Relativity and Cosmology

   

One Way Speed of Light Test – is it Possible?

Authors: Doug Marett

Einstein in 1905 introduced the constancy of the speed of light as a postulate, but in so doing removed the 19th century idea that the speed of light can be explained physically. So one might ask the question, why is the speed of light the speed that it is, and not something else? Einstein’s theory provides no answer for this question. As a philosophical exercise, we consider if relativity genuinely disproved the alternative hypothesis, that light can be modeled as a wave propagating through a medium that is static with respect to the universe. We further consider if this alternative model can remain consistent with the experimentally observed speed of light. We examine herein the mathematical arguments of Herbert Ives regarding slow clock transport with respect to such a hypothetical “preferred frame” for the velocity of light, and find that this leads to a prediction of clock biases which obfuscate any one-way speed of light differences expected from a Galilean addition of velocities. As such the Lorentzian model followed by Ives can be seen as equivalent to relativity, but differing in the conventions regarding the synchronization of clocks. Finally, we explore how clocks positioned in a static frame of reference might be used to make the anticipated one-way speed of light visible experimentally.

Comments: 7 Pages.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2018-10-02 21:38:36

Unique-IP document downloads: 24 times

Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus