Talk:Kennedy–Thorndike experiment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
- Warning: the description is very much messed up (nothing to do with rotation speed and even less with interpretation!), but regretfully I now have no time to correct it - harrylin AT gmx.net (1 day later:) OK, I now corrected the first paragraph. The rest is mostly erroneous. If someone else likes to rewrite the article , please do so only after reading the original paper (PDF, 1.6Mb, I can try to send it to you by email) - too much misinformation is around!
- OK, I cleaned it up. Harald88 19:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Some parts of this text are identical to material found here http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/1/2
- not anymore! Harald88 20:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
....differences in rotational speed between one end and the other (relative to the Earth) would cause a fringe shift to occur. That's wrong. The interferometer was stationary and not turned. At any given point on the Earth's surface, the magnitude and direction of the wind would vary with time of day and season equally for both arms and would cause the fringe shift, dependent on arm length difference. 25.8.05 N. Feist
- Hi Norbert, how are you? Indeed it was mostly wrong, so I completely rewrote it. Harald88 20:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Alternate views
As presented the new material defies the prevailing understanding. As such it should be presented in the proper light as an alternate view. If the new view can be shown to be the new prevailing view with evidence, it can be presented as such, but it would have to be weaved in much more usefully than an indented comment that purports to have omniscience. - Taxman Talk 00:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Specifically, Ati wrote:
- While the prevailing popular belief is that "no phase shifts will be detected while the earth moves around the sun", in reality a slow time varying fringe shift was detected by Dayton Miller. Later, Maurice Allais reanalized Miller's data and confirmed the presence of the slow time varying shift. While there was a lot of controversy about the origin of this shift (see Robert Shankland), the controversy has been recently resolved by high precision, modern re-enactments of the experiment. The Kennedy Thorndike experiment predicts a second order effect in v/c where v=k*sin(w*t) .
- - * ↑
- - H. Müller, C. Braxmaier, S. Herrmann, O. Pradl, C. Lämmerzahl, J. Mlynek, S. Schiller, and A. Peters: ,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 11, 1101-1108 (2002).
- - H. Müller, C. Braxmaier, S. Herrmann, A. Peters, and C. Lämmerzahl, hep-ph/0212289, Phys. Rev. D 67, 056006 (2003).
- - C. Braxmaier, H. Müller, O. Pradl, J. Mlynek, A. Peters, S. Schiller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 010401 (2002).
- Ati, which of these describe the "modern re-enactments of the experiment" as well as their "prediction"? Please provide the titles, thanks! And am I right that you refer to the Cahill's quantum foam theory?
- http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0309016
- If so, it would be more appropriate to link with one sentence to the quantum foam article, and to eventually add such details to that article. Harald88 19:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
