We have been discussing a lot of crackpot theories, let's try to shift gears a little and discuss some scientific, peer reviewed stuff.
I would need some help with this paper:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0311/0311576.pdf
In it, the authors make a point that while MMX has given null results in a refractive medium of about 1.5 and, of course in near vacuum (n=1), it might not give a null result in gaseous media with n very close but not equal to 1.
I understand perfectly the mathematical formalism (they use Mansouri-Sexl test theory). What I do not understand is their logic: how come that they claim that it may make sense to experiment with n very close to 1?
Rpenner, Lalbatros, I really need help with this one. Thanks
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 28 2006, 09:35 AM)
...how come that they claim that it may make sense to experiment with n very close to 1...
Because the M-M experiment never supplied a solely null results, but they were successfully ignored till now...
From the article:
...Contrary to the generally accepted ideas, but in agreement with the point of view expressed by Hicks in 1902, Miller in 1933 and Munera in 1998, the results of that experiment cannot be considered null. The observed fringe shifts, although smaller than the classical prediction corresponding to the orbital motion of the Earth, point to an effective observable velocity vobs = 8.4±0.5 km/s. As emphasized at the end of Sect.2 and at the end of Sect.5, this value is exactly the same average value obtained by Miller in his observations at Mt.Wilson...
Because the M-M experiment never supplied a solely null results, but they were successfully ignored till now...
From the article:
...Contrary to the generally accepted ideas, but in agreement with the point of view expressed by Hicks in 1902, Miller in 1933 and Munera in 1998, the results of that experiment cannot be considered null. The observed fringe shifts, although smaller than the classical prediction corresponding to the orbital motion of the Earth, point to an effective observable velocity vobs = 8.4±0.5 km/s. As emphasized at the end of Sect.2 and at the end of Sect.5, this value is exactly the same average value obtained by Miller in his observations at Mt.Wilson...
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 28 2006, 10:45 AM)
Because the M-M experiment never supplied a solely null results, but they were successfully ignored till now...
From the article:
...Contrary to the generally accepted ideas, but in agreement with the point of view expressed by Hicks in 1902, Miller in 1933 and Munera in 1998, the results of that experiment cannot be considered null. The observed fringe shifts, although smaller than the classical prediction corresponding to the orbital motion of the Earth, point to an effective observable velocity vobs = 8.4±0.5 km/s. As emphasized at the end of Sect.2 and at the end of Sect.5, this value is exactly the same average value obtained by Miller in his observations at Mt.Wilson...
I didn't ask for crackpot opinions.
Incidentally , the authors are dead wrong on the so called "non-null" interpretation. There are a few very good papers on the errors in the Dayton Miller data processing but this is not the subject of my question.
Alphanumeric, vanadesse, Ron and all the other serious scientists that I might have forgotten, could you please help with answering my question? Thank you
From the article:
...Contrary to the generally accepted ideas, but in agreement with the point of view expressed by Hicks in 1902, Miller in 1933 and Munera in 1998, the results of that experiment cannot be considered null. The observed fringe shifts, although smaller than the classical prediction corresponding to the orbital motion of the Earth, point to an effective observable velocity vobs = 8.4±0.5 km/s. As emphasized at the end of Sect.2 and at the end of Sect.5, this value is exactly the same average value obtained by Miller in his observations at Mt.Wilson...
I didn't ask for crackpot opinions.
Incidentally , the authors are dead wrong on the so called "non-null" interpretation. There are a few very good papers on the errors in the Dayton Miller data processing but this is not the subject of my question.
Alphanumeric, vanadesse, Ron and all the other serious scientists that I might have forgotten, could you please help with answering my question? Thank you
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 28 2006, 05:19 PM)
I didn't ask for crackpot opinions.
LOL, can you read at all? I'm just quoting the article authors...
LOL, can you read at all? I'm just quoting the article authors...
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 28 2006, 02:28 PM)
LOL, can you read at all? I'm just quoting the article authors...
Yes, I can
They are crackpots as well , it is amazing that the journal allowed them to publish.
Here is a very good analysis of the so-called non-null results:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf
Yes, I can
They are crackpots as well , it is amazing that the journal allowed them to publish.
Here is a very good analysis of the so-called non-null results:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf
Hi Pupa,
I'm having trouble getting to the article you're referencing. Any other place I can find it?
(BTW, I thought it was kinda funny that Zeph was the first to respond to your 'serious' thread!)
Later,
Ron
I'm having trouble getting to the article you're referencing. Any other place I can find it?
(BTW, I thought it was kinda funny that Zeph was the first to respond to your 'serious' thread!)
Later,
Ron
QUOTE (Ron+Sep 28 2006, 03:14 PM)
Hi Pupa,
I'm having trouble getting to the article you're referencing. Any other place I can find it?
(BTW, I thought it was kinda funny that Zeph was the first to respond to your 'serious' thread!)
Later,
Ron
Thank you , Ron
It is right here:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0311/0311576.pdf
If you still have problems, I'll email it to you
I'm having trouble getting to the article you're referencing. Any other place I can find it?
(BTW, I thought it was kinda funny that Zeph was the first to respond to your 'serious' thread!)
Later,
Ron
Thank you , Ron
It is right here:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0311/0311576.pdf
If you still have problems, I'll email it to you
Pupamancur,
No defense for Zephir intended...
YOU started this thread with the line " ..let's try to shift gears a little and discuss some scientific, peer reviewed stuff."
Then you link to a paper that falls into that category.
THEN you proceed to say "They are crackpots as well , it is amazing that the journal allowed them to publish." because you don't agree with their results. Now you want us to follow another link??
ZOT !!
Apparently, your definition of "crackpot" is "anybody who disagrees with Poopymancur".
The historical results of the MME are referred to as "null" because they did not get the results that they anticipated. NOT because there was an absolute Zero in the final answer.
If you can not see that the technological limitations of the experimental apparatus will also directly limit the experiment being performed, then you are daft. The RI is definitely in this category.
The world is not black and white. There are more than "crackpots" and "mainstream" in the mix. "Mainstream" is incorrect in the largest sense: it is not Unified, and contains too many things unexplained by them. Ideas from Planck and Einstein were first "crackpot", and then "mainstream". Obviously, there is a "crackpot/mainstream" duality at work here. And you appear as a "crackpot" to me.
Being the "wise-guy" doesn't make you wise.
Find another hobby.
JJ
No defense for Zephir intended...
YOU started this thread with the line " ..let's try to shift gears a little and discuss some scientific, peer reviewed stuff."
Then you link to a paper that falls into that category.
THEN you proceed to say "They are crackpots as well , it is amazing that the journal allowed them to publish." because you don't agree with their results. Now you want us to follow another link??
ZOT !!
Apparently, your definition of "crackpot" is "anybody who disagrees with Poopymancur".
The historical results of the MME are referred to as "null" because they did not get the results that they anticipated. NOT because there was an absolute Zero in the final answer.
If you can not see that the technological limitations of the experimental apparatus will also directly limit the experiment being performed, then you are daft. The RI is definitely in this category.
The world is not black and white. There are more than "crackpots" and "mainstream" in the mix. "Mainstream" is incorrect in the largest sense: it is not Unified, and contains too many things unexplained by them. Ideas from Planck and Einstein were first "crackpot", and then "mainstream". Obviously, there is a "crackpot/mainstream" duality at work here. And you appear as a "crackpot" to me.
Being the "wise-guy" doesn't make you wise.
Find another hobby.
JJ
QUOTE (Judge_Judy+Sep 28 2006, 03:49 PM)
Pupamancur,
No defense for Zephir intended...
YOU started this thread with the line " ..let's try to shift gears a little and discuss some scientific, peer reviewed stuff."
Then you link to a paper that falls into that category.
THEN you proceed to say "They are crackpots as well , it is amazing that the journal allowed them to publish." because you don't agree with their results. Now you want us to follow another link??
ZOT !!
Apparently, your definition of "crackpot" is "anybody who disagrees with Poopymancur".
The historical results of the MME are referred to as "null" because they did not get the results that they anticipated. NOT because there was an absolute Zero in the final answer.
If you can not see that the technological limitations of the experimental apparatus will also directly limit the experiment being performed, then you are daft. The RI is definitely in this category.
The world is not black and white. There are more than "crackpots" and "mainstream" in the mix. "Mainstream" is incorrect in the largest sense: it is not Unified, and contains too many things unexplained by them. Ideas from Planck and Einstein were first "crackpot", and then "mainstream". Obviously, there is a "crackpot/mainstream" duality at work here. And you appear as a "crackpot" to me.
Being the "wise-guy" doesn't make you wise.
Find another hobby.
