Most precise test of Lorentz symmetry for the photon finds that the speed of light is indeed constant

September 15, 2015 by Lisa Zyga feature
(Left) Photo of the orthogonal sapphire crystal mount, with (right) simulations of the electromagnetic resonant mode patterns. A frequency variation in the resonance would indicate a variation in the speed of light. Credit: Stephen R. Parker, The University of Western Australia

(Phys.org)—The laws of physics are the same no matter which direction you're facing or how fast you're moving—it's such an intuitive concept that most people probably don't know that it has a name: Lorentz symmetry. Over the past several decades, physicists have been testing Lorentz symmetry at ever-higher degrees of precision, as violations of the foundational property are predicted by a number of proposals that aim to unify the two major theories of modern physics: general relativity and the standard model of particle physics.

Now in a new paper, physicists have reported the most precise test to date of Lorentz symmetry for the photon by looking for variations in the speed of light, but have found no violations. The study, by Moritz Nagel at the Humboldt-University of Berlin, Stephen Parker at The University of Western Australia, and their coauthors, is published in a recent issue of Nature Communications.

Although the term "Lorentz symmetry" is named for the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz and the fact that it is a symmetry of spacetime, it may be better thought of as a property about relativity, and in fact it is a cornerstone of Einstein's theory. According to special relativity, there is no absolute space or absolute time. So if two objects are moving relative to each other in empty space, it would actually be impossible for an observer to tell their absolute velocities—maybe only one of the objects was moving and the other was stationary, for example, but you wouldn't know which was which because their movements are relative to each other, not to any external reference frame (assuming the reference frame is non-accelerating).

One important consequence of Lorentz symmetry is that the speed of light is invariant, or a constant in vacuum. The fact that photons in vacuum always move at a speed of just under 300,000 km per second is intimately connected to the concepts in special relativity. In the new study, the researchers performed an experiment that attempted to measure any tiny frequency variation of light, which would indicate a variation in the speed of light.

(Left) Historical overview of Michelson-Morley-style tests of Lorentz symmetry for the photon. Interferometer tests measure fractional shifts in the speed of light, while cavity-based tests measure fractional changes in the frequency of light. (Right) Experimental set-up of the cavity-based test, with the two crystal axes aligned at right angles. The original Michelson-Morley interferometer test is shown in the top right corner for comparison. Credit: Moritz Nagel, et al. ©2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited

Their experiment consists of a highly sensitive Michelson-Morley cavity test, which is an updated version of the seminal Michelson-Morley interferometer used in the late 1800s to measure the speed of light in the search for an "aether" that pervaded the universe (for which, of course, no evidence was found). While an interferometer is based on reflecting light back and forth between mirrors, cavity tests consist of both optical and electrical components. The cavity test here involves two cavities containing sapphire crystals. The researchers excited an electromagnetic resonance in the crystals at a specific frequency, and supercooled them with liquid helium to stabilize the frequency and improve sensitivity. Like the mirrors of the interferometer, the cavities are carefully aligned orthogonal (at right angles) to each other to detect any tiny change in the speed of light along different axes. In the case of the cavities, a change in the speed of light would induce a change in the resonance frequency of the crystals. But after analysis of a full year of data, no such change was found.

"This is the first direct test of polarization-independent effects for Lorentz invariance violations of the photon that has reached the level of the Planck-suppressed electroweak unification scale," Parker told Phys.org. "The energy scale of electroweak unification (about 100 GeV) suppressed by the Planck scale (about 1.2 x 1019 GeV) gives the dimensionless ratio of about 8 x 10-18, so perhaps naively one might expect to start seeing Lorentz symmetry of the photon being broken in this regime, yet we didn't see any evidence for this."

By providing the strongest evidence yet that the speed of light is a constant, the results further verify that Lorentz symmetry is a basic property of nature. Like other experimental results, the speed of light does not seem to depend on the orientation of the laboratory (rotation invariance) or its velocity though space (boost invariance). Since the precision of the new test (10-18) is an order of magnitude better than that of previous tests of Lorentz symmetry of the photon, it does allow the scientists to improve the bounds on the nine rotational and boost isotropies of the of light by a factor of four.

These improved bounds could prove very useful for experimentally testing theories that unify and the while predicting Lorentz symmetry violations. Some of these theories, for example, include string theory-based models and quantum gravity theories, among others. Although these theories are complex, one reason for the predicted Lorentz symmetry violation is that, in order to "quantize" gravity, there must be a minimum length scale—an absolute distance that is difficult to reconcile with the relative nature of Lorentz symmetry.

