• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

abaddon said:
Your observation is correct, but I am not even sure that is what Anders is saying, I'm not even sure what Anders is saying at all.
Click to expand...

Yes, ordinary optical interference is perhaps not the cause of cancellation of photons by sunlight. There is another kind of interference however happening at the surface of the reflective material. Or coupling as it is called in quantum electrodynamics. That is the interaction between photons and electrons.

Here is a short video about that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erFNXjcimE4

Then wouldn't the electrons in the reflective material interact with the light from the laser the same way regardless whether the sun is shining on the material or not? No, because the photons from the strong sunlight make the material emit electrons. Those electrons are the cause of the extra 'interference'.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
And the light from the sun covers a large spectrum that most likely includes the wavelength of light from the laser used.
Click to expand...

Then you'd get more of that wavelength of photon at high lunar noon, not fewer.

You really are too hysterical for words. You've taken a straightforward problem and thrown a word-salad of pseudo-physics at it, simply to shore up a statement you made hastily in ignorance based on an article you barely read.
 
Here's a question....what is substantially different between the Magic Lunar Soil Patch and lunar soil that happens to be located on top of a mirror? What changes about the soil, that your largely-incoherent (!) QED-based explanation only effects it when it is on a random patch of ground, but can not effect it when it is sitting on a mirror?
 
nomuse said:
Here's a question....what is substantially different between the Magic Lunar Soil Patch and lunar soil that happens to be located on top of a mirror? What changes about the soil, that your largely-incoherent (!) QED-based explanation only effects it when it is on a random patch of ground, but can not effect it when it is sitting on a mirror?
Click to expand...

This part of the article supports the mirror: "The problem may be getting worse. The McDonald Observatory was able to run similar experiments at full moon between 1973 and 1976. But between 1979 and 1984, they had “a bite taken out of their data,” during full moons, Murphy said."

If my theory is correct, then the problem would have remained the same all the time. It would be interesting to check if Murphy's claim really is correct, that the problem has gotten worse as the years have gone by.
 
nomuse said:
Here's a question....what is substantially different between the Magic Lunar Soil Patch and lunar soil that happens to be located on top of a mirror?
Click to expand...

There would have to be a LOT of dust to make the mirror behave like moon rock/sand. Without the dust the mirror would have different material properties than the moon surface.
 
Anders Lindman said:
This part of the article supports the mirror: "The problem may be getting worse. The McDonald Observatory was able to run similar experiments at full moon between 1973 and 1976. But between 1979 and 1984, they had “a bite taken out of their data,” during full moons, Murphy said."

If my theory is correct, then the problem would have remained the same all the time. It would be interesting to check if Murphy's claim really is correct, that the problem has gotten worse as the years have gone by.
Click to expand...

Ha! Murphy is WRONG! Yo, check this out yo:

"Since Apollo days, the main American site for lunar laser-ranging experiments has been the McDonald Observatory of the University of Texas. Located in the Davis Mountains 450 miles west of Austin, the observatory today uses a reflecting telescope whose main mirror is 30 inches wide and a laser that sends out short bursts of up to one billion watts of power.

In theory, the flash could blind humans.

''We have a radar,'' said Dr. Jerry R. Wiant, an engineer who has done lunar laser ranging at the McDonald Observatory for 32 years. ''If it finds a plane, it automatically shuts the system down.''

He added that, weather permitting, the observatory fired laser beams at the Moon up to 20 days a month. ''When it's a full moon it's too bright,'' he said, adding that the Moon's own light in that case would overwhelm the detectors." -- From: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/14/s...es-a-throbbing-heart.html?pagewanted=3&src=pm
 
JayUtah said:
Why don't you simply invent another magical property of this patch of soil to account for it. That seems to be what you've done up to now.
Click to expand...

Not magical. If my theory is correct then ordinary moon rock/sand of a highly reflective kind would have exactly the properties that would match the observed results. So that's a prediction that can be tested.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
There would have to be a LOT of dust to make the mirror behave like moon rock/sand. Without the dust the mirror would have different material properties than the moon surface.
Click to expand...

You are stringing this theory around a surface interaction at an atomic level. Why would the thickness need to be any more than a single atom thick?
 
JayUtah said:
Circular. You don't get to postulate a patch of ground and assign it the properties you gleaned from some article, then say it's a theory that explains it.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. It's a challenging theory to the theory about dust heating up the glass on the mirror etc. My theory is that the reflector on the moon in reality is a spot of highly reflective natural moon surface. It would be fairly easy I assume to make the calculations for how moon minerals interact with photons and compare it to the measured results.
 
I think he is postulating that if you went through enough lunar samples, you'd find one that was optically flat, extremely shiny, and darkened in direct sunlight.

I don't suppose he understands that the total lack of such a sample so far does not mean we have to accept it as probable that said material exists. Because I have a similar lack of evidence that Bugs Bunny is living on the Moon, and until you can show me his burrow and show me he isn't home, I'm going to say I've proved he is.
 
nomuse said:
You are stringing this theory around a surface interaction at an atomic level. Why would the thickness need to be any more than a single atom thick?
Click to expand...

But general moon dust would not be highly reflective material. If the mirror was entirely covered with average moon dust, then the reflection from it wouldn't be any different than the average reflection from the surface of the moon. My theory is that it is natural moon minerals but of a highly reflective nature, much more reflective than the average moon surface.
 
Anders Lindman said:
No, it's not. It's a challenging theory to the theory about dust heating up the glass on the mirror etc. My theory is that the reflector on the moon in reality is a spot of highly reflective natural moon surface. It would be fairly easy I assume to make the calculations for how moon minerals interact with photons and compare it to the measured results.
Click to expand...

Measured results? Such as, oh, I don't know, PHOTOGRAPHS?

Millions if not billions of photographs, taken in every part of the spectrum, made from Earth, from satellites, from orbiters, from machines and people sitting on the surface of the Moon itself?

And not a one of them has shown a shiny surface 10x as reflective as the average, or one that darkens by 100x when in full sunlight.
 
nomuse said:
Measured results? Such as, oh, I don't know, PHOTOGRAPHS?

Millions if not billions of photographs, taken in every part of the spectrum, made from Earth, from satellites, from orbiters, from machines and people sitting on the surface of the Moon itself?

And not a one of them has shown a shiny surface 10x as reflective as the average, or one that darkens by 100x when in full sunlight.
Click to expand...

I meant the results from the measurements: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/04-15MoonLight.asp

"“Near full moon, the strength of the returning light decreases by a factor of ten.” said first author Tom Murphy, associate professor of physics at the University of California ... their instrument detects only a tenth as much light returns most nights. And when the moon is full the results are ten times worse."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom