Three Experiments Challenging SRT

**Masterov** · 07-17-12, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by przyk

Master Theory did a small corrections to Newtonian physics, which do reconciliation Newton with Michelson-Morley experiment.
Newtonian physics is refuted by a lot more than just the Michelson-Morley experiment. And relativity is supported by a lot more than just the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Well done for ignoring basically all of the last century's worth of experimental results.

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.

**Masterov** · 07-17-12, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by przyk

Master Theory relieve many minds of physicists from rubbish, which Einstein (and his followers) generate one hundred years.

Well, phone up the people maintaining the GPS, or who work at institutions like CERN and Fermilab and DESY, or even just anyone involved in designing or operating electron microscopes or medical accelerators, and you explain that to them.

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.

**Masterov** · 07-17-12, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by AlexG

Master Theory relieve many minds of physicists from rubbish

Masterov is the laxative of science forums.

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).

**przyk** · 07-17-12, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Masterov

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.

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.

**przyk** · 07-17-12, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Masterov

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.

Evidence? Because every credible source I've seen says the opposite. For example:

Originally Posted by Neil Ashby

At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by GR, then the synthesizer could be turned on bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. The atomic clock was first operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 10¹² faster than clocks on the ground; if left uncorrected this would have resulted in timing errors of about 38,000 nanoseconds per day. The difference between predicted and measured values of the frequency shift was only 3.97 parts in 10¹², well, within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% validation of the combined motional and gravitational shifts for a clock at 4.2 earth radii.

Source: http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html.

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.

**Masterov** · 07-17-12, 01:09 PM

To przyk.

Many letters, but there is no reason for discussion.
Discuss the emotions and experiences no sense.

It makes sense to discuss the experiments Liangzao FAN.
It would be better if there were experiments, repeating experiments Liangzao FAN.

**przyk** · 07-17-12, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Masterov

To przyk.

Many letters, but there is no reason for discussion.
Discuss the emotions and experiences no sense.

When you ignore everything everyone says to you, then yes, discussion with you makes no sense.

**Masterov** · 07-17-12, 01:18 PM

Different types of hours on the GPS satellites behave differently: some hours - be fast, others - be slow.

The reasons for this behavior hours waiting for their explanation.

**origin** · 07-17-12, 01:21 PM

It must take a super human effort to be so incredible willfully ignorant.

**przyk** · 07-17-12, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Masterov

Different types of hours on the GPS satellites behave differently: some hours - be fast, others - be slow.

The reasons for this behavior hours waiting for their explanation.

References?

**Masterov** · 07-17-12, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by przyk

When you ignore everything everyone says to you, then yes, discussion with you makes no sense.

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 .

**przyk** · 07-17-12, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Masterov

Discuss can be facts only.
For example, you can discuss experiments Liangzao FAN.

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.

Such an experiment can be performed by students in a university laboratory.

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.

**Masterov** · 07-17-12, 01:53 PM

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.

**przyk** · 07-17-12, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Masterov

For example, many experimental results, which are used in the calorimeters, which are calibrated according to the formula: $E=eU$

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.

**Masterov** · 07-17-12, 02:55 PM

I only paid attention to the need for a detailed analysis of experimental conditions.

**przyk** · 07-17-12, 03:07 PM

What makes you think that need isn't already fulfilled? You seem to be worried that particle physicists don't know what they're doing, despite you obviously knowing next to nothing about what they do.

**Masterov** · 07-17-12, 03:24 PM

I am forced to think over Liangzao FAN experiments and Master Theory.

I tried to synthesize a model of the generator of matter on the Minkowski space a decade ago.

Poor results of my efforts led me to understand the SRT.

**chinglu** · 07-17-12, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by przyk

The primed frame is whatever I say it is when I'm the one who defined the frame.

In post #106, the primed frame is moving, and the travellers are moving, and the primed frame is moving along with the travellers. In that case, that makes L the contracted length and L' the rest length (contrary to the usual convention). So $L = L'/\gamma$ according to relativity, which rearranges to $L' = \gamma L$ .

You should think more instead of copying equations without understanding what they mean.

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.

**chinglu** · 07-17-12, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric

That's a complete non-sequitor. Good logic.

No, it was shut down because you repeatedly behaved like a troll. You refused to answer direct questions. You refused to respond to line by line corrections. You refused to engage in honest discussion. You acted, and still act, like a troll.

Firstly, that's more trolling behaviour. And secondly, you've already shown that you couldn't even understand what people were saying to you. The "add it to the end of the list" argument fails and you had why explained to you. When you now recall the discussion you misrepresent what was said to you, showing you didn't understand and haven't made any attempt to. You obviously don't even know what 'proof by contradiction' is, which illustrates how poor your maths skills are. Until you can demonstrate you're able to discuss things honestly and coherently you're not going to be allowed in the main maths and physics forum. Your behaviour here only serves to show that policy is completely correct.

If you think you have a disproof of relativity and Cantor then send it to a journal. You obviously don't listen to anything anyone here says to you and you think we're all simpletons. So why are you bothering with us? Why aren't you sending your work to a journal? Are the posts you make here the pinnacle of your mathematics capability and contribution? Is the sum of all your contributions to the scientific discourse posts on this forum? It's pretty sad if that's the case. Remember, I come here for fun, in between doing proper maths and physics in my day job. There's more to my maths and physics knowledge/contributions than forum posts. The fact you've spent years whining about this stuff and haven't gotten your work into a journal speaks volumes.

See my post to your friend.

**przyk** · 07-18-12, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by chinglu

You wrote the following:
In a boosted frame moving at velocity v, $L' = \gamma L$ (from length contraction)

Yes. Know what else is moving with velocity v? From Masterov's problem, which I was replying to (emphasis added):

Originally Posted by Masterov

I remind to you of a school-task about the two foot-passengers and the dog:

1. Two travelers go on the road with the same velocity ( $v$ ) at a distance ( $L$ ) from each other (one behind the other).

2. A dog runs between travelers (at velocity $c$ ).

QUESTION: how long time the dog ran ahead, and how long - ago.

That makes L the contracted length, and L' the rest length.

In a boosted frame, given frame measurements L, $L' = L/ \gamma$

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} $

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} $

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} $

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} $

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} $

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} $

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.