Talk:Martin Tajmar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-01-17. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
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. |
|
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses. |
|
[edit] Understates
Article certainly understates the results of Tajmar's research : antigravity is not mentioned, nor the stupendous order of magnitude of the result above that predicted by General Relativity alone 04:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Godspeed John Glenn! Will 04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The statement: "spinning ring" ist only partly correct. The effect was observer accompagnying an acceleration of the spin! This is a major difference to the P. Experiment. As I'm not native english speaking I'm not shure how to express correctly "rotational" acceleration versus linear acceleration 145.253.2.27 10:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Points Concerning Tajmar's paper
I'm not sure what became of these experimental results. Were they ever verified?
Here are a few questions for the intrepid questioner :
1) Where are the further technical details of the apparatus used? the following link has a few technical details, just not enough :
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3806.pdf
-
- Component descriptions and schematics of their equipment are provided in the following two volumes:
-
-
- Tcisco 16:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
-
2) Where are the RAW numerical results obtained from the experiment? Are they online at Tajmar's website (I have not seen them there).
3) Has anyone repeated Tajmar's experiment?
4) What does Tajmar's paper (link above), not contain more in the way of calculations to explain :
i) How the (predicted) mass of the Cooper pair electrons is calculated (via General Relativity, for the given experimental set-up, etc...).
5) Suspect quote : "This is further supported by a recent independent experimental test, where a lead disc at liquid helium temperature was spinning close to the world’s most precise ring laser gyro UG2 from the Canterbury Ring Laser Group (Graham et al, 2007)."
This quote is odd, because, within the conclusion of the Canerbury paper (http://www2.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/%7Ephysrin/papers/SuperFrameDragging2007.pdf), the following is stated :
"Within the uncertainty of the experiment there is no indication of any inertial frame dragging due to the rotation of the nearby lead superconductor. The error of the experiment is ~3% of the effect predicted [5, 6] from the theory of Tajmar and de Matos for a gravitomagnetic field anagalous to the London dipole field. We can thus place a lower limit on any frame dragging effect. If the effect exists it is at least 21 times smaller than indicated by the theory."
I am uncertain as to the EXACT meaning of "inertial frame dragging", though I do believe that Graham's paper ((http://www2.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/%7Ephysrin/papers/SuperFrameDragging2007.pdf)) disagrees with Tajmar's paper (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3806.pdf). BUT Tajmar's paper QUOTES Graham's paper for the purposes of verifying results/observations made by Tajmar.
Am I correct on this last point? Does Grahams paper state that it does NOT verify Tajmar's observations, or is it stating that their experiment was not sufficiently accurate to measure the phenomena observed by Tajmar? This would beg the question as to why Tajmar then refers to Grahams paper despite knowing that Graham's paper DOES NOT provide the verification which Tajmar appeals to within his paper.
Please do feel free to point out any of my errors on this point.
-
- I agree with your observation and confusion. Graham's preprint states "No frame dragging effect was observed by us" in the abstract. That sentence stems from the statement you cited from the conclusion. I don't understand how the statements by the New Zealand team could be interpreted as confirmations of Tajmar's conclusions. Tcisco 18:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I was half way through a fix up of this and let it slide. Basically all I did was clean up references a bit prior to the major change of giving a more accurate account of the NZ work. If someone beats me to it, great! If not, I'll probably get around to it some time myself. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- The point here is not the actual data of Graham's group, but the interpretation thereof. Now G's group were being very cautious in dismissing any apparent trend as it appeared to be not over 3 sigma of the noise. However, their mean estimates already show the statistical argument may be more complex, and insofar as there is a trend, the naked eye see a remarkably clear trend in the sense of Tajmar's interpretation. I believe that a sophisticated stats analysis might only confirm what the eye sees. Granted, neither G's nor T's groups has done very detailed stats on the significance of the trends. It would be good if T & co. could do this to justify their interpretation. Note that anomalous readings of a Gravity Probe B experiment may also confirm T's findings( [1] ,[2] ) - it's either that or by a remarkable coincidence electrostatic patches simulate almost exactly the T effect size - patches that should not have slipped by the extremely stringent construcion of the metal spheres. --hughey 22:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have seen just statements from Tajmar himself, but the guy seems to be cautious himself and is very careful not to overstate his case. All he says is "I have tested this, I have measured an effect, I have a very preliminary interpretation, I need feedback from the scientific community to verify the results and improve the interpretation". Doesn't sound like a fake (which doesn't completely eliminate the possibility, of course).
- Re point 3: The experiment isn't verified yet, but several anonymous groups have started independent verification and are expected to publish in summer.
- Several months for setting up a $2M project doesn't seem unreasonable to me, so the timeline matches.
- I'm not sure why the groups want to stay anonymous. On one hand, I can understand that the verifiers don't want to be connected to Tajmar in case the whole thing turns out to be a sham, on the other hand, it is a bit strange that not even a single groups has gone public with the verification plans (people are different and have different ideas about when to publish). To the very least, this means very few independent verification groups - not surprising given the cost of the experiments, of course, but it means that the whole thing may well stay weakly verified after the first round of experiments. IOW we can expect that either all verifications fail and nothing is ever heard again of the issue, or that the verifiers report partial and/or preliminary success, starting a second round of verification which would then give clarity.
- 87.182.35.35 (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Biography
This article is not a biography - the vast majority of content here is about the experiments, not the individual. See, for example Einstein vs. general relativity. This is a classing WP:COATRACK, and is not acceptable. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- You have blanked far more than could conceivably be interpreted as coatracking. The information about the UofC research is hardly a coatrack; their experiment was undertaken specifically to verify Tajmar's. I have kept ScienceApologist's Content tag, which is appropriate, and removed the one offending sentence at the end. The rest should stay until the AfD is closed, as it has bearing on the discussion there. Please follow due process. Freederick (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to feel that the AFD precludes improving the argument. It was my content tag, not his. There is no "due process," here, but since you are unwilling to engage on the substantive point untill the AFD is closed I will wait. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. COATRACK#What_is_not_a_coatrack applies. Martin Tajmar isn't well-known enough to warrant a separate article, and the effect he claims to have measured isn't verified well enough to warrant a separate article either. The lemma really should be the "Tajmar hypothesis" or something like that, but that terminology isn't established yet (and won't ever be), so I'd suggest leaving it as is until the dust settles. 87.182.35.35 (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
