Michelson-Morley’s 1887 experiment falsified the Aether hypothesis. Flat earthers reject this conclusion and claim the experiment “proved the earth is stationary”. They often misquote Bernard Jaffe’s writings from 1960 to support this false claim.
Sir George Stokes proposed that the Aether is at rest in relation to the surface of the earth
From the 1887 paper by Michelson and Morley, If you were to ignore all other evidence of rotation like opposite rotating celestial poles, stellar parallax, the precession of the equinoxes, Coriolis, Eötvös, etc. one could propose that the earth is stationary. However, in 1925, Michelson, Gale, and Pearson published another experiment that measured the difference in time taken for light to travel in opposite directions around a large rectangle.
Flat earthers interpret this as the aether swirling around the surface of the earth.
If the earth and aether are stationary according to Michelson-Morley, then the aether cannot simultaneously be swirling around according to Michelson-Gale. You can’t have both.
https://www.universetoday.com/22912/more-evidence-earth-is-not-center-of-universe/
From the 1887 paper by Michelson and Morley, If you were to ignore all other evidence of rotation like opposite rotating celestial poles, stellar parallax, the precession of the equinoxes, Coriolis, Eötvös, etc. one could propose that the earth is stationary. However, in 1925, Michelson, Gale, and Pearson published another experiment that measured the difference in time taken for light to travel in opposite directions around a large rectangle.
Flat earthers interpret this as the aether swirling around the surface of the earth.
If the earth and aether are stationary according to Michelson-Morley, then the aether cannot simultaneously be swirling around according to Michelson-Gale. You can’t have both.
https://www.universetoday.com/22912/more-evidence-earth-is-not-center-of-universe/
Aether was the hypothetical material that fills the region of space. It was assumed to be the medium that allows light and gravity to propagate in space. Throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s, some experiments were carried out to prove if the aether exists.
Flat-Earthers (and geocentrists alike) often use the results of these experiments to support their case that the Earth is stationary. But they are wrong. These experiments were conducted to prove if the Aether theory, or if one of its competing hypotheses —like the Special Relativity— better explains reality.
In 1871, George Airy attempted to measure the drag of light that would change the stellar aberration of light by using a water-filled telescope, instead of an air-filled one. His observation did not indicate the change exists and does not support the Aether drag hypothesis, hence the popular name “Airy’s failure.” It does not support a flat & stationary Earth as the underlying phenomenon —the annual stellar aberration— can only occur if the Earth is in motion around the Sun.
The Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 proved that if the Earth is in motion, then Aether could not exist. This experiment alone cannot confirm if the Earth is or is not in motion, but that does not stop flat-Earthers. The fact that the Earth is in motion had to be concluded from other observations.
Georges Sagnac in 1913 conducted an experiment where he rotated his interferometer. He concluded the Aether exists, but only because he was unaware of what we call now the Sagnac effect. This effect is used today in optical gyroscopes, and cannot possibly be utilized had the Aether theory is correct.
The Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment (1926) was a very large interferometer designed to detect Earth’s rotation by measuring the resulting Sagnac effect. The experiment was successful and confirmed the angular velocity due to Earth’s rotation.
Flat-Earthers (and geocentrists alike) often use the results of these experiments to support their case that the Earth is stationary. But they are wrong. These experiments were conducted to prove if the Aether theory, or if one of its competing hypotheses —like the Special Relativity— better explains reality.
In 1871, George Airy attempted to measure the drag of light that would change the stellar aberration of light by using a water-filled telescope, instead of an air-filled one. His observation did not indicate the change exists and does not support the Aether drag hypothesis, hence the popular name “Airy’s failure.” It does not support a flat & stationary Earth as the underlying phenomenon —the annual stellar aberration— can only occur if the Earth is in motion around the Sun.
The Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 proved that if the Earth is in motion, then Aether could not exist. This experiment alone cannot confirm if the Earth is or is not in motion, but that does not stop flat-Earthers. The fact that the Earth is in motion had to be concluded from other observations.
Georges Sagnac in 1913 conducted an experiment where he rotated his interferometer. He concluded the Aether exists, but only because he was unaware of what we call now the Sagnac effect. This effect is used today in optical gyroscopes, and cannot possibly be utilized had the Aether theory is correct.
The Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment (1926) was a very large interferometer designed to detect Earth’s rotation by measuring the resulting Sagnac effect. The experiment was successful and confirmed the angular velocity due to Earth’s rotation.
Flat earthers misrepresent Airy's experiment and the implications. What Airy, and Michelson-Morley, showed was there is no aether that we are moving through.
Michelson-Gale-Pearson, Sagnac, Compton, et al. proved Earth's motion around the Sun and Rotation about an axis. The observed annual stellar aberration, or apparent motion of celestial objects about their true positions, is dependent on the velocity of the observer which also proves the Earth is moving. What finally accounted for all observations is Einstein's Relativity.
Michelson-Gale-Pearson, Sagnac, Compton, et al. proved Earth's motion around the Sun and Rotation about an axis. The observed annual stellar aberration, or apparent motion of celestial objects about their true positions, is dependent on the velocity of the observer which also proves the Earth is moving. What finally accounted for all observations is Einstein's Relativity.
Michelson's terse description of the experiment: "The interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. ... The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect." (A. A. Michelson, Am. J. Sci, 122, 120 (1881))
Further, with respect to Einstein saying Earth's orbit around the Sun can't be detected, Witsit is cherry picking from that quote as well and taking it out of context. The following is the actual quote along with the preceding paragraph to make the context clear: "Then I myself wanted to verify the flow of the ether with respect to the Earth, in other words, the motion of the Earth. When I first thought about this problem, I did not doubt the existence of the ether or the motion of the Earth through it. I thought of the following experiment using two thermocouples: Set up mirrors so that the light from a single source is to be reflected in two different directions, one parallel to the motion of the Earth and the other antiparallel. If we assume that there is an energy difference between the two reflected beams, we can measure the difference in the generated heat using two thermocouples. Although the idea of this experiment is very similar to that of Michelson, I did not put this experiment to the test. While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson's experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun." Witsit is omitting the last part where Einstein acknowledges that Earth is revolving around the Sun. Also, from these two paragraphs, the context is more clear. Einstein initially thought the ether existed and Earth is moving through it. But since Michelson's experiment to detect Earth's motion through the ether failed, Einstein felt that no optical experiment can detect it because light needs ether as a medium for propagation, but that propagation can't be detected. However, later on Einstein realized that the ether doesn't exist and this led to the formulation of his Special Theory of Relativity.
In 1881, Albert A. Michelson experimented to prove the existence of aether. Aether was a hypothesized material that fills the region of the universe. Scientists knew light is a form of a wave, and because all other waves require a medium to propagate, they formulated the aether hypothesis, in which light can propagate. However, Michelson’s attempt produced a null result. Michelson concluded that the hypothesis of a stationary aether is erroneous.
Ether is a frame, in which an observer measures the speed of light to be exactly c. If Galilean transformations really applied to light, then there would be one and only one on which the speed of light is exactly c. That is there is a unique inertial system in which the so called ether is at rest. Only way Galilean transformations and Maxwells work is if there is a unique and privileged frame of reference (the "ether" frame) in which Maxwell's equations are valid and in which light is propagated at a speed c.
Ether is a frame, in which an observer measures the speed of light to be exactly c. If Galilean transformations really applied to light, then there would be one and only one on which the speed of light is exactly c. That is there is a unique inertial system in which the so called ether is at rest. Only way Galilean transformations and Maxwells work is if there is a unique and privileged frame of reference (the "ether" frame) in which Maxwell's equations are valid and in which light is propagated at a speed c.
1. Stationary Ether, no contraction: what was originally thought as the medium or reference frame from which light propagated.
The experimental results showed no shift in the fringe patterns. The only possible conclusion is the earth is traveling with a speed v=0 relative to the ether, to which Michelson himself said was preposterous.
**Should be a shift in the fringe pattern. ΔN = .4 if there is a stationary ether (v/c = 10^-4 based on earth's orbital velocity of 30,000 m/s and light going 3x10^8 m/s.
Another possibility is to conclude the speed of light is the same in all directions in every inertial system**. For this fact would lead to ΔN = 0 in the equal arm experiment, the "downstream/upstream" and cross stream speeds both being c, rather than |c + v| or |c - v|. However such a conclusion being incompatible with Galilean (velocity) transformations, seemed to be too drastic philosophy at the time. If the measured speed of light did not depend on the motion of the observer, all inertial systems would be equivalent for a propagation of light and there would be no experimental evidence to indicate the existence of a unique inertial system, that is, the ether. Therefore to "save the ether" and still explain the Michelson-Morley result, scientists suggested alternative hypotheses which fell under two broad categories.
**Note: Cherenkov (Cher -ain - koff) radiation is not faster Than the speed of light in a vacuum.
J.P. Cedarholm, C.H. Townes carried out an "ether-wind" experiment using microwaves in which they showed an improvement of 50 in precision over the best previous MM type. The null result is well established.
The experimental results showed no shift in the fringe patterns. The only possible conclusion is the earth is traveling with a speed v=0 relative to the ether, to which Michelson himself said was preposterous.
**Should be a shift in the fringe pattern. ΔN = .4 if there is a stationary ether (v/c = 10^-4 based on earth's orbital velocity of 30,000 m/s and light going 3x10^8 m/s.
Another possibility is to conclude the speed of light is the same in all directions in every inertial system**. For this fact would lead to ΔN = 0 in the equal arm experiment, the "downstream/upstream" and cross stream speeds both being c, rather than |c + v| or |c - v|. However such a conclusion being incompatible with Galilean (velocity) transformations, seemed to be too drastic philosophy at the time. If the measured speed of light did not depend on the motion of the observer, all inertial systems would be equivalent for a propagation of light and there would be no experimental evidence to indicate the existence of a unique inertial system, that is, the ether. Therefore to "save the ether" and still explain the Michelson-Morley result, scientists suggested alternative hypotheses which fell under two broad categories.
**Note: Cherenkov (Cher -ain - koff) radiation is not faster Than the speed of light in a vacuum.
J.P. Cedarholm, C.H. Townes carried out an "ether-wind" experiment using microwaves in which they showed an improvement of 50 in precision over the best previous MM type. The null result is well established.
2. Stationary Ether, Lorenz contraction: All bodies contracted relative to a stationary ether by a factor of 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Interferometer of differing lengths should show a shift in fringes but doesn't.
3. Ether Drag: Ether attached to appreciable bodies. Another attempt to retain the notion of a preferred ether frame. This hypothesis assumed that the ether frame was attached to all bodies of finite mass, that is, dragged along with such bodies. The assumption of a local ether would automatically give a null result in the Michelson-Morley experiment. It's attraction lay in the fact that it did not require modifications of classical mechanics or electromagnetism.
However there were two well established effects which contradicted the ether drag hypothesis: stellar aberration and the Fizeau convection coefficient.
However there were two well established effects which contradicted the ether drag hypothesis: stellar aberration and the Fizeau convection coefficient.
Stellar aberration is the apparent shift of stars about their actual positions, depending on the direction Earth is moving in its orbit around the sun. It occurs because the speed of light is finite; it takes time for light to reach the observer. Stellar aberration was discovered in 1727 by James Bradley. It was the first direct proof of heliocentrism, that Earth is in orbit around the sun.
An analogy to explain stellar aberration is the apparent direction of falling rain. If rain is falling vertically, to a person running in the rain, the rain will arrive at an angle. The rain will appear to originate not from straight up but slightly tilted toward the direction the person is running.
An analogy to explain stellar aberration is the apparent direction of falling rain. If rain is falling vertically, to a person running in the rain, the rain will arrive at an angle. The rain will appear to originate not from straight up but slightly tilted toward the direction the person is running.
Stellar aberration is different from stellar parallax, which is the shift of nearby stars relative to more distant stars due to the change in Earth’s position around the sun. The magnitude of stellar parallax depends on the distance of the stars, while stellar aberration affects every star by the same maximum shift. Both phenomena are direct evidence of heliocentrism.
Stellar aberration has the same annual cycle as Earth’s orbital period. It causes stars at the ecliptic poles to move in circles, those in the ecliptic plane to move in lines, and other stars in between to move in ellipses. The maximum shift of stars due to stellar aberration is the speed of Earth’s motion around the sun divided by the speed of light, which is 0.00099365 radians or 20.49552 arcseconds.
Stellar aberration has the same annual cycle as Earth’s orbital period. It causes stars at the ecliptic poles to move in circles, those in the ecliptic plane to move in lines, and other stars in between to move in ellipses. The maximum shift of stars due to stellar aberration is the speed of Earth’s motion around the sun divided by the speed of light, which is 0.00099365 radians or 20.49552 arcseconds.
Airy’s Failure was an experiment performed in 1871 in which Sir George Biddell Airy failed to confirm the aether theory by measuring stellar aberration.
Flat-Earthers claim that the “failure” in “Airy’s Failure” is the failure of proving the motion of Earth. In reality, the experiment aimed to confirm the aether theory. The “failure” was in proving the aether theory. The experiment relied on the already accepted knowledge that Earth is in orbit around the sun.
The aether drag hypothesis predicted that a water-filled telescope should produce a different value of stellar aberration compared to an air-filled one. The change was not observed, hence the name “Airy’s failure.” The experiment helped in ruling out the aether theory.
Okay, now to the actual science, and the root of Airy’s real failure. His entire experiment was based on the false assumption that light required a medium through which to travel, commonly referred to at the time as “aether”. His experimental results were therefore skewed by that underlying false assumption, thus leading to yet another false conclusion, that the failure of starlight to act as predicted based on a heliocentric model must mean that the heliocentric model was false. In fact what his experiment really proved, which wouldn’t be scientifically explained for some time, was there was no such thing as aether and that light did NOT require a medium through which to travel.
**However, if you believe in the Aether (against all evidence), then you would conclude the Earth was stationary, even though the regular stellar aberration observations indicate that it is not stationary.
Flat-Earthers claim that the “failure” in “Airy’s Failure” is the failure of proving the motion of Earth. In reality, the experiment aimed to confirm the aether theory. The “failure” was in proving the aether theory. The experiment relied on the already accepted knowledge that Earth is in orbit around the sun.
The aether drag hypothesis predicted that a water-filled telescope should produce a different value of stellar aberration compared to an air-filled one. The change was not observed, hence the name “Airy’s failure.” The experiment helped in ruling out the aether theory.
Okay, now to the actual science, and the root of Airy’s real failure. His entire experiment was based on the false assumption that light required a medium through which to travel, commonly referred to at the time as “aether”. His experimental results were therefore skewed by that underlying false assumption, thus leading to yet another false conclusion, that the failure of starlight to act as predicted based on a heliocentric model must mean that the heliocentric model was false. In fact what his experiment really proved, which wouldn’t be scientifically explained for some time, was there was no such thing as aether and that light did NOT require a medium through which to travel.
**However, if you believe in the Aether (against all evidence), then you would conclude the Earth was stationary, even though the regular stellar aberration observations indicate that it is not stationary.
The important thing to conclude from these experiments with stellar aberration is that the ether is not dragged around the earth. If it were, the ether would be at rest with respect to the earth, the telescope would not have to be tilted and there would be no aberration at all. That is, the ether would be moving (with the earth) to the right with speed v, so there would be no need to correct for the earth's motion through the ether.
