# Thread: Master Theory (edition 2)

1. At the MIT Junior Lab is made an experiment measuring directly the energy of electrons with PIN-diodes detectors. Is designed for students at MIT:
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8...008/labs/lab7/
The guide for the experiment is: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8...bs/jlexp09.pdf
I think the experiment is made at velocities high enough to show that the relativistic formulas approximate better than the formulas in Classical Physics.
Of course this does not mean Relativity is a right theory just that its predicion is better than Classical Physics.

I think this experiment could proove that the theory I propose present better aproximations yet and I tried to contact someone there to verify predictions with experimental data but I had no answer.
In my theory the Kinetic Energy is the classical one Ek=mv2/2 but the magnetic field is not classical having incorporated the "relativistic therm" root(1-v2/c2) so the prediction is different from both the classical and the relativistic ones.

I think this experiment could be useful for your research. Of course there are difficulties to find experimental data available. May be the experiment is done in other places with data available. I couldn't find it but may be you could have better luck. If you or anyone else could find that I would appreciate to share it with me. Just for the case, my e-mail is at the end of the main page of my site (http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/).

I will copy this post in the thread "A New Light In Physics".

2. I accept the concept "subatomic" relative to the proton, neutron, and electrons. (I have not used this term before.)

I do not understand this post:
Originally Posted by OnlyMe
I am not a particle physicist...

I am not sure you can make a direct measurement of a subatomic particle, in the way you are describing. These measurements are carried out in particle accellerators and various detectors, but they almost always contain background noise and both statistical and measurement margins of error.

I do think that CERN may have some similar data from gold and lead ion collisions, but I am not sure that is even what you are looking for. Some of the news releases involving heavy ion collisions have mentioned plasma temperatures. You might try searching for papers that mention quark-gluon plasmas or heavy ion collisions.

That's the best I could offer.

CERN also conducts proton on proton collisions, that may also work for you.
Has it relevance to the topic (I think so)?

Let me remind you: I'm looking experimental confirmation of the expression:

$E = mc^2=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2$

Requires a modern implementation of experiments that Bertozzi did fifty years ago.

I do know that Bertozzi's experiments were repeated several times. I know also that the energy of relativistic particles does not grow indefinitely, as it follow from this expression.

I request to publish the results of such experiments, if you have this information. Otherwise, there is no reason to assume that this expression is right.

3. Originally Posted by Masterov
No! You are disingenuous: experimenters not measured time of track of muons. Experimenters measured the distance only.

Muon could overcome this distance, moving faster light._________________________________

I do not understand your arguments wich (supposedly) point to my mistake.
The accelerators, for example the LHC, work correctly due to the SR. If the speed of particles such as, for example, proton could move with speeds higher than this follows from the SR then we should not observe the collisions of protons and ions in the LHC.
Of course, there are the superluminal particles but their inertial mass must be smaller than the Einstein spacetime components i.e. the binary systems (spin=1) and quadruples (spin=2) of the neutrinos. This leads to conclusion that speed of neutrinos should be a little higher than the weak dipoles i.e. the c – you can see the data obtained in the OPERA experiment. The all particles greater than the free neutrinos consist of the weak dipoles (they carry the electromagnetic energy) and quadruples (they carry the gravitational energy).

Once more: you formulated the wrong conclusions because you neglected the internal structure of the BARE particles and the internal structure of the fields.

For example, can you write your definition for the relativistic time? You know, it should be associated with the internal structure of the gravitational field and the field-mass interactions. Only then, you will not formulate the incorrect conclusions.
Can you within your MT explain the OPERA results?
Can you see that your theory is at least incomplete?

4. Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski
The accelerators, for example the LHC, work correctly due to the SR. If the speed of particles such as, for example, proton could move with speeds higher than this follows from the SR then we should not observe the collisions of protons and ions in the LHC.
Of course, there are the superluminal particles but their inertial mass must be smaller than the Einstein spacetime components i.e. the binary systems (spin=1) and quadruples (spin=2) of the neutrinos. This leads to conclusion that speed of neutrinos should be a little higher than the weak dipoles i.e. the c – you can see the data obtained in the OPERA experiment. The all particles greater than the free neutrinos consist of the weak dipoles (they carry the electromagnetic energy) and quadruples (they carry the gravitational energy).

Once more: you formulated the wrong conclusions because you neglected the internal structure of the BARE particles and the internal structure of the fields.

For example, can you write your definition for the relativistic time? You know, it should be associated with the internal structure of the gravitational field and the field-mass interactions. Only then, you will not formulate the incorrect conclusions.
All of Einstein's theory is built on sand, because there is no experimental evidence for the truth of the fundamental (for Einstein's theory) the expression:

Your words will acquire meaning when determined truth of expression:

$E = mc^2=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2$

(Not before).
Can you within your MT explain the OPERA results?
Yes.

According to Master Theory: a neutrino ae a particles (in the general case matter), which moves faster than light.

The so-called electron neutrinos and electron antineutrinos are a positrons and electrons respectively.

Matter (which is moving faster than light) with a fixed matter does not interact, and with fields (whose source is stationary) does not interact.

The fact (that OPERA experiments failed to detect neutrinos) are consequence of the presence of Brownian motion in a medium neutrinos registrar. It is for this reason neutrinos (recorded in the experiments OPERA) have a velocity greater than the speed of light only a small extent (into speed of thermal motion).

Faster neutrinos are not recorded in this experiment, because the speed of their exceeds the speed of light is greater than the rate of Brownian motion.

To register a faster neutrino should use the medium of lighter atoms. (Hydrogen or helium under high pressure.)

To implement the registrar faster neutrino I suggested the use of balloon with helium or hydrogen, lowering it to a greater depth in the ocean.
Can you see that your theory is at least incomplete?
Yes.

I'm looking for an experimental podtverdlenie (or refutation) of expression:

$E = mc^2=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2$

Master Theory can be finish after will be received experimental confirmation for it.

5. Originally Posted by Masterov
All of Einstein's theory is built on sand, because there is no experimental evidence for the truth of the fundamental (for Einstein's theory) the expression:

Your words will acquire meaning when determined truth of expression:

$E = mc^2=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2$
You do not understand that all theories, so the MT also, start from some assumptions i.e. some initial conditions. The Einstein SR is correct if the initial conditions are correct. The Einstein initial conditions are as follows:
1.
The maximum speed is the c for the Einstein spacetime components (the neutrinos are not the Einstein spacetime components but their associations are).
2.
Due to some conditions, photons can transform into charged particle-antiparticle pairs, for example, into the electron-positron pairs. This suggests that the particles consist of the photons or carriers of photons i.e. the Einstein spacetime components.

Recapitulation
A particle composed of photons or their carriers cannot move faster than the components.
The rest is the pure math. If the initial conditions are correct then theory is correct. You assume that we can measure EACH physical quantity directly. This is not true. There are the definitions containing physical quantities. Some of them we can measure directly, for example, length and time. Some of them we can measure indirectly only, for example, speed and energy. We measure them via the definitions.
We know that charged pion mostly decays into muon and neutrino and next the muon decays into electron and two neutrinos. We can measure directly the distance and time between the first and second decay and next indirectly the speed=length/time. We can measure indirectly also the energies of muons from the pictures of collisions. This means that we can indirectly prove that the above relativistic formula is correct.

Originally Posted by Masterov
According to Master Theory: a neutrino ae a particles (in the general case matter), which moves faster than light.
The so-called electron neutrinos and electron antineutrinos are a positrons and electrons respectively.
Matter (which is moving faster than light) with a fixed matter does not interact, and with fields (whose source is stationary) does not interact.
The fact (that OPERA experiments failed to detect neutrinos) are consequence of the presence of Brownian motion in a medium neutrinos registrar. It is for this reason neutrinos (recorded in the experiments OPERA) have a velocity greater than the speed of light only a small extent (into speed of thermal motion).

Faster neutrinos are not recorded in this experiment, because the speed of their exceeds the speed of light is greater than the rate of Brownian motion.

To register a faster neutrino should use the medium of lighter atoms. (Hydrogen or helium under high pressure.)

To implement the registrar faster neutrino I suggested the use of balloon with helium or hydrogen, lowering it to a greater depth in the ocean.Yes.

I'm looking for an experimental podtverdlenie (or refutation) of expression:

$E = mc^2=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2$

Master Theory can be finish after will be received experimental confirmation for it.
Masterov, in the above fragment are many mistakes which show that you do not understand physics. Within your 'model', you cannot explain the other data concerning the neutrino speed (the MINOS experiment and the time distance between the photon and neutrino fronts for the SN 1987A supernova).

6. Originally Posted by Masterov
$E = mc^2=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2$
Doesn't the equation in question just define m, in $E = mc^2$ as relativistic or inertial mass instead of assuming rest mass?

That is what it would seem that this portion is saying $mc^2=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2$ which can be reduced further to, $m=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$, could it not? Which would then be no more than a definition of m, as an expression of inertial mass, correct?
___________________

As to my original post offering reference to the CERN heavy ion and proton/proton collisions, I had thought what you were requesting was experimental evidence of temperatures involving relativistic particles, and that was the closest thing that came to mind.

I have not read the papers you linked, at least yet. Though I did download them. As I mentioned I am not a particle physicist, so don't expect any diffinitive and/or absolute conclusions on this subject, from me.

7. Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski
You do not understand that all theories, so the MT also, start from some assumptions i.e. some initial conditions. The Einstein SR is correct if the initial conditions are correct.
Both theories follow from the same assumptions. Both theories have the same initial conditions. But: there is one condition that Einstein had in mind by default. Einstein gave absolute to a cross-scale, does not substantiated it.

I took away from the cross-scale extent of the gift of Einstein. So I got a free parameter. For each value of this parameter, I can build a single relativistic theory. Such theories exists infinitely many. Einstein's theory is only one of this infinite number.

I found such a theory (among innumerable theories ) in which time is absolute. I call this theory: Master Theory. All other theories (including Einstein's theory) are not physical, although they can give correct answers in some cases.
A particle composed of photons or their carriers cannot move faster than the components.
Yes.
Matter can not move faster light, if it remains in our space. But if the matter disappears (as neutrinos), it can move faster light.
The rest is the pure math. If the initial conditions are correct then theory is correct.
Yes, if the derivation of formulas has no been done error. In the derivation of the Lorentz transformation has error: for the withdrawal of the Lorentz transformation was chosen an erroneous formula:

$x^2-(ct)^2=(x')^2-(ct')^2=0$

The correct formula is as follows:

$x^2-(ct)^2=(x'-vt')^2-(ct')^2=0$
We know that charged pion mostly decays into muon and neutrino and next the muon decays into electron and two neutrinos. We can measure directly the distance and time between the first and second decay and next indirectly the speed=length/time. We can measure indirectly also the energies of muons from the pictures of collisions. This means that we can indirectly prove that the above relativistic formula is correct.
What prevents repeat the experiments Bertozzi?
What hinder to do the direct measurement of the energy of the relativistic directly in a calorimeter.
Masterov, in the above fragment are many mistakes which show that you do not understand physics.
I'm read similar "arguments" often. These "arguments" wrote those who can not demonstrate their competences and no demonstrate an experimental confirmation of the theories that profess.

8. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
Doesn't the equation in question just define...
No longer need words as a justification for the expression:

$E = mc^2=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2$

Requires experimental confirmation of this expression of which was performed by direct measurement of the energy of relativistic particles in the calorimeter.

9. Only the experiment can prove (or disprove) the validity of Einstein's theory.

Bertozzi's experiments were repeated many times for the last fifty years. But never the results of these experiments have not been published. What it may mean?

If it were experiments confirmed Einstein's theory, then these experimental results have been published and are these results were known today.

The lack of experimental results in mass press do a clear indication of the deliberate concealment of critical information in the course of fifty years. Consequently, this lack of the experimental results unambiguously refute Einstein's theory. I see no another reasons to hide the information.

Are you see another reasons?

10. “ “ The experimental results of direct measurements of the energy of relativistic particles will be published shortly. ”

So you do know where to find it then? Do you or don't you? ”

I do not have it.
I am aware that these results exist.
I know that these results contradict Einstein's theory.
How are you so aware about them?
If they will be published shortly you would just have to wait a little for them. Then why are you seeking so desperately for other experiments proving the same?

11. Originally Posted by martillo
How are you so aware about them?
If they will be published shortly you would just have to wait a little for them. Then why are you seeking so desperately for other experiments proving the same?
Bertozzi's experimental results are of fundamental importance for physics. Why these experiments were no repeated and never published for fifty years? (I mean part of the experiments energy of which is measured by a calorimeter.)

Bertozzi's experiments were repeated several times, and everything to do with the speed limit (which is predicted by Einstein's theory) are reliable. But their calorimeters stubbornly refused to acknowledge expression:

$E = mc^2=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2$

These results (which do not fit into Einstein's theory) were considered to be erroneous (reject as defective), over this they can not end up in print. In Russia, the publication of the results (wich are at variance with Einstein's theory) was banned altogether. (Russian Academy of Sciences look like as get-together of religious fanatics today.)

Circumstances changing for the better:

1. OPERA's experiments exist today. Exist other results, casting doubt on Einstein's theory.

2. I gave a theoretical justification of "unsuccessful" experiments in which the energy of relativistic particles was measured from a calorimeter.

Reasons for delay the publication of experimental results (in which energy is measured directly) no longer exists. It remains to do (in essence - simples) experiment and publish the results of experience, to return Physics on its foots.

I know about two (three - maybe) a laboratories in which these experiments were done already. I do not know the answer to the question: who will be first publish the results of experiments? I'm not interested the answer to this question.

12. Bertozzi's experiments were repeated several times, and everything to do with the speed limit (which is predicted by Einstein's theory) are reliable. But their calorimeters stubbornly refused to acknowledge expression:

These results (which do not fit into Einstein's theory) were considered to be erroneous (reject as defective), over this they can not end up in print.
Well, this is good for my theory too.
In my theory the kinetic energy also follows the classical formula (mv2)/2 with a constant mass. Just the electric and magnetic fields have the "relativistic therm" root(1-v2/c2) in their definition. Maxwell's equations would apply at slow velocities only where that therm has neglihible effects. Seems our both theories agree in this but in mine the space is also classic (Euclidean). My theory relies in redefining the basic fields and forces and in giving a special structure to the basic particles. Note that for me De Broglie theory is also wrong (The formula applies but with a different physical meaning. There are no waves associated to matter.).

Reasons for delay the publication of experimental results (in which energy is measured directly) no longer exists. It remains to do (in essence - simples) experiment and publish the results of experience, to return Physics on its foots.

I know about two (three - maybe) a laboratories in which these experiments were done already. I do not know the answer to the question: who will be first publish the results of experiments? I'm not interested the answer to this question.
Hope this could happen soon.

(Russian Academy of Sciences look like as get-together of religious fanatics today.)
With Relativity I think this is happening everywhere... May be with Quantum Physics too...

13. It's my reply for AlphaNumeric's post of "SR is dead" theme:

Originally Posted by Tach
Originally Posted by Masterov
Rlativity is no wrong. Rlativity is true. But SR is wrong.
Prove it.
Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Originally Posted by Masterov
1. Note that the Lorentz transformations in the transverse extent are absolute (y '= y, z' = z). Why did Einstein transverse scale did absolute? On what basis did he do it? Are justified it? No!
Actually they are justified. That's what happens when you exponentiate the generator of the Lorentz boost in the x direction, you obtain an element which acts trivially on all tranverse spatial directions.
Originally Posted by Masterov
2. If take the absoluteness away the transverse scale, we get a free parameter for each value of which we can build a separate theory of relativity. SR - this is one of an infinite number of theories.
The maximal set of transforms which preserve the Lorentz metric form the group O(1,3). When parity is taken into account this reduces to SO(1,3). There is no parametrised family of groups.
Lorentz transformations are the result of erroneous statements:

$x^2-(ct)^2=(x')^2-(ct')^2=0$

Correct expression:

$x^2-(ct)^2=(x'-vt')^2-(ct')^2=0$

My basis.

Originally Posted by Masterov
n this theory there is no twin paradox and the paradox of Ehrenfest, no exist limitations on speed, mass is absolute, and Newton's mechanics and Galilean transformations are valid. I call this theory as - "Master Theory". ”
Then you are in contradiction to reality. Your 'master theory' is experimentally false.
What are these experiments?

1. Accelerators particle use electromagnetic fields which propagating at the speed of light. That is why particle accelerators can not accelerate particles to speeds in excess of light speed. But not because unlimited growth of mass and/or particle energy takes place according to Einstein's formula:

$E = mc^2=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2$

2. Any experimental data (trustworthy) which indicate the existence of time dilation are no exist.

3. Slowing down time is contrary to the principle of causality and - the equality of inertial frames.

14. Originally Posted by Masterov
Lorentz transformations are the result of erroneous statements:

$x^2-(ct)^2=(x')^2-(ct')^2=0$

Correct expression:

$x^2-(ct)^2=(x'-vt')^2-(ct')^2=0$
Then you are lying when you said relativity is right.

Originally Posted by Masterov
2. Any experimental data (trustworthy) which indicate the existence of time dilation are no exist.
Nice use of a qualifier. So you admit the evidence exists, you just don't accept it as 'trustworthy'.

Originally Posted by Masterov
3. Slowing down time is contrary to the principle of causality and - the equality of inertial frames.
Relativity demonstrates that claim to be false. Time dilation and causality are not mutually exclusive.

Here's a tip, if you're going to make up lies don't make them so obvious.

15. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Then you are lying when you said relativity is right.
Expression:
$x^2-(ct)^2=(x')^2-(ct')^2=0$
is not a consequence of relativism.
This expression is a mistake.
So you admit the evidence exists, you just don't accept it as 'trustworthy'.
Exist experiments that can not be unambiguously interpret.
Time dilation and causality are not mutually exclusive.
1. If a times of two inertial reference frames have different speeds, then it violates the equality of these frames.

2. Two observers can not simultaneously see time dilation each of other.
If one observer sees a time dilation, then the second will see a time acceleration.
Otherwise violates the principle of causality.

16. You're demonstratably wrong. Relativity is causal and it allows time dilation. This isn't a matter of interpretation, it's fact.

17. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
You're demonstratably wrong. Relativity is causal and it allows time dilation. This isn't a matter of interpretation, it's fact.
Jabberwocks.

18. Excellent retort. I'll take that as you admitting you realise you're mistaken.

19. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Excellent retort. I'll take that as you admitting you realise you're mistaken.
I do not understand your message:
You're demonstratably wrong. Relativity is causal and it allows time dilation. This isn't a matter of interpretation, it's fact.
It's no English.

demonstratably - No such words in the dictionary. (For example.)

20. Originally Posted by Masterov
I do not understand your message:It's no English.

demonstratably - No such words in the dictionary. (For example.)
Try demonstrably.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•