Confirmation of Aether drift direction from COBE CMBR data/Dayton Miller experiments

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:41:41 GMT) it happened "Bill Hobba"
wrote in
:

2) 'photon' does not exist as particle, it is merely a mathematical
concept.

So it is a mathematical concept that knocks electrons out in the
photoelectric effect?
....
So what I am saying is:
EM radiation hitting a material will _only_ knock loose and electron
when the De Broglie frequency of the electron in its orbit matches the
frequency of the incoming radiation.

That would produce a resonance, a spectral line.
The whole point of the photoelectric effect is that
the kinetic energy of the released electron is
proportional to the frequency of the photon minus
the work function, the energy needed to free the
electron from the surface, over a wide range of
frequencies.

George

On a sunny day (Sun, 27 Aug 2006 02:18:43 GMT) it happened "Bill Hobba"
wrote in :

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...025a064f e7cd
We see a _minimum_ frequency required as is observed with photo electric
effect.
So in short, the _emission_ is quantisized, and that is about all.

Of course QM explains the photoelectric effect and in QM the photon is a QM
state which is neither particle or wave. However the point is sometimes is
acts like a particle (and the fact the photoelectric effect is explained by
a simple particle model proves this) and sometimes like a wave and may from
some recent evidence even both at the same time. But saying it is just a
mathematical concept is going way too far IMHO.

I am not sure.
It was Planck himself who suggested to Einstein that:" 'Look more at the
'photon' in the context of EM waves interacting with matter.',
In that sense it _is_ a mathematical concept, you can assign some energy to
'photon', or simply say: energy of photon if frequency x Planck's constant.
As 'f' can be freely chosen, that makes 'photon' just that product.
You can assign mass to 'a particle', but not to photon.
In no other context than at the border of (heaven and hell or) EM waves and
matter _should_ that idea of photon be used or even be of any significance.
(I was just kidding about that heaven and hell part).

You often read 'this new detector detects a single photon', well, maybe maybe
not, but without specifying in a lot more detail it makes no sense
whatsoever.

I have heard (not read) scientist make claims 'hey, this detector just
detected a photon', while from an electronic POV I was 100% sure it just
happened to trigger on a sufficient amount of EM waves to release that
electron, that then in the photo-multiplier was accelerated and knocked out
more electrons, so it resulted in a big current after x dynodes so it could
be amplified and that signal was enough above noise and threshold to 'count'.

If you look a bit closer at that first target in the photo-multiplier
(where the light hits the metal) then there are plenty other factors, thermal
motion for example, that will make some atoms more 'ready to give up an
electron' then others.
The EM energy however works on all these atoms, the one that actually gave up
the electron causes the 'detection', you know little about the energy part
landing on all the other atoms.

In fact the detector sensitivity changes of very short time intervals...
You cannot state _any_ energy level that _will_ be a minimum, and at lower
levels you will not be able to tell 'photon' from 'noise' if it was truly a
single event, and not some synchronous experiment.

If fact this predicts one should be able to improve detection efficiency by
pre-lighting the detector with a sine wave of a frequency close to the
frequency of the EM waves received, as that will make electron orbits more
unstable, and make it easier for incoming EM radiation to trigger the
release of an electron (as in link I have mentioned above).
Since the EM 'bias' wave is a known, this could be processed out.
It is an old technique to get linearity form a non-linear medium,
In fact the 'RF bias' was used in analog (audio) magnetic tape recording
to allow audio to be distortion free recorded on non-linear media
(non linear because of the BH curve of the magnetic material used).
Best noise performance is obtained by a bias as symmetrical as possible....
With those things in mind any quantisation in a 'photon' detector goes
out of the window. And so does the last straw of 'photon particle'.

wrote:
wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
wrote:
There is an article which confirms that the speed of the Earth through
the galaxy as measured by Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments
is similar to that measured by the COBE cosmic background radiation
measurements by Cahill and Kitto. This speed works out to about 360
km/s. This article can be found at:
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physic...05/0205070.pdf
The article presents a very convincing argument that the speed detected
by these types of experiments depends on the medium in which they are
conducted.

You and they are FAR too easily convinced. Indeed, the MMX had no
SIGNIFICANT signal -- Cahill and Kitto did not perform a comprehensive
error analysis, and do not realize this.



There isn't any error analysis to perform. Cahill and Kitto (well at
least Cahills work that I have read) didn't properly define or use the
concept of index of refraction in a consistent manner for the
relativistic application.

The expected signal is still 0, independent of v_aether or n (index of
refraction).

Yep, this is correct, Cahill is incapable of calculating the speed of
light in a moving refractive medium, a gross mistake. To make the
matter worse, Cahill "forgets" that the experiment he's suggesting has
already been run about 30 yeras ago. Then, Consoli quotes Cahill, what
a commedy.

Thanks Rambus. In fact I wasn't aware of the Consoli work either.

Do you know of a good reference for describing correctly the speed of
light in a moving refractive medium, in terms of the MMX and related?
I haven't seen a recent one and was thinking of writing it up as a
review in light of recent Cahill / Consoli publicity.

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
wrote:
There is an article which confirms that the speed of the Earth through
the galaxy as measured by Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments
is similar to that measured by the COBE cosmic background radiation
measurements by Cahill and Kitto. This speed works out to about 360
km/s. This article can be found at:
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physic...05/0205070.pdf
The article presents a very convincing argument that the speed detected
by these types of experiments depends on the medium in which they are
conducted.

You and they are FAR too easily convinced. Indeed, the MMX had no
SIGNIFICANT signal -- Cahill and Kitto did not perform a comprehensive
error analysis, and do not realize this.



There isn't any error analysis to perform. Cahill and Kitto (well at
least Cahills work that I have read) didn't properly define or use the
concept of index of refraction in a consistent manner for the
relativistic application.

The expected signal is still 0, independent of v_aether or n (index of
refraction).

Yep, this is correct, Cahill is incapable of calculating the speed of
light in a moving refractive medium, a gross mistake. To make the
matter worse, Cahill "forgets" that the experiment he's suggesting has
already been run about 30 yeras ago. Then, Consoli quotes Cahill, what
a commedy.

Thanks Rambus. In fact I wasn't aware of the Consoli work either.

Do you know of a good reference for describing correctly the speed of
light in a moving refractive medium, in terms of the MMX and related?
I haven't seen a recent one and was thinking of writing it up as a
review in light of recent Cahill / Consoli publicity.

No, I don't know of any but it is easy to write.

wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Indeed, the MMX had no
SIGNIFICANT signal -- Cahill and Kitto did not perform a comprehensive
error analysis, and do not realize this.

There isn't any error analysis to perform.

Sure there is: any real signal would have a sinusoidal variation with
orientation with period 1/2 turn. A quick glance at the MMX data clearly
shows such a sinusoidal variation. Without an error analysis one does
not know if it is significant or not; it isn't -- see Appendix I of
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238 .


Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote:
wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Indeed, the MMX had no
SIGNIFICANT signal -- Cahill and Kitto did not perform a comprehensive
error analysis, and do not realize this.

There isn't any error analysis to perform.

Sure there is: any real signal would have a sinusoidal variation with
orientation with period 1/2 turn. A quick glance at the MMX data clearly
shows such a sinusoidal variation. Without an error analysis one does
not know if it is significant or not; it isn't -- see Appendix I of
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238 .


Tom Roberts

Tom,

1. Cahill botched his equations (so did Consoli)
2. Yes, you are right, the effect is insinificant in the case of MMX
because L1-L2 is nearly zero and the runs are short , so delta_v is
insignificant
3. The effect is no longer insignificant in the case of Kennedy
Thorndike because L1-L20 and delta_v is no longer negligible due to
the long run (190 days):

http://qom.physik.hu-berlin.de/research_kt.htm.

So, all three of us are correct, we are just talking about different
issues.

wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
wrote:
There is an article which confirms that the speed of the Earth
through
the galaxy as measured by Michelson-Morley interferometer
experiments
is similar to that measured by the COBE cosmic background
radiation
measurements by Cahill and Kitto. This speed works out to about
360
km/s. This article can be found at:
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physic...05/0205070.pdf
The article presents a very convincing argument that the speed
detected
by these types of experiments depends on the medium in which
they are
conducted.

You and they are FAR too easily convinced. Indeed, the MMX had no
SIGNIFICANT signal -- Cahill and Kitto did not perform a
comprehensive
error analysis, and do not realize this.



There isn't any error analysis to perform. Cahill and Kitto (well
at
least Cahills work that I have read) didn't properly define or use
the
concept of index of refraction in a consistent manner for the
relativistic application.

The expected signal is still 0, independent of v_aether or n (index
of
refraction).

Yep, this is correct, Cahill is incapable of calculating the speed of
light in a moving refractive medium, a gross mistake. To make the
matter worse, Cahill "forgets" that the experiment he's suggesting has
already been run about 30 yeras ago. Then, Consoli quotes Cahill, what
a commedy.

Thanks Rambus. In fact I wasn't aware of the Consoli work either.

Do you know of a good reference for describing correctly the speed of
light in a moving refractive medium, in terms of the MMX and related?
I haven't seen a recent one and was thinking of writing it up as a
review in light of recent Cahill / Consoli publicity.

No, I don't know of any but it is easy to write.

I'd say that it's high time to write such a paper.

Harald