Three Experiments Challenging SRT
- Thread starter Masterov
- Start date
Hmm ..... if we assume that the universe is a closed system ... maybe.
but it must be if pseudo perptumm devices created beyond that closed system are impossible .... it is after all the closed nature of that universe that brings about the laws of energy conservation which prohibits PPMs, in the first place. therefore the absence of functioning PPM devices IS evidence of a closed system...
any way this derails the thread.. and I am interested to see what comes of it... thanks.
Thank you for the response although the math is totally beyond me.
Anyway, I see the conversation has progressed many pages, so I'll read up. I'm sure Masterov has provided some interesting replies.
I wouldn't bother. Masterov is of the opinion that relativity is obvious nonsense and that anyone who doesn't agree is stupid/a religious fanatic/involved in a conspiracy trying to cover it up. He clearly decided this long before he started this thread, and 28 pages of posts show just how pointless trying to discuss anything with him is.
Additionally his "challenge questions" of the past few pages are basically a rehash of the twin paradox. Not only have we understood the resolution to this apparent paradox for a long time, but the resolution itself, via general relativity's equivalence principle, actually predicts something we've measured: gravitational time dilation.
Personally I don't find it very interesting to try to discuss with someone who accuses me of religious-like fanaticism every other post, so I'm not much motivated to continue participating in this thread. If you are genuinely interested in learning SRT or understanding time dilation, then of course you are very welcome to start your own thread on the subject.
You behave like a religious fanatic: you ignore the arguments of common sense, and repeat prayers about Lorentz transformations and the relativity of simultaneity.
You state that I do not understand SRT.
Yeah, I do not understand SRT, and I ask you (who understands SRT) logically solve the logic-collision that arise in the conclusions of this theory.
Instead of answering, you repeat your mantras again.
You - not a scientist.
You - a religious fanatic, and you do not understand SRT, because it is impossible to understand this nonsense.
Time can not slow down.
Basta.
===================================
Âû âåä¸òå ñåáÿ êàê ðåëèãèîçíûé ôàíàòèê: âû èãíîðèðóåòå äîâîäû çäðàâîãî ñìûñëà, è ïîâòîðÿåòå çàó÷åííûå ìîëèòâû ïðî Ïðåîáðàçîâàíèÿ Ëîðåíöà è Îòíîñèòåëüíîñòü îäíîâðåìåííîñòè.
Âû çàÿâëÿåòå, ÷òî ÿ íå ïîíèìàþ SRT.
Äà, ÿ íå ïîíèìàþ SRT, è ïðîøó âàñ (êîòîðûé ïîíèìàåò SRT) ëîãè÷íî îáúÿñíèòü ëîãè÷åñêèå êîëëèçèè, êîòîðûå âîçíèêàþò â âûâîäàõ èç ýòîé òåîðèè.
Âìåñòî îòâåòà âû ïîâòîðÿåòå ñâîè ìàíòðû ñíîâà.
Âû – íå ó÷¸íûé.
Âû – ðåëèãèîçíûé ôàíàòèê, è âû íå ïîíèìàåòå SRT, ïîòîìó êàê ïîíÿòü ýòó ãëóïîñòü íåâîçìîæíî.
Âðåìÿ íå ìîæåò çàìåäëÿòüñÿ.
Áàñòà.
I have. So has rpenner. We have explained that the relation between times in different reference frames in SRT is more complicated than just time dilation, and is fully described by the Lorentz transformation. We have explained that your confusion with time dilation comes from your expectation that time dilation factors should multiply. We have explained that that logic only works if you assume absolute simultaneity, and simultaneity is not absolute in SRT.
You haven't responded to any of this. You haven't even tried to explain specifically which part of what I said above you think is wrong or why it is irrelevant.
I would very much like to help you understand SRT. But that is going to require some work from you too. It is useless to try to explain something to you if you are not willing to at least try to understand it.
Is no need slow down time in order to do reconciliation for Newtonian physics with Michelson-Morley experiment. Time can be left absolute. Enough to make a relativistic coordinates. All: y and z - too.
The need of slow down time evolve from the fact that the photon path becomes greater in the mobile system of coordinates. To compensate for the relativistic increase of the path of a photon is not enough to reduce the longitudinal scale. Need to reduce the scale of the three spatial coordinates.
