Tom Roberts wrote:
vern@bealenet.com wrote:
MMXs done today would simply be looking for any anisotropy in the speed
of light and if any is found, then it needs to be investigated to see
if there's a pattern, orientation or direction.
There have been many such experiments, with thousands to millions of
times more sensitivity than the original MMX. None have seen a
significant anisotropy.
The FAQ has many references, but the most accurate and recent
experiments are not yet included.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
I have done some research regarding recent experiments to determine if
Michelson-Morley type experiments have returned null results. You can
add this to your FAQ.
A striking paper which was hot off the presses (released June 2005) can
be found at:
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/fulltext?format=application/pdf&identifier=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0506005
The abstract of this article: "Precision test of the new
Michelson-Morley experiments with rotating cryogenic cavities"
indicates:
"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 observied
fractional amplitude of the sidereal variations of the signal in
February, (11 +- 2 x 10^-16), is entirely consistent with the
expectations based on Miller's observations in the same epoch of the
year."
This article goes on to mathematically justify this conclusion. I have
a few points:
1. This details a very recent experimental result (February 2005), not
one conducted 100 years ago using crude apparatus.
2. The experiment mentioned uses the best possible and most modern
equipment (cryogenic cavities) and eliminates all concerns about how
data is collected and analysed.
3. The experiment does mention a result which is not consistent with
zero. The range mentioned was 9 x 10^-16 to 13 x 10^-16. This range
does not include zero and is therefore not consistent with a NULL
result. This refutes any claim that recent MMX experiments have
returned results which are consistent with NULL. The narrowness of the
results is also significant in that the error of +- 2 is 5 times the
primary value of 11 which would make it exceedingly difficult to put
zero within any reasonable range of results. If the results were more
like 11 +-6, then there would be a much greater chance (26%) that the
results could fall outside of the range.
4. As small as the experimental result was, it can be shown that it is
consistent with the conclusions that Dayton Miller drew from his
results.
5. The paper does appear to confirm the Dayton Miller results with an
experment performed just a few month ago. Thereby refuting any claim
that Dayton Millers, non-NULL MMX experiments have not been replicated
recently.
6. If they analysis of this paper is correct, this clearly places the
existence of a preferred frame on a firm experimental basis.
Another similar article surveys 2 other recent MMX experiments
and shows them to be consistent with Dayton Miller:
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/fulltext?format=application/pdf&identifier=oai:arXiv.org:gr-qc/0509066
fhummx
.
|
