<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Rotating optical cavity experiment testing Lorentz invariance at the 10^{-17} level · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1002.1284/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1002.1284/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Rotating optical cavity experiment testing Lorentz invariance at the 10^{-17} level — mentioned by bigbillheck</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35708206</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1002.1284:35708206</guid><pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2023 23:49:38 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; MM found a signal below the margin of error Wiki has their data: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d1/Michels... In Michelson&amp;#x27;s own words (per wiki): &amp;gt; The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. The data doesn&amp;#x27;t look anything like a signal, and wiki also says: &amp;gt; Roberts (2006) has pointed out that the primitive data reduction techniques used by Miller and other early experimenters, including Michelson and Morley…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1002.1284/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>physics.class-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
