I know the question may be considered silly by many but the intention is to bring here this subject that came up when discussing another question. It is an interesting historical fact that Sagnac conceived the experiment to disprove SRT.
Dear Justo Pastor Lambare
the single photon Sagnac experiment given in
Article Single-photon Sagnac interferometer
prove the source independent group velocity of SR. I think this disprove any aether.
Wangs experiments disproves Langevins argumentation:
Article Generalized Sagnac Effect
I think it proves the emissivity theory approach I proposed in
Preprint On the upper bound of velocity
which includes a derivation of the Sagnac effect.
Best regards
Jörn
I am surprised to hear that Langevin's proof is incorrect. I will try to read about Wang's experiment you referred to. Thank you.
Preston Guynn
The thing is that Sagnac was opposed to SRT and conceived his experiment to prove the existence of the ether. The Sagnac effect is in fact compatible with the existence of the luminiferous ether. However, the SRT also can explain the Sagnac effect as you just mentioned.
Dear All
According to my trials of reconstructing the derivation of the Sagnac formula for the Delta t which is
8 pi Omega A / lambda c
it appears to be multiplied by
gamma^2 for nonrelativistic case
gamma^1 for the relativistic case
Can someone confirm correctness of this result, please?
PS The correcting factors concern the uniform circular motion only, of course.
Joachim Domsta
It could be correct because it means that both results are the same to first-order approximation as it is supposed to be.
@Justo Pastor Lambare
Yes. Thanks. But obviously I'm still seeking some precise confirmation. With this it would be more challenging to try another configurations:-) Triangle's for instance where the speed of the possibly applied lightfibers is not uniform. Additionally, in order to be closer to your answer.
As everybody sees, the result depends on the speed of light, whereas in se sources I have found claims on independence of the 'speed of light in the fibers'. This disturbs my thinking!
Joachim Domsta
This problem is more challenging than the twin paradox. Wikipedia is a good source and it also gives references.
The Sagnac effect for ring interferometers ∆φ≈8πωA/λ (with A=ring area, ω=rotation speed, λ=optical wavelength, ∆φ=optical phase shift) is fully compliant with special relativity.
Twin paradox
The twin paradox is only solvable with an ether. The twin which has been moving in respect to the ether remains young.
Rotation is the mystery as well as the ether, Wolfgang. Can You imagine rotating frame?
Eugene F Kislyakov, Wolfgang Konle
I brought the discussion of the Sagnac effect here because it was off-topic in the thread "Is there a solid counter-argument against Dingle's old objection to Relativity Theory?"
I do not agree that rotation and the twin paradox require the existence of an absolute frame like the ether. Newtonian mechanics and SRT require Newton's absolute space but that does not imply an absolute "static" space like the ether.
The existence of the ether arose as a consequence of the undulatory theory of light and Maxwell's equations.
In Newton's absolute space only acceleration is absolute. Velocity is relative and not absolute. An aether is not compatible with relative velocity.
Justo,
absolute acceleration can be only with respect to absolute frame.
A universal rotating ether cannot exist. Local rotations (like galactic rotations) are possible.
Eugene F Kislyakov
Absolute acceleration does not need an absolute frame because the acceleration of a given frame is the same with respect to all frames moving with constant velocity with respect to each other. Those infinite many frames are the inertial frames that determine absolute space. On the other hand acceleration (therefore rotation) is absolute, i.e., you can tell whether a given frame is accelerated but you cannot tell whether it is moving with constant velocity.
This concept of inertial space is not changed by SRT. Relativity only changes Newton's absolute time.
Isn't inertial frame absolute, Justo? And inertial with respect to what?
( v=0 is reference point and does not matter)
Good point. It is a mistery. That is why is called absolute space but relative constant motion with respect to it cannot be detected. One explanation could be Mach hypothesis.
To calculate you must always have reference point, Justo. Call it as you want. Ether, absolute frame, inertial frame and so on...
Eugene, that is right but once you have a point there are two posibities, either the inertial law is valid with respect to your reference point(and three noncolineal directions) or not.
If the inertial law is valid then your system is inertial but then any other frame with constant velocity with respect to it is also inertial.
Dear Wolfgang Konle ,
is there an agreement about what the "aether" can be or cannot be?
In principle I do not disagree if such term expresses the concept of an absolute background where also light propagates, an entity "responsible" of the known Physical laws, a fundamental quantum background....
The aether in the old conception of a material substance with the sole function as a propagation medium is instead undefendable...
Inertial frame.
How can you differentiate between force and curvature of the space-time, Justo?
“Can the Sagnac effect be considered a disproof of Special Relativity Theory? . I brought the discussion of the Sagnac effect here because it was off-topic in the thread "Is there a solid counter-argument against Dingle's old objection to Relativity Theory?"……”
- yeah, that is so; in the mentioned thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_solid_counter-argument_against_Dingles_old_objection_to_Relativity_Theory#view=608c0da3cf8250341d26edec indeed a number of the SR true believers, who cannot grasp what is quite simple and clear “Dingle's old objection to Relativity Theory”, which completely rigorously states that
“if there are two relatively moving frames, then form the SR postulates that there is no Matter’s absolute spacetime, and so that all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate, directly, rigorously, and ambiguously follows, that in these frames both observers simultaneously age faster and slower each other, what is, say, evident biological absurdity”,
- and who, having at that rather vague imaginations about what is the relativity principle, Lorentz transformations, SR, sometimes seems what is physics at all, and so what is Dingle objection, “refute Dingle”.
