0
$\begingroup$

As background:

Is there a resting frame in the universe? A proposed experimental test based on a precise measurement of particle mass

Does the universe have a rest frame?

From the second article: "This is designed to test the special theory of relativity that assumes the absence of a rest frame, otherwise it would be possible to determine which inertial frame is stationary and which frame is moving. This assumption, however, appears to diverge from the standard model of cosmology, which assumes that what we see as a vacuum is not an empty space. The assumption is that the energy of our universe comes from the quantum fluctuation in the vacuum."

I was under the impression that the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment (and presumably many performed since) discounted a universal rest frame--prior to this time, called the "aether."

After reading about this "new" experiment being proposed by Donald Chang from Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, I was surprised because I thought physicists already considered this "settled" science, i.e. that there is no rest frame. Per Special Relativity, only inertial rest frames between objects matter. However, it seems the Standard Model disagrees with SR in that it envisions quantum fluctuation energy in the rest frame vacuum.

So my questions are: Is anyone aware of an experiment like this that has already been performed? (I am just surprised that this seems like a "new" experiment) Isn't this already a settled matter in physics, or is it not yet settled?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking. Please add further information about the context so that potential answerers will know exactly what the issue here is without following a link - links can rot away, leaving future visitors with absolutely no idea what this question was about. At the very least, provide a brief summary of the experiment in the question and give title and authors of the publication it was proposed in. $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind ♦
    May 26, 2017 at 12:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ SR is just a model, describing flat space-time, which is not what we see in nature. Even if you neglect curvature inhomogeneities induced by local density fluctuations (planets, stars, galaxies), you will get a preferred frame where CMB has no dipole. This is due to the fact that our space-time is not Minkowski but approximately Friedmann, which cannot be described by SR but only by GR. $\endgroup$
    – Photon
    May 29, 2017 at 11:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Just because a whole bunch of experiments have not shown that there is a preferred rest frame (in special relativity: obviously the situation is very different in a non-flat or topologically interesting spacetime in general), this does not mean that more experiments should not be done: testing and retesting assumptions is one of the things science should be doing. $\endgroup$
    – user107153
    May 29, 2017 at 11:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This particular experiment, I am not aware of. Note in passing that Donald Chang uses the old fashioned "relativistic mass", which is a bit strange in 2017. Anyway, tests of the Lorentz invariance of the Standard Model are done all the time. Have a look at the Wikipedia page on Modern searches of Lorentz violation and note the dates of the most recent experiments! $\endgroup$
    – user154997
    May 29, 2017 at 11:55
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you all. My understanding is that these experiments listed on that Wikipedia page have only tested mass-less photons and not charged, mass particles? This seems to be the distinction referenced in the proposed experiment by Donald Chang. However, I'm unclear why this difference seems important in an inertial reference frame? $\endgroup$
    – Brad Cooper - Purpose Nation
    May 31, 2017 at 4:12

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.