Re: But Russell said SR is easy


Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Mike wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Mike skrev:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Mike wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Mike wrote:
karandash2000@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Mike wrote:

I asked you before, have any experiments being done where the speed of
the source was a good fraction of the speed of light?

Mike


I doubt that you can read (or comprehend) but here is ONE example of
high speed light source in the FACK list:

2. Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters
12, 260 (1964).
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.99975
c) to be c with a resolution of 400 parts per million.

Is 0.99975 c close enough to c for you?
It is going to be interesting to see where you go next, crackpots never
ever give up.
I agree, even the "crackpot" Galileo did not give up even under house
arrest and in the court he wishspered "it moves".
40 points on the crackpot index!
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Next.
I do not expect you to understand the fundamental flaw of the paper you
mentioned because you are so prejudiced about the subject.

Yes, these papers involve such a fundamental mistake that it is
embarishing to even mention it and also wonder why nobody challenges
them.

Mike
And the fundamental flaw is?
This is the proper way to respond and I will try to answer. The
fundamental flaw is that due to the limitations in the measuring
devises and exeprimental setup, the maximum speed that can be measured
is the speed of light. Do not forget that for a proper measurement TWO
clocks must be synchronized and if the synchronization speed does not
exceed c then the maximum speed recorded in all cases will be c withing
the experimental error which they attribute to k.

This is indeed very trivial and this is also the reason the OWSL cannot
be measured unless one knows of a FTL controlled way of synchronizing
clocks.
This is trivial nonsense.

Look:
scintillator scintillator
| |
particle | |
| |
------ ------
| |
Instrument

Two scintillators.
Cables of equal length to the time measuring instrument.
Do I have to explain it further?

I obviously have. :-)


What's wrong with this?
Nothing wrong if your objective is to measure the speed of a particle
when v/c <<1. Wrong is you are trying to measure OWSL. You need to
synchronize the instrument with the time the particle hit the first
scintillator otherwise you do not know whay your first delay is. When
it hits the second scintilallator you just know that t+d has ellapsed
but you do not know d, the delay. This is ok for low speeds.


The "clock synchronization" is simply that the cables
are of equal length. This is basic knowledge for anybody
who has ever measured short delays in a lab.
No, you cannot use such synchronization when measuring the OWSL but
only when measuring the TWSL because d, the delay cancells out.
It is trivially simple to measure the speed of light in a lab.
Yes, no objection, the TWSL.

It is trivially simple to measure speeds beyond c in a lab.
Yes, TWS > c. No objection. It has been done many times.

It's to measure it with extremely high precision that is hard.
Fine, but that is not the issue I raised. Except if you are setting up
a red herring. I do not think so though, just pay attention to what I
said. the issue is to place bounds on speed of source dependency of
OWSL. That cannot be done with such setups. I explained to you why.

Mike
The issue you raised was that there is a fundamental flaw
in the experiment by Alvaeger et al.
You claimed the fundamental flaw is that due to the limitations in the
measuring
devises and exeprimental setup, the maximum speed that can be measured
is the speed of light.


Obviously, because dispite your persistence this is not different from
the old way of clocking speed. The minimum seperation of the peaks you
can get is twice the delay in activating the measuring device.

This is plain wrong.

scintillator scintillator
| |
particle ->v | |
| |
------ ------
| |
Instrument (oscilloscope)

Let the delay in the scintillators be d1.
Let the delay in the two transmission lines be d2.
Let the speed of the particle be v
Let the distance between the scintillators be s.
Let the particle pass the first scintillator at the time 0.

So the first peak will be at the time: d1+d2
The second peak will be at the time : d1+d2+s/v
The time between the peaks will be: (d1+d2+s/v)-(d1+d2) = s/v

The delays cancel each other.

Ok, I agree.


If they are different, the difference can be calibrated away
by placing the detectors side by side.

Ok

If the delay in the first detector is greater than the delay
in the second detector, the second peak can even come before
the first peak.


If something moves at v<<c you have:

T1 is the time for the first peak is at dt (the delaay)

T2 is the time for the second peak and equals t+dt, the elapsed time
plus the delay.

Now, you can calibrate the instrument to know the delay and the speed
is

v = s/t, the distance between the two signal detections.

NOW

if v > c, let us say v = 2c then

T1 is stil at dt

T2 is at s/2c + dt and t' = s/2c

The separation between the peaks is s/2c

Yes, I agree. This essentially agreed with you delay cancelling.


Now, if s/2c <<1 then t' = 0+ epsilon anf the spearation is dt+epsilon,
whichepsilon they attribute to an upper bound k but it is actually a
limitation of the experimental setup.

s/2c << 1, what is that supposed to mean?

Mistake. I meant s/2c << dT, the statistical error in matching the
delays. Actually I wanted to say if: (s/v)/dt <<1, where v is the
speed of the particle then the measurements are withing experimental
error.

Mike



s/2c is a time, so what is the unit of the "1" you are comparing it to?
A second?
Say s = 3m. Then the separation is s/2c = 5 ns.
5 ns << 1 second, still it is easily measurable.

You and Roberts figure out what s must be so that you get significance
in the measurement.

Roberts has declared himslef an expert in error bars anyway.

However, the distance you will need will probably introduce so many
other effects that the signal to noise ratio will be tiny.

Alvaeger et al also knew about error bars.
The speed of the pions was determined to be 0.99975c. [=2.9972*10^8 m/s]
The speed of the photons was measured to be (2.9977 ± 0.0004)*10^8 m/s.


This is still true:
This is clearly wrong.
There is no upper limit to the speed that can be measured in that
experiment. The emission theory predicts that the gammas should If the
gammas were moving with a speed close to
2c in the lab frame, it couldn't only be measured, it couldn't be
missed.

Paul

Paul

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: But Russell said SR is easy
    ... scintillator scintillator ... Cables of equal length to the time measuring instrument. ... scintillator otherwise you do not know whay your first delay is. ... This is ok for low speeds. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: But Russell said SR is easy
    ... scintillator scintillator ... Cables of equal length to the time measuring instrument. ... scintillator otherwise you do not know whay your first delay is. ... This is ok for low speeds. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: But Russell said SR is easy
    ... I do not expect you to understand the fundamental flaw of the paper you ... Cables of equal length to the time measuring instrument. ... scintillator otherwise you do not know whay your first delay is. ... This is ok for low speeds. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: All Starlight Moves at c WRT Earth --But Earth Didnt Exist!
    ... Light speed has been proved isotropic only when all parts of the measuring ... reference to the paper? ... There is now massive evidence that starlight is emitted at c wrt its ... All speeds must have a reference you know. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: But Russell said SR is easy
    ... measuring a time DIFFERENCE. ... It is the ACCURACY of synchronization that is important, and the ACCURACY of the clock. ... But as the whole point of the measurement is to TEST THEORIES, one must know the synchronization method and include it in the analysis for each theory. ... two-way speed of signals in the cables contributes), but you cannot sensibly argue that it cannot measure speeds greater than c, because it CAN. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading