Evidence for preferred frames?

[Aether]

I contacted Reginald Cahill today. This is what he had to say regarding the posts in this thread:

I had a quick look at some of the criticisms directed at my work. As usual they are based on a lack of understanding of the situation.


First, all experiments are being taken into account. The detection of absolute motion requires a clearer understanding of how each experiment works than has been given. Various kinds of experiments have been performed, and most bizarrely the theory for the operation of each of these is actually Newtonian physics, even though we all know that it failed over 100 years ago! The argument appears to run along the lines that if an experiment, whose analysis of operation is based upon Newtonian physics fails to detect absolute motion, then the Einstein theory must be correct. That is not logic. Unfortunately most of the recent resonant cavity experiments (essentially Michelson interferometers) use vacuum. Then several effects, each caused by absolute motion effects, actually cancel. But if one uses a gas in the device then that cancellation does not happen, and a residual effect occurs. Neither the Newtonian theory nor the Einstein theory has this situation arising. In fact ALL the experiments taken together are consistent, and they are implying that it is Lorentzian relativity which is being confirmed by all the experiments.


Reg

 

[yogi]

Pervect - a side note - the explanation of the lower measured velocity of light in a medium as an absorption and re-emission is only one theory - which requires a great deal of faith in the fact that the new photon will be emitted in exactly the right direction in each an every encounter - a perfect laser effect by every atom - much more likely that the electric field of the photon interacts with the electrons in the atoms slowing down the propagation.

 

[pervect]

Ever since the observation of the photoelectric effect, it hasn't taken much "faith" to see that atoms do in fact absorb light, and that the classical notions of electrons interacting with waves don't really describe well how light interacts with matter. But I suppose we are getting off on another tangent.

 

[Garth]

I contacted Reginald Cahill today. This is what he had to say regarding the posts in this thread:

I had a quick look at some of the criticisms directed at my work. As usual they are based on a lack of understanding of the situation.


First, all experiments are being taken into account. The detection of absolute motion requires a clearer understanding of how each experiment works than has been given. Various kinds of experiments have been performed, and most bizarrely the theory for the operation of each of these is actually Newtonian physics, even though we all know that it failed over 100 years ago! The argument appears to run along the lines that if an experiment, whose analysis of operation is based upon Newtonian physics fails to detect absolute motion, then the Einstein theory must be correct. That is not logic. Unfortunately most of the recent resonant cavity experiments (essentially Michelson interferometers) use vacuum. Then several effects, each caused by absolute motion effects, actually cancel. But if one uses a gas in the device then that cancellation does not happen, and a residual effect occurs. Neither the Newtonian theory nor the Einstein theory has this situation arising. In fact ALL the experiments taken together are consistent, and they are implying that it is Lorentzian relativity which is being confirmed by all the experiments.


Reg

But isn't the trick to find a preferred frame in a vacuum??
Once you put gas into the apparatus you have introduced a 'preferred frame', that of the average centre of momentum of the gas.

Garth

 

[Aether]

But isn't the trick to find a preferred frame in a vacuum??

That would be some trick!

Once you put gas into the apparatus you have introduced a 'preferred frame', that of the average centre of momentum of the gas.

Apparatus?? Now we're no longer simply in a vacuum, but also on a platform assembled from atoms fastened together by EM forces where apparently "...you have introduced a 'preferred frame', that of the average centre of momentum of the ..." apparatus (which completely determines the centroid of momentum for any gas contained within it?); at least that's my conjecture. If the effect of a preferred frame on the dimensions of a rigid apparatus are precisely the same as on the dimensions of EM radiation in vacuum, then what we have here is Lorentzian relativity. The gas merely serves to unbalance this equation so that the preferred frame can be measured using the rigid apparatus.

Cahill asserts:

In fact ALL the experiments taken together are consistent, and they are implying that it is Lorentzian relativity which is being confirmed by all the experiments.

In terms of the test theory of Mansouri & Sexl my conjecture finds concise expression (for gas-mode interferometry) as a dependence on n of the parameters, α(n), β(n), and δ(n) of the test theory. For example:\alpha(n)=-\frac{1}{2}n,\ \beta(n)=-\frac{3}{2}n,\ and\ \delta(n)=2n and using Cahill's locally preferred frame having a magnitude of 417±40km/s in the direction of (α, δ)=(17.5h, 65˚).

In contrast, according to Cahill, all experiments taken together are NOT consistent with SR which in terms of the test theory of Mansouri & Sexl finds concise expression as precisely: \alpha=-\frac{1}{2},\ \beta=-\frac{3}{2},\ and\ \delta=2 with no locally preferred frame.

 

[pmb_phy]

That would be some trick!

Apparatus?? Now we're no longer simply in a vacuum, but also on a platform assembled from atoms fastened together by EM forces where apparently "...you have introduced a 'preferred frame', that of the average centre of momentum of the ..." apparatus

Frames are not very meaningful unless there is a coordinate system and each coordinate system in GR is defined such that it has a set of clocks and rods which define it. In fact in SR the coordinate system is just another term for "observer." But it is these clocks and rods which defines systems, even if simply by inference. But its easily said that he's simply speaking of the zero momentum frame anyway. When a zero momentum exists then there is a preferred frame.

Pete

 

[Garth]

And there is as well:Precision test for the new Michelson-Morley experiments with rotating cryogenic cavities

A new ether-drift experiment in Dusseldorf is currently measuring the relative frequency shift of two cryogenic optical resonators upon active rotations of the apparatus. I point out that the observed fractional amplitude of the sidereal variations of the signal in February, C_sid ~ (11 ± 2) · 10⁻¹⁶, is entirely consistent with the expectations based on Miller’s observations in the same epoch of the year. This leads to predict that, with future data collected in August-September, the observed sidereal variations should increase by ~ +70%, i.e. up to C_sid ~ (19 ± 2) · 10⁻¹⁶ retaining the present normalization. This would represent clean experimental evidence for the existence of a preferred frame.

(Emphasis mine)
What do others make of this paper?

Garth

 

[Aether]

And there is as well:Precision test for the new Michelson-Morley experiments with rotating cryogenic cavities

(Emphasis mine)
What do others make of this paper?

Garth

Nice try at exploiting gravitational refraction. However, regarding eqs. 4 & 5 of the paper, why wouldn't any effect due to the mass of the Earth be overwhelmed by a more than 14X greater (unobserved) effect due to the mass of the Sun? Except for an apparent sign error in eq. 5, the gravitational impact on the refractive index of the interferometric medium seems real enough, but likely to also affect the aberration of clocks/rods in the same proportion thus leaving no residual effect.

On the other hand, there is an electrostatic force imposed on the apparatus to balance the Earth's gravity which has no counterpart with respect to the Sun's gravity, nor with respect to the speed of light in vacuum. If that causes a detectable imbalance, then perhaps the effect could be amplified using a centrifuge. Thank you for the link, Garth.

 

[pervect]

I contacted Reginald Cahill today. This is what he had to say regarding the posts in this thread:

I never heard of Reginald Cahill before -- so I did a Google. The good news is that he apparently is a professor, so I presume he actually has a degree (I don't know for sure).

The bad news is that apparently the main person who cites his papers is the author himself (not a good sign),.

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:gr-qc/9812083

 

[Aether]

Fortunately, it is the outcome of experiments and not the number of citations to one's paper that ultimately matters to a scientist (as opposed to a theater critic). Nevertheless, when the results of any new experiment that is specifically designed to probe Cahill's assertion are published, then his paper(s) touching on the issue will be cited.

There are three basic experiments that need to be carried out in gas-mode with a variable refractive index medium (e.g., Michelson-Morley, Kennedy-Thorndyke, and Ives-Stilwell) in order to settle this matter. I am quite confident that I can do the first two experiments myself without an external funding source, and I intend to do so (unless someone else beats me to it).