JJ
Read Shankland. Then read Tom Roberts here:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf
Now ponder on the fact that in the 3 years since they published the paper the authors never did the experiment. But this is not my question. If you know the answer , then LMK. If you don't , then find another thread to vent your rants.
Cheers
Pupamancur
No defense for Zephir intended...
YOU started this thread with the line " ..let's try to shift gears a little and discuss some scientific, peer reviewed stuff."
Then you link to a paper that falls into that category.
THEN you proceed to say "They are crackpots as well , it is amazing that the journal allowed them to publish." because you don't agree with their results. Now you want us to follow another link??
ZOT !!
Apparently, your definition of "crackpot" is "anybody who disagrees with Poopymancur".
The historical results of the MME are referred to as "null" because they did not get the results that they anticipated. NOT because there was an absolute Zero in the final answer.
If you can not see that the technological limitations of the experimental apparatus will also directly limit the experiment being performed, then you are daft. The RI is definitely in this category.
The world is not black and white. There are more than "crackpots" and "mainstream" in the mix. "Mainstream" is incorrect in the largest sense: it is not Unified, and contains too many things unexplained by them. Ideas from Planck and Einstein were first "crackpot", and then "mainstream". Obviously, there is a "crackpot/mainstream" duality at work here. And you appear as a "crackpot" to me.
Being the "wise-guy" doesn't make you wise.
Find another hobby.
JJ
Read Shankland. Then read Tom Roberts here:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf
Now ponder on the fact that in the 3 years since they published the paper the authors never did the experiment. But this is not my question. If you know the answer , then LMK. If you don't , then find another thread to vent your rants.
Cheers
Pupamancur
QUOTE (Judge_Judy+Sep 28 2006, 06:49 PM)
...Obviously, there is a "crackpot/mainstream" duality at work here..
Yep, that's good insight definitely - so I'll introduce it into my private collections of dualities, supporting the AWT mechanisms.
By such way, the alternative theories are forming a chaotic evolutionary environment for new (and well organized) theories development. It's a process similar to boiling or other phase transitions. When the concentration and influence of alternative theories increases to certain point a phase transition occurs followed by postulating of new theory.
After all, the theory is just a way, how to streamline your movement, energy and subsequent information exchange and way of thinking along Newton inertia law. By such way, the evolution of human knowledge becomes the integral part of Aether phase transitions too.
For those, who are interested about this particular problem, both the articles linked above are mirrored here 0311576.pdf, 0608238.pdf
Yep, that's good insight definitely - so I'll introduce it into my private collections of dualities, supporting the AWT mechanisms.
By such way, the alternative theories are forming a chaotic evolutionary environment for new (and well organized) theories development. It's a process similar to boiling or other phase transitions. When the concentration and influence of alternative theories increases to certain point a phase transition occurs followed by postulating of new theory.
After all, the theory is just a way, how to streamline your movement, energy and subsequent information exchange and way of thinking along Newton inertia law. By such way, the evolution of human knowledge becomes the integral part of Aether phase transitions too.
For those, who are interested about this particular problem, both the articles linked above are mirrored here 0311576.pdf, 0608238.pdf
Hi Pupa,
Ya, I'm still having trouble. Could you email it to me? Thanks.
Judge, jury and executioner. Very constructive post (you said poopy, te he).
Later,
Ron
Ya, I'm still having trouble. Could you email it to me? Thanks.
Judge, jury and executioner. Very constructive post (you said poopy, te he).
Later,
Ron
Ron, et al,
That was actually fun!
Not only saying "poopy", using it in a sentence, and morphing someones' name with it! Such small pleasures for The Judge.
Back to Pupamancur.
At least I didn't "call you stupid", question your degree, etc.
Typical moves for the "crackpot-buster" mentality.
I don't care about MME actually; I didn't post a position.
It is YOU that I was talking about, not MME. (now that's punny!)
I don't need to "read Shankland or Tom Roberts" because you're not mentioned in them.
I am commenting directly on your train of logic:
It is "mainstream vs. crackpot"
Mainstream is right because of Group Agreement
Group Agreement manifests as "being published" (& reviewed by peers)
Then you present a published paper, and deem it crackpot? This was reviewed by others, and found to be Valid.
Then, just to make it worse, you then offer another published paper to disprove the first.
It is obvious that the "Group", or the "publishers" think that this Question is still OPEN; it can not be considered fully answered.
Person A is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Etc.
Person A is "redundant".
Person B is "redundant".
sound of gavel..
That was actually fun!
Not only saying "poopy", using it in a sentence, and morphing someones' name with it! Such small pleasures for The Judge.Back to Pupamancur.
At least I didn't "call you stupid", question your degree, etc.
Typical moves for the "crackpot-buster" mentality.
I don't care about MME actually; I didn't post a position.
It is YOU that I was talking about, not MME. (now that's punny!)
I don't need to "read Shankland or Tom Roberts" because you're not mentioned in them.
I am commenting directly on your train of logic:
It is "mainstream vs. crackpot"
Mainstream is right because of Group Agreement
Group Agreement manifests as "being published" (& reviewed by peers)
Then you present a published paper, and deem it crackpot? This was reviewed by others, and found to be Valid.
Then, just to make it worse, you then offer another published paper to disprove the first.
It is obvious that the "Group", or the "publishers" think that this Question is still OPEN; it can not be considered fully answered.
Person A is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Etc.
Person A is "redundant".
Person B is "redundant".
sound of gavel..
QUOTE (Judge_Judy+Sep 28 2006, 05:00 PM)
Ron, et al,
That was actually fun! Not only saying "poopy", using it in a sentence, and morphing someones' name with it! Such small pleasures for The Judge.
Back to Pupamancur.
At least I didn't "call you stupid", question your degree, etc.
Typical moves for the "crackpot-buster" mentality.
I don't care about MME actually; I didn't post a position.
It is YOU that I was talking about, not MME. (now that's punny!)
I don't need to "read Shankland or Tom Roberts" because you're not mentioned in them.
I am commenting directly on your train of logic:
It is "mainstream vs. crackpot"
Mainstream is right because of Group Agreement
Group Agreement manifests as "being published" (& reviewed by peers)
Then you present a published paper, and deem it crackpot? This was reviewed by others, and found to be Valid.
Then, just to make it worse, you then offer another published paper to disprove the first.
It is obvious that the "Group", or the "publishers" think that this Question is still OPEN; it can not be considered fully answered.
Person A is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Etc.
Person A is "redundant".
Person B is "redundant".
sound of gavel..
Cheers
Pupamancur
That was actually fun!
Not only saying "poopy", using it in a sentence, and morphing someones' name with it! Such small pleasures for The Judge.Back to Pupamancur.
At least I didn't "call you stupid", question your degree, etc.
Typical moves for the "crackpot-buster" mentality.
I don't care about MME actually; I didn't post a position.
It is YOU that I was talking about, not MME. (now that's punny!)
I don't need to "read Shankland or Tom Roberts" because you're not mentioned in them.
I am commenting directly on your train of logic:
It is "mainstream vs. crackpot"
Mainstream is right because of Group Agreement
Group Agreement manifests as "being published" (& reviewed by peers)
Then you present a published paper, and deem it crackpot? This was reviewed by others, and found to be Valid.
Then, just to make it worse, you then offer another published paper to disprove the first.
It is obvious that the "Group", or the "publishers" think that this Question is still OPEN; it can not be considered fully answered.
Person A is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".Person B tells person A that he is "redundant".
Etc.
Person A is "redundant".
Person B is "redundant".
sound of gavel..
Cheers
Pupamancur
Pupamancur ,
Your topic looks interresting to me.
The problem is that I estimate that I need at least 100 hours to make a minimal analysis of the subject. This cannot be done as a coffee-break during my worktime! In addition, the communication here on this forum is very difficult. A forum is already a difficult place to discuss seriously because it is very interactive, while science needs time for reflexion. In addition, this forum on physorg is not well equipped: no way to write decent equations, no way to store any picture and so on. No attatchments also, I think.
Nevertheless, I think I will try to do something, at least if I can find the time. (because my job also take a lot on my hobby time, not only physics)
I think that I would start by collecting first-hand information, as detailed as possible.
Here are some of the information needed:
- the mechanical setup of the experiment, the dimensions, width, thickness of the table, the mechanical equipement for the rotation, the mountings, ...
- the optical equipment, from the light source to the detectors
- any result from calibration tests or mechanical tests, like what happened if a weight was put on the table, and so on
- most important: the original results (without any correction like in the paper)
- the exact way the results have ben obtained: was an averaging over many repetitions performed or are each of the 17 points a unique measurement
- the results obtained by other people, has this experiment been repeated recently ?
