Preprint (22.10.2008)
Date: Wen,22 Oct 2008 21:51:18 GMT
From:redshift0@narod.ru (Alexander Chepick)
Organization:
Newsgroups: sci.physics, alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: light speed anisotropy
Key words: Absolute Space - LAST- light speed anisotropy - Marinov experiment
PACS: ?? 01.55.+b, 98.80

Remarks and questions about article:
�Re-Analysis of the Marinov Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment�,

source at arXiv:physics/0612201v2 [physics.gen-ph] 2 Jan 2007 (http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0612201),

Reginald T. Cahill
School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University,
Adelaide 5001, Australia
E-mail: Reg.Cahill@flinders.edu.au

Translated by Alexander M. Chepick,
Nizhni Novgorod, e-mail: redshift0@narod.ru

Abstract
The anisotropy of the speed of light at 1 part in 103 has been detected by Michelson and Morley (1887), Miller (1925/26), Illingworth (1927), Joos (1930), Jaseja et al. (1964), Torr and Kolen (1984), DeWitte (1991) and Cahill (2006) using a variety of experimental techniques, from gas-mode Michelson interferometers (with the relativistic theory for these only determined in 2002) to one-way RF coaxial cable propagation timing. All agree on the speed, right ascension and declination of the anisotropy velocity. The Stephan Marinov experiment (1984) detected a light speed anisotropy using a mechanical coupled shutters technique which has holes in co-rotating disks, essentially a one-way version of the Fizeau mechanical round-trip speed-of-light experiment. The Marinov data is re-analysed herein because the velocity vector he determined is in a very different direction to that from the above experiments. No explanation for this difference has been uncovered.

My remarks and questions:

1. �Rather, the existence of a preferred direction, of an actual locally detected frame of reference, is perfectly consistent with Special Relativity and Local Lorentz Symmetry, although the explication of this is somewhat subtle, requiring a very careful operational definition of what is meant by the space and time coordinates in the different formalisms. Essentially the well-known Einstein formalism builds into the definitions of space and time coordinates that the speed of light is invariant. However such definitions, while permitted mathematically, do not correspond to the physical definition.� [end of ch.1.]

Here I agree with you. I have done it in framework of Theory of the Luminiferous Stationary Aether (LAST), based on linear 3D space. [�8 in Absolute. Main principles, http://redshift0.narod.ru/Eng/Stationary/Absolute/Absolute_Principles_3_En.htm ].

There by shift of clock's indications (SCI) we can obtain constant speed of light in any IFR, but existence of a preferred direction in IFR and existence of the preferred IFR are obligatory. This explanation is given in my article Explanation of the Marinov Experiment , http://redshift0.narod.ru/Eng/Stationary/Absolute/Explanation_Marinov_Experiment_En.htm. Explanation of the Marinov Experiment we can do for a constant speed of light!!!

2. �However the cancellation of a supposed change in the round-trip travel times and the Lorentz contraction effect is merely an incidental flaw of the Michelson interferometer. The critical observation is that if we have a gas in the light path, the round-trip travel times are changed, but the Lorentz arm-length contraction effect is unchanged, and then these effects no longer exactly cancel. Not surprisingly the fringe shifts are now proportional to n² − 1, where n is the refractive index of the gas.� [paragraph 1 in ch.2.]

I don�t agree.

The observer should see this effect, but only not on the Earth.

In this experiment (MMX) both arm-lengths are equal in our Earth frame, otherwise we would see fringe shifts in vacuum during rotation of arms. Lorentz arm-length contraction should be in absolute frame where we are moving, but in which we can�t do our measurements because of we are in Earth frame.

As we have equal arm-lengths, so lengths of trajectories of light�s beams equal also, and in gas in our frame both arms will bring equal speed of light and not any fringe shifts, on turn of arms independently.

Most important is that � if Your argumentation would be right and a fringe shifts in MMX is a consequence of a turn of Earth, then a period of fringe shifts should be 24 hour � a full turn of Earth. But we see in Miller, 1933, the period of fringe shifts is approximately 23 hour � a full turn of Moon around Earth, that is, gravitational, non-inertial relation.

3. �Another technique that has been successfully used is to measure the one-way travel time of RF waves in coaxial cables, as in Torr and Kolen 1981 [17] with the one-way travel through 500m of cable, De Witte 1991 [18] using travel time differences between two 1.5km cables, and Cahill 2006 [19] using two 5 meter cables facilitated by the optical fiber effect for orientation-invariant timing transfers.� [end of ch.2.]

I don�t agree with your method of �orientation-invariant timing transfers�. You wont to obtain light-speed anisotropy by using �orientation-invariant� light�s transfer.

