EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: John Kennaugh on 10 Jul 2008 16:15 Sue... wrote: >On Jul 10, 6:41 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >[...] >> >> The honest answer seems to be: we still don't know. >> >> Flip a coin. > >Which of the experiments test: > ><<,,,Einstein's relativity principle, which states that: > > All inertial frames are totally equivalent > for the performance of all physical experiments. > >In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical >experiment which differentiates in any fundamental >sense between different inertial frames. By definition, >Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all >inertial frames. Einstein generalized this result in >his special theory of relativity by asserting that all >laws of physics take the same form in all inertial >frames. >> Which is exactly the same as Galileo's principle of relativity. It had been thought not to be true because of belief in the aether. If the aether exists then it should be possible to devise experiments which are frame dependent because each FoR has a different speed relative to the aether. The MMX was just such an experiment which was expected to give a frame dependent result. It didn't and neither did any others so the PoR could be reinstated. It was first by Lorentz and then by Einstein. The two theories are mathematically identical. Lorentz's has a theoretical structure which Einstein objected to but Einstein came up with no alternative. >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html > >Sue... > -- John Kennaugh
From: PD on 10 Jul 2008 16:27 On Jul 10, 10:51 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 3:40 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > We've talked about this. The bug is definitely squashed. Your short- > > term memory seems to be loose somewhere. > > Zombie know: no bug no problem. Zombie clever very clever. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I realize that the moment you get confused, you think that a magician has just pulled a trick to confuse you. But there isn't really any trick, and here the magician is showing you exactly how the trick is done, and you STILL think it's magic. > > > > > > or the 80m-long-pole-trapped-inside-40m-long-barn > > > paradox? > > > We've talked about this, too. It's a 36m-long-pole-inside-a-40m-long- > > barn and that doesn't sound so paradoxical. > > Zombie know: 80m in 40m difficult. Master say possible but zombie know > difficult. Zombie clever very clever. Zobbie know: 36m in 40m > possible. Easy. Good. Zombie clever very clever. > > > > I think only Einsteiniana can produce such wisdom: > > > >http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html > > > >http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html > > > "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors > > > at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a > > > switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in > > > the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an > > > instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you > > > close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open > > > them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the > > > contracted pole shut up in your barn." > > Pentcho Valev > pva...(a)yahoo.com
From: Sue... on 10 Jul 2008 17:21 On Jul 10, 4:15 pm, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > Sue... wrote: > >On Jul 10, 6:41 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >[...] > > >> The honest answer seems to be: we still don't know. > > >> Flip a coin. > > >Which of the experiments test: > > ><<,,,Einstein's relativity principle, which states that: > > > All inertial frames are totally equivalent > > for the performance of all physical experiments. > > >In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical > >experiment which differentiates in any fundamental > >sense between different inertial frames. By definition, > >Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all > >inertial frames. Einstein generalized this result in > >his special theory of relativity by asserting that all > >laws of physics take the same form in all inertial > >frames. >> > > Which is exactly the same as Galileo's principle of relativity. It had > been thought not to be true because of belief in the aether. If the > aether exists then it should be possible to devise experiments which are > frame dependent because each FoR has a different speed relative to the > aether. Whether ether exist is irrelevant. Hydrogen and helium is widely thought to exist (still a few doubters, no doubt) Propagation in a dielectric medium http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html > The MMX was just such an experiment which was expected to give a > frame dependent result. > It didn't and neither did any others There are many reasons it wouldn't but the most significant is that light does not move as a massive paritcle. Einstein seems to have considered the need for a dielectric only much later in his career. > so the PoR > could be reinstated. It was first by Lorentz and then by Einstein. The > two theories are mathematically identical. Lorentz's has a theoretical > structure which Einstein objected to but Einstein came up with no > alternative. The massive light particle inherited from Newton has yet to be detected. So restatment seems unnecessary. <<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 [inertial] field. >> http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_11/31_1.shtml "The relativity principle" http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Sue... > > >Sue... > > -- > John Kennaugh
From: Danny Milano on 10 Jul 2008 18:25 On Jul 11, 3:51 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 11:14 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 5:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 10, 10:35 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Consider the frequency shift > > > > > f' = f(1 + gh/c^2) > > > > > confirmed experimentally by Pound and Rebka. Is it in agreement with > > > > Einstein's 1911 equation: > > > > > c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) > > > > > and therefore with the equivalent equation: > > > > > c' = c + v > > > > > given by Newton's emission theory of light? If it is, is it then in > > > > disagreement with Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c)? > > > > No, it's not. You have this goofball notion that the special > > > relativity postulate (c'=c) is claimed to apply EVERYWHERE and in ALL > > > CIRCUMSTANCES. It applies over distances where tidal forces due to > > > gravity are small compared to measurement precision; i.e. in domains > > > that are locally inertial. This is why it is called the *special* > > > theory of relativity, because it (and its postulates) apply in a > > > *special domain*. Attempts to extrapolate them out to general and > > > absolute statements leads you mistakenly to the apparent > > > contradictions you cite above. Have you been laboring all these years > > > under the impression that there is a contradiction when you do not > > > know what "special" in "special relativity" means? > > > This is irrelevant. Consider Master Tom Roberts' teaching: > > >http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2d2a006c7d50... > > Pentcho Valev: CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A > > GRAVITATIONAL FIELD? > > Tom Roberts: "Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the > > measurement. It can also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume > > you really mean the standard value for c). And this can happen even > > for an accelerated observer in a region without any significant > > gravitation (e.g. in Minkowski spacetime)." > > > That is, if in a gravitational field an observer at rest (relative to > > the light source) measures the speed of light to be: > > > c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) > > > then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer > > will measure: > > > c' = c + v > > > where v=gh/c is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment > > of emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception). Is that > > OK? > > Yes, that's perfectly consistent with what I just told you. > Now, you are apparently still flummoxed with putting this next to > c'=c, thinking there is a contradiction. > There isn't. > c'=c applies in *SPECIAL* relativity, where tidal effects of gravity > are negligible over the distances concerned. > That's why it's called *SPECIAL* relativity, because it applies in > special cases. > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Hi PD, Do you think it is possible for General Relativity to exist without time dilation or length contraction (Special Relativity) inherent in the theory? About the muon reaching the ground due to newtonian mechanism in contrast to SR explanation about time dilation or the atmospheric length contraction from the point of view of the muon. What do you think of Baird newtonian interpretation explanation in the initial post which I'll quote again (what's his fatal flaw with regards to the muon shower reaching ground NM interpretation?): Baird said: " 16:10 Muon Showers Similar arguments apply when we try to assess evidence from "cosmic ray" detectors. High energy cosmic rays hitting the upper parts of the Earth's atmosphere create showers of short-lived "daughter particles" that survive for an incredibly short amount of time before decaying - their lifetimes are so short that even if they were travelling at the speed of light, we might think that they still shouldn't be able to reach the Earth's surface before decaying. But ground-based detectors do report the detection of muon showers, and there are two main ways that we can interpret this result: SR-based interpretation According to special relativity, we should explain the detectors' result by saying that since we "know" that nothing can travel faster than background lightspeed, the rations' ability to reach the ground shows that their decay-times must have been extended, and we interpret this as demonstrating that the special theory's time-dilation effects are physically real. We say that the muons move at a very high proportion of the speed of light and are time-dilated, and if it wasn't It for this time-dilation effect , they wouldn't be able to reach the detectors. Or ... we could adopt the muon's point of view, and suggest that the muon is stationary and the Earth is moving towards it at nearly the speed of light. In this second SR description, all of the approaching Earth's atmosphere is able to pass by the muon in time even though its speed is less than c, because the moving atmosphere's depth is Lorentz-contracted. These two different SR explanations (length-contraction and time dilation) are interchangeable. NM-based interpretation But is the success of the SR mtion calculations significant? Is it significantly different to the calculations weld have made using earlier theory? When we compare the tracklengths predicted by SR and NM, starting from theory-neutral properties, the final results seem to be identical (section 16.9): for a given agreed momentum, the mtion's decay point according to SR would seem to be precisely the same as the NM prediction - the two models don't disagree on where the muon decays, they disagree as to whether it achieves that penetration by travelling at more or less than background lightspeed, which is more difficult to establish. Fast or ultrafast? Muon bursts seem to be associated with Cerenkov radiation - the optical equivalent of a supersonic shockwave - but since lightspeed is slower in air than in a vacuum, using the Cerenkov effect to show that the innuons are moving faster than lightspeed in air doesn't show that they're also moving faster than the official background speed of light, in a vacuum. So how do we find the real speed of the muons, given that we don't have advance warning of when a cosmic ray is going to strike? With additional airborne muion detectors we can try to cornpare the detection times in the air and on the ground, but interpreting this data neutrally could be difficult: one such experiment seemed to indicate that the muons were travelling at more than than Cvacuum (Clay/Crouch 1974), but subsequent experiments seem to have supported the opposite position. Frorn here on, things get muddy. Given that we know that the record of SR-trained theorists trying to interpret non-SR theory isn't exactly faultless, it's difficult to know exactly how to treat this situation ... but there's one thing here that we can be sure of. When SR textbooks tell us that ground-level muon detection gives us unambiguous evidence for special relativity, and tell us that these muons couldn't reach the ground unless SR was correct, and couldn't bay, been predicted by earlier theories ... those statements are wrong"
From: Eric Gisse on 10 Jul 2008 18:36
On Jul 10, 11:48 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] > Got any other ideas, smart guy? :) > > PD I wonder how people like James think - if they think at all - our technology is built. You don't build a billion dollar fab and "wing it". |