Let's do it:
SRT:
$$\Delta x'=\Delta x/\gamma$$
$$\Delta y'=\Delta y$$
$$\Delta z'=\Delta z$$
$$\Delta t'=\Delta t\gamma$$
Let's do division by $$\gamma$$ for all:
MT:
$$\Delta x'=\Delta x/\gamma^2$$
$$\Delta y'=\Delta y/\gamma$$
$$\Delta z'=\Delta z/\gamma$$
$$\Delta t'=\Delta t$$
=========================
Чтобы примирить физику Ньютона с опытами Майкельсона-Морли нет необходимости замедлять время. Время можно оставить абсолютным. Достаточно сделать релятивистскими координата. Все: y и z - тоже.
Необходимость замедлять время возникает из-за того, что в мобильной системе координат путь фотона становится больше. Чтобы скомпенсировать релятивистский рост пути фотона недостаточно сокращать продольный масштаб. Необходимо сокращать масштабы всех трёх пространственных координат.
Сделаем это:
The need of slow down time evolve from the fact that the photon path becomes greater in the mobile system of coordinates. To compensate for the relativistic increase of the path of a photon is not enough to reduce the longitudinal scale. Need to reduce the scale of the three spatial coordinates.
Let's do it:
SRT:
$$\Delta x'=\Delta x/\gamma$$
$$\Delta y'=\Delta y$$
$$\Delta z'=\Delta z$$
$$\Delta t'=\Delta t\gamma$$
Let's do division by $$\gamma$$ for all:
MT:
$$\Delta x'=\Delta x/\gamma^2$$
$$\Delta y'=\Delta y/\gamma$$
$$\Delta z'=\Delta z/\gamma$$
$$\Delta t'=\Delta t$$
=========================
Чтобы примирить физику Ньютона с опытами Майкельсона-Морли нет необходимости замедлять время. Время можно оставить абсолютным. Достаточно сделать релятивистскими координата. Все: y и z - тоже.
Необходимость замедлять время возникает из-за того, что в мобильной системе координат путь фотона становится больше. Чтобы скомпенсировать релятивистский рост пути фотона недостаточно сокращать продольный масштаб. Необходимо сокращать масштабы всех трёх пространственных координат.
Сделаем это:
Emil let me ask you this if I may...
Do you think science has been stationary since the discoveries made by QM regarding "quantum entanglement"?
Of course they already know that SRT is in need of amendment.....they are not stupid I can bet you with out doubt.
but they are not telling the world for very good reasons also no doubt... and money has a lot to do with it.
How do you think Albert Einstein felt when he uttered those famous words "spooky action at a distance"?
and that was in the 1930's.
It is not my field so I don't interfere.
What I support is that SR is false.
" Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Complete and utter bullshit. This is a myth perpetuated by hacks who are looking for an excuse as to why their relativity denial is not accepted by the mainstream community.
Did the whole of the physics community get fired the day Eddington announced Einstein's prediction about light deflection had been confirmed and Newtonian gravity falsified? No. Was the entire community fired the day Planck published his paper on quantisation of light? No. When it was realised neutrinos are not massless was the entire particle physics community fired? No. When Hubble showed the universe wasn't static and is expanding did Einstein and other cosmologists get fired? No.
Science is about building new understanding on the corpses of previous ideas. When someone knocks over a paradigm there are more opportunities, more funding, more directions to explore. It starts a physics 'gold rush'! Many particle physicists want the LHC to disprove the Standard Model, it would mean there's a whole new area of Nature we don't understand. The guy who ran CERN for much of the last decade, John Ellis, tells people his job is finding things people either didn't want to find or didn't know to even look for. In the case of relativity the person who does the experiment to disprove relativity (assuming it isn't fundamental and exact) will get a Nobel Prize, more awards than you can shake a stick at and a job for life. They'll be 'The physicist who bested Einstein"! If I had undeniable experimental evidence special relativity is false I'd publish it without a second thought. Sure, it would mean undermining all of my PhD, which took 4 years of my life, but I care about what is true, not what is comforting.
