Talk:Trouton–Noble experiment

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the relativity task force.

I'm reading from the same notes as you, Reddi. It is quite clearly stated in [1] that the Trouton and Noble experiment was flawed, and that this is the reason for the null result. This experiment may be equivalent to MMX in a theoretical sense, but it is certainly not equivalent in an experimental sense. MMX succeeded in unequivocally ruling out the simplest aether theory, but judging by these links you have provided, Trouton Noble experiments have not yet succeeded in reaching that level of accuracy, despite technical improvements.

As for your change "even if the aether existed as proposed" → "If the aether exists as proposed" -- I've never heard an aether theory proponent state that aether theory is correct as proposed. The null result in MMX proved that at the very least, the aether theory needed modification.

-- Tim Starling 15:22 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

-

I have read a few more than what i have listed here ... these are just ome of the good ones [not all but some] ....

How about stating that in the original article [original flaw and current corrections] .... and mabey state that TNX-like are more accurate? May be a good to state the reason to the readers of the original's null result, what do you think? This is equivalent to MMX ... MMX and TNX are both trying to detect the aether [testing the same theory]. Why do you say it's "certainly" not equivalent in an experimental sense? I was under the impression that BOTH are trying to detect the aetheric "torque" on electromagnetic phenonomen [one is energy on a plate and the other a ray of light (which is electromagnetic)]. One didn't detect the torque and the other's detection was irregular ....

[this is a good link on what the MMX and TNX (among others) tried to test ... Baez is a neat guy http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html ... from this link and some other sources I got the impression that they were trying to measure similar things (ala aether and the electrical phenonomen interaction)]

Now as to MMX succeeded in /unequivocally/ ruling out the simplest aether theory .... I would like you to read up on michealson's and morley's own feeling on IF the MMX rules it out ... and I would like you to read a bit on Dayton miller [other ppl could be cited i would imagine, but the experimentors themselves and thier close friend miller [having his own impressive creditals] are pretty good to cite]. The MMX doesn't prove anything ... that's why it's so famous [I'm serious ... even the entry on MMX says it's the most famous failed experiment =-].

Ok on the original TNX being imprefect .... but do these links I have provided say that the TNX-like experiments aren't as precise? Hmm ... i'll get back with you on th .... have to reread some of the links.

Do you know what the original aether theory is? I haven't read the 1911 def in a bit [a few month or so ...] but i believe that was the theory accepted today .... go to the aether article here in wiki and look up the 1911 link @ the bottom [btw, there's another whole article to the link [it's a 2 page entry of the OCR scan but they don't inline link them together] ... just been lazy... ]

Hmmm sorry that you've never never heard an aether theory proponent state that aether theory is correct as proposed [that being the aether and aether-drift] ... it's kinda interesting ... and what michealson, morley, miller, tesla, maxwell, and all them worked off of .... kinda good company to work off of IMHO (if you are going to try to detect it) ... the null result in MMX proved nothing [they didn't detect anything] ... mabey the aether theory doesn't needed modification but an experiment altered or a new one developed to prove the established theory [that they worked off of 100 yrs ago].

more later ... reddi 01:06 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Posted via edit conflict, I will check up the latest URL you have provided later.

Why do you say it's "certainly" not equivalent in an experimental sense?

Because MMX told us something useful and TNX did not. The original TNX gave no useful information. They were both trying to measure the same thing, but only one of them worked. Although MMX is called a "failed" experiment, it did provide useful information.

but do these links I have provided say that the TNX-like experiments aren't as precise?

No, I said the Trouton & Noble's experiment wasn't accurate, not TNX-like experiments in general.

Do you know what the original aether theory is?

Yes. Maxwell's equations appeared to require a fixed frame of reference, since the equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation. The aether was proposed as a material through which electric and magnetic fields propagated, and it followed that the velocity of the aether was the fundamental frame of reference in which Maxwell's equations would work. It followed that light would move at a certain velocity with respect to (w.r.t.) the aether, in exactly the same way as sound moves at a certain velocity w.r.t. air. MMX was a sensitive experiment able to detect this velocity, and it was found that the velocity of the aether w.r.t the lab was very small -- too small to detect. This is despite the fact that the Earth's velocity was changing by an amount much larger than the upper limit set.

Hmmm sorry that you've never never heard an aether theory proponent state that aether theory is correct as proposed [that being the aether and aether-drift] ... it's kinda interesting ...

