From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thoughts on this European Physical Journal paper or at least the abstract?

https://epjb.epj.org/articles/epjb/abs/2001/22/b0599/b0599.html

Abstract:

The east-west directional anisotropy in clock rate observed in the Hafele-Keating experiment
with circumnavigation atomic clocks is commonly ascribed to the special relativity. In this investigation,
based on the local-ether wave equation, an entirely different
interpretation of this anisotropy is presented
by showing that the clock-rate variation can originate from an intrinsic quantum property of the atom. For
a harmonic-like wavefunction, the local-ether wave equation leads to a first-order time evolution equation
similar to Schr-?odingerrCOs equation. However, the time derivative incorporates a speed-dependent factor sim-
ilar to that in the Lorentz mass-variation law. Consequently, the
quantum energy, the transition frequency,
and hence the atomic clock rate decrease with the atom speed by this speed-dependent mass-variation
factor. According to the local-ether model, the speed is referred
specifically to a geocentric or heliocentric
inertial frame for an earthbound or interplanetary clock, respectively.
It is shown that this restriction on
reference frame is actually in accord with the various experimental
results of the anisotropy and the clock-
rate difference in the Hafele-Keating experiment, the synchronism and
the clock-rate adjustment in GPS
(global positioning system), and of the spatial isotropy in the
Hughes-Drever experiment. Moreover, the
switching of the unique reference frame is in accord with the
frequency-shift formulas adopted in earth-
bound and interplanetary spacecraft microwave links. Meanwhile, the local-ether model predicts a constant
deviation in frequency shift from the calculated result reported in an interplanetary spacecraft link. This
discrepancy then provides a means to test the local-ether wave equation.

Cheers
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

amirjf <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote or quoted:

factor. According to the local-ether model, the speed is referred

Many physicists and critics pretty much see Ching-Chuan
Su's local-ether model as a solution in search of a problem.
While it tries to offer a classical, common-sense take on
electrodynamics, it runs into some serious headwinds when
held up against Special and General Relativity.

SR accounts for the Michelson-Morley wash through two simple
postulates: physical laws are invariant and light speed is
a constant. Critics argue that tacking on a physical "ether"
that gets dragged along is just an ad hoc move that muddies
the waters without actually boosting predictive power.

Su's model falls back on Galilean relativity. Critics point
out that Maxwell's equations are naturally Lorentz-invariant;
trying to shoehorn them into a Galilean frame usually means
having to doctor them with extra terms that don't have any
independent experimental legs to stand on.

A classic knock against "dragged" ether models is stellar
aberration. If the ether were totally dragged by the
Earth's surface, as Su claims for local tests, critics
argue we wouldn't see this shift at all.

GR reads gravity as spacetime curvature where the metric is
a dynamical field. Su's model treats the ether as a physical
medium that thickens with gravitational potential. Critics
argue GR's geometric path is way better at calling the shots
on big-picture stuff like black holes.

Mainstream physics hinges on the Einstein Equivalence
Principle (EEP), which says the laws of physics are the
same in any local free-fall frame. Su's model brings in a
specific reference frame, which critics say flies in the face
of a symmetry that's been tested to the nth degree.

Some modern folks suggest GR is basically an ether theory where
"spacetime" is the medium. But they argue Su's version is a
dead end because it doesn't lead to the heavy-duty math that
defines GR's biggest wins.

Su chalked up a tiny signal in the 1979 Brillet-Hall test to
ether-wind. Critics stick to the story that these signals are
just thermal noise or gear instability, since they don't track
with seasonal cycles the way a real ether-wind would.

Su claimed his model nailed the Sagnac effect in GPS better, but
mainstreamers point out the standard correction used in GPS fits
SR like a glove when you run the numbers in a non-rotating frame.


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Stefan Ram wrote:

amirjf <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote or quoted:

factor. According to the local-ether model, the speed is referred

Many physicists and critics pretty much see Ching-Chuan
Su's local-ether model as a solution in search of a problem.
While it tries to offer a classical, common-sense take on
electrodynamics, it runs into some serious headwinds when
held up against Special and General Relativity.

SR accounts for the Michelson-Morley wash through two simple
postulates: physical laws are invariant and light speed is
a constant. Critics argue that tacking on a physical "ether"
that gets dragged along is just an ad hoc move that muddies
the waters without actually boosting predictive power.

Su's model falls back on Galilean relativity. Critics point
out that Maxwell's equations are naturally Lorentz-invariant;
trying to shoehorn them into a Galilean frame usually means
having to doctor them with extra terms that don't have any
independent experimental legs to stand on.

A classic knock against "dragged" ether models is stellar
aberration. If the ether were totally dragged by the
Earth's surface, as Su claims for local tests, critics
argue we wouldn't see this shift at all.

GR reads gravity as spacetime curvature where the metric is
a dynamical field. Su's model treats the ether as a physical
medium that thickens with gravitational potential. Critics
argue GR's geometric path is way better at calling the shots
on big-picture stuff like black holes.

Mainstream physics hinges on the Einstein Equivalence
Principle (EEP), which says the laws of physics are the
same in any local free-fall frame. Su's model brings in a
specific reference frame, which critics say flies in the face
of a symmetry that's been tested to the nth degree.

Some modern folks suggest GR is basically an ether theory where
"spacetime" is the medium. But they argue Su's version is a
dead end because it doesn't lead to the heavy-duty math that
defines GR's biggest wins.

Su chalked up a tiny signal in the 1979 Brillet-Hall test to
ether-wind. Critics stick to the story that these signals are
just thermal noise or gear instability, since they don't track
with seasonal cycles the way a real ether-wind would.

Su claimed his model nailed the Sagnac effect in GPS better, but
mainstreamers point out the standard correction used in GPS fits
SR like a glove when you run the numbers in a non-rotating frame.

Reads like written by an LLM.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Stefan Ram wrote:

amirjf <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote or quoted:

factor. According to the local-ether model, the speed is referred

Many physicists and critics pretty much see Ching-Chuan
Su's local-ether model as a solution in search of a problem.
While it tries to offer a classical, common-sense take on
electrodynamics, it runs into some serious headwinds when
held up against Special and General Relativity.

SR accounts for the Michelson-Morley wash through two simple
postulates: physical laws are invariant and light speed is
a constant. Critics argue that tacking on a physical "ether"
that gets dragged along is just an ad hoc move that muddies
the waters without actually boosting predictive power.

Su's model falls back on Galilean relativity. Critics point
out that Maxwell's equations are naturally Lorentz-invariant;
trying to shoehorn them into a Galilean frame usually means
having to doctor them with extra terms that don't have any
independent experimental legs to stand on.

A classic knock against "dragged" ether models is stellar
aberration. If the ether were totally dragged by the
Earth's surface, as Su claims for local tests, critics
argue we wouldn't see this shift at all.

GR reads gravity as spacetime curvature where the metric is
a dynamical field. Su's model treats the ether as a physical
medium that thickens with gravitational potential. Critics
argue GR's geometric path is way better at calling the shots
on big-picture stuff like black holes.

Mainstream physics hinges on the Einstein Equivalence
Principle (EEP), which says the laws of physics are the
same in any local free-fall frame. Su's model brings in a
specific reference frame, which critics say flies in the face
of a symmetry that's been tested to the nth degree.

Some modern folks suggest GR is basically an ether theory where
"spacetime" is the medium. But they argue Su's version is a
dead end because it doesn't lead to the heavy-duty math that
defines GR's biggest wins.

Su chalked up a tiny signal in the 1979 Brillet-Hall test to
ether-wind. Critics stick to the story that these signals are
just thermal noise or gear instability, since they don't track
with seasonal cycles the way a real ether-wind would.

Su claimed his model nailed the Sagnac effect in GPS better, but
mainstreamers point out the standard correction used in GPS fits
SR like a glove when you run the numbers in a non-rotating frame.

Reads like written by an LLM.

An Ai-generated rewrite.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2