QM support for a preferred frame
Surfer
loop"
Gao shan
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9906113
From page 1
"At first, Hardy’s theorem [5] first states that any dynamical theory
describing the quantum nonlocal process, in which the predictions of
the theory agree with those of ordinary quantum theory, must have a
preferred Lorentz frame, and the description about the quantum
nonlocal influence is no longer independent of the selection of
inertial frame, this evidently breaks the first assumption of special
relativity, which asserts that the description of any physical
process is independent of the selection of inertial frame. But in
Hardy’s proof he presupposed that the collapse process happens
simultaneously in all observing inertial frames or there is no
backward causality in quantum systems, which validity is still not
clear, this weakens the strength of his conclusion.
Then, Percival extended Hardy’s theorem, he gave a different
derivation based on classical links between two Bell experiments in
different experimental inertial frames [8–10], which is called the
double Bell experiment, and his proof is independent of any
assumptions about causality in the quantum domain, thus it is just the
quantum nonlocal influence itself that requires the dynamical theory
about it must have a preferred Lorentz frame, or there will exist
the forbidden causal loops in the systems with classical inputs and
outputs.
On the other hand, Suarez’s analysis about multisimultaneity [6,7] has
also indicated that the description about the causal orders of the
nonlocal correlating events essentially needs a preferred Lorentz
frame, although he didn’t realize this fact himself, in fact, his
elegant one Bell experiment involving 2-after impacts will also
generate the forbidden logical causal loop if we assume that no
preferred Lorentz frame exists, or the quantum nonlocal influence
happens simultaneously in all experimental frames, since as to these
two space-like classical events in the experiment, each is the cause
of the other, and this is evidently a logical contradiction. Thus
Suarez’s one Bell experiment also demonstrates that there must exist a
preferred Lorentz frame in order to consistently describe the quantum
nonlocal process."
-- Surfer
Eric Gisse
[...]
Oh, so a hidden-variable non-local QM theory [all local ones are
smashed via Bell's inequality] violates Lorentz invariance?
Goody, we can ignore those theories too.
Surfer
wrote:
>On Jun 25, 11:45 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>[...]
>
>Oh, so a hidden-variable non-local QM theory [all local ones are
>smashed via Bell's inequality] violates Lorentz invariance?
>
No, the existence of a preferred frame does not violate Lorentz
invariance.
It only means that LET is preferable to SR.
But Bill Hobba wrote a while ago:
"...both theories make identical predictions for any experimental
measurement, and both theories include the same set of mathematical
theorems."
So I don't see why there should be any problem.
-- Surfer
Eric Gisse
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:29:41 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 25, 11:45 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
> >[...]
>
> >Oh, so a hidden-variable non-local QM theory [all local ones are
> >smashed via Bell's inequality] violates Lorentz invariance?
>
> No, the existence of a preferred frame does not violate Lorentz
> invariance.
Uhhhh...yes it does. A preferred frame is the most obvious way of
breaking Lorentz invariance.
[snip remaining]
Surfer
wrote:
No. Although LET has a preferred frame, it allows the laws of physics
remain the same in all frames.
So a preferred frame does not necessarily break Lorentz invariance.
-- Surfer
Eric Gisse
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:34:56 -0000, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com>
...and wrong.
This has been explained to you countless times before. Furthermore, NO
ETHER HAS EVER BEEN DETECTED BY A CREDIBLE EXPERIMENT.
The horse is dead. Stop beating it.
>
> -- Surfer
Dono
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:34:56 -0000, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com>
Not that clear. It depends on the answer to the all important
question:
"What is the form of the tranform between the preferred frame and the
other frames?"
In LET, these transforms are the Lorentz transforms and this makes LET
totally uninteresting (actually LET is not even an accepted theory in
the scientific world, it is just the brainchild of this forum)
In other aether theories the transforms depart from the Lorentz
transforms in various ways. Do you know what are the consequences of
these departures?
Alen
> "Quantum superluminal communication does not result in the causal
> loop"
>
> From page 1
>
> "At first, Hardy's theorem [5] first states that any dynamical theory
> describing the quantum nonlocal process, in which the predictions of
> the theory agree with those of ordinary quantum theory, must have a
> preferred Lorentz frame, and the description about the quantum
> nonlocal influence is no longer independent of the selection of
> inertial frame, this evidently breaks the first assumption of special
> relativity, which asserts that the description of any physical
> process is independent of the selection of inertial frame. But in
> Hardy's proof he presupposed that the collapse process happens
> simultaneously in all observing inertial frames or there is no
> backward causality in quantum systems, which validity is still not
> clear, this weakens the strength of his conclusion.
> Then, Percival extended Hardy's theorem, he gave a different
> derivation based on classical links between two Bell experiments in
> double Bell experiment, and his proof is independent of any
> assumptions about causality in the quantum domain, thus it is just the
> quantum nonlocal influence itself that requires the dynamical theory
> about it must have a preferred Lorentz frame, or there will exist
> the forbidden causal loops in the systems with classical inputs and
> outputs.
> On the other hand, Suarez's analysis about multisimultaneity [6,7] has
> also indicated that the description about the causal orders of the
> nonlocal correlating events essentially needs a preferred Lorentz
> frame, although he didn't realize this fact himself, in fact, his
> elegant one Bell experiment involving 2-after impacts will also
> generate the forbidden logical causal loop if we assume that no
> preferred Lorentz frame exists, or the quantum nonlocal influence
> happens simultaneously in all experimental frames, since as to these
> two space-like classical events in the experiment, each is the cause
> of the other, and this is evidently a logical contradiction. Thus
> Suarez's one Bell experiment also demonstrates that there must exist a
> preferred Lorentz frame in order to consistently describe the quantum
> nonlocal process."
>
> -- Surfer
Any such spacelike problems are due to the Minkowski
spacetime rotations concept. When it is discovered that
this concept is a mistake, such problems will then be
revealed as only pseudo-problems, which don't really exist.
Thus, neither LET nor a preferred frame is required to solve
them. The true answer is that nonsimultaneity is an appearance
created by light, and doesn't have a spacelike genesis,
independently of light. Thus, in reality, SR is not a problem
for QM nonlocality.
Everyone, of course, is free to pour scorn on such heresy,
in the usual way.
Alen
Surfer
>On Jun 26, 8:25 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> ....Although LET has a preferred frame, it allows the laws of physics
>> remain the same in all frames.
>>
>> So a preferred frame does not necessarily break Lorentz invariance.
>>
>> -- Surfer
>
>
>
>Not that clear. It depends on the answer to the all important
>question:
>"What is the form of the tranform between the preferred frame and the
>other frames?"
>
>In LET, these transforms are the Lorentz transforms and this makes LET
>totally uninteresting (actually LET is not even an accepted theory in
>the scientific world, it is just the brainchild of this forum)
>
I'd say that makes LET very interesting, because since SR uses the
same transforms, it proves that SR is compatible with a preferred
frame.
>
>In other aether theories the transforms depart from the Lorentz
>transforms in various ways. Do you know what are the consequences of
>these departures?
>
The Lorentz transforms are the most practical ones, because they allow
the laws of physics, speed of light, rate of clocks etc. to appear the
same in all frames.
-- Surfer
Surfer
wrote:
>On Jun 26, 7:25 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
The existence or otherwise of the classical ether is not relevant
here.
-- Surfer
harry
"Surfer" <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote in message
news:cak383p2k7jjjf4uc...@4ax.com...
You mean an "absolute" frame. Usually with "preferred", people mean
preferred for the laws of physics.
Harald
Jeckyl
news:118292...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>> remain the same in all frames.
>>
>> So a preferred frame does not necessarily break Lorentz invariance.
>
> You mean an "absolute" frame. Usually with "preferred", people mean
> preferred for the laws of physics.
Is LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) the same as LT (Lorentz Theory) (ie his 1904
one) ? If not, what is the difference? I've seen conflicting information.
Bilge
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:29:41 -0700, Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 25, 11:45 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>Oh, so a hidden-variable non-local QM theory [all local ones are
>>smashed via Bell's inequality] violates Lorentz invariance?
>>
>
> No, the existence of a preferred frame does not violate Lorentz
> invariance.
It violates poincare invariance.
Surfer
<harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
>
>You mean an "absolute" frame. Usually with "preferred", people mean
>preferred for the laws of physics.
>
I would be reluctant to use "absolute" because of its Newtonian
connotations.
Also in an expanding universe, the "frame" might need to expand with
the universe, so perhaps "frame" is not even quite the right term.
Percival used the term "measurement field", which might be
approximated by a preferred frame in our part of the universe.
So many interesting considerations !
Cheers,
Surfer
harry
"Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:46821643$0$1187$61c6...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"LET" is an acronym used by different people in this newsgroup; it can also
stand for "Lorentz Electrodynamics Theory". It usually means either the
state of affairs of 1904 or the interpretation of SRT by Lorentz.
Regretfully, it easily brings about misunderstandings and may enhance a
distorted understanding of history.
SRT history in a nutshell:
Lorentz's theory of 1904 was developed from harmonizing Newton's mechanics
with Maxwell's electrodynamics in answer to Poincare's request for a theory
that obeys the PoR. The theory was still crystallizing and his paper was not
free of errors - this was corrected in 1905 by Poincare who honoured Lorentz
with the term "Lorentz transformations"; next Einstein derived the LT
directly from the PoR and he elaborated on it. Minkowski reinterpreted the
theory, Lorentz came to prefer Einstein's approach of presenting it and
Einstein called it "SRT" when he introduced GRT.
Regards,
Harald
Jeckyl
>
> "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:46821643$0$1187$61c6...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>> "harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
>> news:118292...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>>>
>>> "Surfer" <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote in message
>>> news:cak383p2k7jjjf4uc...@4ax.com...
>>>> No. Although LET has a preferred frame, it allows the laws of physics
>>>> remain the same in all frames.
>>>>
>>>> So a preferred frame does not necessarily break Lorentz invariance.
>>>
>>> You mean an "absolute" frame. Usually with "preferred", people mean
>>> preferred for the laws of physics.
>>
>> Is LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) the same as LT (Lorentz Theory) (ie his
>> 1904
>> one) ? If not, what is the difference? I've seen conflicting
>> information.
>
> "LET" is an acronym used by different people in this newsgroup;
So when people talk about LET as Lorentz Ether Theory, it is (or at least
can be) the same as LR (Lorentz heory) of 1904 that has lorentz transforms
and L-F contraction?
That is what I had thought, and was being ridiculed for not knowing that LET
was a newer unpublished theory some people in this forum put forward, but
was a completely different theory from LT.
Hmmm
Dono
> >In other aether theories the transforms depart from the Lorentz
> >transforms in various ways. Do you know what are the consequences of
> >these departures?
>
> The Lorentz transforms are the most practical ones, because they allow
> the laws of physics, speed of light, rate of clocks etc. to appear the
> same in all frames.
>
> -- Surfer-
Do you know what are the consequences of the aether theories
transforms departing from the Lorentz transforms?
Dono
wrote:
> "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:46821643$0$1187$61c6...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>
>
>
> > "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> >news:118292...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>
> >> "Surfer" <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote in message
> >>news:cak383p2k7jjjf4uc...@4ax.com...
> >>> No. Although LET has a preferred frame, it allows the laws of physics
> >>> remain the same in all frames.
>
> >>> So a preferred frame does not necessarily break Lorentz invariance.
>
> >> You mean an "absolute" frame. Usually with "preferred", people mean
> >> preferred for the laws of physics.
>
> > Is LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) the same as LT (Lorentz Theory) (ie his 1904
> > one) ? If not, what is the difference? I've seen conflicting
> > information.
>
> "LET" is an acronym used by different people in this newsgroup; it can also
> stand for "Lorentz Electrodynamics Theory". It usually means either the
> state of affairs of 1904 or the interpretation of SRT by Lorentz.
> Regretfully, it easily brings about misunderstandings and may enhance a
> distorted understanding of history.
>
> SRT history in a nutshell:
> Lorentz's theory of 1904 was developed from harmonizing Newton's mechanics
> with Maxwell's electrodynamics
...and used the ad-hoc Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction in order to
explain, among other things the null result of MMX. This is LT
(Lorentz Theory of the 1904 paper)
in answer to Poincare's request for a theory
> that obeys the PoR. The theory was still crystallizing and his paper was not
> free of errors - this was corrected in 1905 by Poincare who honoured Lorentz
> with the term "Lorentz transformations"; next Einstein derived the LT
> directly from the PoR and he elaborated on it. Minkowski reinterpreted the
> theory, Lorentz came to prefer Einstein's approach of presenting it and
> Einstein called it "SRT" when he introduced GRT.
