Three Experiments Challenging SRT

Full absence a published results of direct measurements of energy of relativistic electrons indicates that the experiment contradicts SRT.
False. Bertozzi. Even if you do not think Bertozzi's experiment is sufficient, the experiment was performed and you cannot truthfully claim "full absence" of such experiments.
Bertozzi proved nothing.
Bertozzi has not shown that the temperature of the aluminum disk continues to grow, while the velocity of the electrons is almost unchanged.
Experiments Bertozzi no repeated for 50 years.
Experiments Bertozzi eaten old-mustiness.
Bertozzi's experiment is invalid because it no has redid in during 50 years.
I promised to ignore the posts in which an argument proposed experiments Bertozzi, but you pull tongue of my.
But "{Liangzao Fan}'s experiment is invalid because it no has redid in during {17} years".
17 years?
Liangzao Fan's experiments was carried out this year.
If you choose to dismiss Bertozzi's experiment, you certainly cannot continue to use Liangzao Fan's paper as evidence.
Liangzao Fan's experiments can be an hard argument only if you implement them redo in an independent laboratory.

Liangzao Fan's experiments is an argument, which demand the confirmation.
 
Is consistent with SRT?
With what accuracy?

Why are you asking a question that is already answered by Bertozzi's paper?

The electron velocity was measured for accelerating potentials corresponding to 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 4.5, and 15 MeV. The results are given as a table and plot in figure 3 in the paper. The plot is reproduced by Wikpedia here, in their section on the Bertozzi experiment. The velocities measured are visibly close to those theoretically expected.

The thermocouple system described in the "Energy measurements" section was used to independently measure the energy in the case of the 1.5 and 4.5 MeV runs. Bertozzi reports measuring energies of 1.6 and 4.8 MeV respectively for those runs. As he points out, both are within 10% of the theoretically expected energy. The difference between relativistic and Newtonian physics at those scales is much greater than 10%.


It's not a scientific argument, and a prayers muttering of devout believer fanatic.

No, it is a basic science and history lesson that you need to learn. It is rather your rush to dispose of a theory with such an impressive experimental track record as SRT that is indicative of fanaticism and deep seated prejudice.
 
Bertozzi proved nothing.
Bertozzi has not shown that the temperature of the aluminum disk continues to grow, while the velocity of the electrons is almost unchanged.
Experiments Bertozzi no repeated for 50 years.
Experiments Bertozzi eaten old-mustiness.
Bertozzi's experiment is invalid because it no has redid in during 50 years.

Denial.


I promised to ignore the posts in which an argument proposed experiments Bertozzi, but you pull tongue of my.

Promise to continue denial.


17 years?
Liangzao Fan's experiments was carried out this year.

Number retracted. From memory I had the impression the paper was dated 1995. Re-checking the paper I see that there is no date and Fan cites four (and only four) papers from 2009.

Point not retracted. If one instance of Bertozzi's experiment does not qualify as evidence, then neither can one instance of Fan's, especially given that Bertozzi's experiment is better reported than Fan's. Dismissing Bertozzi (the better reported experiment with findings consistent with many other tests that support SRT) while holding up Fan as "irrefutable" evidence is a blatant double standard and an act of sheer hypocrisy.
 
I note that you have, predictably, totally ignored what I consider the most important point I made in post #440:

We also have considerable experience from accelerator physics that you still ignore for no reason:

1. Sophisticated detector systems (such as ATLAS and CMS at the LHC, ALEPH and DELPHI at LEP) are built around the locations in accelerators where collisions take place. When particles collide in accelerators, the collision produces many secondary particles which are then detected in these detection systems. By conservation of energy, the total energy of the products of the collision is the same as the total energy of the two particles that collided in the accelerator. This gives accelerator physicists a more-or-less direct measure of how powerful their accelerators are. The products of the collisions routinely have energies in the MeV and GeV ranges.

