Three Experiments Challenging SRT

What is what a conspiracy is!

Because you're terrible at science and dishonest.

Just because you don't read doesn't make them weak.

And yet your thread is still here....

You make it sound like that is the only way to test the relativistic mass-energy-momentum relationship. It isn't. That's why your work is rejected from journals.

Paranoid nonsense.

A contradiction yet to be presented.

Paranoia about conspiracies.

Do you know who invented the internet? CERN! 30+ years on and relativity is doing fine.

Clearly rational conversation with you is impossible. Whether it's due to a language barrier or you're off your meds I don't know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I do not think so.

Your naked assertion.

I was presented a theoretical refutation of the SRT.
Liangzao FAN was presented experimental confirmation of my theoretical conclusions.

Thus: SRT refuted experimentally and theoretically.

Your naked assertion.

Your naked assertion.

I did not say that my posts are removed everywhere (far and wide).

I did not speak about "the only way to test".

That you said.

This does not negate what I have said.

Rational conversation?
Without your formula and without your scientific argumentations?
Yes. It is impossible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No you haven't. First, trying to propose an alternative to SRT is not a refutation. Second, your concept is not new: the "free parameter" you refer to in your first post comes from the fact that it is obviously possible to scale the space and time coordinates by some constant factor, as in:

\( \begin{eqnarray} t &\rightarrow& \lambda t \\ x &\rightarrow& \lambda x \end{eqnarray} \)​

which would leave the speed of light invariant. Combining this with a Lorentz transform means that any transform of the form

\( \begin{eqnarray} t' &=& \lambda \gamma (t \,-\, \frac{v}{c^{2}} x) \\ x' &=& \lambda \gamma (x \,-\, v t) \\ y' &=& \lambda y \\ z' &=& \lambda z \,, \end{eqnarray} \)​

where \(\gamma = (1 - v^{2}/c^{2})^{-1/2}\), leaves the speed of light c invariant. This sort of thing isn't new. A known historic example is the Voigt transform, which is the special case where \(\lambda = \gamma^{-1}\) and which worked out such that there was no longitudinal length contraction. Your equations can all be derived from the special case where \(\lambda = \gamma\). Even there you can't claim to have absolute time because the transformation still includes a relativity of simultaneity term (which is absolutely necessary for an invariant c). The top line of the transformation becomes

\(t' = \gamma^{2} (t \,-\, \frac{v}{c^{2}} x) \,.\)​

In general you only have \(\Delta t' = \Delta t\) along trajectories of the form \(x = vt + b\). For example, set \(x = vt\) and you get back \(t' = t\).

Finally, where you say

This is wrong. The reason is that Einstein's theory is supposed to be about a symmetry (Lorentz invariance) in the laws of physics. This is the physical significance of the coordinates appearing in the Lorentz transform: the laws of physics take the same form regardless of which coordinates are used, so they're all equally good as far as doing physics is concerned. It also implies that physical systems (including things like clocks and rulers) will "see" these coordinates in the same way.

This all implies that the transformation equation, because it is describing a symmetry, needs to be well behaved with regard to certain properties. Specifically, mathematically, the set of all the transforms for different values of v needs to form a Group under composition. This works for \(\lambda = 1\). It doesn't for \(\lambda = \gamma\), and you get all sorts of weird behaviour if you try to take it seriously. For example, while you get no time dilation one way (\(t' = t\) for \(x = vt\)), you do get time dilation working the other way because of the relativity of simultaneity effect: for \(x = 0\), you get \(t = t' / \gamma^{2}\).

Sorry, but no such luck.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Refute or prove the validity of the theory can only experiment.

A theory can only predict an experiment.

Master Theory correctly predicted the experiment.

SRT - no.

Sorry, but no such luck.

 

"Master Theory" is based on a transform that isn't a valid symmetry. That alone kills it stone dead. It doesn't even qualify as a theory.

 

Exactly. Masterov is an intellectually dishonest troll and should be deposited in the round file with his bs non theory.

 

Yes, he seems incapable of having an honest informed discussion. His claims that the USSR and Germany have banned any criticism of special relativity are not just untrue, they are demonstrably false. The level of collusion required within the community is only intellectually acceptable if we ignore human nature. It would require all particle physicists to agree to keep quiet about relativity and CERN. Trust me, particle physicists are like regular people (not that I'm saying we're irregular people), we don't get along with one another all the time. My PhD supervisor did her PhD on LEP accelerator data and electroweak models. I intensely disliked my supervisor. If I could publish a paper to show her work was wrong I would. So therefore I must be in the conspiracy! People I shared an office with during my PhD worked directly on LHC and LEP data. Just this week I met several particle physicists who are working on the Higgs data. They must be in on it. We ALL must be in on it. And yet no one in the particle physics community says CERN is a lie, that a scandal will ensue. They can all use the internet. I'm using it right now. CERN invented the world wide web! CERN handed physicists and everyone else a platform which Masterov claims will blow open this silence about SR. Why would CERN do that?

BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY

 

Not to nit pick or anything, and without comment on the intellectual honesty or dishonesty of anyone, but how much time have you spent in the USSR (which has not existed since..., like 1991. I'm guessing your graduate work post dates that.) or Gemany? Maybe a list of how many of those you work with in England/Scotland, aren't you located somewhere there abouts(?), were in the USSR or Gemany while you collaborated?

Personally, I have no idea what the USSR may or may not have suppressed, and I remember the cold war, Cuban missile crisis and the fall of the wall, so no comment on that one. As far as Germany is concerned... We all get a little carried away at times... At the risk of going out on a limb here, there is a difference between intelectual dishonesty and delusion.

Anyone who has studied much psychology knows if you tell yourself or someone else the same thing long enough it becomes accepted as fact. Masterov of has been pushing his.., Master Theory long enough, I am pretty sure it qualifies.

Better stop here before I go too far. As a disclaimer, as far as the physics goes, you are one of those I see as knowing pretty much of what you speak.

 

The new format of the forum doesn't highlight links but I actually provided linked to papers which relate to Lorentz violations authored by people working in Moscow or various German places. I didn't say I'd collaborated with anyone from those places (as it happens I have coauthored a paper with someone of German nationality). I do work with someone who did neutron modelling in nuclear reactors in the USSR (ie pre-1991) though.

Both Russia and the US pumped money into all sorts of crazy pseudo-scientific stuff like telepathy or astral projection, because it might have given them an edge on the other. Think about it, saying "This model is untouchable, it cannot be questioned" is the scientific equivalent of tying one hand behind your back. Special relativity plays a major part in quantum field theory, which we use to model nuclear processes. Suppose Einstein had been wrong and SR isn't accurate for the speeds involved in nuclear processes. You wouldn't be able to build a nuclear weapon or reactor if you clung to a known to be false model of how the particles behave. If a country had declared in 1900 "Newtonian gravity is absolutely true. It cannot never be questioned" then while we might still be able to put a man on the Moon we wouldn't be able to build the GPS network. The same network which the US built in order to make sure they could ram a few ICBMs and cruise missiles down the throats of anyone who looked at them funny. Declaring a model untouchable is scientifically ridiculous. It prevents development in that area. And if Masterov thinks there's some personal gain to be had by physicists by keeping quiet then he's wrong. The person who knocks over relativity will become rich and famous, it'll make winning a Nobel Prize look like chump change. He claims it's a political decree but, as I just explained, politicians telling scientists what not to do is a sure fire way of falling behind in scientific prowess and technology, something Russia and Germany in the 1920s-1950s definitely wouldn't want to happen. This is further highlighted by the (according to Masterov 'supposed') applications of relativity to real world phenomena. Quantum field theory comes up in nuclear reactors and accelerators. Relativity allows the design and upkeep of the GPS network. Superconductors and super-fluids are intimately linked to quantum field theory. The behaviour of electrons on the surface of graphene is described by a quantum field theory. These are technologies from the past, present and future which are currently, in part, understood enough through the application of relativity. If Masterov's claim about SR being wrong is true and also his claim about a ban on discussing it is true then countries would be rendering development and advancement of these technologies impossible. If the electron properties of graphene are not really described by a relativistic field theory rather something else but all researchers are required, by political or scientific decree, to use relativity then graphene development is impossible. What country or research group would deliberately, knowingly, prevent themselves from being involved in what will undoubtedly become a multi-billion dollar/pound/euro industry? Only a country run by people as wacko as Masterov.

It might become 'fact' to laypersons but that isn't the case for a competent physicist. You can find loads of papers online where people analyse new experiments to check for effects which would be a signature of something new or which violates current models. Lorentz violation, aether effects, faster than light phenomena, time variation in 'constants', all sorts of things. Some people devote their entire careers to answering "If model X is wrong and actually it's model Y lying underneath, giving the same results in all current experiments, then what test would allow us to distinguish them?". As I think I've said, John Ellis, one of the main people running CERN, describes his job as looking for things theorists don't want him to find. That's because it would render current models wrong and something new would have to be built. That's the driving ethos of many experimentalists in particle physics (probably other areas of science too but I'm an ex-particle physicist). As I've also said, if someone put in front of me tomorrow clear, undeniable evidence relativity was wrong I'd bite their arm off to get help them publish it. Any physicist would. It would be world view altering! Nothing opens up new avenues of understanding more than saying "Here is something we not only haven't seen before but it invalids what we thought was true!".

 

That would seem to be something to re-think...

I do not disagree with the intent of either of your last posts and almost did not even post my last. There just seemed a disconnect, in timelines between including the USSR and my guess as to the timeline of your own career.

That and providing an alternate to the "intelectual dishonesty" comment, which may have been over the top, on my part.

Still from what limited portions of Masterov's Master Theory I have read, I am fairly confident you are being generous, including him in the group of scientists you characterize, as constantly scrutinizing and challenging their own work.

 

Hi OnlyMe, AlphaNumeric.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

About the Soviet era and the following from Alpha....

