Space, Time, and Matter

[Nesti]

This is very difficult to get across, so please be patient with my wording.

Just for a moment, try to picture Time as a composite trend in particle outcomes, like a casino has the odds stacked slightly in it's favour; it gradually wins-over, and space as a type of latency or impedance in dynamical change...so that a weak and tardy force gives the impression of being distant, whereas a strong and immediate force gives the impression of being close. Yes, this means we let go of time dilation, Lorentz contraction...the whole idea of a field actually!

But wait...

With that in mind, imagine if spatial and temporal separation (distance and time) are features/properties within matter itself...ie. internal properties of matter, not external features of a field?

O-oh...

This presents distance and time in a new way, a type of dynamic viscosity in a particle's interaction with other particles...with all particles actually being superimposed upon one-another...which would also imply a single particle universe.

It's a wild statement I know, but is there anything really stopping it from being this way? :question:

I can see this has the potential to be heated. :rofl:

[Karls48]

With that in mind, imagine if spatial and temporal separation (distance and time) are features/properties within matter itself...ie. internal properties of matter, not external features of a field?


I have for long time believed that time is property of the space and the space is one of many conversions of matter. It is implied by the Big Bang theory as it assumes that the time and the space were created in BB. I also see need for some kind of non-relativistic Universal time. How could BB happen without passage of time? We got effect without the cause.
I may just as well read book of Genesis, almost three thousand years old story gives me about same insight to beginning of Universe as modern cosmology. Basic requirement for accepting either is that you must believe. Actually, Genesis is more logical because in it the effect (beginning) got cause (God).
Until someone discovers something that can travel faster then c, we are going to be stuck with Cosmology analogous to Ptolemy’s Solar system model. New observations and measurements of Universe will lead to more and more convoluted explanations to make it fit to Einstein theories.

[Jarvamundo]

Got an experiment for this Mark?

Something testable, not neato paradox's (http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2010/PP-23-05.PDF)



uummm you mean re-discovers faster than C...
>C Information: Photons (Berkley), microwaves (Cologne), laser beams (Vienna)
>C Energy: Tesla (1900s) pi/2* C

But of course, thats impossible... as it wouldn't fit Einstein's theories...

I agree, we are stuck... relativistic mathematical physics is currently deciding what can be seen, analogies of BBT to religion are obvious.

[Steffen]

I like this line of thought. My own theory which is not too dissimilar goes like this:

Space and time are related in an "Ohm's law" kind of way (isn't just about everything in physics?). Space represents the potential that makes time flow. Positive space (the kind we're familiar with) makes time flow in a "forward" direction, i.e. the direction we're familiar with. I'm thinking that mass would play the role of impedance in this relationship, it both slows time given the same space and stretches space given the same flow of time. The Big Bang would have been a jolt of potential (space) that enabled time to flow.

If you want time to go backwards you need to reverse the polarity of space. To do that you first need to go extremely small (approaching zero space) and then pass over into negative space where time flows the other way. Quantum effects much?

So, in contrast to your theory, here mass is a feature of matter than enables and controls the relationship between space and time.

I'm currently modifying my Fluke multimeter, trying to coax it into showing flows of time and drops of space over a massive piece of matter. It's still early days… :hi:

Cheers
Steffen.

[sjastro]

And here is the standard refutation. Note the emphasis on the term "thing".
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/482



GR allows speed of light to be exceeded for example metric expansion of space....

Regards

Steven

[Nesti]

You could never travel backward in time along the same event pathway from which you came...all particles, whether traveling forward or backward in time are subject to Freedom of Choice.

So to travel backwards in time is irrelevant. You need only rearrange all the particles in the universe to the same positions, states and values at an earlier epoch...which is impossible because of Freedom of Choice.

So Freedom of Choice is actually a safety in the preservation of a stable reality...yet it is also Freedom of Choice which creates the forward arrow of time as well (self fulfilling). We need only see that particle events (changing states and values), is the Dynamism of the universe at work, and it only arises because those freedoms exist and force the particle into action.

this is just my belief anyway. :lol:

[Steffen]

Freedom of Choice definitely sounds like something worth supporting. However, there are those that reckon it's an illusion (even harmful), and particles don't know what they want until you tell them what they want…

Cheers
Steffen.

[Nesti]

Oh, I did say that particles are subject to Freedom of Choice, not that they actually have any freedom to choose in their own right. The freedoms may well be derived from someplace else...


***Please God, let nobody say the word God*** :lol:

[Steffen]

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_ch oice.html

Too much choice can lead to a lot of unhappy particles ;)

Cheers
Steffen.

[Nesti]

Further...

This of course means that Time might not exist at all, and the reason why I put it earlier that Time may simply be "a type of dynamic viscosity in a particle's interaction with other particles", in which it's direction (forward or backward) is an illusion, since the thing which defines forward and backward in Time is the same, Freedom of Choice.

This is why I found Aharanov's work on Time Symmetry so fascinating, especially the inconsistency between the destiny vector and history vector.