In the near future, scheduled upgrades to the Michelson-Morley cavity experiment are expected to improve the frequency stability, reduce the noise, and remove other interfering effects, allowing for even more precise tests.

"We're in the process of upgrading our experimental setup to reduce the influence of systematic noise," Parker said. "For example, we've now installed better cryogenic magnetic shielding around our sapphire oscillators. At the same time, we're undertaking research to improve the fundamental frequency stability performance of the oscillators, and we're developing a pair of cryogenic optical resonators. These optical resonators will be added in to the same cryogenic environment as the microwave oscillators, allowing us to make comparisons between them. So we will be improving the raw sensitivity of the experiment and also the reach of this work, as we'll be able to search for different types of Lorentz invariance violation effects, too."

Explore further: Researchers test speed of light with greater precision than before

More information: Moritz Nagel, et al. "Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10-18." Nature Communications. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms9174

Related Stories

Quantum computer makes finding new physics more difficult

January 29, 2015

Physicists often work unusual hours. You will find them running experiments at 4am and 10pm. This is because, so long as the pertinent conditions inside a lab – such as temperature or light level – are fixed, the outcome ...

Quantum computer as detector shows space is not squeezed

January 28, 2015

Ever since Einstein proposed his special theory of relativity in 1905, physics and cosmology have been based on the assumption that space looks the same in all directions - that it's not squeezed in one direction relative ...

Best yet test of Lorentz invariance

October 25, 2010

The more crucial a physical law is, the more important it is to keep testing it. One of the most important laws formulated in the last century or so is Albert Einsteinэs principle of invariance, which says that there ...

Recommended for you

Single-photon detector can count to four

December 15, 2017

Engineers have shown that a widely used method of detecting single photons can also count the presence of at least four photons at a time. The researchers say this discovery will unlock new capabilities in physics labs working ...

Real-time observation of collective quantum modes

December 15, 2017

A cylindrical rod is rotationally symmetric - after any arbitrary rotation around its axis it always looks the same. If an increasingly large force is applied to it in the longitudinal direction, however, it will eventually ...

A shoe-box-sized chemical detector

December 15, 2017

A chemical sensor prototype developed at the University of Michigan will be able to detect "single-fingerprint quantities" of substances from a distance of more than 100 feet away, and its developers are working to shrink ...

68 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dirk_bruere
3.9 / 5 (21) Sep 15, 2015
Cue the Aether nuts...
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.5 / 5 (12) Sep 15, 2015
"in order to "quantize" gravity, there must be a minimum length scale".

I don't know the technicalities of quantum field theories, but I know this is wrong. You can easily quantize gravity for low energies/large scales and get a graviton out, same as in every other field theory and with the same means. [See e.g. Ditzler's blog on how it is done.] It is also evidence for that you can easily unify gravity and quantum physics on non-exotic scales, that is on most scales.

The problem is that the quantization breaks down for large energies/small scales, in which case attempts to preserve the graviton may force you to make a "quantum gravity" theory - whatever that means. But we haven't even seen classical gravity waves yet... Seems awfully premature to worry about embedding quantized gravity in a larger "quantum" theory, i.e. to turn its failure around and demand a minimum scale.
docile
Sep 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (18) Sep 15, 2015
I already explained here
@ZEPHIR/docile
1- this is called PSEUDOSCIENCE
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status
https://en.wikipe...oscience

2- just because you CLAIM it, doesn't make it true: this is no different than claiming you are Pope because you once flew over Rome

3- personal conjecture based upon your belief is NOT equivalent to the scientific method, nor is it validation of your claims... referencing pseudoscience as support is like referencing a bible to prove god: there is NO valid evidence that can be obtained that would constitute proof

4- uprating yourself with a sock army doesn't validate your claims any more than chewing on straw makes you a cow
docile
Sep 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mytwocts
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 15, 2015
ok
billpress11
2 / 5 (8) Sep 15, 2015
Quote from article: "While an interferometer is based on reflecting light back and forth between mirrors, cavity tests consist of both optical and electrical components. The cavity test here involves two cavities containing sapphire crystals."

