4 ms·

It works until it doesn't. «Hey, science community, look: I did an experiment and it disproves X, so everything you build on top of X is flawed too. Start from

It works until it doesn't. «Hey, science community, look: I did an experiment and it disproves X, so everything you build on top of X is flawed too. Start from scratch, please!». Science community: «fck off». For example: Michelson-Morley experiment — disproved by LIGO/VIRGO and NANOGrav.

i_no_can_eat 3y ago
> For example: Michelson-Morley experiment — disproved by LIGO/VIRGO and NANOGrav. Care to elaborate?
- oneshtein 3y ago
  Michelson-Morley experiment found no changes in speed of light at all. Nothing. Zero fluctuations. These fluctuations of speed of light were found much later, by LIGO/VIRGO and NANOGrav. The flaw of Michelson-Morley experiment is that it was performed in isolated environment, but tried to measure an external effect. Imagine that we want to measure atmospheric circulation in the same way: by measuring speed of wind in an closely isolated and insulated room: it's impossible. However, Michelson-Morley experiment is one of corner stones for theory of Relativity. > This incongruous result puzzled the physicists of the world until 1905 when Einstein published his theory of relativity. Viewed in the light of Einstein's revolutionary work, the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment were not only predictable, but provided experimental confirmation of Einstein's theory.
  - sinuhe69 3y ago
    Michelson’s experiments only proved there is no “Aether”, a supposedly invisible medium to carriers light. It also proved that the speed of light isn’t affected by (relative) movements. In some sense, yes one can say the speed of light of is constant. But in the context of the cosmos, it strictly doesn’t say anything about the speed of light in the past.
    - oneshtein 3y ago
      However, LIGO, VIRGO, and NANOGrav experiments and observations proved that speed of light in vacuum is NOT constant, which makes Michelsons's experiment obsolete.
      - i_no_can_eat 3y ago
        The LIGO/VIRGO experiments proved no such thing. You seem to have a fundamentally flawed understanding of these experiments. That the speed of light is constant in vacuum is one of the fundamental assumptions of general relativity. The results of LIGO/VIRGO are so far fully compatible with GR.
        oneshtein 3y ago
        ^ This is the problem we are looking for in this discussion.
        i_no_can_eat 3y ago
        The problem in this discussion is that you don't have an understanding of the concepts involved. You haven't properly understood the LIGO experiments and you clearly know nothing of general relativity. There really is no point in continuing this further.
        oneshtein 3y ago
        It doesn't looks like you wanted to discuss flaws in GR with a dissident, who, obviously, too stupid to understand GR and SR. You told me that. You did the job. Now, «shut up and calculate».
        i_no_can_eat 3y ago
        You started this discussion saying "LIGO, VIRGO, and NANOGrav experiments and observations proved that speed of light in vacuum is NOT constant". This is completely absurd, as anyone who works in the field will tell you. I never said you're too stupid to understand. What I said, and maintain, is that you lack a basic understanding of the concepts involved. If you want to have a proper discussion, you need to first properly study general relativity, and refrain from making ridiculous assertions about things you are obviously not an expert on.
  - less_less 3y ago
    I don't agree with this characterization. This is not to say that foundational studies are never invalidated: I just don't think MM was one of them. > Michelson-Morley experiment found no changes in speed of light at all. Nothing. Zero fluctuations. The MM experiment aimed to observe a predicted effect of the theory of luminiferous aether, which would have enabled measuring the Earth's speed relative to a canonical reference frame (the aether). It was sufficiently precise to observe that predicted effect but did not observe it, which provided strong evidence that the aether theory was wrong. Finding that any variation in the propagation of light was too small to be detected by their instruments (and too small to be consistent with aether theory) is not the same as finding that it's exactly zero. > These fluctuations of speed of light were found much later, by LIGO/VIRGO and NANOGrav. It's not the same fluctuations though: these experiments found much smaller fluctuations than MM looked for, from a different effect. They're not even (understood to be) fluctuations in c, but in the shape of space. > The flaw of Michelson-Morley experiment