20th March 2007 - 07:03 PM
QUOTE (ez ezz+Mar 20 2007, 05:43 PM)
Obviously noise is a problem. That's the entire point of waiting for certain forces to naturally eliminate each other, right? I'm sure there are other experiments, such as involving gravitational waves or neutrinos that are just as prone to noise. Why do you rule this experiment out and not those?
Your right, I probably shouldn't presume the SNR would be exceptionally low since I've no idea what this experiment is about. What makes me suspect it, though, is that we've been given 1/1000th of a second to measure a miniscule effect in an already very weak force (gravity). Maybe if we'd been given more time, we could integrate out the noise.
But that 1/1000th second requirement is absurd. Its purpose cannot be to eliminate noise: If we have devices sufficiently accurate to measure the effect and to measure ambient forces so that we "know when to do the experiment", then why not just do the experiment any time we want and compensate, in analysis, for the ambient forces that we want to eliminate.
Or is this fellow claiming the effect, itself, is only present during that time and no others?! If so, what part of our current understanding and measurements, which do not include the effect, caused him to arrive at that conclusion?
21st March 2007 - 03:44 PM
What a quack! Physics demands equal and opposite reactions as well as repeatable experiments!
22nd March 2007 - 12:03 PM
Check out the CIP engine if you want to see Newton violated!
26th March 2007 - 05:23 PM
The mentioned "Theoretical Physics Research Institute" in Melbourne (Australia), with which Ignatiev is supposedly affiliated, cannot be found via google. Does it exist? I have the impression he might be making this up.
Ignatiev was apparently a research fellow in the Theoretical Particle Physics group at Melbourne University, and no longer is a member of the staff there - I checked on the website (he co-authored several papers with Professors Volkas and McKellar, both from Melbourne University).
I sincerely could not follow his arguments, and trying to extract a signal from noise does not sound that good an idea to me. And didn't he learn that use of the pronoun "we" should be used instead of "I"?
The point is that I am suspicious, of Ignatiev's idea and affiliation.
26th March 2007 - 10:12 PM
Snork. A little early for this by about 5 days.
Go suck an egg.
31st March 2007 - 05:10 AM
Is the 1st day of the 4th Month one of those "special" days it can happen on?
31st March 2007 - 11:38 AM
Classical mechanics, within which Newton's second law is included, is only correct in a very specific domain. Because of general relativity even the planets don't obay classical mechanics, measurably. The article does not supply enought information to judge the domain of this effect but I espect, that it is not the domain of classical mechanics and therefor not the domain of newton's second law.
Softeky - Alen
31st March 2007 - 04:56 PM
There may be a way to enhance the measurability of the effect, whatever it may be caused by, and that is to determine the track of the event (in advance) over the earth's surface over time. In this case a locus of points on the earth's surface (if not through the earth, perhaps in places along specially constructed tunnels) and place several detectors along this locus. The track of the 1/1000 second event should then be detectable as it passes through multiple detectors along this path over some short time. In this case, the track of points where the earth's spin would counteract its orbital motion around the sun (if I've understood correctly).
Time multiplexing is a wonderful thing - who knows we might even learn some new physics (again).
1st April 2007 - 04:33 PM
Have doctorate in math, bachelors in physics, masters in astronomy & cosmology ... and have mixed feelings about this 2nd Law being violated here on earth ... on the one hand I'm not going to scream total doubter insults but I will snicker quietly to myself at the very low probability of a successful experiment and the COST it will require ... but on the other hand we have seen the law violated in other places and situations in the universe, so it does have at least a minuscule possibility of success ... and I do understand that the actual implications it would have on our believed understanding of how things work is quite vast indeed ... so, all in all, I am withholding my judgment until I can see the results of the experiment, assuming someone will actually pay for the test to be done.
3rd April 2007 - 07:24 AM
While I agree that it's awful to look for signals buried deeply in the noise, it's not always impossible to do so. If it were, we couldn't hear. Brownian motion energies in the inner ear are many orders of magnitude larger than quiet sounds that we hear quite well.
The problem is, I doubt he can coherently add measurements that only last a couple thousandths of a second each year (and I'm not pretending to understand why on earth (pun intended) it should be for such a short time, or near the poles).