While I am not sure I understand exactly how this test is performed it would appear to me that docile has a valid point. Because any gain reflecting the light "back" would exactly be lost going "forth" in a moving object.

I totally agree that the velocity of light is constant regardless as to whether it source is moving or not but the 'measured' velocities should be different from a source moving at say 1/2c in an equal distance in front and behind you. Wouldn't it have to be? Doesn't the fact that a moving source causes the Doppler Effect prove this? I must be missing what this test is trying to prove.
docile
Sep 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
billpress11
1 / 5 (1) Sep 15, 2015
I should have explained my previous post better. You would not be able to use the red and blue shifting to light to measure the difference because they would exactly cancel each other out. The way the experiment would need to be cared out one would need three of the finest atomic clocks available, one the front, one for the light source and one in the rear. Record the time of the source and compare it to the recorded times the other two receive the light. There should be a measurable difference, the one in the front should receive the light after the one in the rear of a moving object. This test could possibly be cared out on the ISS.

docile
Sep 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
billpress11
3 / 5 (2) Sep 15, 2015
docile, I could not get the video, but look at it this way. If three people are in a slow moving boat and one walks out on a plank 10 feet in front of the boat and the other 10 feet in the rear, the waves the boat creates would reach to one standing on the rear plank first. Stop watches could prove this for the waves the boat creates. Atomic clocks should also be able to prove this for for an object a moving at 1/2c.
By the way have you ever seen waves preceding a really fast speed boat? Do sound wave precede a jet going faster than the speed of sound? Neither should light for an object traveling at the speed of light.
AntonKole
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2015
"....speed of light does not seem to depend on the orientation of the laboratory (rotation invariance) or its velocity though space...."

I didn't read anywhere that this experiment was done in an earth orbit such as on the ISS, or that the experiment was performed vertically, as opposed to only horizontally.

Does anyone know when the full suit of experimental orientations will be fully completed, so I don't need to continue to make assumptions that these experimental orientations don't make any difference to the experimental results?
KBK
1 / 5 (1) Sep 15, 2015
By the way have you ever seen waves preceding a really fast speed boat? Do sound wave precede a jet going faster than the speed of sound? Neither should light for an object traveling at the speed of light.


Actually, the sonic boom of a jet is preceded by a low level hissing sound. Since it IS observed to be a real thing, then the explanation must be found.

With science, there should always be room for jello... if not, nothing would ever change --and that has a name. It's called dogma.

It may be a charge differential or 'build up', a polarization...which would naturally travel faster than the speed of sound.
billpress11
not rated yet Sep 15, 2015
KBK, to me this would simply be the caused by the increase in air pressure in front of the jet. In other words the air molecules are being pressured forward faster than the speed of sound which certainly could cause a noise preceding the jet. Air molecules can certainly travel faster than the speed of sound just like the jet. I do not think this would be possible with light for one very basic reason, nothing travel faster than the speed of light.
KBK
1 / 5 (2) Sep 15, 2015
Oh, I'm not doubting the measurements of the conclusion, but that the Lorentz symmetry is simply tied to frame issues. The 'frame' limits. Or, more correctly, has limits. Thus the speed of light limit.

We do have phenomena that are faster than the speed of light, by huge margins. to find them, and to analyze them, we have to step outside of the dogmatic aspects of the frame of science.

When this is done, we find literal hundreds of properly done experiments (proper scientific rigor that satisfies anyone's questions) that illustrate this point.

I don't bother... as one of the guys I knew who did that (130 fundamental telecom patents to his name, in the world of RF), he died. He demonstrated hardware that exceeded the speed of light by a factor of 300.

The price, of that demonstration, was his life.

There are many dozens of similar examples of dead people who discovered things.

All you have to do is look.

Then the questions come ------- who is blocking this?
PhysicsMatter
3 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2015
We have to remember that there is no proof of constancy of the speed of light in SR but a postulate (equivalency of all frames of reference), just a mathematical axiom. Trying to prove experimentally that c = const; is like trying to experimentally prove that two parallel lines never cross by continuously extending their lengths. Now c is even arbitrarily fixed at precisely 299 792 458 m/s (no longer measured).

The original MM experiments were not actually about measuring the speed of light per se but to calculate absolute velocity of ether i.e. proving that ether, as a moving fluid exists.

The experiments were conduced for one major purpose namely trying to understand what the electromagnetic wave in vacuum really is i.e. postulated propagating disturbance through the ether, as electromagnetic fluid.

More curiosities about theory of relativity I found at:

https://questforn...ativity/
Egleton
1 / 5 (1) Sep 16, 2015
I looked to see if they have used the meter that is defined by the speed of light. If they did, then of cause they will find no variation.
Speed being distance (in metres)/time.
I hope none send their goons after me.
AmritSorli
not rated yet Sep 16, 2015
speed of light is constant because photon is a vibration of quantum vacuum in which source of light and inertial systems in which we measure its speed are moving. Doppler effect is the result of this fact. www.fopi.info
mytwocts
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2015

While I am not sure I understand exactly how this test is performed

Then study the paper to avoid making incorrect statements.
flag
1 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2015
https://www.acade...lativity
This paper explains the Special and General Relativity from the observed effects of the accelerating electrons, causing naturally the experienced changes of the electric field potential along the moving electric charges. The accelerating electrons explain not only the Maxwell Equations and the Special Relativity, but the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation, the wave particle duality and the electron's spin also, building the bridge between the Classical and Relativistic Quantum Theories. The changing acceleration of the electrons explains the created negative electric field of the magnetic induction, the electromagnetic inertia, the changing relativistic mass and the Gravitational Force, giving a Unified Theory of the physical forces. Taking into account the Planck Distribution Law of the electromagnetic oscillators also, we can explain the electron/proton mass rate and the Weak and Strong Interactions.
billpress11
not rated yet Sep 16, 2015

While I am not sure I understand exactly how this test is performed

Then study the paper to avoid making incorrect statements.

Well I do make incorrect statements from time to time. Please do me a favor and point out the one you claim I made and why it is incorrect. Thanks.
docile
Sep 16, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
encoded
3 / 5 (2) Sep 16, 2015
It was the neutron repulsion!
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (8) Sep 16, 2015
People interested about science just want the status quo
@ZEPHIR/docile
no, they require evidence and validation of said evidence. and again, this is where your cf, aw/daw, and other pseudoscience claims continue to fail. the comment by mytwocts is (at least, IMHO) simply a sarcastic rejoinder to your continued efforts to push pseudoscience ... you actually believe it, which is why you continue to fanatically represent it, despite the lack of evidence and the falsification of your beliefs.

only YOU could call the scientific method and science "nazi" in your delusional state
that is the mark of a fanatical religious belief: NOT SCIENCE
swordsman
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 16, 2015
An example of the idiocy of today's physicists. Apparently, physicists are not aware that electromagnetic waves were thoroughly characterized as far back as 1936. I suggest that they examine the Mesny equations of electromagnetic radiation from a dipole antenna. This is a set of three equations that fit the near and far fields of electromagnetic radiation from the antenna. As the angle of measurement moves from the axis, a phase difference occurs. This phase difference is produced by the bending of the electromagnetic field waves, and the phase plots show that the transverse velocity of the field waves increases without limit as a function of distance from the antenna. Technical papers of this type are shameful!
ralph638s
not rated yet Sep 16, 2015
docile
Sep 16, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 16, 2015
People interested about science just want the status quo
@ZEPHIR/docile
no, they require evidence and validation of said evidence. and again, this is where your cf, aw/daw, and other pseudoscience claims continue to fail. the comment by mytwocts is (at least, IMHO) simply a sarcastic rejoinder to your continued efforts to push pseudoscience ... you actually believe it, which is why you continue to fanatically represent it, despite the lack of evidence and the falsification of your beliefs.

only YOU could call the scientific method and science "nazi" in your delusional state
that is the mark of a fanatical religious belief: NOT SCIENCE


.........and all you do is persist in the usual name calling & profanity routines while never uttering an original thought contributing to the science content of this site. You're all the same names you accuse others of being.

Hey, Furlong has an online math class here, you should jump aboard.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 16, 2015
4- uprating yourself with a sock army doesn't validate your claims any more than chewing on straw makes you a cow
...........it's the only reason you get a rating above 1 Star, it certainly isn't the science content of anything you post.
AntonKole
3 / 5 (2) Sep 17, 2015
It often makes me laugh how so many people that claim to be 'scientific' in their thinking, are so afraid to see a potential experiment being done that 'may' actually unravel their 'assumption based' beliefs. I prefer to base my ideas and arguments on evidence. As people have said before, "A well designed experiment is worth ten thousand expert opinions".

