EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Greg Neill on 15 Jul 2008 11:11 "John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:YZyAMaDnQGfIFwBj(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk > Greg Neill wrote: >> "John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:bQGQOjTwd7eIFw4p(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk >> >>> Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the >>> speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. >>> >>> Prediction 2 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the >>> speed of an observer relative to the aether will add to or subtract >>> from the speed of light in the aether. >>> >>> The MMX tested Prediction 2 and showed it to be wrong. Einstein >>> chose to assume that Prediction 1 was still correct. If one is >>> wrong one should assume they both are because they are both based >>> upon the same logic. >> >> Einstein had the benefit of the knowledge that all >> experimental checks on the speed of light were >> indicating independance of the speed of light from the >> motion of the source, > > It is actually incredibly difficult to produce an experiment showing > source independence and if anyone has told you otherwise you have been > conned. It's actually easier to measure velocity diffrences than velocity itself by employing interferrometric devices. > In 1905 there were none. The *assumption* of source > independence was a result of belief that the speed of light waves was > controlled by the medium in which they propagated, the aether, so > could not be affected by the source. Those who have looked > critically at experiments will tell you that no experiment prior to > 1964 need be considered as valid. I find that rather hard to believe. De Sitter had some good ideas on the matter as far back as the second decade of the twentieth century. Doppler redshift masurements were being made from 1848 (Doppler-Fizeau effect). > > Neither is it true that Einstein came up with a theory which did not > need the aether. His starting point was Lorentz's aether theory. The aether of which he subsequently showed to be unnecessary, and in fact turned out to be non existent. > He > said of Lorentz that he had made the greatest contribution to > electrical theory since Maxwell. His objection to Lorentz's theory > was the asymmetry in the theoretical structure but he failed to come > up with an alternative theoretical structure. He argued in favour of > retaining the aether but argued that that did not have to mean that > it had associated with it a unique frame of reference as per Lorentz. > To most people this is nonsense. He banished the Lorentzian aether (a aether of substance, no matter how strange its properties) and recast the word to refer to space itself with its inherent properties. > > The way the aether was 'got rid of' was by means of physics redefining > itself and deciding that a theory did not require a theoretical > structure. This may be your opinion, but it is not a demonstrable fact. Physics did not abandon the scientific method. It is still defined in the same way. The fact that a mechanical aether is not tenable may be bothersome for some (you perhaps?), but physics cannot and should not dictate what Nature is, only uncover what it is. If what it is goes against our common sense notions, then it's just bad luck for common sense. > The mathematics of Maxwell give accurate predictions so the > new thinking said that physics need not concern itself as to whether > the waves the equations describe physically exist or if they do, what > they are waves in so the aether became redundant in the new > mathematically based physics. The aether also became untenable after M&M. And as opposed to your viewpoint, physicists have been very concious of the possible implications of wave-particle duality, and have devoted a great deal of philosophical thinking to it. > In view of this, Einstein's failure to > come up with an alternative theoretical structure to Lorentz's was no > bar to his theory. You seem to be of the opinion that a physical theory needs to be built upon a gear, lever, and cog underpinning. It does not. Physics has never been so restricted, even in pre- Newtonian eras. The ancients thought gravity was the result of things "wanting" to find their natural place. Newton was more sophisticated but still left the "reason" for action at a distance without explanation. Einstein does nothing new by constructing a theory based upon a set of postulates. > > It is a bit hard on Lorentz. SR and Lorentz's theory are > mathematically identical and Lorentz produced the maths first. > > I believe in the physical reality of the physical world. I believe it > should be a necessary part of physics to try and understand that > physical reality rather than simply model it mathematically. I believe > it is a valid question as to whether the waves of Maxwell's equations > are physical waves or not and if not what is the physical nature of > light and how do Maxwell's equations relate to it. Well, that's all well and good. You should pursue your own theory then, based upon some "physical" underpinning of your choice. When you can demonstrate that it accords with all empirical data then you'll have something that people will take notice of. Given the current track record of Relativity, it might be easiest to show that your theory makes mathematically identical predictions under all the conditions that Relativity has so far. Once you've got your theory in hand you can set about demolishing Relativity by its philosophical underpinnings and show the superiority of your own for its "physical" basis. Simply attacking Relativity because you don't like it won't hold water, I'm afraid. > > It appears that Maxwell's waves do not physically exist and that light > is particulate - photons. Maxwell's waves are waves of probability. > They show statistically and accurately the result produced by > millions of photons. Physics no longer considers it part of its remit > to try and understand why photons behave in such a way as to fit > Maxwell's statistical wave equations. I think it should be. One at a time photon Young's experiments show that the wave nature persists unto the individual photon. Quantum experiments show that photons have the peculiar quality of being able to take all possible paths at once from a source to and end point. No classical "physical" particle can sustain that sort of trick. > > I see the reason that physics redefined itself as being that had it > not done so it would have had to reject a theory it had already > accepted, gone back and rethought it i.e. accepted it had got it > wrong. I think it had. That's nonsense. Herculean efforts were being made by physicists at the turn of the last century to save the aether and Newtonian physics. Relativity was not an overnight done deal. The history of physics is a history of things tried, tested, and modified or rejected. Working models are not abandoned out of sense of fashion, but due to necessity.
