Three Experiments Challenging SRT

[Masterov]

Since Fan's paper didn't measure the current (or number of electrons) striking the target it presents no experimental results that need to be refuted. Bertozzi's experimental design and reporting of his experiment procedure are much better than Fan's -- consequently his results are given more weight. Moreover, Bertozzi's experiment continued to a range of energies where $$\beta$$ was approximately constant while Fan failed to do so.

Indeed, when plotted against $$\beta^2$$ Fan stays below 0.25 while Bertozzi stays above 0.75, so Bertozzi's result is less sensitive to equipment calibration errors.

Just as an example. Fan measures his $$\beta$$ value as follows:


But this is not the speed reported in the table, which is dimensionless. Also, are we supposed to believe that Fan actually measured the times of the entry time and exit time or just the elapsed time? If he measured the elasped time, how did he calibrate his equipment so we would have confidence in his ability to measure elasped times to a precision of roughly one part per thousand?

A final curious thing: Is it coincidence that if you multiply the reported beta's ( 0.313, 0.369, 0.412, 0.449, 0.480 ) element-by-element by the integers ( 46, 39, 35, 32, 30 ), and then fudge by 299792458/3e8, each number rounds to 14.4 ?

I look forward repetitive experiments that will be proved (or - refuted) that the temperature of lead continues to grow in proportion to the potential difference of the accelerating field, while the electron velocity does not change.

Neither Bertozzi's and Fan's experiments are not sufficient arguments in the dispute.

The retrial need.

If the temperature of lead continues to grow (and the speed does not change): SRT will be justified.

 

[rpenner]

1. Dozens of smart people who have seen the falsity of SRT were fired from a science in Russia, according to the law, which did an academics that lobbied SRT.

Please provide a reliable news source for this.

2. The extermination of grupp of OPERA-experimenters.

Please provide a reliable news source for this.
OPERA published an extraordinary claim on the basis of a loose timing signal cable. Neutrinos appeared faster-than-light because their apparatus was slow to notice the start of the race, effectively giving the neutrinos a head-start and so the faster-than-light speed was an illusion caused by equipment failure.
Everyone at OPERA knew the claim was extraordinary, but their leadership decided to publish anyway. The resulting media firestorm was predictable. In March 2012, despite surviving a vote of no-confidence, the lab spokesperson and chairmen resigned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster...ly#Discussions_within_the_OPERA_collaboration

But I can't find a report that anyone has been fired or "exterminated."

Neither Bertozzi's and Fan's experiments are not sufficient arguments in the dispute.

I have explained why Bertozzi's experiment which measures both the heating of the target block and the current for how much electric charge is deposited on the target block is superior to Fan's experimental design.

I have explained why Bertozzi's use of higher speed electrons was far superior to Fan's use of lower speed electrons where relativistic effects are harder to distinguish from background noise.

I have explained why Fan's experiments agreed better with Relativity than with Newton or Fan's pet theory -- an analysis of Fan's own data that Fan appeared too incompetent to perform.

You have not explained why you have a dispute -- you have merely asserted that Bertozzi was not good enough and chose to believe Fan even though in every relevant criteria Fan is the poorer experimentalist and his own data contradicts his findings. You have not explained why you ignore reports of time dilation, the success of general relativity, nuclear chemistry and isotope masses, and the color of gold as cumulative evidence that special relativity is far more correct than Newtonian concepts. You also have not explained why calorimetry of bulk particles is supposed to be more reliable to the question than calorimetry of individual particles.

For example, take figure 4.3 on page 38 of http://www.atlas.uni-wuppertal.de/doktor/dis_a_beh_03-08.pdf
See how the calorimetry of electron-positron pairs in a machine designed to collide them near the speed of light registers events of up to at least 10,000 MeV ? This is just a routine example of particle physics, since the LEP produced pairs of W particles combined masses of about 160,000 MeV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron–Positron_Collider

Positrons were predicted as a consequence of special relativity, by the way.