Once again, when will the group tip their experiment on its side, and do the experiment vertically (or in an earth orbit)?

According to the vertical Michelson/Morley experiment performed below, aether does in fact exist. It's just being sucked into the earth at approximately 9.81m/s2. Therefore, when will this new experiment, be done vertically (or on the ISS) instead of the constantly repeated horizontal orientation?

What are some people so afraid of? I would have thought that any true scientist would want to know what the results would be, instead of constantly assuming.
https://www.youtu...d7o8X2-E
docile
Sep 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Sep 17, 2015
Once again, when will the group tip their experiment on its side, and do the experiment vertically

They did. Look at the image. The setup is so that one is at right angle to the other in order to eliminate any unintentional, directional bias.
AntonKole
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 17, 2015
....They did. Look at the image. The setup is so that one is at right angle to the other in order to eliminate any unintentional, directional bias.


Sorry. It wasn't. The two sapphire crystal mounts were 'horizontally' at 90 degrees, not 'vertically'. If you look carefully you will see that feature of the experiment.

The whole experiment was rotated on a 'horizontal' plane, and not a 'vertical' plane like the M & M experiment I linked to below. I'm sure if they did, they would get positive results instead on the null results they got on the 'horizontal' plane. Just like the positive results experienced with the experiment below. To be conclusive about aether's existence, the experiments must also be performed either in an earth orbit, or vertically. We may just have to wait a while until we can conclusively know whether aether does or does not truly exist. I won't hold my breath though with all the resistance I keep seeing. Maybe one day we'll know for sure.
AntonKole
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 17, 2015
Actually common scientists are quite pragmatic regarding aether model (http://arxiv.org/...6763,..) Just the modern priests, i.e. ideologists of "science" (you know them from TV shows) and their wannabes at PhysOrg forum (voting trolls) enjoy their seeming power of groupthink right now.


Cheers. I'll check out the paper in further detail. You're right. It is the non-scientifically minded ones that I was referring to as being afraid of seeing a full suit of experiments being performed before accepting a null hypothesis. A true scientist would not accept a null hypothesis based on inconclusive experiments and assumptions.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 17, 2015
"By providing the strongest evidence yet that the speed of light is a constant, the results further verify that Lorentz symmetry is a basic property of nature."

The basic property of nature seems to include light that slows to a virtual standstill by the time it reaches the bottom of the ocean. That suggests forces of physics are linked to the chemistry of life in the context of an atoms to ecosystems model of biologically-based cause and effect.

If so, the effect of water on the speed of light probably links the sun's biological energy to the de novo creation of nucleic acids and all of life's diversity via nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated events that link RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to the diversity of all cell types in all individuals of all living genera via what is currently known to serious scientists about the physiology of reproduction, which is nutrient-dependent.
nikola_milovic_378
Sep 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Sep 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Sep 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 17, 2015
If sunlight is the anti-entropic force that links the de novo creation of nucleic acids to all biodiversity, it seems likely that viruses link entropic elasticity to genomic entropy via perturbed nutrient-dependent protein folding biochemistry.

JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 17, 2015
One important consequence of Lorentz symmetry is that the speed of light is invariant, or a constant in vacuum.


Evolutionary theorists and theoretical physicists tend to ignore that fact in the context of their ridiculous theories. Thus, the title of this reporting claims "...the speed of light is indeed constant."

If life on earth existed in a vacuum, there would be no reason to explain to theorists what happens to link sunlight on contact with water to the de novo creation of nucleic acids and de novo creation of genes that link the creation of receptors on cells to the ability of cells to replicate via nutrient-uptake and thermodynamic cycles of RNA-mediated protein biosynthesis and degradation, which are perturbed by viruses.

Instead, theorists need an explanation of top-down causation, so they claim that mutations link natural selection to evolution, and expect serious scientists, like Schrodinger, to believe in their neo-Darwinian nonsense.
Protoplasmix
4.3 / 5 (7) Sep 17, 2015
Once again, when will the group tip their experiment on its side, and do the experiment vertically (or in an earth orbit)?
There is a measurable effect vertically, and it's strongest at the earth's surface. In an experiment with the highest Q factor ever observed in atomic physics, at a vertical displacement of just 33 cm (12 in) between two clocks, the lower clock ran slower than the higher one at the rate predicted by general relativity in accordance with the mass of the earth and respective locations of the clocks in its gravitational field. See http://www.nist.g...2310.cfm
JVK
1.6 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2015
Some people would like the experimental evidence to be meaningful. See, for example: Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics http://www.nature...-1.16535

Excerpt: "The imprimatur of science should be awarded only to a theory that is testable. Only then can we defend science from attack."