If there is light-speed anisotropy in our Earth frame, then this effect will be in all other effects, include optical fiber timing transfers.

4. �The �null line� (i.e the abscissa) turns out to be arbitrary, as Marinov did not establish the value of the asymmetry speed V in (2) of the detector, and in fact incorrectly assumed that V = 0.�[note to Fig.2]

I don�t agree.

Why the �null line� turns out to be arbitrary ?

On the contrary, "null line" on the Fig.2 is set by a situation when speeds of light there and back are equal. On the Fig.3 such situation is not present, as in this explaining Fig. the minimum and maximum of projections of speed v both are positive, however in a reality the minimum and maximum have opposite signs, hence, the graph of a projection v is crossed with "null line".

  �Null line� go through �null points� of the graph, which occur, when speeds of light there and back are equal, that is when a light's pulse trajectory orthogonal to vector v in Earth frame of reference.

I fully understand that different theories can give different explanations for any considered experiment, but in this case it's obvious that equal speed of light there and back give us equal photocurrents and position of  "null line" in any theory.

When Marinov wrote  c+v and c-v about different speeds of light there and back, he had meant the approximated  expression for speed of light

c'(v,a�)= c/[1+(v/c)cos a�] ≈ �-v cos a�, thus he carelessly  had designated by the same symbol v and the absolute speed of the Earth, and a projection of this speed to a direction of distribution of light

 Actually, in Marinov Theory there is formula for light�s speed. In LAST (Absolute. Main principles) it is formula (21): c'(v, a) =  cγ²(v)(1-(v/c)cos a).

With relation (22) we obtain a formula:

c'(v,a�)= c/[1+(v/c)cos a�] , where a' is an angle of rejection of a light's pulse trajectory from axis X ' (vector v) in IFR (Earth�s frame in our case).

Opposite light�s speed is: c'(v,a�)= c/[1-(v/c)cos a�] , because of  cos (a� +π)= - cos a�.

So we obtain 2 variables and 2 values:

c'_a= c/[1+(v/c) sin(δ − φ)] 

c'_b= c/[1+(v/c) sin(δ + φ)] 

5. �However there is an important experimental aspect which must be taken into account, namely that the two components of the apparatus, namely that part with the light travelling essentially N to S can never be made identical to the part with the light travelling from S to N at the level of precision required in this experiment.� [paragraph 1 after (1)]

  You were absolutely right when have paid attention to possible absence of symmetry in execution of installation: a shaft, disks, apertures in disks, position of mirrors, factor of their reflection. In fact in this experiment the tenth share of nanometer is essential even, in particular, the maximal width of a light's spot (after of aperture in the second disk) is varying less than on 8.4e-9m at turn of installation together with the Earth. It helped only, that for two counter beams the same difference of the irradiated areas had being  during about 3 micro seconds , for this time the indication of a galvanometer had a time to stabilization and for a fixation of a maximum of a difference of currents.

6. ��Expressions for v_a and v_b are given in (1), but taking into account a significant asymmetry effect, equivalent to adding the speed V , we must use the expressions in (2)�� [note to Fig.3]

Perfectly clearly, that asymmetry of installation cannot be connected to speed of the Earth in any way (you indirectly recognize it, having introduced independent from anything additive V which does not depend at all on a direction of an axis of a shaft, that is, from a direction of distribution of light). However, for this reason of independence, no turn of installation (even on  π) can define this additive V.

On the contrary, this additive (if it will be) is not linear as it is appeared not after calculation v_a, and up to it - in the measuring of values  ΔI and  δI. Therefore it should depend from v in complex enough kind.

7. �The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) velocity is often confused with the Absolute Motion (AM) velocity or light-speed anisotropy velocity as determined in the experiments discussed herein. However these are totally unrelated and in fact point in very different directions, being almost at 90⁰ to each other, with the CMB velocity being 369km/s in direction (a = 11.2^h, δ = −7.22⁰).� The difference between the CMB velocity and the AM velocity is explained by the spatial flows that are responsible for gravity at the galactic scales.� [paragraphs 1,2 in ch.4.]

I don�t agree.

Streams should be homogeneous and isotropic, otherwise gravitation will not be isotropic, in particular, the Sun in some outlined direction will draw more strongly, than from other directions, and it leads to spiral movement, instead of orbital movement in a plane of this direction. Hence, in my opinion, presence of the outlined stream does impossible formation of planetary and stellar systems from the gas-dust clouds rotating around of the local centers, and would destroy existent systems.

- - - - - - - - 

The main page                                Rus
Last correction 23.10.2008 20:23:18