Opera's experiment, Tully-Fisher's law and Theory of Ether

[tdelort]

Recently in the year 2011 2 fundamental experimental results brought a revolution in physics.
The 1st experimental result was the observation by the scientist S.McGaugh that the baryonic Tully-Fisher’s law was valid. This law was that the baryonic mass of a galaxy was proportional to the 4th power of the velocity of the stars of this galaxy. It is generally admitted that this contradicts General Relativity because according to those observations the velocity of stars in a galaxy is independent of the hypothetic dark mass. Those observations are presented on the website of open archives arXiv.
The second experimental result was the famous OPERA’s experiment, also exposed on the website arXiv. According to those observations, the velocity of neutrinos is superior to the velocity of the light c. This contradicts special Relativity.
So those 2 experimental observations make necessary a completely new conception of physics.
We find this new conception in a modern Theory of Ether, that is an alternative theory to the Relativity Theory. According to this new theory, we can interpret the whole of experiments connected to Relativity, introducing a contraction of time and lengths. This theory of Ether appears to be confirmed by those 2 new fundamental experimental observations, and we exposed the interpretation of those experimental results in 2 articles, the 1st is title: Derivation of the Tully-Fisher’s law from a theory of Ether (author : Thierry Delort), the 2nd is :title: Interpretation of the Opera’s experiment by a Theory of Ether, author: Thierry Delort. Both those articles are available on the server of open archives Hal.
The basic idea in order to interpret Opera’s experiment is that according to the modern Theory of Ether, there is no theoretical limit to the velocity of the transmission of an information.
The basic idea in order to interpret the Tully-Fisher’s law is that dark matter is constituted of ether, that can be modeled as an ideal gas.
The complete modern Theory of Ether is exposed in English in 5 articles published in the review Physics Essays (available on the website on Physics Essays , author: Thierry Delort).But those articles need to be modified and improved, the main needed modifications being exposed in the article title: Theory of ether:Erratum author: Thierry Delort, available in the site of open archives Hal.
The modern Theory of ether is also exposed in French on the site of open archives Internet archive, (title: Théorie de l’Ether-Théorie Quantique des variables absolues, author:Thierry Delort which contains new and improved versions of the 5 articles published in Physics essays. They are also exposed with a detailed presentation, especially useful for non specialists, in the book Théories d’or (see references of the articles on the server Hal, or www.theoriesdor.com ).

[pzkpfw]

Please note that while you may use references as part of your presentation here, the bulk of your presentation must be here. That is, you can't just tell people to go read something somewhere else. Note also that questions from members must be answered. Please review the site rules and the various sticky threads of advice.

[amazeofdeath]

A simple question: Does in your model the faster than light particle's velocity depend on its kinetic energy?

[tdelort]

yesYou can see thyis on the article of the server Hal

[Jim]

yesYou can see thyis on the article of the server Hal

"Please note that while you may use references as part of your presentation here, the bulk of your presentation must be here. That is, you can't just tell people to go read something somewhere else. Note also that questions from members must be answered. Please review the site rules and the various sticky threads of advice."

In a recent thread to Bautforum, “Opera’s experiment, Tully Fisher’s law and theory of ether” ...

I have merged this post into your current thread for two reasons:
1. It is germaine to this thread and belongs here.
2. Rule 13A: You may have only one thread active at a time in ATM.

You really should read the Rules.

[Strange]

yesYou can see thyis on the article of the server Hal

Then it would appear that even the Opera experiment disagrees with your theory as there was no statistically significant relationship between energy and velocity.

[tdelort]

I regret but the velocity of neutrinos really seems to increase with the energy (for instance those emitted by a supernova, with a few Mev, are slower than those of the Opera's experiment, with few Gev . See wikipedia)

[Strange]

I regret but the velocity of neutrinos really seems to increase with the energy (for instance those emitted by a supernova, with a few Mev, are slower than those of the Opera's experiment, with few Gev . See wikipedia)

Do you have some data to support that? What is the velocity of neutrinos from a supernova and how is it measured?

[tdelort]

It is weel-known (see wikipedia) that in a supernova explosion, some neutrinos produced by the explosion were detected 3 hours before thaty the explosion be visible. For me it is even better convincing that the Opera's experiment in order to justify that teh velocity of neutrinos is superior to c. The energy of those neutrinos was about some Mev (vs several Gev in Opera 's experiment), and the velocity deduced outpassing the velocity of light of about 10-8c (10-5c in Opera's experiment).

[tdelort]

In a recent thread to Bautforum, “Opera’s experiment, Tully Fisher’s law and theory of ether” (pseudo: tdelort, date 16th January) I gave the interpretation of the opera’s experiment (supraluminous neutrinos) and of the Tully-Fisher’s law. I would like to precise my interpretation of the supraluminous neutrinos, as asked to me the moderator:
My interpretation is that according to the Theory of ether, information can go faster that light (and also with infinite velocity). We recall that many experiments in quantum physics, connected to quantum intrication, (for instance the first were discovered by Alain Aspect, nobel prize) indicate that according to the theory of ether information can go faster that light.
My interpretation of the supraluminous neutrinos is first that neutrinos can go faster than light (in agreement with the Theory of Ether)an d second that their energy in the absolute frame (that exists in the modern theory of ether) is obtained replacing c in the classical expression of energy by c*, c* being slightly superior to c. This could be valid for neutral fermions, despite the classical formula be valid for charged fermions or particle constituted of charged fermions(electrons, quarks…) and of course for photons.
With this model, we obtain that the velocity of neutrinos increases with energy (in agreement with the observations), and also that it is closed to c (as c*).
All the references of the articles in which I expose the theory of ether and the 2 interpretations of the famous experiments are cited in my previous thread

[Strange]

My interpretation is that according to the Theory of ether ...

Can you explain what you mean by "the theory of ether"? As far as I know there is no such theory that has not been falsified by experiment.

... information can go faster that light (and also with infinite velocity)

Can you provide any references for this claim? It is clearly not true.

We recall that many experiments in quantum physics, connected to quantum intrication, (for instance the first were discovered by Alain Aspect, nobel prize) indicate that according to the theory of ether information can go faster that light.

I am not aware of any experiments in quantum physics (or elsewhere) that demonstrate that information can be transmitted faster than light or that support any "theory of ether". Can you provide some explicit examples?

I will ignore the rest of you comments as they seem to be based on a non-existent "theory of ether".

[tdelort]

1st question: The theory of ether I refer has been published in English in 5 articles of the review Physics Essays (author: Thierry Delort). Those articles must be improved and modified, and the main needed modifications are exposed on an article of the server Hal (title :Theory of ether: erratum", author Thierry Delort) . in French, a new version is exposed in the book Théories d'or, www.theoriesdor.com. This theory permits to interpret the whole of experiments connected to Relativity, (see in particular the 1st article "Theory of Ether", Physics Essays, author: Thierry Delort), in particular Michelson's experiment and all the experiments of electromagnetism. You will see that this modern theory of ether introduces a contraction of time and length. It is contradicted by none laboratory experiment.Even if it is a minority, many physicists do believe in a theory of ether.
Concerning the second question: The observation of supraluminous neutrinos is an example of experiment in which information goes faster than light. According to the previously cited theory of Ether, there is no theoretical limit to the velocity of an information, and I remind you that this fact is contradicted by none laboratory experiment.
Concerning the last question, many quantum experiments have been realized in which 2 correlated photons are produced, and observing an interaction of each photon at a great distance. The observed experimental result implies that an information goes faster than light. You should find those experiments on wikipedia or on the web (key-word: Quantum intrication, Alain Aspect). This French physicist got the Nobel prize for his observations of correlated photons that he observed the first, but that have been confirmed by many other experiments.

[Strange]

You will see that this modern theory of ether introduces a contraction of time and length.

Can you explain how these are derived in your theory and how this differs from relativity.

Concerning the second question: The observation of supraluminous neutrinos is an example of experiment in which information goes faster than light.

Maybe. That is yet to be confirmed. Is this the only evidence you have for faster than light communication of information?

According to the previously cited theory of Ether, there is no theoretical limit to the velocity of an information, and I remind you that this fact is contradicted by none laboratory experiment.

Can you explain the implications for causality for this result?
Can you explain why light travels at the same speed for all observers?
Can you explain why we have not seen anything (with the possibly exception of neutrinos) travel faster than light?