It is curious then, is it not, that the Soviet scientific establishment did not jump with hands outstretched when Belousov brought them his work/discoveries for publication on NON-LINEAR CHEMICAL OSCILLATORS....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Pavlovich_Belousov


For a Soviet establishemnt so apparently eager to grasp at any 'weird and wonderful' thing just in case it could give them an edge in the Cold War, it amazes how they laughed in his face without bothering to check anything out fully first, instead kneejerking and calling his discoveries "impossible" and then sending him away with 'telling off' to boot!

Amazing how elitist groups thinking they know everything can set scientific discovery back for years, isn't it. Even the Soviets had their establishment 'blind spots'.

Disclaimer: none of the above is any comment on any 'theory' being discussed here. Merely a side note to Alpha's/OnlyMe's own observations/ponderings about the Soviets/Russians and their scientific groupthink biases/aims etc.

Cheers!

.

 

It is meaningless set of words.
Please justify this by math formulas.

 

It is an unsubstantiated statement.
No need to went to university to write it.

 

Without your formula and without your scientific argumentations?
Rational conversation impossible.

I have not argued that there is a conspiracy.
It's you I impose this idea.

 

I [POST=2957966]already did[/POST]. You failed to respond in any meaningful way.

 

You've already shown that when you're given your beloved formulae, you ignore them.

 

Russian scientific establishment did not jump with hands today also.

Nonlinear Dynamics - my specialty.
(I known Belousov-Zhabotinsky (BZ) reaction.)

I have a physics education, but actually I am a programmer mathematician.
I have been programming since 1979.

I'll give an example for your preceding:

In 1986 I created a method for analyzing nonlinear dynamical systems with distributed parameters (not discrete). It is my graduate work at the university.
In 1996 I wrote a monograph, which outlines methods for the analysis of strongly nonlinear dynamical systems.

COMMENT: people think that explore the nonlinear dynamical system is much more complicated than it is possible for linear systems.
In his book, I show that investigate the models of nonlinear dynamical systems (even with hysteresis) is simpler than that for linear systems.

I was not allowed to publish my work, which I worked for over ten years.
I was not allowed to publish a monograph as a preprint even.

 

Lorentz and Voigt transforms are errors.

Look my post: [POST=2928447]Lorentz's error[/POST].

 

Your post is full of conceptual errors. The first one is on the first line:

No it's not. For Lorentz transformations (which preserve the coordinate origin), and in one spatial dimension (since that's what you did) the defining property is just

\((ct')^{2} \,-\, x'^{2} \,=\, (ct)^{2} \,-\, x^{2} \,, \quad (\ast)\)​

i.e. without the "= 0" at the end. If you extend to allow translations - as in Poincaré transformations - then the relation is only true of coordinate intervals:

\((c \Delta t')^{2} \,-\, (\Delta x')^{2} \,=\, (c \Delta t)^{2} \,-\, (\Delta x)^{2} \,,\)​

For the special case of a light pulse moving in the positive or negative x direction, and passing through the origin at t = 0, then

\( \begin{eqnarray} x &=& \pm ct \\ \Rightarrow\quad x^{2} &=& (ct)^{2} \\ \Rightarrow \quad x^{2} \,-\, (ct)^{2} &=& 0 \,, \end{eqnarray} \)​

and applying (*) tells you \(x'^{2} \,-\, (ct')^{2} = 0\), or \(x' \,=\, \pm ct'\). That's just a statement of the invariance of c: if something is moving at the speed of light in one inertial reference frame, it has to be moving at the speed of light in another inertial reference frame.

The key point is that this is a constraint on a coordinate transformation: (x, t) and (x', t') are the coordinates of different inertial reference frames. You have clearly misunderstood this when you go on to ask your question:

Yes, this is a simple highschool kinematics problem that has nothing to do with the definition of Lorentz transforms. You solve this problem in relativity exactly the same way you would have done it in highshool. You have (implicitly) asked the problem in just one reference frame - the one in which the dog is running at c, the travellers are both moving with velocity v, and they're a distance L from one another. You only need a Lorentz transformation or Poincaré transformation if you've calculated when these events occur in the reference frame you set the problem up in, and you want to know how a different observer will view the same things. This:

is a completely meaningless application of (*). Einstein, Lorentz, and Minkowski say no such thing for your problem. You've completely misunderstood what a Lorentz transformation is and when you actually need to apply one.

Now that you know what a Lorentz transformation is (or at least what it definitely is not), would you care to reply to [POST=2957966]post #63[/POST] in a meaningful way?

 

It is error.

Correct so:

\((ct')^{2} - (x'-vt')^{2} = (ct)^{2} - x^{2}\)​

Otherwise: speed of light is not an absolute value, and an anisotropy in space.

Look it:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If: \((ct')^{2} - x'^{2} = (ct)^{2} - x^{2}\) then "time left" = "time right", that is error.

Corrern so: \((ct')^{2} - (x'-vt')^{2} = (ct)^{2} - x^{2}\)