Let us discuss these experimental results.
Please provide us an experiment that requires justification, and which does not fit into the framework of Newtonian physics.
Three Experiments Challenging SRT
- Thread starter Masterov
- Start date
Please provide us an experiment that requires justification, and which does not fit into the framework of Newtonian physics.
The terms of reference for developers of software of satellite navigation (GPS) actually has a paragraph which the relativistic correction take into account.
However, these procedures on the satellites themselves are commented out, since relativistic effects are not observed.
Clock synchronization occurs when the satellite passes the perihelion of the orbit.
Looks like it.
SRT is a disease of the brain for many physicists.
This disease is similar to constipation in the bowel.
In the Soviet Union, people (which can treated the physics of this senile anergasia illness) declared insane, fired from the science and placed in a madhouse.
Today in Russia, do not placed in a madhouse (just fired).
For starters, you can readily find summaries of experimental tests all over the internet, like this one.
Additionally, relativity is built into all modern mainstream theories, so all evidence supporting them is also indirect evidence for relativity. That amounts to a sizeable portion of all experimental results of the last century or so. The first historical example was Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, which was soon found not to be Galilean invariant. Electromagnetism is well supported and does not fit the framework of Newtonian mechanics in that regard.
Relativity is also built into the Standard Model of particle physics, which has been studied with the aid of increasingly powerful particle accelerators over the last several decades, and has always been found to be in agreement with experimental results. Quantum electrodynamics - a sector of the Standard Model - is famous for being the most accurately verified theory in the history of physics. Needless to say, it had relativity built into it right from the beginning.
There's also some theoretical stuff that works out very nicely if relativity is true, particularly when it is combined with quantum physics. Examples include Dirac's prediction of the positron, the spin-statistics theorem, and the way relativity in combination with other considerations seriously restricts the allowed interaction terms in quantum field theories, and the fact those are the only interaction terms we seem to need to explain accelerator results.
All of this is much better evidence for relativity than the Michelson-Morley experiment, and there is so much of it that it makes absolutely no sense to start picking at individual experiments. For every experiment you claim you can explain some other way, I'll always be able to point out ten more that you haven't considered. You'll never get anywhere that way. The way you should approach things, if you're serious, is to show that you have an alternative theory that doesn't have relativity built into it and that recovers the Standard Model as an approximation in the situations in which it has been tested.
Regarding the paper you cited (by Liangzao Fan), I honestly don't know what the story with it is, except that:
- It doesn't seem well written. It leaves out details of the experimental apparatus used and doesn't appear to perfom any error analysis. Those are especially serious omissions in a paper that claims to report such revolutionary results.
- The results have never been replicated - an important criteria of scientific research. This is particularly serious because, as AlphaNumeric pointed out early in the thread, there is very significant overlap between the experiments reported and those routinely performed at accelerator sites like CERN, and even with accelerators intented for industrial use (such as medical accelerators). Basically, if there were something seriously wrong with the relativistic formulae for energy and momentum, there are many many situations in which we would have expected to have seen it by now, yet only one unpublished paper is reporting anything unusual.
Last edited:
Evidence? Because every credible source I've seen says the opposite. For example:
Source: http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html.Neil Ashby said:
Addendum: the GPS system is or was operated by the US military. If you don't trust them, then you should know that the European Union is setting up its own version of the GPS system, which isn't military run, in order to remove dependence on the American system. The Russians and Chinese apparently also have their own global positioning systems. You're welcome to investigate these and wait for the results concerning relativistic corrections with bated breath if you want. Personally I'll pass.
When you ignore everything everyone says to you, then yes, discussion with you makes no sense.
References?
Discuss can be facts only.
For example, you can discuss experiments Liangzao FAN.
I do not have the opportunity to conduct this simple experiment in which a piece of lead is heated by relativistic electrons.
Such an experiment can be performed by students in a university laboratory.
If the temperature of a piece of lead will continue to grow, whereas the rate of relativistic electrons is almost unchanged, the SRT - is true.
Otherwise - false.
This simple experiment clear once and for all is a question of the validity of SRT .
I gave you a whole bunch of facts. You want to hold up just one unpublished paper, to the exclusion of the whole mass of results that consistently finds nothing wrong with relativity. That's cherry picking, not good actual science.
Like AlphaNumeric pointed out early on, there is nothing especially new about the experiments reported by Liangzao Fan. Take the temperature experiment for example. At CERN, they effectively perform this experiment every time they dump the LHC beams. Most if not all accelerator experiments are also equipped with calorimeters which more or less directly measure the energies of individual particles created during collisions.
Can discuss a tables of measurements, for which provide detailed descriptions of experimental conditions.
For example, many experimental results, which are used in the calorimeters, which are calibrated according to the formula:$$E=eU$$
In these experiments should not expected the good experimental results.
For example, many experimental results, which are used in the calorimeters, which are calibrated according to the formula:$$E=eU$$
In these experiments should not expected the good experimental results.
No, calorimeters used in accelerator experiments measure energy deposits after provoking electromagnetic and hadronic particle showers. Basically, they convert the energy of an incident particle into photons, and measure how much light is produced.
You wrote the following:
In a boosted frame moving at velocity v, $$L' = \gamma L$$ (from length contraction)
In a boosted frame, given frame measurements L, $$L' = L/ \gamma$$
Do not forget, you assumed measurements L.
See my post to your friend.
Yes. Know what else is moving with velocity v? From [POST=2928447]Masterov's problem[/POST], which I was replying to (emphasis added):
That makes L the contracted length, and L' the rest length.
No, you've misunderstood the formula. It relates the rest length of an object to the (contracted) length of the object in a frame in which it is moving. More technically, it relates the distance between two parallel worldlines in a frame in which they're at rest (vertical on a Minkowski diagram) to their spatial distance in some other frame.
You can derive this from the Lorentz transformation.
From Masterov's problem, you can describe the travellers with the trajectories
$$
\begin{eqnarray}
x_{1} &=& vt \,+\, L \,,
x_{2} &=& vt \,.
\end{eqnarray}
$$
\begin{eqnarray}
x_{1} &=& vt \,+\, L \,,
x_{2} &=& vt \,.
\end{eqnarray}
$$
A Lorentz boost of velocity v along the x axis is:
$$
\begin{eqnarray}
t' &=& \gamma ( t \,-\, \frac{v}{c^{2}} x )
x' &=& \gamma ( x \,-\, v t ) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
$$
\begin{eqnarray}
t' &=& \gamma ( t \,-\, \frac{v}{c^{2}} x )
x' &=& \gamma ( x \,-\, v t ) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
$$
You can invert this (if you don't already know the answer) to get the inverse Lorentz boost:
$$
\begin{eqnarray}
t &=& \gamma ( t' \,+\, \frac{v}{c^{2}} x' )
x &=& \gamma ( x' \,+\, v t' ) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
$$
\begin{eqnarray}
t &=& \gamma ( t' \,+\, \frac{v}{c^{2}} x' )
x &=& \gamma ( x' \,+\, v t' ) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
$$
Substituting this into the travellers' trajectories, you get
$$
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma( x'_{1} \,+\, v t' ) &=& \gamma v ( t' \,+\, \frac{v}{c^{2}} x'_{1} ) \,+\, L \,,
\gamma( x'_{2} \,+\, v t' ) &=& \gamma v ( t' \,+\, \frac{v}{c^{2}} x'_{2} ) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
$$
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma( x'_{1} \,+\, v t' ) &=& \gamma v ( t' \,+\, \frac{v}{c^{2}} x'_{1} ) \,+\, L \,,
\gamma( x'_{2} \,+\, v t' ) &=& \gamma v ( t' \,+\, \frac{v}{c^{2}} x'_{2} ) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
$$
Dividing both sides by $$\gamma$$ and collecting the xs on the left side gets you
$$
\begin{eqnarray}
\bigl( 1 \,-\, \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}} \bigr) x'_{1} &=& L / \gamma \,,
\bigl( 1 \,-\, \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}} \bigr) x'_{2} &=& 0 \,,
\end{eqnarray}
$$
\begin{eqnarray}
\bigl( 1 \,-\, \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}} \bigr) x'_{1} &=& L / \gamma \,,
\bigl( 1 \,-\, \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}} \bigr) x'_{2} &=& 0 \,,
\end{eqnarray}
$$
and since $$1 \,-\, v^{2}/c^{2} \,=\, 1 / \gamma^{2}$$, the boosted trajectories work out to
$$
\begin{eqnarray}
x'_{1} &=& \gamma L \,,
x'_{2} &=& 0 \,.
\end{eqnarray}
$$
\begin{eqnarray}
x'_{1} &=& \gamma L \,,
x'_{2} &=& 0 \,.
\end{eqnarray}
$$
As for the distance, $$L' \,=\, x'_{1} \,-\, x'_{2} \,=\, \gamma L$$.
So for this problem, $$L' \,=\, \gamma L$$, like I said right from the beginning.