My understanding is that there are hundreds of different elementary particles , but just a few

are either stable or relatively long lived. Even a free neutron will soon decay into others.

I have not heard about field for each.

Rather my understanding is that there are 4 main areas or sectors.

Strongly interacting, or Hadrons.

Weak interacting, Ws or Z or photon.

Electromagnetic interacting, electrons, etc

Gravitational sector, gravitons(still hypothetical)

There is a bit of superposition here, a particle can be in more than one sector.

All with mass are in gravitational, for example.

The electron and muons are not strongly interacting. (leptons)

A different main classification is Fermions or Bosons.(half integral or integral spins)

For field you talk about the strong interaction, weak interaction, electromagnetic, gravitational.

So basically only 4. Weak and electromagnetic has been unified, but that about the only case.

I cannot discard some theorists talking about 17, a lot of new theory is attempted, but not part

of stable stuff. The standard model is mostly about classification and not about detailed physics.

You only get more detailed in the electromagnetic sector.

So your comment is quite accurate, detailed physics is lacking. Group theory is basically only

for clasification, not detailed dynamics or QM.

The strong force, strong, short ranged, non central,

are just general characteristics, but no detail as in Coulomb.

The weak is even more clowdier to understand (in radioactive disintigration phenomena)

Three generations, linked to electron, muon, tau and 3 groups of quarks linked to each, are another way to

look at thhe whole buisness.

Yes. Everything could be summed up in two type of fields:

1. In the curvature of space-time

2. In the fields of signal push exchange

Possibly the curvature field is extreme, i.e. the particles initially collide with the causal velocity c, but the signal fields keep them apart.

At its purest, signal fields could be reduced to two effects that unfold with electric charges; particles of opposite charges would belong to the extreme collapse curvature in relation to each other, and between those of the same sign would signal two fields acting in opposite phase.

Funnily enough, all the signals would be collapsing space-time, but when they hit the particles, they would transmit pushes. The particles themselves could be a collapse signal in the loops.

Gravity would not be a fundamental interaction but a residue between extreme curvature and delayed pushes.

I believe that there must be only one field because a single field is required to achieve the coordination necessary to have the properties described by special relativity. Einstein made two bold postulates the basis of special relativity. 1) The speed of light is constant in all inertial frames of reference and 2) the laws of nature are invariant in all inertial frames of reference. These postulates mean that all physical objects must undergo Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and time dilation (Lorentz transformations) in a moving frame of reference. Until recently, physicists merely accepted Lorentzian transformations as an unexplained mystery of physics. The currently accepted model of particles and space implies there should be Euclidian transformations (addition of velocity, etc.) not Lorentzian transformations.

Several technical papers have analyzed what model of the universe would generate Lorentz transformations. The analysis postulates a hypothetical universe based entirely on a massless sonic medium (field) with a speed of sound cs. If all particles are sonic quasi-particles (standing wave solitons) and all forces must be transmitted through this sonic field, then the measured speed of sound in this hypothetical universe would appear constant in all inertial frames of reference. This model generates perfect Lorentz transformations including the Lorentz factor γ = (1 – v 2/cs2)-1/2 based on cs, the speed of sound in this medium.

In the technical paper below, I build on the sonic universe model that generates Lorentz transformations. I assume our universe is derived entirely from a single “Universal Field” that propagates waves at the speed of light. All particles are modeled as rotating sonic soliton waves in this field and all forces are transmitted through this field. This field is quantified and tested by showing it is capable of building a plausible model of an electron that generates an electron’s forces.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371724212_A_Single_Field_Model_of_the_Universe

Dont understand that argument.

The word field may refer to a scalar or vector field, even tensor field. (Its not the math field like R or C)

Comon aceptions of the term field, in Physics.

electric field E

magnetic induction field B

Gravitational field

etc

Many a time they just say "interaction" , but its most comon to suppose then that there is a source of field, which then in turn interacts.

For example you could say meson field, as a field associated with a pion.(in the context of a strong interaction)

But why would a simple transformation have something to do with a field? Yes , unless you stirr up

something like an ether wave, that can be termed a field. However thats anathema, because there is no prefered frame.

As soon as your particle moves in one frame, you can find another one where it is stationary, and does nothing.

Its an interesting topic, what the transformations does to E and B. Things are really separate, the Lorenz transformation is

mainly considered in relationtion to the electromagnetic waves going through vacuum. That r.r -cctt is invariant,

along with other invariants, like EE-ppcc.