Including the Sagnac effect is “considered” in this sense in this thread, though for any educated enough physicist it is clear, that this effect – in contrast to completely true Dingle objection – cannot be something, from which some the SR problem can appear – now there are numerous instruments/devices, where some Sagnac interferometers are used, however using of any such instruments didn’t resulted, say, in observation of its absolute motion – as that was in the M&M interferometer case;
- whereas from the Dingle objection completely rigorously by the completely rigorous “proof by contradiction” follows that Matter’s spacetime is absolute, and so really everything in Matter, including possible absolute [that are at rest in absolute space] frames, exist; and mostly move with absolute velocities.
As that is rigorously shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, for first reading see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/2,
- Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally Euclidian, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), and the absolute motion of a pair of free clocks can be observed yet now, including the absolute velocity of the clocks’ – and so further, say, of Earth, can be measured, see description of two corresponding experiments in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible DOI 10.5281/zenodo.48709.
A few other comments to some claims in the thread.
“…Absolute acceleration does not need an absolute frame because the acceleration of a given frame is the same with respect to all frames moving with constant velocity with respect to each other.….”
- there cannot be some “absolute acceleration of a given frame” which is “the same with respect to all frames moving with constant velocity with respect to each other” in the SR, since in the SR in every frame its own velocity isn’t known. So the observers fundamentally in the SR don’t know they are move or not; and so, if a frame is accelerated – the frame accelerates or decelerates; that is rather strange “absoluteness”.
“…”Isn't inertial frame absolute, Justo? And inertial with respect to what?”
→… “Good point. It is a mistery. That is why is called absolute space but relative constant motion with respect to it cannot be detected. One explanation could be Mach hypothesis”...”
- the absolute motion with respect to the absolute 3D space can be detected – that is only technological problem, because of the spacetime absolutely for sure is absolute; and this problem is really solvable see the experiments above; and, at that, there is no necessity to indicate concretely with respect to what concrete point in the absolute space concrete body/system/frame moves. Though, of course, without “explanation as Mach hypothesis”, since Mach was a mainstream philosopher, and so had fundamentally some strange imagination about what are “Matter”, “Space”, and “Time”.
Really all/every material objects, including, say the pair clocks in Space in the experiments above, move in the 4D sub-spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) with 4D velocities that have identical – since that is determined by properties of the Matter’s ether – dense lattice of [5]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE] – absolute values being equal only to the speed of light, c.
Correspondingly the T-bodies, which are composed from T-particles, which were created by 4D momentums that were directed along the cτ-axis, if are at rest in the absolute 3D space, then move only along the cτ-axis with the speed of light; and that is completely independent on in what concrete 3D space point a body is.
Since in this case a T-body, say, a clock, moves in the cτ-dimensions with maximal speed, it ticks with maximal rate, if this clock moves also in the 3D space, its speed in cτ-dimension decreases, as that Pythagoras prescribed – in Lorentz factor, and so the clock ticks slower in the Lorentz factor.
However because of the indeed very mighty relativity principle it is impossible to know – with what rate an one clock ticks; nonetheless, because of that the relativity principle and the Lorentz transformations don’t work completely in systems of free bodies, for at least two inertialy moving – or being at rest in some inertial frame – free clocks it is possible to measure the absolute velocity, how? – see the link above ; again – principally without necessity to indicate some “fixed in the space anchor”.
Cheers
Eugene F Kislyakov
-How can you differentiate between force and curvature of the space-time, Justo?
I believe your question is not relevant to the issue of inertia in SRT and Newtonian mechanics.
Curvature is relevant for gravitation and I think that's another issue.
Dear Justo Pastor Lambare
Dear Joachim Domsta
here an important reference:
https://brainofgitta.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/herve-c-lefevre-the-fiber-optic-gyroscope-artech-house-publishers-2014.pdf
discussing SR and aether approach. With permittivity of the fiber they claim aether has problems with drag...
Best regards
Jörn
Dear Eugene F Kislyakov
„To calculate you must always have reference point“
Right! The reference is the source of the light beam or the interacting parts (splitter, mirrors, fiber). Aether will violate conservation of momentum if not resting with all the lab parts. Aether has always to rest with the source or lab. That simply makes no sense in my opinion.
Best regards
Jörn
Dear Wolfgang Konle
“The Sagnac effect for ring interferometers ∆φ≈8πωA/λ (with A=ring area, ω=rotation speed, λ=optical wavelength, ∆φ=optical phase shift) is fully compliant with special relativity.“
Do you think that Wangs linear Sagnac effect is SR compliant too?
Best regards
Jörn
Jörn Schliewe
Thanks for the reference. Looks very good but is a whole damn book!
Yes but discuss all classic theories with the knowledge of application.
Dear Joachim Domsta
“According to my trials of reconstructing the derivation of the Sagnac formula for the Delta t which is
8 pi Omega A / lambda c
it appears to be multiplied by
gamma^2 for nonrelativistic case
gamma^1 for the relativistic case
Can someone confirm correctness of this result, please?“
Is confirmed in my paper:
Preprint On the upper bound of velocity
Best regards
Jörn
Dear Jörn Schliewe
Thanks fo this remark and a interesting article prepared by you. Since I have tried to follow your result immediatly after you made a link to this paper couple of weeks before, and since I could not understand the paremeter alfa (and this holds till now!), I would be grateful for an answer if at least my guess is ok, that you are advising to use formula (26) and/or (27) with alfa = 1, right?
In any case ( yes or not), I am not catching the reason of introducing fractional values for alfa. And many other questions, but this first is the basic one.
Best regards, Joachim Domsta
Dear Justo Pastor Lambare
the physical topic behind is: do we have an emissivity theory (Newton, Particle) or a undulatory theory (Huygens, waves). Modern physics avoid a clear decision by arguing with a particle wave duality and mysterious property of space time causing constant c. But what is really used? Obviously an emissivity theory as only interactions give us the information how to calculate something. Nobody uses the CMB or other aether frames.