[Jarvamundo]

comments

But what of the answers to the juicy stuff? For Marks time's theories?
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2010/PP-23-05.PDF


Bingo

[renormalised]

The way I'm feeling at present, this is my thoughts on the subject...

Space is big
Time is irrelevant
Matter...not really

:):P

(Did anyone get the number of that truck??)

[Karls48]

So called crackpot ideas that forum members present from time to time on this and other forums are indications of intellectual dissatisfaction with current state of theoretical science. Current scientific paradigm is a biggest obstacle to progress in our understanding of the Universe we live in. Although it’s nothing new. Many times in the history any kind of progress has been stopped because of reputation of one great man. This is not fault of those exceptional thinkers (in our times of Einstein) but of those scientists who blindly follow the teachings that were reverent long time ago with the technology that was available at that time. Saying that I do not take anything from the genius of those men. They were humanity greatest thinkers using the technology and information’s that was available in their time. Our progress to (possible) ultimate knowledge is like never ending spiral star case. The landings are the times of paradigm change.
In other tread Carl (renormalised) talks about our current space exploration propulsion being seven hundred years old firework technology. True – but do you thing that this is going to change with current science paradigm?
There are mathematicians in this forum. Can someone please calculate probability of GR and SR being focal point of theoretical physics in the year 2500, related to the rise and the fall of the scientific theories in last 3000 years?
Every age of our civilisation has though that they reached pinnacle of knowledge and have answer for everything - and has been always proven wrong. Any good reason why our age is an exception?
In the end – 42 is just as good answer as any.

[Insane Climber]

Thats what i have been thinking. you guys are giveing some interesting theories.
I,m starting to think that the reason we are stuck is because of our determination that time must exist and it must go in a direction. I have been going over Hawkings idea of imaginary time and i get the feeling he is sidetracked by the personal need to explain What time really is.

Cheers
Jas

[avandonk]

I am sure we had this discussion eons ago!

Bert

[Nesti]

I don't believe in Time Travel...not one bit...I don't even believe that particles can either.

I view the dimension of Time as more of a variable Impedance or resistance to change...but for this to remain logical, I also must believe that particles carry the ability to exchange that Impedance when they interact...so they don't just interact, they exchange a latency value within the interaction. this is why i wrote "dynamic viscosity in a particle's interaction with other particles", and it also relates to the dimensional space around it. So tardiness is kind of a state and value. When tardiness is at it's minimum, we have minimal Impedance. Minimal Impedance of the dimensional space translates to movement at 'c'. In this way, 'c' tells us a bit about dimensional space and it's relationship to mass. It's kind of a Higgs field but without the need for a Higgs Boson.

In this way, this shared and transportable viscosity could affect the apperance of space, so we get Lorentz contraction with higher viscosity/latency, which also means slower interactions, or, Time Dilation.

If the information could be commuted across spacetime, in a type of metric, then it would not only adhere to SR, but it may tell us something about SR and the relationship between energy and dimensional space.

What would be the source of the viscosity or Impedance? Perhaps it's just a latency in the dynamism of specific particles (Fermions). Perhaps the value is shared within particle species...like String Theory claims.

All 100% hypothetical and impossible notions of course. :lol:

[sjastro]

Alex,

Care to explain the relevance of this?

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

Yes, I'll ask the same question??!!

[renormalised]

What if that proves to be correct...that you can travel in time, both backwards and forwards, freely. You'll then have to factor that into your hypothesis or abandon it altogether. There's nothing within SR that prevents time travel, so for it to not be real, if you take your hypothesis as correct, then there must be something due to the impedance which counteracts time travel. It seems like your impedance is a one way effect. So, it could be described thermodynamically.

[Jarvamundo]

re:
Toleman - > Surface brightness test are not 'obeying' the requirements of expansion, as those papers indicate.... add to this the redshift anomalies, quasars, wmap anomalies, quasar time-dilations..... etc.

My point is, the only example you gave was "oh well the expansion of the universe can be >c".

To me, thats just a mathematical thought experiment. I'd like something testable... the 'information' and 'energy' examples of >c have been provided with independent techniques and lab experiments. Of course once results hit the einstein theories it becomes 'impossible'.

Yes I know requested lab cosmological-time-space expansion tests are not available. I don't know where you will go from here. On the flipside, i've seen enough evidence on longitudinal transmission and entanglement experiments to be convinced c does not represent a limit, at which point sr has been violated and relativity time vanishes.

Re Mark: Thats cool... I don't believe in time travel either... alot of the paradoxes still relate to your relative theory though, how this 'interaction' is communicated. I'm happy to do away with time-dilation it'self... i don't consider it to be a 4th dimension of physics.