If you think showing someone's work is false means they lose their job then you have absolutely no clue how science works. A good scientists welcomes being corrected if they are wrong on something. Some of the most illuminating experiences I've had as a researcher have been times someone has nailed an idea I've had to the wall. Sure, at the time it's not terribly pleasant but it always results in my understanding jumping forward a lot. The inability to accept correction is far more prevalent in the hack community. So many of you try to come up with something you feel is 'common sense' or based on your own intuition. To accept you're wrong would mean undermining your belief you have a good intuitive grasp of reality. Much of reality is counter to human intuition, which is partly why hacks almost invariably fail to accomplish anything in science. For example, Farsight believes his intuitive grasp of things is worth 3 or 4 Nobel Prizes and makes him more competent at electromagnetism than actual Nobel Prize winners like Dirac, who invented quantum field theory. Farsight has no formal development of his work, it's just a variety of opinions taped together so there's a lot more of 'him' in his work than is the case in actual scientific research. Opinions only matter if you can justify them with reason and evidence. Hacks work purely by opinion so being wrong says much more about them, about you, than is the case for a proper scientist.
More paranoid conspiracy theories from someone with no understanding of science.
Besides, quantum entanglement isn't a contradictory concept to special relativity, which you'd know if you bothered to find anything out about science before opening your mouth. You're in the 'tinfoil hat' brigade now it seems. No doubt if I asked you for evidence you'd fail to provide any beyond more paranoid conspiracy claims.
more nonsense!Complete and utter bullshit. This is a myth perpetuated by hacks who are looking for an excuse as to why their relativity denial is not accepted by the mainstream community.
Did the whole of the physics community get fired the day Eddington announced Einstein's prediction about light deflection had been confirmed and Newtonian gravity falsified? No. Was the entire community fired the day Planck published his paper on quantisation of light? No. When it was realised neutrinos are not massless was the entire particle physics community fired? No. When Hubble showed the universe wasn't static and is expanding did Einstein and other cosmologists get fired? No.
Science is about building new understanding on the corpses of previous ideas. When someone knocks over a paradigm there are more opportunities, more funding, more directions to explore. It starts a physics 'gold rush'! Many particle physicists want the LHC to disprove the Standard Model, it would mean there's a whole new area of Nature we don't understand. The guy who ran CERN for much of the last decade, John Ellis, tells people his job is finding things people either didn't want to find or didn't know to even look for. In the case of relativity the person who does the experiment to disprove relativity (assuming it isn't fundamental and exact) will get a Nobel Prize, more awards than you can shake a stick at and a job for life. They'll be 'The physicist who bested Einstein"! If I had undeniable experimental evidence special relativity is false I'd publish it without a second thought. Sure, it would mean undermining all of my PhD, which took 4 years of my life, but I care about what is true, not what is comforting.
If you think showing someone's work is false means they lose their job then you have absolutely no clue how science works. A good scientists welcomes being corrected if they are wrong on something. Some of the most illuminating experiences I've had as a researcher have been times someone has nailed an idea I've had to the wall. Sure, at the time it's not terribly pleasant but it always results in my understanding jumping forward a lot. The inability to accept correction is far more prevalent in the hack community. So many of you try to come up with something you feel is 'common sense' or based on your own intuition. To accept you're wrong would mean undermining your belief you have a good intuitive grasp of reality. Much of reality is counter to human intuition, which is partly why hacks almost invariably fail to accomplish anything in science. For example, Farsight believes his intuitive grasp of things is worth 3 or 4 Nobel Prizes and makes him more competent at electromagnetism than actual Nobel Prize winners like Dirac, who invented quantum field theory. Farsight has no formal development of his work, it's just a variety of opinions taped together so there's a lot more of 'him' in his work than is the case in actual scientific research. Opinions only matter if you can justify them with reason and evidence. Hacks work purely by opinion so being wrong says much more about them, about you, than is the case for a proper scientist.
More paranoid conspiracy theories from someone with no understanding of science.
Science has been aware of quantum entanglement for over 80 years and you still cling to the 1900's... I might not believe in science and awful lot but I certainly believe in human nature... and human nature would never sit still on a hot potato like QM entanglement etc....... but they would also be realistic in knowing cranks like you would not accept anything beyond 1900's history lessons and data that is over 10 billion years old to tell us how the universe is going today...little wonder I don't believe your credentials as a so called scientist...