is that it was performed in isolated environment, but tried to measure an external effect. The later interferometer experiments (LIGO and VIRGO) are conceptually very similar to the original MM experiment. The environment is not fundamentally different, and on the contrary LIGO and VIRGO are better isolated (against ordinary vibrations: we don't know any way to isolate an experiment from gravitational waves). They're just much larger and more precise, which is why they can observe the much smaller effect of gravitational waves. > However, Michelson-Morley experiment is one of corner stones for theory of Relativity. Yes, but the effects observed by LIGO and VIRGO are predicted by general relativity, which is what inspired scientists to carry out those experiments. As far as I know, they are consistent with GR to the extent that LIGO and VIRGO have measured them.
    - oneshtein 3y ago
      > The MM experiment aimed to observe a predicted effect of the theory of luminiferous aether ... which provided strong evidence that the aether theory was wrong. MM failed to observe effects predicted by theory of STATIC luminiferous aether. It looks like there is no absolute aether frame (which will be strange to have in the infinite Universe). > They're just much larger and more precise, which is why they can observe the much smaller effect of gravitational waves. Yep. We can discard MM experiment now, because LIGO/Virgo is much better. If we want to measure wind at high altitude, but we put our measurement tool deep and isolated it well, with high enough precision, we will be able to measure distant earthquakes and nuclear explosions. No luck with wind, of course. To catch the wind, we need something like NANOgrav, but at much smaller scale at high orbit around Earth. Luckily, we have large number of GPS satellites with high-precision clocks in the sky: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10291-017-0686-6 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10291-017-0686-6 . I see strong annual signal here. > Yes, but the effects observed by LIGO and VIRGO are predicted by general relativity This doesn't make GR unique. Other theories can predict this too. It's just waves in a medium. However, GR is abstract theory, which lacks explanation power. Lack of explanation causes lack of understanding.
brabel 3y ago
> Hey, science community, look: I did an experiment and it disproves X, so everything you build on top of X is flawed too. Start from scratch, please! This happened several times, for example when Einstein was proven right about the Theory of Relativity, showing that Newton's Laws of Motion were not precisely correct. The physics community eventually found out that Newton's Laws were a really good approximation of the better theory under conditions we experience on Earth (if you plug numbers at human scale to the Theory of Relativity, the equations actually approximate really closely to Newton's Equations which is truly remarkable - you can do it yourself as the Maths are not too complicated at all - I did this in Physics 101, first year undergrad Major in Physics), so they were not just dismissed, but continue to be used to this day as they are extremely successful in predicting the movement of bodies at human scale. Your comparison with Michelson-Morley VS LIGO shows you don't really comprehend what you're saying, as all LIGO did was show that Gravitational waves can distort space-time to an extremely small degree (compared to astronomical measurements), which does not prove at all that light speed is not constant in all directions - and it boggles my mind why you think it does! You could make the same incorrect argument by mentioning how light speed is not the same in different materials?? The fact that space-time is distorted at places (including near large bodies as well - even ignoring gravitational waves) just shows that light can have different speeds when you consider such distortions - it feels stupid having to even say this out loud - but no, that doesn't prove light speed is not constant in a vacuum that is free of such space-time distortions!
- oneshtein 3y ago
  > Gravitational waves can distort space-time to an extremely small degree Space-time is not a physical term, it's framebuffer. You are talking about mathematical model. Can you switch to physic, please?
  - fasterik 3y ago
    This is nonsense. Spacetime is a concept intrinsic to both quantum field theory and general relativity, our best physical theories. Quantum fields are defined as a value for every point in spacetime. General relativity defines gravity as the curvature of spacetime. Show me a physical theory that makes the same predictions without spacetime, and you can probably win a Nobel prize.

i_no_can_eat 3y ago

> For example: Michelson-Morley experiment — disproved by LIGO/VIRGO and NANOGrav. Care to elaborate?

oneshtein 3y ago
Michelson-Morley experiment found no changes in speed of light at all. Nothing. Zero fluctuations. These fluctuations of speed of light were found much later, by LIGO/VIRGO and NANOGrav. The flaw of Michelson-Morley experiment is that it was performed in isolated environment, but tried to measure an external effect. Imagine that we want to measure atmospheric circulation in the same way: by measuring speed of wind in an closely isolated and insulated room: it's impossible. However, Michelson-Morley experiment is one of corner stones for theory of Relativity. > This incongruous result puzzled the physicists of the world until 1905 when Einstein published his theory of relativity. Viewed in the light of Einstein's revolutionary work, the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment were not only predictable, but provided experimental confirmation of Einstein's theory.
- sinuhe69 3y ago
  Michelson’s experiments only proved there is no “Aether”, a supposedly invisible medium to carriers light. It also proved that the speed of light isn’t affected by (relative) movements. In some sense, yes one can say the speed of light of is constant. But in the context of the cosmos, it strictly doesn’t say anything about the speed of light in the past.
  - oneshtein 3y ago
    However, LIGO, VIRGO, and NANOGrav experiments and observations proved that speed of light in vacuum is NOT constant, which makes Michelsons's experiment obsolete.
    - i_no_can_eat 3y ago
      The LIGO/VIRGO experiments proved no such thing. You seem to have a fundamentally flawed understanding of these experiments. That the speed of light is constant in vacuum is one of the fundamental assumptions of general relativity. The results of LIGO/VIRGO are so far fully compatible with GR.
      - oneshtein 3y ago
        ^ This is the problem we are looking for in this discussion.
        i_no_can_eat 3y ago
        The problem in this discussion is that you don't have an understanding of the concepts involved. You haven't properly understood the LIGO experiments and you clearly know nothing of general relativity. There really is no point in continuing this further.
        oneshtein 3y ago
        It doesn't looks like you wanted to discuss flaws in GR with a dissident, who, obviously, too stupid to understand GR and SR. You told me that. You did the job. Now, «shut up and calculate».
        i_no_can_eat 3y ago
        You started this discussion saying "LIGO, VIRGO, and NANOGrav experiments and observations proved that speed of light in vacuum is NOT constant". This is completely absurd, as anyone who works in the field will tell you. I never said you're too stupid to understand. What I said, and maintain, is that you lack a basic understanding of the concepts involved. If you want to have a proper discussion, you need to first properly study general relativity, and refrain from making ridiculous assertions about things you are obviously not an expert on.
- less_less 3y ago
  I don't agree with this characterization. This is not to say that foundational studies are never invalidated: I just don't think MM was one of them. > Michelson-Morley experiment found no changes in speed of light at all. Nothing. Zero fluctuations. The MM experiment aimed to observe a predicted effect of the theory of luminiferous aether, which would have enabled measuring the Earth's speed relative to a canonical reference frame (the aether). It was sufficiently precise to observe that predicted effect but did not observe it, which provided strong evidence that the aether theory was wrong. Finding that any variation in the propagation of light was too small to be detected by their instruments (and too small to be consistent with aether theory) is not the same as finding that it's exactly zero. > These fluctuations of speed of light were found much later, by LIGO/VIRGO and NANOGrav. It's not the same fluctuations though: these experiments found much smaller fluctuations than MM looked for, from a different effect. They're not even (understood to be) fluctuations in c, but in the shape of space. > The flaw of Michelson-Morley experiment is that it was performed in isolated environment, but tried to measure an external effect. The later interferometer experiments (LIGO and VIRGO) are conceptually very similar to the original MM experiment. The environment is not fundamentally different, and on the contrary LIGO and VIRGO are better isolated (against ordinary vibrations: we don't know any way to isolate an experiment from gravitational waves). They're just much larger and more precise, which is why they can observe the much smaller effect of gravitational waves. > However, Michelson-Morley experiment is one of corner stones for theory of Relativity. Yes, but the effects observed by LIGO and VIRGO are predicted by general relativity, which is what inspired scientists to carry out those experiments. As far as I know, they are consistent with GR to the extent that LIGO and VIRGO have measured them.
  - oneshtein 3y ago
    > The MM experiment aimed to observe a predicted effect of the theory of luminiferous aether ... which provided strong evidence that the aether theory was wrong. MM failed to observe effects predicted by theory of STATIC luminiferous aether. It looks like there is no absolute aether frame (which will be strange to have in the infinite Universe). > They're just much larger and more precise, which is why they can observe the much smaller effect of gravitational waves. Yep. We can discard MM experiment now, because LIGO/Virgo is much better. If we want to measure wind at high altitude, but we put our measurement tool deep and isolated it well, with high enough precision, we will be able to measure distant earthquakes and nuclear explosions. No luck with wind, of course. To catch the wind, we need something like NANOgrav, but at much smaller scale at high orbit around Earth. Luckily, we have large number of GPS satellites with high-precision clocks in the sky: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10291-017-0686-6 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10291-017-0686-6 . I see strong annual signal here. > Yes, but the effects observed by LIGO and VIRGO are predicted by general relativity This doesn't make GR unique. Other theories can predict this too. It's just waves in a medium. However, GR is abstract theory, which lacks explanation power. Lack of explanation causes lack of understanding.

brabel 3y ago

> Hey, science community, look: I did an experiment and it disproves X, so everything you build on top of X is flawed too. Start from scratch, please! This happened several times, for example when Einstein was proven right about the Theory of Relativity, showing that Newton's Laws of Motion were not precisely correct. The physics community eventually found out that Newton's Laws were a really good approximation of the better theory under conditions we experience on Earth (if you plug numbers at human scale to the Theory of Relativity, the equations actually approximate really closely to Newton's Equations which is truly remarkable - you can do it yourself as the Maths are not too complicated at all - I did this in Physics 101, first year undergrad Major in Physics), so they were not just dismissed, but continue to be used to this day as they are extremely successful in predicting the movement of bodies at human scale. Your comparison with Michelson-Morley VS LIGO shows you don't really comprehend what you're saying, as all LIGO did was show that Gravitational waves can distort space-time to an extremely small degree (compared to astronomical measurements), which does not prove at all that light speed is not constant in all directions - and it boggles my mind why you think it does! You could make the same incorrect argument by mentioning how light speed is not the same in different materials?? The fact that space-time is distorted at places (including near large bodies as well - even ignoring gravitational waves) just shows that light can have different speeds when you consider such distortions - it feels stupid having to even say this out loud - but no, that doesn't prove light speed is not constant in a vacuum that is free of such space-time distortions!

oneshtein 3y ago
> Gravitational waves can distort space-time to an extremely small degree Space-time is not a physical term, it's framebuffer. You are talking about mathematical model. Can you switch to physic, please?
- fasterik 3y ago
  This is nonsense. Spacetime is a concept intrinsic to both quantum field theory and general relativity, our best physical theories. Quantum fields are defined as a value for every point in spacetime. General relativity defines gravity as the curvature of spacetime. Show me a physical theory that makes the same predictions without spacetime, and you can probably win a Nobel prize.