Merged Puzzling results from CERN

[Anders Lindman]

I don't follow. The earth is going around the sun. Therefore it's moving at a different velocity with respect to the center of the Milky Way at different times of year. But OPERA tested for seasonal variations and didn't find any.

The orientation of the earth's orbit with respect to the plane of the galaxy has nothing to do with it. Its orientation with respect to some velocity vector of the Milky Way (relative to something else) might, but the earth's motion in any plane still leads to a variation in its net velocity.

Yes if the solar system's plane is the same as the plane of the galaxy, but as the finding said, the solar system's plane is perpendicular to the galaxy's plane! So Earth's orbit around the sun and Earth's rotation around its axis basically make zero difference in relation to the solar system's orbit around the Milky Way. Then there is another motion to take into account, which is Milky Way's motion through space. That probably makes a difference depending on season and hour of day unless the solar system at the moment is at a position perpendicular to the motion of the galaxy through space.

ETA: On a second thought, perpendicular to the galaxy plane can mean 0-360 degrees of rotation and still be perpendicular. I was thinking that the solar system is like a flat disc perpendicular not only to the galaxy plane but also perpendicular to the motion of the solar system around the galaxy center.

 

[sol invictus]

Yes if the solar system's plane is the same as the plane of the galaxy, but as the finding said, the solar system's plane is perpendicular to the galaxy's plane! So Earth's orbit around the sun and Earth's rotation around its axis basically make zero difference in relation to the solar system's orbit around the Milky Way.

You seem to be assuming the orbit of the sun around the center of the galaxy is exactly in the plane of the galaxy, which probably isn't true. But even if it was, and even if the plane of the orbit of the earth is exactly perpendicular to the sun's current velocity around the center of the galaxy, you're wrong that the orbit of the earth around the sun "basically makes zero difference". Of course it makes a difference - it might not change the speed of the earth relative to the center of the galaxy, but it clearly changes the velocity.

Then there is another motion to take into account, which is Milky Way's motion through space. That probably makes a difference depending on season and hour of day unless the solar system at the moment is at a position perpendicular to the motion of the galaxy through space.

Again, no, for the same reason.

Look - the orbit of the earth around the sun means that the earth's velocity is changing with time with respect to anything non-rotating. That's all you need.

 

[Anders Lindman]

You seem to be assuming the orbit of the sun around the center of the galaxy is exactly in the plane of the galaxy, which probably isn't true. But even if it was, and even if the plane of the orbit of the earth is exactly perpendicular to the sun's current velocity around the center of the galaxy, you're wrong that the orbit of the earth around the sun "basically makes zero difference". Of course it makes a difference - it might not change the speed of the earth relative to the center of the galaxy, but it clearly changes the velocity.



Again, no, for the same reason.

Look - the orbit of the earth around the sun means that the earth's velocity is changing with time with respect to anything non-rotating. That's all you need.

The solar system is not exactly flat. I think they start with Earth at zero degrees (the ecliptic) and the other planets are some degree from that (Mercury's orbital plane for example is a lot of degrees different than Earth).

The velocity relative to the center of the galaxy would be essentially zero if the solar system was perpendicular to the galaxy plane and perpendicular to the movement of the solar system around the center of the galaxy (the north pole would always point in the direction of the movement of the solar system around the center of the galaxy, not counting precession and ecliptic offset and things like that).

 

[sol invictus]

The velocity relative to the center of the galaxy would be essentially zero if the solar system was perpendicular to the galaxy plane and perpendicular to the movement of the solar system around the center of the galaxy (the north pole would always point in the direction of the movement of the solar system around the center of the galaxy, not counting precession and ecliptic offset and things like that).

No, it obviously wouldn't.

The direction the north pole is pointing is not the same thing as the velocity of the earth relative to the center of the galaxy, so I have no idea why you mention that.

Look - the velocity of the earth with respect to the sun changes throughout the year. The velocity of the sun with respect to the center of the galaxy is essentially constant. Therefore the velocity of the earth with respect to the center of the galaxy, being the sum of a time-varying vector with a constant vector, is obviously not constant.

I can't figure out what you find confusing about that.

 

[Anders Lindman]

No, it obviously wouldn't.

The direction the north pole is pointing is not the same thing as the velocity of the earth relative to the center of the galaxy, so I have no idea why you mention that.

Look - the velocity of the earth with respect to the sun changes throughout the year. The velocity of the sun with respect to the center of the galaxy is essentially constant. Therefore the velocity of the earth with respect to the center of the galaxy, being the sum of a time-varying vector with a constant vector, is obviously not constant.

I can't figure out what you find confusing about that.

The key thing is the velocity of Earth relative to the vacuum energy, not to the center of the galaxy. If the vacuum energy can cause friction on particles then that could affect the CERN experiment.

Is the vacuum energy moving with Earth? No I don't think so. Earth is moving through the vacuum energy, and so is the solar system and so is the Milky Way galaxy. The vacuum energy is not exactly like an aether, but it's not nothing, and it may even cause friction according to Alejandro Manjavacas and F. Javier García de Abajo of the Institute of Optics at the Spanish National Research Council in Madrid: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927994.100-vacuum-has-friction-after-all.html

 

[sol invictus]

The key thing is the velocity of Earth relative to the vacuum energy, not to the center of the galaxy. If the vacuum energy can cause friction on particles then that could affect the CERN experiment.

IF the vacuum energy had a rest frame that allowed this superlominality, there would be a seasonal variation. There isn't, at least not that they can detect.

FYI, vacuum energy of the type most likely to be responsible for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe does not and cannot cause linear friction - it cannot slow down straight-line or geodesic motion. That would be impossible by Lorentz invariance. But rotational motion can be affected. I didn't read the paper you mentioned, but the above statements have been known for many many years.

In the case of the earth, such vacuum effects are utterly negligible. The earth is gradually spiraling into the sun because it is emitting classical gravitational radiation. The spin of the earth is gradually slowing because of tidal friction, earthquakes, etc. Those two are vastly larger than any quantum vacuum effects.

 

[Anders Lindman]

IF the vacuum energy had a rest frame that allowed this superlominality, there would be a seasonal variation. There isn't, at least not that they can detect.

Probably. But I would still like to know exactly how Earth is moving through the vacuum energy, because there is a slight possibility that seasonal variations will not change that direction much. Imagine a bullet rotating as it moves through the air. The rotation does not change the direction of how the bullet moves through the air. Now think of two bullets attached to each other via a wire. A small bullet representing Earth and a larger bullet representing the sun. As they travel through the air the tips of the bullets are always pointing forward even as the smaller bullet orbits the larger bullet (representing seasonal change).

 

[Dan O.]

Anders may be lacking some pertinent data. I think this will help.

 

[minorwork]

That doesn't make it a "failed" experiment. An experiment should provide either support or falsification for an hypothesis; if an experimental result falsifies the hypothesis, then experiment was a success and the hypothesis failed.

I'd regard the Michelson-Morley experiment as being very successful.

Albert Michelson considered the experiment to determine directly the aether's speed effects on the speed of light a failure till his death. Take it up with him. But I'm with you that the gain was all science's for finally having the evidence emerge to invalidate the theory of the day to get light from the sun to earth by invention of the luminiferous aether. There was a theory without evidence until the "failed" experiment showed the theory to be but a hypothesis without evidence which is but little better than speculation.

Margins of errors multiplied will be found to be at the center of the neutrino debacle of those physicists that appear to have some problem understanding time.

 

[Anders Lindman]

IF the vacuum energy had a rest frame that allowed this superlominality, there would be a seasonal variation. There isn't, at least not that they can detect.

FYI, vacuum energy of the type most likely to be responsible for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe does not and cannot cause linear friction - it cannot slow down straight-line or geodesic motion. That would be impossible by Lorentz invariance. But rotational motion can be affected. I didn't read the paper you mentioned, but the above statements have been known for many many years.

In the case of the earth, such vacuum effects are utterly negligible. The earth is gradually spiraling into the sun because it is emitting classical gravitational radiation. The spin of the earth is gradually slowing because of tidal friction, earthquakes, etc. Those two are vastly larger than any quantum vacuum effects.

I tried to explain that there may not be any seasonal variation, depending on how Earth is moving through the vacuum energy. I seemed to have failed.

Then consider this:

"Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited and the Cosmic Background Radiation Preferred Frame

The re-analysis here of the Michelson-Morley experimental data, correcting for the refractive index effect of the air, reveals an absolute speed of the Earth of v=359+/-54 km/s, which is in excellent agreement with the speed of v=365+/-18 km/s determined from the dipole fit, in 1991, to the NASA COBE satellite Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) observations. Other experiments where the interferometers operated in air (Miller 1925,1933) or helium (Illingworth 1927) give similar results when re-analysed. These experimental results refute Einstein's assertion that absolute motion through space has no meaning." -- http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205065

Ok, one last try in trying to explain why seasonal changes may not affect the motion through the vacuum energy. Imagine the solar system as a frisbee moving around the center of the galaxy. Then, yes there would be seasonal changes, but as the source I posted suggested, the solar system is perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy. This means that you can think of the frisbee orbiting around the center as a flat pancake always facing the flat side towards the orbital motion.

 

[Anders Lindman]

May I suggest, that before you take Einstein's theories too much on obscure faith, as dogma if you will, please do consider this: http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented#

 

[Dave Rogers]

Then consider this:

"Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited and the Cosmic Background Radiation Preferred Frame

The re-analysis here of the Michelson-Morley experimental data, correcting for the refractive index effect of the air, reveals an absolute speed of the Earth of v=359+/-54 km/s, which is in excellent agreement with the speed of v=365+/-18 km/s determined from the dipole fit, in 1991, to the NASA COBE satellite Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) observations. Other experiments where the interferometers operated in air (Miller 1925,1933) or helium (Illingworth 1927) give similar results when re-analysed. These experimental results refute Einstein's assertion that absolute motion through space has no meaning." -- http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205065

This paper, as I've tried to explain to you, is completely worthless. It starts from the erroneous presumption that special relativity is limited to the postulate that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction results in an effect which precisely compensates for absolute motion in the Michelson-Morley experiment, rendering the measurement of absolute motion impossible. Since this presumption is incorrect, the remainder of the analysis is irrelevant.

Let me try and put this a little more simply. Michelson and Morley's experiment, and every repeat of it to higher precision, has resulted in the finding that no absolute motion can be detected; in other words, the measured result is that the absolute motion is always zero. Cahill takes that result and performs some mathematical trickery on it to claim that, if there is no absolute motion, then an absolute motion should in fact be detected, and that the measurement of an absence of absolute motion is itself evidence of absolute motion. If that reads like gibberish, it's not my fault; that's what Cahill is claiming.

All that the paper proves is that Cahill doesn't understand the second postulate of the theory of special relativity, and as a result has elevated the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction from the status of a consequence of SR to the status of being the entire theory. And repeatedly citing this unreviewed preprint of a rejected paper as a scientific result worthy of comment is a classic example of the unholy alliance of ignorance and confirmation bias that, as we so often find, informs the pathological denialist.

Dave

 

[Dancing David]

May I suggest, that before you take Einstein's theories too much on obscure faith, as dogma if you will, please do consider this: http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented#

Oh yeah, a blog by Michael Suede

-a gravitational wave not having been detected is not evidence against the theory
-there is plenty of evidence for dark matter, you have a problem with neutrinos too?
-quazars show redshift, the measurement of time dilation in quazars, how exactly did they determine that, Hawkins is most likely wrong, they have HUGE redshifts in many cases

You should try to find the errors in the rest of that as well

 

[Anders Lindman]

Oh yeah, a blog by Michael Suede

-a gravitational wave not having been detected is not evidence against the theory
-there is plenty of evidence for dark matter, you have a problem with neutrinos too?
-quazars show redshift, the measurement of time dilation in quazars, how exactly did they determine that, Hawkins is most likely wrong, they have HUGE redshifts in many cases

You should try to find the errors in the rest of that as well

That's three points. There were more points than that.

 

[Anders Lindman]

This paper, as I've tried to explain to you, is completely worthless. It starts from the erroneous presumption that special relativity is limited to the postulate that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction results in an effect which precisely compensates for absolute motion in the Michelson-Morley experiment, rendering the measurement of absolute motion impossible. Since this presumption is incorrect, the remainder of the analysis is irrelevant.

Let me try and put this a little more simply. Michelson and Morley's experiment, and every repeat of it to higher precision, has resulted in the finding that no absolute motion can be detected; in other words, the measured result is that the absolute motion is always zero. Cahill takes that result and performs some mathematical trickery on it to claim that, if there is no absolute motion, then an absolute motion should in fact be detected, and that the measurement of an absence of absolute motion is itself evidence of absolute motion. If that reads like gibberish, it's not my fault; that's what Cahill is claiming.

All that the paper proves is that Cahill doesn't understand the second postulate of the theory of special relativity, and as a result has elevated the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction from the status of a consequence of SR to the status of being the entire theory. And repeatedly citing this unreviewed preprint of a rejected paper as a scientific result worthy of comment is a classic example of the unholy alliance of ignorance and confirmation bias that, as we so often find, informs the pathological denialist.

Dave

I doubt the existence of an absolute aether. The vacuum energy in empty space however is real and it's not nothing. Perhaps the vacuum energy could be considered a relative 'aether'?

 

[Tubbythin]

May I suggest, that before you take Einstein's theories too much on obscure faith, as dogma if you will, please do consider this: http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented#

Pile of crap. Many arguments invoke the logical fallacy absence of evidence = evidence of absence. Others invoke alternative theories which while allegedly solving one problem, are in complete contradiciton with thousands of experiments. Some of the points are flat out false. Some of the claims are so absurdly stupidly naive it beggars belief.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Perhaps the vacuum energy could be considered a relative 'aether'?

Consider it whatever you want, in your own mind; the conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment is not that a specific kind of aether doesn't exist, but that absolute motion doesn't exist. It will continue not to exist whatever fictional absolute frame of reference you prefer to choose it not to exist relative to.

Dave

 

[Anders Lindman]

Pile of crap. Many arguments invoke the logical fallacy absence of evidence = evidence of absence. Others invoke alternative theories which while allegedly solving one problem, are in complete contradiciton with thousands of experiments. Some of the points are flat out false. Some of the claims are so absurdly stupidly naive it beggars belief.

I admit I don't have a clue if those claims to falsify Einstein's relativity are correct. But I think it could be worth looking into.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I admit I don't have a clue if those claims to falsify Einstein's relativity are correct. But I think it could be worth looking into.

There is a causal relationship between the bolded excerpts.

Dave

 

[Tubbythin]

I admit I don't have a clue if those claims to falsify Einstein's relativity are correct. But I think it could be worth looking into.

It's worth noting that a number of the points are along the lines of "plasma cosmology does it better than relativity". This is bizarre since it requires our understanding of the EM force to be correct... and our understanding of this is underpinned by the principle of relativity!