EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Danny Milano on 10 Jul 2008 19:59 http://books.google.com/books?id=bU4xUMuJlukC&pg=PA156&dq=0955706807&ei=W6B2SKf7JI7WsAPy_ZWzDw&sig=ACfU3U1fMUi8owLsRs4P8hcBSXZya1OBdg#PPA157,M1 The following excerpt I omitted (just before the Conclusion section in my initial post) mentioned why moving clock in airplane runs slower (due not to relativistic but newtonian explanation). It also mentions about newton emitter theory which Pentcho kept saying. Note Baird is more intelligent than Pentcho or Spacetime so he deserves full scrutiny esp. before we spend the rest of the year fully immersed in the LHC when it goes online next month.. (FOR SCRUTINY) " 16.11. .. Particle storage rings and centrifugal time dilation If we apply strict SR protocols, we can't in principle isolate the SR time dilation effect particle moving at constant speed along a straight track, because if we could prove how M` time dilation it realIv had, we'd have a measure of its true velocity compared to the speed Of light - if other observers then had to accept our results, we'd have uniquely locked the Oeed of light to a specific inertia] frame, which goes against SR's basic principl es. So a constant velocity "SR-compatible" result can be interpreted as including time dilation effects or not, depending on our chosen reference system. Part of special relativity's internal consistency is maintained by the theory's structure preventing us from being able to verify certain things. Particle storage rings But as physicists, we really do want to be able to know how fast a particle 'Is moving, and there's an unambiguous way of doing this: send the particle around a circular path, measure the length of that path in laboratory units, and then stand alongside the ring and use a local clock to measure how long it takes the particle to make a complete circuit. If we say that the circular track is one kilometre long, and the speed of light is just under -300,000 krn/s, then if the particle takes more than about - 1 /300,000 of a second to make a lap, it has to be circling at less than background lightspeed. If the particle's usual decay time "at rest" is one millionth of a second, and we manage to send it all the way around the ring before it decays, then surely its ability to make a complete circuit is unambiguous proof that the particle is ageing more slowly, and surely this then proves the existence of SR's speed-based time dilation effect? Unfortunately it doesn't. Although the particle now shows a verifiable time-dilation effect, changing to a circular track alters the physical parameters of the experiment. Our circling particle is now feeling a physical acceleration, and the reduction in its ageing rate can now be blamed on acceleration effects (section 12.8). By taking the geeforces as evidence of an apparent gravitational field, and calculating the amount of gravitational time dilation that should be associated with that field, we seem to get the right answers for the particle's timedilation - so we can still predict the right result even if we've never heard of the special theory. These simple particle accelerator-ring experiments don't prove that special relativity's time dilation effect is real - they present us with a straight choice between interpreting the result as an acceleration effect or as a speed effect. We usually choose to accept SR's clock hypothesis, that acceleration has no effect at all ... but this choice isn't imposed by more general arguments, or by experimental data - we choose this interpretation in order to be able to continue using SR. Although the two types o f calculation both work well in our circular particle-accelerator ring example, they don't necessarily agree in more complex situations. Hafele-Keating, etc; In 1971, Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating performed a famous experiment in which they flew two sets of atomic clocks around the world, one set Eastward, and one set Westward. Seen from the frame of the background starfield, the "Eastward" set were circling with the Earth's rotation and had the greater speed (and acceleration), while the "Westward" set ` moving against the Earth's rotation and circling more slowly. When both sets of clock, brought back to their base, the set that had circled fastest seemed to have aged less. But again, although this experiment (and more reliable repetitions of it) are touted as SR, it's another example of centrifuge time dilation, and the outcome should be calculable from more general gravitational and equivalence principles (as a consequence of the different accelerations) without using special relativity. It seems to be that when the only explanation for time dilation is SR, then the effect'- Jani isolated: when it can be isolated, there's another, deeper explanation that makes SR redandant. 16,12: deSitter / Brecher disproof of simple emission theory As we've already mentioned (sections 13.12 and section 13.6), the Newtonian equations of motion seem to become increasingly incompatible with flat spacetime at higher velocities. Ballistic emission theory had assumed that light was effectively "thrown,' particle - the model was relativistic and used the NM relationships, but it didn't support the concept of local c-constancy and broke wave-theory rules. If light was emitted at C(emitter) , and then continued at that speed without any sort of gravitomagnetic regulation, different signals could end up travelling along the same path at the same time with different speeds depending on the characteristics of their respective sources. As we] I as destroying the idea of an orderly light-metric, this gave some odd-looking side-effects: 1) The Doppler-blueshifted light generated in a star's atmosphere by atoms moving ,,Wards us would travel more quickly and reach us before redshifted light from other adjacent atoms moving away from us. If the star was also moving sideways across our field of view, we'd then expect to see it having a spread of positions and colours, as a rainbowed "streak" (which doesn't seem to happen). 2) If an object was "stationary" but being eclipsed, we might expect to see different colours disappear and reappear in sequence as the eclipse progressed (Newton seems to have made enquiries as to whether this effect had been seen - it hadn't). 3) For a double-star system, light emitted when a star was approaching would reach us more quickly than that given off earlier when the star was receding, and at sufficient distances, the star could seem to be occupying two drastically diffrerent parts of its orbit at the same moment. The astronomer Willern deSitter realised that in this third case, the difference in signal flighttimes between a star's "approaching" and "receding" images would increase linearly with distance, until , at a sufficiently-great distance, the "fast" signals from the approaching star should be able to catch up with and overtake earlier signals thrown off by the same star when it was receding, as well as with other "slow" light emitted during earlier orbits. The signals would be "all mixed up" when we received them (Einstein: Shankland 1963), and our view of these distant circling stars would be hopelessly scrambled. DeSitter's 1913 survey of known double-star systems didn't reveal these severe scrambling effects in any of the stars surveyed, and given the extreme distances of some of the stars and the extreme statistical unlikeness that all these stars might have their orbital planes facing us, deSitter concluded that either there was no (global) dependency between the speed of a signal and the speed of its source, or that any (fixed, proportional) dependency would have to be so absurdly small that the possibility really wasn't worth mentioning. DISitter's result is often said to prove that the speed of light is independent of the source, but we have to treat this statement carefully: showing that the speed of light isn't wholly defined by its original source isn't the same as saying that there are no local dependencies double stars should throw off gravitational waves (Figure 4-10), so to prove the absence of Short-range effects on signal flight times might be to disprove general relativity. The deSitter result indicates that lightspeeds aren't se nsibly affected by the motion of their sources over 101`19 distances, but we should still expect short-range gravitomagnetic dependencies between the speed of the emitter, the speed of the detector, and the speeds of any other nearby objects that happened to be wandering through the region at the time. We, typically test the SR shift equations against the predictions of "Classical Theory" (section 16.3) rather than against NM. We justify this by quoting deSitter's result (replicated by Kenneth Brecher in 1977) and saying that since this rules out emission theory (the "historical" implementation of the NM relationships), and since we "know" that spacetime is flat (?), the shift relationships are therefore "known" to be unworkable and don't require testing. 16.13: Domain of Applicability issues We're told that special relativity produces good results, as long as it's used within its domain of applicability. It isn't compelled to produce good predictions when used outside this range. This sounds entirely reasonable. Pro C, But what is this proper range? How do we calculate it? It turns out that the correct range , determined pragmatically - it's the range of situations in which SR is already known (or thought) to produce good results. It's essentially an "engineering" definition, reducing our earlier grand statement to something more like: "Special relativity is known to work very well in situations where it is known to work very well. It does not have to work very well in situations where it is known not to work very well". Knowing where these limits are tells where SR is a useful theory for engineering purposes, but their flexibility makes it more difficult for us to judge whether the theory has deeper validity. Flexible, retrospectively-defined domains encourage selectivity in how we evaluate evidence - cases of a good agreement between SR and the available data are taken as vindicating the theory, while disagreements are treated, not as evidence against the theory, but as showing that it's been applied inappropriately. This approach is great for engineering but rotten for experimental testing, because makes it more difficult to class a theory as falsiflable. We can end up insisting that the theory is doing a damn fine job" within its (moveable) domain, and forgetting that the domain has been preselected as the range that produces that result. We can find ourselves saying that when an experiment disagrees with SR it's not the fault of the theorv, but the fault of the experim ent (or the experimenter). SR vs. particulate matter: can a particle be an SR-style observer ? The special theory tells us that if we have an array of observers in the same inertia] frame all stationary with respect to each other) they should be able to claim that the speed of signals passing between them is fixed in their frame, and if we were to watch this array passing by, we should be able to explain the same results by declaring that the speed of the same signals is fixed in our frame. Reconciling these two views then gives us special relativity. But this doesn't seem to be how things happen in real life. Suppose that our array of observers is real, and that the "observers" are water molecules. When we see these particles passing us, Fizeau's result (section 9.9) tells us that we should see light in the region to have a speed that's locally offset by the array's motion - so special relativity's reworking of inertia] physics was derived to "explain" a counterintuitive result that doesn't quite agree with what we actually see - it explains how "the sa me signal has the same speed for all observers", even though what we actualIy detect is the signal being partially dragged along by the motion of the water. A specialist can respond, well, of course SR's assumptions don't apply to light passed between water molecules, because light moving through water isn't the same as light moving through a vacuum, and SR doesn't claim to be valid for particulate media. But the water molecule could argue that its companion molecules are perfectly legitimate observers, and that the region between these molecule-observers is a perfect vacuum. Where do we draw the line bet"el Einstein's arrays of rods and clocks exchanging synch ronisation signals, which are supposed t' obey the rules of special relativity, and arrays of real particles exchanging signals that are not supposed to obey the laws of special relativity? When does a group of particles count as a group of legitimate SR observers, and when does it count as a particulate medium. If our individual water molecules (in what is otherwise a vacuum) do count as legitimate SR observers then we have trouble explaining Fizeau's lightspeed offsets, and if they don't, then we have to ask, if a simple moving water molecule is too complex an "observer" to be correctly described by SR, whether it's valid to take the theory's predictions seriously for more compound objects such as spaceships and astronauts. Textbooks sometimes explain the lightspeed offset in a moving particulate medium by invoking the extinction theorem - we're told that over an extinction distance, an incoming wavefront is absorbed (or "extinguished") by particles and is replaced with a new wavefront moving through the medium at a fixed speed with respect to that moving medium. This description presumably works (at least reasonably well, or it wouldn't be in the books) but it seems to be at odds with the story told in by SR that we "know" that lightspeed isn't affected by the rnovement of bodies. We might be told that this non-SR behaviour happens "because the particles act as transponders" but Einstein's hypothetical arrays of observers exchanging synch ron isation signals also function as transponders. We seem to "know" different, mutually incornpatible things depending on the branch of physics that we happen to be studying. Dragging and kinetic energy - when is curvature "negligible"? Concentrated energy warps spacetime, and a particle travelling at a "significant" firaction of the speed of light represents a "significant" concentration of kinetic energy, so we might expect high-energy particles to affect the geometry of their environment, and to warp a region's lightbeam geometry more strongly the faster they move through it. This would seem to be the logical extrapolation of Fizeau's experimental result (section 9.9). But if we accept this idea, special relativity's assumption of flat spacetime (and its resulting mathematical predictions) become progressively less reliable as the relative speed between particles approaches the background speed of light. To relegate SR to the status of a theory that holds for less extreme velocities would be unfortunate, since at lower velocities the theory isn't so easily distinguishable fro Newtonian theory, and if we accept these dragging effects as important, then as the special theory's theoretical significance increases, its theoretical validity red uces. How seriously should we treat these curvature effects for particles with ultra-relativistic speeds? Some particle physicists will tell us that SR is entirely capable of dealing with high energy particles, that "curvature" corrections are unnecessary, and that the operation of our larger particle accelerators gives us ample proof of this ... but we're also told that in the next generation of particle accelerator tests at LM Geneva, energy-densities are expected to be so high that they'll be creating microscopic black holes (which should then evaporate almost immediately thanks to the Hawking radiation process). Since black holes are the most extreme examples of spacctime curvature in our phy sics vocabulary, it would be odd to say that we know that experiments of this sort don't involve significant spacetime curvature. Pressed further, particle-accelerator people may backtrack slightly and say that it's not so much SR that has the perfect track record in particle accelerator physics as Quantum Electrodynamics, or "QED"), which is a combination of SR and quantum mechanics. But since we know that "quantum" corrections can sometimes be used to mimic the effects of accoustic metric"-style curvature, we might interpret the success of QED in different ways: it might suggest to us that since QED uses SR, this counts as a success for special relativity ... or it rnight suggest to us that some of QED's corrections may be inadvertently recreating the statistical results of the sort of velocity-dependent curvature effects that are missing from the SR description, and which we've been insisting don't happen. We could also argue that if general relativity says that on principle energy densities are associated with curvature, and that on principle inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass, that a "general" theory shouldn't cleanly reduce to a theory that allows inertial mass to exist in the absense of gravitational effects, or allows arbitrarily high energy densities in the the absence of any form of associated curvature. While special relativity is sometimes described as the limit to general relativity a t which gravity is "switched off', perhaps a "complete" general theory of relativity wouldn't have such a limit, or would only have a null limit - in a general theory of relativity, the natural "medium" for gravitational effects is spacetime itself, so if we were to "switch gravity off', and remove all gravitational field-effects, a full theory arguably shouldn't turn into the physics of special relativity, but should disappear entirely."