SRT differs from the old LT not only in its derivation but, amongst
other things, in abandoning the ad-hoc Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction
and replacing it with a projective view of how lenfth transforms
between relatively moving frames. There are several other important
differences, they pertain to the dropping of the ad-hoc assumptions
needed in explaining different experiments in the framework of LT. It
took Lorentz a very long time in order to abandond LT in favor of SR.
>
> Regards,
> Harald
Much later on, in the early 90's some people on this forum thought
that it would be a interesting to add a "preferred frame" to SRT. The
"new" theory was named LET. LET is in effect SRT with a preferred
frame. The projective nature of length contraction is maintained (no
resurrection of the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction), the transforms
are the same, the predictions are the same. A totally uninteresting
and useless theory, with no predictive power of its own. One can take
any arbitrary inertial frame in SRT, label it "preferred frame" and
get the same exact results.
Occasionally you see cranks of the O'Barr ilk, making "comparisons"
between LET and SRT or extolling LET's "superiority" over SRT. It is
all hogwash since LET and SRT are virtually the same thing. This is
not true of LT (the 1904 Lorentz theory) and of SRT, as shown above.
harry
> "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
>
> news:118294...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >news:46821643$0$1187$61c6...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
> >> "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> >>news:118292...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>
> >>> "Surfer" <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:cak383p2k7jjjf4uc...@4ax.com...
> >>>> No. Although LET has a preferred frame, it allows the laws of physics
> >>>> remain the same in all frames.
>
> >>>> So a preferred frame does not necessarily break Lorentz invariance.
>
> >>> You mean an "absolute" frame. Usually with "preferred", people mean
> >>> preferred for the laws of physics.
>
> >> 1904
> >> one) ? If not, what is the difference? I've seen conflicting
> >> information.
>
> > "LET" is an acronym used by different people in this newsgroup;
>
> So when people talk about LET as Lorentz Ether Theory, it is (or at least
> can be) the same as LR (Lorentz heory) of 1904 that has lorentz transforms
> and L-F contraction?
>
> That is what I had thought, and was being ridiculed for not knowing that LET
> was a newer unpublished theory some people in this forum put forward, but
> was a completely different theory fromLT.
>
> Hmmm
Not really - perhaps my "in a nutshell" was too elaborate?
Even shorter: The theory of Lorentz and Einstein was called
"relativity", later "SRT". No "LET". No "LR".
Harald
Jeckyl
news:1182964365....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Eh? What was the 1904 Lorentz (ether) theory then? What is it that people
have been talking about in the sci groups for well over 10 years that is
called "LET" or "Lorentz Ether Theory"?
Jeckyl
> Even shorter: The theory of Lorentz and Einstein was called
> "relativity", later "SRT". No "LET". No "LR".
So what is it described here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Jeckyl
news:1182960779.7...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Much later on, in the early 90's some people on this forum thought
> that it would be a interesting to add a "preferred frame" to SRT. The
> "new" theory was named LET. LET is in effect SRT with a preferred
> frame.
Are you sure that people in this newsgroup who talk about LET are still
referring to this fairly useless sounding LET theory?
> The projective nature of length contraction is maintained (no
> resurrection of the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction), the transforms
> are the same, the predictions are the same. A totally uninteresting
> and useless theory, with no predictive power of its own. One can take
> any arbitrary inertial frame in SRT, label it "preferred frame" and
> get the same exact results.
> Occasionally you see cranks of the O'Barr ilk, making "comparisons"
> between LET and SRT or extolling LET's "superiority" over SRT. It is
> all hogwash since LET and SRT are virtually the same thing. This is
> not true of LT (the 1904 Lorentz theory) and of SRT, as shown above.
It appears the O'Barr means LT when he says LET, from his description of it.
Is there any info online on this so-called 'LET' theory from the '90s that
one can refer to?
Surfer
The following paper shows how to use a number non-Lorentzian
transforms.
"On the Consistency between the Assumption of a Special System of
Reference and Special Relativity"
Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006
http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf
The consequences are summed up as follows:
"The key point is that reality can be described in many different
ways, for instance using "synchronized", "Galilean" or "Lorentzian"
clocks, which are all mathematically equivalent. However, a change in
the description does not change reality itself. The question of the
"constancy" of the one-way "speed" of light is essentially an issue of
language, related to which description is being used. Therefore, when
presenting or discussing Special Relativity we must keep in mind the
precise meaning in which words like "speed" and "simultaneity" are
used. Notice that this remark goes deeper than the conventionalist
thesis and a vision of physics based on operationalism .Together with
a discussion of the Principle of Relativity, these matters will be the
subject of our third and final paper on the foundations of Special
Relativity.
The (eventual) impossibility of detecting experimentally the "rest
system" does not change anything in Lorentz's philosophy. Within its
framework, one would simply have to admit he does not know the
"absolute speed" of an object, but this does not promote the "Einstein
speed"[#] to the status of "true speed". They remain different
notions. Consequently, the scenario of a preferred frame keeps being
consistent even if this frame cannot be identified. Although, of
course, its usefulness can then be questioned.
[#] The "Einstein speed" refers to the putative "speed" of light as
defined and used by Einstein in his theory of relativy. (ie measured
with Lorentzian clocks and ordinary rulers)
-- Surfer
Dono
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 07:55:06 -0700, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Jun 26, 10:19 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>
> >> >In other aether theories the transforms depart from the Lorentz
> >> >transforms in various ways. Do you know what are the consequences of
> >> >these departures?
>
> >> The Lorentz transforms are the most practical ones, because they allow
> >> the laws of physics, speed of light, rate of clocks etc. to appear the
> >> same in all frames.
>
> >> -- Surfer-
>
> >Do you know what are the consequences of the aether theories
> >transforms departing from the Lorentz transforms?
>
> The following paper shows how to use a number non-Lorentzian
> transforms.
>
> "On the Consistency between the Assumption of a Special System of
> Reference and Special Relativity"
You have been quoting this newfound junk paper for a while. It has
nothing to do with the question I asked you.
So, one more time, what are the consequences of the aether theories
Surfer
>
>Much later on, in the early 90's some people on this forum thought
>that it would be a interesting to add a "preferred frame" to SRT. The
>"new" theory was named LET. LET is in effect SRT with a preferred
>frame. The projective nature of length contraction is maintained (no
>resurrection of the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction), the transforms
>are the same, the predictions are the same. A totally uninteresting
>and useless theory, with no predictive power of its own.
>
A preferred frame though is very useful when analysing superluminal
quantum communication.
Eg
"The speed of quantum information and the preferred frame: analysis of
experimental data."
Valerio Scarani, Wolfgang Tittel, Hugo Zbinden, Nicolas Gisin
Journal reference: Phys. Lett. A 276 2000 1-7
"The results of EPR experiments performed in Geneva are analyzed in
the frame of the cosmic microwave background radiation, generally
considered as a good candidate for playing the role of preferred
frame. We set a lower bound for the speed of quantum information in
this frame at 1.5 x 10^4 c."
Without a preferred frame, how would you determine causality in such a
situation?
-- Surfer
Jeckyl
I guess in every set of relativity calcs, there is a frame that you 'prefer'
to work in .. so that _could_ be described, temporarily, as your "preferred"
frame for those calcs. Perhaps that is what is meant .. that when doing
such calculations, it is useful to consider the cosmic background radiation
frame as the 'at rest' frame. I am not sure (without reading the article)
if they mean that is should be considered physically as an absolute frame,
or that it means that no other frame could be considered 'preferred' in
other contexts, or that if indeed there were some 'preferred' frame in
reality, that that frame is a good candidate.
I think maybe too much is being read into that abstract :)
Having a universal preferred frame that is somehow special just doesn't
really make sense with SR. LT (to keep dono happy) has one, of course, as
there is the absolute "ether" frame. Does the preferred frame in LET (as
describe by Dono .. still not found anything elsewhere that describe LET as
he does) equate to an absolute ether frame (I guess if the E in LET is ETHER
then that would imply it does) ???
Dono
> A preferred frame though is very useful when analysing superluminal
> quantum communication.
Yes, it was explained to you by several of us, several times that
"preferred frames" can be very useful in terms of performing the
calculations. In many instances you can find relativistic
calculations performed in such a frame (CMBR tends to be the frame of
choice) only to see the results being transformed in the end into the
lab frame. Tom Roberts has explained to you many,many times that
-you can pick ANY inertial frame,
-LABEL it as "preferred" and
-EXECUTE the calculations in that particular frame.
What you and Cahill refuse to accept is what most physicists KNOW from
boan fide experiments, i.e. such a frame is in reality
INDISTINGUISHABLE from any other inertial frame, i.e.
-there is NO experiment that can detect it,
-there is no experiment executed in a CLOSED lab that can detect the
motion of that particular lab with respect to the "preferred" frame.
The day you and Cahill understand that any such experiment performed
by Cahill, Consoli, Munera, etc. is a HOAX is the day you will become
a honest person. So far, there is very little hope for you, looks like
you and Cahill will die a pair of conmen. You aren't fooling anybody,
the only people you are fooling is yourselves.
Sue...
There are any number of experiments that detect a preferred
inertial frame. But as the univese adjusts itself to the
forces applied in the experment, the prefered frame
moves to minimise radiation losses.
Usually according to the relation F = ma .
So we don't know were it is, but rather where is was.
Since is a different point for every mass, it has little
universal utility anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Barycenter#Barycenter
In SR 1920, references to inertial frames are limited
to the chapter on mass-energy equivalence, which
is GR's basis to unifiy electrodynamics and inerta.
Sue...
Bilge
That is THE POINT. THERE IS NO CAUSAL RELATION BETWEEN
SPACELIKE SEPARATED EVENTS. Personally, I don't think you
understand relativity.
Surfer
Its a safe assumption when we are considering influences that we know
cannot travel faster than c, but not otherwise.
And if there is no causal relation between correlated spacelike
separated events, how do the correlations arise?
>
>Personally, I don't think you understand relativity.
>
I understand that SR was not designed for superluminal quantum
communication.
So I question the wisdom of dogmatically trying to apply it to such
cases.
-- Surfer
Surfer
>
>What you and Cahill refuse to accept is what most physicists KNOW from
>boan fide experiments, i.e. such a frame is in reality
>INDISTINGUISHABLE from any other inertial frame, i.e.
>-there is NO experiment that can detect it,
>
That is true for vacuum mode MM experiments, but not for properly
executed gas-mode MM experiments.
>
>-there is no experiment executed in a CLOSED lab that can detect the
>motion of that particular lab with respect to the "preferred" frame.
>
That is implied by a dogmatic interpretation of SR.
But if you read the following with an open mind, you will see that the
above belief is untrue.
"The Ether Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute
Motion of the Earth."
Dayton C. Miller
Reviews of Modern Physics, July 1933, Vol 5
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
>
>The day you and Cahill understand that any such experiment performed
>by Cahill, Consoli, Munera, etc. is a HOAX is the day you will become
>a honest person. So far, there is very little hope for you, looks like
>you and Cahill will die a pair of conmen. You aren't fooling anybody,
>the only people you are fooling is yourselves.
>
I am afraid your cognitions have been terribly damaged by adopting a
dogmatic interpretation of SR.
-- Surfer
Surfer
Your ability to dismiss a peer reviewed paper as "junk" without
analysis is noted.
>
>It has nothing to do with the question I asked you.
>
>So, one more time, what are the consequences of the aether theories
>transforms departing from the Lorentz transforms?
>
Since that is a general question, I will give a general answer.
The above paper shows how to use a number non-Lorentzian
transforms.
If the aether theory concerned correctly uses such non-Lorentzian
transforms, in conjunction with appropriately defined clocks and
rulers, then the consequences will be as described above.
That is to say, everything will be fine...
-- Surfer
Dono
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:06:19 -0700, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >What you and Cahill refuse to accept is what most physicists KNOW from
> >boan fide experiments, i.e. such a frame is in reality
> >INDISTINGUISHABLE from any other inertial frame, i.e.
> >-there is NO experiment that can detect it,
>
> That is true for vacuum mode MM experiments, but not for properly
> executed gas-mode MM experiments.
It is true for PROPERLY staged experiments of Shamir, Trimmer, etc.
It is not true for the HOAX by Cahill.
>
> >-there is no experiment executed in a CLOSED lab that can detect the
> >motion of that particular lab with respect to the "preferred" frame.
>
> That is implied by a dogmatic interpretation of SR.
>
What is a "dogmatic" interpretation of SR?
You are getting more pathetic with every post.
> But if you read the following with an open mind, you will see that the
> above belief is untrue.
>
> "The Ether Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute
> Motion of the Earth."
> Dayton C. Miller
> Reviews of Modern Physics, July 1933, Vol 5http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
>
>
You are getting really desperate, working off the old and trite angle
of the Dayton-Miller paper.
>
> >The day you and Cahill understand that any such experiment performed
> >by Cahill, Consoli, Munera, etc. is a HOAX is the day you will become
> >a honest person. So far, there is very little hope for you, looks like
> >you and Cahill will die a pair of conmen. You aren't fooling anybody,
> >the only people you are fooling is yourselves.
>
> I am afraid your cognitions have been terribly damaged by adopting a
> dogmatic interpretation of SR.
>
> -- Surfer
Jeh,heh, once again, what is a "dogmatic" interpretation of SR?
How does it compare with the ouright hoax by Cahill? What are the
differences?
Tom Roberts
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:06:19 -0700, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> What you and Cahill refuse to accept is what most physicists KNOW from
>> boan fide experiments, i.e. such a frame is in reality
>> INDISTINGUISHABLE from any other inertial frame, i.e.
>> -there is NO experiment that can detect it,
>>
> That is true for vacuum mode MM experiments, but not for properly
> executed gas-mode MM experiments.
Hmmm. All the ones Cahill cites are consistent with the null result
predicted by SR. Which experiments do you think are "properly
executed"?? Note that Cahill's own experiment is not properly executed
by the standards of modern experimental physics -- what standard are you
using??
>> -there is no experiment executed in a CLOSED lab that can detect the
>> motion of that particular lab with respect to the "preferred" frame.
>>
> That is implied by a dogmatic interpretation of SR.
Nothing "dogmatic" is required; SR unambiguously and clearly predicts that.
> But if you read the following with an open mind, you will see that the
> above belief is untrue.
>
> "The Ether Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute
> Motion of the Earth."
> Dayton C. Miller
> Reviews of Modern Physics, July 1933, Vol 5
> http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
Miller's data have no SIGNIFICANT signal. Miller did not know this
because the state of knowledge in 1933 was insufficient to understand
his data. But you and Cahill have no excuse:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238
> I am afraid your cognitions have been terribly damaged by adopting a
> dogmatic interpretation of SR.
It appears to many of us that YOUR "cognitions" have been "terribly
damaged" by too much reliance on Cahill, and insufficient understanding
of modern physics.
Tom Roberts
Surfer
>On Jun 29, 11:02 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:06:19 -0700, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >What you and Cahill refuse to accept is what most physicists KNOW from
>> >boan fide experiments, i.e. such a frame is in reality
>> >INDISTINGUISHABLE from any other inertial frame, i.e.
>> >-there is NO experiment that can detect it,
>>
>> That is true for vacuum mode MM experiments, but not for properly
>> executed gas-mode MM experiments.
>
>It is true for PROPERLY staged experiments of Shamir, Trimmer, etc.
>It is not true for the HOAX by Cahill.
>
You can be abusive, but you don't have any real evidence against him.
>
>What is a "dogmatic" interpretation of SR?
>
Interpretations that claim it holds absolutely.
>You are getting more pathetic with every post.
>
>> But if you read the following with an open mind, you will see that the
>> above belief is untrue.
>>
>> "The Ether Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute
>> Motion of the Earth."
>> Dayton C. Miller
>> Reviews of Modern Physics, July 1933, Vol 5http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
>>
>
>You are getting really desperate, working off the old and trite angle
>of the Dayton-Miller paper.
>
Its an excellent paper.
>
>>
>> >The day you and Cahill understand that any such experiment performed
>> >by Cahill, Consoli, Munera, etc. is a HOAX is the day you will become
>> >a honest person. So far, there is very little hope for you, looks like
>> >you and Cahill will die a pair of conmen. You aren't fooling anybody,
>> >the only people you are fooling is yourselves.
>>
>> I am afraid your cognitions have been terribly damaged by adopting a
>> dogmatic interpretation of SR.
>>
>> -- Surfer
>
>Jeh,heh, once again, what is a "dogmatic" interpretation of SR?
Here is an analogy. A dogmatic interpretation of Ohm's law would claim
that it applies to all resistive materials.
That appeared true at one time. But these days we know it doesn't
apply to doped semi-conductors.
>
>How does it compare with the ouright hoax by Cahill? What are the
>differences?
>
Its a faith based position. At least Cahill is prepared to admit that
some experiments reveal absolute motion while others do not.
-- Surfer
Dono
Hey Tom,
Great to see you chime in.
This has been the n-th time we've explained the SAME thing to Surfer,
maybe he'll finally get it (actually, maybe he'll accept the obvious
truth).
The Trimmer experiment is the final nail in Cahill/Surfer's
argumentation. Interesting how much "damage" an intelligent experiment
can do. Of course, Surfer/Cahill tries to conveniently "forget" about
it and to revert to the "daddy" of all misconceptions, the Dayton
Miller paper.
Dono
> >How does it compare with the ouright hoax by Cahill? What are the
> >differences?
>
> Its a faith based position. At least Cahill is prepared to admit that
> some experiments reveal absolute motion while others do not.
>
> -- Surfer
Tom beat me to answering your post, he's rebutted all your
statements.
I have only one thing to add: Cahill is a crank, you are doing his
bidding in trying to learn as much as possible about how to justify/
correct his papers.
Problem is, you are wasting your time since Trimmer's experiment
trumps everything that Cahill has written. All you need is one
experiment and Cahill's theory gets falsified. Ain't that a bitch?
Surfer
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Surfer wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:06:19 -0700, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> What you and Cahill refuse to accept is what most physicists KNOW from
>>> boan fide experiments, i.e. such a frame is in reality
>>> INDISTINGUISHABLE from any other inertial frame, i.e.
>>> -there is NO experiment that can detect it,
>>>
>> That is true for vacuum mode MM experiments, but not for properly
>> executed gas-mode MM experiments.
>
>Hmmm. All the ones Cahill cites are consistent with the null result
>predicted by SR.
>
According to your error analysis. However, your analysis did not take
the Hicks effect into account and in the case of the original MM
experiment the Hicks effect was large.
Furthermore, your analysis does not explain how the extracted signals
vary with sideral time. Nor does it explain the correlations between
the different experiments.
>
>Which experiments do you think are "properly
>executed"??
>
The ones that get useful results.
>
>Note that Cahill's own experiment is not properly executed
>by the standards of modern experimental physics -- what standard are you
>using??
>
I am not doing experiments.
>
>>> -there is no experiment executed in a CLOSED lab that can detect the
>>> motion of that particular lab with respect to the "preferred" frame.
>>>
>> That is implied by a dogmatic interpretation of SR.
>
>Nothing "dogmatic" is required; SR unambiguously and clearly predicts that.
>
An interpretaton that places 100% faith in every aspect of SR is a
dogmatic interpretation.
>
>> But if you read the following with an open mind, you will see that the
>> above belief is untrue.
>>
>> "The Ether Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute
>> Motion of the Earth."
>> Dayton C. Miller
>> Reviews of Modern Physics, July 1933, Vol 5
>> http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
>
>Miller's data have no SIGNIFICANT signal. Miller did not know this
>because the state of knowledge in 1933 was insufficient to understand
>his data. But you and Cahill have no excuse:
>http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238
>
I found your error analysis educational, but did not find it
sufficient to prove your claim.
The extracted signal was good enough to allow Miller to estimate the
Absolute Motion of the Earth. It varied with the motion of the earth
in its orbit in the appropriate manner. Fig. 4 of his paper shows that
the values he obtained (before correction for relativistic effects)
were consistent with values from earlier MM experiments.
Regards,
Surfer
Surfer
>
>Problem is, you are wasting your time since Trimmer's experiment
>trumps everything that Cahill has written. All you need is one
>experiment and Cahill's theory gets falsified. Ain't that a bitch?
>
If you only need one experiment to falsify something, then Miller's
experiment alone trumps Trimmer. So your statement isn't true.
To come to a reasonable judgment we have to look at the balance of
evidence--and there is quite a lot in favor of Cahill.
"The 3-space velocity field has been directly detected in at
least eight experiments including the Michelson-Morley experiment [2]
of 1887, but most impressively by the superb experiment by Miller in
1925/1926 [3]. The Miller experiment was one of the great physics
experiments of the 20th century, but has been totally neglected by
mainstream physics. All of these experiments detected the dynamical
3-space by means of the light speed anisotropy - that the speed of
light is different in different directions, and the anisotropy is very
large, namely some 1 part in a 1000. The existence of this 3-space as
a detectable phenomenon implies that a generalisation of all the
fundamental theories of physics be carried out."
"The new physics of the dynamical 3-space is extensively tested
against experimental and astronomical observations, including the
necessary generalisation of the Maxwell, Schrodinger and Dirac
equations, leading to a derivation and explanation of gravity as a
refraction effect of the quantum matter waves."
Full details in:
Dynamical 3-Space: A Review
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4146v2
Cheers,
Surfer
Bilge
> On 29 Jun 2007 12:43:21 GMT, Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
>> That is THE POINT. THERE IS NO CAUSAL RELATION BETWEEN
>>SPACELIKE SEPARATED EVENTS.
>>
> Its a safe assumption when we are considering influences that we know
> cannot travel faster than c, but not otherwise.
In relativity, there are no ``influences'' that propagate faster
than `c.' There are also no experiments which disagree with relativity.
> And if there is no causal relation between correlated spacelike
> separated events, how do the correlations arise?
One of the first things anyone learns in a course on probability
and statistics, is that correlation does not imply causation.
According to one insurance company, 69% of all auto accidents
occur withing 10 miles of home. Do you think that the accidents
are caused by driving too close to home?
>>Personally, I don't think you understand relativity.
>>
> I understand that SR was not designed for superluminal quantum
> communication.
And none is necessary.
> So I question the wisdom of dogmatically trying to apply it to such
> cases.
I question the wisdom of dogmatically applying anything. In this case,
there is nothing dogmatic about applying relativity. It's the only way
the epr experiment makes sense.
Don Stockbauer
QM support for a preferred frame
***************
What sense of the word "frame' is being used here?
"I was framed, Rocko. I'm taking you down with me."
Dono
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:41:08 -0700, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Problem is, you are wasting your time since Trimmer's experiment
> >trumps everything that Cahill has written. All you need is one
> >experiment and Cahill's theory gets falsified. Ain't that a bitch?
>
> If you only need one experiment to falsify something, then Miller's
> experiment alone trumps Trimmer. So your statement isn't true.
>
Nice try. Experiments can't trump experiments, they can only trump
theories.
Second, the flaws in the Dayton Miller experiment are already known,
only religious zealots and blind followers of Cahill continue to close
their eyes and claim that the experiment is valid.
> To come to a reasonable judgment we have to look at the balance of
> evidence--and there is quite a lot in favor of Cahill.
>
You mean all the theoretical errors that were explained to you
countless times? Do you mean the incorrect data analysis that misses
the use of error bars that was also explained to you countless times?
[drivel from Cahill's unpublished paper snipped]
Tom Roberts
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:32:42 GMT, Tom Roberts
> <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Hmmm. All the ones Cahill cites are consistent with the null result
>> predicted by SR.
>>
> According to your error analysis. However, your analysis did not take
> the Hicks effect into account and in the case of the original MM
> experiment the Hicks effect was large.
That has no bearing whatsoever on the errorbars of Miller's original
result. They are HUGE, and his result is consistent with the null result
predicted by SR.
> Furthermore, your analysis does not explain how the extracted signals
> vary with sideral time.
That "variation" is likewise INSIGNIFICANT. When one makes an average
one will obtain an answer, but one must look at the errorbars to know
whether it is significant -- Miller's is not. <shrug>
> Nor does it explain the correlations between
> the different experiments.