Concerning the last question, many quantum experiments have been realized in which 2 correlated photons are produced, and observing an interaction of each photon at a great distance. The observed experimental result implies that an information goes faster than light.

No it doesn't. Can explain how this process could be used to communicate information faster than light?

[tdelort]

1st question:It is not very simple and must be exposed in detail. I have no choice except to advise you to read my references.
2nd question: even if it was the only proof, supraluminous neutrinos are enough to invalidate theory of relativity. There is also quantum intrication, see my last message and later, that implies a transmission of information faster than light.
3rd question: a)Implications for causality is that it can exist any cause provided that the factor of cause occurs before (in the absolute time) the consequence.
b)You will see in my references (in particular the 1st article "theory of ether") that according to the theory of ether, it is only on a round trip that the average velocity of light is found to be c.
c)See the answer to the 2nd question.
4th question: Einstein himself proposed this experiment of quantum physics in order to demonstrate that the quantum theory was wrong (EPR paradox). The observed interactions of photons imply that an information travels faster than light, contradicting the Einstein prediction and confirmang quantum physics.

[John Mendenhall]

Can you explain what you mean by "the theory of ether"? As far as I know there is no such theory that has not been falsified by experiment.



Can you provide any references for this claim? It is clearly not true.



I am not aware of any experiments in quantum physics (or elsewhere) that demonstrate that information can be transmitted faster than light or that support any "theory of ether". Can you provide some explicit examples?

I will ignore the rest of you comments as they seem to be based on a non-existent "theory of ether".

Yes, Monsieur DeLort, please tell us here about the "Theory of Ether" (not with references to a hard to find and badly organized pay site that does not appear to be peer reviewed).

You will need to demonstrate that your ether ideas are correct first. Real observations, real predictions, real confirmations. Otherwise your superluminal arguments fail.

See the signature line below for a brief review of the scientific method. That methodology is the only one acceptable here.

Regards, John M.

[tdelort]

You can verify that the editorial board of Physics Essays is very prestigious. I also presented my theory at an international conference, Physical Interpretation of Relativity theory 2004. You can read freely my articles in many librariies of Universities.
You will be able to verify reading my articles that my theory is based on real observations (all the experiments connected to Relativity theory, and astrophysics), real predictions (correct prediction of those obsevations), and real confirmations (of the predictions). Of course the modern theory of ether must have the same predictions as relativity for many experimets (otherwise it would be wrong). The differences in prediction for the 2 theories exist, for instance the supraluminous neutrinos, the Tuly-Fisher's law, and several otherones in astrophysics.

[Strange]

You can verify that the editorial board of Physics Essays is very prestigious.

A quick web search throws up a lot of comments about this journal that are not very flattering...

[John Mendenhall]

Yes, Monsieur DeLort, please tell us here about the "Theory of Ether" (not with references to a hard to find and badly organized pay site that does not appear to be peer reviewed).

You will need to demonstrate that your ether ideas are correct first. Real observations, real predictions, real confirmations. Otherwise your superluminal arguments fail.

See the signature line below for a brief review of the scientific method. That methodology is the only one acceptable here.

Regards, John M.

Well? Please explain your theory of ether, here in this thread.

Thanks, John M.

[Tensor]

Recently in the year 2011 2 fundamental experimental results brought a revolution in physics.
The 1st experimental result was the observation by the scientist S.McGaugh that the baryonic Tully-Fisher’s law was valid. This law was that the baryonic mass of a galaxy was proportional to the 4th power of the velocity of the stars of this galaxy.

Yeah, hold on there. It's not valid for every galaxy, as McGaugh himself admits.

It is generally admitted that this contradicts General Relativity

By who? Certainly not by McGaugh. Nor by Trachternach et al in 2009. Nor by Gurovich.

because according to those observations the velocity of stars in a galaxy is independent of the hypothetic dark mass.

Not according to Gnedin or Piontek & Steinmetz 2011 which are compatible with both the Baryonic Tully-Fischer Relationship or the Lambda CDM.

Those observations are presented on the website of open archives arXiv.

Then I suggest you go back and actually read those linked to in arXiv. There are also several papers critical of McGaugh for not taking into account the ionized gas, nor the effects of supernova. When those are taken into account, McGaugh’s version of the baryonic Tully-Fischer law isn’t quite as valid. Feel free to explain to us precisely where those are wrong.

