Theoretical analysis of generalized Sagnac effect in the standard synchronization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Sagnac effect has been shown in inertial frames as well as rotating frames. We solve the problem of the generalized Sagnac effect in the standard synchronization of clocks. The speed of a light beam that traverses an optical fiber loop is measured with respect to the proper time of the light detector, and is shown to be other than the constant c, though it appears to be c if measured by the time standard-synchronized. The fiber loop, which can have an arbitrary shape, is described by an infinite number of straight lines such that it can be handled by the general framework of Mansouri and Sexl (MS). For a complete analysis of the Sagnac effect, the motion of the laboratory should be taken into account. The MS framework is introduced to deal with its motion relative to a preferred reference frame. Though the one-way speed of light is other than c, its two-way speed is shown to be c with respect to the proper time. The theoretical analysis of the generalized Sagnac effect corresponds to the experimental results, and shows the usefulness of the standard synchronization. The introduction of the standard synchrony can make mathematical manipulation easy and can allow us to deal with relative motions between inertial frames without information on their velocities relative to the preferred frame.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".