The Sagnac effect occurs to a pair of light beams traveling in a circuit in the opposite direction. If the circuit itself is rotating, then the beams will complete the circuit in different duration. The effect was first demonstrated by Georges Sagnac in 1913.
After discovering this effect, Sagnac incorrectly used the results as proof of the aether’s existence, and today’s flat-Earthers use it as “evidence” of stationary Earth. In reality, Sagnac was not aware that the effect is consistent with Einstein’s theory of relativity. And if the effect really proved aether, then optical gyroscopes are impossible.
The Sagnac effect is used as the basis of optical gyroscopes, including fiber-optic gyroscopes and ring-laser gyroscopes. In an optical gyroscope, a pair of light beams are made to travel in a circuit in the opposite direction. Because light travels at a constant speed, irrespective of the transmitter’s speed, then if the gyroscope is rotated, a beam of light will complete the circuit sooner than the other. From the difference, we can measure the rotating motion of the gyroscope.
After discovering this effect, Sagnac incorrectly used the results as proof of the aether’s existence, and today’s flat-Earthers use it as “evidence” of stationary Earth. In reality, Sagnac was not aware that the effect is consistent with Einstein’s theory of relativity. And if the effect really proved aether, then optical gyroscopes are impossible.
The Sagnac effect is used as the basis of optical gyroscopes, including fiber-optic gyroscopes and ring-laser gyroscopes. In an optical gyroscope, a pair of light beams are made to travel in a circuit in the opposite direction. Because light travels at a constant speed, irrespective of the transmitter’s speed, then if the gyroscope is rotated, a beam of light will complete the circuit sooner than the other. From the difference, we can measure the rotating motion of the gyroscope.
Did Airy prove the stars are stationary.
Michelson, Morley, Airy and even Einstein himself who at the end said "I have come to believe that the earth motion cannot be observed by any optical instruments." End quote
Michelson, Morley, Airy and even Einstein himself who at the end said "I have come to believe that the earth motion cannot be observed by any optical instruments." End quote
“While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson’s experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson’s null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun.”
What Einstein meant by the “optical experiment” is the Michelson-Morley experiment. As you know, before his Theory of Relativity, scientists hypothesized the Aether theory to explain why light can propagate through space, unlike other types of waves that require a medium.
The Michelson-Morley experiment was unable to confirm the existence of Aether. They cannot find the difference of light speed traveling at different angles, even though the Earth is in motion. It is what Einstein had in mind.
I hope you are open to truth. It is not my intention to convert any flat earther to the globe, I just like to know and share truth. So I would encourage you to not share this quote out of context, now you have seen (and can research for yourself) the true origin and meaning of the full quote taken in context.
"Common sense is that layer of prejudice laid down in the mind prior to the age of eighteen."
-Albert Einstein
What Einstein meant by the “optical experiment” is the Michelson-Morley experiment. As you know, before his Theory of Relativity, scientists hypothesized the Aether theory to explain why light can propagate through space, unlike other types of waves that require a medium.
The Michelson-Morley experiment was unable to confirm the existence of Aether. They cannot find the difference of light speed traveling at different angles, even though the Earth is in motion. It is what Einstein had in mind.
I hope you are open to truth. It is not my intention to convert any flat earther to the globe, I just like to know and share truth. So I would encourage you to not share this quote out of context, now you have seen (and can research for yourself) the true origin and meaning of the full quote taken in context.
"Common sense is that layer of prejudice laid down in the mind prior to the age of eighteen."
