0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
There are many problems, boron won't help being one of them.I think you cannot get interference between beams of oppositely polarised light.
Time, Energy, and the one-way speed of light.As many of you know, I've been struggling with the idea of measuring the one-way speed of light, and have come to the realization that the measurement has to be done with a single clock, and thus with a mechanically coupled device. Assuming one can't come up with a better clock not subject to relativity. I'll endeavor to describe a possible mechanical device to do the measurement.
In a sense, time is inextricably intertwined with space. Yet, it all depends on the definition of time itself. With a known reference frame, one can always match one's measurements of time to what is observed in the fixed reference frame.
It seems as if velocity with respect to the “rest frame” is a representation of Kinetic Energy, which then expresses itself in a manner that fouls up our clocks. In particular, the Kinetic Energy is affecting the energy required to change the hyperfine state of atoms being used in the atomic clocks. We are ineffective at communicating these changes from location to location as limited by the one-way speed of light without precisely knowing the background velocity of the universe.At this point, we haven't determined our velocity vector with respect to space, and thus the necessary adjustments to our velocity dependent clocks are impossible to calculate.
It is a good estimate to use the premise that the speed of light is the same in all directions, and likely accurate to about 4 significant figures. However, a better estimate for the background reference frame might be our velocity vector with respect to the cosmic microwave background radiation, coupled with the orbit of the Earth. Here are some speed estimates.
I believe that we could get a better representation of the one-way speed of light by adding in these correction factors, but the effect is only seen in at most the 4th significant figure with respect to the speed of light.One option would be to consider the Sun with respect to distant stars as being in a fixed (rest) frame, then the correction factors for everything orbiting the sun would be relatively easy to calculate, in which case the correction factors hits the 5th significant figure.I don't see the idea of a variable one-way speed of light as necessarily contradicting relativity, but rather augmenting it.
As one's speed approached the speed of light, the one-way speed of light in front of one's ship would appear to approach twice the speed of light, while the that behind the ship would appear to approach zero, with the average speed of light continuing to be the well known c.
Time difference is twice the difference in which the ideal speed of light traverses the differential locations of the endpoints of the frame shift, and would be essentially constant for a specific velocity of the frame-shift.
One proposition is that we are unable to ever measure the true one-way speed of light, or the true difference in the speeds in opposing directions. One could still define an arbitrary rest frame, such as our sun, and then expand from there.However, I believe that we can, in fact, design an apparatus to measure the one-way speed of light to one or two significant figures. The trick is to design a mechanically operated dual shutter system controlled by a single timing device.Not finding a difference would assure us that we are not, in fact, on the precipice of a black hole.
Time, Energy, and the one-way speed of light.As many of you know, I've been struggling with the idea of measuring the one-way speed of light, and have come to the realization that the measurement has to be done with a single clock, and thus with a mechanically coupled device. Assuming one can't come up with a better clock not subject to relativity. I'll endeavor to describe a possible mechanical device to do the measurement.................