OWLS is not equal to c
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: bz on 12 Jun 2005 12:35 The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in news:2pmsn2-3v9.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net: > In sci.physics, bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote > on Sun, 12 Jun 2005 00:55:19 +0000 (UTC) > <Xns9672CAAF0A925WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>: >> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >> news:g1fma19utpj2nnti462pm0h6ra4qb6951m(a)4ax.com: >> > > [snippage for brevity] > >>> and 2) the methods >>> used to measure the OW speeds of Xray and gamma particles is suspect. >> >> Accurate OW speed is not required. Just enough to show >> that no photons faster than c. It doesn't take much >>accuracy to show that photons are not traveling at 1.9 c. > > Correction: 1.2 c, as I understand the pi meson experiment. > However, I'm now having trouble finding a web page describing > that particular experiment. (Feh!!) Thank you for the correction. > > One webpage that mentions mesons in a different context (as it's > explaining the time dialation issue) is > > http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Logan/Poetry/CHAPTER11-12. > html > > which can also be taken as good evidence for SR. > -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Jerry on 12 Jun 2005 15:22 The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > In sci.physics, bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote > on Sun, 12 Jun 2005 00:55:19 +0000 (UTC) > <Xns9672CAAF0A925WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>: > > Accurate OW speed is not required. Just enough to show > > that no photons faster than c. It doesn't take much > >accuracy to show that photons are not traveling at 1.9 c. > > Correction: 1.2 c, as I understand the pi meson experiment. > However, I'm now having trouble finding a web page describing > that particular experiment. (Feh!!) Filippas, T.A. & Fox, J.G. Phys. Rev. 135, B1071-B1075(1964) Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source "Serious difficulties from extinction are shown to exist in the interpretation of past experiments on gamma rays from moving sources. We have measured the relative speed of the two gamma rays emitted forward and backward by a pi0 meson decaying in flight. The velocity of the neutral pions, which were produced in the reaction pi- + p -> pi0 + n, was v=0.2c. We have compared our results with what would have been expected, taking account of extinction, on the assumption that the initial photon velocities were c+v and c-v. The results were in complete disagreement with this assumption." Jerry
From: russell on 12 Jun 2005 16:04 Jerry wrote: > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > > > I think the crux here is that Lorentz aether contracts > > physical objects, while in GGT the aether is presumed > > to expand them. So the two aethers are not compatible; > > GGT and LET are not the same theory. > > GGT is supposed to respresent a semiclassical aether > theory that resembles LET except that it "allows for > the possibility of absolute simultaneity." > > Now that you mention it, the first equation of GGT is > identical to the corresponding equation of LET, but the > second equation makes no sense to me: > > t = g^-1*t_0 > > Well, OK, maybe I'm misreading the paper and got the > frames reversed, but then the first equation doesn't make > sense, which I think is your point. No, that wasn't my point. My point was that the GGT aether is just as good as the LET aether at explaining the observed results, because it *does* yield the Lorentz transformation if you impose Einstein synch on it, as the authors say. Try it out with their equations and see. The notation can get confusing because your clocks will *not* read t (except at the origin). Einstein synch sets them "wrong" according to this physical interpretation; you just can tell that they are wrong. It turns out that t_wrong = t - vx/c^2. And also t_wrong is what you get when you slow-transport your clocks; i.e. everything conspires against your knowing. So, this *is* one of the theories that Roberts says is indistinguishable from LET. My point was that the physical interpretation is not the same as LET, and that may be important if you are going to use physical arguments (such as how aether interacts with matter) to explain signal vs. phase velocity differences in a waveguide.
From: russell on 12 Jun 2005 16:46 Jerry wrote: > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: The following is a better answer than the previous one, but you might want to read both. > > [I'm snipping Jerry's post... see original] > > > > Here's something else to think about. AIUI Gagnon et al. > > claim to have falsified their semiclassical GGT theory, > > and this contradicts Roberts, Zhang, etc. You claim > > further that LET is falsified, but I think that doesn't > > follow directly; you have to make additional arguments > > a la Roberts to reach that conclusion. A problem for you. > > I was more than a little chagrined when I worked out the > consequences of applying the Lorentz Transformations rather > than Gagnon et al.'s Generalized Galilean Transformations > (GGT). But it's not quite that simple. As I mentioned in my other reply just a minute ago, GGT is proposed as "what happens physically" (i.e. to be tested by the experiment) but the authors do point out that it is compatible with the Lorentz transformations if we use conventional synchronization. Essentially, this would mean that the lab-frame x is the x given by GGT, but the lab-frame time is t_wrong, not t, although so far we don't know we're making this mistake. Unfortunately I don't think their experiment changes this state of affairs, contrary to what I think they are claiming. > > The Lorentz transformations are > t' = g(t-vx/c^2) > x' = g(x-vt) > y' = y > z' = z > where g is being used for gamma > g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > Assume a waveguide moving to the right at velocity v relative > to the hypothetical aether. > > ============ > ============ > --0--------------x-------- > > Although Gagnon et al. use continuous RF in their OWLS > experiment, in this thought experiment I shall inject a pulse > of RF into the waveguide at point 0, which emerges from the > opposite end at point x. The velocity of the pulse does not > matter, but I will use c. Bad choice of notation, because it *does* matter. At least to your intermediate result. Let's