 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / September 2006Need help with this paper, a question for mainstream people: Tom,Eric,Bill, etc
I would need some help with this paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0311/0311576.pdf In it, the authors make a point that while MMX has given null results in a refractive medium of about 1.5 and, of course in near vacuum (n=1), it might not give a null result in gaseous media with n very close but not equal to 1. I understand perfectly the mathematical formalism (they use Mansouri-Sexl test theory). What I do not understand is their logic: how come that they claim that it may make sense to experiment with n very close to 1? Crackpots, please stay off this one. It is amazing enough that the above paper got published.... >I would need some help with this paper: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > how come that they claim that it may make sense to experiment with n > very close to 1? I am just starting to get back into stats in preparation for my masters. Had a look at the paper and its conclusion which must be wrong because I have seen and gone through a proper analysis by Tom on Millers data which shows a null result - and it was more sensitive than MM. I must admit however to not being terribly enthused about going though incorrect analysis to find errors - sort of like going through a proof of 1 = 0 to find the divide by zero - it must be there but finding it is not my idea of fun. Hopefully someone else will post the exact error - if not then I will give it a go but am not looking forward to it. Thanks Bill > Crackpots, please stay off this one. It is amazing enough that the > above paper got published.... > >I would need some help with this paper: > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Crackpots, please stay off this one. It is amazing enough that the > > above paper got published.... Thank you, Bill The issue is a little subtler : the authors claim that IF there were a reason to look for Lorentz violations (and they quote some previous, flawed experiments) THEN the domains n=1 and n>1.5 are already refuted experimentally BUT in the range n=1.000012xx there might still be a chance to find one. What I don't understand is their argumentation as to why a gas may be the right medium to look for such a violation. After all, the gas differs from the dilectrics of Shamir and Trimmer only by the difference in the n value. This is the part that I need help with. BTW, the part on the Mansouri-Sexl analysis is flawed as well, there are several errors and ommissions in the equations. When I contacted PRL, the editor got very defensive, they may have received complaints from other sources as well. Tom, if you read this, there might be value in including this paper in your analysis. > I would need some help with this paper: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Crackpots, please stay off this one. It is amazing enough that the > above paper got published.... "However, our re-analysis of the Michelson-Morley original data...." I stopped being interested when I read that sentence. If the abstract is stupid, I don't bother trying to glean understanding from the paper itself. Can someone please explain to me why re-analysizing the original MMX data is better than re-analyzing data from a more current inferometer run from a more current inferometer run like any of the DOZENS of repeats from between 1887 and now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_luminiferous_aether http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v64/i15/p1697_1 http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v91/e020401 An Earth velocity 8km/s with respect to the "aether"? That a century of scientists have missed? LAUGHABLE. Well, not nearly as laughable as using Lorentz transformations to obtain the "true" velocity of earth with respect to the "aether". What fuckup of a journal thinks re-analyizing 130 yearold data with accompanying error bars is going to tell us more than a contemporary experimental run and is worth publishing? > > I would need some help with this paper: > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > accompanying error bars is going to tell us more than a contemporary > experimental run and is worth publishing? The journal is Physics Letters A. And the editors got really defensive when I approached them. The key is the part that talks about experiments in gas, which brings me to my original post, what is the point that the authors managed to make that gas might produce a different outcome? I read the sentences several times, I can't still figure out their point. > [...] > I understand perfectly the mathematical formalism (they use > Mansouri-Sexl test theory). What I do not understand is their logic: > [...] Go to study the Lorentz transform. > Crackpots, please stay off this one. It is amazing enough that the > above paper got published.... You have appeal for help to ** Dr. Roberts, retired engineer, who in his overdue retirement seem to blunder on the most basics ** Mr. Hobba, the book keeper or the day trader, who has realized that how much he does not know and chose to go back to school ** Punk Giesse, a junior in U. of Alaska, who seems to have abandoned doing his homeworks and going to lectures Perhaps, moortel can help you by posting one of the trojan horses he took as prizes from me. > > [...] > > I understand perfectly the mathematical formalism (they use > > Mansouri-Sexl test theory). What I do not understand is their logic: > > [...] > > Go to study the Lorentz transform. http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html I'll give you a chance though...what makes you think the problem of understanding is related in ANY WAY to Lorentz transformations? > > Crackpots, please stay off this one. It is amazing enough that the > > above paper got published.... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ** Dr. Roberts, retired engineer, who in his overdue retirement > seem to blunder on the most basics Yea, right. http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DiffGeoAero.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html > ** Mr. Hobba, the book keeper or the day trader, who has > realized that how much he does not know and chose to > go back to school So a guy going for his masters is an idiot while a guy commenting on a subject that is not in his field of understanding is...ok? > ** Punk Giesse, a junior in U. of Alaska, who seems to have > abandoned doing his homeworks and going to lectures I just gotta ask! How do you justify what you just said? Are you one of my professors? Are you one of my professor's graders? Are you the physics department secretary? Are you one of the students in the physics department who I do homework with? If you answered "no" to all of those questions, shut the f.ck up because you are clueless as usual. > Perhaps, moortel can help you by posting one of the trojan horses he > took as prizes from me. <SNIPPED> f.ck off. Quickly. > > [...] > > I understand perfectly the mathematical formalism (they use [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Perhaps, moortel can help you by posting one of the trojan horses he > took as prizes from me. Oh I don't know, but I think I'd have trouble taking any mathematical advice from someone who doesn't understand how to transform a domain. > > > [...] > > > I understand perfectly the mathematical formalism (they use [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Oh I don't know, but I think I'd have trouble taking any mathematical > advice from someone who doesn't understand how to transform a domain. Igor, can you have a look at the Consoli claims? thank you. >> [...] >> I understand perfectly the mathematical formalism (they use [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > ** Mr. Hobba, the book keeper or the day trader, Day trader? - hardly - I use a very long term strategy. For me day trading sucks (I tried it and failed) - here is the detail of the exact strategy I use http://invest-faq.com/fiveminute > who has realized that how much he does not know and chose to > go back to school Yep. Pity you do not do the same. Bill > ** Punk Giesse, a junior in U. of Alaska, who seems to have > abandoned doing his homeworks and going to lectures > > Perhaps, moortel can help you by posting one of the trojan horses he > took as prizes from me. > > ** Mr. Hobba, the book keeper or the day trader, > > Day trader? - hardly - I use a very long term strategy. For me day trading > sucks (I tried it and failed) Yes, you mentioned about doing day-tradings in the past. That is why I associated you with day-trading. I remain correct in my profile of you. You were a day-trader. > - here is the detail of the exact strategy I > use > http://invest-faq.com/fiveminute There is no sound strategy in investing. Right now, all of the currencies are evaluated at their face values. The gains are probably limited within one lifetime or so. It depends on your goal. Some of us make investments planned out in several generations where the number is greater than (say) 10 (more than two life times). > > who has realized that how much he does not know and chose to > > go back to school > > Yep. Pity you do not do the same. Believe me. I do admire you doing just that. I cannot afford what you have done because I have to make ends meat for my growing family. You don't have such worries. Yet? > I would need some help with this paper: > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0311/0311576.pdf > In it, the authors make a point that while MMX has given null results > in a refractive medium of about 1.5 and, of course in near vacuum > (n=1), it might not give a null result in gaseous media with n very > close but not equal to 1. The authors do not understand error analysis, and just MADE UP errorbars for the MMX data. I asked them about it, and they responded that since Michelson and Morley recorded data to 0.02 fringe, that is their errorbar. This paper is excessively naive. Michelson and Morley averaged data to obtain their plots, and whenever data are averaged one can look at the histogram of the raw data to COMPUTE an errorbar for the averaging; this is then a LOWER BOUND on the total errorbar for the result. In the case of the MMX data it is significantly larger than the variations in the data after averaging. Actual values are given in Appendix 1 of http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238 . That paper also presents a re-analysis of Miller's data giving an errorbar of 0.015 fringes (about half the size of M&M's errorbar). > I understand perfectly the mathematical formalism (they use > Mansouri-Sexl test theory). What I do not understand is their logic: > how come that they claim that it may make sense to experiment with n > very close to 1? The M-S test theory of SR can have absolute frame effects for some values of its parameters, and this could lead to a non-null result of the MMX. Depending on precisely which parameter values one uses, and what model one uses for the propagation of light in a refractive medium, one could come up with a model in which a vacuum MMX has a null result but a measurement in a medium would have a non-null result; or both could be non-null, or both could be null. Consoli and Costanzo are SPECULATING, and are basically describing their personal prejudices for what they think is or "ought" to be happening. The correct way to use the M-S test theory is, of course, to determine its parameters from experiments; when one does that, one obtains the values predicted by SR to within experimental accuracies (which IIRC are a few parts per million). > Tom, if you read this, there might be value in including this paper in > your analysis. I already reference it as a paper that assumes Miller's results are valid. Other than that it is useless. <shrug> > The issue is a little subtler : the authors claim that IF there were a > reason to look for Lorentz violations (and they quote some previous, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > only by the difference in the n value. This is the part that I need > help with. They are expressing their wishes and desires, and are trying to mold their wishes and desires so they are not already refuted. Because they do not understand error analysis, they fantasize that Miller and the MMX had non-null results, and think this supports their wishes and dreams. This is NOT the way to do science. <shrug> Tom Roberts Thank you, Tom Iwhy does Consoli think that gas as a dielctric with n very close to 1 (but not 1) can render a different result than any other dielctric (like the perspex in the Shamir experiment). They have a few sentences about that that I couldn't understand. I need help in understanding this particular part, I understood everything else , thanks also to your very detailed explanation. [...] > They are expressing their wishes and desires, and are trying to mold > their wishes and desires so they are not already refuted. Because they > do not understand error analysis, they fantasize that Miller and the MMX > had non-null results, and think this supports their wishes and dreams. > This is NOT the way to do science. <shrug> Is this why folks fixate on imprecise data from over a century ago? Lots of wiggle room that curren't data just does not allow? > Tom Roberts >> They are expressing their wishes and desires, and are trying to mold >> their wishes and desires so they are not already refuted. Because they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Is this why folks fixate on imprecise data from over a century ago? > Lots of wiggle room that curren't data just does not allow? Perhaps. I think more often it is just that they are ignorant of better measurements. Tom Roberts > >> They are expressing their wishes and desires, and are trying to mold > >> their wishes and desires so they are not already refuted. Because they [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Tom Roberts The amazing thing is that Phys.Lett published not one but two papers on the same subject by Consoli. Are the editors a little "touched" by the aetheristic virus? > > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0311/0311576.pdf > > The authors do not understand error analysis, and just MADE UP > errorbars [...] Yes, more error bars, The paper is similar to Dr. Cahill's paper. It does not take more than two dozen pages to refute the experiment interpretations based on error bars. <shrug> If anyone understands the Lorentz transform, it only takes a few sentences. >> > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0311/0311576.pdf >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If anyone understands the Lorentz transform, it only takes a few > sentences. You mean, understand it like you do? Like this? http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html Dirk Vdm |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.