- some of the paper mentioned, specially ref 1
I would appreciate if you could share some of these information with me/us.
Thanks in advance,
Michel
Your topic looks interresting to me.
The problem is that I estimate that I need at least 100 hours to make a minimal analysis of the subject. This cannot be done as a coffee-break during my worktime! In addition, the communication here on this forum is very difficult. A forum is already a difficult place to discuss seriously because it is very interactive, while science needs time for reflexion. In addition, this forum on physorg is not well equipped: no way to write decent equations, no way to store any picture and so on. No attatchments also, I think.
Nevertheless, I think I will try to do something, at least if I can find the time. (because my job also take a lot on my hobby time, not only physics)
I think that I would start by collecting first-hand information, as detailed as possible.
Here are some of the information needed:
- the mechanical setup of the experiment, the dimensions, width, thickness of the table, the mechanical equipement for the rotation, the mountings, ...
- the optical equipment, from the light source to the detectors
- any result from calibration tests or mechanical tests, like what happened if a weight was put on the table, and so on
- most important: the original results (without any correction like in the paper)
- the exact way the results have ben obtained: was an averaging over many repetitions performed or are each of the 17 points a unique measurement
- the results obtained by other people, has this experiment been repeated recently ?
- some of the paper mentioned, specially ref 1
I would appreciate if you could share some of these information with me/us.
Thanks in advance,
Michel
Hi All,
Sorry it took so long to get back, that's a very interesting paper. Ya, P these guy's are still trying to find a way to show non-null results of MM. I'm pretty impressed with their take on it ,though. It seems the closer to n=1 that they get, the 'lower the noise floor'. By using the different gases they were able to show that if a non-null result exists, it can be shown by comparing the vaccum results with air. But in the last sentence they put in all on the line.
Quote "In this case, where the anisotropy parameter |Bvacuum| ∼ 4 · 10−9 would be
replaced by |Bair| ∼ 9 · 10−4, there should be an increase by five orders of magnitude in the
typical value of ν with respect to Refs.[13, 14]. If this is not observed, the existence of a
preferred frame will be definitely ruled out."
I'm actually looking forward to this putting MM to bed!
Later,
Ron
Sorry it took so long to get back, that's a very interesting paper. Ya, P these guy's are still trying to find a way to show non-null results of MM. I'm pretty impressed with their take on it ,though. It seems the closer to n=1 that they get, the 'lower the noise floor'. By using the different gases they were able to show that if a non-null result exists, it can be shown by comparing the vaccum results with air. But in the last sentence they put in all on the line.
Quote "In this case, where the anisotropy parameter |Bvacuum| ∼ 4 · 10−9 would be
replaced by |Bair| ∼ 9 · 10−4, there should be an increase by five orders of magnitude in the
typical value of ν with respect to Refs.[13, 14]. If this is not observed, the existence of a
preferred frame will be definitely ruled out."
I'm actually looking forward to this putting MM to bed!
Later,
Ron
QUOTE (Ron+Sep 29 2006, 01:13 PM)
Hi All,
Sorry it took so long to get back, that's a very interesting paper. Ya, P these guy's are still trying to find a way to show non-null results of MM. I'm pretty impressed with their take on it ,though. It seems the closer to n=1 that they get, the 'lower the noise floor'. By using the different gases they were able to show that if a non-null result exists, it can be shown by comparing the vacuum results with air. But in the last sentence they put in all on the line.
Quote "In this case, where the anisotropy parameter |Bvacuum| ∼ 4 · 10−9 would be
replaced by |Bair| ∼ 9 · 10−4, there should be an increase by five orders of magnitude in the
typical value of ν with respect to Refs.[13, 14]. If this is not observed, the existence of a
preferred frame will be definitely ruled out."
I'm actually looking forward to this putting MM to bed!
Later,
Ron
Thank you Ron and Lalbatros
The paper was written in 2003.
At the time of writing the paper the authors had not run the experiment.
As of today, they STILL had not run the experiment. There is another paper, by Reginald Cahill, full of mistakes that claims the same thing.
Conclusion : the paper is flawed (but it got published).
What I need help with is: why do the authors think that gaseous material will render different results than dielectric (n=1.5) and vacuum (n=1) when BOTH of these gave null results? They explain it in one sentence which I couldn't understand.
Sorry it took so long to get back, that's a very interesting paper. Ya, P these guy's are still trying to find a way to show non-null results of MM. I'm pretty impressed with their take on it ,though. It seems the closer to n=1 that they get, the 'lower the noise floor'. By using the different gases they were able to show that if a non-null result exists, it can be shown by comparing the vacuum results with air. But in the last sentence they put in all on the line.
Quote "In this case, where the anisotropy parameter |Bvacuum| ∼ 4 · 10−9 would be
replaced by |Bair| ∼ 9 · 10−4, there should be an increase by five orders of magnitude in the
typical value of ν with respect to Refs.[13, 14]. If this is not observed, the existence of a
preferred frame will be definitely ruled out."
I'm actually looking forward to this putting MM to bed!
Later,
Ron
Thank you Ron and Lalbatros
The paper was written in 2003.
At the time of writing the paper the authors had not run the experiment.
As of today, they STILL had not run the experiment. There is another paper, by Reginald Cahill, full of mistakes that claims the same thing.
Conclusion : the paper is flawed (but it got published).
What I need help with is: why do the authors think that gaseous material will render different results than dielectric (n=1.5) and vacuum (n=1) when BOTH of these gave null results? They explain it in one sentence which I couldn't understand.
Hey P,
I've been looking over the paper (more than my boss would like , actually!) and what I figure is by since an increase in N is directly proportional to delta v (defaulting away from fringe measurements to delta v), they can swamp any vector drift errors by forcing a non-null result to be 5 orders of magnitude different. Otherwise, no preferred frame, no static aether, game, set, match.
Look at it again and let me know if I'm just blowing smoke,
Thanks,
Ron
I've been looking over the paper (more than my boss would like , actually!) and what I figure is by since an increase in N is directly proportional to delta v (defaulting away from fringe measurements to delta v), they can swamp any vector drift errors by forcing a non-null result to be 5 orders of magnitude different. Otherwise, no preferred frame, no static aether, game, set, match.
Look at it again and let me know if I'm just blowing smoke,
Thanks,
Ron
QUOTE (Ron+Sep 29 2006, 03:08 PM)
Hey P,
I've been looking over the paper (more than my boss would like , actually!) and what I figure is by since an increase in N is directly proportional to delta v (defaulting away from fringe measurements to delta v), they can swamp any vector drift errors by forcing a non-null result to be 5 orders of magnitude different. Otherwise, no preferred frame, no static aether, game, set, match.
Look at it again and let me know if I'm just blowing smoke,
Thanks,
Ron
Yes, this is clear. But experiments at much higher n (n=1.5) have already been run by Shamir and Trimmer. The authors even quote these experiments. So, I keep going back to my question: what do they hope to find at a much SMALLER n, if the results are ALREADY null at n=1.5? (sorry for shouting).
Hey, it is great that we can have a mainstream thread, isn't it?
I've been looking over the paper (more than my boss would like , actually!) and what I figure is by since an increase in N is directly proportional to delta v (defaulting away from fringe measurements to delta v), they can swamp any vector drift errors by forcing a non-null result to be 5 orders of magnitude different. Otherwise, no preferred frame, no static aether, game, set, match.
Look at it again and let me know if I'm just blowing smoke,
Thanks,
Ron
Yes, this is clear. But experiments at much higher n (n=1.5) have already been run by Shamir and Trimmer. The authors even quote these experiments. So, I keep going back to my question: what do they hope to find at a much SMALLER n, if the results are ALREADY null at n=1.5? (sorry for shouting).
Hey, it is great that we can have a mainstream thread, isn't it?
Shout all you like, bro,
I can take it. I'm certainly not at your level, but I'm learning. I understand your frustration, but even from my limited experience, it seems that this paper is meant to frustrate (it's like bringing up old ghosts because they had a 'maybe this will work' thought).
Keep pushing me. I haven't thought this hard since college. I need to get back to reading papers so keep em coming.
Thanks again,
Ron
I can take it. I'm certainly not at your level, but I'm learning. I understand your frustration, but even from my limited experience, it seems that this paper is meant to frustrate (it's like bringing up old ghosts because they had a 'maybe this will work' thought).
Keep pushing me. I haven't thought this hard since college. I need to get back to reading papers so keep em coming.
Thanks again,
Ron
QUOTE (Ron+Sep 29 2006, 03:34 PM)
Shout all you like, bro,
I can take it. I'm certainly not at your level, but I'm learning. I understand your frustration, but even from my limited experience, it seems that this paper is meant to frustrate (it's like bringing up old ghosts because they had a 'maybe this will work' thought).
Keep pushing me. I haven't thought this hard since college. I need to get back to reading papers so keep em coming.
Thanks again,
Ron
Excellent,
It means that we can have stimulating threads without having to deal with the crackpots.
This is progress in steering this forum towards mainstream. Others (Lalbatros) have expressed frustration with the high level of crackpotism on this forum. Let's demonstrate that we can have mind-stimulating discussions of our own.
I can take it. I'm certainly not at your level, but I'm learning. I understand your frustration, but even from my limited experience, it seems that this paper is meant to frustrate (it's like bringing up old ghosts because they had a 'maybe this will work' thought).
Keep pushing me. I haven't thought this hard since college. I need to get back to reading papers so keep em coming.
Thanks again,
Ron
Excellent,
It means that we can have stimulating threads without having to deal with the crackpots.
This is progress in steering this forum towards mainstream. Others (Lalbatros) have expressed frustration with the high level of crackpotism on this forum. Let's demonstrate that we can have mind-stimulating discussions of our own.
Hello Pupamancur,
Here are two interresting links I just found:
The original Michelson-Morley paper
Special Relativity, the Lumeniferous Aether, and Experiments.
I had a quick look at these papers.
The drift in the original MMX is very large, and there seem to be no correlation between the different series. This suggest that the signals may be pure noise. When I find the time, I will try a statistical analysis. But with only a few series of data, there is little hope that I could do a lot. How could I check that 3 series of 17 data pertain to a same statistical set? A classical problem! Slide 18 in the second reference show the error bar! Anyway, I will do my duty, you know me a little bit already!
This drift and this noise also point to the mechanical difficulty of such an experience: the optical path length must be reliable within a fraction of a wavelength, that's not easy. For example, a temperature variation of 1°C on a length of 1 meter steel or glass produces an expansion of about 10 µm, while the wavelength of yelow light is 0.6 µm. If the drift could be explain on such a basic, why could the additional noise not be explained also in this way? If the drift cannot be explained in this way, then I would anyway try first to understand the drift and I would analyse the "noise" later only. Modern technology, invar and heterodyne detection have achieved much better precision that Michelson and Morley, see slide 9 in the second reference.
Also interresting is the Miller very extensive experiment. The Fourier analysis of his large database and the comments in the second reference, slides 26 and 27 and 28, are extremely interresting.
For me, reading these two papers may well close any debate about the Consoli and Constanzo paper. Robert, in the second paper, did much more than what I imagined to do this morning (100 hours!).
However, there are many questions that are interresting, like the inlfuence of the refractive index. I will try to go a bit further.
Michel
Here are two interresting links I just found:
The original Michelson-Morley paper
Special Relativity, the Lumeniferous Aether, and Experiments.
I had a quick look at these papers.
The drift in the original MMX is very large, and there seem to be no correlation between the different series. This suggest that the signals may be pure noise. When I find the time, I will try a statistical analysis. But with only a few series of data, there is little hope that I could do a lot. How could I check that 3 series of 17 data pertain to a same statistical set? A classical problem! Slide 18 in the second reference show the error bar! Anyway, I will do my duty, you know me a little bit already!
This drift and this noise also point to the mechanical difficulty of such an experience: the optical path length must be reliable within a fraction of a wavelength, that's not easy. For example, a temperature variation of 1°C on a length of 1 meter steel or glass produces an expansion of about 10 µm, while the wavelength of yelow light is 0.6 µm. If the drift could be explain on such a basic, why could the additional noise not be explained also in this way? If the drift cannot be explained in this way, then I would anyway try first to understand the drift and I would analyse the "noise" later only. Modern technology, invar and heterodyne detection have achieved much better precision that Michelson and Morley, see slide 9 in the second reference.
Also interresting is the Miller very extensive experiment. The Fourier analysis of his large database and the comments in the second reference, slides 26 and 27 and 28, are extremely interresting.
For me, reading these two papers may well close any debate about the Consoli and Constanzo paper. Robert, in the second paper, did much more than what I imagined to do this morning (100 hours!).
However, there are many questions that are interresting, like the inlfuence of the refractive index. I will try to go a bit further.
Michel
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Sep 29 2006, 07:54 PM)
Hello Pupamancur,
Here are two interresting links I just found:
The original Michelson-Morley paper
Special Relativity, the Lumeniferous Aether, and Experiments.
I had a quick look at these papers.
The drift in the original MMX is very large, and there seem to be no correlation between the different series. This suggest that the signals may be pure noise. When I find the time, I will try a statistical analysis. But with only a few series of data, there is little hope that I could do a lot. How could I check that 3 series of 17 data pertain to a same statistical set? A classical problem! Slide 18 in the second reference show the error bar! Anyway, I will do my duty, you know me a little bit already!
This drift and this noise also point to the mechanical difficulty of such an experience: the optical path length must be reliable within a fraction of a wavelength, that's not easy. For example, a temperature variation of 1°C on a length of 1 meter steel or glass produces an expansion of about 10 µm, while the wavelength of yelow light is 0.6 µm. If the drift could be explain on such a basic, why could the additional noise not be explained also in this way? If the drift cannot be explained in this way, then I would anyway try first to understand the drift and I would analyse the "noise" later only. Modern technology, invar and heterodyne detection have achieved much better precision that Michelson and Morley, see slide 9 in the second reference.
Also interresting is the Miller very extensive experiment. The Fourier analysis of his large database and the comments in the second reference, slides 26 and 27 and 28, are extremely interresting.
For me, reading these two papers may well close any debate about the Consoli and Constanzo paper. Robert, in the second paper, did much more than what I imagined to do this morning (100 hours!).
Thank you L'albatros
The presentation is excellent
I have a very good paper (also by Tom Roberts) on this already
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf
As we can see, the processing of the experimental data was flawed (there is an earlier paper by Shankland, showing the same thing).
However, there are many questions that are interresting, like the inlfuence of the refractive index. I will try to go a bit further.
Michel
Yes, this is the part that I need help understanding, where is the logic in their thinking? What makes gas so special?
Here are two interresting links I just found:
The original Michelson-Morley paper
Special Relativity, the Lumeniferous Aether, and Experiments.
I had a quick look at these papers.
The drift in the original MMX is very large, and there seem to be no correlation between the different series. This suggest that the signals may be pure noise. When I find the time, I will try a statistical analysis. But with only a few series of data, there is little hope that I could do a lot. How could I check that 3 series of 17 data pertain to a same statistical set? A classical problem! Slide 18 in the second reference show the error bar! Anyway, I will do my duty, you know me a little bit already!
This drift and this noise also point to the mechanical difficulty of such an experience: the optical path length must be reliable within a fraction of a wavelength, that's not easy. For example, a temperature variation of 1°C on a length of 1 meter steel or glass produces an expansion of about 10 µm, while the wavelength of yelow light is 0.6 µm. If the drift could be explain on such a basic, why could the additional noise not be explained also in this way? If the drift cannot be explained in this way, then I would anyway try first to understand the drift and I would analyse the "noise" later only. Modern technology, invar and heterodyne detection have achieved much better precision that Michelson and Morley, see slide 9 in the second reference.
Also interresting is the Miller very extensive experiment. The Fourier analysis of his large database and the comments in the second reference, slides 26 and 27 and 28, are extremely interresting.
For me, reading these two papers may well close any debate about the Consoli and Constanzo paper. Robert, in the second paper, did much more than what I imagined to do this morning (100 hours!).
Thank you L'albatros
The presentation is excellent
I have a very good paper (also by Tom Roberts) on this already
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf
As we can see, the processing of the experimental data was flawed (there is an earlier paper by Shankland, showing the same thing).
QUOTE
However, there are many questions that are interresting, like the inlfuence of the refractive index. I will try to go a bit further.
Michel
Yes, this is the part that I need help understanding, where is the logic in their thinking? What makes gas so special?
I lost my edits to a closed browser window, but page 16 of the Consoli and Constanzo paper shows a "fit" which is has high frequency components. Naturally, if the cause were motion through the ether, the only signal would be
A cos( theta + B )
Using high order fits to a few noisy data points always opens your paper to criticism. One of my biggest successes of this year was finding a human-determined quartic from noisy data. I found evidence it was of the form (X+1)^3 ( A X + B ), and used hundreds of data-points to make my claim. When you add arbitrary noise to A X^4 + B X^3 + C X^2 + D X^1 + E, the naively fit coefficients show great sensitivity to the noise. Indeed, the impression I get from this graph is that they fit a different curve to every day.
It's much better science to perform the experiment you designed than to try to analyze 120+ year old experimental data. For example, according to the Frensel ether drag hypothesis, which seems to have been refuted, the number (1 - 1/N^2) is an important fudge factor, so wouldn't the barometric pressure be highly important? A 1% in barometric pressure would be considerably amplified.
A cos( theta + B )
Using high order fits to a few noisy data points always opens your paper to criticism. One of my biggest successes of this year was finding a human-determined quartic from noisy data. I found evidence it was of the form (X+1)^3 ( A X + B ), and used hundreds of data-points to make my claim. When you add arbitrary noise to A X^4 + B X^3 + C X^2 + D X^1 + E, the naively fit coefficients show great sensitivity to the noise. Indeed, the impression I get from this graph is that they fit a different curve to every day.
It's much better science to perform the experiment you designed than to try to analyze 120+ year old experimental data. For example, according to the Frensel ether drag hypothesis, which seems to have been refuted, the number (1 - 1/N^2) is an important fudge factor, so wouldn't the barometric pressure be highly important? A 1% in barometric pressure would be considerably amplified.
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 29 2006, 08:19 PM)
I lost my edits to a closed browser window, but page 16 of the Consoli and Constanzo paper shows a "fit" which is has high frequency components. Naturally, if the cause were motion through the ether, the only signal would be
A cos(theta +
Using high order fits to a few noisy data points always opens your paper to criticism. One of my biggest successes of this year was finding a human-determined quartic from noisy data. I found evidence it was of the form (X+1)^3(A X +, and used hundreds of data-points to make my claim. When you add arbitrary noise to A X^4 + B X^3 + C X^2 + D X^1 + E, the naively fit coefficients show great sensitivity to the noise. Indeed, the impression I get from this graph is that they fit a different curve to every day.
It's much better science to perform the experiment you designed than to try to analyze 120+ year old experimental data. For example, according to the Frensel ether drag hypothesis, which seems to have been refuted, the number (1 - 1/N^2) is an important fudge factor, so wouldn't the barometric pressure be highly important? A 1% in barometric pressure would be considerably amplified.
Thank you, really appreciate the answer
The authors seem to make this obscure point that I can't understand that , somewhere between n=1 (where the results are null) and n=1.5 (where the results are also null) there is an "n" for which the results might not be null. It is this sentence that I read numerous times but I cannot understand. What is their reasoning? Why would gas be any different from the solid dielectrics?
A cos(theta +
Using high order fits to a few noisy data points always opens your paper to criticism. One of my biggest successes of this year was finding a human-determined quartic from noisy data. I found evidence it was of the form (X+1)^3(A X +
, and used hundreds of data-points to make my claim. When you add arbitrary noise to A X^4 + B X^3 + C X^2 + D X^1 + E, the naively fit coefficients show great sensitivity to the noise. Indeed, the impression I get from this graph is that they fit a different curve to every day.It's much better science to perform the experiment you designed than to try to analyze 120+ year old experimental data. For example, according to the Frensel ether drag hypothesis, which seems to have been refuted, the number (1 - 1/N^2) is an important fudge factor, so wouldn't the barometric pressure be highly important? A 1% in barometric pressure would be considerably amplified.
Thank you, really appreciate the answer
The authors seem to make this obscure point that I can't understand that , somewhere between n=1 (where the results are null) and n=1.5 (where the results are also null) there is an "n" for which the results might not be null. It is this sentence that I read numerous times but I cannot understand. What is their reasoning? Why would gas be any different from the solid dielectrics?
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Sep 29 2006, 07:54 PM)
...
Here are two interresting links I just found:
Special Relativity, the Lumeniferous Aether, and Experiments.
...
HAHA! I love the slide in that presentation near the end, quote
"Amateurs look for patterns, professionals look at errorbars."
Here are two interresting links I just found:
Special Relativity, the Lumeniferous Aether, and Experiments.
...
HAHA! I love the slide in that presentation near the end, quote
"Amateurs look for patterns, professionals look at errorbars."
QUOTE (Pan+Sep 30 2006, 02:05 AM)
Amateurs look for patterns, professionals look at errorbars
LOL, a pretty deep insight, indeed...
This is why, the amateurs ransacks the evanescent aether for new connections and traces of reality - whereas the experts are suspiciously watching the quantum uncertainty of solid, robust, reproducible particles...
But the invasion of Internet has changed the situation significantly, because the amateurs become as well connected with the latests science results and mutually each of other, like the specialists. Furthermore, they have time and broad overview = this is exactly, what a lotta specialists are missing, so both the groups can form the duality and concurrence.
And the interaction of subjects in duality is the source of the new phase space and Aether evolution acceleration.
LOL, a pretty deep insight, indeed...
This is why, the amateurs ransacks the evanescent aether for new connections and traces of reality - whereas the experts are suspiciously watching the quantum uncertainty of solid, robust, reproducible particles...
But the invasion of Internet has changed the situation significantly, because the amateurs become as well connected with the latests science results and mutually each of other, like the specialists. Furthermore, they have time and broad overview = this is exactly, what a lotta specialists are missing, so both the groups can form the duality and concurrence.
And the interaction of subjects in duality is the source of the new phase space and Aether evolution acceleration.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 29 2006, 02:10 PM)
Thank you Ron and Lalbatros
The paper was written in 2003.
At the time of writing the paper the authors had not run the experiment.
As of today, they STILL had not run the experiment. There is another paper, by Reginald Cahill, full of mistakes that claims the same thing.
Conclusion : the paper is flawed (but it got published).
What I need help with is: why do the authors think that gaseous material will render different results than dielectric (n=1.5) and vacuum (n=1) when BOTH of these gave null results? They explain it in one sentence which I couldn't understand.
Ok,
I think I figured out the answer. I would appreciate if you checked it out against the paper.
Consoli says that :
1. MMX in vacuum (n=1) gives null results(correct)
2. MMX in perspex (n=1.5) by Shamir/Trimmer gives null results because (get this!) the Fresnel drag cancels out the potential light speed anisotropy exactly (patently wrong. This is a lot of bull, the Trimmer experiment used a DIFFERENT n from the Shamir experiment (actually Trimmer did it twice and he had a different setup from Shamir's). I also took the time to do the symbolic calculations of the Fresnel drag in the case of anisotropic light speed in a dielectric medium, the odds of the two effects canceling each other in the MMX are ....zero! The only case when they cancel is for...you guessed it! isotropic light speed.
3. Consoli concluded that it IF light speed were anisotropic THEN the only medium that might reveal the anisotropy is gas because both vacuum and solid dielectrics have been ruled out by 1 and 2.
What follows is a bunch of calculations that are incomplete and incorrect but this is another story. I sat down and I wrote the correct equations and I plan to submit to a serious journal. Phys. Lett is out, by publishing such trash they indicate that they are unable to spot errors.
The paper was written in 2003.
At the time of writing the paper the authors had not run the experiment.
As of today, they STILL had not run the experiment. There is another paper, by Reginald Cahill, full of mistakes that claims the same thing.
Conclusion : the paper is flawed (but it got published).
What I need help with is: why do the authors think that gaseous material will render different results than dielectric (n=1.5) and vacuum (n=1) when BOTH of these gave null results? They explain it in one sentence which I couldn't understand.
Ok,
I think I figured out the answer. I would appreciate if you checked it out against the paper.
Consoli says that :
1. MMX in vacuum (n=1) gives null results(correct)
2. MMX in perspex (n=1.5) by Shamir/Trimmer gives null results because (get this!) the Fresnel drag cancels out the potential light speed anisotropy exactly (patently wrong. This is a lot of bull, the Trimmer experiment used a DIFFERENT n from the Shamir experiment (actually Trimmer did it twice and he had a different setup from Shamir's). I also took the time to do the symbolic calculations of the Fresnel drag in the case of anisotropic light speed in a dielectric medium, the odds of the two effects canceling each other in the MMX are ....zero! The only case when they cancel is for...you guessed it! isotropic light speed.
3. Consoli concluded that it IF light speed were anisotropic THEN the only medium that might reveal the anisotropy is gas because both vacuum and solid dielectrics have been ruled out by 1 and 2.
What follows is a bunch of calculations that are incomplete and incorrect but this is another story. I sat down and I wrote the correct equations and I plan to submit to a serious journal. Phys. Lett is out, by publishing such trash they indicate that they are unable to spot errors.
Well done Papa'...Even lowly Cranks appreciate positive contributions to our overall understanding (honest) ...'scuse me now, I'm off to prove apples are really oranges in disguise.
...'scuse me now, I'm off to prove apples are really oranges in disguise.
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Oct 1 2006, 07:30 AM)
Well done Papa'...Even lowly Cranks appreciate positive contributions to our overall understanding (honest) ...'scuse me now, I'm off to prove apples are really oranges in disguise.
Cheers
Pupamancur
...'scuse me now, I'm off to prove apples are really oranges in disguise. Cheers
Pupamancur
PUPAMANCUR,
Please show your work. (in other words, prove it)
Claims made need demons' slayed.
Please show your work. (in other words, prove it)
Claims made need demons' slayed.
"I sat down and I wrote the correct equations and I plan to submit to a serious journal. Phys. Lett is out, by publishing such trash they indicate that they are unable to spot errors. "
Are you able to spot yours? For the rest of the World, that remains as EQUALLY possible as "Phys. Lett ".
CrankPatrol
QUOTE
"I also took the time to do the symbolic calculations of the Fresnel drag in the case of anisotropic light speed in a dielectric medium, the odds of the two effects canceling each other in the MMX are ....zero! The only case when they cancel is for...you guessed it! isotropic light speed."
Please show your work. (in other words, prove it)
Claims made need demons' slayed.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "I also took the time to do the symbolic calculations of the Fresnel drag in the case of anisotropic light speed in a dielectric medium, the odds of the two effects canceling each other in the MMX are ....zero! The only case when they cancel is for...you guessed it! isotropic light speed." |
Please show your work. (in other words, prove it)
Claims made need demons' slayed.
"I sat down and I wrote the correct equations and I plan to submit to a serious journal. Phys. Lett is out, by publishing such trash they indicate that they are unable to spot errors. "
Are you able to spot yours? For the rest of the World, that remains as EQUALLY possible as "Phys. Lett ".
CrankPatrol
QUOTE (Ironic+Oct 1 2006, 03:21 PM)
PUPAMANCUR,
Please show your work. (in other words, prove it)
Claims made need demons' slayed.
Are you able to spot yours? For the rest of the World, that remains as EQUALLY possible as "Phys. Lett ".
CrankPatrol
I don't correspond with sock puppets (u call yourself "Ironic" now? your grammar errors give you away)
Why don't you sign up with your registered id and I'll send you the calculations?
Cheers
Pupamancur
Please show your work. (in other words, prove it)
Claims made need demons' slayed.
Are you able to spot yours? For the rest of the World, that remains as EQUALLY possible as "Phys. Lett ".
CrankPatrol
I don't correspond with sock puppets (u call yourself "Ironic" now? your grammar errors give you away)
Why don't you sign up with your registered id and I'll send you the calculations?
Cheers
Pupamancur
QUOTE (Ron+Sep 29 2006, 01:13 PM)
Hi All,
Sorry it took so long to get back, that's a very interesting paper. Ya, P these guy's are still trying to find a way to show non-null results of MM. I'm pretty impressed with their take on it ,though. It seems the closer to n=1 that they get, the 'lower the noise floor'. By using the different gases they were able to show that if a non-null result exists, it can be shown by comparing the vaccum results with air. But in the last sentence they put in all on the line.
Quote "In this case, where the anisotropy parameter |Bvacuum| ∼ 4 · 10−9 would be
replaced by |Bair| ∼ 9 · 10−4, there should be an increase by five orders of magnitude in the
typical value of ν with respect to Refs.[13, 14]. If this is not observed, the existence of a
preferred frame will be definitely ruled out."
I'm actually looking forward to this putting MM to bed!
Later,
Ron
Ron,
Thank you for drawing attention to this paragraph.
Now I understand the quote. What happened is the authors messed up the equations in their attempt of describing the MMX experiment in a dielectric. In doing so, they came up with the conclusion that they can get an increase of 10x or even 100x (see their Abstract) in the frequency variation. Note that they had three years to either run the experiment or convince some experienced people to do it for them. Neither happened.Well, GIGO.
Sorry it took so long to get back, that's a very interesting paper. Ya, P these guy's are still trying to find a way to show non-null results of MM. I'm pretty impressed with their take on it ,though. It seems the closer to n=1 that they get, the 'lower the noise floor'. By using the different gases they were able to show that if a non-null result exists, it can be shown by comparing the vaccum results with air. But in the last sentence they put in all on the line.
Quote "In this case, where the anisotropy parameter |Bvacuum| ∼ 4 · 10−9 would be
replaced by |Bair| ∼ 9 · 10−4, there should be an increase by five orders of magnitude in the
typical value of ν with respect to Refs.[13, 14]. If this is not observed, the existence of a
preferred frame will be definitely ruled out."
I'm actually looking forward to this putting MM to bed!
Later,
Ron
Ron,
Thank you for drawing attention to this paragraph.
Now I understand the quote. What happened is the authors messed up the equations in their attempt of describing the MMX experiment in a dielectric. In doing so, they came up with the conclusion that they can get an increase of 10x or even 100x (see their Abstract) in the frequency variation. Note that they had three years to either run the experiment or convince some experienced people to do it for them. Neither happened.Well, GIGO.
PUPAMANCUR,
You just did, dork.
You just did, dork.
"your grammar errors give you away"
My grammar is perfect; or at least better than yours!
Your (lack of) response is a NULL result.
Just another word salad. You are in the same boat with Zep.
IF you have done what you say, come forth with said data. This is a public FORUM, not a social club. Prove your claims!
Pupamancur's Crackpot rating = Going Up!
Pupamancur,
I don't know if I will ever be able to guess what the authors of this paper had in mind.
I would like your help to clarify things a little bit.
OK
OK
First, I could not find where in their paper they ...
Page 5 towards the bottom: "We stress however, that out assumption of a negligible Fresnel..."
Page 6 top: "However , when N starts to differ..."
From their equation (11) and following, I guess they assume the Lorentz transformation is valid
Can the Lorentz transformation be valid if there is a preffered frame of reference?
Yes, it can. This happens in the framework of the Mansouri-Sexl test theory. The Lorentz transforms are valid only between the preferred frame and the other frames. The LT are NOT valid beween non-preferred frames.
The laws of physics hold good only in the preferred frame. One cannot say anything about the validity in non-preferred frames.
In a nutshell, this is what MS theory says.
Yes, it can. This happens in the framework of the Mansouri-Sexl test theory. The Lorentz transforms are valid only between the preferred frame and the other frames. The LT are NOT valid beween non-preferred frames.
The laws of physics hold good only in the preferred frame. One cannot say anything about the validity in non-preferred frames.
In a nutshell, this is what MS theory says.
How do they define Nmedium?
If c is the same in any inertial frame, then Nmedium can be defined (measured) in the inertial frame where the medium is a rest. But if there is a prefered frame, should Nmedium be defined (measured) in a particular frame too?
This is a tough one (see above). In MS theory light speed is isotropic only in the preferred frame, anisotropic in all others. So, Nmedium makes senses only in the PF.
I looked the chapter on relativity in Jackson.
Exercice 11.8 calculates the effect of a change of frame of reference on the speed of light (index of refaction). The application considered is the fizeau experiment. This leads to an expression similar to the equation (12) in Consoli and Constanzo for teta=0, except that there is an additional term accounting for a dispersive medium (n'(f)). I don't understand that. I tought first it was about group velocity, but this is not the case.
In physorg math notations the formula reads: u = c/n + v( 1 - 1/n² + d(ln(n(f)))/d(ln(f)) )
Any idea?
Interesting, I would like to have a look at that. I don't have the book, would you send me a copy of the derivation?
Interesting, I would like to have a look at that. I don't have the book, would you send me a copy of the derivation?
What is the relation between the MMX experiment and the Fizeau experiment?
Specially when the MMX experiment is performed in a refractive medium?
The Fizeau experiment probes the difference in velocity between the water flow and the laboratory. But in the MMX experiment, what difference of velocity would be probed?
Thanks if you could push me a little bit,
michel
What happens is that the speed of light gets composited with the speed of the medium (see your reference to Jackson above). When that happens, the speed in the vertical arm and the TWO speeds in the horizontal arm (to and fro) become DIFFERENT!. Nevertheless, in the SR framework the fringe displacement turns out to be zero! In the MS framework is not zero. This is the point that Consoli is trying to make.
I looked the chapter on relativity in Jackson.
Exercice 11.8 calculates the effect of a change of frame of reference on the speed of light (index of refaction). The application considered is the fizeau experiment. This leads to an expression similar to the equation (12) in Consoli and Constanzo for teta=0, except that there is an additional term accounting for a dispersive medium (n'(f)). I don't understand that. I tought first it was about group velocity, but this is not the case.
In physorg math notations the formula reads: u = c/n + v( 1 - 1/n² + d(ln(n(f)))/d(ln(f)) )
Any idea?
Wonder where the "ln" term is coming from.
