Fibre-linked atomic clocks put special relativity to the test

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

dalehileman wrote:
let's suppose our part of the Universe is presently in motion, near c.

Quote:
Relative to what?
To the rest of the Universe

Oh, right.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

It's that 'preferred frame' that bothers me.

Why does/should a preferred frame "bother" you, Dale? It's used by astronomers and cosmologists (and has been for over 50 years), by the GPS, by experimenters such as the ones this thread is about, and numerous others.

It's not a "preferred frame" that should bother you. It's SR's claim that the use of such a frame is prohibited that should bother you. Especially when, despite it's "official" position, SR has to use one itself to resolve the "twin paradox."

You really need to cleanse yourself of the notion that such propositions of SR have any validity, value, or veracity.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

dalehileman wrote: It's that 'preferred frame' that bothers me. Why ...., Dale?

'Cause the notion seemsd contrary to the idea I heard somewehere that all motion is relative

Quote:

It's SR's claim that the use of such a frame is prohibited that should bother you

If that's what SR says then yes it bothers me

Quote:

You really need to cleanse yourself of the notion that such propositions of SR have any validity...

Don't 'mem' sayin' that they did; though a whole lot of smarter folk seem to think so. Still I'm willin'

That RR however, doesn't agree or deny, it merely reconciles the TP concept, explaining the effects of motion in terms more friendly to the intuition

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

'Cause the notion seemsd contrary to the idea I heard somewehere that all motion is relative

Well, sure, it's correct to say that all motion is relative. But the question is "relative" to what? A preferred frame provides the answer to that question.

1 Reply

@layman,

...I heard somewehere that all motion is relative

Quote:

..."relative" to what? A preferred frame provides the answer to that question.

Well I'm not so sure it does. Al seemed to brush off the idea, while today some are still debatin' it. So I hope some day someone who knows about these kindsa stuff would consider my RR, that is, before it's 'discovered' by someone in a better position to be listened to

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

So I hope some day someone who knows about these kindsa stuff would consider my RR, that is, before it's 'discovered' by someone in a better position to be listened to

I'll offer a brief objection or two to your theory for you to consider, Dale. Here's one of your propositions, as I understand it.

If we consider a clock at a distance of (just for example) one light year from us and then
1.posit that clock there is currently exactly one calendar year behind ours, and then
2. emit a light signal in that direction, then
3. When it arrives, the clock there will read the same as ours did at the time the signal was sent, and therefore
4. We can say that it arrived at the very same time it was sent. So...
5. We can now say that the transmission was "instantaneous" and that the speed of light is, in essence, infinite.

1. It would still take a year to get there. What we "say" about clocks does not alter that in the least.
2. The fallacy of equivocation is obvious. You can't treat two different "times" on two different clocks as identical when they were never synchronized to begin with.
3. On what conceivable physical basis could you possibly justify arbitrarily saying that a clock 5 light minutes from you is five minutes slower, one 10 light minutes away is 10 minutes slower, etc.? The answer: None whatsoever that I can see.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

1. It would still take a year to get there.

But Lay my contention is that you can't demand the kind of simultaneity that would specify my period of travel

Quote:

You can't treat two different "times" on two different clocks as identical when they were never synchronized to begin with.

Precisely. After 'synchronizing' the classical way, at noon here we can say it's noon there plus or minus 5 min

Quote:

that a clock 5 light minutes from you is five minutes slower, one 10 light minutes away is 10 minutes slower, etc.? The answer: None whatsoever that I can see.

Not what I said. My position is based partly on three different readings taken at the same place and time. For instance, at the moment I'm gettin' ready to go, both of us suppose it's noon there too. However, Marty's bus's passin' us at noon, somethin' we hadn't anticipated, will report that it's 11:55 back home; whereas at the moment I apply my retros reaching Marty's home, I sense that it's still noon back in your bailiwick, even though Marty's clock that he left behind is readin' 12:05

Since my rockets have such incredible power, then, it's perfectly okay of me to report back, in addition, that my velocity was many times c

0 Replies

@centrox,

Quote:

Relative to what?

To the rest of the Universe

Quote:

Oh, right.

But Cen, what was wrong w/ that

0 Replies

I suggest that those still interested in this topic should carefully research the cited 'RMS logic' for testing SR. My understanding is that RMS adopts a 'preferred reference frame' in violation of SR and then shows that this axiom is itself violated by experiment thereby giving to support to SR (the 'alternative hypothesis') This procedure mimics the logic of 'proof by contradiction' as used in mathematics (for example in the proof that root 2 is irrational)..
It follows that all subsequent discussion of 'preferred reference frames' is futile (since it would be equivalent to to discussing the consequences of root 2 being rational).
The removal of 'preferred reference frames' from physics underpins the axiom that 'the laws of physics are the same for all observers'. That was the intellectual concern of Einstein in his rejection of Newtonian Physics with its 'universal reference frame'. It also the reason for which he dismissed concepts of an 'ether' on the basis of Occam's Razor, thereby differing from Lorentz's overview irrespective of agreement on aspects of calculation.

3 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

My understanding is that RMS adopts a 'preferred reference frame' in violation of SR and then shows that this axiom is itself violated by experiment thereby giving to support to SR (the 'null hypothesis') This procedure follows the logic of 'proof by contradiction' as used in mathematics (for example in the proof that root 2 is irrational)..

