https://profmattstrassler.com/2022/02/07/the-best-proof-that-the-earth-spins/ Of Particular Significance Conversations About Science with Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler Skip to content * Home * About + About Me o A New Career Phase + About This Site and How to Use It * Articles + Large Hadron Collider FAQ o How We Learn What Happened in a Proton-Proton Collision o Introduction to the LHC o Photos Of The LHC o Some Technical Concepts # Fermions and Bosons # GeV and TeV # Invariant Mass # What are anti-particles? o The Trigger: Discarding All But the Gold # Trigger Failure, and Repair, at the LHC o What's a Hadron? o What's a Proton, Anyway? # Checking What's Inside a Proton # Proton Collisions Vs. Quark/Gluon/Antiquark Mini-Collisions + Large Hadron Collider News o A Historic Day? Or Just an Important One? o Gangbusters! o Hey Where'd My Higgs Go? o Higgs Search: ATLAS and CMS Summer Data Combined o Multi-Lepton Events: A Good Place to Look for New Physics o Old Pages (Of Historical Interest) # The December 2011 Higgs Update # The July 2011 Higgs Hints o Searches for New Phenomena (as of 9/2011) # Searches Aimed at Supersymmetry @ Seeking New Particles with Long Lifetimes @ Seeking Photons/Zs and Something Undetectable o Triggering: Advances in 2012 # Data Parking at CMS o Two-Photons: Data and Theory Disagree o What do current LHC results (mid-August 2011) imply about supersymmetry? o Why so quiet at LHC? + Particle Physics Basics o C, P, T (And Their Combinations) o Cerenkov Radiation o Fields and Their Particles: With Math # 1. Ball on a Spring (Classical) @ 1a. Resonance # 2. Ball on a Spring (Quantum) # 3. Waves (Classical Form) # 4. Waves (Classical Equation of Motion) @ 4a. Waves (The Quick Calculation) # 5. Waves (Quantum) # 6. Fields @ 6a. Chicken and Egg; Matter and Field # 7. Particles Are Quanta @ 7a. How Bosons and Fermions Differ # 8. How Particles and Fields Interact (an introduction) o How the Higgs Field Works (with math) # 1. The Basic Idea @ 1. The Basic Idea (1st version) # 2. Why the Higgs Field is Non-Zero on Average # 3. How the Higgs Particle Arises # 4. Why the Higgs Field is Necessary o Mass, Energy, Matter, Etc. # Mass and Energy @ How Did Einstein Do It? # Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy # More on Mass @ The Two Definitions of "Mass", And Why I Use Only One # The Energy That Holds Things Together @ Neutron Stability in Atomic Nuclei o Neutrinos # How One Detects Neutrinos @ IceCube: A Giant Frozen Neutrino Catcher # Making Neutrino Beams # Neutrino Types and Neutrino Oscillations @ Velocity Differences of Neutrinos # Neutrinos Faster Than Light? @ OPERA: Additional Supporting Info @ OPERA: Comparing the Two Versions @ OPERA: Some Arguments Against - Cohen-Glashow: OPERA is Self-Contradictory - OPERA vs ICARUS - OPERA: Another Speed Bump - Supernovas and Neutrino Speeds @ OPERA: The First Few Days - OPERA's Paper: My Initial Reaction - OPERA's Presentation: My Initial Comments @ OPERA: What Went Wrong - How LVD Helped Solve OPERA's Mystery o Particle Physics: Why do it? And why do it *that* way? o Particle/Anti-Particle Annihilation o Quantum Fluctuations and Their Energy o The Hierarchy Problem # Naturalness and the Standard Model @ How to Add 2 Curves o The Known (Apparently-) Elementary Particles # Jets: The Manifestation of Quarks and Gluons @ B-tagging: Identifying Jets from Bottom Quarks # Tau Leptons # The Known Particles -- If The Higgs Field Were Zero o The Known Forces of Nature # The Strengths of the Known Forces o The Structure of Matter # Atoms: Building Blocks of Molecules @ Atoms of an Isotope Are Identical, Literally @ Atoms: Their Inner Workings @ Isotopes: Variations on an Atom # Electrons: On the Outskirts of Atoms # Protons and Neutrons: The Massive Pandemonium in Matter # The Molecular Structure of Matter # The Nuclei of Atoms: At the Heart of Matter @ What Holds Nuclei Together? o Theories and Vacua o Tunneling: A Quantum Process o Virtual Particles: What are they? o Why Do Particles Decay? # Most Particles Decay -- But Why? # Most Particles Decay -- Yet Some Don't! + Relativity, Space, Astronomy and Cosmology o Big Bang, Classic Confusions o Black Holes # Black Hole Information Paradox: An Introduction o Dark Matter # Current Hints of Dark Matter (4/13) # Searching for Dark Matter at the LHC # Seeing Signs of Dark Matter Annihilation o History of the Universe # Before Inflation # Big Bang: Expansion, NOT Explosion # Hot Big Bang # Inflation @ Dust Thou Art, BICEP2 # Some Definitions for Cosmology o Parallax: Seeing in Depth o Reflections on Beauty in Motion o The First Principle of Relativity o Transit of Venus and the Distance to the Sun o Why Do Astronauts Float? # How Strong Is Gravity at the Space Station? + Some Speculative Theoretical Ideas for the LHC o Extra Dimensions # Extra Dimensions - How to Think About Them @ Dimensions of Physical Space @ What is an "Extra" Dimension? Some Examples @ Worlds of 1 Spatial Dimension @ Worlds of 2 Spatial Dimensions # How to Look for Signs of Extra Dimensions @ Extra Dimensions & Newton's Gravity @ How Big Could an Extra Dimension Be? @ Kaluza-Klein Partners -- Why? Step 1 @ Kaluza-Klein Partners -- Why? Step 2 o Supersymmetry # How to Look for Supersymmetry at the LHC @ When The Standard Assumptions About Supersymmetry are Relaxed - Test Page # Supersymmetry -- What Is It? # Supersymmetry and Multi-Lepton Events # Where Stands Supersymmetry (as of 12/2013) # Where Stands Supersymmetry (as of 4/2012)? + Tevatron News o A Rare and Interesting Decay of a "B meson" - update 2 o Apparent Unexpected Asymmetries in the Production of Quarks + The Higgs Particle o Discovery of the Higgs # Higgs Discovery: Is it a Higgs? # Higgs Discovery: Is it a Simplest Higgs? # Higgs Discovery: Personal Reflections # Higgs Discovery: Skill and A Little Luck # Higgs Discovery: The Data o Holiday Higgs Hints: Confidence-Inspiring or Not? o How The Higgs Field Works o Implications of Higgs Searches (as of 9/2011) o Non-Standard Decays of the Observed Higgs Particle # Higgs Decay to Unknown Spin-One Particles # Higgs Decays to Unknown Spin-Zero Particles o Taking Stock of the "Higgs" (Jan. 2013) # 1. Is it a Higgs? # 2. Perhaps Composite? # 3. A Higgs of Simplest Type? # 4. More Than One Higgs? # 5. Supersymmetry? # 6. Surprises? o The Higgs FAQ 2.0 o The Old Higgs FAQ # The Higgs FAQ 1.0 o The Standard Model Higgs # Decays of the Standard Model Higgs # Lightweight Higgs: A `Sensitive Creature' @ A Quantitative Addendum to the Sensitive Creature - Non-SM h Decays = Table of Decays @ Decay to Unusual Jets # Production of the Standard Model Higgs Particle # Seeking and Studying the Standard Model Higgs Particle o Why is it Hard to Find the Higgs Particle? # A Lightweight Standard Model Higgs Particle o Why the Higgs Particle Matters # Why the Higgs Particle Matters (Old Version) o Why The Hints of Higgs Currently Rest on Uncertain Ground + Thoughts on the Scientific Process o Scientific Scepticism Isn't Just Politics o Why is the Tevatron So Busy with Hints of New Physics? * Movie Clips * New? Start Here * Technical Zone + Test Page * Xotica + Hurriquake 2011: What are the Chances? + Sunrise o Sunrise (older version) + The Grand Si11iness of 11/11/11 11:11:11 [cropped-cerntunnel1] - How Can You Check that the Earth Spins? The Best Proof that the Earth Spins Posted on February 7, 2022 | 16 Comments In my last post I gave you a way to check for yourself, using observations that are easy but were unavailable to ancient scientists, that the Earth is rotating from west to east. The clue comes from the artificial satellites and space junk overhead. You can look for them next time you have an hour or so under a dark night sky, and if you watch carefully, you'll see none of them are heading west. Why is that? Because of the Earth's rotation. It is much more expensive to launch rockets westward than eastward, so both government agencies and private companies avoid it. In this post I want to describe the best proof I know of that the Earth rotates daily, using something else our ancestors didn't have. Unlike the demonstration furnished by a Foucault pendulum, this proof is clear and intuitive, involving no trigonometry, no complicated diagrams, and no mind-bending arguments. The Magic Star-Pointing Wand Let's start by imagining we owned something perfect (almost) for demonstrating that the Earth is spinning daily. Suppose we are given a magic wand, with an amazing occult power: if you point it at a distant star, any star (excepting the Sun), from any location on the Earth, it will forever stay pointed at that star. Just think of all the wonderful things you could do with this device! As a simple example, imagine you go to the equator near Quito, Ecuador, on the day when Mintaka, the right-most star in the belt of the constellation Orion, is directly overhead at midnight. Right at midnight, you point the magic wand straight up at Mintaka. By 6 am, Mintaka is setting in the west, and the wand points west too. At noon, with the Sun overhead, Mintaka is directly opposite the Sun, on the opposite side of the Earth; and so your wand points straight down. At 6pm Mintaka rises, and the wand points toward it in the east. And when Mintaka is again overhead, the wand points straight up. From your perspective, it has rotated once during the 24 hour period. [Actually, it takes 23 hours and 56 minutes, not 24 hours. That's a subtle point, which we can return to in a later post.] And from then on, through this second night and into the third and fourth, the wand follows Mintaka on its path around the sky. It doesn't matter if it's cloudy or stormy or clear; it doesn't matter if it's day or night. Always, like magic, the wand points at Mintaka. Of course, if the Earth is indeed rotating, the right way to understand the wand's motion is that it is an illusion, and instead the star is fixed on the sky, and the wand is fixed in space. It