Best regards
Jörn
Dear Joachim Domsta
the Sagnac formula in V4 is equation 26, yes.
However, it is Wangs generalised formula which include the special case of rotation.
The reason to introduce alpha is very simple. You need a factor (velocity) to transform the time into a spacelike coordinate to get a valid (Cartesian properties) 4d coordinate system. However, this factor can be c, infinit or jc or any other velocity jc/sqrt(alpha). All these 4d coordinate systems will fulfill the mathematical requirements on a coordinate transformation (but not necessarily the physical requirements). Alpha is introduced (Paulis book) to cover these generalised transformations. Alpha=1 is SR (Lorentz transformation), alpha=0 is Galiliean transformation which you call nonrelativistic (this wording is not correct maybe absolute time would fit) and alpha = -1 is Euclidean space time which is not in focus yet but I prefer for a couple of reasons.
So if you set alpha to 0 or 1 you see your results in equation 26.
Best regards
Jörn
Jörn Schliewe
I think, that any observation we can make is SR (and GR) compliant.
Sometimes it is only difficult to understand the compliancy.
Dear Wolfgang Konle
„I think, that any observation we can make is SR (and GR) compliant.“
Brave answer. I think an increase of electromagnetic field energy to infinity at zero volume (claimed by SR) approaching c will never be observed.
Also faster than light signal transmission in near field is not SR compliant but observed.
Best regards
Jörn
Hi I haven't been keeping up on the conversation here, in the last few days, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around what is the Sagnac effect, and here I provide some of my own notes on the subject, though they suffer from inaccuracy and incompleteness.
One thing I've noticed is that so much of the Sagnac effect described seems to be of the first order of angular velocity. So it can largely be represented without invoking Special Relativity because the speeds involved are well below that of the speed of light.
Unfortunately, though, the current state of my attached article does not derive this linear dependence. In order to do so, it needs to incorporate the doppler effect, as it applies to the emitter's velocity in the lab frame. I have made not of the flaw in the derivation within the article, but I have not yet summoned the motivation to fix it.
Yes, it is not relevant as a test of Special Relativity since you can easily detect the outcome at very low speeds. It is not easy at all to detect any outcome in which it is appreciable the contribution of higher order terms. The Sagnac effect is related to the very simple fact that Light takes a longer time to cross a longer distance.
Jörn Schliewe
I would not be so sure of what you say about CMBR...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_Cosmic_Microwave_Background_radiation_used_as_an_absolute_reference_frame_the_one_that_Newton_was_looking_for2
Dear Stefano Quattrini
had anyone measured a Doppler shift according to 400km/s relative velocity with respect to relative resting source? If there would be a resting wave carrying medium we would know and we would get a lot of headache to explain why such a medium is stiffly connected but not observable.
Best regards
Jörn
Dear Stefano Quattrini
„Yes, it is not relevant as a test of Special Relativity since you can easily detect the outcome at very low speeds. It is not easy at all to detect any outcome in which it is appreciable the contribution of higher order terms.“
I think Sagnac interferometers are one of the best options to measure second order effects we have. We have an outstanding accuracy and we have very fast spinning motors.
Best regards
Jörn
Jörn Schliewe "...an increase of electromagnetic field energy to infinity at zero volume (claimed by SR) approaching c will never be observed."
Yes, I also think that we will never observe this because electromagnetic field energy initially moves with c and never gets an acceleration to c, which would cause this Lorentz contraction. This kind of energy reacts in another way on acceleration as mass does. If a photon falls into a gravitational field, it increases its frequency. In a certain sense this is also a spatial contraction. But this is non-Lorentzian.
Dear Wolfgang Konle
I thought about a static field, e.g. a charged plate capacitor. There nothing moves with c and SR fails to describe the invariance of the situation for relative moving observer. Mass is electromagnetic energy m=E/c^2 but with SR it is impossible to understand that.
Best regards
Jörn
Jörn Schliewe
it is what emerged from observations... anisotropy of the CMBR due to the Doppler.
And the 400 km/s results also from other kind of measurements...do you really think that astronomers who rely on these observations are so naive??
Dear Wolfgang Konle ,
that is maybe one of the few things that are really in the scope of SR with the relativity of time...
Preprint FROM THE RELATIVISTIC MOMENTUM TO THE MASS ENERGY-EQUIVALENC...
Jörn Schliewe
I don't agre. In any case you should be able to propose an experimental configuration to show how these second order effect can come out.
Stefano Quattrini, Jörn Schliewe
Thank you Stefano, the short article "From the relativistic momentum to the mass energy-equivalence" is a convincing proof that E=mc² can be derived with special relativity formulas.
I withdraw my claim that E=mc² is out of the scope of special relativity. Jörn also should understand that proof.
Dear Stefano Quattrini
„it is what emerged from observations... anisotropy of the CMBR due to the Doppler.
And the 400 km/s results also from other kind of measurements...do you really think that astronomers who rely on these observations are so naive??“
The relative velocity of the average of noise sources are measured. Aether with aether winds would influence the wave propagation for resting sources, which has not been measured.
Best regards
Jörn
Dear Wolfgang Konle
it was your claim that mass energy equivalence has nothing to do with SR, not mine. My claim is that mass is electromagnetic field energy and SR is not able to give correct field energy transformation.
Best regards
Jörn
My view regarding aether and relativity is: we need polarisation and magnetisation in empty space but we need the relativity principle also, to make a consistent theory. Therefore both, aether theories and SR are partially right and partially wrong.
Dr. Schliewe, If we were to combine Maxwell's sea of molecular vortices with the Lorentz transformations of fields, would that not bring things more into line with the ultimate truth? As like explained here,
Article The Lorentz Aether Theory
The biggest problem with Einstein's special relativity in my opinion was his removal of Maxwell's luminiferous medium. This medium was necessary in order to supply an absolute rest frame for the Lorentz transformations. By removing the absolute rest frame, Einstein's theory became a paradox-filled absurdity.
Frederick David Tombe
Can you mention what those absurd paradoxes would be. At least one or two.
Jörn Schliewe
I don't doubt that we can achieve outstanding accuracy or very fast spinning. But do we really have both at the same time?
I'm just wondering what the actual experiment looks like. The resolving power of a diffraction grating is proportional to the number of illuminated slits. Then, besides having the diffraction grating, you have to project the diffraction pattern onto some kind of film; perhaps CMOS. Exactly how small and well-resolved can they make these detectors, and how fast are they spun up, in practice?
Dear Stefano Quattrini
“it is blackbody radiation, which sources are you talking about?“
All kind of sources and reflections are averaged.
Best regards
Jörn
Dear Frederick David Tombe
„If we were to combine Maxwell's sea of molecular vortices with the Lorentz transformations of fields, would that not bring things more into line with the ultimate truth?“
Surely worth a look at, but can a model ever be ultimate truth?
IMO, Maxwells model is an impossible mechanical analogy with stiff and coupled wheels and the Lorentz transformed fields are unphysical as I mentioned before. My approach is: just allow positive and negative charge densities to separate if energy is available. Energy and momentum conservation are ruling the behaviour.
Best regards
Jörn
Dear Jonathan Doolin
„I don't doubt that we can achieve outstanding accuracy or very fast spinning. But do we really have both at the same time?
I'm just wondering what the actual experiment looks like. The resolving power of a diffraction grating is proportional to the number of illuminated slits. Then, besides having the diffraction grating, you have to project the diffraction pattern onto some kind of film; perhaps CMOS. Exactly how small and well-resolved can they make these detectors, and how fast are they spun up, in practice?“
Thank you for this thoughtful comment!
The question is: what we need on the spinning disk? We need the splitter and the mirrors. Everything else can be in the lab frame, or not?
Best regards
Jörn
No, there is no contradiction. See e.g. Article Relativistic contraction and related effects in noninertial frames
We know that static or slowly modifying gravitational fields are everywhere and they have an energy density. Are they the aether?
For gravitational waves, they surely are!
"We know that static or slowly modifying gravitational fields are everywhere and they have an energy density. Are they the aether?"
Dear Wolfgang-Konle,
your idea apparently complies with Mach's principle. In fact, gravitational potential from remote masses of the universe is about 8 orders of magnitude larger at our location than the sun's gravitational potential. So we should not preclude significant influence from remote sources on local phenomena like, in particular, inertial forces and luminal speed ...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_it_make_sense_at_all_to_discuss_on_cosmology_without_taking_into_account_the_influence_of_remote_masses
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_speed_of_light_basically_limited_by_local_cumulative_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Aether_something_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_rest_mass_of_a_body_equivalent_to_local_accumulated_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does-formation-of-elementary-particles-confirm-Machs-principle
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_probe_the_local_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe
Johan K. Fremerey "So we should not preclude significant influence from remote sources on local phenomena like, in particular, inertial forces and luminal speed"
Is detection of a gravitational wave a local phenomenon?
Dr. Schliewe,
I wasn't talking about Maxwell's model in the sense of stiff and coupled wheels. I was talking about the general principles behind his hydrodynamical model as described in the preamble to Part I of his 1861 paper, before he introduced idle wheels in part II. More particularly, I was talking about my own modification of Maxwell's model as described in the article which I supplied.
Dr. Lambare, I'm talking about the clock paradox for a start. It is a paradox no matter how hard mainstream physicists try to talk their way out of it.
"Is detection of a gravitational wave a local phenomenon?"
Dear Wolfgang Konle,
formation of waves is a phenomenon of limited propagation speed. So in view of limited speed c I don't doubt the existence of gravitational waves. In view of inadequate experimental concepts, however, I largely doubt their claimed detection.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_LIGO_type_gravitational_wave_antennas_based_on_an_inadequate_experimental_concept
Jörn Schliewe
I genuinely do not know. The animations on the Wikipedia pages seemed to show that both emitter and detector were spinning with the rest of the apparatus. So I had imagined that the diffraction pattern and the device to measure the diffraction pattern had to be spinning around as well. That being said, there are engineering solutions to many problems that I would have thought would be intractable.
My experience with diffraction apparatus is fairly limited. In a 100 level physics class we use slides that have slits in them, and aim a laser light of known wavelength through it, then we measure the diffraction pattern all the way across the room. We have also self-contained apparatuses that are hand-held, where you can look into an eyepiece and see a diffraction pattern from a light source in the space of about 15 centimeters. You can also take the slides I mentioned before, and hold them directly up to your eye, and see somewhat of a diffraction pattern, though that last one can only be described qualitatively; I was thinking it might become a quantitative measurement if one used a digital camera device instead of one's eyeball.
Dear Jonathan Doolin
I think it is clear that the phase difference in the rays happen due to the different path lengths experienced on the disc. Once the rays have this phase difference we can measure in an arbitrary IRF because any change would happen on both rays.
Best regards
Jörn
The Sagnac effect in a vacuum can be analyzed as Doppler shifts. Note: Doppler shifts exist if aether wind do or do not exist.