-Albert Einstein
- A REFINEMENT OF THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT
- September 1926
- Roy J. Kennedy
- https://www.pnas.org/content/12/11/621
- Direct PDF Download: A REFINEMENT OF THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT
- A Repetition of the Michelson-Morley Experiment Using Kennedy’s Refinement
- November 1927
- https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.30.692
- Direct PDF Download: A Repetition of the Michelson-Morley Experiment Using Kennedy’s Refinement
- Repetition of the Michelson-Morley Experiment
- January 1929
- A. A. M
MIICHELSON, Dr. F. G. PEASE, and F. PEARSON - https://www.nature.com/articles/123088a0
- Direct PDF Download: Repetition of the Michelson-Morley Experiment
- A Modern Michelson-Morely Experiment Using Actively Rotated Optical Resonators
- Modern Michelson-Morley experiment using cryogenic optical resonators
- February 2008
- Holger Muller, Sven Herrmann, Claus Braxmaier, Stephan Schiller, and Achim Peters
- https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0305117.pdf
- Direct PDF Download: Modern Michelson-Morley experiment using cryogenic optical resonators
- Laboratory Test of the Isotropy of Light Propagation at the 10−17 Level
- August 2009
- Ch. Eisele, A. Yu. Nevsky, and S. Schiller
- https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.090401
The following experiments support Special Relativity and the constant speed of light. Where is your evidence for your interpretation?
Cherenkov radiation is a form of energy that we can perceive as a blue glow emitted when the electrically charged particles that compose atoms (i.e. electrons and protons) are moving at speeds faster than that of light in a specific medium.
Cherenkov radiation is a form of energy that we can perceive as a blue glow emitted when the electrically charged particles that compose atoms (i.e. electrons and protons) are moving at speeds faster than that of light in a specific medium.
- Kosteleck and Mewes, “Signals for Lorentz violation in electrodynamics”, Phys. Rev. D66, 056005 (2002).A review of various limits, terrestrial and astrophysical.
- Mueller, “Testing Lorentz invariance by the use of vacuum and matter filled cavity resonators”, Phys. Rev. D71, 045004 (2005).A review article.
- Miller, H., P.L. Stanwix, M.E. Tobar, E. Ivanov, P. Wolf, S. Herrmann, A. Senger, E. Kovalchuk, A. Peters, “Relativity tests by complementary rotating Michelson-Morley experiments”, arXiv:0706.2031v1 [physics.class-ph].By combining results from two interferometers made of different materials, located in different hemispheres, rotating on tables, they are able to put limits on more parameters of the SME than otherwise. They have also improved both the statistics and systematic errors of the individual interferometers.
- Nguyen, H.H., “CPT results from KTeV”, (2001). arXiv:hep-ex/0112046.-
- Schwingenheuer, B. et al., “CPT tests in the neutral kaon system”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 74, pg 4376–4379, (1995).-
- Gurzadyan et al., “Probing the Light Speed Anisotropy with respect to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Dipole”, Mod. Phys. Lett., 2005, v.20, pg 19. arXiv:astro-ph/0410742.-
- Hughes, V.W., Grosse Perdekamp, M., Kawall, D., Liu, W., Jungmann, K., and zu Pulitz, G., “Test of CPT and Lorentz Invariance from Muonium Spectroscopy”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 87, 111804-1-4, (2001). arxiv:hep-ex/0106103.-
- Bluhm, R., Kosteleck, V.A., and Lane, C.D.,“CPT and Lorentz tests with muons”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 84, pg 1098–1101, (2000). arXiv:hep-ph/9912451.-
- Carey, R.M. et al., “New Measurement of the Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Positive Muon”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 82, pg 1632–1635, (1999).-
- R. Grieser, R. Klein, G. Huber, S. Dickopf, I. Klaft, P. Knobloch, P. Merz, F. Albrecht, M. Grieser, D. Habs, D. Schwalm and T. Kaehl, “A test of special relativity with stored lithium ions”, Appl. Phys. B59, no. 2, pg 127 (1994).Klein et al., Zeitschrift fuer Physik A 342, pg 455 (1992).Saathoff, G., Karpuk, S., Eisenbarth, U., Huber, G., Krohn, S., Horta, R.M., Reinhardt, S., Schwalm, D., Wolf, A., and Gwinner, G., “Improved Test of Time Dilation in Special Relativity”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 91, 190403, (2003).G. Saathoff, S. Reinhardt, H. Buhr, L.A. Carlson, D. Schwalm, A. Wolf, S. Karpuk, C. Novotny, G. Huber, and G. Gwinner, Can. J. Phys./Rev. can. phys. 83(4): pg 425–434 (2005)(Saathof's Ph.D. thesis, 2002) http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/ato/homes/saathoff/diss-saathoff.pdf(Reinhardt's Ph.D. thesis, 2005) http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/volltexte/2005/5934/pdf/doktorarbeit_sreinhardt.pdfThis is an incredibly clever experiment using 7Li+ ions in a storage ring, synchronizing a single laser to a 2-level transition via Doppler shifts in both directions. The fractional accuracy in frequency is 10−9, and the limit on deviation from the relativistic formula is 2.2�10−7 for speeds a substantial fraction of c.
- Lane, C.D., “Probing Lorentz violation with Doppler-shift experiments”. arXiv:hep-ph/0505130.-
- Mittleman, R.K., Ioannou, I.I., Dehmelt, H.G., and Russell, N., “Bound on CPT and Lorentz symmetry with a trapped electron”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 83, pg 2116–2119, (1999).-
- Gabrielse, G., Khabbaz, A., Hall, D.S., Heimann, C., Kalinowsky, H., and Jhe, W., “Precision mass spectroscopy of the antiproton and proton using simultaneously trapped particles”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 82, pg 3198–3201, (1999).-
- Dehmelt, H.G., Mittleman, R.K., van Dyck Jr, R.S., and Schwinberg, P., “Past electron positron g-2 experiments yielded sharpest bound on CPT violation”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 83, pg 4694–4696, (1999). arXiv:hep-ph/9906262.-
- Auerbach et al. (LSND Collaboration), “Test of Lorentz violation in Anti-νμ → Anti-νe oscillations”. Phys. Rev. D 72, 076004 (2005).These neutrino oscillations display no significant sidereal variation.Note, however, that the LSND results have been a puzzle for several years, as they appear to be inconsistent with other experiments. Just recently they were directly contradicted by the Mini-BooNE results from Fermilab (May 2007, no reference yet).
- Kosteleck and Mewes, “Lorentz violation and short-baseline neutrino experiments”, Phys. Rev. D70, 076002 (2004).Using the published results of the Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector (LSND) experiment, an estimated nonzero value (3 1)10−19 GeV for a combination of coefficients for Lorentz violation is obtained. This lies in the range expected for effects originating from the Planck scale in an underlying unified theory.Note, however, that the LSND results have been a puzzle for several years, as they appear to be inconsistent with other experiments. Just recently they were directly contradicted by the Mini-BooNE results from Fermilab (May 2007, no reference yet).
- Walsworth, Bear, Humphrey, Mattison, Phillips, Stoner, and Vessot, “New Clock Comparison Searches for Lorentz and CPT Violation”, arxiv:physics/0007063 (2000).Bear, D., Stoner, R.E., Walsworth, R.L., Kosteleck, V.A., and Lane, C.D., “Limit on Lorentz and CPT violation of the neutron using a two-species noble-gas maser”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, pg 5038–5041, (2000). arXiv:physics/0007049.Bear, D., Stoner, R.E., Walsworth, R.L., Kosteleck, V.A., and Lane, C.D., “Erratum: Limit on Lorentz and CPT Violation of the Neutron Using a Two-Species Noble-Gas Maser”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 89, 209902, (2002).Cane, Bear, Phillips, Rosen, Smallwood, Stoner, and Walsworth, “Bound on Lorentz and CPT Violating Boost Effects for the Neutron”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 230801 (2004).Search for sidereal variation in the frequency difference between co-located 129Xe and 3He Zeeman masers sets the most stringent limits to date on leading order Lorentz and CPT violation. By locating the two masers in the same enclosure they eliminate many systematic errors, and are looking at variations at the level of 100 nHz (10−7 Hz !).