Eucledian would mean back to Newton? In some sense yes, you throw a stone, its not some "space curvature"

trajectory. But then again SR is not GR, does not address accelerated frames. If GR is wrong, you still need an accelerated frame theory. Only light goes by shortest path, straight line or great circle, etc. At least Newton addresses accelerating frames very well and simply, not with a big mathematical mess.

Juan Weisz

Thank you for the answer. At some point you will need to look at the article to understand concepts because I cannot fully explain the concept in a short answer. However, I will try to give an overview.

In 1955, John Wheeler found that vacuum zero-point energy and the uncertainty principle could be explained if the quantum vacuum was a medium with Planck length vacuum oscillations at Planck frequency. He wrote "No point is more central than this: empty space is not empty. It is the seat of the most violent physics…. The density of field fluctuation energy in the vacuum ∿ 1094 g/cm3 (∿10113J/m3) argues that elementary particles represent a percentage-wise almost completely negligible change in the locally violent conditions that characterize the vacuum…”. He was not describing the aether. The only function of the aether was to be a medium that propagates light waves. Wheeler was describing a medium (field) that can be the single field that generates everything in the universe - all particles, all forces, all secondary fields and even the foundation of all the natural laws.

The fluctuations in this medium are happening at the speed of light (Planck length x Planck frequency = c). Therefore, waves in this medium propagate at this speed. Gravitational waves (GWs) support this interpretation because GWs encounter impedance of Zs = c3/G as they propagate. This is the impedance expected from a medium consisting of Planck length fluctuations at Planck frequency.

The article shows that this medium supports a wave-based model of an electron. This electron model is analyzed in the article. It not only achieves an electron's approximate energy, spin and wave properties, but it also achieves an electron's electrostatic and gravitational forces. The model also gives a conceptually understandable explanation for Lorentz transformations. Here is the link:

Preprint A Single Field Model of the Universe

Yes, those are comon sub quantum ideas of a jittery background. David Bohm also write similarly.

Source of hidden variables.

However if thats the background you have, you could call it the ether...or modern ether.

However things then are not consistant, the Lorenz transformation was invented to be without any of that.

I dont think it can be part of that discussion. Then if gravitational waves are real, you still have to explain both kinds,

electromagnetic and gravitational.

Then the explanation of c is very different. Ether theory would say as soon as you leave the source, the natural speed in the medium is c. Thats why its always the same. It has nothing to do with the source.

Lorenz theory adds c to the speed of the source, albeit in an unconventional way, so c end up invariant.

Juan Weisz

Einstein found that Maxwell’s equations implied the speed of light is invariant in all frames of reference. Einstein adopted this counter intuitive assumption and made it a foundation of special relativity. The constant speed of light has been experimentally proven correct, but nothing in our currently accepted model of particles and space conceptually explains how this is achieved.

The articles on the "sonic universe" hypothesis give a conceptually understandable explanation. It is necessary for all particles to be rotating sonic solitons and forces must be transmitted through the medium. Then it is mathematically proven that instruments such as an interferometer in the Michelson-Morley experiment would undergo a distortion (transformation) that makes it impossible to detect any motion through the medium.

The most amazing result of introducing Wheeler's medium (Planck length vacuum fluctuations) is that it explains how electrons generate both their electrostatic force and their gravitational force. The single model of an electron generates both forces and predicts how these forces are mathematically related. This prediction is proven correct on page 26 on the article. Here is the link:

Preprint A Single Field Model of the Universe

The separated concept of magnetic field B is due to interlaced charge densities via Lorentz transformations between moving charges. By nature the electromagnetic field is 4-field of interval line element of spacetime.

As i said earlier it is enough that all is collapsing at speed of causality c and those signals push particles at emissions and absorptions. Locally there is srinking space as fundamental basis and antipodally interlaced electrocharge driven bath of opposite phased pushing fields keep particles separated from each other.

Because of delays between emissions and absorptions there is a residue: gravity curvature.

Dear John A. Macken ,

Experiments were made to assess the constancy of the two-way speed of light.

Lorentz Transformations rely on a stipulation: a synchronization procedure based

on the one-way constancy of the speed of light.

A consequence of the Sagnac effect is that speed of light one-way cannot be constant in the instantaneous inertial frame of the moving observer, hence it cannot be measured as constant in general.

The possibilty to relate successfully equivalent inertial frames with light signals at an invariant speed is not granted at all.

Lorentz Transformations do not allow a "preferred frame", which can be an energetic background with positive energy density since, basically, all the inertial frames have to be completely equivalent and the speed of light as a consequence has to be constant for all.

Length contraction and time dilation, although predicted by LT, are the only prerogatives of Tangherlini transformations that admit a preferred frame in each physical problem treated with a non-invariant speed of light.

There is a chain of reasoning prior the standard model:

a) 1904/1914 LT makes the simultaneity relative hence no "background" is possible, no energy can be contained in vacuum

b) 1928/1935 Dirac accepted the negative energies, to account for the electrodynamics of a charge, assuming that no energy is contained in a vacuum..

c) 1945/1960 Feynman used the renormalization tecnique (strongly criticized by Dirac) to arrive at a consistent formulation of Quantum electrodynamics.

Stefano Quattrini

"Experiments were made to assess the constancy of the two-way speed of light.

Lorentz Transformations rely on a stipulation: a synchronization procedure based on the one-way constancy of the speed of light."

Wrong. Lorentz transformations can be derived to be the correct transformations between inertial systems, provided the coordinates are chosen to make the relativity principle manifest. There is no need for any stipulation on the speed of light. That the speed of light is the same speed as the theoretical limit speed appearing in the Lorentz transformations is an experimental result.

You keep spreading falsehoods that have been explained as incorrect to you before.

The synchronization making the one-way speed of light constant is of course a consequence of the choice of coordinates making the relativity principle manifest. Choose different coordinates and the Lorentz transformations will take a different form, for example the form of the Tangherlini transformations, describing exactly the same physics, but without making the equivalence of all inertial systems visible in the coordinates.

"A consequence of the Sagnac effect is that speed of light one-way cannot be constant in the instantaneous inertial frame of the moving observer, hence it cannot be measured as constant in general."

Nonsense. The Sagnac effect has no such consequences. In fact, my paper [1] that I have indicated to you before, but which you apparently still have not read (or not understood) shows how the Sagnac effect can be described with standard synchronization and that, as a consequence, the speed of light has its standard value in the instantaneous inertial frame of any locally comoving observer. That in an accelerated frame the speed of light at a distance from an observer may vary is no contradiction with the second postulate referring to the speed of light in a (local or global) inertial system.

[1] K. Kassner, Ways to resolve Selleri's paradox, American Journal of Physics 80, 1061–1066 (2012)

K. Kassner ,

LT time transform is an equation between the timestamps of clocks. Unless one has set the two clocks in sync at a certain point, that equation will never be satisfied or applicable for real. In case the clocks were already at a non-negligible distance then Einstein-Poincare' sync procedure must be adopted. Since the EP synch procedure as you, yourself affirmed is based on a stipulation (since based on the one-way speed of light to be taken for granted), then also LT relies on the same stipulation.

The Sagnac effect does not need synchronization at all since the beams depart from the same source and do not arrive at the detector at the same time due to the motion of the detector.

TT do not involve any offset, between clocks in synch, after acceleration in a rocket at variance with LT which provide that. That also "allegedly" support the equivalence principle between accelerated frames and gravitational field. So the presence or absence of that term makes a big difference it is the discriminant between absence or presence of a preferred frame, forbidden in SR.

since in the instantaneous inertial frame of the observer, the light speed arrival would be measured with a time difference of gamma*vH/c2 due to the observer's motion, in Sagnac configuration, hence the measure of SOL would result faster than c in the moving frame. By including that variation in time coordinate transformations then one finds a constant light speed one way as c. That is a trick r to comply with the constancy of SOL one-way hence maintaining the equivalence of frames.

Just imagine Einstein ring - there can be several light rays seeing the same structure in different ages. Lorentz relation is obviously observation path dependent.

Stefano Quattrini

Look, Stefano, I do not really care whether you are willing, as a real scientist would do, to scrutinize your own claims with the necessary care (and retract them, once you have realized them to be wrong). You are not my student so I am not responsible that you will be able to do adequate work as a physicist after having attended and passed my course. (This responsibility implies that I cannot let students pass an exam, if they have not understood the subject to a sufficient extent.) I would not complain if you made an incorrect assertion about the theory for the first time and nobody had told you that and where you were wrong.

But here are two facts

1) You are not an expert on relativity.

2) It was pointed out to you by people knowing relativity better than you (including myself) that certain of your claims about the theory (and its axiomatic base) as well as its relationship to experiments were incorrect.

