MMX with sound

[caveman1917]

This thread is started for a critical examination of the claim in macaw's current signature line. It is a tangent to the discussion in this thread, as was agreed upon in this post specifically.

The statement under question originated in this thread, in this post specifically.

For reference, here is the statement under question:

MMX with light in vacuum, MMX with light in a refractive medium, MMX with sound, MMX with ping-pong balls, MMX with billiard balls are identical : they all produce a null result. If you think otherwise, you have found a way of refuting relativity and of detecting "absolute motion".

macaw, could you please upload the relevant paper again that prompted you to this claim, for reference?

[caveman1917]

As per the usual distinction on this board, let us first see to what category the claim belongs, ATM or mainstream.

So before we proceed, macaw, can you point to a mainstream reference, in the peer-reviewed literature, that contains your claim? Specifically that if one were to perform an MMX with sound getting a non-null result, one is "refuting relativity".

[macaw]

As per the usual distinction on this board, let us first see to what category the claim belongs, ATM or mainstream.

So before we proceed, macaw, can you point to a mainstream reference, in the peer-reviewed literature, that contains your claim? Specifically that if one were to perform an MMX with sound getting a non-null result, one is "refuting relativity".

The document is here.
If you claim that MMX executed with sound using proper experimental techniques is capable of producing non-null results (within the error bars), your claim is clearly ATM, so you can move your thread straight into the ATM section.

[caveman1917]

The document is here.

Could you please check on that, it's giving the error:

Sorry, we are unable to retrieve the document for viewing or you don't have permission to view the document.

I am properly logged in with google, and it did not give that error the first time i looked at it when you first brought it up in the other thread.

If you claim that MMX executed with sound using proper experimental techniques is capable of producing non-null results (within the error bars), your claim is clearly ATM, so you can move your thread straight into the ATM section.

That's a shift of the burden of proof. At this point i am making no claim about it, i am asking you to provide a reference for the claim you make. Anybody making any claim on a science board can be called upon to provide a mainstream reference containing said claim in the peer-reviewed literature, if one wants to claim their statement to be mainstream science.

[macaw]

Could you please check on that, it's giving the error:

I am properly logged in with google, and it did not give that error the first time i looked at it when you first brought it up in the other thread.

Try again, the permissions were wrong.

That's a shift of the burden of proof. At this point i am making no claim about it, i am asking you to provide a reference for the claim you make.

You must be making a claim to the contrary since you opened the thread. So let me ask you a few questions:

1. Do you think that MMX done with sound could produce a non-null result? Of course, we assume proper experimental techniques, i.e. maintaining the air pressure, temperature, humidity constant throughout the duration of the experiment.

2. According to you, is there any error in the writeup I furnished you with? If so, what are in your opinion , the errors?

3. If someone (you?) managed to disprove the theory in my paper and if this someone ran the experiment, could that person get a non-null result?

[caveman1917]

Try again, the permissions were wrong.

That works, thank you.

You must be making a claim to the contrary since you opened the thread.

I am opening a critical examination of a claim that's been made on this forum. In order for the proper venue (S&T or ATM) of that discussion to be determined, it must first be established wether the claim belongs to mainstream science, as published in peer-reviewed literature, or not. The burden of proof on that rests with the claimant, such are the rules of scientific discourse.

So before this discussion can proceed in the proper venue, can you please provide a mainstream reference containing your claim or not?
Let us first establish venue, and then we can discuss.

[macaw]

That works, thank you.



I am opening a critical examination of a claim that's been made on this forum. In order for the proper venue (S&T or ATM) of that discussion to be determined, it must first be established wether the claim belongs to mainstream science, as published in peer-reviewed literature, or not. The burden of proof on that rests with the claimant, such are the rules of scientific discourse.

Can you please make clear what is your contention? Is it that MMX with sound will not produce a null result? Is it that if it produced a non-null result , this wouldn't upset the theory of relativity? In order to get started, I need to understand what is your contention. Can you also answer Q1-Q3 above? Thank you.

So before this discussion can proceed in the proper venue, can you please provide a mainstream reference containing your claim or not?

MMX using sound in the air (or any other medium that propagates sound) is identical to MMX using light in non-vacuum. Do you disagree with this? If you don't, then I can provide you with a few references to MMX using light in non-vacuum.

[pzkpfw]

How about both of you knock off the claims/accusation of ATM? Leave that to the moderators. Just do the discussion thing, if you wish.

Edit: And caveman1917, you are on shaky ground starting a new thread, and then claiming burdon of proof is on macaw. I know what you mean to do (and personally, macaws signature line sticks in my craw a bit), but in this forum you can't force someone to answer questions in a new thread they didn't start and in which they didn't make the claim(s).

[macaw]

I produced more than a "proof" , I produced a detailed writeup, at the level of a scientific paper. If there is anything wrong with it, I would certainly like to know what the contentions are.

[caveman1917]

I produced more than a "proof"

I was not asking you for proof of your claim, i was asking you to show that the claim is a subset of mainstream science.
But as, per pzkpfw's post, that is to be left to the moderators, i will await further judgement on their part.

[macaw]

I was not asking you for proof of your claim, i was asking you to show that the claim is a subset of mainstream science.

Do you think that it isn't? Do you understand the paper? If you do, what are your objections? I asked you several questions, can you answer them?

[wd40]

An MMX type experiment was going to be performed on a Shuttle in 1984. But when the implication if the result was non-null was realised, it was cancelled.

[caveman1917]

Do you think that it isn't?

I make no claim about that here.

I asked you several questions, can you answer them?

I certainly can, but will not yet, because i will first await further mod judgement on the appropriate venue.

[macaw]

An MMX type experiment was going to be performed on a Shuttle in 1984. But when the implication if the result was non-null was realised, it was cancelled.

can you provide proof of your statement?

[Gsquare]

can you provide proof of your statement?

You beat me to it;

Please provide a reference or preferably a link.

G^2

[Ken G]

Personally, I don't see the point of the claim. The paper cited assumes that the wave speed s is isotropic in the lab frame. Of course there will be a null result in that case-- it is like saying the MMX would have gotten a null result had the lab frame been the aether frame, which is trivial and does not test the presence of an aether. Similarly, assuming the sound speed s is isotropic in the lab frame is like saying there is no wind in the lab frame, which is not the right frame to test the possibility of a medium called air. It is not wrong, it is irrelevant. As for macaw's signature claim, that is indeed wrong, if interpreted in what would seem to be the most straightforward way. Since the MMX was originally designed to detect an aether wind using light, it could certainly be used to detect an air wind using sound, or else it would have been among the most ill-conceived experiments of all time.

And no, I don't need any equations to see how obvious this all is.

[Gsquare]

Personally, I don't see the point of the claim. ..... Since the MMX was originally designed to detect an aether wind using light, it could certainly be used to detect an air wind using sound, .

Actually, it seems to me the null result of "MMX in air" claim could be used to favor an ether medium in vacuum MMX.

IF "MMX in air" result is null (and we know there IS a medium) , then it favors the possibility that the null MMX in vacuum also has an (ether) medium.

Just saying..

G^2

[caveman1917]

...

What he said.
Or equivalently what i said earlier here and here.

I presume that answers your questions, macaw?

[dgavin]

Wans't MMX Intels equivelent of AMD's 3D-Now architecture back when with P-5 and the AMD's K-6 first came out? Infact MMX is still the accpeted acroymn for Multi-Media Exchange.

Might want to use a different acronym for your Sig block, or you'll have old time computer geeks gettign confused lol

[Tensor]

Actually, it seems to me the null result of "MMX in air" claim could be used to favor an ether medium in vacuum MMX.

IF "MMX in air" result is null (and we know there IS a medium) , then it favors the possibility that the null MMX in vacuum also has an (ether) medium.

Not really. The types of waves that make up sound and light are different. While sound waves are longitudinal and requires a medium, a light waves are transverse and do not. You also have the problem of explaining why a wave of light would require a medium, but a particle of light (photon) doesn't require a medium (remember the photon is a completely quantum particle and aether is not a consideration in Quantum Field Theory). There are also the secondary considerations of specifically detailing the properties of the medium waving in the case of a light wave(after all, the medium for the sound wave can be detailed).

Just saying..

G^2

So am I...

[Tensor]

You beat me to it;

Please provide a reference or preferably a link.

G^2

Yeah, count me on this also.

[macaw]

Personally, I don't see the point of the claim.

Q1: Which claim? That MMX with sound produces a null result? Another claim?

The paper cited assumes that the wave speed s is isotropic in the lab frame. Of course there will be a null result in that case-- it is like saying the MMX would have gotten a null result had the lab frame been the aether frame, which is trivial and does not test the presence of an aether.

Q2: So, you did not read the paper? Or did you? Which one it is?

Similarly, assuming the sound speed s is isotropic in the lab frame is like saying there is no wind in the lab frame, which is not the right frame to test the possibility of a medium called air.

Ah, it is clear, you didn't read , yet you offer your opinion. No, it has nothing to do with "a medium called air". It has to do with something else, you will learn what it is if you read the paper.

Q3: Why do you think that mainstream physicists found necessary to execute MMX in non-vacuum?
Q4: Did you know that MMX using sound is exactly the same as MMX using light in non vacuum (has the same theoretical description)?