The exact formula is (using your notation) :
u=(c/n+v)/(1+(c/n)*v/c^2)=(c/n+v)/(1+v/cn)
1/(1+v/cn) can be approximated with 1-v/cn (if n>1)
Then, u can be approximated with:
(c/n+v)*(1-v/cn)=c/n+v(1-1/n^2-v/(cn))
This looks almost like Jackson with the exception of the term v/(cn) replacing the logarithm. How does Jackson justify the logarithm?
QUOTE
"I don't correspond with sock puppets "
You just did, dork.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "I don't correspond with sock puppets " |
You just did, dork.
"your grammar errors give you away"
My grammar is perfect; or at least better than yours!
Your (lack of) response is a NULL result.
Just another word salad. You are in the same boat with Zep.
IF you have done what you say, come forth with said data. This is a public FORUM, not a social club. Prove your claims!
Pupamancur's Crackpot rating = Going Up!
QUOTE (Ironic+Oct 1 2006, 08:15 PM)
You are in the same boat with Zep
...What?!? I'm just jumping to the water, watch!
...What?!? I'm just jumping to the water, watch!
Pupamancur,
I don't know if I will ever be able to guess what the authors of this paper had in mind.
I would like your help to clarify things a little bit.
First, I could not find where in their paper they ...
From their equation (11) and following, I guess they assume the Lorentz transformation is valid
Can the Lorentz transformation be valid if there is a preffered frame of reference?
How do they define Nmedium?
If c is the same in any inertial frame, then Nmedium can be defined (measured) in the inertial frame where the medium is a rest. But if there is a prefered frame, should Nmedium be defined (measured) in a particular frame too?
I looked the chapter on relativity in Jackson.
Exercice 11.8 calculates the effect of a change of frame of reference on the speed of light (index of refaction). The application considered is the fizeau experiment. This leads to an expression similar to the equation (12) in Consoli and Constanzo for teta=0, except that there is an additional term accounting for a dispersive medium (n'(f)). I don't understand that. I tought first it was about group velocity, but this is not the case.
In physorg math notations the formula reads: u = c/n + v( 1 - 1/n² + d(ln(n(f)))/d(ln(f)) )
Any idea?
What is the relation between the MMX experiment and the Fizeau experiment?
Specially when the MMX experiment is performed in a refractive medium?
The Fizeau experiment probes the difference in velocity between the water flow and the laboratory. But in the MMX experiment, what difference of velocity would be probed?
Thanks if you could push me a little bit,
michel
I don't know if I will ever be able to guess what the authors of this paper had in mind.
I would like your help to clarify things a little bit.
First, I could not find where in their paper they ...
QUOTE
... make a point that while MMX has given null results in a refractive medium of about 1.5 ...
From their equation (11) and following, I guess they assume the Lorentz transformation is valid
Can the Lorentz transformation be valid if there is a preffered frame of reference?
How do they define Nmedium?
If c is the same in any inertial frame, then Nmedium can be defined (measured) in the inertial frame where the medium is a rest. But if there is a prefered frame, should Nmedium be defined (measured) in a particular frame too?
I looked the chapter on relativity in Jackson.
Exercice 11.8 calculates the effect of a change of frame of reference on the speed of light (index of refaction). The application considered is the fizeau experiment. This leads to an expression similar to the equation (12) in Consoli and Constanzo for teta=0, except that there is an additional term accounting for a dispersive medium (n'(f)). I don't understand that. I tought first it was about group velocity, but this is not the case.
In physorg math notations the formula reads: u = c/n + v( 1 - 1/n² + d(ln(n(f)))/d(ln(f)) )
Any idea?
What is the relation between the MMX experiment and the Fizeau experiment?
Specially when the MMX experiment is performed in a refractive medium?
The Fizeau experiment probes the difference in velocity between the water flow and the laboratory. But in the MMX experiment, what difference of velocity would be probed?
Thanks if you could push me a little bit,
michel
Hey Ironic,
You're contributions are worthy of registering. i use the term worthy in the non-partison sense. Maybe if you registered you could follow P's threads and stop judging him out of context. Keep thinking!
Take care,
Ron
You're contributions are worthy of registering. i use the term worthy in the non-partison sense. Maybe if you registered you could follow P's threads and stop judging him out of context. Keep thinking!
Take care,
Ron
QUOTE
Pupamancur,
I don't know if I will ever be able to guess what the authors of this paper had in mind.
I would like your help to clarify things a little bit.
OK
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Pupamancur, I don't know if I will ever be able to guess what the authors of this paper had in mind. I would like your help to clarify things a little bit. |
OK
First, I could not find where in their paper they ...
Page 5 towards the bottom: "We stress however, that out assumption of a negligible Fresnel..."
Page 6 top: "However , when N starts to differ..."
QUOTE
From their equation (11) and following, I guess they assume the Lorentz transformation is valid
Can the Lorentz transformation be valid if there is a preffered frame of reference?
Yes, it can. This happens in the framework of the Mansouri-Sexl test theory. The Lorentz transforms are valid only between the preferred frame and the other frames. The LT are NOT valid beween non-preferred frames.
The laws of physics hold good only in the preferred frame. One cannot say anything about the validity in non-preferred frames.
In a nutshell, this is what MS theory says.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
From their equation (11) and following, I guess they assume the Lorentz transformation is valid Can the Lorentz transformation be valid if there is a preffered frame of reference? |
Yes, it can. This happens in the framework of the Mansouri-Sexl test theory. The Lorentz transforms are valid only between the preferred frame and the other frames. The LT are NOT valid beween non-preferred frames.
The laws of physics hold good only in the preferred frame. One cannot say anything about the validity in non-preferred frames.
In a nutshell, this is what MS theory says.
How do they define Nmedium?
If c is the same in any inertial frame, then Nmedium can be defined (measured) in the inertial frame where the medium is a rest. But if there is a prefered frame, should Nmedium be defined (measured) in a particular frame too?
This is a tough one (see above). In MS theory light speed is isotropic only in the preferred frame, anisotropic in all others. So, Nmedium makes senses only in the PF.
QUOTE
I looked the chapter on relativity in Jackson.
Exercice 11.8 calculates the effect of a change of frame of reference on the speed of light (index of refaction). The application considered is the fizeau experiment. This leads to an expression similar to the equation (12) in Consoli and Constanzo for teta=0, except that there is an additional term accounting for a dispersive medium (n'(f)). I don't understand that. I tought first it was about group velocity, but this is not the case.
In physorg math notations the formula reads: u = c/n + v( 1 - 1/n² + d(ln(n(f)))/d(ln(f)) )
Any idea?
Interesting, I would like to have a look at that. I don't have the book, would you send me a copy of the derivation?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I looked the chapter on relativity in Jackson. Exercice 11.8 calculates the effect of a change of frame of reference on the speed of light (index of refaction). The application considered is the fizeau experiment. This leads to an expression similar to the equation (12) in Consoli and Constanzo for teta=0, except that there is an additional term accounting for a dispersive medium (n'(f)). I don't understand that. I tought first it was about group velocity, but this is not the case. In physorg math notations the formula reads: u = c/n + v( 1 - 1/n² + d(ln(n(f)))/d(ln(f)) ) Any idea? |
Interesting, I would like to have a look at that. I don't have the book, would you send me a copy of the derivation?
What is the relation between the MMX experiment and the Fizeau experiment?
Specially when the MMX experiment is performed in a refractive medium?
The Fizeau experiment probes the difference in velocity between the water flow and the laboratory. But in the MMX experiment, what difference of velocity would be probed?
Thanks if you could push me a little bit,
michel
What happens is that the speed of light gets composited with the speed of the medium (see your reference to Jackson above). When that happens, the speed in the vertical arm and the TWO speeds in the horizontal arm (to and fro) become DIFFERENT!. Nevertheless, in the SR framework the fringe displacement turns out to be zero! In the MS framework is not zero. This is the point that Consoli is trying to make.
QUOTE (Ron+Oct 1 2006, 08:45 PM)
Hey Ironic,
You're contributions are worthy of registering. i use the term worthy in the non-partison sense. Maybe if you registered you could follow P's threads and stop judging him out of context. Keep thinking!
Take care,
Ron
He's registered. He is just a coward, he does this periodically under different pseudonyms.
You're contributions are worthy of registering. i use the term worthy in the non-partison sense. Maybe if you registered you could follow P's threads and stop judging him out of context. Keep thinking!
Take care,
Ron
He's registered. He is just a coward, he does this periodically under different pseudonyms.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Oct 1 2006, 08:36 PM)
I looked the chapter on relativity in Jackson.
Exercice 11.8 calculates the effect of a change of frame of reference on the speed of light (index of refaction). The application considered is the fizeau experiment. This leads to an expression similar to the equation (12) in Consoli and Constanzo for teta=0, except that there is an additional term accounting for a dispersive medium (n'(f)). I don't understand that. I tought first it was about group velocity, but this is not the case.