is you who are being rotated, carried along as the Earth rotates. This is illustrated in the figure below. [equatequat]Left: The Earth viewed from above the North Pole. A person on the equator points a magic wand at a distant star at midnight. As 24 hours pass, the Earth carries the person around in a circle, while the wand continues to point at the star. Right: From this person's point of view, during these 24 hours the wand has rotated around in a vertical plane. This plane is perpendicular to the Earth's rotation axis, which is shown with an arrow pointing toward northern regions. There's nothing special about the location, the star, or the timing. You could have first pointed the wand at 3:16 am instead of midnight. You could have pointed the wand at Mintaka from, say, Oslo or Buenos Aires; the wand will again rotate in a plane once a day, though the orientation of the plane, which is perpendicular to the Earth's spin axis, will change depending on your latitude. [equatpolar]If persons elsewhere on the Earth (shown here with north at the top) point at the same star as in the previous figure, they too will see the wand rotate in a plane. But the orientation of the plane will be different from their perspectives. (Top right) For someone at the north pole, the plane will be horizontal. (Bottom right) Someone living midway into the southern hemisphere will see the plane as upside-down and tilted. Or you could have aimed at other bright stars, such as Sirius, or Vega, or Arcturus, or at dim stars with no special names. You could have pointed the wand at the star Betelgeuse at the moment it rises above the trees outside your home on December 14th, or at the Large Magellenic Cloud of stars on February 2nd at 11:15 p.m. in your favorite southern vacation spot. It matters not at all: the wand, once aimed, never lets go of its target. And that means, as each night and day go by, the wand will seem to perform a little pirouette, coming back to its starting point about 24 hours later. Rather than rotating in a plane, the end of the wand pointed at a random star will go around in a smaller circle, while the motion of the wand as a whole outlines a cone. The center of that cone will point along the Earth's rotation axis, right at the North Star (called Polaris), if the target star is north of the equator, or at the South Star (called Polaris Australis) if the target star is south of the equator. If pointed straight at the North or South Stars, it will not budge, for those stars' apparent locations in the sky remain fixed even as the Earth rotates. [equatconeg]No matter where they are on Earth, persons who point the wand at a randomly chosen star will see the wand's end move in a circle, while the wand as a whole rotates in a cone whose center points along the Earth's axis. Top right: a person at the north pole will see the wand rotate around the vertical, because the Earth's axis looks vertical to them. Bottom right: a person on the equator will see it rotate around the north-south horizontal, since that is where the Earth's axis lies for them. (Note this person, whose arms point north-south, has turned 90 degrees from the person in the first figure, whose arms point east-west.) Since this works at every location on Earth and with every star in the sky, would this prove the Earth is rotating? No. Our magic wand only proves that either the Earth is rotating, moving you around in a circle with the wand standing still, or that the stars are rotating, carrying the wand with them. This wand gives us an opportunity to measure how we are moving relative to the stars, or vice versa, but by itself doesn't determine who is moving. But maybe, with a little more knowledge of magic, we could learn which is which. If only we had such a magic wand. The Wand Exists? In reality, we don't have a wand that works by such magic. We have something better: a wand that works by physics. Rather than something occult created by a wizard, it's a concrete object created by one or more engineers, and it's quite easy to understand and use, at least in principle. And when we understand how it works, it becomes clear that the stars are standing still, and it is the Earth that is rotating. This wand, called a gyroscope, is a wonderful device. It was invented in 1812 by German physicist Johann Bohnenberger, though Foucault, the inventor of the famous pendulum, gave it its name in 1852. Foucault became interested in gyroscopes for the same reason we are discussing them here: he wasn't satisfied with his pendulum as a demonstration of the Earth's rotation, because it is somewhat counter-intuitive. In particular, it's not easy to describe to a non-expert (or even a physics student) why it rotates every 24 hours at the north or south pole, every 32 hours in Paris, and every five and a half days in Caracas. Foucault wanted something simpler and more obvious. The behavior of a gyroscope, as a mathematician friend apparently suggested to him, would fit the