None of the others have significant signals, either. And most of them
claim "agreement with Miller" -- look up experimenter's bias.
Note that you are being highly selective: there are no such
"correlations" with experiments by Joos, Trimmer, Brillet and Hall, etc.
There are no SIGNIFICANT correlations with Michelson and Morley,
Illingworth, etc. If what you claim were true, there should be such
"correlations".
Remember Trimmer had more air than solid, so he SHOULD
see the effect Cahill claims; he does not to much better
accuracy than any of the other experiments.
You are picking and choosing which experiments to believe, and which
not, BASED ON AGREEMENT WITH YOUR PERSONAL PREJUDICES. That is not science.
>> Which experiments do you think are "properly
>> executed"??
>>
> The ones that get useful results.
BZZZT! That not a valid, scientific answer. If you want to do science
you cannot judge experiments by their results and only accept ones that
have answers to your liking.
>> Note that Cahill's own experiment is not properly executed
>> by the standards of modern experimental physics -- what standard are you
>> using??
>>
> I am not doing experiments.
I meant what standard are you using to determine if an experiment is
"properly executed". You answered with a non-scientific answer. You need
to learn what science is, or move to a newsgroup concerned with fiction.
> I found your error analysis educational, but did not find it
> sufficient to prove your claim.
Again you prove you are not interested in science. <shrug>
The errorbars on Miller's original result are indisputable, because they
are just basic mathematics. That alone is sufficient to reject his
result, to anybody who understands basic experimental science. <shrug>
> The extracted signal was good enough to allow Miller to estimate the
> Absolute Motion of the Earth. It varied with the motion of the earth
> in its orbit in the appropriate manner.
Yes, he found what he was looking for. But the errorbars on this are
ENORMOUS -- they do not even fit on the paper on which he draws his
figures. That is not science. Miller can be excused, because this was
not common in his day; it is not only common but REQUIRED today, and
neither you nor Cahill have any excuse.
Tom Roberts
Surfer
>On Jun 29, 11:37 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:41:08 -0700, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Problem is, you are wasting your time since Trimmer's experiment
>> >trumps everything that Cahill has written. All you need is one
>> >experiment and Cahill's theory gets falsified. Ain't that a bitch?
>>
>> If you only need one experiment to falsify something, then Miller's
>> experiment alone trumps Trimmer. So your statement isn't true.
>>
>
>Nice try. Experiments can't trump experiments, they can only trump
>theories.
>
Well then, the theory supposedly validated by Trimmer :-)
>
>Second, the flaws in the Dayton Miller experiment are already known,
>
If you believe the analysis by Tom Roberts.
But although its educational, its not published, does not account for
the Hicks effect and does not explain the correlations between
Miller's results and sideral time.
So to prove Miller's experiment invalid, Tom will have to do more
work.
-- Surfer
Dono
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 07:37:52 -0700, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Jun 29, 11:37 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:41:08 -0700, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Problem is, you are wasting your time since Trimmer's experiment
> >> >trumps everything that Cahill has written. All you need is one
> >> >experiment and Cahill's theory gets falsified. Ain't that a bitch?
>
> >> If you only need one experiment to falsify something, then Miller's
> >> experiment alone trumps Trimmer. So your statement isn't true.
>
> >Nice try. Experiments can't trump experiments, they can only trump
> >theories.
>
> Well then, the theory supposedly validated by Trimmer :-)
>
Nice try again, the Cahill "experiment" has been shown to be a HOAX.
Only ignorants like Cahill continue to claim that Dayton Miller
results support his views.
>
>
> >Second, the flaws in the Dayton Miller experiment are already known,
>
> If you believe the analysis by Tom Roberts.
>
It is based on solid science.
> But although its educational, its not published, does not account for
> the Hicks effect and does not explain the correlations between
> Miller's results and sideral time.
>
This is a good one. I noticed that Cahill just dusted the 1902(!)
Hicks paper and added it to his June 05 version of the "paper". Your
trolling this forum for information really helps him. Tom has just
explained to you that the "sidereal effect" is negligible. I expect
that Cahill will take these two "grasping at the straws" (Hicks and
sidereal effect) out of the next version of his still unpublished
paper.
> So to prove Miller's experiment invalid, Tom will have to do more
> work.
>
> -- Surfer
This was done long,long ago, no one in his right mind cites Dayton
Miller (or, even worse, DeWitte) as proof. Read the Stachel papers on
Dayton Miller, ok. Listen, both you and Cahill would benefit from an
in depth study of relativity.
Surfer
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Surfer wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:32:42 GMT, Tom Roberts
>> <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Hmmm. All the ones Cahill cites are consistent with the null result
>>> predicted by SR.
>>>
>> According to your error analysis. However, your analysis did not take
>> the Hicks effect into account and in the case of the original MM
>> experiment the Hicks effect was large.
>
>That has no bearing whatsoever on the errorbars of Miller's original
>result. They are HUGE,
>
In Fig. 5 in your paper they look about 20 times larger than the
variations of the data.
However, in radio engineering, we expect a reciever to be able to
reject interference that is 1000 times greater than the signal we wish
to receive.
This is possible by appropriatedly processing the signal.
Now according to Miller's paper, he processed a large amount of data
with a harmonic analyser. It seems to me this would have been
analogous to feeding a radio signal into a tuning circuit, so he could
well have successfully rejected the errors that concern you.
In which case the error bars you calculated would not be relevant.
>
>
>> Furthermore, your analysis does not explain how the extracted signals
>> vary with sideral time.
>
>That "variation" is likewise INSIGNIFICANT. When one makes an average
>one will obtain an answer, but one must look at the errorbars to know
>whether it is significant -- Miller's is not. <shrug>
>
Again, the error bars you calculated might not be relevant.
Miller estimated his errors as follows:
(Page 28 under "Probable error")
"A study of the numerical results plotted in Fig 26 shows that the
probably error of the observed velocity, which has a magnitude of from
ten to eleven kilometers per second is +- 0.33 kilometers per second,
while the probable error in the determination of the azimuth is +-2.5
degrees. The probable error in the right ascensions and declinations
of the polar chart, Fig. 28 is +- 0.5 degrees."
I don't see any reason to distrust these estimates.
You mention experimenter's bias, but Miller points out that owing to
the complicated relationships between orientation of the apparatus,
rotation of the earth, position of the earth in its orbit and
celestial direction etc., it would be impossible for an operator to
guess what fringe shifts to expect.
So operator bias is unlikely to be a factor in his results.
>
>There are no SIGNIFICANT correlations with Michelson and Morley,
>
Again the error bars you calculated might not be relevant.
Fig 4. in Miller's paper shows very reasonable correlation with
Michelson and Morley.
>
> Remember Trimmer had more air than solid, so he SHOULD
> see the effect Cahill claims; he does not to much better
> accuracy than any of the other experiments.
>
We know from the MM experiments that the air in gas-mode
interferometers can only produce visible fringe shifts if the path of
the light is very much longer than the path in the Trimmer experiment.
That is why the MM apparatus not only has very long arms but also
makes the light traverse the length of the arms multiple times. Even
then, the fringe shifts per rotation are very small. So Trimmer's null
result is perfectly consistent with Cahill's claims.
>
>You are picking and choosing which experiments to believe, and which
>not, BASED ON AGREEMENT WITH YOUR PERSONAL PREJUDICES.
>
Lets compare it to experiments with resistive materials prior to the
discovery of doped semi-conductors. If I was curious about non-linear
resistance, then I would be interested in the experiments that
violated Ohms law, not the ones that confirmed Ohms law.
>
>>> Which experiments do you think are "properly
>>> executed"??
>>>
>> The ones that get useful results.
>
>BZZZT! That not a valid, scientific answer.
>
It wasn't meant to be taken too seriously :-)
>
>> Note that Cahill's own experiment is not properly executed
>> by the standards of modern experimental physics -- what standard are >> you using??
>>>
>> I am not doing experiments.
>
>I meant what standard are you using to determine if an experiment is
>"properly executed".
>
I think it is very difficult to judge from reading papers. There could
be very well presented papers that are not as reliable as they look,
and there could be poorly presented papers that don't do justice to a
quality experiment.
There could be papers with error bars that are misleading, and there
could be papers without error bars that are quite sound.
It is probably also unwise to trust single experiments, no matter how
good they look.
-- Surfer
Dono
>
> We know from the MM experiments that the air in gas-mode
> interferometers can only produce visible fringe shifts if the path of
> the light is very much longer than the path in the Trimmer experiment.
> That is why the MM apparatus not only has very long arms but also
> makes the light traverse the length of the arms multiple times. Even
> then, the fringe shifts per rotation are very small. So Trimmer's null
> result is perfectly consistent with Cahill's claims.
>
MMX and DM used direct observation of the fringes by a human. Since
they could not detect the fringe shift PREDICTED by aether theories,
they resorted to ever longer arms. Even then, they still detected
signals that were ORDERS of magnitude SMALLER than the prediction.
Modern experiments like Trimmer's DO NOT USE direct observation of
fringe shift. The Trimmer setup is still about 500,000 times more
sensitive than the DM one, so, its resolution is about 500,000x the
one of DM. The more modern resonating cavity-based experiments are
10^7 more sensitive than DM. Feel free to take this information to
Cahill.
Tom Roberts
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:05:56 -0500, Tom Roberts
> <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> the errorbars of Miller's original
> In Fig. 5 in your paper they look about 20 times larger than the
> variations of the data.
Yes.
> Now according to Miller's paper, he processed a large amount of data
> with a harmonic analyser. It seems to me this would have been
> analogous to feeding a radio signal into a tuning circuit, so he could
> well have successfully rejected the errors that concern you.
No. He did that after averaging, which completely negates the
possibility you raise. The damage is done by the averaging. Had he
applied such an harmonic analysis to the raw data, as I did with the
320-point DFT, it would have separated out the component with period 1/2
turn. But as I stated in the paper, by itself this is not sufficient to
determine if that amplitude is signal or noise. For the radio and its
tuning circuit, your EARS AND BRAIN separate the announcer's voice from
the static, but there is no analogous method of separating signal from
noise for Miller's data.
> Miller estimated his errors [...]
> I don't see any reason to distrust these estimates.
You need to improve your understanding of experimental science and learn
how to "see": he did not account for the AVERAGING. The errorbar due to
that is simple, indisputable, and is MUCH larger than the variation he
found. We have learned something in the intervening 70+ years. You
should learn it, too. <shrug>
> You mention experimenter's bias, but Miller points out that owing to
> the complicated relationships between orientation of the apparatus,
> rotation of the earth, position of the earth in its orbit and
> celestial direction etc., it would be impossible for an operator to
> guess what fringe shifts to expect.
>
> So operator bias is unlikely to be a factor in his results.
Miller wrote in 1933, before this had been understood. In the
intervening 70+ years we have learned that even so this bias can affect
results. That's why "single blind" and "double blind" experimental
protocols are required in such cases today -- Miller's experiment is
QUITE CLEARLY such a case.
>> There are no SIGNIFICANT correlations with Michelson and Morley,
>>
> Again the error bars you calculated might not be relevant.
You hide your head in the sand. <shrug>
>> Remember Trimmer had more air than solid, so he SHOULD
>> see the effect Cahill claims; he does not to much better
>> accuracy than any of the other experiments.
>>
> We know from the MM experiments that the air in gas-mode
> interferometers can only produce visible fringe shifts if the path of
> the light is very much longer than the path in the Trimmer experiment.
We do not "know" that at all -- this is merely yet another special plead
to permit you to ignore an experiment with a result you don't like. Yes,
his path is shorter, but his detector is more sensitive by a factor
larger than the ratio of path lengths. To the rest of us that seems to
establish that he did not see Cahill's "effect"; if you disagree, then
you must present a QUANTITATIVE theory and perform a COMPUTATION, not
merely spout guesses and special pleads.
> So Trimmer's null
> result is perfectly consistent with Cahill's claims.
You are GUESSING. Why is it that you don't provide a QUANTITATIVE theory
for this "effect" and then apply it to Trimmer's apparatus (and to all
the others)?
> It is probably also unwise to trust single experiments, no matter how
> good they look.