As for macaw's signature claim, that is indeed wrong, if interpreted in what would seem to be the most straightforward way.

Q5: So far you gave ample demonstration that you don't understand what the experiment is about, so how can you pass judgement?

Since the MMX was originally designed to detect an aether wind using light, it could certainly be used to detect an air wind using sound, or else it would have been among the most ill-conceived experiments of all time.

Bad logic, this is not what MMX with light in non-vacuum (or, its exact equivalent, MMX with sound is all about).

Q6: Do you really understand what the experiment is about? Hint: it does not detect sound speed wrt air, it does something else. You need to start by figuring out what MMX with light in non-vacuum is all about. It isn't about speed light wrt glass, that much I can tell you.

And no, I don't need any equations to see how obvious this all is.

Maybe you should study the paper, you would learn that MMX in glass is not about light speed wrt glass , exactly as MMX using sound is not about sound speed wrt air.

[macaw]

What he said.
Or equivalently what i said earlier here and here.

I presume that answers your questions, macaw?

My answers to and questions for KenG apply exactly the same to you. You two guys may want to start answering the questions, in doing so , it might clear a lot of your misconceptions about MMX in special and SR in general.

[captain swoop]

An MMX type experiment was going to be performed on a Shuttle in 1984. But when the implication if the result was non-null was realised, it was cancelled.

This post is a hijack of the thread. wd40 This is a claim that needs supporting. However you do not make it or support it in someone elses thread. If you want to persue this then start your own thread.

Other Posters I will treat any further responses to wd40s post as hijack.

Infraction given to wd40 for hijacking a thread

[Ken G]

Actually, it seems to me the null result of "MMX in air" claim could be used to favor an ether medium in vacuum MMX.

You are saying that a null result in MMX wouldn't mean anything if an experiment on sound would also be null. I'm saying that M and M would have known that, so imagining that an MMX on sound would be null is like saying M and M were idiots.

[Ken G]

Q1: Which claim? That MMX with sound produces a null result?

What I see as pointless is what your paper shows-- that MMX in sound gives a null result when there is no wind in the air. It comes down to what is meant by "a null result"-- you mean that one could still derive relativity using sound, but that's just painfully obvious to everyone who knows physics. What they think you mean by "a null result" is no change in the interference due to different times of flight in the two configurations.

Q2: So, you did not read the paper?

I read it until you asserted your assumption that s was isotropic in the lab frame. That's as far as I needed to read. It made it clear to me that what you are actually saying is not what it sounds like the words mean, nor is particularly profound or interesting.

No, it has nothing to do with "a medium called air". It has to do with something else, you will learn what it is if you read the paper.

Q1: Why, in that paper, did you assume that s was isotropic in the lab frame? Q2: Why do you think you still get a "null result" if you drop that assumption? Answering these questions will help everyone see that your claim was never what it sounded like it was, nor will end up seeming very interesting.

Q3: Why do you think that mainstream physicists found necessary to execute MMX in non-vacuum?

This is an odd question, but it suggests to me that what you mean by "MMX would be null for sound waves" is actually not the most straightforward interpretation of that claim. MMX was a test for an aether wind. The words "MMX would be null for a sound wave," when interpreted in the most natural way, sounds like you are saying that an MMX-type experiment could not detect an air wind. That's obviously wrong, so you must think you are saying something else. It is probably your choice of words that is the problem here.

Q4: Did you know that MMX using sound is exactly the same as MMX using light in non vacuum (has the same theoretical description)?

Again, if one simply interprets these words in the most straighforward manner, it is obviously complete nonsense (see, for example, Tensor's posts). So clearly you mean something different with these words than that it sounds to everyone else like you mean. I suspect that when your actual meaning becomes clear, it will be a perfectly obvious claim, when said better. I suspect all you are saying is that relativity works for all of physics, not just the physics of light propagation. Yes, anyone who teaches relativity as a theory of light propagation is certainly not getting it.

Q5: So far you gave ample demonstration that you don't understand what the experiment is about, so how can you pass judgement?

Answer my Q1 and Q2, and then it will be clearer just exactly what is being judged in the first place.

Q6: Do you really understand what the experiment is about? Hint: it does not detect sound speed wrt air, it does something else.

Yes, as I suspected, you are simply meaning something different with the words than what everyone else thinks you mean. You need to change your sig so that it is not so misleading. Not that I think it is particularly profound, mind you.

Maybe you should study the paper, you would learn that MMX in glass is not about light speed wrt glass, exactly as MMX using sound is not about sound speed wrt air.