Still you "explain" things (that are clearly incorrect) in a somewhat authoritative tone (i.e. pretending to be knowledgeable). Now,

you may still believe to be right (because you did not understand the corrections for whatever reasons, possibly because they do not fit with your personal ideology), but I think scientific honesty mandates that you do not present your opinions that have been (repeatedly) contested as "the truth". You could say "this is what I believe, but others have contested my views, so you may look for a second opinion". (After all, if you try to look at things from an objective point of view, without letting your personal opinions interfere, the likelihood that you are right is very small, given the different levels of expertise.)

Here, I will answer once again to part of your last post, but I do not think that I will continue this discussion. There is no point in teaching someone who is not willing to learn. (I may however post, in this or another question thread, a popularized version of my explanation of the Sagnac effect with a constant speed of light around the disk.)

Me:

You: "LT time transform is an equation between the timestamps of clocks."

So what? There are derivations out there [1,2] that show that the Lorentz transformations with an undetermined limit speed are derivable from the relativity principle alone (with the usual assumptions about isotropy of space and homogeneity of time that are implicit in any other derivation). Of course that speed must be larger than or at most equal to any signal speed, including c. If you assume it to be w>c and assume the speed of light to be c in all directions in the your first inertial system Σ, then you can find the speed of light in a system Σ', moving at velocity v with respect to Σ via the velocity addition theorem, following from the Lorentz transformation. You get c'+=(c+v)/(1+cv/w2) in the forward direction, and I leave the calculation of c'- to you. In any case, it turns out that the two-way speed of light depends on the relative velocity of the frames v, if the limit speed is not equal to c. From which it follows by simple logic, that it is sufficient to require, in the second postulate, that the two-way speed of light is a universal constant, to fix w to be equal to c. (Note also that Einstein synchronization with light signals would not work in a world where w≠c. But slow clock transport would still work, even if no signals moving at w are available.)

Hence, your claim that the Lorentz transformations are based on the one-way speed of light being constant is incorrect. By incontrovertible logic. In fact, even the weaker version of the second postulate that the (two-way) velocity of light is independent of the speed of the light source is sufficient as replacement of the second postulate in the axiomatic foundation of special relativity.

Me:

You: "The Sagnac effect does not need synchronization at all since the beams depart from the same source and do not arrive at the detector at the same time due to the motion of the detector."

Again, so what? What I said is that it is possible to derive it in an disk-based frame where the speed of light is c in both the forward and backward directions. I have done it in my paper. It is of course also possible to derive it within different synchronizations, which I have also done for just a single other one in my paper. But this proves my point that your statement is incorrect that the Sagnac effect shows "that speed of light one-way cannot be constant in the instantaneous inertial frame of the moving observer". It can indeed, and this has been shown by myself and others (for example Langevin in 1921).

Me:

You: "TT do not involve any offset, between clocks in synch"

Still they are equivalent to the Lorentz transfomations and this was emphasized by Tangherlini himself. The offset in "Tangherlini clocks" is of course different than the offset in "Lorentz clocks", because they are differently synchronized via a choice of a different offset. But that is nothing but a different choice of time coordinate! You can of course describe "Lorentz clocks" using the "Tangherlini time" and you can describe "Tangherlini clocks" using the "Lorentz time". That does not render any of the statements, say, of the Boughn paper about the identically accelerated twins incorrect. (I remember you in vain arguing against the different aging of these twins in futile search of a dynamical origin of time dilation, completely overlooking its purely kinematical nature.)

[1] V. Berzi. V. Gorini, Reciprocity Principle and the Lorentz

Transformations, J. Math. Phys. 10, 1518-1524 (1969) Article Reciprocity Principle and the Lorentz Transformations

[2] A. Pelissettoa, M. Testa, Getting the Lorentz transformations without requiring an invariant speed, Am. J. Phys. 83, 338-340 (2015)

In my mind sr does not work

In arbitrary systems of reference

The linear LT is needed for it to work

In both directions

K. Kassner

I do not reply to personal judgments or attempts to disqualify the replier, to me it is just a loss of time and energy unsuitable for really smart people.

It is not clear to me the need to stress the above.

I've already said clearly several times in other posts, that the postulate of SR is just the one of Galileo: the equivalence of inertial frames. I am just really astonished that somebody arrived at such conclusions so late, it is just a matter of the use of logical reasoning.