A flaw in the Lorentz transformation adopted by Einstein: Axial Doppler shifts do not behave like axial aether winds. If a source and a reflector are moving toward or away from each other axially the reflected light observed on the source would have little or no frequency shift in case of aether winds because in one direction the light has a tail wind and the other a head wind (assumption of Lorentz), But in case of Doppler shifts if they are moving toward each other there is a blue shift if both directions (as in Doppler radar). And if they are moving away from each other there is a red shift in both directions.
Some links with proofs of effects of axial Doppler not disappearing and being put into the Lorentz transformation. Note Doppler shifts have angle terms. Since Both Lorentz and Einstein are academic heroes, expect experimenters to down play their errors.
A link to proofs that the axial shift changes observed time, not only the transverse shift.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16oJTvHAaV6TYPXMtGdz-NBqc1RW3yY-n/view?usp=sharing
In short the above says: Since the Fourier series decomposes and piece wise continuous function in the period from A to A+T into sine and cosine harmonics each of frequency nf. Any Doppler shift of a frequency ratio K of that function would change frequency of the harmonics to Knf leaving the rest of the series alone. The means all of value in the period from A to A+T of the original function occur in the Doppler shift function in the period A to A+T/K. The results is just frequency = 1/time hence changes in frequency changes time. Meaning all Doppler shifts change observed time and information rate.
A link to Impacts of angle in the axial shift, if the axial shift changes the things the transverse does.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16a16t5h7dXeUEwEYL7PYB9ke4i2bZO7p/view?usp=sharing
A link to a contrast aether winds in Lorentz's transformation and Doppler shift.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a_fu5q9WZF4yJBO0YIAbDMdvE6K8iBJm/view?usp=sharing
A lInk to ways unstated in textbooks relativity changes observed energy in light and particle beams (other than the energy change of each photon or particle). Not error in relativity just overlooked the effect of it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/176wia8LJNxjRAnDqK_XwAOABK5yqs8qM/view?usp=sharing
Thank you for your time,
Samuel Lewis Reich
Dear Joachim Domsta
Have you seen my answer to your question regarding alpha 2 days ago?
Here again for convenience:
the Sagnac formula in V4 is equation 26, yes.
However, it is Wangs generalised formula which include the special case of rotation.
The reason to introduce alpha is very simple. You need a factor (velocity) to transform the time into a spacelike coordinate to get a valid (Cartesian properties) 4d coordinate system. However, this factor can be c, infinit or jc or any other velocity jc/sqrt(alpha). All these 4d coordinate systems will fulfill the mathematical requirements on a coordinate transformation (but not necessarily the physical requirements). Alpha is introduced (Paulis book) to cover these generalised transformations. Alpha=1 is SR (Lorentz transformation), alpha=0 is Galiliean transformation which you call nonrelativistic (this wording is not correct maybe absolute time would fit) and alpha = -1 is Euclidean space time which is not in focus yet but I prefer for a couple of reasons.
So if you set alpha to 0 or 1 you see your results in equation 26.
Best regards
Jörn
Dear @Jörn Schliewe
0. Yes
1. Now I see that only three cases are considered alpha = -1, 0 or 1. The speed of light c will be assumed by me equal 1. Remarks concern paper On the upper bound of velocity
2. function at (15) satisfies
Delta f + f_tt = 0 for all k
3. function at 15 satisfies
Delta f - f_tt = 0 for k=0 only.
Right?
JoaD
Jörn Schliewe
That solves one of my issues. I've been trying to imagine how to stick a diffraction grating onto a device that doesn't need one. The path length difference is already there, of course.
>
Then it's only a question of which IRF is chosen, and the resolution with which the phase can be measured.
(1) Choosing the lab frame. The resulting light would rotate around the walls of the room very quickly
(2) Choosing a momentarily comoving inertial reference frame; e.g. attaching the detecting apparatus so that it spins around at the same rate.
But again, let me remind you of the question I'm trying to get at. I'm curious as to how the Sagnac devices operate, but underlying this are some other questions: Is there a trade-off between spinning speed and precision?
What is the fastest and most precise Sagnac device in operation? Is it actually precise enough to to observe second-order effects that are predicted by Special Relativity? If my reasoning holds, one can detect first-order effects in (v/c) with a device that measures just 1 or 2 significant figures. But to find second-order effects, one must compare (v/c) to (v/c)+(v/c)^2, and see which digit the two differ, to find out how many significant digits of precision the device must have to detect second order effects.
I heard someone bandying about the number 400 km/s earlier. For this rate of speed, you would need 4-significant digit precision to detect relativistic effects. For the speed of sound; 343 m/s, one would need 7 significant digit precision to detect the relativistic effects.
Perhaps there is a more clever experimental way to get at second-order effects. But right now, all I am hearing is that they're measuring the phase difference. One way to measure the phase difference, would be to say, "If it's bright, that's n*lambda, where n is an integer; if it's dark, that's (n+1/2)lambda, where n is an integer." This is at best a one-significant digit precision.
However, I did recently learn, in regards to the Michelson Moreley apparatus, that the resulting interference pattern was not simply a binary choice of dark or light, but rather, when things were exactly aligned, a Newton's-Ring-Like pattern emerged. By using this pattern, they might have achieved a much greater precision.
However, a "Much greater precision than binary" is still not necessarily the 4 significant digits necessary to detect the first-order (v/c) and second-order (v/c)^2 effects of an apparatus rotating at the speed of sound.
Dear Jonathan Doolin
„Then it's only a question of which IRF is chosen, and the resolution with which the phase can be measured.
(1) Choosing the lab frame. The resulting light would rotate around the walls of the room very quickly“
Think about the slowmoboys and send a Short pulse. But if you use absorbers you can use the splitter as a shutter and the light will leave the disk in one direction only.
„What is the fastest and most precise Sagnac device in operation? Is it actually precise enough to to observe second-order effects that are predicted by Special Relativity?„
The book I posted above should give you a good indication of precision. However, the devices seem to be optimised to detect slowest possible velocities so the sensitivity should be good. To detect second order effects we need high velocities. I think the design of a levitation bearing and a lightweight but stable disc with micro mirrors and splitter should be optimised. To get maximum speed a significant diameter should be achieved.
Maybe it is possible to increase sensitivity if we add a length compensation for the first order term to measure the change around this point. A lot of work but no physical impossibility in my opinion.
Best regards
Jörn
Dear Joachim Domsta
“2. function at (15) satisfies
Delta f + f_tt = 0 for all k
3. function at 15 satisfies
Delta f - f_tt = 0 for k=0 only.“
Function 15 is the bound solution of the Euclidean wave equation. I proved this function a solution of Maxwells equations in
Article Electrodynamics in Euclidean Space Time Geometries
The solution of the classic wave equation is in my opinion a trivial solution and unphysical as infinite field energy is transported in the plane wave. Impossible to draw how the curls reproduce the fields. For Galiliean transformation no invariant wave exist at all.
I have discussed the wave equations in the paper
Preprint On the upper bound of velocity
Best regards
Jörn
Dear @Jörn Schliewe
I just wonder why you analyse the invariance of 15 for alpha equal 1 (LT invariance), once it does not satisfy the wave eqn. for alpha= 1.
Thanks in advance, JoaD
Dear Joachim Domsta
„I just wonder why you analyse the invariance of 15 for alpha equal 1 (LT invariance), once it does not satisfy the wave eqn. for alpha= 1.“
Maybe I have to add a sentence to clarify. Eq. 16 is the transformed Euclidean part as well as the classical plane wave solution which is valid for LT alpha=1 and assuming an absolute reference frame also the expected solution for Galiliean waves.
The derivation makes sense for all transformations. I just saw more need for explanation of the Euclidean wave solution.
Best regards
Jörn
To all
The best method for testing Sagnac effect is Very Long Base Interferometry. We have 2 VLBI stations separated by the diameter of Earth and are observing in direction away from Sun. The VLBI aberration (equal to stellar aberration). The propagation time (42 msec) is changed 4.2 microsec due to Sagnac effect, when speed is changed 10-^4 times c in relation to Sun.
Sun is the reference for signals from deep space.
VLBI proves that Sagnac was right in 1913.
See below.
John-Erik
Ok dear Jörn.. So wouldn't it be better to consider waves with arbitrary speed? JoaD
Dear Joachim Domsta
I do not really understand where you are heading. My first idea was that all mathematically valid transformations are physically valid too. This would include all possible reference speeds. However, there are significant physical differences which have to be taken into account. My underlying assumption is that everything is EM energy. There are plenty of indications for that. Einstein derived the SR with the idea of an invariant Maxwell theory but for field energy SR do not work at all. Euclidean relativity does and this give me justification for c as a 45degree basis. All other velocities are mathematically possible. I see the chance to include inertia and gravity in this approach. But if I answer 2 questions I raise a dozen new ones.
BTW it is still possible that the rotation invariance fails at all.
Best regards
Jörn
The phase shift is due to Doppler shifts of time and space. In a vacuum, aether winds may or may not exist but Doppler shifts do exist. Vacuum Doppler shifts do not behave like wind shifts. If light goes form A to a moving reflective object (moving in a line A-B) B and back to A , in one direction the winds are tail winds in an other head winds and they cancel. The Doppler shifts in both directions are blue if B is moving to A and red in both directions if B is moving away form A. All shift analysis in a vacuum, must include the effects of axial Doppler shifts and if the aether winds exist, them. In water or glass the motion effect overwhelm Doppler effects (their refractive index is much different than that of a vacuum.
From the nature of Fourier series the frequency shift speeds or slows observed time changes and hence observed phase changes. if the speed of light is invariant, Doppler shift of percent R in time will also be a shift in space and phase of R.
A link to proofs that the axial shift changes observed time, not only the transverse shift.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16oJTvHAaV6TYPXMtGdz-NBqc1RW3yY-n/view?usp=sharing
In short the above says: Since the Fourier series decomposes and piece wise continuous function in the period from A to A+T into sine and cosine harmonics each of frequency nf. Any Doppler shift of a frequency ratio K of that function would change frequency of the harmonics to Knf leaving the rest of the series alone. The means all of value in the period from A to A+T of the original function occur in the Doppler shift function in the period A to A+T/K. The results is just frequency = 1/time hence changes in frequency changes time. Meaning all Doppler shifts change observed time and information rate.
A link to how angle in the axial Doppler shift affect many things:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16a16t5h7dXeUEwEYL7PYB9ke4i2bZO7p/view?usp=sharing
Dear Jörn Schliewe
Thank you for comments. the first one:
>>I do not really understand where you are heading.My first idea was that all mathematically valid transformations are physically valid too.
Dear Joachim Domsta
I feel honoured that you go into this depth analysing my work. Many thanks for that!
Some questions:
1. If only positive wave numbers makes sense and you skip the absolute signs in transversal directions, isn’t the field energy diverge to infinity in negative direction?
2. Why you speak about semi rotation? In Euclidean space time it is an elliptic (true) rotation not a hyperbolic (semi), or not?
3. Do you think the function can represent a bound wave even in Minkowski space time?
Best regards
Jörn
Dear Jörn Schliewe
Many thanks for thanks!
