last year
where he says the same thing as in the faq:
******************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:59:45 GMT
Local: Thurs, Aug 31 2006 2:59 pm
Subject: Re: What become the LT transforms if the speed of light
depends on the observers' velocity ?
rambus2...@yahoo.com wrote:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Rambus2005, are you claiming that the relations
5) x' = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) * (x - vt)
6) t' = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) * t
are experimentally refuted?
I am also saying is that you got the Tangherlini transforms. They are
the basis of one of the many "aether" theories that claim absolute
simultaneity. Only to be refuted by experiments
Hmmm. Those are NOT the Tangherlini transforms, which are:
x' = g * (x - v*t)
t' = t / g
g = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
The Tangherlini transforms are experimentally indistinguishable from
SR
and have never been refuted within their domain of applicability.
Luttgens's transforms above have the wrong multiplier for x' and are
solidly refuted experimentally.
In essence the Tangherlini transforms differ from SR only in the way
coordinate clocks are synchronized. But physical phenomena are
completely independent of coordinates, and also completely
independent
of how one might choose to synchronize clocks. So it's no surprise
these
transforms are experimentally indistinguishable from those of SR.
There is a large class of ether theories that are experimentally
indistinguishable from SR, and none are refuted. They are also
useless,
more difficult to use, and with few exceptions have no sensible
theoretical foundation. Their basic characteristic is that the
round-trip speed of light is isotropically c in every inertial frame,
but the one-way speed of light can be anisotropic in moving frames;
the
theories differ in how this anisotropy is parameterized. I posted 3
articles on this to this newsgroup in 1999-2000; google the subject
"theories equivalent to SR" (plus the 2 other titles given in its
intro).
Tom Roberts
*****************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:17:40 GMT
Local: Fri, Sep 1 2006 1:17 pm
Subject: Re: What become the LT transforms if the speed of light
depends on the observers' velocity ?
rambus2...@yahoo.com wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
There is a large class of ether theories that are experimentally
indistinguishable from SR, and none are refuted. They are also useless,
more difficult to use, and with few exceptions have no sensible
theoretical foundation. Their basic characteristic is that the
round-trip speed of light is isotropically c in every inertial frame,
but the one-way speed of light can be anisotropic in moving frames; the
theories differ in how this anisotropy is parameterized. I posted 3
articles on this to this newsgroup in 1999-2000; google the subject
"theories equivalent to SR" (plus the 2 other titles given in its intro).
Ah, please stop saying this. All these theories require additional
ad-hoc assumptions in order to make them "indistinguishable" from SR.
No, they don't. They require no more assumptions than SR. Clock
synchronization is all that is different from SR. However for all but
SR
and LET the synchronization method is quite weird....
I do not claim these other theories are useful or sensible, but they
do
serve to point out that there are viable theories other than SR.
Tom Roberts
****************************************************
Bob Clark
I didn't have time to read all the above exchange but I can tell you
for a fact that the "alternative" theories (with the exception of LET
which is nothing but SR) produce different results from SR for several
experiments (Ives-Stilwell, MMX in a refractive medium). So you quote
from Zhang picked up by Tom is wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
15 Mar 2007 09:15:04 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mar 14, 10:41 am, "rgregorycl...@yahoo.com"
<rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
I didn't have time to read all the above exchange but I can tell you
for a fact that the "alternative" theories (with the exception of LET
which is nothing but SR) produce different results from SR for several
experiments (Ives-Stilwell, MMX in a refractive medium).
This is not true, for the alternative theories I discuss. These theories
are members of an equivalence class in that they are all experimentally
indistinguishable from SR. This class includes SR, LET, the Tangherlini
transforms, and an infinite set of other transforms. They all share the
property that the round-trip vacuum speed of light is isotropically c in
every inertial frame, but they differ in the anisotropy of the one-way
speed of light measured with coordinate clocks.
So you quote
from Zhang picked up by Tom is wrong.
I don't know what you mean by this (I could find no such quote in the
thread).
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
15 Mar 2007 09:37:18 AM |
|
|
On Mar 15, 6:15 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
karandash2...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 14, 10:41 am, "rgregorycl...@yahoo.com"
<rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
I didn't have time to read all the above exchange but I can tell you
for a fact that the "alternative" theories (with the exception of LET
which is nothing but SR) produce different results from SR for several
experiments (Ives-Stilwell, MMX in a refractive medium).
This is not true, for the alternative theories I discuss. These theories
are members of an equivalence class in that they are all experimentally
indistinguishable from SR. This class includes SR, LET, the Tangherlini
transforms, and an infinite set of other transforms. They all share the
property that the round-trip vacuum speed of light is isotropically c in
every inertial frame, but they differ in the anisotropy of the one-way
speed of light measured with coordinate clocks.
So you quote
from Zhang picked up by Tom is wrong.
I don't know what you mean by this (I could find no such quote in the
thread).
Tom Roberts
Tom
This is very sdimple really.
1. Leave LET out, it is not a real theory, it is just an SR mimickry.
2. Take Mansouri Sexl, a serious theory. In any frame (with the
exception of the sole "preferred" frame) OWLS is anisotropic.
3. As such, in any such non-preferred frame, the MS theory will
predict DIFFERENT results for Ives-Stilwell than SR.
4. As an aside, MS will predict different results for MMX in a medium
with refractivity higher than 1, for Kennedy-Thorndike with the arms
of interferometer imersed in mediums with different refractivity
indexes, etc, etc.
So, the statement on the FAQ page is wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS |
16 Mar 2007 08:59:08 PM |
|
|
wrote:
1. Leave LET out, it is not a real theory, it is just an SR mimickry.
Not really. For instance, LET was described before SR. Depending on what
one means by "theory", LET can be considered to be the same theory as
SR, or considered to be a different theory. As far as science goes they
make exactly the same predictions for any experiment or measurement.
2. Take Mansouri Sexl, a serious theory. In any frame (with the
exception of the sole "preferred" frame) OWLS is anisotropic.
That is a test theory, with a bunch of free parameters, and to apply the
theory one needs to select values for the parameters, or fit them to
experimental data. Their test theory is considerably more general than
the equivalence class of theories I have been discussing.
3. As such, in any such non-preferred frame, the MS theory will
predict DIFFERENT results for Ives-Stilwell than SR.
This is so for some values of their parameters, but not for other
values. Specifically, if one puts in the parameter values for SR your
claim here is trivially false. If one puts in the values for any of the
theories in the equivalence class I have been discussing, your claim is
also false.
4. As an aside, MS will predict different results for MMX in a medium
with refractivity higher than 1, for Kennedy-Thorndike with the arms
of interferometer imersed in mediums with different refractivity
indexes, etc, etc.
Sure, for some values of their parameters. But not for other values.
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