Hmmm. There are literally hundreds of experiments that confirm many
different aspects of SR. You repeatedly mention a half dozen or so
experiments in support of Cahill's claims, and ALL of them have clear
problems with technique and/or analysis, or simply do not support his
claims with any significance. <shrug>
Tom Roberts
Surfer
>On Jun 30, 2:04 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> We know from the MM experiments that the air in gas-mode
>> interferometers can only produce visible fringe shifts if the path of
>> the light is very much longer than the path in the Trimmer experiment.
>> That is why the MM apparatus not only has very long arms but also
>> makes the light traverse the length of the arms multiple times. Even
>> then, the fringe shifts per rotation are very small. So Trimmer's null
>> result is perfectly consistent with Cahill's claims.
>>
>
>
>MMX and DM used direct observation of the fringes by a human. Since
>they could not detect the fringe shift PREDICTED by aether theories,
>they resorted to ever longer arms. Even then, they still detected
>signals that were ORDERS of magnitude SMALLER than the prediction.
>
You are refering of course to the early aether theories that did not
incorporate the Larmor time dilation and Fitzgerald-Lorentz
contraction effects.
"Larmor published the Lorentz transformations in the Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society in 1897 some two years before
Hendrik Lorentz (1899, 1904) and eight years before Albert Einstein
(1905)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Larmor#Biography
But even without allowing for those effects, the results of the early
experiments were consistent with each other.
We can see that in Fig. 4 of:
"The Ether Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute
Motion of the Earth."
Dayton C. Miller
Reviews of Modern Physics, July 1933, Vol 5
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
"Fig. 4. Velocity of ether drift observed by Michelson and Morley in
1887 and Miller in 1902, and 1905 compared with the velocity obtained
by Miller in 1925."
The values were all between 7~10 km/s, but become much larger when
relativistic effects are taken into account.
>
>Modern experiments like Trimmer's DO NOT USE direct observation of
>fringe shift. The Trimmer setup is still about 500,000 times more
>sensitive than the DM one, so, its resolution is about 500,000x the
>one of DM.
>
It could never the less have been a dud.
>
>The more modern resonating cavity-based experiments are
>10^7 more sensitive than DM.
>
So far as I know the ones that reported "null" results have all used
vacuum, so are not able to detect absolute motion.
However last December the following news was posted:
>
>(Dawkins and Luiten) at the University of Western Australia
>reported last week at a physics conference in Brisbane Australia
>that when gas (nitrogen at 10 torr) was placed in one of the
>cavities they detected a preferred frame, as Cahill predicted.
>They only had two days of data for presentation to the conference,
>but that data clearly detected the rotation of the earth with respect
>to a preferred frame by means of a clean sinusoidal shift in the beat
>frequency with a 24 hour period.
>
http://www.adras.com/Existence-of-Preferred-Frame-2nd-Australian-Experiment.t18826-90-1.html
Cheers,
Surfer
Jules
> "Quantum superluminal communication does not result in the causal
> loop"
> Gao shanhttp://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9906113
>
> From page 1
>
> "At first, Hardy's theorem [5] first states that any dynamical theory
> describing the quantum nonlocal process, in which the predictions of
> the theory agree with those of ordinary quantum theory, must have a
> preferred Lorentz frame, and the description about the quantum
> nonlocal influence is no longer independent of the selection of
> inertial frame, this evidently breaks the first assumption of special
> relativity, which asserts that the description of any physical
> process is independent of the selection of inertial frame. But in
> Hardy's proof he presupposed that the collapse process happens
> simultaneously in all observing inertial frames or there is no
> backward causality in quantum systems, which validity is still not
> clear, this weakens the strength of his conclusion.
> Then, Percival extended Hardy's theorem, he gave a different
> derivation based on classical links between two Bell experiments in
> different experimental inertial frames [8-10], which is called the
> double Bell experiment, and his proof is independent of any
> assumptions about causality in the quantum domain, thus it is just the
> quantum nonlocal influence itself that requires the dynamical theory
> about it must have a preferred Lorentz frame, or there will exist
> the forbidden causal loops in the systems with classical inputs and
> outputs.
> On the other hand, Suarez's analysis about multisimultaneity [6,7] has
> also indicated that the description about the causal orders of the
> nonlocal correlating events essentially needs a preferred Lorentz
> frame, although he didn't realize this fact himself, in fact, his
> elegant one Bell experiment involving 2-after impacts will also
> generate the forbidden logical causal loop if we assume that no
> preferred Lorentz frame exists, or the quantum nonlocal influence
> happens simultaneously in all experimental frames, since as to these
> two space-like classical events in the experiment, each is the cause
> of the other, and this is evidently a logical contradiction. Thus
> Suarez's one Bell experiment also demonstrates that there must exist a
> preferred Lorentz frame in order to consistently describe the quantum
> nonlocal process."
>
> -- Surfer
If that preferred Lorentz frame suddenly pops up during an
alleged non-local communication. Does it mean Postulate 1
will be violated as if quantum entanglement can suddenly
change the rule of physics making them not the same in
all inertial frames. If this is not what happens, then
what is the article implying. As an illustration. If you say
send an alleged superluminal non-local quantum signal, there
will be frames of reference that can view the destination
getting it back in time (thanks to relativity of
simultineity). Now how does the article above postulate to
solve this. Does it mean that the frame of reference will not
view the destination as getting it back in time but
somehow the superluminal signal will first be buffered
in a prefered Lorentz frame then later send it to the
frame of reference in such a way that he won't view
the destination getting it back in time??
Jules
Dono
> >Modern experiments like Trimmer's DO NOT USE direct observation of
> >fringe shift. The Trimmer setup is still about 500,000 times more
> >sensitive than the DM one, so, its resolution is about 500,000x the
> >one of DM.
>
> It could never the less have been a dud.
>
Coulda, woulda , shoulda. Nonsense. You are making up things in order
to deflect attention that the Cahill experiment is a HOAX.
>
>
> >The more modern resonating cavity-based experiments are
> >10^7 more sensitive than DM.
>
> So far as I know the ones that reported "null" results have all used
> vacuum, so are not able to detect absolute motion.
>
> However last December the following news was posted:
>
>
>
> >(Dawkins and Luiten) at the University of Western Australia
> >reported last week at a physics conference in Brisbane Australia
> >that when gas (nitrogen at 10 torr) was placed in one of the
> >cavities they detected a preferred frame, as Cahill predicted.
> >They only had two days of data for presentation to the conference,
> >but that data clearly detected the rotation of the earth with respect
> >to a preferred frame by means of a clean sinusoidal shift in the beat
> >frequency with a 24 hour period.
>
> http://www.adras.com/Existence-of-Preferred-Frame-2nd-Australian-Expe...
>
> Cheers,
> Surfer
You have posted this nonsense before, so more Australian scientists
are embarassing themselves repeating Cahill's errors <shrug>
Dono
>
> However last December the following news was posted:
>
>
>
> >(Dawkins and Luiten) at the University of Western Australia
> >reported last week at a physics conference in Brisbane Australia
> >that when gas (nitrogen at 10 torr) was placed in one of the
> >cavities they detected a preferred frame, as Cahill predicted.
> >They only had two days of data for presentation to the conference,
> >but that data clearly detected the rotation of the earth with respect
> >to a preferred frame by means of a clean sinusoidal shift in the beat
> >frequency with a 24 hour period.
>
> http://www.adras.com/Existence-of-Preferred-Frame-2nd-Australian-Expe...
>
> Cheers,
> Surfer
Sure, it was posted by a well known crank, called "mountainman".
Here is his original post:
http://www.archivum.info/sci.physics/2006-12/msg03600.html
Haven't seen "mountainman" in a while, could it be that he became
"Surfer"?
Surfer
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Surfer wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:05:56 -0500, Tom Roberts
>> <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> the errorbars of Miller's original
>>> result [...] are HUGE,
>>>
>> In Fig. 5 in your paper they look about 20 times larger than the
>> variations of the data.
>
>Yes.
>
>
>> Now according to Miller's paper, he processed a large amount of data
>> with a harmonic analyser. It seems to me this would have been
>> analogous to feeding a radio signal into a tuning circuit, so he could
>> well have successfully rejected the errors that concern you.
>
>No. He did that after averaging, which completely negates the
>possibility you raise. The damage is done by the averaging. Had he
>applied such an harmonic analysis to the raw data, as I did with the
>320-point DFT, it would have separated out the component with period 1/2
>turn.
>But as I stated in the paper, by itself this is not sufficient to
>determine if that amplitude is signal or noise. For the radio and its
>tuning circuit, your EARS AND BRAIN separate the announcer's voice from
>the static, but there is no analogous method of separating signal from
>noise for Miller's data.
>
That does not seem quite correct.
Because the earth is rotating, the extracted signal should vary in a
distinct way during the course of a day.
Further, because the velocity of the earth changes as it orbits the
sun, the extracted signal should also vary in a distinct way during
the course of a year.
So suitable processing should allow these variations to be separated
from the noise.
Fig 26 in Miller's paper shows good correspondence between "observed
and calculated velocities", so he may have done a good job in this
regard.
>>
>> So operator bias is unlikely to be a factor in his results.
>
>Miller wrote in 1933, before this had been understood. In the
>intervening 70+ years we have learned that even so this bias can affect
>results. That's why "single blind" and "double blind" experimental
>protocols are required in such cases today -- Miller's experiment is
>QUITE CLEARLY such a case.
>
You are implying the operator might have "guessed" the direction of
ether drift based on his knowledge of time of day and day of year and
then in turn "guessed" how many fringe shifts would be appropriate for
that direction. I think that possibility is very remote.
>
>>> Remember Trimmer had more air than solid, so he SHOULD
>>> see the effect Cahill claims; he does not to much better
>>> accuracy than any of the other experiments.
>>>
>> We know from the MM experiments that the air in gas-mode
>> interferometers can only produce visible fringe shifts if the path of
>> the light is very much longer than the path in the Trimmer experiment.
>
>We do not "know" that at all -- this is merely yet another special plead
>to permit you to ignore an experiment with a result you don't like. Yes,
>his path is shorter, but his detector is more sensitive by a factor
>larger than the ratio of path lengths. To the rest of us that seems to
>establish that he did not see Cahill's "effect"; if you disagree, then
>you must present a QUANTITATIVE theory and perform a COMPUTATION, not
>merely spout guesses and special pleads.
>
This is not necessarily a quantitative matter. Suppose Trimmer got
fringe shifts due to the air, but that were very much smaller than
what he expected from the effect of the solid dielectric. In that
case, to save himself trouble he might have chosen to present a null
result.
>
>Hmmm. There are literally hundreds of experiments that confirm many
>different aspects of SR.
>
I think Cahill supports SR overall. But he writes:
"The detection of absolute motion is not incompatible with Lorentz
symmetry; the contrary belief was postulated by Einstein, and has
persisted for over 100 years, since 1905. So far the experimental
evidence is that absolute motion and Lorentz symmetry are real and
valid phenomena; absolute motion is motion relative to some
substructure to space, whereas Lorentz symmetry parametrises
dynamical effects caused by the motion of systems through that
substructure. Motion through the structured space, it is argued,
induces actual dynamical time dilations and length contractions in
agreement with the Lorentz interpretation of special relativistic
effects. Then observers in uniform motion ‘through’ the space will, on
measurement of the speed of light using the special but misleading
Einstein measurement protocol, obtain always the same numerical value
c ."
>
>You repeatedly mention a half dozen or so experiments in support of
>Cahill's claims, and ALL of them have clear problems with technique
>and/or analysis, or simply do not support his claims with any significance.
>
They may not be perfect, but the following were all published in
professional journals.
Michelson A.A. and Morley E.W. Philos. Mag. S.5 24 No.151, 449-463,
1887.
Miller D.C. Rev. Mod. Phys., 5, 203-242, 1933.
Illingworth K.K. Phys. Rev. 3, 692-696, 1927.
Joos G. Ann. d. Physik [5] 7, 385, 1930.
Jaseja T.S. et al. Phys. Rev. A 133, 1221, 1964.
Torr D.G. and Kolen P. in Precision Measurements and Fundamental
Constants, Taylor, B.N. and Phillips, W.D. eds. Natl. Bur. Stand.
(U.S.), Spec. Pub., 617, 675, 1984.
They are discussed here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4146v2
Regards,
Surfer
Dono
Correct application of SR (not the wrong one by Cahill) will predict a
null result for such experiment. Neither you , nor Cahill seem to know
this....
> So suitable processing should allow these variations to be separated
> from the noise.