The second experimental result was the famous OPERA’s experiment, also exposed on the website arXiv. According to those observations, the velocity of neutrinos is superior to the velocity of the light c. This contradicts special Relativity.

Actually, no it doesn’t. Which of the tens of papers should we use that describe exactly why that experiment is wrong? If you insist on using that experiment, Can you detail for us the specific follow up experiment and the paper that describes that additional experiment, that verifies and matches the results of the OPERA experiment? We await your identifying paper and until then, it’s nothing more than an interesting result, awaiting verification.

So those 2 experimental observations make necessary a completely new conception of physics.

No they don’t. As you can see, you’ve completely misrepresented the result of the Baryonic Tully-Fischer Result and the OPERA result.

[tdelort]

The present classical Cosmology ignores the nature of dark matter, ignores the justification of the curve of velocities of stars in galaxies and is unable to justify the baryonic Tuly-Fisher's law observed by McGaugh. The theory of ether gives a clear answer to all those fundamental questions. The papers that you cite, just give some qualitative results, and answer to none of the 3 previous fundamental questions.
You can contest the validity of the Opera's experiment, but it is only with an apriori. And you cannot be sure of this.

[Strange]

The present classical Cosmology ignores the nature of dark matter

Are you unaware of the very many hypotheses and experiments to determine the nature of dark matter (or even whether it exists)?

[Tensor]

The present classical Cosmology ignores the nature of dark matter,

No, it doesn't. It has been determined that it reacts gravitationally and does not react through EM. If it cosmology was ignoring it, how did it determine those properties?

ignores the justification of the curve of velocities of stars in galaxies

Again, no it doesn't. And, again, read McGaugh's papers. He freely admits that dark matter may be the explanation, but then he wonders why dark matter recovers MOND in the limit of the Baryonic Tully-Fischer law(BTFL)

and is unable to justify the baryonic Tuly-Fisher's law observed by McGaugh.

Again, this is not what McGaugh says. Go back and read his papers. First, the BTFL does not apply to all galaxies. And the BTFL doesn't help with determining galactic cluster movements.

The theory of ether gives a clear answer to all those fundamental questions.

Since it hasn't been presented here yet, there have been no answers, clear or otherwise, provided by your idea. Just a bunch of unsupported claims. If you have provided it here, please point out what post you provided it in.

The papers that you cite, just give some qualitative results, and answer to none of the 3 previous fundamental questions.

But those results refute your claims in the first post and in post #23 concerning the BTFL. Not only that, but there are comments in those papers, made by McGaugh, that contradict what you are claiming. Which means you are misrepresenting General Relativity, why? And, why do you keep misrepresenting McGaugh's comments?

You can contest the validity of the Opera's experiment, but it is only with an apriori. And you cannot be sure of this.

But, without a confirming experiment, by another group, there is no reason to accept your explanation as correct either. What is your proof that the results of the OPERA experiment is nothing more than a systematic?

But meanwhile, show us how your theory of ether matches the observed slowdown by providing the values and the calculations used to get those values, for the inspiral of the binary pulsar PSR B1913+16.

You also failed to answer the following:

Concerning the Baryonic Tully-Fischer law:

It is generally admitted that this contradicts General Relativity

By who?

Can you detail for us the specific follow up experiment and the paper that describes that additional experiment, that verifies and matches the results of the OPERA experiment?

[tdelort]

1)You should be aware that knowing only that a matter interacts with gravitation and no with EM is not enough to be considered as knowing the matter.
2) MOND is not admitted by classical Cosmology, and is by far a less general theory that the theory of Ether. I admit that the theory of ether must be tested, but it must be at least considered for this and not be rejected for the reason that it constitutes a lack of faith in Eintein.
3) If the classical Cosmology permits to justify the Tully-fisher's law (at least when it is valid), why nobody knows it? Anyway I canot understand why ignoring the nature of dark matter (or very poorly), you could justify the Tully-Fisher's law.
4) I indicated in my previous posts the references of the theory of Ether. The basic idea in order to interpret dark matter is that dark mater is constituted of a substance, called ether, which constitutes what we call the vacuum, and this explains its invisibility. Modeling it as a perfect gaz, we obtain the rotation curve considering that galaxies are constituted of concentration of ether at equilibrium.
5) I do not see in what those papers contradict my interpretation of he BTFL. I admit that they bring arguments saying that the BTFL is in agreement with general relativity, but they do not bring any justification of this law.
6)MINOS experiment (2007) (despite a great uncertainty) and moreover the observation of neutrinos in a supernova explosion (1987) comfort the Opera's experiment.