Can the experimental evidence of what"Protoplasmix" claims is a measurable effect be meaningfully linked to the simultaneous emergence of hens and eggs?

http://matpitka.b...tor.html
Excerpt: "For instance, does it make sense to talk about dark variants of cell and cell membrane? Can one tell whether it was pro-cell or bio-molecules that emerged first? It seems that all these structures could have emerged simultaneously. What emerged was dark matter and its emergence involved the emergence of all the others. Hens and eggs emerged simultaneously."
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 18, 2015
@JVK

This is not the first time you've linked to musings of the crack pot Matti Pitkanen, please make it the last.

Daily musings, mostly about physics and consciousness, heavily biased by Topological Geometrodynamics background http://matpitka.b...tor.html
KBK
3 / 5 (2) Sep 18, 2015
The circular argument comes when we look at how Heaviside stripped Maxwell's complex unidirectional field residuals out of the higher math..... to simplify it so people could handle the math (paper calculations) in order to make functional motors, at the given time.

Then we look at how Einstein used the simplified math for general and special.

Then Lorentz.

A circular argument, done with stripped math. There is no balancing limiting symmetry otherwise it would be a static universe, and time would not exist nor would it be unidirectional, as it obviously is.

The incredibly microscopic and complex unidirectional field residuals that Heaviside stripped out (as they could not calculate for them and they were meaningless for their purposes, at the time), is the thing that Ben Rich of Lockheed Martin said 'was the error in the math' they found.. that allowed for anti-gravity, a seeming 'over unity', and FTL travel.
AntonKole
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 18, 2015
There is a measurable effect vertically.........

Exactly my point. :) We can't scientifically 'Accept' the aether 'Null hypothesis', while vertical experiments, like this one ( https://www.youtu...d7o8X2-E ), are producing positive results.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2015
There is no balancing limiting symmetry otherwise it would be a static universe...
-- KBK

You seem to be suggesting finely-tuned molecular mechanisms of life link atoms to biophysically constrained ecosystems via the chemistry of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated gene duplication and fixation of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions via the physiology of reproduction, which links the creation of the sun to the creation of all biomass via chemical reactions that begin with the contact of sunlight and water.

Simply put, you sound like a creationist -- not that there's anything wrong with that.

For example, young earth creationists linked viruses that prevent epistasis to all pathology in the context of physics, chemistry, and conserved molecular mechanisms. See: Viral Genome Junk Is Bunk http://www.icr.or...cle/8661
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2015
This is not the first time you've linked to musings of the crack pot Matti Pitkanen, please make it the last.


Thanks for menitoning that. He exemplifies what biologically uninformed idiots can do with everything known about how atoms and ecosystems are linked by conserved molecular mechanisms of RNA-mediated cause and effect.

He is not alone. Many other "crackpots" seem to believe in simultaneous hen and egg emergence -- or the emergence of other aspects of biophysically constrained life in the context of evolutionary mechanisms.

Rather than tell me to quit referencing biologically uninformed science idiots to help make my point, try making one of your own.

A circular argument, done with stripped math.
-- KBK

If that is an original statement, I would like to know if anyone already used it as a definition of "evolution?"
baudrunner
1 / 5 (3) Sep 18, 2015
They perform the experiment in a liquid helium bath in a laboratory on Earth and then state that "the speed of light is constant in a vacuum." I maintain that "light" doesn't go anywhere, it is an interpretation by the brain, as the result of the excitations of the cones and rods on the retina, of the modulated oscillations of the particles in a transmitting medium, sending bio-electric signals to the occipital lobe.

More correctly, it is the rate of the interaction of adjacent particles in a propagating medium, atmospheric or spaciopheric (ok?) which occurs at that constant rate which translates to those interactions occurring over a distance of 300,000 km in one second IN ATMOSPHERE. That distance increases as the distance between the particles in the medium increases, but the rate of that interaction is constant. That is what they mean by the constant, "speed of light". I wish that everyone would just get with it. Understand what "light" is, and how it works.
Cave_Man
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 18, 2015
Wouldn't gravity be the aether they were looking for in the 1800's? It slows down light.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 18, 2015
Gravity?

