You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Three Experiments Challenging SRT
- Thread starter Masterov
- Start date
What is $$\tau$$?
Proper time, defined by $$c^{2} \mathrm{d}\tau^{2} \,=\, c^{2} \mathrm{d}t^{2} \,-\, \mathrm{d}x^{2} \,-\, \mathrm{d}y^{2} \,-\, \mathrm{d}z^{2}$$.
How these formulas been received?
The easiest way uses four-vectors:
$$
\begin{eqnarray}
x^{\mu} &\equiv& (ct,\, x,\, y,\, z) \,, \quad \mu \,=\, 0,\,1,\,2,\,3 \\
u^{\mu} &\equiv& \frac{\mathrm{d}x^{\mu}}{\mathrm{d}\tau} \\
a^{\mu} &\equiv& \frac{\mathrm{d}u^{\mu}}{\mathrm{d}\tau} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
$$
\begin{eqnarray}
x^{\mu} &\equiv& (ct,\, x,\, y,\, z) \,, \quad \mu \,=\, 0,\,1,\,2,\,3 \\
u^{\mu} &\equiv& \frac{\mathrm{d}x^{\mu}}{\mathrm{d}\tau} \\
a^{\mu} &\equiv& \frac{\mathrm{d}u^{\mu}}{\mathrm{d}\tau} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
$$
The quantity $$a_{\mu} a^{\mu} \,\equiv\, (a^{0})^{2} \,-\, (a^{1})^{2} \,-\, (a^{2})^{2} \,-\, (a^{3})^{2}$$ is Lorentz invariant and always equals $$- a^{2}$$ where $$a$$ is the acceleration in the instantaneous rest frame (I can prove this if necessary).
For the trajectory I gave in [POST=2970210]post #298[/POST],
$$
x^{\mu} \,=\, \frac{c^{2}}{a} \bigl( \sinh(a \tau / c) ,\, \cosh(a \tau / c) \bigr) \,,
$$
x^{\mu} \,=\, \frac{c^{2}}{a} \bigl( \sinh(a \tau / c) ,\, \cosh(a \tau / c) \bigr) \,,
$$
the four-acceleration is
$$
a^{\mu} \,\equiv\, \frac{\mathrm{d}^{2} x^{\mu}}{\mathrm{d} \tau^{2}} \,=\, a \bigl( \sinh(a \tau / c) ,\, \cosh(a \tau / c) \bigr) \,,
$$
a^{\mu} \,\equiv\, \frac{\mathrm{d}^{2} x^{\mu}}{\mathrm{d} \tau^{2}} \,=\, a \bigl( \sinh(a \tau / c) ,\, \cosh(a \tau / c) \bigr) \,,
$$
and
$$
\begin{eqnarray}
a_{\mu} a^{\mu} &=& a^{2} \bigl( \sinh(a \tau / c)^{2} \,-\, \cosh(a \tau / c)^{2} \bigr)
&=& - a^{2} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
$$
\begin{eqnarray}
a_{\mu} a^{\mu} &=& a^{2} \bigl( \sinh(a \tau / c)^{2} \,-\, \cosh(a \tau / c)^{2} \bigr)
&=& - a^{2} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
$$
So the trajectory has constant proper acceleration $$a$$.
It for visual coordinates only.Proper time, defined by $$c^{2} \mathrm{d}\tau^{2} \,=\, c^{2} \mathrm{d}t^{2} \,-\, \mathrm{d}x^{2} \,-\, \mathrm{d}y^{2} \,-\, \mathrm{d}z^{2}$$.
We see a stars and galaxies in the visual coordinates.
Real coordinates of the stars and galaxies differ from the visual coordinates.
Real coordinates obey Galilean transformations.
$$x^{\mu} \equiv (ct,\, x,\, y,\, z) $$
So correct:
$$\vec{x} \equiv (ct,\, ix,\, iy,\, iz)$$
Then:
$$x^2 \equiv (ct)^2-x^2-y^2-z^2$$
If you're talking about relativity, then no. The coordinates related by Lorentz transforms are those that clocks and rulers measure. They are not visual coordinates. They do not take into account the time it takes for light from whatever you are seeing takes to reach you.It for visual coordinates only.