The speed of light represents only an additional constraint and that can only be absolutely constant in different frames, to keep the postulate alive.

What is at stake is the equivalence of the inertial frames in fact, the SOL one way is a corollary/consequence.

LT depends on that constancy, missing that, also the IRF equivalence would fade away (LT would be reduced to an exercise for keeping the form of the wave equation invariant).

The two-way SOL is c, is an experimental fact and the one-way as c is taken by assumption "stipulation" by SR. A shaky base...It reminds me of the "simplistic" assumptions of the Geocentric model which took 2 centuries to be wiped away (Copernicus to Galilei). Also, the PTolemaic description worked, providing accurate predictions to a certain extent, but at what price though!!! It was easily verified later on that the ontology depicted was false, the spinning Earth was sufficient to wipe away the awful tricks (epicycles).

from REF paper :

Article Ways to resolve Selleri's paradox

REF paper : "Before dealing with Selleri’s paradox, let us see how theSagnac effect itself can be explained from the point of view of local comoving observers. Each of these observers may be considered to be in an instantaneous local inertial frame of reference. Within these frames, clocks can be synchronized according to Einstein’s prescription. "

That implies that the measurement of a one-way SOL is required to c, otherwise one could not even talk about sync of distant clocks..

REF paper : "We may then conclude from the second postulate referred to the two-way velocity of light that the one-way velocity of light also has to be c"

If REF paper refers to Einstein, it is clearly written in his 1905 paper:

https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

AE : "We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A"

Einstein simply postulated the one-way constancy of SOL since he required that the light-time to connect A and B (open loop A to B) was the same as the time connecting B to A (open loop B to A). A, B, A is the close loop which involves instead the 2 way constancy which is the experimental fact.

So, if REF paper or the author: refers to what was originally conceived, is quite faulty and it is faulty in any case.

------------------------------

The Sagnac effect is due to the difference in the arrival times at the interferometer of simultaneously emitted beams from the same source (in opposite direction). To my understanding in REF paper the short description is roughly the same.

Sagnac effect shows that moving clocks along a circular path, cannot be set in sync using light beams and a RADAR procedure, because the light time (measured by whoever) to join the same objects when at rest is different than the one in motion.

The arrival time can be calculated knowing experimentally that the speed of light in a loop is c. It boils down also to the solution of Zeno's paradox of Achille's (light) and turtle (interferometer) :

Zeno_time + = (L/c)/(1-v/c) light takes some more time than L/c

Zeno_time- = (L/c)/(1+v/c) light takes a little less time than L/c to reach the

interferometer, where L is the loop in this case.

That is due to the variation of light-time while dealing with a moving target.

That is an alternative way of leading to the same formulas in the REF paper.

A clock, placed on the platform, at rest with the center of rotation of Sagnac device, can measure such elapsed times. The difference between the timestamps on the same clock of the event of absorption, or the time-of-arrival difference, is the only reason for their phase difference, hence the Sagnac effect:

Zeno_time_difference = Zeno_time + - Zeno_time- = 2γ2vL/c2

No mention of such a difference is in the REF. paper

If a comoves with the interferometer by dividing by γ,

it would detect DTSagnac = 2γvL/c2

For waves emitted, in any closed loop of length L, by a body A, in opposite directions, DTSagnac is the loss of simultaneity detected by A that receives back the beams emitted.

Half of it is DToffset = γvL/c2, the variation of the light-time, measured by a moving clock, which is the quantity mentioned in REF. paper as "time gap"..

REF. paper :"Within this description, the speed of light is c everywhere except at the point on the circle where we put the time gap."

That is quite a strange sentence...

Let's proceed with what is known so far and let's require that SOL is c everywhere if measured by a stationary non-rotating observer in the configuration analyzed.

The DToffset =γvL/c2 , is relevant to the variation of the light-time in the loop of length L. Let's consider that the emitted waves cross a much shorter length d

The Sagnac effect is out of the domain of validity of SR - you need GR. And then the relations between inertial local frames depend on observation or surveying path used. Meaningfully, the effective one way speed on zero-geodesics can be modelled as c - step by step effect via causal path.

Only in flat optic manifolds of SR you can see far light at speed c meaningful for you. That's one of the reasons for difficulty with combining GR and QM but SR and QM are in common measures...

I don't think we could reduce all of them (matter and interaction) to a single field! But when you say structure, what are you referring to? because being an elementary particle supposes having no internal structure.