In physorg math notations the formula reads: u = c/n + v( 1 - 1/n² + d(ln(n(f)))/d(ln(f)) )
Any idea?
Wonder where the "ln" term is coming from.
The exact formula is (using your notation) :
u=(c/n+v)/(1+(c/n)*v/c^2)=(c/n+v)/(1+v/cn)
1/(1+v/cn) can be approximated with 1-v/cn (if n>1)
Then, u can be approximated with:
(c/n+v)*(1-v/cn)=c/n+v(1-1/n^2-v/(cn))
This looks almost like Jackson with the exception of the term v/(cn) replacing the logarithm. How does Jackson justify the logarithm?
Pupamancur,
Could you point me to a description of the MS theory?
Could you point me to a description of the MS theory?
The Lorentz transforms are valid only between the preferred frame and the other frames.
The Lorentz transformations make the Lorentz group.
Therefore if it is valid from (and to) the preferred frame, it should be valid between any frame.
How does the MS theory skip that?
There is no derivation available in the book, it is an exercice.
On wiki there a short discussion of the Aether drag hypothesis.
The formula given there (for theta=0) does not contain a dispersive term:
I will check how Fresnel arrived at this formula 200 years ago.
Wonder where the "ln" term is coming from.
It is not written with a "ln" in Jackson where it is written as:
u = c/n + v( 1 - 1/n² + w/n dn/dw )
Writing this post, I tought the additional term might be related to the Doppler shift.
Then I would need to check the frame where w=2pif is defined.
Today I begin to understand why I feel uneasy with this topic.
It is simply because an alternative theory to the SR needs an additional model (like aether drag, I guess).
"Measuring" a preferred frame and a velocity of the earth in this frame needs:
- a non-null MMX experiment
- the use of a model to derive the earth velocity in the preferred frame from the observed shift
Again, one should start by a statistical null test on the data before attempting an interpretation of the residuals.
Have a nice day,
Michel
QUOTE
In a nutshell, this is what MS theory says.
Could you point me to a description of the MS theory?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In a nutshell, this is what MS theory says. |
Could you point me to a description of the MS theory?
The Lorentz transforms are valid only between the preferred frame and the other frames.
The Lorentz transformations make the Lorentz group.
Therefore if it is valid from (and to) the preferred frame, it should be valid between any frame.
How does the MS theory skip that?
QUOTE
I don't have the book, would you send me a copy of the derivation?
There is no derivation available in the book, it is an exercice.
On wiki there a short discussion of the Aether drag hypothesis.
The formula given there (for theta=0) does not contain a dispersive term:
I will check how Fresnel arrived at this formula 200 years ago.
Wonder where the "ln" term is coming from.
It is not written with a "ln" in Jackson where it is written as:
u = c/n + v( 1 - 1/n² + w/n dn/dw )
Writing this post, I tought the additional term might be related to the Doppler shift.
Then I would need to check the frame where w=2pif is defined.
Today I begin to understand why I feel uneasy with this topic.
It is simply because an alternative theory to the SR needs an additional model (like aether drag, I guess).
"Measuring" a preferred frame and a velocity of the earth in this frame needs:
- a non-null MMX experiment
- the use of a model to derive the earth velocity in the preferred frame from the observed shift
Again, one should start by a statistical null test on the data before attempting an interpretation of the residuals.
Have a nice day,
Michel
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Oct 2 2006, 06:18 AM)
Pupamancur,
Could you point me to a description of the MS theory?
I sent you a PM.
The Lorentz transformations make the Lorentz group.
Therefore if it is valid from (and to) the preferred frame, it should be valid between any frame.
How does the MS theory skip that?
MS uses their own transforms, not the LT. Once I send you the papers you will understand, it is a very interesting subject. Alternatively, if you have access to a local library, the three papers are:
R. Mansouri, R.Sexl, “A test theory of special relativity: I. Simultaneity and clock synchronization “,Gen.Relativ.Gravit. , 8,(1977) p497(I), 515(II), 809(III)
MS uses their own transforms, not the LT. Once I send you the papers you will understand, it is a very interesting subject. Alternatively, if you have access to a local library, the three papers are:
R. Mansouri, R.Sexl, “A test theory of special relativity: I. Simultaneity and clock synchronization “,Gen.Relativ.Gravit. , 8,(1977) p497(I), 515(II), 809(III)
There is no derivation available in the book, it is an exercice.
On wiki there a short discussion of the Aether drag hypothesis.
The formula given there (for theta=0) does not contain a dispersive term:
I will check how Fresnel arrived at this formula 200 years ago.
Wonder where the "ln" term is coming from.
It is not written with a "ln" in Jackson where it is written as:
u = c/n + v( 1 - 1/n² + w/n dn/dw )
Writing this post, I tought the additional term might be related to the Doppler shift.
Then I would need to check the frame where w=2pif is defined.
What is the definition of "w"? If is is v/c then the formula in my post and the one in Jackson are identical
Could you point me to a description of the MS theory?
I sent you a PM.
QUOTE
The Lorentz transformations make the Lorentz group.
Therefore if it is valid from (and to) the preferred frame, it should be valid between any frame.
How does the MS theory skip that?
MS uses their own transforms, not the LT. Once I send you the papers you will understand, it is a very interesting subject. Alternatively, if you have access to a local library, the three papers are:
R. Mansouri, R.Sexl, “A test theory of special relativity: I. Simultaneity and clock synchronization “,Gen.Relativ.Gravit. , 8,(1977) p497(I), 515(II), 809(III)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The Lorentz transformations make the Lorentz group. Therefore if it is valid from (and to) the preferred frame, it should be valid between any frame. How does the MS theory skip that? |
MS uses their own transforms, not the LT. Once I send you the papers you will understand, it is a very interesting subject. Alternatively, if you have access to a local library, the three papers are:
R. Mansouri, R.Sexl, “A test theory of special relativity: I. Simultaneity and clock synchronization “,Gen.Relativ.Gravit. , 8,(1977) p497(I), 515(II), 809(III)
There is no derivation available in the book, it is an exercice.
On wiki there a short discussion of the Aether drag hypothesis.
The formula given there (for theta=0) does not contain a dispersive term:
I will check how Fresnel arrived at this formula 200 years ago.
Wonder where the "ln" term is coming from.
It is not written with a "ln" in Jackson where it is written as:
u = c/n + v( 1 - 1/n² + w/n dn/dw )
Writing this post, I tought the additional term might be related to the Doppler shift.
Then I would need to check the frame where w=2pif is defined.
What is the definition of "w"? If is is v/c then the formula in my post and the one in Jackson are identical
Pupamancur,
w is 2*pi*f, with f the frequency.
I wonder where this disperive term, dn/dw, comes from.
Michel
QUOTE
What is the definition of "w"? If is is v/c then the formula in my post and the one in Jackson are identical
w is 2*pi*f, with f the frequency.
I wonder where this disperive term, dn/dw, comes from.
Michel
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Oct 2 2006, 04:18 PM)
Pupamancur,
w is 2*pi*f, with f the frequency.
I wonder where this disperive term, dn/dw, comes from.
Michel
Ah, it is "omega".
n being a function of "omega", Jackson must be considering the Doppler effect between the frames , since we are already considering two different frames in the expression u=(c/n+v)/(1+v/(cn)) . It is still a strange expression.....how does the derivative show up?
w is 2*pi*f, with f the frequency.
I wonder where this disperive term, dn/dw, comes from.
Michel
Ah, it is "omega".
n being a function of "omega", Jackson must be considering the Doppler effect between the frames , since we are already considering two different frames in the expression u=(c/n+v)/(1+v/(cn)) . It is still a strange expression.....how does the derivative show up?
Reginald Cahill is absolutely correct.
I've discovered the same thing that will be in my book coming out in December of 2006.
Heres the pdf file link below where you can preview all 190 pages right now.
http://www.amperefitz.com/us_20061020_ck_ds_jm_ds.pdf
It's a big book so this file may take a while on slower computers.
My web site is http://www.amperefitz.com
If Cahill is wrong then he is not far wrong.
Cheers
Fitz
I've discovered the same thing that will be in my book coming out in December of 2006.
Heres the pdf file link below where you can preview all 190 pages right now.
http://www.amperefitz.com/us_20061020_ck_ds_jm_ds.pdf
It's a big book so this file may take a while on slower computers.
My web site is http://www.amperefitz.com
If Cahill is wrong then he is not far wrong.
Cheers
Fitz
Amen, we trust you fitz.
Like so many here, experts in word salads.
Like so many here, experts in word salads.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.