Relativity and Cosmology


Why Trimmer et Al. "Did not Detect" Aether Wind in 1973?

Authors: V.V.Demjanov

          In 1960s several authors began independently studies of the interferometric detection of "aether wind" using in the device optical media. Shamir&Fox in 1969 made measurements on the plexiglas and declared them "negative" (whereas they registered the shift of the fringe at ~1/3000 of its width, and "determined" a corresponding to it velocity of aether wind ~6.6 km/s). In 1973 Trimmer et al. mounted at the one-armed device the glass optics and registered with a big resolution the shift of the interference fringe (at most ~10–6 of its width) and determined by it the speed of "aether wind" ~3.8 cm/s. This result enhanced still more the confidence in that the attempts to detect aether are unfavorable. However, my results of the same years being favorable fell out of the common line of "negative" verdicts to aether. I managed to register on gases, liquids and solid optical materials million times greater relative fringe shifts (0.01÷5.0), revealed the horizontal projection of the aether wind velocity hundreds km/s. Since my results "weakened the experimental foundation of special relativity", their publishing is rejected until now.
          In the current report I argue reasonably, relying on my experience, that Trimmer et al. (as well as Shamir &Fox), actually obtained positive results in their measurements of aether wind which amounts to several hundreds km/s, proceeding from the declared by them resolution of their experimental units. I believe their experimental data. But I guess that they were faced with hidden artefacts in the interferometer with solid optic materials and not aware of it. The theory used by them for processing the measurements of the interference fringe shift obtained is not appropriate for interferometers with solid optical materials. I have found the possible reason why Trimmer et al. did not reveal the experimental facts undermining theories repudiating aether.

Comments: 4 Pages

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 26 Aug 2010

Unique-IP document downloads: 160 times is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus