Is Length Contraction in SR physical??
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Simultaneous events and Einstein's absolute time
Next: New Theory --- The Theory of Quantum Wave Sources
From: Peter Webb on 8 Feb 2010 00:42 >> The link I gave you above explains exactly what would happen in SLAC if >> the >> length of the accelerator was not foreshortened by SR, ie it wouldn't >> work. >> It does work, almost every day. > > The only "evidence" on that page is that when tauons move at speed, > they appear to travel further before decaying, an appearance which no > one denies. It then goes on to speculate what the tauon would "see" > from within its own reference frame. > > But let me ask you, how is the decay event detected? Why? Its certainly not optically. SLAC uses a range of detectors. These would typically operate by the decay particles (*NOT* EMR waves) causing a physical phase change in a material ("cloud chambers", now very old), or mediating a chemical reaction (film), or providing energy to a CCD array. *None* of these use EMR. Well, now you have: 1. Been given links to lots of proofs of SR, 2. Been given links to experimental demonstrations of SR length contraction (in particle accelerators) 3. Had this and other things explained to you by people who *do* understand the maths and have studied physics for *more* than an entire month. If you have any questions concerning SR, I am happy to answer them. If you think SR is wrong, then I couldn't care less. That somebody with no expertise in mathematics or physics doesn't believe in (or understand) SR is hardly surprising. Some things require mathematics and more than a month's study to understand. Only cranks believe otherwise.
From: mpalenik on 8 Feb 2010 00:47 On Feb 8, 12:42 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> The link I gave you above explains exactly what would happen in SLAC if > >> the > >> length of the accelerator was not foreshortened by SR, ie it wouldn't > >> work. > >> It does work, almost every day. > > > The only "evidence" on that page is that when tauons move at speed, > > they appear to travel further before decaying, an appearance which no > > one denies. It then goes on to speculate what the tauon would "see" > > from within its own reference frame. > > > But let me ask you, how is the decay event detected? > > Why? > > Its certainly not optically. > > SLAC uses a range of detectors. These would typically operate by the decay > particles (*NOT* EMR waves) causing a physical phase change in a material > ("cloud chambers", now very old), or mediating a chemical reaction (film), > or providing energy to a CCD array. *None* of these use EMR. > There's even a link right there on the site called "detectors", which I posted but he ignored. Here it is again: http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/detectors.html
From: Ste on 8 Feb 2010 04:57 On 8 Feb, 03:41, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > Certainly, if *you're* familiar with all this experimental evidence, > then surely you can either point out where the evidence (not theory) > contradicts my hypothesis, or on the other hand concede that the > evidence would not discern between existing interpretations and mine. > > ____________________________________ > I have now posted exactly what you are asking for three times. Here it is a > fourth time: > > http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html > > It clearly states what would be observed in SLAC if length contraction of > the track did not occur, states the impact of relativistic shortening of the > track, and then states that the experimental results are exactly as are > predicted using SR's length contraction, and are not as predicted if length > contraction did not occur. > > Why do you keep complaining that there is no experimental support for length > contraction, when I have given you an extremely reputable site which > provides exactly that? No, you've given a site which merely *infers* length contraction (i.e. "the theory would not work but for..."), whereas my argument is that, without a compelling physical explanation for why length contraction would occur, I'm not willing to accept the hypothesis as proven. Indeed, I have no information about how the decay products are measured in these accelerators nor access to the raw data set, and I'm not willing to take the word of scientific authority in which I have utterly no faith, particularly because so many supposed experts appear to have no insight whatsoever into the physical nature of their mathematical models, and even more shockingly the request for a physical explanation often produces the reply "what do you mean by physical", as though it needed to be defined! > BTW, the same is true of any particle accelerator built in the last 50 > years. > > People who doubt SR seem to forget that we routinely accelerate particles > close to the speed of light in countless particle accelerators world-wide > every day, and precisely measure resulting speeds, energies and momenta. > These accelerators simply would not work if SR was wrong. No one doubts SR. Or at least, *I* do not, because I understand it perfectly. What I am suggesting, however, is that there appear to be relatively straightforward mechanical explanations for many of the observed effects. And while I do not rule out length contraction, I've not yet seen a physical explanation for it, nor conceived one myself, so the issue will remain in abeyance.
From: Ste on 8 Feb 2010 05:05 On 8 Feb, 04:29, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 11:16 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > But let me ask you, how is the decay event detected?- Hide quoted text - > > Is it really that hard to click the link?http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/detectors.html > > Just so you know, it's not done by sending a beam of light at the > particle or anything like that, which would be nearly impossible to do > anyway. I had a quick glance at some of the pages and links on that site, and it seems to be aimed at 8-year-old children, or the sort of summary you'd expect to find in a newspaper - as though anyone in this discussion here ought to care that "the complete detector weights 4,000 tons and stands six stories tall". To reiterate, if you want to have a serious discussion, then provide *real evidence*, and expect me to ask some questions.
From: mpalenik on 8 Feb 2010 05:08
On Feb 8, 5:05 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 8 Feb, 04:29, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 7, 11:16 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > But let me ask you, how is the decay event detected?- Hide quoted text - > > > Is it really that hard to click the link?http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/detectors.html > > > Just so you know, it's not done by sending a beam of light at the > > particle or anything like that, which would be nearly impossible to do > > anyway. > > I had a quick glance at some of the pages and links on that site, and > it seems to be aimed at 8-year-old children, or the sort of summary > you'd expect to find in a newspaper - as though anyone in this > discussion here ought to care that "the complete detector weights > 4,000 tons and stands six stories tall". > > To reiterate, if you want to have a serious discussion, then provide > *real evidence*, and expect me to ask some questions. This link describes perfectly well how the detector works. For example, follow the link for the vertex detector: http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/detectors/vertex.html -- it says that the vertex detector consists of CCDs for detecting charged particles that collide with it, it's the innermost layer, has the most accurate detection capabilities, and even gives an approximate resolution. What do you think you need to know that isn't on this page? |