I think you under-estimate your own field of interest terribly....
I DID suggest that SRT would have been ammended didn't I? Ammended and adapted well beyond the SRT you defend so rigourously. You and other scientific cranks are why it is kept out of the public eye... not me nor Emil or farsight nor Masterov, we mean jack sh*t to them... but you with your so called unsubstantiated education and psychotic obsessions are an obstacle to growth.
===============
еще ерунда!
Наука была осведомлена о квантовой запутанности на протяжении более 80 лет, и вы все еще цепляются за 1900-ых ... Я не мог верить в науку и очень много, но я, конечно, верю в человеческую природу ... и человеческая природа никогда не будет сидеть на горячий картофель, как и т.д. QM запутанности ...... но они также будут реалистичными, зная, чудаки, как ты не примет ничего, кроме уроков истории 1900-х годов и данных, составляет более 10 миллиардов лет, чтобы сказать нам, как вселенная будет сегодня ... не удивительно, я не верю свои учетные данныетак называемый ученый ...
Я думаю, вы недооценивают собственную область интересов ужасно ....
Я сделал предположить, что SRT было бы ammended не так ли? Ammended и адаптированы далеко за рамки СТО вы защищаете так rigourously. Вы и другие научные чудаки есть, почему он находиться вне глаз общественности ... Не мне, ни Эмиль, или дальновидность, мы имеем в виду гнездо дерьмо с ними ... но вы с вашей так называемой необоснованной образование и психотических навязчивые идеи являются препятствием для роста.
well knowing human nature is all you need to know... you stand corrected....
80 years is an awful long time to work out how to apply and develop QM entanglement phenonema
remember the Philadelphia exp. 1943 hoax!
Are you sure it was all a hoax !? or just some of it...
who the hell could have dreamed up such an incredible hoax in 1943? they were driving around in vintage cars for Christ sake with movies that bearly moved, with vynl records and new fangled nylon stockings. they couldn't possibly have dreamed up such a hoax with sailers intergrating with the ships structure... shessh! you only have to look at the entertainment industry at the time to see the depth they were capabe of imagining...
=================
хорошо зная человеческую природу все, что вам нужно знать ... Вы стоите исправить ....
80 лет это ужасно много времени, чтобы решить, как применять и развивать QM запутанности phenonema
AlphaNumeric, you do not even understand why in a medium where the speed of light invariant assumption is not true, there's no SR.
I gave up to argue logically with you. It is useless.
Your SR is a simple pseudoscience.
You have a theory and nearly a hundred years you desperately looking for facts.
I gave up to argue logically with you. It is useless.
Your SR is a simple pseudoscience.
You have a theory and nearly a hundred years you desperately looking for facts.
AlphaNumeric, you do not even understand why in a medium where the speed of light invariant assumption is not true, there's no SR.
I gave up to argue logically with you. It is useless.
Your SR is a simple pseudoscience.
You have a theory and nearly a hundred years you desperately looking for facts.
hee hee, well he does keep moving threads about SRT to pseudo science ......afterall, so pseudo-science it is then.... [chuckle]
Masterov assumes that physics conspiracies started by the Soviets predate the Soviets and operate in countries where the Soviets never had power.
That's not how physics or any science works. Scientists get praised for revolution and overturning previous paradigms -- but only if the new regime better matches reality than the old.
All physicists know and many in this thread have said that SR is just an approximation to the truth, but Masterov has ruled discussion of General Relativity off-topic and ignores evidence that GR is superior to Newtonian predictions in a way that suggests SR is superior to Newtonian predictions.
No. The assumption that is false is the assumption by Newton and Galileo that K=0. Experiments since 1859 have been precise enough to show that Nature is far more compatible with $$K=c^{\tiny -2}$$.