Though having no internal structure, every particle have timelike path (world line) which is part of the structure of the spacetime.

Combining phenomena under one or two fields means that the spacetime structure is essential.

I have impression that there is a mixture of two theories (which is not really compatible until now)! when you talk about trajectory and space-time, you make me think of RG, but here it's a relativized quantum theory (QM and RR), the very notion of trajectory is a bit vague! (the fields have non-zero values ​​at each point in space-time)!

Yes perhaps at a very local level you need

QM where there is no trajectory However you need that notion in relativity

Which so far is classical

Perhaps trajectories are certain limits

Of quantum notions.

Quote: "However, the fundamental physics and structure of fields is not understood."

The nature of all potential fields was very well understood by Gauss and other originators of the concept of fields. The real issue is that the fundamental physics community has completely lost its ways and is now totally confusing pure mathematical descriptions with the physical reality that it was meant to describe.

I suggest that the fundamental physics community regrounds itself on the real physics that it left behind in the first decade of the 20th century. Put in perspective in this article, with all historical formal sources provided, including links to those directly available on the internet, which is most of them, now that they all are in the public domain:

Article Introduction to Synchronized Kinematic and Electromagnetic Mechanics

Ignorance on all these issues can be cured only by studying the real formal sources written by the original discoverers.

Fortunately for all of us, the engineering community still understands the difference between mathematics and physical reality.

Philosophically I believe there are two fields only down to the bottom of the universe. Just like a bit in computer only have ON and OFF states to create virtual reality.

Stefano Quattrini

REF paper : "Before dealing with Selleri’s paradox, let us see how theSagnac effect itself can be explained from the point of view of local comoving observers. Each of these observers may be considered to be in an instantaneous local inertial frame of reference. Within these frames, clocks can be synchronized according to Einstein’s prescription. "

"That implies that the measurement of a one-way SOL is required to c, otherwise one could not even talk about sync of distant clocks.."

Again, you have it the wrong way round. Einstein synchronization does not require anythng about the value of speed of light; it sets time so (not any speed) that the resulting speed of light in both directions becomes equal. That this is c, is then a consequence of the second postulate. Which does not hold in non-inertial systems, in general. The Schwarzschild metric is an example where simultaneity is based on Einstein synchronization, but the speed of light is not equal to c, except at infinity.

Anyway, I simply object to your "selling" things as true that are falsehoods. You may not believe they are falsehoods, but you have been told so and therefore should not continue to claim them without mentioning that scientific objections to your assertions have been raised. Otherwise you pose as someone knowledgeable about things you do not really know.

Because I do not want to correct the same mistakes in your arguments over and over again, I have written up a detailed explanation of the Sagnac effect (with a rotating disk; other forms, in particular the Sagnac effect without rotation, need a different discussion) in terms of a constant speed of light on the disk circumference in both the counterrotating and corotating directions. My published paper focuses on Selleri's paradox and its solution in two synchronizations, this essay focuses on the Sagnac effect alone, and it shows that your claims about the effect demonstrating simultaneity to be absolute in reality are wrong.

I will probably put this on my web pages, too.

The answers that I read progressively deviate from the question. I suppose that the short answer is that we need such a complicated "standard model" in our current state of knowledge, but the holy grail of theoretical physics in the 20th century has been the grand unified theory, beginning with Einstein. Many thought that it had been achieved with string theory. Nevertheless, even for favorable an influential scientists, it is still a dream (Dreams of a Final Theory, Steven Weinberg).

K. Kassner , I propose to move the topic here https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_the_Sagnac_effect_be_considered_a_disproof_of_Special_Relativity_Theory

where I copied the answer below.

AGAIN:

Albert Einstein wrote in his paper https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

"Electrodynamics of moving bodies":

"We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A"

EINSTEIN REQUIRED THAT THE light-time TO GO FROM B to A was the same to GO FROM A to B. This automatically means that since A and B are fix points having a certain distance, the speed of light A to B had to be the same as the speed of light B to A, that is the half way of a closed circuit hence one-way speed of light.

As a consequence (as you said), in order to preserve such (one-way SOL) condition of constant measured SOL in motion, he had to artificially set the timestamps of the clocks.

First, Sagnac effect involves absolute simultaneity.

a) Sagnac effect consists in an emission of EM waves in opposite directions in a close loop, at once and same place, hence in absolute sync.