In proton-proton colliders like the LHC and proton-antiproton colliders like the Tevatron and the former SPS, it is individual quarks from the protons that collide, so the actual collision energy is typically much less than the "rated" energy of the accelerator. Electron-positron colliders such as LEP are much simpler to study in this regard. LEP was originally operated at a centre of mass (CM) energy of "91 GeV" by colliding "45 GeV" electron and positron beams. One of the simplest events observed was $$e^{+} e^{-} \,\rightarrow\, e^{+} e^{-}$$, where an electron and positron collided and an electron and positron were detected leaving the collision point in opposite directions. Often for these events, very near the full CM energy of 91 GeV was measured for the total energy of the detected $$e^{+} e^{-}$$ pair. Later, the CM energy was increased in several stages until it reached "209 GeV", and this was reflected in the total energy measured for the collision products. In particular, when LEP was operated at "161 GeV" in 1996, $$W^{+} W^{-}$$ events began to be observed, and in at least some cases the decay products were found to have a total energy approaching 160 GeV.

A gallery of some events observed by the DELPHI experiment is available here. A gallery of some ALEPH events is available here including a few $$W^{+} W^{-}$$ candidate events.

2. At the LHC, the proton beams are circulated for approximately ten hours before being disposed of and replaced with fresh beams. Because of the high total energy of the beams, an arrangement for their safe disposal is necessary. The beams are disposed of by directing them into the LHC beam dump, the target of which is a 7m long carbon cylinder. The beam is deliberately defocused while being disposed of in order to prevent it from boring straight through the beam dump.

3. In 2003 an accidental beam loss at the Tevatron resulted in damage to the accelerator.

My point is, the people operating particle accelerators have ample evidence that their accelerators really are as powerful as they think they are.


EDIT: it is worth adding to this that the inner part of most detector systems in particle accelerators consists of a tracker system which (as its name suggests) tracks the trajectory of particles with charge. Typically the whole tracker system is subjected to a transverse magnetic field which causes the trajectory of charged particles fleeing the collision point to curve. The main purpose of this is to determine information about the charge of the particle (e.g. to distinguish electrons from positrons), but the radius of curvature is also at least sometimes used as a separate measure of the particle's momentum. The electromagnetic calorimeter is typically the next layer out. So for a particle like the electron which both has a charge and gets absorbed by the electromagnetic calorimeter, both the particle's energy and its deviation by a magnetic field are measured.
 
Last edited:
This is a timid step in the direction to declare me paranoid.
If we develop this idea further, the diagnosis becomes apparent.
I am familiar with these tricks of phrase-mongering.

This is exactly what used the criminals in Russia (USSR): gently and kindly hang "mad label" on scientist, issue a piece of paper with the press, fired from the science, and if a scientist wants to remain silent - is forcibly placed in a psychiatric hospital.

I have reason to suspect that such a method of protecting SRT operates in Russia/Soviet Union not only.

Ha ha, so my sentences aren't too long/complicated for your selective hearing/reading . . .
 
przyk, you shoved Bertozzi's old clothes (old junk) in my face and continue doing phrase-mongering at indirect evidence which can not give one-digit answer.
 
SRT will have a salvation (or once and for all will be buried) if will be clearly proved (or - will be clearly disproved): the temperature of the target continues to grow (proportional to the potential difference of the accelerating field) under the influence of super relativistic electrons.

And all this endless phrase-mongering (around Bertozzi's old clothes and indirect evidences)do a theft of time and effort only.

I am sure that the SRT will be destroyed by publishing these experiments, because the results of these experiments can not be in favor of the SRT.

If this were no so and these experiments are supported SRT, they (these experiments) would have been published many times long and everywhere.
But there is no such publications.
Why?
It is obvious: these publications no exist just because that the experiment refutes SRT.

I am also sure that przyk and AlphaNumeric (long ago) have data of similar experiments, but they continue to defend the Einstein's false theory.

Why do they do it?
 
Last edited:
I am also sure that przyk and AlphaNumeric (long ago) have data of similar experiments, but they continue to defend the Einstein's false theory.

Why do they do it?
Now you're just proving how delusional and paranoid you are because you know nothing about me, you're just supposing random things to try and claim you're right. It's one thing to lie about people who aren't in the discussion, it's another thing to lie about people to their face. You have so little (ie zero) evidence for your claims that you resort to clearly desperate and pathetic flat out ex nihilo fabrication. Well done, you have shown that absolutely no one should trust a single thing coming out of your mouth, you massive fraud.
 
AlphaNumeric, you have not experimental results (you did not saw it), which show: energy of super-relativist electrons to ceased grow to up, whereas potential of accelerating field continue grow to up.
Is it true?

Yes or No.
_________________________________


AlphaNumeric, you have experimental results (you did saw it), which show: energy of super-relativist electrons to continue grow to up along with accelerating field.
Is it true?

Yes or No.

I hope very much that you will not find fault with my English, and give honest answers to these two questions.
 
Last edited:
przyk, you shoved Bertozzi's old clothes (old junk) in my face

Your only objection to Bertozzi's experiment seems to be that it is "old". You have not actually found anything wrong with it.


and continue doing phrase-mongering at indirect evidence which can not give one-digit answer.

You obviously do not have a better explanation for the evidence I cited.

If the relativistic energy formula is so wrong, why are particles with energies in the MeV and GeV ranges routinely detected following collisions in particle accelerators?

Relativity can explain this. Can you?


If this were no so and these experiments are supported SRT, they (these experiments) would have been published many times long and everywhere.
But there is no such publications.
Why?
It is obvious: these publications no exist just because that the experiment refutes SRT.

*sigh*

The simple explanation is that either these experiments are not being done, or they are are so routine that publication is never considered necessary. The same experiment showing the same thing is typically not published 100 times. Why does Masterov never consider simple explanations like this? It is obvious: Masterov is an anti-relativity fanatic who believes what he wants to believe.

SRT effects are routinely seen in accelerator physics. Why does Masterov consistently ignore this? It is obvious: Masterov is an anti-relativity fanatic with an inexplicable hatred for the theory.


I am also sure that przyk and AlphaNumeric (long ago) have data of similar experiments, but they continue to defend the Einstein's false theory.

Why do they do it?

We don't. I have never performed such an experiment and probably neither has AlphaNumeric.

For the record, I am working as a theorist doing a PhD in the area of quantum information. I do not do experimental work and the theoretical work I do does not depend on SRT. If SRT were proved wrong tomorrow, it would have virtually no impact on my work or the funding I receive.

The reason I am defending SRT is because I think SRT is well supported and your case against it is a joke and you are motivated by an obviously blinding prejudice against it.

That is my honest answer.
 
przyk, you shoved Bertozzi's old clothes (old junk) in my face
Your only objection to Bertozzi's experiment seems to be that it is "old". You have not actually found anything wrong with it.
Bertozzi proved nothing.
Bertozzi has not shown that the temperature of the aluminum disk continues to grow, while the velocity of the electrons is almost unchanged.
Experiments Bertozzi no repeated for 50 years.
Experiments Bertozzi eaten old-mustiness.
Bertozzi's experiment is invalid because it no has redid in during 50 years.
and continue doing phrase-mongering at indirect evidence which can not give one-digit answer.
You obviously do not have a better explanation for the evidence I cited.

If the relativistic energy formula is so wrong, why are particles with energies in the MeV and GeV ranges routinely detected following collisions in particle accelerators?

Relativity can explain this. Can you?
Can you shown that the temperature of the target continues to grow(proportional to the potential difference of the accelerating field) under the influence of super relativistic electrons?
The simple explanation is that either these experiments are not being done...
przyk, you have experimental results (you did saw it), which show: energy of super-relativist electrons to continue grow to up along with accelerating field.
Is it true?

Yes or No.

If "Yes" - can you shown it.
The reason I am defending SRT is because I think SRT is well supported and your case against it is a joke and you are motivated by an obviously blinding prejudice against it.

That is my honest answer.
In that case, you should not see a difference between MT and SRT, since all published experiments support both of these theories in equal measure.

The difference may be (and will be there certainly) in experiments in which the energy and time dilation is measured directly.
 
Last edited:
Can you shown that the temperature of the target continues to grow(proportional to the potential difference of the accelerating field) under the influence of super relativistic electrons?

No, but I can and have shown you that SRT effects are routinely seen in high energy physics, and it is not obvious they can be explained any other way.


przyk, you have experimental results (you did saw it), which show: energy of super-relativist electrons to continue grow to up along with accelerating field.

I just told you: no. I do not have access to any experimental results for or against SRT that have not already been published.

I also have no reason to believe anyone has experimental results that contradict SRT and that they are hiding it.
 
Can you shown that the temperature of the target continues to grow(proportional to the potential difference of the accelerating field) under the influence of super relativistic electrons?
No, but I can and have shown you that SRT effects are routinely seen in high energy physics, and it is not obvious they can be explained any other way.
All published experiments support both of these theories in equal measure.
przyk, you have experimental results (you did saw it), which show: energy of super-relativist electrons to continue grow to up along with accelerating field.
I just told you: no. I do not have access to any experimental results for or against SRT that have not already been published.

I also have no reason to believe anyone has experimental results that contradict SRT and that they are hiding it.
In this case, your belief in justice SRT is not based on scientific knowledge, and based on the belief in the divinity of Einstein.

You are a victim of propaganda PR-stock SRT-lobbyists, if you themselves are not a lobbyist.
 
All published experiments support both of these theories in equal measure.

You would have to show that "Master theory" is capable of correctly explaining all the same results that support relativity. You have not done that, so you cannot claim all published experiments support both equally.


In this case, your belief in justice SRT is not based on scientific knowledge, and based on the belief in the divinity of Einstein.

My "belief" (not the right word) in SRT is based on exactly what I said it is based: the last century's worth of experimental evidence supporting it and the general success of theories like QFT and general relativity that have SRT incorporated into them.
 
All published experiments support both of these theories in equal measure.
You would have to show that "Master theory" is capable of correctly explaining all the same results that support relativity. You have not done that, so you cannot claim all published experiments support both equally.
One person can not under-power to do the work on the analysis of the experiments and bringing the interpretation of their results in line with the theory.

However, I have a right to say that all of the published experiments that confirm the SRT, will confirm the MT in equal measure.

I am entitled say it on the grounds that the MT and SRT are the two partial solutions of the same problem that are solved Einstein a century ago.

Let me remind you:

1. SRT has the absolute the cross-scale, and has a relative longitudinal-scale and has a relative time.

2. MT has an absolute time, and has all a spatial scales are relative.

The only difference is this.

In those experiments in which no proof of time dilation and the absolute of a cross-scale, both theories give a qualitatively-similar results.
In this case, your belief in justice SRT is not based on scientific knowledge, and based on the belief in the divinity of Einstein.
My "belief" (not the right word) in SRT is based on exactly what I said it is based: the last century's worth of experimental evidence supporting it and the general success of theories like QFT and general relativity that have SRT incorporated into them.
As I said above: In those experiments in which no proof of time dilation and the absolute of a cross-scale, both theories give a qualitatively-similar results.
 
Let me remind you:

1. SRT has the absolute the cross-scale, and has a relative longitudinal-scale and has a relative time.

2. MT has an absolute time, and has all a spatial scales are relative.

The only difference is this.

That is not the only difference. The earliest definition of SRT defines it as satisfying two postulates:

  1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial coordinate systems.
  2. The speed of light is invariant.
You have addressed the second postulate but not the first. The first postulate is basically saying that the transformation between inertial coordinate systems must be a symmetry that leaves the laws of physics unchanged. It comes from the fact that SRT was intended as a replacement for Galilean relativity, which is based on a similar principle.

With any symmetry, applying one symmetry and then another is still a symmetry. If $$S_{1}$$ is a symmetry and $$S_{2}$$ is a symmetry, then $$S_{1} S_{2}$$ is a symmetry.