Well, I guess I have now. Thank you for filling that gaping hole in my life. In my experience, the belief that the aether moves with the Earth seems to be more common.

mabey the aether theory doesn't needed modification but an experiment altered or a new one developed to prove the established theory

That's crazy, you can't change the experiment to fit the theory, you can only change the theory to fit the experiment. A scientific theory must take into account all observed data.

and what michealson, morley, miller, tesla, maxwell, and all them worked off of .... kinda good company to work off of IMHO

Better company would be Feynmann, Dyson and Schwinger. Why do aether theorists ignore 90 years of theory and experiment?

-- Tim Starling 02:01 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[reply]

Sorry about the conflict, mabey my response will take long enough. As to the URL, it's a pretty good URL from Baez, i've read him in other place on the net too ... smart guy. [that was the URL you refered to wasn't it? or were you refering to the OCR link?]

Because MMX told us something useful and TNX did not. The original TNX gave no useful information.

Ok ... [see below]

They were both trying to measure the same thing, but only one of them worked. Although MMX is called a "failed" experiment, it did provide useful information.

Other than detecting nothing [thus providing that this experiment could not detect the aether] ... what other information did it provide?

No, I said the Trouton & Noble's experiment wasn't accurate, not TNX-like experiments in general.

Ok ... great ... i revised the article that i believe would be ok with this line of thought ...

[Snip Maxwell's aether contribution]

It followed that light would move at a certain velocity with respect to (w.r.t.) the aether, in exactly the same way as sound moves at a certain velocity w.r.t. air.

was that what they thought @ the turn of the century [i.e., the end of aether theory as we know it ... IIRC that 1911 article didn't put that forward only, i thought there was more to it .... (i.e., maxwell helped the theory ... but his interpertation was not the only one that form the whole thing)]

MMX was a sensitive experiment able to detect this velocity

Ok ... duly noted in the article ...

and it was found that the velocity of the aether w.r.t the lab was very small

That was primarily because the experiment occur in a basement with thick wall [which would alter the condition to detect any aether (see Dayton Miller on this facet)] ... if you see the pictures of the MMX, it's conducted in a certian way to produce a null result.

-- too small to detect.

See above. [snip rest]

Well, I guess I have now. Thank you for filling that gaping hole in my life.

[chuckles =-]

aether moves with the Earth seems to be more common.

Aether drift? that was part of the turn of the century thought wasn't it? That's where see the aether from as much as i can.

you can't change the experiment to fit the theory

I not implying to make the experiment fit the theory, but the converse ... i'm implying that an improvement on experiments to _test_ the theory (interferometer proceedures have and will continue to improve) and / or a new experiment developed to test the theory in a diffent way (some way that hasn't been developed yet).

you can only change the theory to fit the experiment

... you can improve the experiments too [your statement is only correct if the experiments beyond reproach, see above]...

A scientific theory must take into account all observed data.

Yes ... and a theory can have a duality too ... being both at the same time [ie certian observations can be seen as aehteric and others non-aehteric ... much like light is seen as a particle and a wave, depending on the experiment that you reference]....

Better company would be Feynmann, Dyson and Schwinger.

Feynmann's observation are neat [the diagrams and the virtual particles IIRC] .... haven't read alot on Dyson ... and don't recall reading anything on Schwinger [I'll look him up thanks] ...

Still not as good as company as Tesla IMO [having 4 PHDs sometimes makes you kinda reliable] .... but YMMV on that ...

Why do aether theorists ignore 90 years of theory and experiment?

I'm not an aether theorist, so i don't know... i'm a historian, with an interest in plasmas and circuitry ... if i wasn't as vastly ignorant as i am, i'd be a plasma cosmologist ...

... and I never said to ignore the last century's experiments .... just continue to test them [which isn't a bad thing to do is it? Accuracy of and knowledge on how will continue to increase, atleast I hope progress is made on all fronts of science] ... [see above]

more later ... reddi 03:02 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

was that what they thought @ the turn of the century [i.e., the end of aether theory as we know it

Yes, that's what they thought. The idea of aether being a kind of fluid, the flow of which is easily affected by matter (such as basement walls) was only proposed after MMX, as a means of explaining the null result. Before that, aether was seen as a reference frame, and a solid, fixed medium for propagation. I doubt there has ever been a good mathematical treatment of aether drift.

I don't think we have any serious differences about empiricism and improving experiments. Any aether theory must be compatible with MMX, and designing new experiments doesn't detract from that. Hypotheses such as the "basement walls" idea are exactly what is required.