We see a stars and galaxies in the visual coordinates.
Real coordinates of the stars and galaxies differ from the visual coordinates.
Real coordinates obey Galilean transformations.
Example: if a clock is moving with velocity v, then according to relativity, it ticks slower by a factor $$\sqrt{1 \,-\, v^{2}/c^{2}}$$.
But when you look at the clock, you see it tick slower or faster by a factor between $$\frac{\sqrt{1 \,-\, v/c}}{\sqrt{1 \,+\, v/c}$$ and $$\frac{\sqrt{1 \,+\, v/c}}{\sqrt{1 \,-\, v/c}$$ (the relativistic Doppler factors) depending on whether it is moving away from you or moving toward you.
So correct:
$$\vec{x} \equiv (ct,\, ix,\, iy,\, iz)$$
Then:
$$x^2 \equiv (ct)^2-x^2-y^2-z^2$$
Some people use that convention, but it isn't very popular.
In the notation I used, if $$x^{\mu} \,=\, (ct,\, x,\, y,\, z)$$ then $$x \cdot x \,\equiv\, \eta_{\mu\nu} x^{\mu} x^{\nu} \,\equiv\, \sum_{\mu\nu} \eta_{\mu\nu} x^{\mu} x^{\nu}$$, with
$$
(\eta_{\mu\nu}) \,=\, \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0& -1
\end{bmatrix} \,.
$$
(\eta_{\mu\nu}) \,=\, \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0& -1
\end{bmatrix} \,.
$$
(In the Einstein summation convention, repeated indices are summed over.)
It is also standard to define $$x_{\mu} \,\equiv\, \eta_{\mu\nu} x^{\nu} \,=\, (ct,\, -x,\, -y,\, -z)$$.
So $$x_{\mu} x^{\mu} \,=\, (ct)^{2} \,-\, x^{2} \,-\, y^{2} \,-\, z^{2}$$, like I said.
This convention is more common because it generalises to non-inertial coordinate systems (which makes it necessary in general relativity). In non inertial coordinate systems, for a vector $$v$$, $$v \cdot v \,=\, g_{\mu\nu} x^{\mu} x^{\nu}$$ with $$g_{\mu\nu} \,\neq\, \eta_{\mu\nu}$$. For example, in spherical coordinates $$(ct,\, r,\, \theta,\, \varphi)$$,
$$
(g_{\mu\nu}) \,=\, \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -r^{2} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0& -r^{2} \sin(\theta)^{2}
\end{bmatrix} \,.
$$
(g_{\mu\nu}) \,=\, \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -r^{2} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0& -r^{2} \sin(\theta)^{2}
\end{bmatrix} \,.
$$
Scientist is a generator of new knowledge and is a fighter with scientific errors.Some people use that convention, but it isn't very popular.
In the notation I used, if $$x^{\mu} \,=\, (ct,\, x,\, y,\, z)$$ then $$x \cdot x \,\equiv\, \eta_{\mu\nu} x^{\mu} x^{\nu} \,\equiv\, \sum_{\mu\nu} \eta_{\mu\nu} x^{\mu} x^{\nu}$$, with
$$...
(\eta_{\mu\nu}) \,=\, \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0& -1
\end{bmatrix} \,.
$$
If a scientist does not have an intellectual faculties to generate new knowledge and does not have the courage to deal with misconceptions in science, then the scientist generates new symbols and new terminology, which only he understands.
Modern science is like a shadow theater, which has the appearance of movement, but movement is has not.
Moved has a shadows only (a notation and terminology).
Modern science is unable to answer simple questions.
For example, science can not answer the question: "Why does the wind blows?"
So science can not explain the nature of a tornado.
Science is looking for water on the Moon and Mars, and argues that plants consume carbon dioxide leaves.
Arrogance of representatives of the scientific elite no way corresponds to the real level of understanding of the nature of things.