It is perfeclty obvious that MMX in glass is not about light speed wrt glass, because if one is doing MMX wrt glass, one does not assume c in glass is isotropic in the lab frame-- if the glass is moving in the lab frame. So as I suspected all along, you are simply making a different claim that what the words suggest. What you mean by "MMX is null using sound waves" is a completely obvious statement that relativity works on sound too, that is, there is no need to assert an aether to understand sound propagation. There is certainly a need to assert an air. So what your claim is not saying is what it appears to say: that an MMX experiment would not detect a speed difference in an MMX experiment done on sound when there is a wind (which is just what the MMX was actually intended to find-- a non-null result for an experiment done on light in an aether wind).

Bottom line: SR was never a theory of dynamics, of light or anything else. It was always a metatheory-- it was a set of rules about how any valid dynamical theory (any theory of sound or ping-pong balls) must behave in regard to being viewed from different reference frames. We would still have discovered relativity even if there was no such thing as light, that is all your sig is trying to say. But everyone on this thread knows this already, it just wasn't said clearly enough to be understood.

[Gsquare]

You are saying that a null result in MMX wouldn't mean anything if an experiment on sound would also be null.

Nope ; you misunderstand completely.
Not saying that at all....and I said nothing about sound waves.
I'm referring to the existence of a medium, and how Macaw's statement can be interpreted with respect to "MMX in a refractive medium" using light..

You don't realize that the MMX in vacuum is not a disproof of an ether medium.??
Contrary to popular misconception the null result of original MMX was not a DISPROOF of a ether medium, (only showed it was unnecessary).
Therefore, Macaw"s statement could be used (by ether proponents) to strengthen the ether argument, namely....

"MMX in the medium of air is null, thus we would expect the result of the original MMX to be be null even if there is a ether medium."

IOW, the logic of his statement can be used by ether proponents to promote the possibility of ether medium.

G^2

[Gsquare]

Not really. The types of waves that make up sound and light are different. While sound waves are longitudinal and requires a medium, a light waves are transverse and do not.

Not referring to sound waves.
When I said "MMX in air", I am referring to Macaw's statement about MMX in a refractive medium using light.


)

[Ken G]

Contrary to popular misconception the null result of original MMX was not a DISPROOF of a ether medium, (only showed it was unnecessary).

Yes, that is well known. But since no one would invoke an aether that didn't need one, the distinction is somewhat moot.

Therefore, Macaw"s statement could be used (by ether proponents) to strengthen the ether argument, namely....

"MMX in the medium of air is null, thus we would expect the result of the original MMX to be be null even if there is a ether medium."

That sounds like what I said you were saying. It isn't right. macaw is not saying that an MMX experiment can't detect air using sound or light, he is saying that an MMX experiment on sound or light can't detect an aether that is different from air. That is obvious if relativity is true.

[macaw]

MMX was a test for an aether wind.

The year is 2011, MMX has been reenacted multiple times and it has long ceased to be a test for "aether wind". MMX has not been testing "for the (presence) of the aether wind" for the last 50 or 60 years.

Q6: What do modern reenactments of MMX test for, Ken?

The words "MMX would be null for a sound wave," when interpreted in the most natural way, sounds like you are saying that an MMX-type experiment could not detect an air wind.

Nope, I have already explained that.

Q7: What does MMX using light in a non-vacuum medium tests for?

That's obviously wrong, so you must think you are saying something else. It is probably your choice of words that is the problem here.

What is wrong is your lack of understanding of modern MMX. What does it test for?

Q8: Why did scientists take the trouble to reenact it using non-vacuum medium filling the interferometer arms?

It is perfeclty obvious that MMX in glass is not about light speed wrt glass, because if one is doing MMX wrt glass, one does not assume c in glass is isotropic in the lab frame-- if the glass is moving in the lab frame.

The glass is not moving in the lab frame. You will need to actually READ the papers that describe MMX in glass (perspex, more exactly) before you pass judgement. It is painfully obvious that you didn't.

So as I suspected all along, you are simply making a different claim that what the words suggest. What you mean by "MMX is null using sound waves" is a completely obvious statement that relativity works on sound too, that is, there is no need to assert an aether to understand sound propagation.

You simply wanted to read a mistake into what I said, for anybody knowing modern physics it is quite claer that what I am saying is correct. Took quite a few questions to guide you to get the meaning.

There is certainly a need to assert an air.

Q9: Wrong, why do you think mainstream scientists found it necessary to reenact MMX using light in a refractive medium?

So what your claim is not saying is what it appears to say: that an MMX experiment would not detect a speed difference in an MMX experiment done on sound when there is a wind

You still did not get it, Ken, there is NO wind. MMX with sound in air, or wood, or metal is exactly the same thing as MMx with light in perspex. You really need to make the effort to learn the experiments before passing judgement.