EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Danny Milano on 11 Jul 2008 09:58 On Jul 11, 8:50 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Baird and Androcles both say that it is possible the muons are > superluminal and we would have no way of knowing. This is an > unfortunate example of experimental ignorance. > > Muon counters are not in fact just arrival indicators. In fact, most > such experiments involve a tower of scintillator hodoscopes, with > layers displaced vertically by several feet, if not tens of feet. > Thus, when a muon passes through, it creates a signal in the topmost > layer, then in the next layer down, then in the next layer down, and > so on. Because the speed of light is roughly a ns per foot, we can > then simply watch the timing of the signals from the layers as the > muon passes through them, just like a double-gate speed trap on the > highway. > > [In desperation, Androcles has suggested that the hodoscopes are gated > so that ONLY signals that are around c are accepted. This is not the > case. He then suggested in even further desperation that the first > layer slows the muon from well above c to just under c, and the muon > then proceeds with the same speed through the other layers. However, > the energy deposited in the top layer is identical with the energy > deposited in subsequent layers, which would be a neat trick if the > layers did to the muon what he suggests. In final desperation, > Androcles says that mysterious things happen and that it's much easier > to believe in that weirdness than in the weirdness of time dilation.] > > Moreover, Baird again focuses on one seminal experiment and completely > fails to look at follow-up experiments that confirm the effect in a > completely different context. Physicists *create* beams of muons and > send them either down straight beamlines (the muon beamline at > Fermilab, for example) or around storage rings (the g-2 experiment, > for example). In this case, we know clearly both the creation point > and the decay point, and in fact we can directly time the ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The geometric aspect of spacetime gives an intuitive explanation of time dilation, length contruction in a minkowski sense. This means that should newtonian interpretation were one day proven to be true. It's like nature works like epicycles where newtonian mechanics would have a unique personalized plan for reality yet it can be described easily by minkowski math. It's as if someone is playing trick on us by altering newtonian mechanics to make the 4D math tallies with reality. This may seem odd. But when we design robots, we make it conform to human reality. This means that it is possible that newtonian mechanics were modified to conform to SR math. Meaning it may appear that time dilation, length contraction is real yet it is a purely a newtonian trick. But what you seem to be saying above is that experimental setup can now be done to distinguish between pure time dilation, length contraction where time and length can indeed distort in different inertial frames versus it being just an equipment output in an ad hoc newtonian mechanics? But you said earlier that there is no way to know whether time, length distort or it is just some misunderstood additional newtonian parameters which made it that way. What is really the case? Danny
From: Spaceman on 11 Jul 2008 10:03 Danny Milano wrote: > On Jul 11, 8:50 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Baird and Androcles both say that it is possible the muons are >> superluminal and we would have no way of knowing. This is an >> unfortunate example of experimental ignorance. >> >> Muon counters are not in fact just arrival indicators. In fact, most >> such experiments involve a tower of scintillator hodoscopes, with >> layers displaced vertically by several feet, if not tens of feet. >> Thus, when a muon passes through, it creates a signal in the topmost >> layer, then in the next layer down, then in the next layer down, and >> so on. Because the speed of light is roughly a ns per foot, we can >> then simply watch the timing of the signals from the layers as the >> muon passes through them, just like a double-gate speed trap on the >> highway. >> >> [In desperation, Androcles has suggested that the hodoscopes are >> gated so that ONLY signals that are around c are accepted. This is >> not the case. He then suggested in even further desperation that the >> first layer slows the muon from well above c to just under c, and >> the muon then proceeds with the same speed through the other layers. >> However, the energy deposited in the top layer is identical with the >> energy deposited in subsequent layers, which would be a neat trick >> if the layers did to the muon what he suggests. In final desperation, >> Androcles says that mysterious things happen and that it's much >> easier to believe in that weirdness than in the weirdness of time >> dilation.] >> >> Moreover, Baird again focuses on one seminal experiment and >> completely fails to look at follow-up experiments that confirm the >> effect in a completely different context. Physicists *create* beams >> of muons and send them either down straight beamlines (the muon >> beamline at Fermilab, for example) or around storage rings (the g-2 >> experiment, for example). In this case, we know clearly both the >> creation point and the decay point, and in fact we can directly time >> the ... >> >> read more �- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > The geometric aspect of spacetime gives an intuitive explanation > of time dilation, length contruction in a minkowski sense. This > means that should newtonian interpretation were one day > proven to be true. It's like nature works like epicycles where > newtonian mechanics would have a unique personalized > plan for reality yet it can be described easily by minkowski > math. It's as if someone is playing trick on us by altering > newtonian mechanics to make the 4D math tallies with reality. > > This may seem odd. But when we design robots, we make > it conform to human reality. This means that it is possible > that newtonian mechanics were modified to conform to > SR math. Meaning it may appear that time dilation, length > contraction is real yet it is a purely a newtonian trick. > > But what you seem to be saying above is that experimental > setup can now be done to distinguish between pure time > dilation, length contraction where time and length can > indeed distort in different inertial frames versus it being > just an equipment output in an ad hoc newtonian mechanics? > > But you said earlier that there is no way to know whether time, > length distort or it is just some misunderstood additional > newtonian parameters which made it that way. What is > really the case? > > Danny Hint: Most relativists will only use relativity when it supports relativity, if relativity is showing relativity as wrong, it is simply ignored and that is how relativity works -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman .. :)
From: Pentcho Valev on 11 Jul 2008 10:07 On Jul 11, 2:50 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Baird and Androcles both say that it is possible the muons are > superluminal and we would have no way of knowing. This is an > unfortunate example of experimental ignorance. > > Muon counters are not in fact just arrival indicators. In fact, most > such experiments involve a tower of scintillator hodoscopes, with > layers displaced vertically by several feet, if not tens of feet. > Thus, when a muon passes through, it creates a signal in the topmost > layer, then in the next layer down, then in the next layer down, and > so on. Because the speed of light is roughly a ns per foot, we can > then simply watch the timing of the signals from the layers as the > muon passes through them, just like a double-gate speed trap on the > highway. > > [In desperation, Androcles has suggested that the hodoscopes are gated > so that ONLY signals that are around c are accepted. This is not the > case. He then suggested in even further desperation that the first > layer slows the muon from well above c to just under c, and the muon > then proceeds with the same speed through the other layers. However, > the energy deposited in the top layer is identical with the energy > deposited in subsequent layers, which would be a neat trick if the > layers did to the muon what he suggests. In final desperation, > Androcles says that mysterious things happen and that it's much easier > to believe in that weirdness than in the weirdness of time dilation.] > > Moreover, Baird again focuses on one seminal experiment and completely > fails to look at follow-up experiments that confirm the effect in a > completely different context. Physicists *create* beams of muons and > send them either down straight beamlines (the muon beamline at > Fermilab, for example) or around storage rings (the g-2 experiment, > for example). In this case, we know clearly both the creation point > and the decay point, and in fact we can directly time the duration > between creation and decay. Time dilation is spectacularly confirmed. > > [Androcles in desperation says that cosmic muons are wild, feral muons > and that beamline muons are domesticated muons, and it's obvious that > they would behave completely differently from each other.] > > PD Red herrings, Draper. You know perfectly that Einsteiniana's muon hoax is based on measuring the lifetime of "muons at rest". When cosmic-ray muons bump into an obstacle so that their speed instantly changes from about 300000km/s to zero, their forced disintegration makes Einsteinians sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions. Simply because in Einstein zombie world, when a muon undergoes a terrible crash, this muon is "at rest" during the crash and, in perfect accordance with Divine Albert's Divine Theory, disintegrates more quickly than another muon that has not undergone a crash: http://websci.smith.edu/~pdecowsk/muons.html " The purpose of this experiment is to measure life time of muons decaying at rest. Muons, produced in the atmoshere bombarded by high energy cosmic radiation, are passing through the system of two detectors located one above the other one. A coincidence of signals from these two detectors (signals occuring in both detectors within 100ns) marks a particle entering the muon telescope from above and serves as a filter rejecting many noninteresting signals from background radiation. Some particles, with appropriate energies, will end their flight in the lower detector (proper amount of lead between both detectors ensures that many of them will be muons). If a stopped particle is muon, it will decay after some time producing electron. The time interval between signals from the muon entering the lower detector and the electron emerging after its decay is converted by a time-to-amplitude converter into amplitude of signal fed to the CAMAC analog-to-digital converter (ADC) controlled by the computer. The spectrum of time intervals is displayed in the figure below. The expected distribution should be exponential with the exponential time constant being the average life time of muon. The full range of the spectrum (about channel 2000) corresponds to the time interval of about 25 microsecond. There are not many muons with such energies that they will end their path exactly in the lower detector (usually they will pass both detectors and will be stopped in somewhere in the ground), so counting rate is rather low. To collect a reasonable number of events, the experiment has to be run a number of days." Don't start repeating that more recent experiments do not involve the cosmic-ray muons fraud, or at least give a new title to your song: Paul Draper's song: "Time dilation demonstrated by cosmic-ray muons was a fraud but time dilation demonstrated by other muons is not". Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: John Kennaugh on 11 Jul 2008 10:59 Danny Milano wrote: > >Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by >Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It >is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The >following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can >someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it >wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR >is really wrong. Of course its is. 1/ Despite the fact that it had been shown beyond reasonable doubt that light is made up of particles (photo electric effect) and that the waves of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist, SR is based upon the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable, and therefore that the MMX showed that every observer has nil speed w.r.t the aether. Einstein's second postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would observe. Now no one believes in the aether that interpretation of the MMX is absurd so the second postulate has no valid foundation and SR makes no attempt to address the problem that the waves which are the basis of Maxwell's theory do not physically exist. 2/ SR is physically absurd which is why physics now insists that physical interpretation is not a requirement in a modern theory. Suppose you are stationary w.r.t a source 1 light year away. According to SR light is travelling w.r.t. you at c having separated from the source at a speed of separation c. If you now change your speed so that you are travelling away from the source at v the frequency of the light you observe will be lower due to Doppler shift but according to SR the light still travels at c w.r.t you. If c hasn't changed and the frequency has, then the wavelength must have changed. The wavelength is generated at the source and what the maths says is that in your new situation - frame of reference (FoR)- the wavelength has changed because the light is now separating from the source at c+v generating longer wavelengths than previous. The problem with this is that your change of speed has apparently caused a change in what is happening at the source 1 light year away with no possible causal mechanism. What is even more absurd is that the change has to be backdated by 1 year to avoid a 1 year delay in the frequency changing. When I point this out to a relativist I am told I am being silly and that one has changed from a FoR where the light separates from the source at c and always did - to one where it separates from the source at c+v and always did but that is simply a description of the mathematics not of what is physically happening. A FoR is a mathematical abstraction and cannot affect the progress of light. Physically one has to assume that when you change speed you change from a universe where you were stationary w.r.t the aether and light separates from the source at c because the source too is stationary w.r.t the aether to a parallel universe where you are again stationary w.r.t the aether but because the source is moving w.r.t the aether the light separates from the source at c+v and always has done. As you see the whole thing is physically absurd. Physics accepted relativity without looking at it carefully enough. It is a myth that 'getting rid of the aether' was anything to do with Einstein. He argued for retaining it. What he described as "an aether without the immobility of Lorentz's". He was deliberately vague but he was after an aether which every observer would naturally find himself stationary w.r.t. as per the second postulate. So to recap. Today in physics the mathematical model is described as a 'physics theory'. Physical interpretation is not required so it matters not that it is physically absurd. All that now matters is that the theory/mathematical model gives accurate predictions in its domain of applicability. i.e. it works some of the time and you can define when that is. Note that The geocentric theory of the solar system gives accurate predictions in its domain of applicability so cannot be considered as a 'wrong theory'. There is evidence that what the Lorentz transforms do is transform a wrongly based theory so as to get the right answer just as bending a sheet of paper with a curve drawn on it can make it look straight or by complicating the mathematics the geocentric theory could be made to give the same answer as the sun centred model. That would explain why SR gives the right answer. Examples: _________________________ train [____________X____________] -->v | | | | T T' Imagine you have a train with a laser mounted at right angles at X. Suppose it fires a very short burst of light, triggered by a switch on the track when X is exactly opposite distant target T. Now the train does a high speed run and the laser is triggered at time zero. What will an observer at the target T see? Ballistic theory says that the light will have a horizontal component v which means that although the laser is exactly opposite T when it is fired the effective source of the light will continue to move with the train and the flash will, at time t hit T' not T where T' is a distance vt from T. SR says that light emitted at point X in the observers FoR (that of T) will move from X at c. The source of the light remaining at X. At first sight it seems that this experiment would distinguish between the two theories but that is not the case as there is one more distortion which SR requires. We do not need to perform this experiment - It would hit T' not T just as predicted by Ballistic theory. We know this because if we look at it from