So we start with the generalization of the Galilean Relativity Transform for relative motion in the x direction, $$\Lambda_K(v)$$ which operates on coordinate differences in one coordinate system, $$\Delta S$$, to give us coordinate differences in a different system, $$\Delta S'$$:
$${\huge \Delta S' = \Lambda_K(v) \; \Delta S} \\ \begin{pmatrix} \Delta t' \\ \Delta x' \\ \Delta y' \\ \Delta z' \end{pmatrix} = {\huge \Lambda_K(v) \; } \begin{pmatrix} \Delta t \\ \Delta x \\ \Delta y \\ \Delta z \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{K v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 0 \\ \frac{v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \Delta t \\ \Delta x \\ \Delta y \\ \Delta z \end{pmatrix}$$
Say $$\Delta S$$ represents two snapshots of the location of a non-moving object at two different times. Then
$${\huge \Delta S} = \begin{pmatrix} \Delta t \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \\ {\huge \Delta S'} = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{K v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 0 \\ \frac{v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \Delta t \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{\Delta t}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} \\ v \frac{\Delta t}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \Delta t' \\ v \Delta t' \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}$$
And so this transform describes the same pair of snapshots as something moving with velocity v in the other coordinate system.
Say $$\Delta S$$ represents two snapshots of the location of an object moving with velocity -v in the x direction at two different times. Then
$${\huge \Delta S} = \begin{pmatrix} \Delta t \\ -v \Delta t \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \\ {\huge \Delta S'} = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{K v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 0 \\ \frac{v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \Delta t \\ -v \Delta t \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{\Delta t - K v^2 \Delta t}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} \\ \frac{v \Delta t - v \Delta t}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \Delta t' \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}$$
And so this transform describes the same pair of snapshots as something not moving in the other coordinate system.
Note that:
$$\Lambda_K(0) = { \tiny \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} } $$
And:
$$\Lambda_K(-v) \Lambda_K(v) = \Lambda_K(v) \Lambda_K(-v) = \Lambda_K(0) $$
And:
$$\exists w = \frac{u + v}{1 + K u v} \; \Lambda_K(u) \Lambda_K(v) = \Lambda_K(v) \Lambda_K(u) = \Lambda_K(w)$$
which demonstrates that for each value of K, the matrices form an Abelian mathematical group[sup]*[/sup] and that this mathematical group gives rise to a velocity composition law. Each assumption of a value of K gives one mathematical structure as internally self-consistent as the other, but in physics we let Nature decide what value of K we should use. To deny Nature the deciding vote is to abandon physics.
Masterov's "summary" of special relativity is badly flawed in three ways.
1) His "transform" of a non-moving object doesn't make it move with velocity v -- this is also a fault of the MT transform
2) His "transform" of an object moving with velocity u in the x direction doesn't make it come to a halt until |v| = c -- this is also a fault of the MT transform
3) His "transform" of +v, when composed with -v doesn't equal a transform with velocity 0 -- this is also a fault of the MT transform
4) His "transform" of any non-zero velocity u, when composed with any non-zero velocity v doesn't equal any transform for any velocity w -- this is also a fault of the MT transform
So of course both Masterov's "summary" of special relativity and the MT transform lead to physically inconsistent predictions like two objects in the same state of motion need not have clocks ticking at the same rate. These flaws are not shared by any of the generalized Galilean transform. And the Lorentz transform is exactly what we get when we assume the hypothesis that $$K=c^{\tiny -2}$$.
Nature's preference for $$K=c^{\tiny -2}$$ was experimentally found in 1859 by a French scientist looking at phenomena moving at $$v \approx 0.75 c$$; Bertozzi found plenty of evidence for $$K =c^{\tiny -2}$$ looking at phenomena moving at $$ 0.75 \lt v \lt c$$; Fan measured, recorded and then ignored evidence for $$K=c^{\tiny -2}$$; OPERA thought they found evidence that contradicted $$K=c^{\tiny -2}$$, their co-workers disagreed, OPERA then found a bad timing cable, fixed it and then found out that their actual experiment was entirely compatible with $$K=c^{\tiny -2}$$; the particle colliders have $$K=c^{\tiny -2}$$ built into them and reach particle energies far in excess of $$\frac{1}{2} m c^2$$ as Newton would predict; the GPS has $$K=c^{\tiny -2}$$ built into it and soon Europe will launch a civilian GPS which will also have $$K=c^{\tiny -2}$$ built in -- because it works.
[sup]*[/sup] Just because this 1-dimensional Lie group is Abelian does not imply that the matrix commutes with rotation of x,y,z axes or with boosts in other directions, but I'm deliberately working with a simple model to illustrate more clearly the differences between my worldview and those of Masterov and Emil.