bill. The simplest gyroscopes are simply spinning tops: a piece of metal or other material, whose shape is not essential except that it must be carefully engineered to be as round and balanced as possible around a central axis. To become a gyroscope, it simply needs to be set spinning, and the axis around which it spins plays the role of our magic wand. It's therefore essential that the axis be free to rotate in any direction, which requires a nested set of gimbals. It has to spin for 24 hours if we're to use it as I've described, and it has to be absolutely free from any stray forces that might cause it to lose its sense of direction. You can buy a cheap toy gyroscope at a store, but that won't do at all; it's not nearly good enough. Better ones are available at physics departments, where they serve for important demonstrations and experiments; later on I'll link to a video that shows one. But even these aren't good enough for our task. Foucault, using the best techniques he had available back then, only managed to design a small one that could spin for 10 minutes... enough to demonstrate that the Earth rotates, but not enough to make a spectacle on the same level as the majestic swing of a pendulum hung high in a cavernous room. But a gyroscope of extreme tenacity and stability has all the properties of our magic wand. No matter where you live and no matter what time of day you choose and no matter where you choose to point it, its axis seems to move in a circle every 24 hours (except when pointed right along the Earth's spin axis, in which case it remains fixed). That means 360 degrees rotation per day, which is 15 degrees per hour, or one degree every four minutes. (Almost exactly.) Unlike Foucault's pendulum, its apparent rotation occurs at the same rate as the Earth's real rotation, no matter where it is on Earth. Like the imaginary wand, this device would demonstrate either that the Earth spins every 24 hours, or the stars zip around the Earth every 24 hours. But unlike the mythical wand that operates by magic, we know exactly how a gyroscope works. There's no magic: any connection with the stars is irrelevant. You can point it at a gap right between two stars, and it will still point at that gap indefinitely. Why the apparent magic if there's no special relationship between this terrestrial gadget and the stars? It is a coincidence, though a dramatic one. 1. Because of a principle of physics, (conservation of angular momentum, which I'll describe in a moment), a well-constructed stable isolated gyroscope always rotates around a fixed direction. 2. Because the stars are so incredibly far away, their rapid motion relative to one another and to our Sun is too slow for us to notice over periods of years or even lifetimes. In short, the gyroscope's fixed by principle, the stars by mere accident; and the combination of the two explains why a gyroscope tracks whatever star (or absence of star) its axis is aimed at. Importantly, you can check that a gyroscope's axis is stable even without knowing why! Before you point the gyroscope at a star and leave it alone, you should play with it a few minutes -- a time short enough that the Earth's rotation (if any) would be unnoticeable. Try lifting it, or turning its housing upside-down or sideways, or tilting the table it might be sitting on; you will see the axis of its spin does not budge. Beautiful demonstrations of this can be seen in this video, where high quality gyroscopes at the Caltech physics department are demonstrated. See especially 00:45-01:00, and again, perhaps more visibly, at 02:15-03:45. Of course if you strike the gyroscope, or shake it hard enough, or you unbalance it in any way, you'll cause it to lose its aim. Indeed, you'll see evidence that even the gyroscopes in the video, while good for demonstrations, aren't stable enough for the task of showing the Earth rotates. But as long as you are gentle with it, a perfectly-engineered gyroscope will successfully maintain its orientation. In space, it's easier to get a gyroscope to point reliably. In this European Space Agency video from the international space station, you can see that even a toy gyroscope will do a pretty good job in the apparently weightless environment. But of course we want a gyroscope that can be stable on Earth, and a toy won't do. Now that you've played with this perfect gyroscope for a while and convinced yourself that it maintains its spin axis, you can point it at a star. There are three things that can happen. * The gyroscope is not as well made as you need, and so its axis wanders due to its imperfections. If you point it at another star, it will again wander, but in a different way, since the imperfections have nothing to do with the motion of the stars. * The gyroscope is high-enough quality, and the Earth does not rotate. Then the spin axis will remain pointed at exactly the same spot in your room -- at your ceiling, or your window, or the blotch on the floor, or the dirty sock under the bed -- all day long. It will not follow the stars, but neither will not wander; it will seem to you to remain fixed. * The gyroscope is high-enough quality to remain stable, and the Earth does rotate. Then the gyroscope will behave like our imaginary magic wand, and appear to track the stars and, from your point of view, to rotate daily. So just try out the gyroscope for a few days and draw your own conclusion. If you do this experiment and find behavior that mimics the imaginary magic wand we started with, you may safely conclude that the Earth rotates once a day, around an axis that points at the North Star in the north and at the South Star in the south. Its once-a-day rotation explains in an intuitive way that the Earth spins, and that the stars only seem to rotate around the Earth daily. This is the clear demonstration of Earth's spin that Foucault was seeking. Why does it work? Conservation of Angular Momentum A balanced, isolated gyroscope won't lose its orientation because of the principle of nature called the "conservation of angular momentum". Here "angular momentum" is a measure of spinning that accounts not only how fast the object spins but also the axis around which it spins, and "conservation" means "never changing". You can see this principle at work in this video from MIT. Conservation of angular momentum has many consequences -- it explains why spinning figure skaters can spin faster when they pull their arms in toward their bodies -- but for our purposes, the only consequence we care about is this: an isolated spinning object will maintain its spin axis and spin rate indefinitely. In fact, the Earth itself is such an object -- it's one of the best gyroscopes we know. That's why the axis of the Earth has pointed for centuries at the two stars Polaris (the North Star) and Polaris Australis (the corresponding South Star), which are the stars that appear to be essentially stationary throughout the night. The other planets also are natural gyroscopes, as are the Sun, other stars, black holes, and indeed most large objects in the universe. But reality is never perfect. No gyroscope is ever perfectly isolated, and interactions with other objects tend to alter its spin rate and gradually destabilize its spin axis. Even the Earth's axis wobbles, though slowly compared to a human lifetime. For the gyroscope we want, sitting on the Earth, there will be friction at the gyroscope's supports which will slow its spin. Even if these are countered by a motor that keeps it spinning, there are usually other small effects which, over a day's time, can cause this wand to lose its magic. To design a mechanical gyroscope which is stable enough to perform a complete daily rotation is not an easy task at all. Foucault, in 1852, did quite well to make one which was stable for ten minutes! State of the Art? The fact that gyroscopes have still not replaced Foucault's pendulum in science museums around the world reflects the technological challenge involved, and it has remained a topic of research. Consider Andre Geim, who after first winning an Ig Nobel prize in 2000 for levitating frogs using powerful magnets, later shared the 2010 Nobel prize for the discovery of the wonder material called graphene. In 2001 he wrote a paper (unfortunately behind a paywall) entitled "Detection of Earth Rotation with a Diamagnetically Levitating Gyroscope". This paper was co-authored with his hamster, Tisha, who apparently participated in the levitation experiments. Despite the co-author, the paper is written in a serious vein. In it Geim claims that he built a magnetically levitated gyroscope that operated for two hours (limited only by the cost of running his powerful 15 Tesla magnet) and rotated at the expected 15 degrees per hour. He then discusses the technical advantages and limitations of this approach and how it might be improved. That said, I have not yet found a single citation of this paper that reproduces or directly uses his result, nor can I find any talk in which he or anyone else describes this phenomenon, so I'm still not sure how seriously to take this paper. Let me know if you know more than I do. In any case we are beyond the current limits of my knowledge and far beyond my expertise. There are a number of modern gyroscope-imitators, some of which operate on different principles from the mechanical gyroscopes I've been discussing, and I don't understand all of them. It would be great if there's one whose operation was intuitively clear, which could do the job of maintaining its orientation for more than a day, and whose cost might someday drop enough to make it affordable, at least to museums; but I don't see one yet. If anyone reading this is more knowledgeable about this subject that I am, please chime in in the comments. The Ideal Spinning World Here's my dream for the future. Someday, I hope that every major science museum -- maybe even many universities -- will own three sophisticated, stable, affordable