EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Danny Milano on 10 Jul 2008 18:36 On Jul 11, 6:25 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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"- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Oh PD. His explanation of how muons can reach the ground not being due to time dilation is in the following section before it.. something called "tracklengths" (what do you think of it, thanks): "16.9: Particle tracklengths Since we've brought up the subject of daughter particles, how do we test how fast they really go? Let's suppose that we have a particle that's only supposed to survive for a nanosecond, and we measure the length of straight-line distance that it covers between being created and blowing itself to bits. If we know the particle's "official" decay time, then surely We can measure the length of its track, and divide that by the time to get the speed? If this track length was longer than the distance that particl e would travel at the background speed of light, wouldn't this mean that we'd shown that its velocity was superiuminal, disproving SR? And if the particle tracks were always shorter than this, wouldn't this support special relativity? But things aren't that easy. We're used to thinking of velocity as an unambiguous property, but since we can't be in two places at once, the properly often has to be interpreted. Since special relativity redefines all of the properties associated with velocity - energy, momentum, distance and time - fair comparisons between SR and other theories can become quite convoluted, and this can make it difficult to tell, when we're using these agreed, uninterpreted quantities, whether there's really a physical diff erence between the SR and NM tracklength predictions. Special relativity assigns greater energies and momenta to particles and signals than NM does, by a Lorentz factor: NM SR Momentum p= mv p=mv x gamma Doppler effect E'/E=(c-v)/c E'/E=(c-v)/c x gamma , so ... for a high-energy particle moving along a straight line with constant speed, with a known energy and/or momentum, Newtonian theory and special relativity will be assigning consistently different velocity values to the same particle. The nominal "SR velocity" value ("vSR") will always be less than lightspeed, while the nominal 'NM velocity" value ("vNM") will be larger than its SR counterpart by a Lorentz factor (calculated from vSR)' When we migrate from NM to special relativity, a particle's nominal velocity gets reduced by a Lorentz factor, shortening the distance that the particle would be expected to travel before decaying. But SR's "time dilation" effect then predicts an extension of the particle's lifetime by the same Lorentz factor thanks to time dilation, lengthening the particle's track by that same ratio. Because these two corrections exactly cancel, the particle's decay Position as 3 function of its energy and momentum is precisely the same for both theories. The results of both sets of calculations are necessarily identical. "
From: Eric Gisse on 10 Jul 2008 18:37 On Jul 10, 2:25 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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? Do you think you are capable of having a meaningful discussion of general relativity when you are unable to differentiate between special and general relativity? [...]
From: Danny Milano on 10 Jul 2008 19:11 On Jul 11, 6:37 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 2:25 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > Do you think you are capable of having a meaningful discussion of > general relativity when you are unable to differentiate between > special and general relativity? > > [...]- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - General Relativity is about curved spacetime causing as one side effect, gravity. Special Relativity is a tiny region of spacetime which we assume flat. Eric Baird book theorized that it is possible GR is possible without SR. That's why I asked if it is possible for General Relativity to exist without time dilation or length contraction (Special Relativity) inherent in the theory? When we deal with macro object like solar system and galaxies. GR rule, this means time dilation and length contraction doesn't apply and only valid in the tiny region of spacetime or the minkowski metric and not in the GR manifold, right. Danny
From: Sue... on 10 Jul 2008 19:27 On Jul 10, 6:25 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: [...] > > Do you think it is possible for General Relativity to exist > without time dilation or length contraction (Special Relativity) > inherent in the theory? Unlikely. From "Proper Time" --R.Fitzpartick << general Lorentz transformation preserves the volume of space-time. Since time is dilated by a factor $\gamma$ in a moving frame, the volume of space-time can only be preserved if the volume of ordinary 3-space is reduced by the same factor. As is well-known, this is achieved by length contraction along the direction of motion by a factor $\gamma$. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node114.html << The time-time component is the density of relativistic mass, i.e. the energy density divided by the speed of light squared,>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor Sue... [...]
From: Pentcho Valev on 10 Jul 2008 19:31
On Jul 10, 9:51 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 11:14 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. I am afraid your brothers are mad at you now. Brother zombie Paul Andersen says Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is wrong: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/507ab189dc1bb91b Brother Master Tom Roberts is more careful but essentially agrees with brother zombie Paul Andersen: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/44abc7dbb30db6c2 You should not discuss Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2). There is nothing more dangerous for Einsteiniana than this simple formula advanced by Divine Albert himself. There are countries (France for instance) where Einstein's 1911 equation has never been mentioned, let alone discussed. Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com |