You have raised up the following problems:
>>1. If only positive wave numbers makes sense and you skip the absolute signs in transversal directions, isn’t the field energy diverge to infinity in negative direction?2. Why you speak about semi rotation? In Euclidean space time it is an elliptic (true) rotation not a hyperbolic (semi), or not?
CORRECTION: the given example for the hyperbolic case is wrong.
An example with correct choice of the wave numbers can be chosen as follows:
exp( -x -2y) cos(3z -2 c t).
Then the constant factor after application of
\Delta- c^{-2} d^2/dt^2
equals
1^2 + 2^2 - 3^2 + 2^2 = 0;
The phase speed of the wave part in z-direcion equals: 2 c / 3 .
Let me stress that the group velocity substantially depends on the chosen family of waves to construct the linear combination of the solutions of the hyperbolic homogeneous equations.
JoaD
Dear Joachim Domsta
>>1. If only positive wave numbers makes sense and you skip the absolute signs in transversal directions, isn’t the field energy diverge to infinity in negative direction?3. Do you think the function can represent a bound wave even in Minkowski space time?
I consider the phenomenon called the Sagnac effect a bit of a misnomer (although I don’t know of a better label). It was first observed by Georges Sagnac in 1913 using a loop interferometer with counter propagating light beams directed around the perimeter of a rotating platform. However this phenomenon is more general and it doesn’t depend on rotation.
Based on the classical propagation of waves in a medium (which assumes absolute time and Euclidean space), the phenomenon is simply due to the change of position (motion) of a receiver with respect to the propagation medium between the instant of emission of a wavefront to the instant of its reception. This results in a longer or shorter propagation pathlength (and a longer or shorter propagation time) than if the receiver is stationary (wrt the medium). It does not depend on rotation (or acceleration) although rotation can result in a change in the propagation path length. Think of a model boat sailing toward or away from the center of a pond when a rock is dropped in the center.
Note that, according to classical wave propagation, the motion of the source with respect to the medium has no effect on the propagation pathlength. Once the rock is dropped, the waves propagate from the center at their characteristic speed independent of any motion of the rock. Further note that even though this property is trivially true for classical wave propagation, it was proposed as a postulate (the 2nd) by Einstein in his 1905 paper “On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies”:
“...that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.”
For a loop interferometer like the one Sagnac used, the prism/beam splitter (i.e. the combined emitter and receiver) is moving away from a wavefront sent in the direction of rotation (pathlength increases). And it is moving toward a wavefront sent in the opposite direction (pathlength decreases). This results in a phase/fringe shift of the interfering waves proportional to the speed of the prism with respect to the Earth Centered Inertial reference frame (the ECI).
A common confusion is that this phenomenon depends on the area enclosed by the light path and the rotation rate of the table. The phenomenon actually depends on the speed of the prism with respect to the ECI resulting in a difference in propagation path length and a phase/fringe shift. However the phase shift function can be equivalently expressed as a function of area and rotation rate. For further details see section 6 of [1].
Another important point is that explanations of the Sagnac Effect based on the framework of Einstein’s Relativity assume that rotation (i.e. acceleration) is required. The reason is that if the phenomenon occurs for unaccelerated one-way straight-line motion, it would be a clear violation of Special Relativity. In other words, the propagation time is not independent of the relative motion of emitter and receiver (observer) and it is a first order in (v/c) phenomenon. The second order Lorentz transformation is negligible for the low speeds involved.
And the problem (some would say fatal problem) for Special Relativity is that it does occur for unaccelerated one-way straight-line motion. A direct example is the experiment by Ruyong Wang as reported in 2003 in Physics Letters A [2]. Another example is the difference in propagation times of microwave pulses sent in opposite directions between laboratories located on the order of ~1000 kilometers or more apart at the same latitude. The time difference is proportional to separation distance and the cosine of latitude. It is due velocity of the locations with respect to the ECI resulting from the rotation of the Earth [3,4]. Note this doesn’t occur for labs located along a north-south line of longitude. It also occurs for microwaves sent from GPS satellites to ground receivers. Here the phenomenon is called either the Sagnac effect or the pseudo-range correction and it is used to calculate a location by every GPS receiver [1]. The Michelson-Gale experiment in 1925 also detected a Sagnac effect due the rotation of the Earth with respect to the ECI. And meter scale ring lasers detect the Earth’s rotation 24/7 to many orders of magnitude greater precision than Michelson-Gale [4].
The Michelson interferometer is also a type of loop interferometer because it makes use of the same general principle of motion of a receiver with respect to a propagation medium as described above. However, for a Michelson interferometer, the propagation path lengths appear to be fixed as the distance between the prism and the mirrors is fixed. However, if the whole instrument moves with respect to a propagation medium at rest with the ECI, the propagation path lengths of the perpendicular arms will change as they are rotated between parallel and perpendicular with respect to the velocity direction. For a geostationary lab the velocity is due to the Earth's rotation; for a spacecraft in low Earth orbit it would be due to its orbital velocity. Note that for a Michelson interferometer, the first order Sagnac effect is canceled due to the reflection of the beams. However a second order (v/c)² residual effect remains. See section 6 of [1].
The Sagnac effect observed by intercontinental microwave links, the GPS, and meter scale laser rings is direct evidence that the ECI represents a “preferred” inertial reference frame for all electromagnetic wave propagation phenomena in the vicinity of the Earth. Further they show that the Earth rotates within the ECI and that no influence is observed of the Earth’s orbital motion around the Sun or the solar system’s motion within the galaxy or beyond. This should also hold true for second order instruments like the Michelson interferometer. Prof. Su’s Local-Ether Model [1] asserts that the apparent null results of MMX type experiments is that the motion of a geostationary lab with respect to a preferred reference frame is due only to the Earth’s rotation and this is much smaller than the velocity due to the Earth’s solar orbital velocity as expected by the ether models assumed by almost all of orthodox (and unorthodox) physics. It is approximately a 7000x smaller effect since it is proportional to (v/c)². This is too small to unambiguously detect even by modern Michelson interferometers using lasers and cavity resonators.