- Kosteleck, V.A., and Lane, C.D., “Constraints on Lorentz violation from clock-comparison experiments”, Phys. Rev. D, 60, 116010, (1999). arXiv:hep-ph/9908504.-
- Bertolami, O., and Rosa, J.G., “New bounds on cubic Lorentz-violating terms in the fermionic dispersion relation”, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 097901. arXiv:hep-ph/0412289.-
- Berglund, C.J. et al., “New Limits on Local Lorentz Invariance from Hg and Cs Magnetometers”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 1879, (1995).-
- Phillips, D.F., Humphrey, M.A., Mattison, E.M., Stoner, R.E., Vessot, R.F.C., and Walsworth, R.L., “Limit on Lorentz and CPT violation of the proton using a hydrogen maser”, Phys. Rev. D, 63, 111101, (2001). arXiv:physics/0008230.Humphrey et al., “Testing CPT and Lorentz Symmetry with Hydrogen Masers”, Phys. Rev. A68, 063807 (2003). arXiv:physics/0103068.-
- Ellis, J.R., Farakos, K., Mavromatos, N.E., Mitsou, V.A., and Nanopoulos, D.V., “Astrophysical probes of the constancy of the velocity of light”, Astrophys. J., 535, 139–151, (2000). arXiv:astro-ph/9907340.-
- Ellis, J.R., Mavromatos, N.E., Nanopoulos, D.V., and Sakharov, A.S., “Quantum-gravity analysis of gamma-ray bursts using wavelets”, Astron. Astrophys., 402, 409–424, (2003). arXiv:astro-ph/0210124.-
- Biller, S.D., Breslin, A.C., Buckley, J., Catanese, M., Carson, M., Carter-Lewis, D.A., Cawley, M.F., Fegan, D.J., Finley, J.P., Gaidos, J.A., Hillas, A.M., Krennrich, F., Lamb, R.C., Lessard, R., Masterson, C., McEnery, J.E., McKernan, B., Moriarty, P., Quinn, J., Rose, H.J., Samuelson, F., Sembroski, G., Skelton, P., and Weekes, T.C., “Limits to quantum gravity effects from observations of TeV flares in active galaxies”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 83, 2108–2111, (1999). arXiv:gr-qc/9810044.-
- Boggs, S.E., Wunderer, C.B., Hurley, K., and Coburn, W., “Testing Lorentz Non-Invariance with GRB021206”, (2003). arXiv:astro-ph/0310307.-
- Ellis et al., “Robust Limits on Lorentz Violation from Gamma-Ray Bursts”, arXiv:astro-ph/0510172 (2005).If the speed of light has an energy dependence c(E) ~ c0(1 − E/M), a limit on M is obtained: M > 0.91016 GeV/c2.
- Kosteleck and Mewes, “Cosmological Constraints on Lorentz Violation in Electrodynamics”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 87, no. 25, 251304 (2001).Certain coefficients for Lorentz violation are bounded to less than 310−32.
- Lehnert, R., and Potting, R., “The Cerenkov effect in Lorentz-violating vacua”, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 125010, (2004). arXiv:hep-ph/0408285 .Lehnert, R., and Potting, R., “Vacuum Cerenkov radiation”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 93, 110402, (2004). arXiv:hep-ph/0406128.-
- Coleman, S.R., and Glashow, S.L., “Cosmic ray and neutrino tests of special relativity”, Phys. Lett. B, 405, 249-252, (1997). http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9703240.Coleman, S.R., and Glashow, S.L., “Evading the GZK cosmic-ray cutoff”, (1998). arXiv:hep-ph/9808446.Coleman, S.R., and Glashow, S.L., “High-energy tests of Lorentz invariance”, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 116008, (1999). arXiv:hep-ph/9812418.-
- Greisen, K., “End to the cosmic ray spectrum?”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 16, pg 748–750, (1966).Zatsepin, G.T., and Kuzmin, V.A., “Upper limit of the spectrum of cosmic rays”, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. Lett., 4, pg 78–80, (1966).The original GZT papers.