What can I say? This is politics. Politics of Science not actually Science.
May be you are a good politician for the mainstream.
Politics (particularly American politics) is all too often based on who can make the flashiest presentation, who can spin the most BS, who has the nicest hair cut and the whitest smile and the perfect family. Much like law, it can come down to how well you argue, not how right you are. Yes, there's plenty of politics in science in the sense of how funding is obtained and handed out and who gets put forward for some jobs but ultimately it's all down to results. You can be the most charming person with tons of connections but if you can't do and write work people want to read and build upon then you're not going to manage to get far in the research community.
Your work fails to live up to your claims. You clutch at straws based on the fact nothing is ever
absolutely known for
certain. You ignore or are ignorant of experimental facts and current models. None of these things endear you to people like myself or przyk. We're the sort of people you're trying to convince, actual researchers who could, if we thought it was good enough, research things in your work. If you can't convince us in direct conversation then you're not going to get far with journals, who only have the write ups you've done, they can't have a back and fore with you like this forum allows us.
We're not holding you to an unfair standard, we're holding you to a standard we are held to. There's nothing wrong with being mistaken, if you can learn from it and move on. Hacks online all too often cannot accept any correction and thus they never move on. I've binned months of work after someone pointing out a mistake. I've spent weeks banging my head against the same problem and eventually moving on to something else. I've asked questions to professors which were (in hindsight) cringe worthy in their stupidity. Those are the times reasonable people learn greatly.
You asked for experimental evidence, well, the real purpose of this thread was the claim for a direct verification of De Broglie law (which theoretically would have the Lorentz factor 1/root(1-v2/c2) present in it) at some relativistic speeds what hasn't been done or nothing have been specifically published about it yet who knows why.
So you've checked the entire 100 years of publications have you?
Really? I find that hard to believe, as you obviously aren't familiar enough with relativity and quantum mechanics to be able to read research level publications, never mind exhaust all of the literature looking for something.
Besides, the results of de Broglie are used all over quantum mechanics, when people rearrange formulae, so if it were wrong in a significant way experiments would disagree with prediction, unless you're claiming multiple errors would magically conspire to cancel one another out?
An example involving $$\gamma$$ is precisely the sort of thing we're talking about. Beam density and energy is frame dependence, since a Lorentz boost will length contract a packet of (lets say) electrons, upping the density and thus altering probabilities of particle collisions. But often you don't want to work in the frame of reference of a particular particle, you do it in the centre of mass frame for the colliding particles, which requires a Lorentz transform to get to. Thus the way in which physical processes alter under Lorentz transforms is explicitly a factor in the predictions of particle models. If the description were off by even 1 in a billion we'd know about it.
Likewise with de Broglie's work. Swapping momentum for frequency is standard practice in scattering calculations. Like I said, this is
homework for students doing QFT 1! Thus every experiment testing QFT in an accelerator is implicitly testing all the assumptions/principles/formulae in the corresponding models, including de Broglie. If de Broglie were massively wrong it would cascade through to the things we do measure directly.
This is pretty basic logic so I don't see why you're struggling with it. If an experiment produced something different from prediction all possible reasonable explanations would be considered, the assumptions of the model broken down and reconsidered and then altered, tested, altered, tested, until something new and accurate is devised.
What do you have to say about? Just not interested as przyk argumenting that people at CERN, LHC, etc would have already been detected if there were some problem with De Broglie law at relativistic velocities?
And he's right. Saying "but strange things might have happened" is not enough of an argument. That reasoning could apply for EVERYTHING because absolute truth is unobtainable in science.