[Tensor]

1)You should be aware that knowing only that a matter interacts with gravitation and no with EM is not enough to be considered as knowing the matter.

You said ignore. That is what I was responding to. I see you've now moved the goalposts.

MOND is not admitted by classical Cosmology, and is by far a less general theory that the theory of Ether. I admit that the theory of ether must be tested, but it must be at least considered for this and not be rejected for the reason that it constitutes a lack of faith in Eintein.

My problem with it is that you haven't provided any kind of support for it here, and you continually misrepresent mainstream science. Why consider anything that hasn’t been fully presented?

If the classical Cosmology permits to justify the Tully-fisher's law (at least when it is valid), why nobody knows it?

McGaugh is the one doing the research on the BTFL. I was pointing out that even those that support the BTFL (such as McGaugh) agree that the Lambda CDM also fits.
Contrary to your claim.

Anyway I canot understand why ignoring the nature of dark matter (or very poorly), you could justify the Tully-Fisher's law.

I’m sorry, this sentence makes no sense to me.

I indicated in my previous posts the references of the theory of Ether. The basic idea in order to interpret dark matter is that dark mater is constituted of a substance, called ether, which constitutes what we call the vacuum, and this explains its invisibility. Modeling it as a perfect gaz, we obtain the rotation curve considering that galaxies are constituted of concentration of ether at equilibrium.

Lots of words. No calculations. It’s as valid as: The invisible pink unicorns pull on the spots where the lines of the grid in spacetime come together and this causes the changes in spacetime that causes the orbits of the stars in the galaxies. See how easy that is?

I do not see in what those papers contradict my interpretation of he BTFL.

Who said it did? You haven’t presented anything here more than an “I said so”. You are the one who said, in the very first post in this thread, the the BTFL observations contradicts General Relativity, when, if fact, it doesn’t. I was contradicting your false claims concerning General Relativity

I admit that they bring arguments saying that the BTFL is in agreement with general relativity, but they do not bring any justification of this law.

All the papers I pointed to agree that the dark matter and General Relativity can explain rotation curves and the BTFL. The justification is the mainstream calculations from dark matter and General Relativity. Even those papers that support the BTFL. McGaugh’s paper specifically shows how General Relativity predictions fit the observations. Despite your claim that the BTFL contradicts General Relativity.

MINOS experiment (2007)

Oh? I requested specific reasons, but anyway. I can’t wait for you to explain to us how you corrected the known (they were listed in the paper) systematic errors in the hardware, which invalided these results. When can we expect those explanations?

(despite a great uncertainty) and moreover the observation of neutrinos in a supernova explosion (1987) comfort the Opera's experiment.

Again, specific explanations. Which were explained as leaving three hours earlier. Unless, of course, you have evidence of of their exact time of departure. Do you?

BTW, you still haven’t answer the questions:

Who has generally admitted that the BTFL contradicts General Relativity?

Can you detail for us the specific follow up experiment and the paper that describes that additional experiment, that verifies and matches the results of the OPERA experiment (you stated the MINOS experiment, ignoring the know problems and the 1987 supernova, ignoring the departure explanation or providing specific support for superluminal travel)? Please answer the quesiton.

And, why do you keep misrepresenting McGaugh's comments?

But meanwhile, show us how your theory of ether matches the observed slowdown by providing the values and the calculations used to get those values, for the inspiral of the binary pulsar PSR B1913+16.

[tusenfem]

tdelort, you will now provide full fletched answers to the questions that are put to you. The way you have "answered" up to now is way insufficient. Give the details, the calculations, the models, the observations etc. etc.
If your next answer does not provide these you will be infracted again.

[Jim]

tdelort has not posted to this thread in five days. I'm closing the thread. If tdelort decides he wants to use the remainder of his 30 days to defend his ideas, he can Report this post and ask to have the thread reopened.