Examples:

  • If $$R_{1}$$ is a rotation and $$R_{2}$$ is a rotation, then $$R_{1} R_{2}$$ is still a rotation.
  • If $$T_{1}$$ is a translation and $$T_{2}$$ is a translation, then $$T_{1} T_{2}$$ is still a translation.
  • If $$G_{1}$$ is a Galilean transform (of velocity $$\bar{u}$$) and $$G_{2}$$ is a Galilean transform (of velocity $$\bar{v}$$), then $$G_{1} G_{2}$$ is still a Galilean transform (of velocity $$\bar{u} \,+\, \bar{v}$$).
  • If $$\Lambda_{1}$$ is a Lorentz transform and $$\Lambda_{2}$$ is a Lorentz transform, then $$\Lambda_{1} \Lambda_{2}$$ is still a Lorentz transform.

But if $$M_{1}$$ is a "Masterov transform" and $$M_{2}$$ is another "Masterov transform", you will find that $$M_{1} M_{2}$$ is generally not a "Masterov transform".

I am trying to get you to understand here that your "Master theory" is not at all the same type of theory as SRT or Galilean relativity that came before it. "Master theory" is not a simple stand-in replacement for SRT.


In those experiments in which no proof of time dilation and the absolute of a cross-scale, both theories give a qualitatively-similar results.

Not true. Aside from the fact that MT is not the same kind of theory as SRT, you are also using a different energy formula. So any experiment in which the energy of relativistic particles is measured can potentially contradict MT. And the energies of relativistic particles are measured every day in accelerator physics.
 
That is not the only difference. The earliest definition of SRT defines it as satisfying two postulates:

  1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial coordinate systems.
  2. The speed of light is invariant.
Both postulates are valid in MT.
 
Both postulates are valid in MT.

Not possible. Your transformation does not form a symmetry group.

If you think I am wrong, post an equation that is invariant under your transformation and is not invariant under a Lorentz transformation.
 
I'm going to try to present MT-idea of ​​again just.

When the observer moves with respect to hours, increases the path traveled by photons in clocks, despite the fact that there is a reduction of the longitudinal-scale. Therefore in SRT Einstein introduces time dilation.

$$\Delta x'=\Delta x\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$$
$$\Delta y'=\Delta y$$
$$\Delta z'=\Delta z$$
$$\Delta t'=\Delta t/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$$


I am (in MT) making even more a reduction of relativistic zoom out on all three spatial coordinates. So I have no need to slow down time.

$$\Delta x'=\Delta x(1-v^2/c^2)$$
$$\Delta y'=\Delta y\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$$
$$\Delta z'=\Delta z\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$$
$$\Delta t'=\Delta t$$
 
One of the most recent experiments in agreement with special relativity was the OPERA timing of neutrinos moving at a speed indistinguishable from the speed of light and arriving at the calorimeters with energies distributed widely in the GeV range. Near constant speed, widely variable energy due to the huge slope of the v-E curve near v=c.

If $$v = (1 - \frac{x}{20000}) c$$ then $$E = \frac{mc^2}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = \frac{20000 mc^2}{\sqrt{x}\sqrt{40000-x}} \approx \frac{100 mc^2}{\sqrt{x}} + \frac{mc^2 \sqrt{x}}{800}$$

$$\begin{array}{c|ccc} x & v & \frac{100}{\sqrt{x}} + \frac{\sqrt{x}}{800} & \gamma \\ \hline \\ 1 & 0.99995 c & 100.00125 & 100.001250023437988+ \\ 2 & 0.99990 c & 70.71244589- & 70.71244595+ \\ 3 & 0.99985 c & 57.73719198+ & 57.737192+ \\ 4 & 0.99980 c & 50.0025 & 50.0025001875+ \end{array}$$

http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.1392v2 x < 0.076, <E> = 17 GeV, m < 2 eV
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897v4 x < 0.074, <E> = 17 GeV, m < 2 eV
 
Back
Top