IIRC, astronomy provides strong evidence against aether drift. Specifically stellar aberration and cosmic microwave background measurements.

-- Tim Starling 03:59 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[reply]

Hmmm ... I thought by th time of the MMX that the the drift thing was part of the theory .... I may be wrong ... i'll try to look into this .... I'll see if i can find a reference on the division between the static and drifting aether [that be good to put into the luminescent aether article and a discussion I'm having requarding maxwell's equation.... ].

The drift may not have been looked into and treated mathematically [though I'm not a huge math guy, experiments are much better IMO]... but this link here talks of the MMX and Miller's work on the aether.

... and I agree that any aether theory must be compatible with MMX in some form [mabey having a duality nature could be it ... duality is rather common I fear], and designing new experiments doesn't detract from that.

As to the cosmic microwave background, i infered from several sources that it is an effect of the space-time vacuum [which could be seen as the aether, as space time carries energy (and sometimes produces it [i.e., casimir effect and quantum flux])]. I don't know about the stellar abberation [hear of the term, never read about it though]... another topic to look into. thanks.

more later .... reddi 05:02 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

For stellar aberration see aberration of light and http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/aberration.html. Those two refs do not talk about ether theory, but they will tell you what aberration is. -- Tim Starling 05:18 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Stevenj edits

Reddi keeps reverting to a misleading version which describes Cornille's 1998 controversial claim of a positive result as "better controlled", etcetera, as if they were more accepted by the scientific community. I have done a search of the current literature (in peer-reviewed journals, not on the web), and it's clear that this is not an accurate description of current scientific consensus. Rather, Cornille's results are unreplicated (apparently, not even by Cornille), he was not able to publish them in a prestigious[*] peer-reviewed journal, and moreover they have been criticized precisely for being not properly controlled (not shielded from external electric fields, in contrast to previous experiments with null results). I've rewritten the article to give a much more accurate description of the scientific consensus on this issue. —Steven G. Johnson 19:40, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

[*] For those of you not in the scientific field, I should point out that there is a rough hierarchy of scientific journals. Some, like Phys. Rev. Lett. and Nature are considered the most prestigious, and have correspondingly the most critical reviewers—errors are published from time to time, but because these journals are so well regarded and widely read, people are quick to publish corrections. Others are less heavily reviewed, have less stringent demands of rigor and novelty, and have correspondingly lower readership. It is notable that Cornille's results were published only in Hadronic J. Supplement and Galilean Electrodynamics (which are not even considered important enough to carry by the libraries of some major universities like MIT), rather than in something like Nature or even Physical Review D—a result that important, if it passed the muster of the referees, would certainly be considered novel enough for those journals and the authors would have published there if they could have.

Steven G. Johnson keeps reverting to the version which does not describes Cornille's 1998 controversial claim of a positive result as "more controlled". [previous experiments were not as controlled]. This is probably no accepted by the scientific community, though that is not prerequist to include the information. I have incluyded the references to the current literature (in peer-reviewed journals) and on the web (several in respected scientific sites). It's clear that BOTH REFERENCES are an accurate state of current scientific investigations. Cornille's results have been replicated (se the various links). Researchers that don't "tow the line" don't get published in "prestigious peer-reviewed journal" either (like Hannes Alfven wasn't)... mainly due to the journal's bias. Criticized precisely for being not properly controlled? What? the contrast between Cornille experiment and other experiments vast ... and they are updated to current technology and knowledge. JDR 19:52, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Regarding "controls", Nieves et al. explain how Cornille failed to control for external electric fields, going on to say that this unlike earlier experiments, and indeed argue how such fields may be induced via Faraday's law due to the rotation of the Earth, so that Cornille's results (to the extent that they are correct) can be explained via standard electromagnetism. It is misleading to present Cornille's result as anything even remotely like generally accepted evidence for the existence of an aether or the invalidity of relativity. I've included citations to most of the recent published articles on the subject, including two by Cornille. —Steven G. Johnson 19:59, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding "controls", Nieves is cited.

It is misleading to not present Cornille's result as anything than evidence for the existence of an aether.

THIS DOES NOT push forth the ida of the "invalidity of relativity"

I've also included your citations.

Sincerely JDR "Two seemingly incompatible conceptions can each represent an aspect of the truth [...] They may serve in turn to represent the facts without ever entering into direct conflict." — Louis-Victor de Broglie (Dialectica)

It's not just a question what is cited, but of making a coherent and accurate description of the state of scientific understanding of experiments of this kind. In that understanding, to the extent that Cornille's result is believed at all (and it is important to note that it is not widely uncritically accepted), the most plausible explanation is considered to be a lack of proper controls (so that he observed an effect unrelated to relativistic invariance). Sorry; I can understand that when you don't understand a subject, all information seems equal and you can mistake volume for accuracy (although, actually, my version is slightly longer). —Steven G. Johnson 20:15, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

It's a question of what is cited ... leaving out information is not NPOV ...

Making a coherent and accurate description of the state of scientific understanding of experiments of this kind? That is why all should be cited ... not just the citation against it (which you continually remove any information that is contrary to your POV) ...

In that understanding, to the extent that Cornille's result is believed at all? I think you are hinting at your POV ...

the most plausible explanation is considered to be a lack of proper controls? Which was cited ...

As to your attack on my understanding, I understand the subject (been readin about it for some time now) ...... and your implication is an attack, painly ...

the information does "seem" equal? no really it's not ... most references to the recent experiment are hard to find ... and most don't seem equilivant (on one had you have _experiments_; the other you have _math_) ...

mistake volume for accuracy? no I didn't ...

JDR [oh, btw (on our previous history) as to "potential" is inaccurate too, as the operator of the californmia power transmission lines stated the other day when I was watchin a documentry on electromagnetism, you don't have anything of you don't have the "potential" [ie., magnetic field] to move the amps)

References to reliable experiments are not hard to find if you are at a university and have access to a literature search engine. You just search for "Trouton" and "Noble", which I did, and I summarized the results. Please give a specific example of how the present article does not accurately represent the current scientific consensus on the Trouton-Noble type of experiments. —Steven G. Johnson 21:03, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Aether editorial disputes

Its the same on all the aether pages. Historians such as myself think aether theories should be properly documented as a matter of historical interest. Against that point of view, you have bored Physics undergraduates, who insist any aether page should be a valid modern Ph.D research topic, with no reference more than 30 years old. Personally, I don't see any valid reason to seek to erase from history, a long tradition of intellectual thought. Right or wrong, people belived it to be true, and for that reason, it is interesting enough. But my type seems to get outvoted. The aether is 'irrational' and all mention of it must be deleted from the history books, or the dark ages will be upon us once again! Timharwoodx 17:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moving Dipole

Could someone explain the following which appears to be related to the Trouton-Noble experiment?

Consider a rod with positive and negative charges of equal magnitude at its ends. If this is moving with constant velocity relative to a supposed aether, the positive charge generates a magnetic field at the negative charge and, since this is in motion, it thereby experiences a force. Similarly, the positive charge experiences a magnetic force due to the negative charge. The torque due to the force pair is such as to align the rod perpendicular to the direction of motion. (According to Chapter 1 of Michel Janssen’s thesis cited towards the end of the article, this is in agreement with Larmor, Lorentz, and Laue; the article itself suggests that there should be a tendency for the rod to align itself with the velocity.)

In the relativistic view, the ‘magnetic’ torque remains. In order to give a null torque, we should require an equal and opposite ‘electric’ torque. However, the direction of the electric field due to a uniformly moving charge points directly away from or towards it (see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_electromagnetism), in other words, parallel to the rod. The ‘electric’ forces therefore produce no torque.

IanHH 16:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Dipole - The Answer

Franklin’s paper on “The lack of rotation in the Trouton-Noble experiment” (http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/0603.7110) demonstrates that, while the forces on the moving charges are not parallel to the rod, the accelerations they would produce were the rod to be removed are. This arises from the fact that, in special relativity, force and acceleration are not in general parallel. Franklin argues that the same effect explains the null result of Trouton-Noble. I would urge that someone more relativity-savvy than myself should include this argument in the article.

IanHH (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Non-Reputable and Un-Verifiable "Controversy"

The reference cited for the Cornille material is a correspondence in the non-reputable Galilean Electrodynamics. Even if it had been a paper in the publication, it's status would be highly questionable, because of that publication's poor reputation, but it wasn't even a paper, it was a correspondence. Anyone can write a letter to the editor. This is not a peer reviewed writing. It was an obvious work of a physics crank, not verifiable from any reputable source per Wikipedia rules, and therefore does not belong in the article. It isn't mentioned in any other reputable secondary source on the experiment, so Wikipedia should not be the first to present it as if it was reputable. That would constitute original research.63.24.98.95 (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Trouton–Noble experiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]