Yes. This is classic scientific-method stuff.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

My understanding is that RMS adopts a 'preferred reference frame' in violation of SR and then shows that this axiom is violated by experiment thereby giving to support to SR (the 'null hypothesis')

As usual, your understanding is wrong, Fresky: It can be used as a test theory, sure, because an experiment to test the theory of relativity cannot assume the theory is true, and therefore needs some other framework of assumptions that are wider than those of relativity. But that's the whole point--it is an independent theory, standing all on it's own.

Quote:

Robertson–Mansouri–Sexl framework

Since the two-way speed of light in moving frames is anisotropic in both models, and only this speed is measurable without synchronization scheme in experimental tests, both models are experimentally equivalent and summarized as the "Robertson–Mansouri–Sexl test theory" (RMS).

Mansouri and Sexl spoke about the "remarkable result that a theory maintaining absolute simultaneity is equivalent to special relativity." They also noticed the similarity between this test theory and Lorentz ether theory of Hendrik Lorentz, Joseph Larmor and Henri Poincaré.

It DOES NOT prove SR to be "right" by showing itself to be "wrong," sorry. It is an alternative theory that is superior in any number of respects.

1 Reply

@layman,

Oh dear...only a (very) naive realist with an axe to grind would use the words 'right' and 'wrong' instead, 'supports' or 'fails to support'. And only a philosophical ignoramus would fail to understand Einstein's Occam's Razor point regarding rejection of 'the ether', and hence the acceptance of SR by mainstream physicists.
Have you considered for example that mathematically a Geocentric model of the solar system is equivalent to a Heliocentric one, and that it is only by functional considerations' ( including Occams Razor) that that the second is preferred. The words 'right' and 'wrong' do not apply.

BTW your earlier 'infereriority complex' comment appears to be a text book example of 'Freudian Projection'. So instead of flogging your anti SR dead horse, why not widen your research activities in that direction for example ?. It might help you handle yourself better on forums.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

The Return of Absolute Simultaneity
May 4, 2016

In this paper we show how Einstein’s relativity of simultaneity is fully consistent with anisotropic one-way speed of light. We get the same end result and observations as predicted by Einstein, but with a very different interpretation. We show that the relativity of simultaneity is an apparent effect due to an Einstein clock synchronization error, which is rooted in assuming that the one-way speed of light is the same as the well-tested round-trip speed of light. Einstein’s relativity of simultaneity leads to several bizarre paradoxes recently introduced by Haug (2016a,b).

Still, relativity of simultaneity is indeed what one will observe with Einstein synchronized clocks, while absolute simultaneity is the deeper reality that can be observed when synchronizing clocks in a way that avoids the Einstein error

http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1605.0057v1.pdf

1 Reply

@fresco,

Go try to bait someone else into your chickenshit games, Fresky. This post of yours is full of errors, but I won't point them out to you. Try educating yourself. You might start with the recent research of George Smoot and other Berkeley physicists on the nature of the CMB as a "cosmic rest frame."

He acknowledges that recent findings "seem" to contradict SR, but says they don't really because Einstein never said there couldn't be a preferred frame of reference, only that he (Al) knew of no way to detect one at the time.

I think that his claim in this respect overlooks the NECESSITY of eliminating a preferred frame in SR if it is to be even internally coherent, but, whatever....

If you incorporate a preferred frame into your theory, you are, by necessity, rejecting SR as a viable theory.

1 Reply

@layman,

Given that 'Big Bang' is now under sceptical revision, your citation is somewhat 'old hat' irrespective of Smoot's reputation as a self publicist.

But hey...there's Newton's extensive alchemy papers to investigate, when you run out of esoteric references to clutch at! Have fun !

1 Reply

@fresco,

Smoot has a "reputation" as the winner of the Nobel Prize for physics in connection with his work with the CMB, fool.

Nice try, cheese-eater.

1 Reply

@layman,

Yes in 2006 ... for support of Big Bang model extensivly utilising Einstein's GR !

We are now 10 years ahead when quantum considerations (at odds with Einstein) have given rise to objections.
e.g.https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html.

Its all about contextual elegance and utility, NOT about 'right' and ''wrong'.....ah but to admit that that would undermine your self integrity would it not ....I sympathise ! Wink

1 Reply

@fresco,

Rave on, Poseur.

1 Reply

@layman,

How I wish you fellas would consider my RR: It resolves your arguments at a simple swipe

Of course it could be wrong, but so could Al and Newt

Haft'dmit tho, it's hard to explain why I don't see my flashlight beam comin' back from the opposite direction

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

How I wish you fellas would consider my RR: It resolves your arguments at a simple swipe

I've try to be restrained and polite in my responses, Dale, but I have already "considered" it, as shown by my posts. But since you keep insisting, I'll be a little more blunt: It strikes me as complete nonsense.

But no need to bother with my opinion. Maybe it's just all way over my head, eh? By all means, write up a complete presentation of your stunning "theory" in a formal scientific paper and submit it to all the physics journals in the world. Who knows, you may yet become world-famous as the modern-day Einstein.

1 Reply

Fibre-linked atomic clocks put special relativity to the test

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know