gyroscopes. Why three? Because there are many lovely things you can do with three. You could, for example, pick three stars at random -- that is, point the three gyroscopes in any directions you choose -- and then watch how the gyroscopes rotate during the day. The three cones that the gyroscopes' axes sweep out over the day will all be centered on the Earth's axis. You'll also notice that the angles between the gyroscopes never change, as you'd expect if they are truly at fixed orientations and it's you who are rotating. [threegyro1]Three gyroscopes pointed at random stars will all seem to circle the Earth's rotation axis daily, while maintaining the angles between them. A second option would be to point one gyroscope at the North Star (Polaris), a second at a bright star elsewhere, such as Aldebaran, and the third at the Sun. When you check the next day, the first gyroscope won't have moved, the second will still be pointing at Aldebaran, but the third will no longer be pointing quite at the Sun; it will be about 1 degree off. This change per day will continue. Half a year later, the gyroscope would point opposite the Sun, out into deep space. And if you could watch it all year, the Sun would come back into alignment with the third gyroscope only after the full year had passed. This, of course, is a sign that the Sun orbits the Earth once a year -- or is it the other way round? [threegyro2]A gyroscope pointed at the North Star won't seem to move; one pointed at a random star, such as Aldebaran, will rotate in a cone and remain pointed at that star; but one pointed at the Sun, though it will also rotate in a cone, will fail to follow the Sun by about 1 degree per day, or a full 360 degrees per year. A last option I'll mention is that you could arrange the three gyroscopes so that they point at right angles, setting up what's known as a Cartesian coordinate system. The simplest way to do this would be to point one at Polaris and place the other two in the plane perpendicular to the first one and to each other. Then, over the day, the first gyroscope wouldn't budge, but the other two would seem to rotate smoothly around it. [threegyro3]If three gyroscopes are set at right angles, they define a set of Cartesian coordinates; if one of the three is pointed at the North Star, it will remain fixed while the other two will rotate in the plane perpendicular to it. I have drawn in dashed lines the Earth's rotation axis and the other two Cartesian axes. The Best Proofs Come from the Most Unlikely Sources Until and unless these kinds of mechanical gyroscopes become possible, we may have to satisfy ourselves with laser gyroscopes, which are far less intuitive than mechanical ones but have the same magical ability to know where they point. (I won't try to describe how they work here, since it's quite subtle, and I'd rather see someone build a mechanical one anyway.) I haven't found any free videos that clearly show these in action, but they are definitely capable of demonstrating that the Earth rotates. This was done on camera in Netflix' movie Behind the Curve, in which one of these laser gyroscopes is seen to rotate 15 degrees per hour and thus 360 degrees per day. There is resonance, in this story, with the 17th century scientists who laughed at spin-earthers because cannonballs on a rotating Earth wouldn't fly straight; we laugh back, because in fact they do not fly straight (i.e. the Coriolis effect, known long before Coriolis but clarified by him in 1835.) In the case at hand, the experiment that proves the Earth rotates was performed by someone who didn't believe the Earth rotates. The fellow in question, a flat earther, was confident that if he bought a good enough gyroscope, reportedly at a cost of $20,000, it wouldn't rotate at all, and thus he fully expected he would prove, on camera, that anyone who claims the Earth spins is ridiculous. Of course he was wrong -- the gyroscope rotated at 15 degrees per hour. We thank him for his efforts. But naturally, being a flat earther, rather than recognizing that he'd perfectly reproduced the prediction of the competing theory and admitting defeat, he set about to make reality fit his beliefs. He described his discovery and his reaction in this video, where he claimed the sky must be causing the gyroscope's rotation. To test this notion, he tried putting the gyroscope in metal containers in an attempt to shield it from these unknown sky effects, but, hey, the gyroscope just kept rotating. Sensible people will be giggling about this for a long time, assuming the whole thing wasn't staged. (It probably wasn't; you can't make this stuff up, can you?) To see the full Netflix video requires that you pay. At the moment, I can't find any free videos that allow you to observe the Earth's rotation convincingly. But perhaps a company that sells ring laser gyroscopes would like to set one up as a combination public service/ marketing opportunity? Just point a camera at it and let it sit, recording its orientation hour by hour, day by day, as the Earth turns? Share this: * Twitter * Facebook * Like this: Like Loading... Related This entry was posted in Astronomy, History of Science, Science and Modern Society, The Scientific Process and tagged astronomy, EarthRotation, HistoryOfScience. Bookmark the permalink. - How Can You Check that the Earth Spins? 