The longer we keep playing the relativity game... the longer nonsense like this will continue:
Hawkings: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1269288/STEPHEN-HAWKING-How-build-time-machine.html
LHC phantoms: http://www.news.com.au/technology/large-hadron-collider-is-being-sabotaged-from-the-future/story-e6frfro0-1225788270808

I'm leaning towards c just being a ratio of energy and mass, not a limit as required by SR intern GR, and no need for an introduction of a 4th D time in to physics. Once we do away with this, we can do away with the paradoxes.
4d: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q9IePuHut4
EPR paradox: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WfydkWLIkk
Slit wave/packet/particle paradox: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOwTV-HgDUo

I don't subscribe to the rope hypothesis mentioned, but the relativity summarizations in these videos outline some difficulties i have swallowing consensus when 'hand waving' is applied. I'm of the opinion the theory with variable time presented will be blasted away when the mentioned experiments that violate c are explained.

I best respectfully bow out, so that this conjecture can continue. Carl has some good points on direction of this dynamic impedance of the theory.

Best
Alex

[Nesti]

"Hypothesis"...you mean my suggestion (no testable procedure here my friend). :)

Yes, indeed.

First of all, let's replace the term 'Time' with the term 'Causal', so we don't get lost in the phraseology.

Now, imagine if higher dimensional space (Our Calabi-Yau again) was void of the Causal Dimension, it would be trans-chronological (all seeing: forward and backward in the causal arrow). And particles were able to be connected through this higher dimensional connection.

This would leave us with one big problem...what's the difference between Deterministic Events and Freedom of Choice Events?????

I feel the answer lies in the Causal Dimension (or lack of it to be more precise). If higher dimensional space could see into the future, and know what particle will be interacting with what other particles and where and when, then this would be a purely Deterministic view of the history of the universe. BUT, Freedom of Choice is clearly present in our observable world. SO, what if this all-seeing Deterministic nature of higher dimensional space were corrupted by Freedom of Choice within particle events, so that trans-chronological vision became blurred the further into the future an event is seen.

What I'm saying here, is perhaps it is Freedom of Choice which forces the universe to act, by countering-out the freedom using deterministic processes.

Are basic freedoms the cause of dynamism within the particle world?

And if organic life has the greatest of all freedoms, then is life evolving because of the environment, or is the environment evolving because of the evolution of life?

It might sound silly, but now bring your attention to the basic principles involved with Young's Double Slit Experiment and the issue of Observation.

In this way, probability and uncertainty could be viewed like Deterministic Chaos...it's only Chaos because we don't know all of the pieces of the puzzle. And Quantum systems may perhaps be likened to a shoreline, where the ocean and land meet, it's complex, unpredictable and rough...could this be the meeting place between Freedom and Determinism???

Food for thought. :lol:

[sjastro]

That makes as much sense as arguing that my car cannot exceed 160 km/hr because my speedometer has a large error at 6o km/hr.:shrug:

The fact is that any observable object in the Universe will have a recession velocity <c. So your references have no relevance.

The criteria that expansion velocities can exceed c are based on
(1) The observable Universe is flat.
(2) The blackbody temperature of the CMB is even in all directions relative to the observer.



Try thinking of light as a communication channel for information.

Phase and group velocites of light waves exceeding c have been known for decades. Does this violate SR? No. For SR to be violated information must travel faster than light.
Show me how we can isolate a specific crest in a monochromatic wave and convey that information in the channel. Since the wave is monochromatic means we have no specific information on the crest.
All experiments showing faster than light travel run into the same problems.



Once again old hat news. Go read up on Bell's inequality and photon polarization tests. The No Communication theorem indicates that no information is transmitted in quantum entanglement tests.



With regards to the LHC phantoms, the scientific paper was based primarily on quantum and statistical mechanics. The mathematical flaws were noted and the paper was retracted within a few days.
Why didn't you refer to this? Cherry picking again?



Doing away with velocity c as a limit for the information channel creates a paradox as it violates cause and effect. Show me an experiment where c varies for observers in inertial frames.

Regards

Steven

[avandonk]

Far be it from me to say what you are proposing is wrong Nesti. The only way I know of what is real is if it is testable and it can successfully predict unforseen events that can be measured or observed.

The arrow of time is the tricky one. The mathematics tells us it is all reversible. Experiment does not. If this is so last century, let me know as I came up through Physics in the early seventies.

Chaos theory does not work at the quantum level as it is impossible to have feedback from indeterminate states.

I personally think that all brains (complex systems) are working at some sort of quantum level. Some better than others.

In fact I propose that all past interactions of matter due to quantum entanglement actually drives the arrow of time because indeterminate states can hardly drive anything backwards as they have no starting values to go back to!

If this sounds insane I am sorry.

Bert

[Nesti]

I did say it was a suggestion...what I am saying isn't even a hypothesis...moreso rhetoric. I know of no way of testing any of it.



Mathematics can also demonstrate 1+1=3...but we all know that's just fiddling with the engine. Mind-you, how many times has a new branch of mathematics emerged in order to satisfy observation/experimentation?



I used the difference between Chaos and Deterministic Chaos as an analogy, not as a reference...I wrote: "probability and uncertainty could be viewed like Deterministic Chaos".

However, I did infer that Quantum states may be driven by a conflict between Deterministic properties and Freedom of Choice. I wrote, "Quantum systems may perhaps be likened to a shoreline, where the ocean and land meet, it's complex, unpredictable and rough...could this be the meeting place between Freedom and Determinism".



My observations of some WA drivers only today allows me to support that suggestion. :lol:



Firstly, that's the first time I have read you putting forth a suggestion...I hope this is a trend forming. And yes, I get what you wrote...If I understand, you look toward a type of inertia of states and values from which to progress onward from (Causal). The next outcome being the next starting point. A smoking gun being entangled states or bullet itself?...perhaps a relic of some hidden information protocol??



Hardly. If I get you correct, you're saying the driving force of particles is from the past, and we see evidence of this in entangled states, right?! I'm saying the driving force comes from the present, but the aiming point is derived from future. An analogy: You say the Donkey is before the cart. I say the cart needs to be before the donkey so that the donkey may see where the cart is drifting. It is vastly different, but the end goal is identical; a stable reality which fits the law as we know them, and observations.

Now, this may sound beyond insane, but remember the thread on the Right Hand Rule, where the end result was that we have Conventions, but the origins of these conventions are unknown? Well, insane as it sounds, I also feel that conventions arise out of the particle interplay...and if we shift a gear from insane to certifiable, then perhaps the laws themselves were created at the birth of the universe...where energy and states jostled around to fit the expansion.


certifiable :screwy: maybe...but it's fun to explore the impossible.

[Octane]

1+1=3, for very large values of 1.

H

[Jarvamundo]

Happy to...
http://ldolphin.org/sagnac.html

Einstein "That has nothing to do with relativity"
Sagnac "In that case, Dr Einstiein, relativity has nothing to do with reality"

Minowski Universe like all other poly-dimentional forms are just mathamatical imaginary ring arosies...

Relativity, by fixing c as a limit, then requires the extra dimension 'time' to be attached to 3d, and contract and dilate.

Soon as one reintroduces reality, and realises c is just an arbitrary ratio, very handy in calculating mass energy relationships in a field... then time dilation can be turfed along with. It appears, for relativists, 'time' only exists because of this relationship... ie because clocks which use a length measurement... magically 'change'....

there is simply no need for it, and the sagnac c+v and c-v experiment appears what you have asked for.
* Sagnac experiment
* Dayton Miller data
* Steve Bryant's revist of michelson morely data http://www.relativitychallenge.com/archives/category/experiments

Seems convincing to me.

[sjastro]

First all take note of my post I referred to inertial frames of reference.
The apparatus is rotating hence it is not an inertial frame of reference.

Secondly it can be shown that the light path distance varies when comparing each direction. The interference pattern is due to the light reaching the detectors at different times due to the different distances. This has nothing to with the speed of light varying.

An excellent description of this is found here.
http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/sagnac-effect.html

Regards

Steven

[Jarvamundo]

Um no, all components in the frame are not rotating. The mirrors, the source, the whole shebang are in a frame of reference.

The rotation you speak of is playing the usual relative-observer game... jumping in and out of frames to dismiss when convenient...

That link you posted is a shining example of a misunderstanding of the experiment. In this experiment, the light source, the mirrors, are all in the frame... nothing is rotating with respect to the measurements... with that link... you "jump out" and say 'ohh but the frames rotating'. Sorry, the components within the frame involved in the experiment are not rotating, they are however recording a c+v and a c-v.

Cheers,
Alex

[sjastro]

Oh come now Alex. You have forgotten the observer. The observer isn't rotating with the apparatus. The observer is in a fixed (inertial) frame of reference. The apparatus is rotating relative to the observer. Measurements are performed in the observer's frame of reference.

In the observer's frame of reference when the light beam travels in the same direction as rotation it has to "catch up" with the mirrors. When travelling in the opposite direction of rotation, the mirrors are "approaching" the light beam. Hence the distance covered by the light beam is different in both cases which is the cause of interference.

The velocity is c in both cases. If the total distance is s1 in one direction, and s2 in the opposite direction then the time delay (delta t) is simply

Delta t = (s1-s2)/c. Delta t is not due to the speed of light varying.

Regards

Steven

[Jarvamundo]

But the source, splitter and the detector are in the frame no?

[sjastro]

Only the splitter and mirrors rotate. The detector and the source are stationary in the observer's frame of reference.

Regards

Steven

[Thoreau]

Yes, the multiverse theory. It sounds logical but I need more evidence rather than theories. I attempted to explain this to my friends, using speech, evidence and examples, they understood.

[Thoreau]

If you eliminate the logical, then the illogical must be correct, no matter how obsurd it appears.

[Nesti]

Every piece of the device, every molecule, every atom and every sub-atomic particle is in it's own frame of reference.

Even if two particles are traveling alongside each other, they are still not in the same frame.

I'm guessing this is why a [hypothetical] Test Particle is assumed to be both infinitely small in size and mass...a true reference point.

[Nesti]

I believe logic pervades all...in my belief, it is the intuitive and counter-intuitive which vary.

[Jarvamundo]

The splitter is the source. I think we are creating an observer here.

Do you have any refs to a closed version experiment?

I'm satisfied with the splitter as the source and pattern as the result being in the frame.... but hey shouldn't we be able to mount a ccd in the experiment to remove the observer that is being created here. Along the lines of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E with the sagnac setup

I've seen a paper on this experiment with electrons, but yes reducing errors with particles of charge is difficult... as outlined in that paper.



Measurements become pointless? hehee

Once you remove c as your limit, all reveals.

To me relativity is a mathematical play on measurements... convenient and i guess fun for some... but does not tell us anything about reality. Time is an invention.

[sjastro]

Here is how to operate a Sagnac Interformeter.
It users a Helium/Neon laser as the stationary source.
http://www.optics.arizona.edu/opti471a/Sagnac/The%20Sagnac%20Interferometer.pdf



I can't view the link as I am on a very slow dial up so I cannot make any comments. What are you suggesting mounting a CCD on the turntable?

Regards

Steven

[Jarvamundo]

Well yes...

Put the whole lot in the frame, spin it, fling it, whatever.

To me the splitter represents the source (in the frame) and the pattern the result, and is all in the frame. But hey... why not pop the lot on the turntable (in the frame)... to satisfy yourself.

Record the evidence to the ccd memory... now unless the ccd-memory acts as a relativity-time-domain capacitor.... so when you take out the result and view it, all the evidence magically re-arranges it'self because you just applied the relative 'rotated frames' for the entire experiment run... I've no doubt mathematics can be constructed to satisfy this, but the absurdity leaves me awestruck.

To me there are just so many variants of these experiments, that i simply cannot find data on.... to me due diligence has not been demonstrated. (do it again in magnetic fields, in space, in freefall, altitude, vertical)

I don' think this is exactly what we are after for your variable c request, it's more leaning towards detection of aether drift. The link you posted has the same introduced observer dilemma, relativity-theory has introduced in it's explanations. I'm ok with the splitter being the source... you're not... can we include it in the experiment?

[sjastro]

The CCD is the key issue not the beamsplitter.

Put the CCD on the turnatable and you won't get an interference pattern.
The CCD is now the "observer".
This is the same as rotating the room containing the observer and the interferometer. The observer is now stationary relative to the interferometer as they are now both in the same frame of reference.

This is equivalent to a normally mounted interferometer except that the turntable is not rotating. The interferometer and the observer are in the same reference frame. As we already know interference doesn't occur under this condition.

Regards

Steven

[Jarvamundo]

I acknowledge the null expectation of SR.

The Sagnac experiment did include the luminous source and the photographic plate... and the Michelson "Normally mounted interferometer" is different to this experiment.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_PGrlCLkkIgC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=The+rotating+system+included+lum inous+source+and++photographic+plat e+recording+the+interference+fringe s.&source=bl&ots=TLL9CRpC1m&sig=ExmVhAT-qO7saJ6TGH44p-prl0Q&hl=en&ei=oM4MTOTnF4_Rcaf9zL0O&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#

Another source here: http://www.phil-inst.hu/~szekely/PIRT_BP_2/papers/selleri_09_ft.ppt

Again if you have a reference to a modern ccd version, i would be keen to inspect, i've only come across electron versions, plagued with errors.

[sjastro]

The null result is explained using Newtonian relativity with it's concept of absolute time.:)

The argument that the interference pattern is due to c+v, c-v would require the M-M experiment to show same type of result. The latest M-M test performed last year yet again confirms that c is the same in all frames of references.

"Michelson–Morley experiment is best yet.

Physicists in Germany have performed the most precise Michelson-Morley experiment to date, confirming that the speed of light is the same in all directions. The experiment, which involves rotating two optical cavities, is about 10 times more precise than previous experiments – and a hundred million times more precise than Michelson and Morley's 1887 measurement.
The laws of physics appear to be the same for all processes occurring in laboratories moving at constant speed and for any orientation – a fundamental concept known as Lorentz symmetry. It takes its name from the Dutch physicist Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, who was attempting to explain the null result of Albert Michelson and Edward Morley's famous experiment. Then in 1905, Albert Einstein used Lorentz symmetry as a postulate of his special theory of relativity.
Lorentz symmetry has so far withstood the tests of time, but in recent years physicists have begun to question whether it is indeed an exact symmetry of nature. They are motivated primarily by the development of string and loop quantum gravity theories, which try to make gravity compatible with quantum physics and allow for the possibility that Lorentz symmetry might not hold exactly.
In order to develop these and other theories, physicists need to know if and when the speed of light is different in different directions. Michelson and Morley tackled this problem by splitting light into two beams that travel at right angles to each other, are reflected by mirrors and then recombined with each other to produce an interference pattern, which depends on different lengths of the two paths. A change in this pattern as the interferometer is rotated would suggest that the speed of light is different in different directions.