From: Greg Neill on 15 Jul 2008 11:24 "John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:m4TfUKGh6GfIFwFq(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk > PD wrote: >> Both. Filipas and Fox explicitly checked photon speeds from moving >> sources. > > I haven't found a write up of that one only loads of people like > yourself quoting it as being true. If you know of one then point me to > it. Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071. See also the section "Experiments Using Terrestrial Sources" at: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
From: John Kennaugh on 15 Jul 2008 12:32 Sue... wrote: >On Jul 15, 4:47 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> >wrote: >> Greg Neill wrote: >> >"John Kennaugh" <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >> >news:bQGQOjTwd7eIFw4p(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk >> >> >> Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the >> >> speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. >> >> >> Prediction 2 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the >> >> speed of an observer relative to the aether will add to or subtract >> >> from the speed of light in the aether. >> >> >> The MMX tested Prediction 2 and showed it to be wrong. Einstein chose >> >> to assume that Prediction 1 was still correct. If one is wrong one >> >> should assume they both are because they are both based upon the same >> >> logic. >> >> >Einstein had the benefit of the knowledge that all >> >experimental checks on the speed of light were >> >indicating independance of the speed of light from the >> >motion of the source, >> >> It is actually incredibly difficult to produce an experiment showing >> source independence and if anyone has told you otherwise you have been >> conned. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment "Thus it cannot be argued that the data on binary stars provides support for the emission theory [source dependency]. However it does seem, contrary to what has been believed for several decades, that the data on binary stars does not offer any evidence against emission theory". J.G. Fox, "Evidence Against Emission Theories"- American Journal of Physics, Volume 33, #1, Jan. 1965 Waldron came to the same conclusion. The following quote is of interest: "Fox claims to have invalidated the majority, if not all, of the speed- of-light experiments (including binary star observations) that have been conducted to help us choose between Ritz and Einstein.... Fox gave a decision in favour of Einstein, but did so in a manner that seems to suggest that the final verdict is not in. In private correspondence Fox says: '...it is of interest for the general philosophy of science that Ritz's theory, so different in structure from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and Einstein, could come so close to describing correctly the vast quantity of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory.'" Note that Ritz's theory was 1908 and 60 years later it still "comes so close". Waldron analysis of Ritz theory says that Ritz could not take account of the later experiments which he, Waldron has done and had got some things wrong. I am not aware of Fox giving an appraisal of Waldron's work [1]. Either way Ritz theory was ignored after his death a year after publishing his theory and virtually written out of the history books. Waldron worked on his theory part time and has been ignored. If you believe that that constitutes a thorough, fair and detailed appraisal of what is the biggest challenge to relativity then I do not. -- John Kennaugh
From: John Kennaugh on 15 Jul 2008 17:00 PD wrote: >On Jul 15, 4:32�am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> >wrote: >> PD wrote: >> >On Jul 14, 3:30�pm, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> >> >wrote: >> >> PD wrote: >> >> >On Jul 12, 6:34�am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> >> >> >wrote: >> >> >> PD wrote: >> >> >> >On Jul 11, 9:59�am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> >> >> >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> 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, >> >> >> >> >Whoa, hold on. The ONLY presumption made is that Maxwell's equations >> >> >> >still work for a quantitative description of light. It makes >> >> >> >*absolutely no difference* whether the conceptual model underlying the >> >> >> >development of those equations involved waves in an aether, or self- >> >> >> >supporting fields without a material substrate, or whether light also >> >> >> >exhibits particle properties on occasion. >> >> >> >> I am sorry but it does matter. Einstein ditched 3 apparently sensible >> >> >> and long established axioms of physics in SR. >> >> >> >Which turned out, in the end, to be inconsistent with experiment. >> >> >> Did it? Did someone tell you that or have you checked. >> >> >Both. Filipas and Fox explicitly checked photon speeds from moving >> >sources. >> >> I haven't found a write up of that one only loads of people like >> yourself quoting it as being true. If you know of one then point me to >> it. > >It's available in any university library, or you could try >scholar.google.com. > >> >> It does however seem to be similar to other experiments which I have >> looked at such as Alvaeger et al 1964. This was once recommended to me >> by Franz Heymann as the most convincing evidence of source independence. >> >> One problem is that IF light is source dependent the current theory is >> wrong. > >That's right. > >> The experiment is highly technical and draws on current theory. >> This is worrying in that they may be trying to prove an alternate theory >> wrong by drawing on current theory and therefore assuming current theory >> is right which therefore assumes the alternate theory is wrong in the >> first place. This is not necessarily the case but you should put a >> question mark every time I say "Current theory says". > >This general kind of fret, that any technical experiment has to assume >the very model its testing, is an ill-advised one. Experiments like >this, especially ones that endure despite strong scrutiny, have been >designed specifically to avoid that. Otherwise, they would not be good >experimental tests. The details of how that is avoided is thoroughly >described in the article that stems from the experiment. I invite you >to look it up. One might start with the question "which theory was it trying to falsify". The description of the Alvaeger experiment talks of the photons passing through a window. Now one version of ballistic theory says that when photons pass through a transparent solid they are re-emitted at c w.r.t the solid. When I pointed out to Franz Heymann wrote "That [the window] was simply a small hole in a concrete shielding wall. I have seen that hole myself. It was an empty hole in the shield wall to let the photons through. High energy photons like those in that experiment cannot penetrate much by way of matter without generating a shower." However I re-read the write up and it referred to the window of the vacuum chamber so not only is the possibility of re emission there is the complication of it generating a shower - not sure what of. >> The only thing one can say for sure in the Alvager et al experiment is >> that high energy particles hit a beryllium target and the result was >> gamma photons apparently travelling at c relative to the beryllium >> target as would be expected by ballistic theory. >> >> If you say that the beryllium target is the source then it has >> proved nothing at all but 'current theory says' that an interim stage >> exists - a pion was created travelling at 0.9999c and this is what >> decayed into gamma photons so constituting a moving source. >> >> A pion (neutral pi-meson) if it exists at all exists for only 8.4 x >> 10^-17 s which means that it does not exist long enough to prove it >> exists, > >I think you underestimate experimental sensitivity. I don't think so. Even light only manages to travel 25 millionths of a mm in that time scale. >If you want to >learn more about the experimental understanding of the neutral pion, >you should look up the (many) references in the pi-zero portion of the >Particle Data Groups compendium: http://pdg.lbl.gov. > >But as a word of caution: If you *automatically* question the validity >of any experimental result that conflicts with your favorite model, >then you are skirting dangerously toward crankish practices and away >from scientific balance. You would automatically question the validity of any experimental result which appeared to conflict with relativity and you would place it under the closest possible scrutiny surely. I am not a physicist nor a mathematician. Even if there was a fatal flaw I would not necessarily spot it but there do appear to be some question marks that even I can spot. The fact that the decay of the pion takes place within the structure of the beryllium target being one. In such an experiment who acts for the defence. Who champions the theory being 'disproved'. Basically no one. The purpose of the experiment is to be able to report in a prestigious journal that a fundamental basis of relativity is correct. Apparently Alvager was a bit two anxious to receive that acclaim. Re Alvager Nilsson anf Kjellman 1963. Waldron writes: "From their observations Alvaeger et al concluded that the invariance postulate was verified. However they published a set of typical observations and my calculations from these indicated a difference in the times of flight from the fixed and moving sources. This supports the ballistic theory and contradicts the Lorentz- Einstein theory. The reason for this opposed conclusion is not clear and correspondence with Dr Alvaeger has failed to clear up the discrepancy" Waldron 1977 Let me put a point to you. Lets suppose that this Alvager go it right in 1964 and his experiment did genuinely dispose of ballistic theory. There is nothing prior to it which can't be explained in terms of ballistic theory therefore for 60 years Ritz's theory and SR were equally valid. Does the conduct of physicists reflect that? If Ritz had lived and his theory had been adopted as accepted theory for 60 years do you think that Alvager's experiment would have swept it away or would someone find an explanation to maintain the status quo? You cannot rule out human nature. An experiment which appears to disprove accepted theory is treated very differently to one which supports it. Good debate, whether in government, in a court of law or in physics is always the result of having at least 2 sides battling it out. What has been missing for a century in physics is any serious opposition. The basis of opposition was there but one camp became all powerful. -- John Kennaugh
From: John Kennaugh on 15 Jul 2008 12:56
Greg Neill wrote: >"John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >news:m4TfUKGh6GfIFwFq(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk >> PD wrote: > >>> Both. Filipas and Fox explicitly checked photon speeds from moving >>> sources. >> >> I haven't found a write up of that one only loads of people like >> yourself quoting it as being true. If you know of one then point me to >> it. > >Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071. > >See also the section "Experiments Using Terrestrial Sources" >at: > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > That is not a write - up it is a 2 line conclusion -- John Kennaugh |