16 responses to "The Best Proof that the Earth Spins" 1. [e1ac4] zeynel | February 7, 2022 at 10:02 AM | Reply So, why is it that time lapse photos of star trails not good enough proof for you, like here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Star_trail We know that rotating crystal spheres that used to hold the stars do not exist so it must be the earth that rotates. + [adeb2] Matt Strassler | February 7, 2022 at 1:48 PM | Reply Hmm isn't that backwards? *How* do we know that rotating crystal spheres don't exist? Or even if you and I know, how are we to convince someone else? How do we answer the question, "Well, have you been out in the stars to check for yourself?" It's a reasonable question, since it's not obvious that there aren't heavenly laws of physics that permit such spheres and might even power them indefinitely... That's why it's important to understand how to give a systematic answer to such a question. Otherwise our knowledge is (or at least seems to be) based on hearsay. o [e1ac4] zeynel | February 7, 2022 at 3:56 PM | Reply > *How* do we know that rotating crystal spheres don't exist? One thing that comes to mind is that we know that stars have different parallaxes so they must be in different distances from earth. To me it would be unrealistic to think that billions of spheres with different centers and radii will all coordinate to turn in unison to trace the star trails that we observe. # [adeb2] Matt Strassler | February 7, 2022 at 4:41 PM | Reply So, the problem with parallaxes is that they are really, really tiny, and even though they'd convince you and me, the fact that (until very recently) very few stars actually show them opens the door to long, complex discussions -- and before you know it our skeptic's eyes glaze over, and nothing is accomplished. The point I'm making is that it's better, psychologically and conceptually, to have something that every person can see for themselves -- the Foucault pendulum is much more effective a proof than some discussion of tiny little shifts in star positions, and the gyroscope much more effective even than that. o [22119] StyMaar | February 7, 2022 at 4:59 PM | Reply > Hmm isn't that backwards? *How* do we know that rotating crystal spheres don't exist? Observable planets exist, and their motion was well-known long before the physics involved in this article had been invented, and it rules out "rotating crystal sphere". Kepler gave the "definitive" answer about their motion but even ancient Greeks (Hipparchus, 2 century B.C.) had a model accurate enough to rule out such hypothetical "rotating crystal sphere". Overall, using Newtonian physics as a proof for this feels a bit like using Special relativity for this purpose... # [adeb2] Matt Strassler | February 7, 2022 at 5:54 PM | Reply So, there's two points to consider here. First of all, although Artistarchus proposed the Earth spins, Hipparchus argued successfully (to his contemporaries) that it does not, precisely because he (Hipparchus) had accurate enough data and modeling to rule out a circular orbit for the Earth. If someone around him had been brave enough to accept an elliptical orbit, the Greeks might have discovered what we all now know; maybe someone did and their results were lost to history. Second, we're talking about the wrong issue here. I'm not trying to explain that the Earth rotates to *you*, or to *me*; we both know dozens of arguments that the Earth rotates. It's the child of 14, or the non-science-literate adult who is rational but uninformed, who needs an argument which gets to the point and is clear as a bell. (And it's important that you know it too, because you're going to have to explain it to someone who doesn't want to hear some detailed argument about ellipses with 2% eccentricity which are extracted from high-precision astronomical data. That kind of argument simply doesn't resonate with most people, and those it resonates with don't need convincing! 