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: Ste on 9 Feb 2010 01:54 On 8 Feb, 21:10, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 11:19 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 8 Feb, 03:16, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 7, 9:59 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 3 dimensional geometry does need a physical explanation, and it's very > > > > easy to provide one that appeals to our most obvious intuitions. > > > > I just wanted to say "it appeals to our most obvious intuitions" is > > > not a physical reason. > > > Yes it is, because what we observe *is* physical reality. > > This statement carries no small dose of irony. > > Recall earlier that when we were discussing observed velocities and > kinetic energies and momenta, which are frame-dependent, you declared > off the top of your head that reality cannot be frame-dependent, and > therefore what we observe is NOT reality. Touche. Perhaps I ought to recant that statement, because I forget what I was alluding to at the time, and I admit I can't justify the statement now without distorting the plain meaning of the words. That said, I've described elsewhere about how the principles of geometry can be demonstrated in a practical way.
From: Ste on 9 Feb 2010 01:57 On 9 Feb, 00:40, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 3:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 3:57 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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! > > > Well, here we run into the small conundrum: > > S: "I don't see why I should believe this theory without a physical > > model that makes sense to me." > > P: "Well, you see, physicists choose which model to believe based on > > which of the models matches the largest set of experimental data." > > S: "But I don't believe the experimental data either, because I do not > > trust that they haven't been skewed by physicists." > > P: "What would it take for you to believe the experimental data?" > > S: "It would require physicists to explain the data with a model that > > makes sense to me." > > > Self-fulfilling prophecy, you see. > > What's really funny is that he had already decided there was a > systematic error in all the experiments *before* reviewing any of the > experiments. > > Also funny is that he seems to think you can have a theory that > "explains" SR while giving different numerical predictions than SR > (such as the prediction of length contraction). One has to wonder in > what what the two descriptions are equivalent if they predict > different things. I've been clear about this. I have not turned my mind to the matter of length contraction, I have simply made the statement, supported by sources (including John Baez's site which was recommended to me), that length contraction has never been experimentally verified.
From: mpalenik on 9 Feb 2010 02:00 On Feb 9, 1:57 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 9 Feb, 00:40, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 3:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 8, 3:57 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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! > > > > Well, here we run into the small conundrum: > > > S: "I don't see why I should believe this theory without a physical > > > model that makes sense to me." > > > P: "Well, you see, physicists choose which model to believe based on > > > which of the models matches the largest set of experimental data." > > > S: "But I don't believe the experimental data either, because I do not > > > trust that they haven't been skewed by physicists." > > > P: "What would it take for you to believe the experimental data?" > > > S: "It would require physicists to explain the data with a model that > > > makes sense to me." > > > > Self-fulfilling prophecy, you see. > > > What's really funny is that he had already decided there was a > > systematic error in all the experiments *before* reviewing any of the > > experiments. > > > Also funny is that he seems to think you can have a theory that > > "explains" SR while giving different numerical predictions than SR > > (such as the prediction of length contraction). One has to wonder in > > what what the two descriptions are equivalent if they predict > > different things. > > I've been clear about this. I have not turned my mind to the matter of > length contraction, I have simply made the statement, supported by > sources (including John Baez's site which was recommended to me), that > length contraction has never been experimentally verified.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - All I am saying is if your have a theory that does not predict the length contractions of SR, then it is not a theory that explains SR. It is a different theory. So, you either have to agree that length contractions as described in SR are correct or admit that your theory is fundimentally different from SR and not merely an interpretation of it.
From: Ste on 9 Feb 2010 03:45 On 9 Feb, 07:00, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 9, 1:57 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 9 Feb, 00:40, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 8, 3:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 8, 3:57 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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! > > > > > Well, here we run into the small conundrum: > > > > S: "I don't see why I should believe this theory without a physical > > > > model that makes sense to me." > > > > P: "Well, you see, physicists choose which model to believe based on > > > > which of the models matches the largest set of experimental data." > > > > S: "But I don't believe the experimental data either, because I do not > > > > trust that they haven't been skewed by physicists." > > > > P: "What would it take for you to believe the experimental data?" > > > > S: "It would require physicists to explain the data with a model that > > > > makes sense to me." > > > > > Self-fulfilling prophecy, you see. > > > > What's really funny is that he had already decided there was a > > > systematic error in all the experiments *before* reviewing any of the > > > experiments. > > > > Also funny is that he seems to think you can have a theory that > > > "explains" SR while giving different numerical predictions than SR > > > (such as the prediction of length contraction). One has to wonder in > > > what what the two descriptions are equivalent if they predict > > > different things. > > > I've been clear about this. I have not turned my mind to the matter of > > length contraction, I have simply made the statement, supported by > > sources (including John Baez's site which was recommended to me), that > > length contraction has never been experimentally verified.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > All I am saying is if your have a theory that does not predict the > length contractions of SR, then it is not a theory that explains SR. > It is a different theory. So, you either have to agree that length > contractions as described in SR are correct or admit that your theory > is fundimentally different from SR and not merely an interpretation of > it. If it can be shown that the arguments I'm making about an absolute aether require a length contraction, then I'd probably accept it, particularly if a credible physical explanation can be given. Otherwise, I reserve judgment - that is, I neither deny it nor accept it.
From: Ste on 9 Feb 2010 04:32
On 9 Feb, 04:06, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 10:53 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 8 Feb, 14:22, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 8, 9:10 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 8 Feb, 12:46, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > We seem to be getting somewhere now. I can basically understand the > > > > > principle of how that carries out a detection. Now, do you have any > > > > > data that plots detections and velocities, at different speeds? > > > > > > ________________________ > > > > > > "Plots velocities at different speeds"! > > > > > > ROFL! > > > > > The velocities of the decay products for different impact speeds, you > > > > pillock! > > > > > > The explanation of how the detector works actually explains how energy and > > > > > direction are determined for several different particle types and classes. > > > > > And *none* of it relies on shining beams of light at the particles. > > > > > I never said it did. But in the case of tauons, it does depend on > > > > measuring the velocities of decay products, so I want to know what > > > > those velocities are, and how they change with speed. > > > > Well, you can look up an experimental paper just as well as anyone > > > else. Why is it up to us to find this for you? I wish I had someone > > > to run around getting papers for me when I need them. > > > As I explained to Paul Draper, I actually do that sort of thing for > > people all the time on a variety of subjects, because the whole point > > of claiming to have knowledge is that you share it. > > I don't have papers with the results of particle accelerator > experiments sitting here in front of me. Particle physics isn't even > my field (although relativity is still important for many of the > calculations that I do)--that doesn't mean I've never studied particle > physics at all or that I haven't read papers from the field, though. > I could look up a paper for you but then that runs the risk of you > saying "no, that's not what I want," and then I would have to look up > another, and maybe another, and who knows where it will end. I have > don't have the time to run around looking for papers for you. > > If your wondering, it's not as simple as "here's the tauon decay > particle velocity vs. initial velocity curve". You'll need to sift > through a lot of data in a lot of papers and I don't have the time to > help you do that. You are just as capable of looking up papers as I > am. If you want data, here are two good places to start: arxiv and > scholar.google.com. > > There is no simple answer to your questions about data. There is no > one graph out there that is going to answer your questions in a > simple, easy to interpret way. Nor is there only one particular > experiment, like "the tauon decay experiment". If you want to get > this kind of data, it's not fair to expect other people to find it for > you. I don't expect you to spend an extraordinary time looking for papers for my benefit. Perhaps we'll just put this one into abeyance for now, since my fundamental question is not about contradicting SR but about seeing whether my arguments provide a credible physical basis for it. |