 

[Masterov]

1. Dozens of smart people who have seen the falsity of SRT were fired from a science in Russia, according to the law, which did an academics that lobbied SRT.

Please provide a reliable news source for this.

Academician Zeldovich again called paranoid those who criticize the "holy" doctrines SRT in 1978.

Bronshtein in the book "Conversations about space and hypotheses" reported that "... in Department of General and Applied Physics a medics helped identify 24 paranoid only one in 1966 year" ("Young Guard", № 8/95).

In one Department ond one year only!

 

[przyk]

you are calling physicists "criminals" and accusing them of "lobbying" without evidence

I do not follow the processes of science, but even a cursory glance is enough to see the evidence:

1. Dozens of smart people who have seen the falsity of SRT were fired from a science in Russia, according to the law, which did an academics that lobbied SRT.

2. The extermination of grupp of OPERA-experimenters.

Learned people will find a lot more egregious crimes against science and against scientists who accomplished the SRT-lobbyists.

So where's your evidence?

And do you have nothing to say in response to this:

2) you are choosing to ignore a substantial body of evidence in favour of relativity, which you have not shown can be explained any other way.

?

 

[przyk]

Academician Zeldovich again called paranoid those who criticize the "holy" doctrines SRT in 1978.

What evidence do you have that he had anyone fired, arrested, or forced into psychiatric care?

 

[przyk]

Neither Bertozzi's and Fan's experiments are not sufficient arguments in the dispute.

We do not use Bertozzi as our only argument. We also use results that, like rpenner has pointed out, are considered routine in accelerator physics. You have still given no reason we should ignore them.

 

[Masterov]

In March 2012, despite surviving a vote of no-confidence, the lab spokesperson and chairmen resigned.

But I can't find a report that anyone has been fired or "exterminated."

Was exterminated a scientist's reputation and his career.

 

[Masterov]

you are choosing to ignore a substantial body of evidence in favour of relativity, which you have not shown can be explained any other way.

We do not use Bertozzi as our only argument. We also use results that, like rpenner has pointed out, are considered routine in accelerator physics. You have still given no reason we should ignore them.

All of this evidence in favor of both theories (MT and SRT) to the same extent since these evidence are circumstantial.

Only direct experiment gives (to one of two theories) the right to be scientific.


If the temperature of lead continues to grow (and the speed does not change): SRT will be justified.

 

[Masterov]

What evidence do you have that he had anyone fired, arrested, or forced into psychiatric care?

Bronshtein in the book "Conversations about space and hypotheses" reported that "... in Department of General and Applied Physics a medics helped identify 24 paranoid only one in 1966 year" ("Young Guard", № 8/95).

In one Department ond one year only!

There were many more victims.
Perpetrators of repression are a head of the Russian Academy of Sciences still.
I do not have the rights and opportunities to investigate.

Have you these opportunities?

 

[rpenner]

Academician Zeldovich again called paranoid those who criticize the "holy" doctrines SRT in 1978.

Bronshtein in the book "Conversations about space and hypotheses" reported that "... in Department of General and Applied Physics a medics helped identify 24 paranoid only one in 1966 year" ("Young Guard", № 8/95).

In one Department ond one year only!

I found a claim that this was Soviet policy:
http://books.google.com/books?id=cKS2AAAAIAAJ Молодая гвардия, (August 1995), page 69.
Which was repeated (as an identical excerpt) here in the essay "Politics in science or science instrument of policy?":

