Re-Analysis of the Marinov Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment

School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide 5001, Australia

The anisotropy of the speed of light at 1 part in 10^3 has been detected by Michelson and Morley (1887), Miller (1925/26), Illingworth (1927), Joos (1930), Jaseja et al. (1964), Torr and Kolen (1984), DeWitte (1991) and Cahill (2006) using a variety of experimental techniques, from gas-mode Michelson interferometers (with the relativistic theory for these only determined in 2002) to one-way RF coaxial cable propagation timing. All agree on the speed, right ascension and declination of the anisotropy velocity. The Stephan Marinov experiment (1984) detected a light speed anisotropy using a mechanical coupled shutters technique which has holes in co-rotating disks, essentially a one-way version of the Fizeau mechanical round-trip speed-of-light experiment. The Marinov data is re-analysed herein because the velocity vector he determined is in a very different direction to that from the above experiments. No explanation for this difference has been uncovered.

That the speed of light in vacuum is the same in all directions, i.e. isotropic, for all observers has been taken as a critical assumption in the standard formulation of fundamental physics, and was introduced by Einstein in 1905 as one of his key postulates when formulating his interpretation of Special Relativity. The need to detect any anisotropy has challenged physicists from the 19th century to the present day, particularly following the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. The problem arose when Maxwell in 1861 successfully computed the speed of light c from his unified theory of electric and magnetic fields: but what was the speed c relative to? There have been many attempts to detect any supposed light-speed anisotropy, and as discussed in the Sect.2 there have so far been 8 successful and consistent such experiments, and as well numerous unsuccessful experiments, i.e. experiments in which no anisotropy was observed. The reasons for these different outcomes is now understood: any light-speed anisotropy produces not only an expected ‘direct’ effect, being that which is expected to produce a ‘signal’, but also affects the very physical structure of the apparatus, and with this effect usually overlooked in the design of some detectors. In some designs these effects exactly cancel.

The key point here is not whether the predicted Special Relativity effects are valid or invalid, for the experimental evidence is overwhelming that these predictions are valid, but rather whether the Lorentz or Einstein interpretation of Special Relativity is correct. This debate has always been confused by the failure to understand that the successes of Special Relativity, and its apparent deduction from the above Einstein postulate, does not actually require that the speed of light be invariant, as Fitzgerald and Lorentz pointed out over 100 years ago, see discussions in [1, 19]. Rather the issue is whether the Special Relativity effects are caused by absolute motion of systems through a dynamical 3-space, or whether we have no 3-space and only a four-dimensional spacetime. So the question is about whether or not the 3-space can be detected by means of the anisotropy of light, since in this interpretation the speed is c only relative to this space locally.

This comes down to the issue of whether 3-space or spacetime actually exists, not whether the local Special Relativity effects are valid or not. As already stated there is overwhelming evidence from 8 experiments that the speed of light is anisotropic, and with a large anisotropy at the level of 1 part in 10^3: so these experiments show that a dynamical 3-space exists, and that the spacetime concept was only a mathematical construct - it does not exist as an entity of reality, it has no ontological significance. These developments have lead to a new physics in which the dynamics of the 3-space have been formulated, together with the required generalisations of the Maxwell equations (as first suggested by Hertz in 1890 [3]), and of the Schr¨odinger and Dirac equations, which have lead to the new emergent theory and explanation of gravity, with numerous confirmations of that theory from the data from 1 black hole systematics, light bending, spiral galaxy rotation anomalies, bore hole anomalies, etc. This data has revealed that the coupling constant for the self-interaction of the dynamical 3-space is none other than the fine structure constant ≈ 1/137 [9, 10, 11, 12], which suggests an emerging unified theory of quantum matter and a quantum foam description of the dynamical 3-space.

5 Conclusions The re-analysis herein of the Marinov one-way light-speed anisotropy experiment has left unexplained why his anisotropy velocity is so different from that detected by 8 other experiments. However we note that it is quite similar to the anisotropy vector arising from the CMB detections. The observed light-speed anisotropy in all the experiments is very large being in excess of 1 part in 10^3. This effect continues to be denied by mainstream physics, despite its detection involving at least 8 experiments extending over more than 100 years. What this effect shows is that reality involves a dynamical 3-space, as Lorentz suggested, and not a spacetime as Einstein suggested. Nevertheless, as discussed in [19], one can arrive at the spacetime as a well-defined mathematical construct, but which has no ontological significance. This means that the special relativity effects are caused by the actual absolute motion of systems through the 3-space as Lorentz long ago suggested. It also means that this 3-space is a dynamical system and the internal dynamics for this 3-space have already been determined [1], and which has lead to a new explanation for gravity, namely that it is caused by the refraction of either EM waves or quantum matter waves by the time dependence and inhomogeneities of the flow of the substructure of this 3-space. As discussed in [1, 19] many of these absolute motion experiments revealed fluctuations or turbulence in the velocity v, and these correspond to the gravitational waves. These wave effects occur in v at the 20% level, so even they could be detected in a modern mechanical light chopper apparatus, although the new optical fiber technique is even simpler. This research is supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant 2005-2006: Development and Study of a New Theory of Gravity.

Thanks, AG.
From what I can gather about this scientific controversy, one of the approaches that was supposed to settle it was the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory being used as a gravity wave detector. Has it found gravity waves? If not, would that indicate an upper bound of how energetic they would be?

Gravity wave detector all set
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2003/denver_2003/2774163.stm

The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2266921/posts

Hatch’s proposed alternative to special and general relativity theory, Modified Lorentz Aether Gauge Theory (MLET), agrees with General Relativity at first order but corrects many astronomical anomalies that GRT cannot account for without ad-hoc assumptions, such as the anomalous rotation of galaxies and certain anomalies in planetary orbits. In addition, the force of gravity is self-limiting in MLET, which eliminates point singularities (black holes), one of the major shortcomings of GRT. One of the testable predictions of Hatch’s theory is that LIGO, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, will fail to detect gravity waves. As of July 2007, this prediction stands. (30)

http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/archives/archive51/newposts/347/topic347102.shtm

BTW, Roberts is mentioned in post #5 above. At this point the discussion appears to be logjammed with scientific gobbledegook. Can you make heads or tails of it to a layman?

Response to Tom Roberts, “What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?” http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
• Tom presents statements that are biased in favour of SR. He says:
3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic. These theories share the property that the round-trip speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic only in an aether frame. In all of these theories the effect of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above, especially Zhang (in which these theories are called “Edwards frames”).

My response to the following comments is in italics.
[Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic.]
“The oneway experiments he then lists are based on Einstein’s clock synchronization method (which we know is rigged to fix the speed of light to be constant). The “large class” refers to ether theories. Tom believes that experiments that are inconsistent with SR are not acceptable, and his criticism of them shows personal bias”.

[These theories share the property that the round-trip speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic only in an aether frame.]
“The fact that SR rigs the result to give a constant speed of light is not mentioned. And even if an observer moving through the ether detected anisotropy, relativity would reject it”.

[In all of these theories the effect of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all are experimentally indistinguishable from SR.]
“This is not true. The time dilation effects due to slow clock transport are negligible and can be ignored. But, there is no experimental evidence to back up his claim. If slow clock transport experiments are done they will show up sidereal time variations due to ether flow, which are predicted by ether theories but inconsistent with SR. See Wisp’s one-way speed of light experiments”.

All of these theories predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above, especially Zhang (in which these theories are called “Edwards frames”).]
“This is not true. Wisp theory predicts clocks on the equator suffer sidereal period variations of +/- 0.7nS, which cannot be accounted for with SR. There is one important thing that Tom fails to mention about SR: the constancy of the speed of light result is fixed (rigged), and such SR should be wholly rejected”.

I should have mentioned that the Tom Roberts on the earlier link Experimental Basis of Special Relativity is evidently the same (Dr.) Tom Roberts in the debate linked in the previous post.

For a more direct confrontation between Dr. Tom Roberts and Dr. Cahill (who evidently uses the posting handle of "Peter") click on this debate.

I think these are the correct bios (the conflict between areas of interest and research should be apparent:)

Dr. Tom Roberts

Dr. Reginald T. Cahill

Of course, Cahill's observations and theories are predisposed to his own process physics which is like a "new kind of science" (or paradigm) akin to Stephen Wolfram's. In that regard, you might find the discussion on Wolfram's forum also interesting.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.