Modern scientist is like a turkey-cock, which boasts of his plumage only (convoluted terminology and silly-notations which to understands he only).
SRT theory no has a reliable experimental confirmation for 100 years.
Therefore, it is not a scientific theory.
This is absolutely not true.
Additionally, the main point of relativity is that it imposes a symmetry (Lorentz covariance) on other theories. The best evidence for relativity nowadays is not measurements of time dilation or the invariance of c. Those are really just icing on the cake. The best evidence for relativity is that all the most accurate theories tested in particle accelerators have relativity built into them as a symmetry.
If a scientist does not have an intellectual faculties to generate new knowledge and does not have the courage to deal with misconceptions in science, then the scientist generates new symbols and new terminology, which only he understands.
False. The notation I used is not new (it is nearly as old as relativity), and every physics graduate should recognise and understand it. It is used because it has proven itself to be a very useful and powerful tool in special and general relativity. It does not change the theory, but it does make it possible to express many things in a simple and compact way, and it makes many problems easy to understand once you have actually learned it.
For example, if you understand the notation, then the simplest way to prove that Maxwell's equations are Lorentz invariant is to rewrite them in this notation. The notation makes it very easy to propose theories that are automatically relativistic. That is why we use it.
Three Experiments of Liangzao FAN demonstrate that it's true.This is absolutely not true.
Fact of absence of publication of experiments (Liangzao FAN's type) unambiguously proved that it's true.
Three Experiments of Liangzao FAN demonstrate that it's true.
False. Three experiments in a poorly written unpublished paper by Liangzao Fan do not magically erase the body of evidence in favour of relativity from history.
Fact of absence of publication of experiments (Liangzao FAN's type) unambiguously proved that it's true.
That proves nothing of the sort. And as I have already pointed out to you, an experiment of that type by Bertozzi was performed and its results published.
The professor can compel students learn the telephone directory or wacky designations which professor invented himself, and which science does nothing.False. The notation I used is not new (it is nearly as old as relativity), and every physics graduate should recognise and understand it.
Operations with vectors in mathematics are well known.
These operations is enough.
No need to invent something else.
One who invents a new notation and own jargon demonstrates his scientific impotence.
The impotent hides its inconsistency under obscure symbols and incomprehensible jargon.
The professor can compel students learn the telephone directory or wacky designations which professor invented himself, and which science does nothing.
But the professor cannot make the outcome of an experiment perfomed by his students be anything he wishes.
You have not found anything wrong with the experiment. I am not sure where you got the idea that Bertozzi got students to do it in the first place, and even if he did there is no reason that would invalidate the results.
Bertozzi not put scientific experiments and has not on scientific experimental assembly.But the professor cannot make the outcome of an experiment perfomed by his students be anything he wishes.
You have not found anything wrong with the experiment. I am not sure where you got the idea that Bertozzi got students to do it in the first place, and even if he did there is no reason that would invalidate the results.
Bertozzi built a demonstration model to illustrate the relativistic effects students.
But even if Bertozzi put science experiment using a complete set of experimental assembly - the fact that half a century after experiments Bertozzi these experiments were not repeated and not refined nebyli establish the limits of applicability of the theory - clearly indicates that the physics of trying to build on open deceit.
Bertozzi not put scientific experiments and has not on scientific experimental assembly.
Bertozzi built a demonstration model to illustrate the relativistic effects students.
Where did you get this information?
But even if Bertozzi put science experiment using a complete set of experimental assembly - the fact that half a century after experiments Bertozzi these experiments were not repeated and not refined nebyli establish the limits of applicability of the theory - clearly indicates that the physics of trying to build on open deceit.
No, because Bertozzi's experiment is not the only experiment that can support relativity. Your assertion, that experiments supporting relativity are invalid because they are not the same as the ones described by Liangzao Fan, is arbitrary and unjustified.
Like I said, the best evidence for relativity is that some of the most accurately verified mainstream theories in the history of experimental physics have relativity built into them. If relativity were so obviously wrong, we would have expected to see this in particle accelerators by now. We would expect to find it increasingly difficult to force relativity into quantum field theories while still keeping them consistent with experimental results, until we were forced to abandon relativity altogether just to make things work. Instead, everything seems fine and you're reduced to waving that away as some sort of incredible coincidence.