the PoV of an observer on the train *both* theories predict the same thing. He will see the light travel away from the train at c at right angles to the train. In the trains FoR it is aiming at a moving target. If you want to hit a moving target you do not aim AT it, you aim in front of it, you aim at the point where it is going to be when whatever travels (be it bullet or flash of light) gets there. If you want to hit T' you aim at T. What SR says is that what is a right angle in the FoR of the train is transformed in the FoR of the target to an angle such that SR says that it hits T' because in the FoR of the target the laser was pointing at T' and not at right angles to the train. This change of angle is not the result of any identified physical process, there is no physical explanation. It simply *has* to be so in order to get the right answer - in order to get the same answer ballistic theory gives. Ballistic theory also has a full physical explanation of what is going on SR does not. An important point here is that ANY experiment viewed from the FoR of the source must have the same outcome for both theories as both theories state that in the FoR of the source light travels at c w.r.t the source. --------------------------------------------------------- OK let us change the experiment a little. Instead of a laser let there be an omni-directional flash of light from X when the train hits the switch. Light will hit both T and T' Ballistic Description ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _________________________ train [__________X______________] -->v Flash occurs T T' _________________________ train [__________X'_____________] -->v | | Flash arrives | | T T' If the frequency of the light as measured on the train is Fo then according to Ballistic theory the light arriving at T' will have a frequency Fo because the effective source X' is orthogonal to T' i.e. the source has no component of velocity either towards or away from the observer at T' to cause Doppler shift. If the frequency could be measured [it would actually be very difficult] I can with confidence predict that it would indeed be Fo exactly as predicted by Ballistic theory. Ballistic theory says that the light arriving at T is a lower frequency than Fo due to Doppler shift because X' is not orthogonal to T but is moving away from T. Again I have confidence that this would be found to be the case. My confidence is based upon the fact that SR predicts the same result: SR Description ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _________________________ train [__________X______________] -->v Flash occurs T T' _________________________ train [________X'_______________] -->v | | Flash arrives | | T T' What SR says is as illustrated. In the FoR of T light is emitted from point X and when it arrives at T the source is still at the same point. i.e. X' is the same place as X relative to T. Light reaching T is therefore orthogonal. The source is neither moving away from T or towards T so true Doppler is zero. However SR says that because the light source is moving at v the 'clock' generating the light will be 'dilated' and the frequency will be lower than Fo. As I will show later it predicts the same lower frequency as ballistic theory. SR agrees with ballistic theory that the frequency measured at T' will be Fo but it says it is because X' is moving towards T' which increases the frequency due to Doppler shift and at T' this increase is equal and opposite to the effect of time dilation - resulting in a frequency of Fo at T'. I will now show that Ballistic theory predicts exactly the same frequency as SR at point T. _______________________ train [__________X____________] -->v Y T Again it is back to hitting a moving target. In order for light leaving X to hit T it has to set out in the direction XY where YT = vt. The photons have a component of velocity c in the direction XY and a component v in the X direction such that the resultant is in the direction XT. What you have is a velocity triangle XY = c YT = v so the velocity XT = Sqr( c^2 - v^2) by pythag So Sqr( c^2 - v^2) = F' x L But c = Fo x L (L = wavelength) So F'/Fo = Sqr( c^2 - v^2)/c = Sqr(1 - v^2/c^2) So Ballistic theory predicts the same result using a velocity triangle as SR predicts as being due to 'time dilation'. Note again that there is no identifiable physical mechanism which causes time dilation it is simply assumed to take place as it is necessary to distort time to get the right answer - i.e. the answer given by the credible physical explanation of ballistic theory. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPS "Time Dilation" As seen above the frequency measured when orthogonal to the source is predictably the same for both theories. The centre of the earth is always orthogonal to the motion of a GPS satellite (assuming a circular orbit) therefore the frequency will always be Fo x Sqr(1 - v^2/c^2) whichever theory is used. The ballistic theory explains it without exotic time dilation. It is simply the result of a velocity triangle. Both theories will say that the antenna must point away from the centre of the earth (equiv of XY) to get the best signal. Ballistic theory says it is to account for the horizontal component of the light speed. SR because that is 'transformed' to be a right angle in the FoR of the earth. Note therefore that although both theories give identical results the explanation is completely different and that of Ballistic theory is by far the simpler. These examples are far from a special case. You might try and get hold of a copy of Waldron's "The wave and ballistic theories of light" Muller 1977. Einstein preferred to assume that EM theory is correct and that the laws of mechanics had to change. The alternative, followed by Ritz/Waldron is that the laws of mechanics are correct and that it is the EM theory which needs modifying. While the Einstein route requires the ditching of 3 apparently sensible axioms of physics the alternative route requires only two changes to electric theory. Firstly that light speed is source dependent If one accepts what experiment showed, that light is not a propagated wave but particles shot out by the source then what is more natural than that their speed be a property of the physical process which sends them on their way, the physical process taking place at the source. What other possible physical process is there? Take away the aether and the source is surrounded by nothing which can take part in a physical process - so there can be no other physical process. Secondly Coulomb's law must be modified such that the force between moving charges varies with the speed between them. This is also reasonable if one assumes that the force has a maximum speed c at which it can act. Think of a child's play area with a roundabout. If you stand by the roundabout and try and give the bar a push every time it goes around to make it go faster eventually the bar will travel as fast as your arm can move and you cannot make it go any faster. In a particle accelerator there is no way of telling whether the effective mass increases by gamma as per SR or whether the effect on the charge decreases by gamma as per Waldron. All the evidence is that photons do have mass. A photon has momentum and is affected by gravity the same way as any other particle with mass. Waldron produces a formula for the mass of a photon. Based on experimental evidence he concludes that the energy of a photon has two components its kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2 and internal energy (1/2)mc^2 . From a stationary source v = c so total energy = mc^2. So hf = mc^2 or m = hf/c^2. The force caused by light hitting a reflective surface is as predicted as is the different force on an absorbent surface. If you calculate the increase in energy for such a mass falling under gravity it works out right for photons as per Pound Rebka. If you use the same maths on a photon escaping from a planets gravity as you would use for any other projectile the energy lost works out as per 'gravitational red shift'. If you work out the total mass of the two photons which result from a positron, electron collision each photon has the same mass as an electron. i.e. the pair of photons has the same mass as the electron and positron combined. If you have a photon with more than twice the mass of an electron encountering a massive nucleus it can split into an electron positron pair and any excess mass is carried away as a low energy photon. The mass equation balances. It is said that the rest mass of a photon is zero yet this experiment approximates to bringing a photon (very nearly) to rest and having as a result something of known mass - an electron and a positron. He calculates the deviation of light caused by gravity - it agrees. He derives exactly the same equation for the Compton effect as does orthodox quantum physics. His maths in accord with Newton. Physicists say that photons cannot have mass because if they did that would mean SR is wrong. I would suggest that they do and it is. I doubt that Waldron had all the right answers but his theory is an impressive attempt for someone working part time. There may be experimental evidence which appears to contradict ballistic theory but ballistic theory cannot be ruled out without a serious attempt to make it work Ritz(1908)was ignored (unfortunately he died in 1909). Waldron was ignored and will continue to be ignored. Physics has too much to lose. -- John Kennaugh "If the Lord Almighty had consulted me before embarking on creation I should have recommended something simpler." Alfonso 'the wise' of Castile (1221-1284) having studied the Ptolemaic system.
From: Spaceman on 11 Jul 2008 11:17
John Kennaugh wrote: > I will now show that Ballistic theory predicts exactly the same > frequency as SR at point T. > > _______________________ > train [__________X____________] -->v > > > > > > Y T > > Again it is back to hitting a moving target. In order for light > leaving X to hit T it has to set out in the direction XY where YT = > vt. The photons have a component of velocity c in the direction XY > and a component v in the X direction such that the resultant is in the > direction XT. What you have is a velocity triangle XY = c YT = v so > > the velocity XT = Sqr( c^2 - v^2) by pythag > So Sqr( c^2 - v^2) = F' x L > But c = Fo x L (L = wavelength) > So F'/Fo = Sqr( c^2 - v^2)/c = Sqr(1 - v^2/c^2) > > So Ballistic theory predicts the same result using a velocity triangle > as SR predicts as being due to 'time dilation'. > > Note again that there is no identifiable physical mechanism which > causes time dilation it is simply assumed to take place as it is > necessary to distort time to get the right answer - i.e. the answer > given by the credible physical explanation of ballistic theory. The physical effect for the clock "malfunction" is known. The clock has malfunctioned for the same reason clocks have been malfunctioning since they were invented. The clock is being affected by the g-force changes causing the "ticker" to not keep the same "rate". :) It is a sad repeat of malfunctioning clock history and to "shadow" this repeat in history, they introduce length contraction. So the "rubber rulers", mathematically fix the "malfunctioning clocks". Yet the clocks still have the wrong times on thier faces when brought back together. so..... SR debunking 101: 1:) The clock malfunctioned. The end. SR is dead, it has ignored a standard of time and to hide this ignorance, it has accepted a multiple standard for distance and time to make it all mathematically sound in it's own domain. -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman |