EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 11 Jul 2008 14:42 On Jul 11, 8:58 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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? No, what I said is that some *cranks* think that way, that Newtonian physics is fine if we would only find the right forces to include in Newton's equations of motion. This is based on a rather naive presumption that Newton's laws can fit *any* phenomenon, if the right parameters are put in. This turns out to be decidedly NOT the case, which a little bit of concentrated investigation will prove out. There are a number of things that are seen in nature which are *impossible* to generate in Newtonian mechanics, even if tricked-out. PD
From: John Kennaugh on 11 Jul 2008 16:30 Greg Neill wrote: >"John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >news:JJjEYKGpV3dIFwip(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk >> 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, > >The aether is dead. Maxwell's equations haven't relied on an >aether for over a hundred years, yet the waves persist. Or >are you saying that diffraction, refraction, and interference >(such as in the slit experiments) don't really happen? I'm not saying they don't happen only that light does not physically consist of waves. If it does what are they waves IN. Perhaps you do not understand the nature of modern physics. It is no longer a science merely a branch of mathematics dealing with mathematical modelling. A mathematical model which works "some of the time" is referred to as a 'theory' which works in its "Domain of Applicability". Thus if a wave mathematical model works some of the time it is described as a theory. "Experiments with beams of light or of electrons have been made such that both aspects - waves and particles - are observed. For interference to occur it is among other things also necessary for the beam to have available more than one path from source to detector (e.g. a screen). Interference is explained by the wave picture. When the beam intensity is sufficiently low and the detector suitable the impact of particles one by one can be observed. The energy quanta are then localised as if particles in space and time." By definition "interference" implies that two things of different phase have a net amplitude which will vary from virtually cancelling to the sum of the two. What is not happening is that photons are arriving at a point of minimum intensity and then being 'cancelled' by subsequent photons. Once a photon arrives at a point it stays. The minimum in the low light experiment represents the end of a path which, for whatever reason, photons have a very low probability of taking. The maximum has the highest probability of being taken. The result may mathematically conform to the wave mathematical model but *physically* it is not and cannot be interference for the reasons stated. Photons do not check with the equations to see which direction to travel in. There is some physical mechanism involved and whatever it is, it will also explain the normal intensity pattern. > >> 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. > >SR does not employ an aether. Maxwell and SR stand without aether. I am talking about the provenance of relativity - the history - where it came from - the mental processes which underpin it. 20 years or so after SR was adopted physicists decided that the only thing which matters is the maths and the maths does not have to concern itself with anything physical. Your statement is the equivalent of saying that a weather map does not need to concern itself with physical processes. All that is required is something to display it on and whether it tells you whether or not you will get wet. > >> 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. > >Silly. Yes, silly. Empirically the speed of light is always >measured to have the same value for inertially moving frames. >That's as solid a foundation for a postulate as you can hope >for. There is no experiment prior to 1964 which anyone who has studied the subject would seriously claim shows that the speed of light is always measured as c from a moving source. There certainly was none when Einstein formulated his SR theory. The second postulate was not the result of experiment nor of Einstein's genius, nor divine inspiration it was simply a statement reflecting the general view at the time among those brought up on physics dominated by Maxwell. The clue is in his 1905 paper where he goes to some length to justify his first postulate (because he saw that as potentially controversial) but adds the second without comment as he was expressing the accepted view. Don't take my word for it. In the second volume of Sir Edmund Whittaker's "The History of Theories of Aether and Electricity", published in 1953: "(1905) Einstein published a paper which set forth the relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz with some amplification, and which attracted much attention. He asserted as a fundamental principle the constancy of the velocity of light, i.e., that the velocity of light in a vacuum is the same in all systems of reference which are moving relatively to each other, an assertion which at the time was widely accepted." If you assume as Einstein did that Maxwell's theory is impeccable and if you cannot theoretically fault the MMX then the MMX showed that an observers speed relative to the aether is always zero i.e. that an observer always appears to be stationary w.r.t. the aether. The second postulate is simply describing what an observer stationary w.r.t. the aether would experience. > The wave nature of light is also an empirical fact. The wavelike behaviour of light is certainly well documented but a wave cannot explain the photoelectric effect and as I show in the case of the double slit it does not really explain that either. > That >said waves require no aether, and neither does the modern >formulation of Maxwell, vanishes your argument. > >> >> 2/ SR is physically absurd which is why physics now insists that >> physical interpretation is not a requirement in a modern theory. > >Another "I don't like it so it's wrong" argument. > >[rest of maunder mercy snipped] Note to Danny Milano - You may note how tetchy relativists get when you attack their religion and how little their faith is built upon. They believe all sorts of things which are not true. They believe that Einstein came up with a theory which doesn't need the aether. He didn't he argued in favour of the aether. Physics made an arbitrary decision that a physics theory does not require a physical explanation and the aether is a physical explanation so in the new order is not needed. SR is a 'principle theory' which is another word for a mathematical model and as such has nothing to say as to whether there is or there isn't an aether -- John Kennaugh 'Many people would sooner die than think - in fact they do' Bertrand Russell.
From: Pentcho Valev on 12 Jul 2008 05:06 On Jul 11, 10:30 pm, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > Greg Neill wrote: > >"John Kennaugh" <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message > >news:JJjEYKGpV3dIFwip(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk > >> 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, > > >The aether is dead. Maxwell's equations haven't relied on an > >aether for over a hundred years, yet the waves persist. Or > >are you saying that diffraction, refraction, and interference > >(such as in the slit experiments) don't really happen? > > I'm not saying they don't happen only that light does not physically > consist of waves. If it does what are they waves IN. Perhaps you do not > understand the nature of modern physics. It is no longer a science > merely a branch of mathematics dealing with mathematical modelling. A > mathematical model which works "some of the time" is referred to as a > 'theory' which works in its "Domain of Applicability". Thus if a wave > mathematical model works some of the time it is described as a theory. > > "Experiments with beams of light or of electrons have been made such > that both aspects - waves and particles - are observed. For interference > to occur it is among other things also necessary for the beam to have > available more than one path from source to detector (e.g. a screen). > Interference is explained by the wave picture. When the beam intensity > is sufficiently low and the detector suitable the impact of particles > one by one can be observed. The energy quanta are then localised as if > particles in space and time." > > By definition "interference" implies that two things of different phase > have a net amplitude which will vary from virtually cancelling to the > sum of the two. What is not happening is that photons are arriving at a > point of minimum intensity and then being 'cancelled' by subsequent > photons. Once a photon arrives at a point it stays. The minimum in the > low light experiment represents the end of a path which, for whatever > reason, photons have a very low probability of taking. The maximum has > the highest probability of being taken. The result may mathematically > conform to the wave mathematical model but *physically* it is not and > cannot be interference for the reasons stated. Photons do not check with > the equations to see which direction to travel in. There is some > physical mechanism involved and whatever it is, it will also explain the > normal intensity pattern. > > > > >> 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. > > >SR does not employ an aether. Maxwell and SR stand without aether. > > I am talking about the provenance of relativity - the history - where it > came from - the mental processes which underpin it. 20 years or so after > SR was adopted physicists decided that the only thing which matters is > the maths and the maths does not have to concern itself with anything > physical. Your statement is the equivalent of saying that a weather map > does not need to concern itself with physical processes. All that is > required is something to display it on and whether it tells you whether > or not you will get wet. > > > > >> 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. > > >Silly. Yes, silly. Empirically the speed of light is always > >measured to have the same value for inertially moving frames. > >That's as solid a foundation for a postulate as you can hope > >for. > > There is no experiment prior to 1964 which anyone who has studied the > subject would seriously claim shows that the speed of light is always > measured as c from a moving source. There certainly was none when > Einstein formulated his SR theory. The second postulate was not the > result of experiment nor of Einstein's genius, nor divine inspiration it > was simply a statement reflecting the general view at the time among > those brought up on physics dominated by Maxwell. The clue is in his > 1905 paper where he goes to some length to justify his first postulate > (because he saw that as potentially controversial) but adds the second > without comment as he was expressing the accepted view. > > Don't take my word for it. In the second volume of Sir Edmund > Whittaker's "The History of Theories of Aether and Electricity", > published in 1953: > "(1905) Einstein published a paper which set forth the relativity > theory of Poincare and Lorentz with some amplification, and which > attracted much attention. He asserted as a fundamental principle the > constancy of the velocity of light, i.e., that the velocity of light in > a vacuum is the same in all systems of reference which are moving > relatively to each other, an assertion which at the time was widely > accepted." > > If you assume as Einstein did that Maxwell's theory is impeccable and if > you cannot theoretically fault the MMX then the MMX showed that an > observers speed relative to the aether is always zero i.e. that an > observer always appears to be stationary w.r.t. the aether. The second > postulate is simply describing what an observer stationary w.r.t. the > aether would experience. > > > The wave nature of light is also an empirical fact. > > The wavelike behaviour of light is certainly well documented but a wave > cannot explain the photoelectric effect and as I show in the case of the > double slit it does not really explain that either. > > > That > >said waves require no aether, and neither does the modern > >formulation of Maxwell, vanishes your argument. > > >> 2/ SR is physically absurd which is why physics now insists that > >> physical interpretation is not a requirement in a modern theory. > > >Another "I don't like it so it's wrong" argument. > > >[rest of maunder mercy snipped] > > Note to Danny Milano - You may note how tetchy relativists get when you > attack their religion and how little their faith is built upon. They > believe all sorts of things which are not true. They believe that > Einstein came up with a theory which doesn't need the aether. He didn't > he argued in favour of the aether. Physics made an arbitrary decision > that a physics theory does not require a physical explanation and the > aether is a physical explanation so in the new order is not needed. SR > is a 'principle theory' which is another word for a mathematical model > and as such has nothing to say as to whether there is or there isn't an > aether > -- > John Kennaugh > 'Many people would sooner die than think - in fact they do' Bertrand Russell. Some Einsteinians are making their money by trying to convert Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity from "principle theory" into a "constructive theory" and introducing even more idiocies - e.g. the breathtaking idea that "the forces that hold the parts of the rod together" are somehow responsible for length contraction: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001661/ Brown, Harvey R. and Pooley, Oliver (2004) "Minkowski space-time: a glorious non-entity" http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=6603 "Harvey Brown thinks that most philosophers are confused about relativity. Most centrally, he thinks they're confused about the relativistic effects of length contraction and time dilation.....According to (what Brown alleges is) the dominant view among substantivalists, the geometrical structure of Minkowski spacetime plays some role in explaining why moving rods shrink and why moving clocks run slow. Brown rejects this view. He asserts, instead, that in order to explain why moving rods shrink we must appeal to the dynamical laws governing the forces that hold the parts of the rod together. The geometry of Minkowski spacetime plays no role in this explanation.....He thinks that good answers to these questions say something about the way in which the forces holding the parts of the rod together depend on velocity of the rod. Only that is a story of what causes the particles to get closer together, and so what causes the rod to shrink." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Sue... on 12 Jul 2008 05:25 On Jul 11, 4:30 pm, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > > > By definition "interference" implies that two things of different phase > have a net amplitude which will vary from virtually cancelling to the > sum of the two. What is not happening is that photons are arriving at a > point of minimum intensity and then being 'cancelled' by subsequent > photons. Once a photon arrives at a point it stays. Photons don't "arrive". They are undefined until absorbed. They are not a model of light propagation and don't even know how to move in a straight line. (you have nearly clarified that later in your posting. Call me overly critial but don't take it personally ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html The assumption that photons move on any particular path usually accompanies a faulty assumption they have some coupling to the gravito-inertial field. They do not. <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate transformation will convert electric or magnetic fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, but no transformation mixes them with the gravitational field. >> http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html Exploring all classical paths with a clock is how photons get their claim to fame. Feynman's QED > The minimum in the > low light experiment represents the end of a path which, for whatever > reason, photons have a very low probability of taking. "Probabily amplitude" is the term you seek. It is a mathmatical abstraction, not a physical process. > The maximum has > the highest probability of being taken. The result may mathematically > conform to the wave mathematical model but *physically* it is not and > cannot be interference for the reasons stated. Photons do not check with > the equations to see which direction to travel in. There is some > physical mechanism involved and whatever it is, it will also explain the > normal intensity pattern. <<Now, does not the prize to Einstein imply that the Academy recognised the particle nature of light? The Nobel Committee says that Einstein had found that the energy exchange between matter and ether occurs by atoms emitting or absorbing a quantum of energy,hv . As a consequence of the new concept of light quanta (in modern terminology photons) Einstein proposed the law that an electron emitted from a substance by monochromatic light with the frequency has to have a maximum energy of E=hv-p, where p is the energy needed to remove the electron from the substance. Robert Andrews Millikan carried out a series of measurements over a period of 10 years, finally confirming the validity of this law in 1916 with great accuracy. Millikan had, however, found the idea of light quanta to be unfamiliar and strange. The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology, photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on which the prize decision rested only in connection with emission and absorption processes. The Committee says that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >> http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html Sue... > > John Kennaugh > 'Many people would sooner die than think - in fact they do' Bertrand Russell.
From: Danny Milano on 12 Jul 2008 06:54
On Jul 12, 2:42 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 11, 8:58 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > 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? > > No, what I said is that some *cranks* think that way, that Newtonian > physics is fine if we would only find the right forces to include in > Newton's equations of motion. This is based on a rather naive > presumption that Newton's laws can fit *any* phenomenon, if the right > parameters are put in. This turns out to be decidedly NOT the case, > which a little bit of concentrated investigation will prove out. There > are a number of things that are seen in nature which are *impossible* > to generate in Newtonian mechanics, even if tricked-out. > > PD It seems that anti-relativists would go to any length to debunk time dilation, length contraction at the cost of even weirder mechanisms. In your years of experience with them. Do yo think anti-relativists are purely newtonian? Or do anti-relativists still believe in quantum mechanics "now you see it, now you don't" foundations? Because if anti-relativists are quantum followers. They could propose creatures that can control quantum probability (call it fairies) that can create the same predictions and observations as time dilation, length contraction in physical stuff. This is the only way I think they can explain the same relativistic experiments. But if anti-relativists don't believe in fairies and they don't think time and length can distort and just believe in absolute space and absolute time, there seems no way to pull off those SR, GR experimental stunts, isn't it... unless anti-relativists are aetherists. Are they? In essence, how many percentage approximately of anti-relativists believe in quantum mechanics and how many percentage approx. believe in the aether and how many percentage believe in neither of them. I'd like to have rough idea of how their brains work. Danny |