Re: A circular argument, done with stripped math.

Light does not penetrate to the depths of the ocean where a bacterial species appears to not have evolved during that past ~2 billion years. Which do you think is most important 1) understanding the effect of gravity on light or 2) understanding how water traps its energy?

I think if you don't understand how water traps light energy, you are more likely to believe that some bacteria don't evolve during ~2 billion years but others "re-evolve" their flagella over the weekend. See: http://www.the-sc...ewiring/
EnsignFlandry
1 / 5 (1) Sep 19, 2015
They perform the experiment in a liquid helium bath in a laboratory on Earth and then state that "the speed of light is constant in a vacuum." I maintain that "light" doesn't go anywhere, it is an interpretation by the brain.... blah blah blah

More correctly, it is the rate of the interaction of adjacent particles in a propagating medium, atmospheric or spaciopheric (ok?) which occurs at that constant rate which translates to those interactions occurring over a distance of 300,000 km in one second IN ATMOSPHERE. That distance increases as the distance between the particles in the medium increases, but the rate of that interaction is constant. That is what they mean by the constant, "speed of light". I wish that everyone would just get with it.. more blah/q]

The liquid he was used to cool the crystals, not as a medium. I maintain that light goes from the sun to earth, from flashlight to object, etc. Wish these pseudo-scientists would stick to their own sites.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2015
Is the speed of light slowed on contact with water, or not?

Why can't theoretical physicists accept or refute what is known to chemists and biologists?

It sometimes seems they would rather hide from facts by placing everything into the context of theories.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2015
Is the speed of light slowed on contact with water, or not?

Why can't theoretical physicists accept or refute what is known to chemists and biologists?
@jk
perhaps you should learn to actually read before commenting ... you should do at least some basic research before posting and looking like a complete moron anyway:
In a medium, light usually does not propagate at a speed equal to c
https://en.wikipe...a_medium

this is not "theory" or conjecture, but demonstrated through various experiments

are you still trying to prove your creationist comments?
they would rather hide from facts by placing everything into the context of theories
ROTFLMFAO
you claim to be a "serious scientist" but you still don't know the difference between opinion, conjecture, and a SCIENTIFIC THEORY????

ROTFLMFAO
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2015
Why can't theoretical physicists accept or refute what is known to chemists and biologists?


Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism
http://dx.doi.org...hem.2202

Single-residue insertion switches the quaternary structure and exciton states of cryptophyte light-harvesting proteins
http://www.pnas.o...abstract

Does anyone think that Captain Stumpy is a theoretical physicist, chemist, or biologist?
docile
Sep 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2015

Does anyone think that Captain Stumpy is a theoretical physicist, chemist, or biologist?


Why would we, he's never claimed otherwise. And neither are you a physicist, chemist, and especially not a biologist.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2015
...no matter of actual context of discussion.


The context is the link from physics to the chemistry of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding and biodiversity. It requires theorists to acknowledge what is known to serious scientists and explain why what is known was not incorporated into their ridiculous theories.

See for example: Discovering Design Principles for Cells and Organisms

She explains what was known to her about design in 2014 and what was not known.
http://www.ibiolo...sms.html

Chinese researchers have since detailed what was known about RNA-mediated cell type differentiation via amino acid substitutions that link the speed of light from ecological variation to ecological adaptations that also depend on the interactions of light with water.

Context: Light is Schrodinger's anti-entropic force. Natural selection is the force according to theorists.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2015
Re: Light is Schrodinger's anti-entropic force. Natural selection is the force according to theorists.

May the force be with you!

He's retired soldier and firefighter by his own words.


He also claimed he lived with wolves for 10 years.

And neither are you a physicist, chemist, and especially not a biologist.


I am a medical laboratory scientist with an American Society for Clinical Pathology member number and current Board of Certification certificate. My history of published works has linked cell type differentiation across species via the conserved molecular mechanisms of biophysically constrained cause and effect, since 1995.

See for example, From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.hawaii...ion.html

Excerpt: "Small intranuclear proteins also participate in generating alternative splicing techniques of pre-mRNA and, by this mechanism, contribute to..."
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Sep 21, 2015
The laws of physics are the same no matter which direction you're facing or how fast you're moving—
ONLY when you do not look OUTSIDE your own IRF. If you look outside you can see that you are moving relative to another IRF.
It's such an intuitive concept that most people probably don't know that it has a name: Lorentz symmetry
Lorentz symmetry implies that the Lorentz-transformation has an inverse transformation FOR THE SAME PHYSICS EVENT. A relativistic coordinate-transformation, even a Galilean one, does not have such an inverse coordinate transformation for the SAME event. Thus only a VERY daft person will apply group-symmetry to relativistic coordinate transformations. Group symmetry ONLY applies when the two origins of the different coordinate systems are stationary relative to one another. If they are not stationary relative to one another one gets non-symmetric effects which has to be modelled in terms of forces which do not exist..
TimLong2001
1 / 5 (1) Sep 21, 2015
Constant but not a "limit" -- only the CHARACTERISTIC velocity of E-M radiation. Probability is the way QM dealt with large numbers of photons and is merely a statistical method. The individual photon is deterministic, and relativistic effects are due to their internal helicity. (Fresnel Drag WITHOUT the aether.)
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2015
http://biorxiv.or...4/009126 DNA Denaturing through UV-C Photon Dissipation: A Possible Route to Archean Non-enzymatic Replication

Why do theoretical physicists seem to be unwilling to discuss biologically-based facts? Is it because the facts show that their ridiculous theories have no explanatory power, which means that when serious scientists realize that fact, funding for pseudoscientific theories will be eliminated?
balslev
1 / 5 (1) Sep 21, 2015
A change in the speed relative to the virtual photons that hold the experimental equipment together will induce a change of the length of the cavity that measures the speed of the photons. Since the change of the length of the cavity will correspond to the change of the frequency, one will never ever be able to measure any change of frequency by this method.

On the other hand, Stefan Marinov has used an other method, which he call the Coupled Shutters Experiment, and measured the Earth's absolute velocity relative to the zero-point field to 362 ± 40 km/s. This measurement is in accordance with WMAP's measurement of the velocity of our local group of galaxies to 369 ±0.9 km/s in relation to the zero-point field.

Both Stefan Marinov's and the WMAP's measurements proves that the Lorentz symmetry is wrong.
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2015
Both Stefan Marinov's and the WMAP's measurements proves that the Lorentz symmetry is wrong.
The concept of Lorentz "symmetry" IS wrong since the Lorentz-transformation does not define a symmetry but an asymmetry: This is the case for any relativistic coordinate transformation where the one inertial reference frame (IRF) moves with a constant speed v relative to one another (also the Galilean transformation which remain valid when transforming the motion of the centre-of-mass of a matter-entity). This asymmetry of the Lorentz transformation is in addition determined by the fact that the speed of the SAME wave-front(of light) is the same value c relative to all IRF's. This does not exclude the possibility that an IRF can exist which can be considered as uniquely stationary. Therefore the WMAP measurements do NOT prove that the speed of light is NOT the same relative to all IRF's.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2015
More than 800 human G-Protein-coupled receptors link the selective detection of extracellular signals such as photons, odorants, flavors, nucleotides, hormones, neurotransmitters.

~400 hundred of these G-Protein-coupled receptors are olfactory receptors. The speed of light on contact with water is linked from the de novo creation of nucleic acids to the de novo creation of the olfactory receptors via the conserved molecular mechanisms of biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry in all genera.

I repeat:
Why do theoretical physicists seem to be unwilling to discuss biologically-based facts? Is it because the facts show that their ridiculous theories have no explanatory power, which means that when serious scientists realize that fact, funding for pseudoscientific theories will be eliminated?
balslev
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2015
If the SAME wave-front (of light) has the same value c relative to all IRFs, and the wave front consists of a photon, it will certainly be a problem to define the speed of the photon, if it shall have the same value c relative to all IRFs, unless all the IRFs have exactly the same velocity v.
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2015
If the SAME wave-front (of light) has the same value c relative to all IRFs, and the wave front consists of a photon
A wave-front is NOT a photon: A photon is a coherent light-wave with wave-fronts which move with speed c and which has a total energy of only hf. When all these wave-fronts move along a single direction this photon-wave will also move with the same speed c along the same direction.

If the wave-fronts are spherical wave-fronts which move at speed c along radial directions, the centre of the photon-wave will be stationary. This is true for all coherent light waves, also those that have more energy than hf. The amount of energy and the directions along which the wave-fronts move are solely determined by the source that emits the coherent wave.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.