Space, Time, and Matter

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by 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=...d=0CBQQ6AEwAA#

Another source here: http://www.phil-inst.hu/~szekely/PIR...leri_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.

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

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 (Alex)]

yet again confirms that c is the same in all frames of references.

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/a...s/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

Consequently the Special and General Theory of Relativity, resting on postulates invalidated by observational data, cannot be scientifically valid

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

This guy is actually explaining that the light is having to travel further in regard to an outside reference frame. So, in other words, he's saying that if three equidistant planets are all traveling in one direction with light emitted from the middle one, 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. This is implying a universal frame of reference. This is implying an Aether. If there is no Aether then there is no "Proper Time" and the motion of the three planet system should not affect how long it takes for light to get to the two outer planets according to relativity.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Regards

Steven

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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.

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?....?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

You are describing the Sagnac experiment

The rotating system included luminous source and photographic plate recording the interference fringes.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...inges.&f=false

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

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcon...milan_meszaros

The earth's rotation around its axis can be seen from the apparent motion of the stars. The rotation can also be observed by mechanical experiments carried out on the surface of the earth, that is, with the help of Foucault's pendulum, or by observing of the motion of a rapidly rotating gyroscope.
It is important that the rotation of the earth can also be observed by closed optical experiments.
This effect was first demonstrated in 1911 by Haness and in 1913 by Sagnac, so it is now often called the Sagnac effect. Sagnac determined a rotation by a closed optical instrument ll2]. Sagnac also fixed an interferometer onto a rotating disc. A flowchart of the basic anangement of the essential features in the Sagnac experiment is shown in Fig. 3.
It is clear that the rotation occurs relative to the carrier ofelectromagnetic
waves; this is the observed rotation relative to the ether.

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]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

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

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.

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"...

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, 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.

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

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.

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

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

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

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcon...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.

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 (Mark)]

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

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

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.

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

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.

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!

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 (Alex)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by sjastro

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

Originally Posted by sjastro

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.

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/viewcon...milan_meszaros

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

[sjastro]

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

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

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.

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 (Alex)]

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

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

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.

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....

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

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]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

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

So, the clocks are somehow outside reality?

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

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

Cheers
Steffen.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

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

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 (Alex)]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 .

Mark