Good.Where did you get this information?Bertozzi not put scientific experiments and has not on scientific experimental assembly.
Bertozzi built a demonstration model to illustrate the relativistic effects students.
I will not insist that the Bertozzi's experimental assembly was layout.
But in Bertozzi's experimental assembly absent calorimeter, and absent direct measurements of the electron energy.
Bertozzi experiment confirms Master Theory and SRT to the same extent.
But even if the Bertozzi's experimental assembly had calorimeter: a serious debate about old experimental work (the heyday of radio tubes, 1964) as the foundation for the construction of physics do not think it possible.
Bertozzi experiments should be repeatedly tested and refined.
Electron energy should be measured in the calorimeter, as did Liangzao FAN.
SRT says that the energy is proportional to the potential difference and it is unlimited, while the speed is limited by the speed of light.
Liangzao FAN showed that the energy ceases to grow with the speed, as predicted by the Master Theory.
Thus Master Theory and Liangzao FAN's experiments buried SRT once and for all.
But in Bertozzi's experimental assembly absent calorimeter, and absent direct measurements of the electron energy.
Bertozzi's experiment measured the electron energy via the temperature increase of an aluminium disc. Just how is that not calorimetry?
In a scheme of Bertozzi's experimental assembly an aluminum disk exist, but the recording temperature device - no.Bertozzi's experiment measured the electron energy via the temperature increase of an aluminium disc. Just how is that not calorimetry?
Table with experimental measurements of temperature absent.
But even have this data existed: taken as the foundation ancient experimental work impossible.
Let the work would have been old, but let it be tested with the utmost precision.
But then it is not.
Bertozzi's experiment was ancient, unverified and inaccurate.
And what is more - SRT experimentally disproved.
All physics is built on lies.
In a scheme of Bertozzi's experimental assembly an aluminum disk exist, but the recording temperature device - no.
Table with experimental measurements of temperature absent.
What do you think this is? You think those results were just made up?
You say that, yet it doesn't seem to bother you that plenty of stuff is absent in Liangzao Fan's paper. There is no statistical error analysis, which is standard in experimental papers. There are very few citations (he doesn't even cite Bertozzi, which one would have thought would be relevant). The author generally makes no attempt at all to reconcile his results with previous results. This is a serious omission, because the results he claims should have implications for high energy physics in general, and no-one had seen anything strange in particle accelerators up to that point. Instead, he happily announces relativity and all things related a dead waste of time:
Traditional electromagnetic acceleration theory is incorrect . The endless pursuit of accelerator’s power, including the construction of the costly European Large Hadron Collider (LHC), is a meaningless waste of money.
which makes me suspicious that Liangzao Fan was dangerously prejudiced and wasn't presenting his results in good faith (no scientist would say such a thing based on just one experiment, and previous accelerators did make new discoveries as they became more powerful, contradicting his assessment).
There are a few more odd things about this paper as well: there is no acknowledgement section (funding organisations generally insist on being credited. Who funded Liangzao Fan's experiments? Who pays his salary?). The paper is entirely written in Word (almost everyone in physics uses LaTeX). The author gives a Yahoo email address. None of this seems strange to you?
In modern physics, a lot of strange things.There are a few more odd things about this paper as well: there is no acknowledgement section (funding organisations generally insist on being credited. Who funded Liangzao Fan's experiments? Who pays his salary?). The paper is entirely written in Word (almost everyone in physics uses LaTeX). The author gives a Yahoo email address. None of this seems strange to you?
1. Modern physics built on untested experiment, which was carried out half a century ago, in the heyday of radio tubes.
2. Strange things of physics is the lack of publication of simple experiments that would unequivocally prove SRT.
If these experiments support SRT, they necessarily would have been published.
The absence of similar experiments in the press clearly indicate that the experiment refutes SRT.
All this points to the fact that a scientific is trying to build modern science on a lie.
Why?