Best regards,
Jim Marsen
Dear James Marsen,
Yes, it doesn't indeed depend on rotation...
indeed, it is a classical effect in v/c, which can be found also for non-EM waves...
same as the classical Doppler effect...
totally agreed, the Sagnac effect detects a preferred frame which is "more inertial" than others considering the physically possible frames in the vicinity of Earth...
it is hopeless to try to derive it with the Lorentz Transformations infact...since it is where these transformations get misapplied in the attempt to explain the phenomenon...
this paper is really interesting since defines a background which is modeled by gravitation, creating "ecosystems" according to gravitational influence
What has to be understood is if a "local preferred frame" ,not necessarily accompanied by gravitation, is a sufficient condition to partially invalidate SR.
Plz read my research papers and videos relating to Cosmic speed is one-third the speed of light to infer Special Relativity Theory is already invalidated and we can only observe meagre relativistic effects.
Signal transmission between moving objects is fundamentally different to electromagnetic wave propagation. The signal does not follow a geodesic path.
Signal emission and reception fill an angular pattern. The actual signal path depends on the relative movement of sender and receiver. With a narrow beam of zero beam width, a stable connection between sender and receiver would not be possible.
Dear Justo Pastor Lambare
there is this interesting paper about Sagnac effect.
Article The Sagnac effect and the role of simultaneity in relativity theory
I don't know if it was already mentioned somewhere in this thread.
Stefano Quattrini Thank you for the reference. Sounds very interesting.
Both special relativity as currently formed) and the Lorentz transformation assumes the axial Doppler shift does not affect time. The properties of Fourier trigometric time series of any piece wise continuous function (signal) shows it does. This changes simultaneous ideas indeed even dimensions of time.
A link to proofs, based on the properties of axial shifted Fourier time series, that the axial shift changes observed time, not only the transverse shift.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16oJTvHAaV6TYPXMtGdz-NBqc1RW3yY-n/view?usp=sharing
In short the above says: Since the Fourier series decomposes and piece-wise continuous function in the period from A to A+T into sine and cosine harmonics each of frequency nf. Any Doppler shift of a frequency ratio K of that function would change frequency of the harmonics to Knf leaving the rest of the series alone. The means all of value in the period from A to A+T of the original function occur in the Doppler shift function in the period A to A+T/K. The results are just
frequency = 1/time hence changes in frequency changes time. Meaning all Doppler shifts change observed time and information rate.
The Michelson-Morley experiments did not address the effects of axial Doppler shifts. Because after the light hit an optical element fixed to the Earth there were no more axial shifts. Assuming that first element had a refractive index much different than 1.
A link to Impacts of angle in the axial shift, if the axial shift changes the things the transverse does.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16a16t5h7dXeUEwEYL7PYB9ke4i2bZO7p/view?usp=sharing
A link to a contrast aether winds in Lorentz's transformation and Doppler shift.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a_fu5q9WZF4yJBO0YIAbDMdvE6K8iBJm/view?usp=sharing
A link to ways unstated in textbooks relativity changes observed energy in light and particle beams (other than the energy change of each photon or particle). Not error in relativity just overlooked the effect of it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/176wia8LJNxjRAnDqK_XwAOABK5yqs8qM/view?usp=sharing
Thank you for your time,
Samuel Lewis Reich
The aberration in the very long base interferometry (VLBI) is 4.2 microseconds for stations on opposite sides of Earth. Since communiction with light speed between these stations is 42 milliseconds, We get v/c=10^-4, with v=orbiting speed of Earth.
Sagnac effect can explain the VLBI aberration. This means that we can explain the ether.
John-Erik
Some omissions in relativity independent of that effect:
A link to proofs, based on the properties of axial shifted Fourier time series, that the axial shift changes observed time, not only the transverse shift. https://drive.google.com/file/d/16oJTvHAaV6TYPXMtGdz-NBqc1RW3yY-n/view?usp=sharing In short the above says: Since the Fourier series decomposes and piece-wise continuous function in the period from A to A+T into sine and cosine harmonics each of frequency nf. Any Doppler shift of a frequency ratio K of that function would change frequency of the harmonics to Knf, leaving the rest of the series alone. The means all of value in the period from A to A+T of the original function occur in the Doppler shift function in the period A to A+T/K. The results are just frequency = 1/time hence changes in frequency changes time. Meaning all Doppler shifts change observed time and information rate. The Michelson-Morley experiments did not address the effects of axial Doppler shifts. Because after the light hit an optical element fixed to the Earth there were no more axial shifts. Assuming that first element had a refractive index much different than 1. A link to Impacts of angle in the axial shift, if the axial shift changes the things the transverse does. https://drive.google.com/file/d/16a16t5h7dXeUEwEYL7PYB9ke4i2bZO7p/view?usp=sharing A link to a contrast aether winds in Lorentz's transformation and Doppler shift. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a_fu5q9WZF4yJBO0YIAbDMdvE6K8iBJm/view?usp=sharing A link to ways unstated in textbooks relativity changes observed energy in light and particle beams (other than the energy change of each photon or particle). Not error in relativity just overlooked the effect of it. https://drive.google.com/file/d/176wia8LJNxjRAnDqK_XwAOABK5yqs8qM/view?usp=sharing Thank you for your time, Samuel Lewis Reich
- Badges
- Science topic