2. [49aeb] Chris Bolger | February 7, 2022 at 10:03 AM | Reply Doesn't relativity tell us that every frame of reference is valid and equally correct. If I take the view that where I am standing on Earth and is the cosmos is the center and that the Earth doesn't spin, but the Sun circles me. Isn't that a valid frame of reference? + [adeb2] Matt Strassler | February 7, 2022 at 12:23 PM | Reply This is a subtlety worthy of further discussion. Just because a system of coordinates is valid doesn't mean you should use it... because it mangles other things. For instance, I can use flat coordinates on the Earth, but then they have a singularity somewhere... so the coordinates are fine for some things, but not advisable because they make other things terribly hard to understand. I could, for instance, take a point that lies between Jupiter and the Sun, about 1/3 of the way out, and write that point as the center of the cosmos. That would be just as arbitrary as putting the Earth at the center... or, for that matter, the Sun at the center, since the Sun itself is in orbit around the Milky Way. So we do have to be careful what we mean when we say the Earth is spinning -- and specifying that gyroscopes on the Earth's surface rotate is one very good way to do it! 3. [e709c] andyinkuwait | February 7, 2022 at 11:38 AM | Reply No, it says that INERTIAL frames of reference are equivalent. Rotating frames of reference are not inertial. + [adeb2] Matt Strassler | February 7, 2022 at 12:24 PM | Reply That's true of special relativity. General relativity is more clever. But your point is still essentially correct. It's not an inertial reference frame, and the fact that gyroscopes rotate helps prove that. 4. Pingback: Proof That the Earth Spins - The web development company Lzo Media - Senior Backend Developer 5. [3f3fe] Sergio | February 7, 2022 at 2:14 PM | Reply I always liked this short writeup by Asimov: https:// www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbalmer/eportfolio/ Nature%20of%20Science_Asimov.pdf + [adeb2] Matt Strassler | February 7, 2022 at 3:30 PM | Reply Yes, this is very nice, I'd never read it before. It encapsulates the scientific view: science is not a path that claims pure right over pure wrong, but instead is a path toward ever-improving approximations to the truth. The demonstration that the approximations keep improving is the ever-more-powerful technology that the better-and-better approximations allow. 6. [d8b8c] Waffle Earth | February 7, 2022 at 4:05 PM | Reply New theory of spaghetti and guitar string theory. The earth is an Eggo waffle! + [adeb2] Matt Strassler | February 7, 2022 at 4:08 PM | Reply Excellent! And how do you propose to test this theory? 7. [ae504] BRUCE S WOODCOCK | February 7, 2022 at 4:39 PM | Reply > Of course he was wrong -- the gyroscope rotated at 15 degrees per hour. We thank him for his efforts. Thanks, Bob! Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here... [ ] Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: * * * * Gravatar Email (required) (Address never made public) [ ] Name (required) [ ] Website [ ] WordPress.com Logo You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change ) Google photo You are commenting using your Google account. ( Log Out / Change ) Twitter picture You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change ) Facebook photo You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change ) Cancel Connecting to %s [ ] Notify me of new comments via email. [ ] Notify me of new posts via email. [Post Comment] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] D[ ] * First Time Visitor? This site addresses various aspects of science, with a current focus on particle physics. I aim to serve the public, including those with no background knowledge of physics. If you're not yourself an expert, you might want to click on "New? Start Here" or "About" to get started. If you'd like to watch my hour-long public lecture about the Higgs particle, try ``Movie Clips''. * [htogammagamma_v1] From the CMS experiment at the Large Hadron collider, a proton-proton collision that created a Higgs boson, which subsequently decayed to two particles of light (shown as green rods.) * Search for: [ ] [Search] * Recent Posts + The Best Proof that the Earth Spins + How Can You Check that the Earth Spins? + The Earth's Shape and Size? You Can Measure it Yourself -- Part 4 + The Earth's Shape and Size? You Can Measure it Yourself -- Part 3 + The Earth's Shape and Size? You Can Measure it Yourself -- Part 2 + The Earth's Shape and Size? You Can Measure it Yourself -- Part 1 + Geometry From Within: Evidence for a Round Earth + Mapping the Unknown, Times Three * Categories Categories[Select Category ] * Popular Pages * I went to college at Simon's Rock. * Add this site to your RSS feed RSS Feed RSS - Posts * My Facebook Page + http://www.facebook.com/ProfMattStrassler * Follow me on Twitter + So I'm curious whether anyone here has actually seen the # Earth's rotation proven in a closed room (i.e. no looking... twitter.com/i/web/status/1... 2 hours ago Follow @MattStrassler Blog at WordPress.com. * Follow Following + [9192dd] Of Particular Significance Join 17,553 other followers [ ] Sign me up + Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now. * + [9192dd] Of Particular Significance + Customize + Follow Following + Sign up + Log in + Copy shortlink + Report this content + View post in Reader + Manage subscriptions + Collapse this bar Loading Comments... Write a Comment... [ ] Email (Required) [ ] Name (Required) [ ] Website [ ] [Post Comment] %d bloggers like this: [b]