Re: HOCUS POCUS


mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
PD wrote:

There are three facts that remain

- The correct formula for combining velocities (independent of what
assumptions are made to *derive* that formula) has been completely
verified in particle experiments. Call it an empirically confirmed
formula, if you like, and forget about deriving it from any
assumptions. It's nevertheless a confirmed relation.

Exact references, please.

I've done this for you before Marcel, almost a year ago. Your memory is
short. That, or you learn nothing. That, or you didn't read what I
pointed you to. I pointed to the comparison of rapidity distributions
in proton-proton collisions at fixed target and collider experiments.


[...]

Proton-proton collisions and electron-electron collisions (for example)
are routinely done in both collider and fixed-target environments. The
physics of these collisions is simple enough (at least for some
measurable distributions) that comparison of the nature of the
collisions in both environments is tantamount to measuring the same
process in two very different frames of reference. The relative speed
of the colliding particles is measured in both cases as a normal part
of beamline monitoring operations. The fact that the distributions are
identical if and only if the relative speeds in the two reference
frames are related exactly by the relativistic prescription, is
compelling evidence that the relativistic prescription is correct.

Exactly related, thus no error bars ?

Don't be ridiculous. A measurement always involves error bars. You
should never use the presence of experimental error bars as an argument
that the evidence is not compelling enough. The measurement should be
sufficiently precise that it can clearly distinguish between a tested
model and a competing model. That is true in this case.

Did the experimenters expressly claimed that their observed
distributions
are explained by the relativistic addition of velocities?

No, they did not. This has to be inferred from the background
information supplied in the references. If you're hoping that physics
articles are explicitly laid out to answer the specific question you
ask (as though the article is written in response to your question),
then your expectations about reading scientific articles probably needs
to be adjusted.

Where can their articles be found ? (Exact references, please).

Given previously, Marcel. Do your own homework now.


Marcel Luttgens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: HOCUS POCUS
    ... I pointed to the comparison of rapidity distributions ... I gave you references to the papers at the time. ... A measurement always involves error bars. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: HOCUS POCUS
    ... Exact references, please. ... I pointed to the comparison of rapidity distributions ... A measurement always involves error bars. ... Marcel Luttgens ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: HOCUS POCUS
    ... I pointed to the comparison of rapidity distributions ... I gave you references to the papers at the time. ... A measurement always involves error bars. ... then your expectations about reading scientific articles probably needs ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Uncertainty principle, fourier transform
    ... Both distributions are normal, Gaussian, ... commutator, you've an uncertainty. ... measurement affecting the next, or the photon changing the electrons ... and ensemble of systems violating an uncertainty principle for future ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Uncertainty principle, fourier transform
    ... Both distributions are normal, Gaussian, ... measurement affecting the next, or the photon changing the electrons ... and ensemble of systems violating an uncertainty principle for future ...
    (sci.physics)