>
No, see above. SR predicts a null result. Only a HOAX type application
of SR like in Cahill's case reconciles with an incorrect processing of
data resulting into a "signal"
> This is not necessarily a quantitative matter. Suppose Trimmer got
> fringe shifts due to the air, but that were very much smaller than
> what he expected from the effect of the solid dielectric. In that
> case, to save himself trouble he might have chosen to present a null
> result.
>
As opposed to Cahill who publishes his hoaxes in his own journal,
Trimmer published in Phys Rev D, a highly respected, peer reviewed
journal.
As opposed to Cahill, who doesn't understand first thing about
calculating light speed in a moving refractive medium, Trimmer knows
that.
As opposed to Cahill , who is "cooking" his experimental results,
Trimmer doesn't lower himself to doing that.
>
>
> >Hmmm. There are literally hundreds of experiments that confirm many
> >different aspects of SR.
>
> I think Cahill supports SR overall. But he writes:
>
He doesn't. He doesn't even begin to understand SR. He wouldn't be
messing up some simple formulas if he did.
> "The detection of absolute motion is not incompatible with Lorentz
> symmetry; the contrary belief was postulated by Einstein, and has
> persisted for over 100 years, since 1905.
HaHaHa. You and he are missing a big chapter in relativity that deals
with this issue. That particular chapter develops experiments that
contradict you and Cahill.
Surfer
wrote:
An interesting question.
Suppose two twins A and B get together, set their clocks to zero and
then head off from earth in opposite directions. Initially they travel
with equal and opposite accelerations in the earth frame, and then
settle down to equal and opposite velocities.
Using Lorentz transforms, A calculates that B's clock is running
slower than his own, and B calculates that A's clock is running slower
than his own.
What is the truth?
Well, someone in the earth frame would calculate that the clocks of
both A and B are running equally slow.
Now suppose the earth frame happened to be the quantum preferred
frame, and A and B send instant superluminal messages to each other
containing the time of their respective clocks.
Symmetry demands that each message contains the same time.
So when A and B receive the messages they realise that although the
Lorentz transform tells them that the other's clock is running slow,
this is not the case in reality.
Alternatively, each could conclude that they have received a message
from the future of the other, but that would seem a less rational
conclusion.
-- Surfer
Surfer
>
>
>... SR predicts a null result.
>
SR is not a quantum theory.
Here is a comment from a paper by Franson who seems well published.
http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Franson_J/0/1/0/all/0/1
"Superluminal Generation of Entanglement"
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.1468
"It is shown here that entanglement, mutual information, and optical
coherence can all be generated at two distant locations in
less time than it would take for light to travel between them."
Given that optical interference is a quantum phenomenon, we should not
expect MM experiments to necessarily support SR predictions.
-- Surfer
Jules
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 05:19:08 -0700, Jules <juleszha...@yahoo.com>
So the paper is trying to do away with time dilation saying
it is just an illusion? But how would you tell that to a muon
that live seven times longer?
Pls. give another example how quantum preferred frame works.
Jules
>
> Alternatively, each could conclude that they have received a message
> from the future of the other, but that would seem a less rational
> conclusion.
>
> -- Surfer- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dono
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:25:06 -0700, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >... SR predicts a null result.
>
> SR is not a quantum theory.
>
Hey, wake up, we are still discussing the fringe MOVEMENT in MMX, this
has nothing to do with any quantum theory.
>
> Given that optical interference is a quantum phenomenon, we should not
> expect MM experiments to necessarily support SR predictions.
>
> -- Surfer
But MMX results (when the experiments are not executed by crackpots
like Cahill, DeWitte) CONFIRM the SR results exactly. A couple of
posts ago you were saying that Cahill does not disagree with SR (he
just doesn't know how to apply it), so now you are contradicting
yourself. You are getting tangled in your own lies.
The fringe displacement effect is not a quantic effect, it is a
classical effect. As such, for the last 130 years since MM, the
fringe displacement has been calculated with classical methods. We are
not taking about the exat mechanics of how fringes are being creaded,
we are talking about how they move around. You must be getting really
desperate.....
Bilge
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:41:08 -0700, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Problem is, you are wasting your time since Trimmer's experiment
>>trumps everything that Cahill has written. All you need is one
>>experiment and Cahill's theory gets falsified. Ain't that a bitch?
>>
> If you only need one experiment to falsify something, then Miller's
> experiment alone trumps Trimmer.
Correct, but experimental data includes error bars and a theory is
consistent with the data if the theoretical prediction lies within the
region delimited by the error bars.
In addition, an experiment is designed around a specific hypothesis
about the data, simply because the best precision is obtained by
designing the experiment to yield a null result to mean agreement
with a theoretical prediction (in which case the result is null if
the error bars overlap zero). If you have a _specific_ prediction for
some absolute velocity of the earth, predict that velocity and design
an experiment which nulls out that velocity to test it.
Surfer
wrote:
I don't think so. My interpretation in the example I just gave, is
that the clocks of the two twins would really run slow by equal
amounts.
>
>But how would you tell that to a muon that live seven times longer?
>
We know that they do live much longer if they move sufficiently fast
relative to the earth. So time dilation is not an illusion in this
case.
>
>Pls. give another example how quantum preferred frame works.
>
Please note: These are only some personal thoughts.
Suppose one of the twins (eg A) and someone on earth (eg C) decided to
repeat the experiment just done by A and B.
Using Lorentz transforms, A calculates that C's clock is running
slower than his own, and C calculates that A's clock is running slower
than his own (and that is how it would appear to each of them if they
communicated via signals at the speed of light.)
But suppose A and C now send instant superluminal messages to each
other containing the time of their respective clocks.
Due to the lack of symmetry, its unlikely that each message would
contain the same time.
I expect in this case that A and C would find that the clock of twin A
has really slowed, while due to being "at rest" in the preferred
frame, the clock of C (on earth) has not really slowed.
I would guess then that depending on circumstances, some time
dilations could be real, some could be illusionary, and some could be
both partly real and partly illusionary.
-- Surfer
Surfer
>
>Hey, wake up, we are still discussing the fringe MOVEMENT in MMX, this
>has nothing to do with any quantum theory.
>
The interference of individual photons with themselves is however a
quantum phenomenon.
>
>
>But MMX results (when the experiments are not executed by crackpots
>like Cahill, DeWitte) CONFIRM the SR results exactly.
>
Vacuum experiments certainly do. But non-vacuum experiments have been
giving mixed results.
So it seems to me something subtle may be happening.
For example consider semiconductors. Pure samples obey Ohm's law
(which is a classical law), but if they are doped with impurities this
is no longer the case, which is why semiconductors can be used to
build amplifiers.
Now, if you want to analyse what happens in a doped semiconductor you
have to use quantum mechanics, because the impurities have quantum
effects.
Perhaps a gas should be regarded as doped vacuum, in which case a full
analysis of a gas-mode MM experiment might require quantum mechanics.
But I am just using my imagination here.
-- Surfer
Bilge
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:05:56 -0500, Tom Roberts
><tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Surfer wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:32:42 GMT, Tom Roberts
>>> <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> Hmmm. All the ones Cahill cites are consistent with the null result
>>>> predicted by SR.
>>>>
>>> According to your error analysis. However, your analysis did not take
>>> the Hicks effect into account and in the case of the original MM
>>> experiment the Hicks effect was large.
>>
>>That has no bearing whatsoever on the errorbars of Miller's original
>>result. They are HUGE,
>>
> In Fig. 5 in your paper they look about 20 times larger than the
> variations of the data.
>
> However, in radio engineering, we expect a reciever to be able to
> reject interference that is 1000 times greater than the signal we wish
> to receive.
So what?
> This is possible by appropriatedly processing the signal.
If you understood how that processing works, you would understand
Tom's point exactly. You can recover any signal from under any amount
of noise if you have enough statistics to differentiate from what
is being received from random noise.
> Now according to Miller's paper, he processed a large amount of data
> with a harmonic analyser. It seems to me this would have been
> analogous to feeding a radio signal into a tuning circuit, so he could
> well have successfully rejected the errors that concern you.
>
> In which case the error bars you calculated would not be relevant.
How you analyze the data is irrelevant, since the errors really are in the
data. You can't make them disappear. The only thing you gain by choosing a
particlular method of analysis is that one method might be simpler to
perform because it is well suited for the type of data the experiment is
designed to produce. If changing the method of analysis reduces the error in
the result, then you are engaging in sophistry. Do you really think that
choosing a different way to get the answer to 6 x 4 will give you a result
that is different from 24?
[...]
> It is probably also unwise to trust single experiments, no matter how
> good they look.
The reason that relativity has acheived the status it has among physicists
is precisely because of the huge number of experiments which support it.
Those experimental results include the results of every experiment designed
to test a theory _based_ on relativity. If relativity itself was an issue,
the chances that weinberg and salam could have correctly predicted the
ratio of the W and Z masses would have been zilch. To the best I can
determine, both you and cahill suffer from tunnel vision that focusses on
looking for data in the error bars of the most naive type of experiments,
to find support for a philosophy. Both of you seem to be totally unaware
of the fact that relativity is the foundation upon which all of modern
physics, which has nen more rigorously tested than any theories in history.
If relativity was incorrrect at the level you and cahill seem to think
is an unexplored regime, relativity would have already failed. I can assure
you that no one is going to be convinced of any claim you make that is
solely based un interpreting error bars as data and no one is going to
be convinced to look for a phenomenon based on cahill's argument. He gives
no explanation for why gas should behave differently than other matter.
Dono
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 17:04:08 -0700, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Hey, wake up, we are still discussing the fringe MOVEMENT in MMX, this
> >has nothing to do with any quantum theory.
>
> The interference of individual photons with themselves is however a
> quantum phenomenon.
>
So what? You are trying to divert the discussion, a classical crackpot
ploy.
> >But MMX results (when the experiments are not executed by crackpots
> >like Cahill, DeWitte) CONFIRM the SR results exactly.
>
> Vacuum experiments certainly do. But non-vacuum experiments have been
> giving mixed results.
>
Yes,the results are certainly mixed. The cranks obtained non-null
results (Cahill, DeWitte). We've been over this countless times.
> So it seems to me something subtle may be happening.
No, nothing "subtle" is going on. Just Cahill's incompetence.
> For example consider semiconductors. Pure samples obey Ohm's law
> (which is a classical law), but if they are doped with impurities this
> is no longer the case, which is why semiconductors can be used to
> build amplifiers.
Not interested in your diversions, take them elsewhere.
>
> Now, if you want to analyse what happens in a doped semiconductor you
> have to use quantum mechanics, because the impurities have quantum
> effects.
>
> Perhaps a gas should be regarded as doped vacuum, in which case a full
> analysis of a gas-mode MM experiment might require quantum mechanics.
>
> But I am just using my imagination here.
Keep using your imagination. You can lay off relativity, try using it
for writing children story-books.
Dono
> For example consider semiconductors. Pure samples obey Ohm's law
> (which is a classical law), but if they are doped with impurities this
> is no longer the case, which is why semiconductors can be used to
> build amplifiers.
>
> Now, if you want to analyse what happens in a doped semiconductor you
> have to use quantum mechanics, because the impurities have quantum
> effects.
>
> Perhaps a gas should be regarded as doped vacuum, in which case a full
> analysis of a gas-mode MM experiment might require quantum mechanics.
>
The effect doesn't happen in solids.
The effect doesn't happen in gas unless you are Reg Cahill
constructiong your HOAX.
Conclusion: the "effect" "discovered" by Cahill is a HOAX. Like
Marinov's, like DeWitte, like Munera, Like Consoli, etc. Tom should
collect all these "specimens", there is already a hoax section in the
FAQ. Tom, when are you going to update the FAQ, there is so much new
"material".
>
> -- Surfer
Dono
> The reason that relativity has acheived the status it has among physicists
> is precisely because of the huge number of experiments which support it.
> Those experimental results include the results of every experiment designed
> to test a theory _based_ on relativity. If relativity itself was an issue,
> the chances that weinberg and salam could have correctly predicted the
> ratio of the W and Z masses would have been zilch. To the best I can
> determine, both you and cahill suffer from tunnel vision that focusses on
> looking for data in the error bars of the most naive type of experiments,
> to find support for a philosophy. Both of you seem to be totally unaware
> of the fact that relativity is the foundation upon which all of modern
> physics, which has nen more rigorously tested than any theories in history.
> If relativity was incorrrect at the level you and cahill seem to think
> is an unexplored regime, relativity would have already failed. I can assure
> you that no one is going to be convinced of any claim you make that is
> solely based un interpreting error bars as data and no one is going to
> be convinced to look for a phenomenon based on cahill's argument. He gives
> no explanation for why gas should behave differently than other matter.
Very well written.
Unfortunately all logical arguments do not work on cranks. I bet he'll
come back with yet another "what if".
His stance has been weakened seriously since you and Tom have shut
down a lot of his "what ifs".
bz
news:68me839gl6827jad3...@4ax.com:
More data would be required to eliminate 'tidal effects' as the cause of
such a signal.
The earth's crust MOVES wrt the earth's core, due to such tidal effects, on
a daily and monthly basis.
When you get sensitive enough, you will see such effects even though they
are orders of magnitude smaller than the so-called-aether's effects should
be.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Surfer
>
> How you analyze the data is irrelevant, since the errors really are in the
>data. You can't make them disappear.
>
Its not clear if Tom Roberts and Miller analysed the same data.
Miller performed a very large number of runs, which may have been
affected differently by temporary disturbances. Eg vibrations due to a
passing truck or train etc.
So Miller might have selected runs for processing with smaller errors
than the runs Tom selected.
Anyway, Miller wrote:
"A study of the numerical results as plotted in Fig. 26 shows that the
probable error of the observed velocity, which has a magnitude of from
10 to 11 kilometers per second is +- 0.33 kilometer per second..."
(Later he scaled these values to allow for relativistic effects.)
So Miller seemed confident enough in his data.
"The Ether Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute
Motion of the Earth."
Dayton C. Miller
Reviews of Modern Physics, July 1933, Vol 5
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
>
>If relativity was incorrrect at the level you and cahill seem to think
>is an unexplored regime, relativity would have already failed.
>
No. Because even in the experiments that detect absolute motion, it is
very clear that Lorentzian relativity holds.
And in practice, is there really any difference between SR and LR?
-- Surfer
Surfer
>... no one is going to
>be convinced to look for a phenomenon based on cahill's argument. He gives
>no explanation for why gas should behave differently than other matter.
>
Its explained here:
"An easy reading of modern ether-drift experiments"
M. Consoli and E. Costanzo
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0702112
Page 2
"Following the point of view of Refs.[7, 8, 9], that no observable
Fresnel’s drag has ever been detected in the gaseous regime..."
[7] M. Consoli and E. Costanzo, Phys. Lett. A333 (2004) 355;
N. Cim. 119B (2004) 393 [arXiv:gr-qc/0406065].
[8] V. Guerra and R. De Abreu, Phys. Lett. A361 (2007) 509.
[9] M. Consoli and E. Costanzo, Phys. Lett. A361 (2007) 513.
-- Surfer
Tom Roberts
> [about Miller's measurements]
> Because the earth is rotating, the extracted signal should vary in a
> distinct way during the course of a day.
> Further, because the velocity of the earth changes as it orbits the
> sun, the extracted signal should also vary in a distinct way during
> the course of a year.
> So suitable processing should allow these variations to be separated
> from the noise.
"Should/could/might" -- perhaps. "does" -- no. That is, Miller's data
show no significant variations at all, including these that you GUESS
"should" be present.
> Fig 26 in Miller's paper shows good correspondence between "observed
> and calculated velocities", so he may have done a good job in this
> regard.
Put the errorbars on that figure, and the null prediction of SR will
show equally good correspondence. <shrug>
>>> So operator bias is unlikely to be a factor in his results.
>> Miller wrote in 1933, before this had been understood. In the
>> intervening 70+ years we have learned that even so this bias can affect
>> results. That's why "single blind" and "double blind" experimental
>> protocols are required in such cases today -- Miller's experiment is
>> QUITE CLEARLY such a case.
>>
> You are implying the operator might have "guessed" the direction of
> ether drift based on his knowledge of time of day and day of year and
> then in turn "guessed" how many fringe shifts would be appropriate for
> that direction. I think that possibility is very remote.
That is not at all what is required. Perhaps this is why Miller thought
it could not affect his measurements. All that is required for the
operator to influence the result is to not round off PERFECTLY RANDOMLY
[#]. Remember that the "signal" is smaller than the resolution with
which the data are recorded, so it is certainly possible that the entire
"signal" is due to the round-off rather than to the instrument.
[#] It is now well known that humans are unable to do this.
Indeed, I am rather surprised that I could not identify such artifacts
in his data. I think Miller did an excellent job of observing and
recording the fringe shifts. But he was a prisoner of his time: he did
not know about DSP techniques or modern error analysis -- they show
conclusively that there is no SIGNIFICANT signal in his data, and also
why and how he was fooled into thinking that there was a signal.
> Suppose Trimmer got
> fringe shifts due to the air, but that were very much smaller than
> what he expected from the effect of the solid dielectric. In that
> case, to save himself trouble he might have chosen to present a null
> result.
Why do you keep making guesses about matters of historical fact? Go READ
THE PAPER. Then you will know that your idle speculation is wrong. <shrug>
You seem to think that experiments either are or are not "null"
-- that is nearly a century out of date. You should LEARN
what modern experimental physics actually is. In particular,
any "null" experiment will provide an upper limit (based, you
guessed it, on an error analysis); Trimmer et al is no
exception. Just because Cahill is ignorant of modern
experimental techniques and doesn't bother about error analysis
doesn't mean you need to remain comparably ignorant. But making
idle speculations like this is just silly; go READ THE PAPER.
> Michelson A.A. and Morley E.W. Philos. Mag. S.5 24 No.151, 449-463,
> 1887.
> Miller D.C. Rev. Mod. Phys., 5, 203-242, 1933.
> Illingworth K.K. Phys. Rev. 3, 692-696, 1927.
> Joos G. Ann. d. Physik [5] 7, 385, 1930.
> Jaseja T.S. et al. Phys. Rev. A 133, 1221, 1964.
> Torr D.G. and Kolen P. in Precision Measurements and Fundamental
> Constants, Taylor, B.N. and Phillips, W.D. eds. Natl. Bur. Stand.
> (U.S.), Spec. Pub., 617, 675, 1984.
> They are discussed here:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4146v2
Not a SINGLE ONE of those has a SIGNIFICANT signal. Cahill is just as
clueless as you are. <shrug>
For M&M, Miller, Illingworth, and Torr and Kolen I have
performed an error analysis. For Joos and Jaseja et al I
am relying on the original authors' published results.
I repeat: the error analysis of an average is elementary, and is taught
in undergraduate lab courses. It is indisputable -- when the values
being averaged have a spread in their values, then the average cannot
possibly be known better than the error analysis shows; for ALL of the
above experiments that uncertainty in the averages includes the null
result predicted by SR. Now it is certainly possible that those
errorbars also include Cahill's predictions, but the fact that EVERY ONE
of his figures for these experiments has no errorbars indicates he is
seriously lacking in understanding of modern experimental techniques.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 17:04:08 -0700, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> But MMX results (when the experiments are not executed by crackpots
>> like Cahill, DeWitte) CONFIRM the SR results exactly.
>>
> Vacuum experiments certainly do. But non-vacuum experiments have been
> giving mixed results.
Not really. Some of them just have large enough errorbars that other
theories can be included in them. But they by no means refute SR or
"confirm" Cahill's theory -- and at least some of them do appear to
refute Cahill's theory.
> But I am just using my imagination here.
Your track record is abysmal for that. Perhaps you should stick to
things you actually know something about.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> Its not clear if Tom Roberts and Miller analysed the same data.
It is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that I used data from his original data sheets.
Make a visit to the CWRU archives (as I did), and you can get copies for
yourself ($0.10 each). Or just correspond with them, as they are happy
to make copies via mail. [email address omitted to avoid spam]
> Miller performed a very large number of runs, which may have been
> affected differently by temporary disturbances. Eg vibrations due to a
> passing truck or train etc.
> So Miller might have selected runs for processing with smaller errors
> than the runs Tom selected.
You should READ THE PAPERS. In fact, Miller made no data selection
whatsoever, but I omitted runs that were unstable (determined by a
criterion independent of the data in any given run) because such
terrible instabilities made it impossible to model the background; this
was 15% of my sample. And yes, I analyzed only 67 runs out of his
>1,000. No matter -- I included a sufficient variety from different
epochs and sidereal times that my results are valid.
> [Miller quote] So Miller seemed confident enough in his data.
Yes, in 1933. In 2007 he would NEVER have written that, because HE would
have benefited from the 70+ years of knowledge gained since then. The
fact that YOU and CAHILL have not benefited from that knowledge is
pathetic....
> No. Because even in the experiments that detect absolute motion, it is
> very clear that Lorentzian relativity holds.
This is simply not true. Lorentzian relativity is experimentally
indistinguishable from SR. You REALLY need to learn about the subjects
you attempt to write about. <shrug>
Tom Roberts
Dono
> On 02 Jul 2007 17:53:24 GMT, Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
>
> >... no one is going to
> >be convinced to look for a phenomenon based on cahill's argument. He gives
> >no explanation for why gas should behave differently than other matter.
>
> Its explained here:
>
> "An easy reading of modern ether-drift experiments"
>
> Page 2
> "Following the point of view of Refs.[7, 8, 9], that no observable
> Fresnel's drag has ever been detected in the gaseous regime..."
>
> [7] M. Consoli and E. Costanzo, Phys. Lett. A333 (2004) 355;
> N. Cim. 119B (2004) 393 [arXiv:gr-qc/0406065].
> [8] V. Guerra and R. De Abreu, Phys. Lett. A361 (2007) 509.
> [9] M. Consoli and E. Costanzo, Phys. Lett. A361 (2007) 513.
>
> -- Surfer
No, it's not. You simply don't understand what Consoli is talking
about:
"Following the point of view of refs [7],[8],[9] that NO observable
Fresnel drag has EVER been observed in the gaseous regime..."
Consoli never ran any experiment, he's just constructin a test theory
as a foundation for the type of experiments that Cahill has flunked so
badly. Cahill needs to read and understand his paper in orde to be
able to rerun his experiment. Cahill also needs to learn how to employ
error bars in processing the experimental data processing. Tell him to
come back when he's done this.
Tom Roberts
>> [7] M. Consoli and E. Costanzo, Phys. Lett. A333 (2004) 355;
>> N. Cim. 119B (2004) 393 [arXiv:gr-qc/0406065].
Actually, I corresponded with Consoli about this paper and its
errorbars. He said they ASSUMED that since Michelson and Morley's
vernier was marked in units of 1/50 fringe, that was the appropriate
errorbar. This is hopeless, as the averaging they did generated an
errorbar many times larger than that -- so large that the variation seen
in their plot is much less than the errorbar. Consoli and Costanzo use
1/50 fringe and obtain nonsense.
Tom Roberts
Dono
Yes, of course. This is the OLDER letter that they managed to get
published in Phys.Lett. A (a semicrank journal).
The newer letter seems ok, they are just generating the RMS theory for
the experiment. I am not sure that the math is correct, seems to rely
a lot on the older paper but the INTENT is now correct, to generate
the appropiate test theory. Not a very interesting paper but I am sure
that Phys. Lett A will hasten to publish it.
Bilge
My standard answer to someone who thinks that asking ``what if'' is
a sign of intelligence is that it takes no more intelligence to doubt
everything than it does to believe anything. Intelligence is only required
to decide which questions haven't already been answered. Some people
are unable to get the answer from even the most obvious data, while
others are able to see the implications of subtleties that few others
do. Those of us in the middle at least manage to get the hang of
picking up on the hints.
Bilge
> On 02 Jul 2007 17:53:24 GMT, Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
>>
>> How you analyze the data is irrelevant, since the errors really are in the
>>data. You can't make them disappear.
>>
>
> Its not clear if Tom Roberts and Miller analysed the same data.
[...]
> "The Ether Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute
> Motion of the Earth."
> Dayton C. Miller
> Reviews of Modern Physics, July 1933, Vol 5
> http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
Gee, let me mention a few things here.
(1) The date on the experiment. Note that 1933 was 74 years ago.
(2) One thing that doesn't seem to be in dispute is that you and Tom
disagree about the errors. Personally, I think Tom is not going to
have any problem analyzing the data correctly, but for the sake
of argument, let's imagine there could actually be some legitimate
dispute. The mere fact that there would be a dispute over data taken
from an experiment done 74 years ago (not to mention any questions
about the methodology) is sufficient to disregard it as being of
dubious merit.
(3) Since science has advanced some over the last 74 years, you could
easily resolve whatever dispute you think exists by performing
another experiment which addresses all of the objections about the
one in question. Of course, if you can only conceive of an improved
experiment as one which identical to the original apart from using
newer equipment, you probably aren't up to the task. Brute force
is a hard way to improve an experiment.
>>If relativity was incorrrect at the level you and cahill seem to think
>>is an unexplored regime, relativity would have already failed.
>>
> No. Because even in the experiments that detect absolute motion, it is
> very clear that Lorentzian relativity holds.
>
> And in practice, is there really any difference between SR and LR?
Sure. You claim the existence of some absolute frame. You tell me
how you define it, and I'll point out an inconsistency with special
relativity. So far, not one person has ever had the courage of his
convictions to give me a definition that had any meaning at all.
Apparently the only thing absolute here is the absolute inability
to say anything that can't be reinterpreted at will to evade any
unexpected consequences that follows from a concrete definition.
Surfer
>
>You claim the existence of some absolute frame. You tell me
>how you define it, and I'll point out an inconsistency with special
>relativity.
>
Suppose someone designs an absolute velocity meter such that in all
frames the following "law" applies:
Absolute velocity = reading on meter.
An absolute frame is then defined to be a frame in which the reading
is zero.
Would that be inconsistent?
-- Surfer
Bilge
>
>
>>
>>You claim the existence of some absolute frame. You tell me
>>how you define it, and I'll point out an inconsistency with special
>>relativity.
>>
> Suppose someone designs an absolute velocity meter such that in all
> frames the following "law" applies:
>
> Absolute velocity = reading on meter.
That's not a definition. I asked you to define an absolute frame,
not presume that one exists without defining it. Evading that question
to avoid having the physical consequences of the definition pointed out,
seems to be the rule.
> An absolute frame is then defined to be a frame in which the reading
> is zero.
I have news for you. Not only is the presumption of an absolute
rest frame inconsistent with special relativity, it's inconsistent
with newtonian mechanics.
Bilge
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:25:06 -0700, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>... SR predicts a null result.
>>
> SR is not a quantum theory.
On the contrary, the only new feature of quantum mechanics is the
identification of p_u as an operator, i\hbar d_u instead of a classical
variable and mainly the \hbar in that expression. Except for the \hbar, even
that could have been inferred from Maxwell's wave equation, since the
solutions are of the form, \exp(-i(k.x - wt)). Take derivative of that and
you get,
(d/dx)\exp(-i(k.x - wt)) = -ik \exp(-i(k.x - wt))
(d/dt)\exp(-i(k.x - wt)) = iw \exp(-i(k.x - wt))
The identifications p = \hbar k, and E = \hbar w, complete the
task, since you can now apply the canonical formalism of poisson
brackets to obtain the commutation relations. Furthermore, it
had already been realized that the substitution p -> p + (e/c)A
left the physics unchanged, hence the underpinning of gauge theories
were also known.
[...]
> Given that optical interference is a quantum phenomenon, we should not
> expect MM experiments to necessarily support SR predictions.
Appealing to the ``mysterious'' is the sort of argument used by those
who run out of non-mysterious reasons that tell them they are wrong.
Quantum mechanics was developed very rapidly precisely because the
formalism from classical mechanics carried over.
Surfer
>>
>> Suppose someone designs an absolute velocity meter such that in all
>> frames the following "law" applies:
>>
>> Absolute velocity = reading on meter.
>
> That's not a definition.
>
Its an operational definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition
>
>I asked you to define an absolute frame,
>not presume that one exists without defining it.
>
>Evading that question
>to avoid having the physical consequences of the definition pointed out,
>seems to be the rule.
>
You are playing word games. If an absolute frame exists then its
physical properties will be determined by Nature, not by human
definition of its physical properties.
Humans first need to work out how to detect such a frame. Eg
>>
>> An absolute frame is then defined to be a frame in which the reading
>> is zero.
>
> I have news for you. Not only is the presumption of an absolute
>rest frame inconsistent with special relativity, ...
>
You haven't shown that is the case.
-- Surfer
Eric Gisse
[...]
>
> >> An absolute frame is then defined to be a frame in which the reading
> >> is zero.
>
> > I have news for you. Not only is the presumption of an absolute
> >rest frame inconsistent with special relativity, ...
>
> You haven't shown that is the case.
You have got to be shitting me.
>
> -- Surfer
Bilge
>
>>
>>Hey, wake up, we are still discussing the fringe MOVEMENT in MMX, this
>>has nothing to do with any quantum theory.
>>
> The interference of individual photons with themselves is however a
> quantum phenomenon.
Yep, and it's due to the fact that in quantum mechanics, no
physical quantity can be associated with some absolute phase.
The existence of an absolute frame means interference depends
on the absolute phases of the interfering photons, not on the
interference of a photon with itself.
[...]
> So it seems to me something subtle may be happening.
> For example consider semiconductors. Pure samples obey Ohm's law
> (which is a classical law), but if they are doped with impurities this
> is no longer the case, which is why semiconductors can be used to
> build amplifiers.
>
> Now, if you want to analyse what happens in a doped semiconductor you
> have to use quantum mechanics, because the impurities have quantum
> effects.
Uh, the quantum effects to which you refer hinge on the exclusion
principle, which in turn comes from relativistic quantum field theory.
Since the lorentz covariance of the Dirac equation hinges on the
relation,
[\gamma^u,\gamma^v] = 2g^uv
where the \gamma^k are Dirac matrices and the g^uv is the metric,
I would say you are basically undermining your own argument.
> Perhaps a gas should be regarded as doped vacuum, in which case a full
> analysis of a gas-mode MM experiment might require quantum mechanics.
>
> But I am just using my imagination here.
Why waste imagination on something that is well known, when you could
use your imaginaton to wonder about the mysteries that remain? All you
are doing is trying to prop up a philosophical point of view that is
inconsistent with all of the data obtained from experiments and wasting
your effort by trying to find a way to get around nature. Ask yourself
whether you are interested in discovering how nature fits your personal
view of how nature ought to be or whether you are interested in discovering
how nature _is_. Physicists want to know how nature is, which is why
they stop trying to prove that nature must be a certain way and move on
after the experimental evidence piles up against them. Personally, I'd
rather use my imagination on something that has a chance of being correct.
Bilge
> On 04 Jul 2007 21:29:12 GMT, Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Suppose someone designs an absolute velocity meter such that in all
>>> frames the following "law" applies:
>>>
>>> Absolute velocity = reading on meter.
>>
>> That's not a definition.
>>
> Its an operational definition.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition
No, it is not. You haven't said how your device operates.
>>
>>I asked you to define an absolute frame,
>>not presume that one exists without defining it.
>>
>>Evading that question
>>to avoid having the physical consequences of the definition pointed out,
>>seems to be the rule.
>>
> You are playing word games.
Thank you for adding to the list of those who refuse to give
any sort of concrete definition for what they are claiming.
> If an absolute frame exists then its
> physical properties will be determined by Nature, not by human
> definition of its physical properties.
So, exactly how do you know what an absolute frame is if you can't
define what it means?
> Humans first need to work out how to detect such a frame. Eg
Oh, really? How exact;y do you expect to work that out if you
have no idea what you are looking for?
>>>
>>> An absolute frame is then defined to be a frame in which the reading
>>> is zero.
>>
>
>> I have news for you. Not only is the presumption of an absolute
>>rest frame inconsistent with special relativity, ...
>>
>
> You haven't shown that is the case.
As I have already requested: Give me your definition of an absolute
frame and I will show that is the case. There is not much point in
me defining it for you, since you will only disagree with my definition.
If you can't define it, then what is the basis for your claim?
Surfer
>>>
>> Its an operational definition.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition
>
> No, it is not. You haven't said how your device operates.
>
Papers exist claiming measurement of absolute velocity, going back to
Miller in 1933.
I think most relied on measuring an anisotrophy in the one-way speed
of light in a gas or coaxial cable. They then used some formula to
convert to absolute velocity.
>
> So, exactly how do you know what an absolute frame is if you can't
>define what it means?
>
The concept of an inertial frame of reference is well defined. I don't
see why the same definition should not apply to an "absolute frame".
Then you just need to add the addional requirement that for a inertial
frame to be an absolute frame, an absolute velocity meter at rest in
the frame should show a velocity of zero (or reasonably close).
I think whether thats possible in practice is something for
experimenters to establish.
Cheers,
Surfer
Eric Gisse
> On 05 Jul 2007 04:35:37 GMT, Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Its an operational definition.
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition
>
> > No, it is not. You haven't said how your device operates.
>
> Papers exist claiming measurement of absolute velocity, going back to
> Miller in 1933.
Emphasis on "claiming", since zero of the claims hold under scrutiny.
Of course you know this, because it has been explained to you and
Cahill countless times over the years.
[...]
Tom Roberts
> Papers exist claiming measurement of absolute velocity, going back to
> Miller in 1933.
Sure. But you need a VALID claim to make your case, and there are none
of those. <shrug>
> I think whether thats possible in practice is something for
> experimenters to establish.
Certainly. But to date none have done so, _SIGNIFICANTLY_. As long as
you remain willfully ignorant of errorbars, you will remain confused.
<shrug>
Tom Roberts
Bilge
> On 05 Jul 2007 04:35:37 GMT, Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>> Its an operational definition.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition
>>
>> No, it is not. You haven't said how your device operates.
>>
>
> Papers exist claiming measurement of absolute velocity, going back to
> Miller in 1933.
No, papers exist in which the data were interpreted to mean that.
Even if the problem with interpreting error bars as data wasn't an
issue, there would be the question of what was responsible for the
effect. Without a self-consistent definition of ``absolute velocity''
you would have no way to attribute the effect to anything but a
systematic error. To differentiate between a systematic and a real
effect, one needs to perform additional experiments based on a model
of the proposed effect so the parameters upon which the proposed effect
can be varied to demonstrate it conclusively.
An example is the measurement of a longitudinal analyzing power, which
looks for a difference in the scattering cross section for beams having
s.p of different signs. You first use an unpolarized beam to null out
the effects that _look_ like asymetries, so that the measurement of an
asymmetry with a polarized beam corresponds to what you think it does.
> I think most relied on measuring an anisotrophy in the one-way speed
> of light in a gas or coaxial cable. They then used some formula to
> convert to absolute velocity.
You haven't answered my question.
>> So, exactly how do you know what an absolute frame is if you can't
>>define what it means?
>>
> The concept of an inertial frame of reference is well defined.
I did not ask you for the definition of an inertial frame. I asked
your the definition of an absolute frame. The entire point is that
once you give me the definition of an absolute frame, I intend to
demonstrate that it isn't consistent with the definition of an
inertial frame in relativity. Depending on your definition, I might
also show that it isn't compatble with galilean relativity, too.
> I don't
> see why the same definition should not apply to an "absolute frame".
I'm sure you don't, which is why you keep evading the question.
My point is that you cannot define an inertial frame as it's defined
in relativity and apply it to a frame which is absolute. I'm giving
you the opportunity to define it rather than accept my definition.
If you can't do that at all, then you cannot make any claim that
some effect indicates the existence of such a frame.
In science, hypotheses must be well-defined in order to claim that
an experiment supports it. Otherwise, the same experiment supports
every other ill-defined explanation of the data.
> Then you just need to add the addional requirement that for a inertial
> frame to be an absolute frame, an absolute velocity meter at rest in
> the frame should show a velocity of zero (or reasonably close).
An absolute velocity meter would have to be constructed using the
laws of physics in a universe where an absolute frame could exist.
Since you have not defined what an absolute frame is, you cannot
assume that such a devicve could be constructed using any laws of
physics upon which t could be based.
> I think whether thats possible in practice is something for
> experimenters to establish.
It's impossible for an experiment to establish the meaning of anything
without defining the physics that identifies it. For example, a peak in
a spectrum means nothing until one defines to what the histogram bins
correspond, calibrates the axes and identifies the artifacts due to the
data acquisition process. Otherwise, people would report ADC pedastels
as mysterious new particles or transitions.