1964 - The Presidium of the USSR passed a secret policy which prohibits all scientific journals to solicit opinions, discuss or publish work that criticizes, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, or related. In accordance with the order to fight against dissent in science were allowed to use psychiatry, "... in only one year, 1966, the Department of General and Applied Physics of the Academy of Science, USSR helped the medics identify 24 paranoids." (VA Bronshten, Conversations on space and hypotheses, Science, Moscow, 1968), thus tasking upon on the Academy of Science an Inquisition to suppress dissent in physics.
1964 г. - принято закрытое постановление Президиума АН СССР, запрещающее всем научным советам и журналам принимать, обсуждать и публиковать работы связанные с критикой ТО, термодинамики, квантовой механики. В соответствии с этим постановлением для борьбы с инакомыслием в науке было разрешено использовать психиатрию: "...только за один 1966 г. отделение общей и прикладной физики АН СССР помогло медикам выявить 24 параноика" (В.А. Бронштэн, Беседы о космосе и гипотезах, М.: Наука, 1968), возложив тем самым на АН функции инквизиции по подавлению инакомыслия в физике.

http://www.veinik.ru/science/history/article/484.html
But the purported quote was not found in the only direct surrogate I have for the purported source:
http://books.google.com/books?id=_V5LAAAAIAAJ
If you have this in your local library, it may be:
В. Бронштэн. (VA Bronshtėn) (Editor?) Беседы о космосе и гипотезах. (Talking about space and hypotheses.) (Publishing House Наука (Science), Мoscow, 1968), pp. 198

The so-called delirium of inventions and discoveries is one of the forms of paranoia. The nature of the disorder lies in the fact that the patient believes he has made an important invention or salient discovery, and that scientific-conservatives tragically cannot understand him. In this case the person remains completely normal in every other aspect of life, in the family, at work. [...] Thus, just in the year 1966, the Department of General and Applied Physics of the Academy of Science of USSR helped physicians to reveal 24 paranoiacs.
Одной из форм паранойи является так называемый бред изобретений и открытий. Сущность его состоит в том, что больному кажется, будто он сделал важное изобретение или выдающееся открытие, и что вся беда в том, что его не могут понять ученые-консерваторы. При этом во всем остальном—в жизни, в семье, в работе—человек остается совершенно нормальным. […] Так, только за один 1966 г. Отделение общей и прикладной физики АН СССР помогло медикам выявить 24 параноика.

(Even if true, it is not clear if the alleged mentally ill persons are faculty, students, or tiresome crackpot letter writers many of whom (see the Crackpot Index) are classically paranoid about imagined conspiracies trying to steal there worthless inventions.)
В. Бронштэн. (VA Bronshtėn) (Editor?) Беседы о космосе и гипотезах. (Talking about space and hypotheses.) (Publishing House Наука (Science), Мoscow, 1968), 206-235;

There is a sufficiently large group of pseudoscientists, who specialize in 'refuting' the theory of relativity. As a rule, the efforts of these 'refuters' only reveals their poor scientific literacy, although among them there are people with a university education.
Есть довольно большая група гипотезоманов, специализировавшихся на «опровержении» теории относительности. Как правило, усилия этих «опровергателей» лишь отражают их низкую научную грамотность, хотя среди них попадаются и люди с высшим образованием.

(Nothing wrong with that.)

All of which is irrelevant, even if true. Soviet policy and practice has no bearing on whether relativity is a precise, useful and communicable model of physical phenomena.
It's also well known that certain subject seem to attract more than their fair share of people with mental problems, so these out-of-context quotes of Bronshtėn are not automatically promoted to the eyewitness reports of a crime.

The main point is, there are many wrong people on the internet and even published in books. Until you can do physics (i.e. actually model physical phenomena in a way that usefully and precisely agrees with experiment), you don't have any natural right to offer your own opinions on physics. Crazy people ignore the prerequisite of demonstrating knowledge before being granted respect for one's purported knowledge.

 

[rpenner]

2. The extermination of grupp of OPERA-experimenters.

Please provide a reliable news source for this.
OPERA published an extraordinary claim on the basis of a loose timing signal cable. Neutrinos appeared faster-than-light because their apparatus was slow to notice the start of the race, effectively giving the neutrinos a head-start and so the faster-than-light speed was an illusion caused by equipment failure.
Everyone at OPERA knew the claim was extraordinary, but their leadership decided to publish anyway. The resulting media firestorm was predictable. In March 2012, despite surviving a vote of no-confidence, the lab spokesperson and chairmen resigned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster...ly#Discussions_within_the_OPERA_collaboration

But I can't find a report that anyone has been fired or "exterminated."

Was exterminated a scientist's reputation and his career.

Since a scientist's reputation is based on being correct, that would be a case of a self-inflicted injury and not something that was done to him by another person. But you are in no position to judge his reputation or career. How are they "dead?"

For example, A. Ereditato is a co-author of http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.2114 which appeared long after his March 30, 2012 resignation.
http://www.science20.com/quantum_di...al_neutrinos_opera_spokesperson_resigns-88534

 

[Masterov]

Please provide a reliable news source for this.
...
In March 2012, despite surviving a vote of no-confidence, the lab spokesperson and chairmen resigned.

As scientists can express their opposition from to pressure (SRT-lobbyists) him?

But I can't find a report that anyone has been fired or "exterminated."

In Russia has rarely fired anybody.
To forced (to compelled) to leave usually.
(The administration has all possibilities for this.)

 

[przyk]

All of this evidence in favor of both theories (MT and SRT) to the same extent since these evidence are circumstantial.

False. Much of the experimental data collected at particle accelerators is even more direct than Bertozzi or Fan's attempt because the detectors used are capable of measuring the energies of individual particles. Electrons, among other particles, are routinely detected with energies of tens or hundreds of GeV. Furthermore, some experiments are equipped with time-of-flight detectors and the products of collisions are never observed moving faster than the speed of light. Such observations are routine and violently inconsistent with the Newtonian energy formula.

Only direct experiment gives (to one of two theories) the right to be scientific.

False. The purpose of theoretical physics is to find the simplest theory (according to Occam's razor) which is consistent with all known experimental observations. Theories generally cannot be proved true by experiment. They can only be proved wrong, and the best that can happen to a theory is that it is tested many times in many different ways and is never proved wrong. This is the case for SRT so far; it is thus as well supported as any theory can be. Furthermore, while one "indirect" test may show very little, many varied "indirect" tests can severely restrain the set of possible correct theories that would pass all the tests. Thus even "indirect" evidence can be very valuable and it is highly suspicious that you are in such a rush to ignore it.

You have no right to try to redefine science to suit your agenda. You have no right to claim existing evidence supports MT and SRT equally because you have not shown MT is consistent with all of it.

 

[Masterov]

All of this evidence in favor of both theories (MT and SRT) to the same extent since these evidence are circumstantial.

False. Much of the experimental data collected at particle accelerators is even more direct than Bertozzi or Fan's attempt because the detectors used are capable of measuring the energies of individual particles. Electrons, among other particles, are routinely detected with energies of tens or hundreds of GeV. Furthermore, some experiments are equipped with time-of-flight detectors and the products of collisions are never observed moving faster than the speed of light. Such observations are routine and violently inconsistent with the Newtonian energy formula.

Energy of the relativistic particles, relativistic mass and slowing their time measured indirectly.

...Thus even "indirect" evidence can be very valuable...

Indirect experiments do not give one-digit answer and are inconclusive.
Such experiments give entitled to have hope and give entitled to suspect, but indirect experiments do not give the firm belief.

 

[przyk]

Energy of the relativistic particles, relativistic mass and slowing their time measured indirectly.

You say that while making no reference to how these measurements are actually performed. You have certainly not shown you have a better alternative explanation for these measurements. You have no plausible explanation for why detectors are routinely measuring electrons with more than 100,000 times as much energy as is allowed by the Newtonian energy formula for a particle moving at the speed of light.

Your dismissal of evidence is superficial and arbitrary.

Indirect experiments do not give one-digit answer and are inconclusive.
Such experiments give entitled to have hope and give entitled to suspect, but indirect experiments do not give the firm belief.

That is a ridiculously superficial dismissal. Experiments need to be judged on their own merits on a case by case basis, and theories need to be shown to be consistent with all experiments performed whose results are considered reliable. We do not need to show that SRT is the only theory that could explain the results supporting it. As the person claiming that "MT" could also explain the same results, the burden of proof falls on you to show it. You have so far not done this.

Your distinction between "direct" and "indirect" experiments is extremely dubious to begin with because there is no such thing as an experiment capable of proving any theory beyond all doubt. There is therefore no such thing as a truly "direct" experiment.

 

[Masterov]

Energy of the relativistic particles, relativistic mass and slowing their time measured indirectly.

You say that while making no reference to how these measurements are actually performed. You have certainly not shown you have a better alternative explanation for these measurements. You have no plausible explanation for why detectors are routinely measuring electrons with more than 100,000 times as much energy as is allowed by the Newtonian energy formula for a particle moving at the speed of light.

Your dismissal of evidence is superficial and arbitrary.

How is (in what way) energy measured?
And measured it?
TeV getting are not in the calorimeter, but by means of SRT-formulas, suggesting that the strength of the Coulomb are independent on speed of electrons.

As the calorimeter was calibrated?

So many questions, the answer to which depends fundamentally interpretation of experimental results.

Prove that the temperature of lead continues to grow under the influence of super-relativistic electrons is proportional to the potential difference accelerating field, and many questions to Einstein's theory disappear.

 

[przyk]

How is (in what way) energy measured?
And measured it?

If you don't already know that, what is your basis for making assertions like your next one:

TeV getting are not in the calorimeter, but by means of SRT-formulas, suggesting that the strength of the Coulomb are independent on speed of electrons.

?

 

[Masterov]

How is (in what way) energy measured?
And measured it?

If you don't already know that, what is your basis for making assertions like your next one:

An accelerator can not accelerate electrons faster than the speed of light is not because the mass and energy of the electrons increases without limit, when the electron velocity come near to light velocity.
This restriction apply speed of EMW.

EMW can not disperse the electrons be because they themselves move at the speed of light.

An cart (a coach) can not go faster than a horse.


CONCLUSION:

Coulomb force must tend to zero when the electron velocity approaches the speed of light.

Electron energy (temperature lead-free) cease growing along with the electron velocity.

Statement that allegedly was obtained in an accelerators an electron energy, which is measured by MeV, GeV and TeV - an outright lie.

 

[przyk]

An accelerator can not accelerate electrons faster than the speed of light is not because the mass and energy of the electrons increases without limit, when the electron velocity come near to light velocity.
This restriction apply speed of EMW.

EMW can not disperse the electrons be because they themselves move at the speed of light.

An cart (a coach) can not go faster than a horse.


CONCLUSION:

Coulomb force must tend to zero when the electron velocity approaches the speed of light.

Electron energy (temperature lead-free) cease growing along with the electron velocity.

You are trying to explain the wrong thing. It is already a given that particles in accelerators cannot be accelerated faster than the speed of light. Charged particles in accelerators are accelerated by series of alternately charged tubes. The general layout looks something like this:

(source.)

As the particles advance, the charges of the tubes are alternated to keep them accelerating in the same direction. The timing is according to the theoretically expected acceleration curve and the accelerator would not work effectively if the particles accelerated faster or slower than expected. So even if there were no "relativistic mass" and the Coulomb force is not modified, the way accelerators are designed and used means they are incapable of accelerating charged particles faster than the speed of light.

Statement that allegedly was obtained in an accelerators an electron energy, which is measured by MeV, GeV and TeV - an outright lie.

How would you know it was an outright lie? You never answered my question: if you don't know how the detectors work, on what basis are you claiming the reported results of accelerator experiments are wrong? You're not saying they're wrong just because they support SRT, are you?

 

[Masterov]

You are trying to explain the wrong thing. It is already a given that particles in accelerators cannot be accelerated faster than the speed of light. Charged particles in accelerators are accelerated by series of alternately charged tubes. The general layout looks something like this:

Source fields are stationary, and the Coulomb force depends on the speed of electron.