use w instead. > > The length of the waveguide is d, and its foreshortened length > in the aether frame is d/g . > > The question is, what is t' when the pulse emerges from the > waveguide. As a double check, x' ought to be d. > > x = d/g + vt > x = ct Or x = wt, in our changed notation. > > Therefore, > ct = d/g + vt > t(c-v) = d/g > t = d/g/(c-v) > x = cd/g/(c-v) Or t= d/g/(w-v) x = wd/g/(w-v) > > x' = g(x-vt) = g[cd/g/(c-v) - vd/g/(c-v)] > x' = d[c/(c-v) - v/(c-v)] = d(c-v)/(c-v) = d > So far so good. Yes. > > t' = g(t-vx/c^2) = g[d/g/(c-v) - vcd/g/(c-v)/c^2] > t' = d(1/(c-v) - v/(c-v)/c] = d[c/(c-v)/c - v/(c-v)/c] This is the step that suffers from your notation. With my change, this becomes t' = d(1/(w-v) - vw/(w-v)/c^2) = d(c^2 - vw)/(w-v)/c^2 > t' = d[(c-v)/(c-v)/c] = d/c > which is exactly the same figure as for a waveguide which is > motionless in the hypothetical aether. Only if w = c. > > In other words an OWLS experiment is no more capable of > detecting motion through an aether obeying Lorentz transform > rules than a TWLS experiment. Yes, but the reason is that we have two unknowns (v and w) and one experiment can't give us both of them. I thought that you had some physical reasoning why w had to be a particular value, and that was why I was dabbling in mechanisms. Essentially I think this is what Gagnon et al. are doing, but this begs the question of whether their mechanism is right. > > Thanks for pointing out my error, which was to accept > uncritically Gagnon et al.'s final statement, "Our results are > consistent with the special theory of relativity and do not > tend to support the semiclassical theory or the existence of a > preferred frame of reference." Since at the beginning of the > paper, the Lorentz aether was referred to as a semiclassical > absolute space theory, I mistakenly took that to mean that the > results were inconsistent with LET. > > > Now let me suggest (humbly, because I'm just an amateur) > > Obviously I'm even more of an amateur! > :-) > > > that Gagnon et al. go wrong in their analysis in the > > following subtle way: they do not consider carefully > > enough how slow transport will affect phase in the > > waveguide that is run at extinction frequency. In essence > > they are assuming that *signal* propagation speed is the > > same in both waveguides, but they have no reason (other > > than standard physics, which they are trying to test) to > > make that assumption. > > No, they don't assume that. For one thing, they use > unmodulated RF. Also, standard waveguide theory predicts that > group velocity is inversely related to phase velocity. Aha! This was the key point that I didn't recognize when I abandoned this line of reasoning earlier. I had the idea that group velocity was approximately c (or something like that) in the ideal case at cutoff freq. But in reality, it is approximately zero! So I think my analysis holds. The two ends of the waveguide go out of phase when they are turned wrt the aether, exactly enough to account for the null result. They haven't falsified GGT aether. A > typical waveguide has phase velocity approximately 1.3c and > group velocity approximately 0.7c. Ok -- but not at cutoff frequency. > > > Put another way, they assume that the waveguide is (in > > main part) driving the wave in one case, and not in the > > other (since it is idealized as traveling unhindered > > through the aether) but that makes the first waveguide > > essentially a clock, or rather a whole series of clocks > > since it is extended in space. > > A clock is necessarily a free running oscillator. The two > receivers at the far ends of the two waveguides are forced > oscillators, not independent clocks. And the forcing has to propagate down the waveguide. > > > And clocks that are > > slowly transported wrt each other are supposed to go > > out of phase in the test theory since their frequencies > > wrt the aether frame will differ. > > The two receivers, being forced oscillators, are in essence > remote readouts of the source oscillator, and must share the > same frequency as the source oscillator no matter who is > observing them. Otherwise you'd have what various crackpots on > this group refer to as "tick fairies". Right, but I think you see my point about phase, mentioned in my earlier reply. > > > I think they do not > > address this objection in their paper. > > > Despite its being a worthy piece of work. > > Again, thanks for your critique! I learned a lot. > > Jerry
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 12 Jun 2005 17:00
In sci.physics, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote on 12 Jun 2005 12:22:01 -0700 <1118604121.657258.208880(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>: > The Ghost In The Machine wrote: >> In sci.physics, bz >> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> wrote >> on Sun, 12 Jun 2005 00:55:19 +0000 (UTC) >> <Xns9672CAAF0A925WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>: > >> > Accurate OW speed is not required. Just enough to show >> > that no photons faster than c. It doesn't take much >> >accuracy to show that photons are not traveling at 1.9 c. >> >> Correction: 1.2 c, as I understand the pi meson experiment. >> However, I'm now having trouble finding a web page describing >> that particular experiment. (Feh!!) > > Filippas, T.A. & Fox, J.G. Phys. Rev. 135, B1071-B1075(1964) > Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source > "Serious difficulties from extinction are shown to exist in the > interpretation of past experiments on gamma rays from moving > sources. We have measured the relative speed of the two gamma > rays emitted forward and backward by a pi0 meson decaying in > flight. The velocity of the neutral pions, which were produced > in the reaction pi- + p -> pi0 + n, was v=0.2c. We have compared > our results with what would have been expected, taking account > of extinction, on the assumption that the initial photon > velocities were c+v and c-v. The results were in complete > disagreement with this assumption." > > Jerry > Ah...good. I'm a little surprised it's in '64 (since Hafele-Keating was in '71), but never mind; thank you. :-) Not exactly proof of SR -- but extremely good evidence, and a good *disproof* of Newtonian light theories. (I don't know about BaT, though if time is absolute and unchangeable lightspeed can't be constant, and this experiment suggests that it *is* constant, or close thereto.) -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. |