The detected waves, if the observer is in motion, are detected in absolute desync (the interferometer reads a phase difference, in one place).

The difference of the arrival times, as measured by a comoving clock with the interferometer is 2γvL/c2 (v is the speed of the interferometer in the rest frame of the axis of rotation and L is the length of the loop as mesured at rest). Each wave brings the quantity γvL/c2 which is half contribution to the overall difference, one is in anticipation the other on retardation around the simultaneity condition.

For each wave, the light-time to reach the observer, as measured by the comoving clock with the observer is

(1) γL/c + γvL/c2 and γL/c - γvL/c2 and to first order approx L/c +/- vL/c2

there is, in other words, a light-time variation as measured by the moving observer.

Second, the Sagnac effect is present also in non-closed loops, it is detectable, provided absolute synchronization of the devices.

b) Let's consider on a disk, two standard clocks A and B set at distance H, with same radial distance. A and B are set in sync with an impulse coming from the center of rotation. No synch speed is involved, it is an absolute synchronization procedure based only on symmetry (doable with sound in air at rest with the axis of rotation). The expression (1) in the frame of the axis of rotation, gets just reduces to γH/c + γvH/c2 and γH/c - γvH/c2

If A and B underwent an internal synchronization procedure as the Einstein Poincarè, one would always get, by measuring the light-time afterwards in the moving frame that it corresponds always to H/c to a good approximation.

In GPS base stations, if one uses the internal sync procedure between two clocks, one has to add this quantity vH/c2 to a good approximation, (in such case v is the speed of the base station in ECI frame) according to the direction of the speed. That is the Sagnac correction, due to the fact that the light-time between A and B is shorter or longer according to the direction of motion for sync procedures which are not absolute.

CONCLUSION

by using in between A and B an internal sync procedure, which is relative, one would measure always from A and B that the light time is H/c hence the speed of light would be c one-way.

By using an absolute sync procedure between A and B, with rotation A to B, A will find by receiving the timestamp from B, that the light time is

H/c-vH/c2 to a good approximation. B will detect, by comparing its value at the arrival of the time stamp from A, that the light time is H/c + vH/c2 .

That is in complianace with the results of the Sagnac experimental setup.

This shows that the relative simultaneity is just a particular case relying on a sync procedure, affected by the speed of the signal. It is just a comfortable way to avoid to resort to the actual condition of absolute sync, not possible to attain using finite speed signals. Absolute sync is the natural condition, relative sync is just a man made artifact.

Dear Dr. John Macken,

Spot on. However, gravity should be different because it is not a force.

Kind regards,

Eytan.

Eytan Suchard I claim that gravity is a force. This claim is supported by the attached paper that proves that the gravitational force between two electrons is mathematically closely related to the electrostatic force between these two electrons. Einstein developed general relativity using a top-down approach that starts with the assumption that physical acceleration is equivalent to gravitational acceleration. This approach gives correct mathematical answers, but the starting assumption lacks a physical mechanism for creating the curvature of space. Once you introduce a physical mechanism, you destroy the assumption. For example, if you assume gravity is transferred by gravitons, but gravitons do not cause physical acceleration, then there must be a difference even if gravitons are not measurable.

I do not believe in gravitons, but they help explain the point. I claim gravity is a force that is closely related to the electrostatic force. The attached paper proves this point. It is not necessary to read the entire paper to see the mathematical connection. Table 1 on page 26 show various simple equations that express the electrostatic and gravitational forces between two electrons. When electrons are treated as soliton waves with wave-particle properties, then the connection between these two forces becomes obvious.

The details are in the article below, but the gravitational force between two electrons is modeled as a nonlinear (second order) wave effect that scales with wave amplitude to the 4th power. The electrostatic force is treated as a first order effect that scales with wave amplitude squared. This simple model makes correct predictions.

Preprint A Single Field Model of the Universe

Dear Dr. John Macken,

First, there is no proof in physics. Physics is language and language is not reality, even though physics uses minimal language models we call mathematics. Reading your paper should be a priority because everyone needs to be heard. Gravity is described as triggered volumetric curvature where "energy" exists. Far from energy, it allows geodesic motion of a test clock but in curved spacetime but forces do not allow geodesic motion of test clocks when they are affected. You can actually see gravity as a controlling response to non-geodesic motion. About aethereal acoustic waves, it is a model too. If it reduces the number of assumptions and have valid predictions then it is a good model.

Kind regards,

Eytan Suchard.