From: Danny Milano on 10 Jul 2008 20:04 On Jul 11, 7:59 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > http://books.google.com/books?id=bU4xUMuJlukC&pg=PA156&dq=0955706807&... > > The following excerpt I omitted (just before the Conclusion section > in my initial post) mentioned why moving clock in airplane runs > slower (due not to relativistic but newtonian explanation). It also > mentions about newton emitter theory which Pentcho kept saying. > Note Baird is more intelligent than Pentcho or Spacetime so he > deserves > full scrutiny esp. before we spend the rest of the year fully > immersed > in the LHC when it goes online next month.. > I mean Baird is more intelligent than Pentcho or Spaceman (not "Spacetime" which is of course is more intelligent than anyone). All the excerpt I mentioned in the initial post and the message before this made up the free chapter on goggle called "Chapter 16: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity". See: http://books.google.com/books?id=bU4xUMuJlukC&pg=PA156&dq=0955706807&ei=W6B2SKf7JI7WsAPy_ZWzDw&sig=ACfU3U1fMUi8owLsRs4P8hcBSXZya1OBdg#PPA157,M1 Danny
From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) on 10 Jul 2008 22:01 Dear Danny Milano: "Danny Milano" <milanodanny(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:677cb064-f698-4e45-8d2b-5b4abed23cef(a)p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > Hi, I recently came across a very interesting > book by Eric Baird called "Life Without Special > Relativity". He has a long past here, and Google Groups will show you it all. > It is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. Can start a lot of fires with that. Really too big to swat flys with. > The following is sample excerpt from his web > site. Can someone pls. read and share where > he may have gotten it wrong? He didn't get it wrong. Like so many before him, and so many after him, he makes a living off of suckers. He trumps up some "common sense" based tripe, flavors it like any good fiction, and he has income. His case has no merit. David A. Smith
From: Androcles on 10 Jul 2008 22:08 "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dlzc1(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:pazdk.7676$UM1.4047(a)newsfe12.phx... | Dear Danny Milano: | | "Danny Milano" <milanodanny(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message | news:677cb064-f698-4e45-8d2b-5b4abed23cef(a)p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... | | > Hi, I recently came across a very interesting | > book by Eric Baird called "Life Without Special | > Relativity". | | He has a long past here, and Google Groups will show you it all. | | > It is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. | | Can start a lot of fires with that. Really too big to swat flys | with. | | > The following is sample excerpt from his web | > site. Can someone pls. read and share where | > he may have gotten it wrong? | | He didn't get it wrong. Like so many before him, and so many | after him, he makes a living off of suckers. He trumps up some | "common sense" based tripe, flavors it like any good fiction, and | he has income. | | His case has no merit. | | David A. Smith | Very accurate summation of Einstein, Smiffy. Well done. |
From: Eric Gisse on 10 Jul 2008 22:28
On Jul 10, 3:11 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. You miss the point. Gravity _IS_ curvature in general relativity. > Special Relativity is a tiny region of spacetime > which we assume flat. No more than a surface is assumed flat if you look really close at it. > 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? Baird is an idiot, so "no". And you still don't get it - things like time dilation and length contraction are fundamental predictions of the theory of _SPECIAL RELATIVITY_ that are not true in general relativity. > 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. No, it means the situation gets _more_ complicated, not less. Re: Shapiro delay, gravitational time dilation, etc. > > Danny |