Floating on air

In the past 120 years physicists have improved the Michelson-Morley experiment – and its latest incarnation can be found in Stephan Schiller's lab at the Heinrich-Heine University in Düsseldorf. The apparatus floats on a thin cushion of air above a 1.3 tonne granite table. It comprises two optical cavities – essentially pairs of mirrors that reflect light back and forth – that are both about 8.4 cm long and at right angles to each other. Because the cavities are slightly different in length, they have slightly different resonant frequencies.
In the experiment, a laser beam is split into two beams, one for each cavity. The frequencies of the beams are then tuned to that of their respective cavities using "acousto-optic modulators". The two beams – which now have different frequencies – are then recombined to produce a beat signal. If the speed of light were different in different directions, it would affect the resonant frequencies of the two cavities in an out-of-step manner, which could then be detected as a shift in the beat frequency as the apparatus is rotated.

Schiller and colleagues Christian Eisele and Alexander Nevsky gathered data as they rotated their experiment about 175,000 times over about 13 months, with each rotation taking 90 seconds. To investigate whether Lorentz symmetry had been violated, the team analysed their time series of beat frequency measurements in terms a simplified version of the Standard Model Extension (SME) – a mathematical framework that describes violations to Lorentz symmetry in terms of 19 measurable parameters. http://imagec16.247realmedia.com/0/default/empty.gif (http://oas.iop.org/5c/physicsweb.org/news.article/496965297/Middle/default/empty.gif/306b3866665574303179634142566b31?x)

100 million times better

Schiller's experiment is sensitive to eight of these parameters and the team was able to show that four are zero to about two parts in 1017; one is zero to about one part in 1016; and three are zero to about two parts in 1013. According to Schiller, this represents a factor of more than 10 improvement over previous measurements of these parameters and a factor of about 100 million better than Michelson and Morley's original experiment.
Ben Varcoe at the University of Leeds in the UK told physicsworld.com that Schiller's experiment appears to be the most precise Michelson-Morley experiment to date. He also pointed out that if Schiller and colleagues were able to boost the precision of their experiment by a few more orders of magnitude, it could become sensitive to the effects of dark energy on the propagation of light.
The idea is that if the Earth is moving in a specific direction through stationary dark energy, the latter could be detected as a Lorentz violation. (Michelson and Morley were looking for a similar violation due to luminiferous aether, which we now know does not exist.)

Sensitivity boost

According to Schiller, it should be feasible to boost the sensitivity of the experiment by as much as a factor of 1000 over the next 10 years by introducing major improvements to the apparatus.
However, most current theories of quantum gravity leqad one to expect Lorentz violations at levels of about 10–30 – a precision that has already been reached in some astrophysical measurements of other SME parameters. How to reach such levels with Michelson-Morley experiments "is a tremendous challenge for the future," said Schiller."

Regards

Steven

[Jarvamundo]

As mentioned the Sagnac experiment is different to the MM, it really depends on the corrections applied for the experiment. If you could post the paper to your reference, some measurement dilemmas can creep in depending on how the experiment is analysed.

Steve Bryant wraps it up quite well here: http://www.relativitychallenge.com/archives/396#more-396

Nobel Laureate Maurice Allais (Allais effect) here on his analysis of Miller 1998:
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media12-1.htm


Back to sagnac,
I'm not questioning the mathematics, the logic of the addition 3rd sagnac observer is bizarre... and it'self runs into problems... see here
http://www.anti-relativity.com/sagnac.htm


Anyone looking at Sagnac, can see the light is split by the splitter, interference recorded on the same platform. All components are in the frame. A null result is not found.

Again an onboard ccd version might be valuable to track down, Sagnac himself had the source and recording plates on board. The third observer is not part of the experiment, but the non-null result does however indicate a universal reference frame.

See this is how bad it's gotten: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X8wlbXFaMo
The emitter is in the frame of reference in the real experiment!! why it is said to be rotating around the emitter is a naughty explanation of the experiment... Essentially if you picture it, this video placed a pole up above the turntable, that does not rotate, whilst the turntable below rotates... handily to explain the effects. It is not part of the experiment! it was introduced. see in red above

Kinda hijacked this hypothetical thread with some empirical discussion? sorry mark!

Steven could i have a reference to the paper or article of the german group, to inspect their interpretation. url = Empty.gif?

[sjastro]

The experiments are different but are based on the same principles.
If the speed of light is based on the motion of the observer then the c+v, c-v scenario occurs. For the original M-M experiment, v is the Earth's orbital tangent velocity, for the Sagnac experiment v is the tangent velocity of the rotating platform. A positive/negative result for the M-M experiment implies a positive/negative result for Sagnac and vice versa.



Miller's results are clearly an anomaly as no one has been able to reproduce them. Also lets not forget the far greater precision of todays experiments.



What is so ludicrous about this link is that the author admits to having no understanding of the mathematics but is able to critique the logic of the article. This is quite bizarre as the logic is distilled through the mathematics.
The mathematics is very simple and describes why the two light paths of a split beam will travel different distances in a Sagnac test when observed from an inertial frame of reference, resulting in an interference pattern.
This has nothing to do with 3 frames of references, or an absolute frame of reference, or coming to the conclusion that "the light traveling to the lead planet is having to go through more space than the light going to the trailing planet when we add an outside reference point".
The author is taking potshots here.



Show me an interference pattern where the detector is on the same platform. Otherwise as previously discussed a positive result is expected but not due to the speed of light varying.




http://www.physik.hu-berlin.de/qom/research/michelson

Regards

Steven

[Jarvamundo]

Sagnac and MM are very different geometrically. Similar principles granted, but light paths are very different. It is a different experiment.


Miller's results have been inspected by many including Maurice Allais... to say "clearly an anomaly" is a bit well.. "move along nothing to see here"...

why would the germans bother?

Can we trash Eddingtons 1900's data in the same manner? What about carrying clocks on a plane in suit cases?....?



No, the critique is the illogical application of the theory to the experimental setup. You don't need a maths degree to see this... We've identified the key concern. The 3rd observer.

Lets not invoke the 'higher than thou' mathematic argument here, if he said he was the best mathematician on the planet would you be happier? who cares....

... lets progress and keep it simple... source, result, 3rd observer. is the question.



Yes, the beef is the application of the theory to the experiment... to me, the interference fringes are produced by the splitter which is in the frame of reference, along with all the mirrors.

relativists pop in the 3rd 'observer' into the experiment, when it is not... but yes we're saying it again.



You are describing the Sagnac experiment

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_PGrlCLkkIgC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=The+rotating+system+included+lum inous+source+and++photographic+plat e+recording+the+interference+fringe s.&source=bl&ots=TLL9CRpC1m&sig=ExmVhAT-qO7saJ6TGH44p-prl0Q&hl=en&ei=oM4MTOTnF4_Rcaf9zL0O&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20rotating%20system%20include d%20luminous%20source%20and%20%20ph otographic%20plate%20recording%20th e%20interference%20fringes.&f=false

But i'd also like to see modern versions...

[Jarvamundo]

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=milan_meszaros


The interpretation you are providing does not match the closed experiment.

The above authors point (who is "pot shotting") is one of interpretation, and this only.

You've asked for closed. This experiment is closed.

[sjastro]

Of course the experiments are different. However the objective is the same. Both tests were designed to measure the interference of light where light source is moving with and opposite the motion of the source. Both experiments do this in different ways. The Sagnac interferometer fails to achieve this objective because interference is caused by different light path lengths as discussed previously.



In other words let's cherry pick to support our own prejudices.

The anomaly is based on the fact that Millers own peers using the same type of interferometer were unable to reproduce Miller's results. And on one since has been able to do this either.



No understand the maths no understand the theory. The point is if you understood the maths you would know there is no third observer.



No a splitter is not a frame of reference. Does a splitter give you a measureable result?




Ah the sinister 3rd observer pops up again. Is he the same chap hidden in the grassy knoll?

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

How many times do I have to tell you that the detector is not part of the rotation. This is the key issue not the splitter or the mirrors. This is supported by your attachment.

Frankly I am getting sick of your cut and paste arguments in particular when you put a spin on the references.

If you want to refute the arguments tell me why the maths is wrong.

Regards

Steven

[Nesti]

Take a deep breath and repeat after me, "calm blue ocean".

[Jarvamundo]

Math sick or not, that detector (be it a ccd as you requested, or sagnac's photographic plates) is sitting on the turntable and is in the frame.

That the whole frame turns, and a non null result is recorded, indicates a universal frame.

obs1: emitter (in rotation with all mirrors)
obs2: result (photographic plate in rotation with all mirrors)
obs3: observer (not in frame)<-- introduced in your explanation. Not in experiment!

[sjastro]

Even if the detector is mounted on the turnatable and is not at the same radial distance as the splitter and mirrors it will have a different tangent velocity. It is in a different frame of reference. The observed interference pattern is still caused by path length differences.



Wrong. A universal or absolute frame of reference implies that time is absolute for all observers. If you run the turntable fast enough you will find a clock on the turntable will run slower than a clock in an inertial frame. The clock on the turntable is in an accelerated frame of reference.



Wrong. The emitter is not an observer. It is not a measuring device.
The result (measuring device) and observer in this circumstance are the same.

Regards

Steven

[Jarvamundo]

Not at same radial distance to a non rotating observer. But to me, the whole experiment is rotating... cos well... it is.


bingo, the clock runs slower. Time is an invention of the clock.



yes it is... it sent the signal, the receiver received it. Tangental velocities are only due to the 3rd observer.

two points = a line
a tangent to a line = 3rd point.

Your statements of geometry are contradictory, you cannot have a tangent without the 3rd observer. If you can draw, on paper, a tangent without 3 points, i'd be keen to see it.




I've done that by referring to the experiment. You are still introducing tangents.

Anyways, i think we see where we disagree. I'm happy with that.

Modern Nonlineor Optics, Part 3, Second Edited by Myron W. Evans. Series Editors I.
ISBN 0-471-38932-3 O 2001 John Wilev Edition, Advances in Chemical Physics, Volume I19, Prigogine and Stuart A. Rice. & Sons, Inc
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=milan_meszaros

I'd be keen to see a ccd on the table, will post here if it is found.

[sjastro]

Sure and this invention we need to correct for GPS satellites.



What absolute nonsense. You cannot draw a tangent to a line. A tangent is drawn to a circle and only requires one point where the line touches the circumference of the circle.

Tangential velocity = angular velocity X radius of circle. You are measuring the velocity at a single point on the circle.

When the turntable rotates the tangential velocity is the RPM of the turnatable X distance from the centre.

Regards

Steven

[Jarvamundo]

Couldn't agree more, the clocks are changing, not reality!


Ok... were jumping around definitions here... the 3rd observer would provide the axis, to intersect the source and receiver line of light, thus allowing rotation, thus allowing you to apply your tangental calculations.

Your definition of the experiment, has added a 3rd "chopper cam" top down observer, external to the experiment....


How does the closed frame, with all components on the turntable... know it's turning?
How does the closed frame know where it's center is?

The only way to get a source and receiver to rotate, so that you may apply your tangental mathematics, is the addition of a 3rd observer, providing the axis.

This is simply NOT in the experiment...

[Steffen]

So, the clocks are somehow outside reality?



The components on the turntable are being accelerated, that's how. That's what makes the frame non-inertial.

Cheers
Steffen.

[Jarvamundo]

accelerating compared to what?

[Steffen]

Acceleration is not about comparing things, it's about changing the vector of motion and brought about by some force. Keeping an object on a curved path is accelerating it.

Cheers
Steffen.

[Jarvamundo]

The vector in the frame is not changed Stefan.

Put yourself in a box, point a laser at the wall... your vector to that point is not changed if the room rotates.

Unless, you add a universal frame of reference.

[Steffen]

If the room rotates and you shoot a bullet at a target on the opposite wall you are certain to miss (unless you know of and compensate for the rotation). EDIT: If the room rotates fast enough you may shoot yourself.

If that sounds too violent do as Newton suggested - put a bucket of water in the middle of the room. If the surface of the water caves in you know the room rotates.

Cheers
Steffen.

[sjastro]

Steffan's response to your post about Newton using a pail of water ultimately led to the idea of a universal frame of reference being proven incorrect.

What you have failed to take into consideration is that your universal frame of reference is in fact rotating relative to the observer.
The Earth spins on it's axis. The stars are rotating relative to the Earth.
Can you determine which is the absolute frame of reference? Clearly the ancient Greeks attempted to answer that and got it wrong.
Clearly there is no universal frame of reference as for example the sidereal day on Mars is different from that of Earths.

So your universal frame of reference is nothing more than a local relative frame of reference for the rotating object.

The irony is that you can use your mysterious grassy knoll third observer to prove the same outcome.

Regards

Steven

[marki]

Oh dear, here we go again :lol:.

Mark

[sjastro]

Incomprehensible.

The correct way is to measure the centrifugal force at two points in the rotating frame. Since the centrifugal force is directed radially outwards, the intersection of the two radial lines will mark the centre.

Once the centre is known the radii at the points can be measured.

The tangential velocity is calculated by the formula
Tangential velocity = ((Centrifugal force X radius)/mass)^0.5

Regards

Steven

[Outbackmanyep]

I didn't think there was such as thing as centrifugal force, i thought it was always centripetal.

[Jarvamundo]

The photographic plate (or ccd) is on the turntable. As you said before Steven:


Sagnac did just this.

He was right, universal frame = the medium which light travels through = aether.

Anyways... as Mark said we are going over it again.

The differences in our views have been made several times. You wanted the ccd on the table... it's on there... and you're still not happy.

I don't know where to go from here.

outta here.

All the best,
Alex

Great reference here for those interested on history of the Sagnac experiment, and the modern interpretations.

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=milan_meszaros

[Jarvamundo]

But one ponders... how is this center "known"?

The center is defined by the axis of rotation provided by a 3rd point, dot, observer.

Draw a line on a piece of paper. If you want this line to rotate, it will need a 3rd point, providing an axis.

Otherwise as you correctly mention, without this 3rd observer



= Sagnac experiment.

[sjastro]

The centrifugal force is a "fictitious force" equal in magnitude but opposite in direction to the centripetal force. (Newtons third law at work).

The effects of a fictitious force are measurable.

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

You fail to grasp that the above quotes are not equivalent.
The first quote refers to what an observer sees from their frame of reference.
The second quote is the rotating frame itself.

For example the Earth rotates in an easterly direction, but an observer on Earth sees the sky (your so called universal frame) is rotating in a westerly direction.

Steven

[sjastro]

So you keep on repeating. It is still incorrect despite how many times you care to mention it.

The centre is defined where the centrifugal and centripedal forces are equal to zero. That is all that is required.

Steven