 

[TheAntiRelative]

Didn't Einstein basically admit to a preferred frame(s) in the following 1916 quote?:

The only satisfactory answer must be that the physical system consisting of S1 and S2 reveals within itself no imaginable cause to which the differing behavior of S1 and S2 can be referred. The cause must therefore lie outside the system. We have to take it that the general laws of motion...must be such that the mechanical behavior of S1 and S2 is partly conditioned, in quite essential respects, by distant masses which we have not included in the system under consideration.

Doesn't that still fit with GR?

why wouldn't any effect due to the mass of the Earth be overwhelmed by a more than 14X greater (unobserved) effect due to the mass of the Sun?

Uhh, for the same reason that we don't all fly off the Earth toward the sun?

 

[Aether]

Uhh, for the same reason that we don't all fly off the Earth toward the sun?

AntiRelative, gravitational force is proportional to r^{-2}, but gravitational refraction is proportional to r^{-1}. So, we (the most fortunate inhabitants of this biosphere) feel a gravitational pull from the Earth that is about 1,666X stronger than that of the Sun, but the gravitational refraction due to the Sun's mass is around 14X stronger here than that due to the Earth's mass.

 

[pervect]

Fortunately, it is the outcome of experiments and not the number of citations to one's paper that ultimately matters to a scientist (as opposed to a theater critic). Nevertheless, when the results of any new experiment that is specifically designed to probe Cahill's assertion are published, then his paper(s) touching on the issue will be cited.

Well, I'll be more impressed with Cahill's results when there are some repeatable experimental results which back them and which don't back relativity. Currently, repeatable experimental results are all in accord with relativity.

 

[Aether]

Well, I'll be more impressed with Cahill's results when there are some repeatable experimental results which back them and which don't back relativity. Currently, repeatable experimental results are all in accord with relativity.

That's fine, pervect. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[DrChinese]

That's fine, pervect. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Don't look for any new results in favor of Cahill soon. Every imaginable test of GR supports it. Which leads to stranger and stranger theories to explain why such results are actually "wrong". As pointed out previously, Cahill has stayed away from new experiments in this fundamental area because there aren't any that support his position. So he must use old, discredited work.

Sure, there may be a better theory out there. But Cahill's work is trying to turn back the clock - at least the way it appears to me. Speculation is still speculation until you turn it into something more. Work like this is entirely ad hoc - no useful or testable predictions. I would think that a reputable physicist would acknowledge the obvious and address the issues head on rather than ignore them or accuse others of not understanding. Whenever the explanation is that "the rest of the world doesn't understand my theory", well...

Meanwhile GR is used everyday with the GPS (it's useful); and every day particle accelerators fail to see any evidence of drift (in accordance with GR). I'm looking for something like this from new theory - what problem does it solve? It seems like this theory is solving an invented problem.

 

[Juan R.]

Don't look for any new results in favor of Cahill soon. Every imaginable test of GR supports it. Which leads to stranger and stranger theories to explain why such results are actually "wrong". As pointed out previously, Cahill has stayed away from new experiments in this fundamental area because there aren't any that support his position. So he must use old, discredited work.

Sure, there may be a better theory out there. But Cahill's work is trying to turn back the clock - at least the way it appears to me. Speculation is still speculation until you turn it into something more. Work like this is entirely ad hoc - no useful or testable predictions. I would think that a reputable physicist would acknowledge the obvious and address the issues head on rather than ignore them or accuse others of not understanding. Whenever the explanation is that "the rest of the world doesn't understand my theory", well...

Meanwhile GR is used everyday with the GPS (it's useful); and every day particle accelerators fail to see any evidence of drift (in accordance with GR). I'm looking for something like this from new theory - what problem does it solve? It seems like this theory is solving an invented problem.

Unfortunately, DrChinese continues misunderstanding points.

The idea of that every imaginable test of GR supports GR is, of course, a joke. Well known material published in top journals like Physical Review D provides sufficient evidence on the contrary.

I would remember to "Chinese" that many supporting of GR relies in aditional asumptions, unobserved facts or ad hoc corrections of GR. For example, in the computation of Mercuri perihelion, one ignores time delay caused by retatrded potentials for maintain conservation of angular momentum. If one introduce a time delay, the orbit is destroyed, informatic programs ignore the delay. That is not i call a proof of GR. In the cosmological scale, GR asumes a 90% of unobserved misterium called dark matter, in redshift one ignores limbo variation, etc.

Your claim of that "Cahill has stayed away from new experiments in this fundamental area because there aren't any that support his position. So he must use old, discredited work" is so stupid like incorrect. DrChinese, great expertise, have your heard about the predictions of Cahill for the Prove B? He claims for an experimental distinction between GR predictions and his own predictions.

It is really interesting like others "supporters" of GR in this forum claim for refusing ideas of others on basis of experimental data. Always is ignored that some of those analisys of data are simply forced fits to save GR. Others, of course really are consistent with GR. It is also ignored, and this is very atonishing for me that actually, researchers in quantum gravity are working with the posibility of preferred frames. It is the so called scenario A) in quantum geometry:

"The relativity of inertial frames is broken and there exists a preferred frame. In this case the analysis has to be done in that preferred frame."

Curiosly, that explains the violations of the GZK bound observed in ultra high energy cosmic rays (UHECR) detected by the AGASA experiment. In the preferred frame the violations of the GZK bounds can be explained by either E^3 or E^4 terms in the proton energy-momentum relation.

At least we agree in one point "Sure, there may be a better theory out there."

We need a new theory of gravitty, that is sure, at least if you like real fit of experimental data, without ad hoc ignoring of terms in the equations or the appeal to unobserved things like spacetime curvature. Are you measuring it anyway?

Your appeal to that GR is used everyday with the GPS may be understood like full GR is not used in GPS how any that studied the topic seriously know, similar questions on your appeal to particle accelerators.

In theory development i posted that we need:

1) A theory giving exactly the Newtonian limit in a flat Euclidean space and absolute time. “Cartan-like” covariant “reformulations” are not that.

2) A theory for gravity on a flat spacetime. Unless one can measure curved spacetime, all our experimental evidence is for flat space and time.

3) A theory explaining usual Solar system tests: perihelion, radar delay, redshift, etc.

4) A theory explaining other tests, e.g. binary stars, but without appeal to unobserved gravitational waves, etc.

5) A theory where gravity speed is infinite. The model cannot violate SR but may, at the same time, fits experimental orbiting and astronomical data on BH, binary stars, aberration, etc.

6) A theory departing from GR at extragalactic regimes explaining data and empirical laws (e.g. TF one) without ad hoc assumptions like unobserved dark matter and fine tuning with two-three parameters.

7) A theory unified with EM.

8) A theory that can be satisfactorily quantized from first principles.

9) Solving of most hard problems of cosmology: inflation, cosmological dark matter (90%!), cosmological constant, etc.

and that GR does not verify those points.

 

[Aether]

As pointed out previously, Cahill has stayed away from new experiments in this fundamental area because there aren't any that support his position. So he must use old, discredited work...Cahill's work is trying to turn back the clock - at least the way it appears to me. Speculation is still speculation until you turn it into something more. Work like this is entirely ad hoc - no useful or testable predictions...I'm looking for something like this from new theory - what problem does it solve?

Can you cite any experiments (old or new) that are inconsistent with \alpha(n),\ \beta(n),\ and \ \delta(n) as described previsously?

 

[jeremyfiennes]

http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0412039

The de Witte, Miller and Michelson-Morely results show the Earth to have space-speed components due to 1) its diurnal rotation (0.35 km/s), 2) its orbit around the sun (30 km/s), and 3) its movement relative to the microwave background (~400 km/s). But the Hafele-Keating time lags seem to depend on the diurnal rotation only. Can anyone explain why? Jeremy Fiennes

 

[bcrowell]

Hi, Jeremy -

Welcome to Physics Forums!

The last post in this thread was in 2005. It's considered bad form here to resurrect a thread this old. Could you please start a new thread for your present question?

-Ben

 

[jeremyfiennes]

Hi Ben,

sorry, I hadn't realized it was that far back. But I have answered my own question: the planes' clocks' delays are an average over a complete round trip of the Earth, so the other effects cancel out. (I'll try to think of a better one next time!) Regards, Jeremy