Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity

Sean2008 wrote:
What is the consensus of opinion in this discussion group about what
experiments might constitute the "cornerstone" experiments that
confirm Special Relativity? Or are there a set of such experiments?

What a text book fails to make clear is that there is a serious
alternative to relativity provided by more modern versions of Newton's
corpuscular theory namely Ritz's emission theory of 1908 and Waldron's
Ballistic theory of 1977. This is not brought to the attention of
students so that any experiment which gives the answer predicted by
relativity is seen as confirming the validity of relativity. The
majority of experiments are consistent with both theories and the
ballistic theory has simpler maths and intuitive physical explanations
while relativity is counter intuitive and physics had to give up on
insisting on physically believable explanations because it wanted to
accept relativity.

I will later give you some examples as to how Ballistic theory and
relativity give the same result as each other while giving different
explanations as to what is happening. The examples I shall give are
quite diverse in nature and you may ask why two theories based upon
fundamentally different concepts should give the same answer and why the
Ballistic theory gives the simpler maths and explanation. I would
suggest that it could be that Ballistic theory is based on the correct
concepts and that what the Lorentz transforms do is transform the
incorrectly based SR so as to give the correct answer just as the
geocentric theory of the solar system complicated the maths and got the
same answer as the sun centred system. It is of course only a suggestion
but if you are looking objectively for experimental evidence that SR is
the correct theory what I have said does I believe give you an objective
starting point free from the spin a student normally gets fed with.

Maxwell's wave in aether theory predicts:
Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the source.
Prediction 2 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed
of an observer relative to the aether will add to or subtract from the
speed of light in the aether.

The Michelson Morely experiment was an indirect method of testing
Prediction 2 using the motion of the earth around the sun as movement
w.r.t the aether. It got a null result wherever the earth was in its
orbit. You have to be very careful where text books say "the MMX
showed.....". All it actually showed was that a prediction of Maxwell's
theory was wrong. It can be *interpreted* in various ways depending upon
what assumptions you make.

It is true to say that it was the first type of experiment which could
be predicted to give different answers for Newton's corpuscular theory
and wave in aether theories. The null result is as predicted by Newton's
theory and of course later it was discovered that light is indeed made
up of light particles just as Newton said.

That is not how it was interpreted. Maxwell's wave in aether theory had
had a major impact on physics and the null result of the MMX was
interpreted on the basis that Maxwell's theory was still true. On that
basis the MMX was intended to measure the speed of an observer w.r.t
Maxwell's aether and always got the speed to be zero. The MMX when
interpreted in terms of Maxwell shows that every observer *appears* to
be stationary w.r.t the aether. Einstein's second postulate simply
describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience
and prediction 1 is assumed to be correct when there was no experimental
evidence for it.

Lorentz had already come up with an explanation as to why the MMX had
shown that every observer is *apparently* stationary w.r.t the aether.
His theory says that every observer is moving w.r.t the aether as per
Maxwell but movement has the effect of distorting measurement in such a
way as to bring about the illusion that every observer is stationary
w.r.t the aether. The distortions are described mathematically by the
Lorentz transforms. Einstein objected to Lorentz's explanation but
totally failed to come up with a better one. SR is mathematically
identical to Lorentz's theory. The removal of the aether as a core
belief in physics had nothing to do with Einstein nor experiment. It was
'got rid of' by powerful voices in physics who decided quite arbitrarily
that from then on a theory did not need a theoretical structure - a
physical explanation. Thus they could accept Einstein's theory despite
the fact that he had come up with no physical explanation as to why an
observer always appears to be stationary w.r.t the aether.

SR is therefore based on the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether
theory was impeccable. Light had been discovered to be generated in
quantized lumps (Planck) and arrived at its destination in those same
quantized lumps or light particles/photons (Photoelectric
effect/Einstein). It seems that the waves of Maxwell's theory do not
physically exist. As Dr Scott Murray put it.

"The great Electromagnetic Theory appears as an analogy of Nature,
sometimes as a very useful and accurate analogy, sometimes as a definite
failure, but at no time does it seem to afford us a sound conceptual
model of the working of the real, physical world." Dr Scott Murray

Despite this SR is based upon the assumption that Maxwell's wave in
aether theory is impeccable. Essentially what Einstein assumed was that
EM theory is correct and that therefore the laws of mechanics had to
change resulting in having to ditch 3 long standing and apparently
sensible axioms of physics relating to mass time and space each of which
is distorted in accordance with the Lorentz transforms.

The alternative is to assume that mechanics is fine and that EM theory
needs to be adjusted. The only two things which need to change is
firstly that light speed is source dependent - perfectly reasonable
since light is made up of particles, and that the force between charges
is velocity dependent. All you need assume is that c is the maximum
speed at which a force can act so that the nearer to c a charged
particle is travelling the less acceleration is produced. If you are
accelerating a charged particle the equation is a function of q/m and
there is no way of telling whether the factor which SR assumes
multiplies m instead divides q.

This alternative way of going about things was suggested by Walter Ritz
in his theory of 1908. Unfortunately he died in 1909 leaving Einstein
unopposed and his theory was ignored. I believe that Ritz's death is
only one of the 'human factors' which have played a major part in the
development of modern physics.

In medicine it is recognised that no matter how objective people try to
be the results of experiment can be affected by someone's beliefs and
expectations. That is why they do 'double blind' trials. Such
precautions may not be possible in physics but even the basic concept of
'devils advocate' is not used. By that I mean that there is no group of
thinkers appointed who's job it is to try and make ballistic theory work
and look critically at experiments from the opposing point of view.
Physics is analogous to a parliamentary democracy where there is no
effective opposition to keep the party in power on its toes. It has
granted itself new freedoms and privileges to allow almost infinite
flexibility making any accepted theory 'fixable' but does not allow the
same flexibility of thinking to the alternative theories.

When I first came on this newsgroup I asked a different question to you.
I asked for the most convincing evidence that light speed was source
independent. I was told that the Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman
and I Wallin (1964) experiment was the most convincing. It seems to be
trying to disprove a relativists view of what a ballistic theory might
say rather than any specific theory. It is based on the belief that a
pion travelling at very nearly c decays into two photons and that those
photons are therefore from a moving source and therefore if light is
source dependent they should be travelling at nearly 2c and they are
found to be travelling at c.

One problem is that IF light is source dependent the current theory is
wrong. The experiment is highly technical and draws on current theory.
This is worrying in that they may be trying to prove an alternate theory
wrong by drawing on current theory and therefore assuming current theory
is right which therefore assumes the alternate theory is wrong in the
first place. This is not necessarily the case but you should put a
question mark every time I say "Current theory says".

The only thing one can say for sure in the Alvager et al experiment is
that high energy particles hit a beryllium target and the result was
gamma photons apparently travelling at c relative to the beryllium
target. If you say that the beryllium target is the source then it has
proved nothing at all but 'current theory says' that an interim stage
exists - a pion was created travelling at 0.9999c and this is what
decayed into gamma photons so constituting a moving source.

'According to current theory' A pion, if it exists at all exists for
only 8.4 x 10^-17 s which means that when it decays it does so within
the atomic structure of the beryllium target and does not travel in free
space at all. What does ballistic theory say about a photon travelling
in solid beryllium? Unless you have defined what theory it is you are
testing you cannot answer that.

I know that in the late 1970s-80s the number of 'fundamental particles'
was rising at an alarming rate until they decided to rationalise and
describe the result of some interactions as 'resonances' rather than
'particles' - OK how do you define a particle? Is a pion a 'real'
particle? As it only exists for 8.4 x 10^-17s there is clearly not
sufficient time to study it and the fact that it is neutral doesn't
exactly help to detect it especially as it is inside the beryllium. Its
existence has got to be inferred indirectly using 'current theory'.
As it decays into two photons perhaps it is simply two photons which
have not yet 'disentangled' from each other? If we had the faintest idea
what a photon is we might be able to answer that.
It also appears that before the speed of the photons was
measured they were made to go down a lead collimer about 2m long with a
5mm hole through it. Apparently the paper does not explain the need for
this. Note that no experiment criticising relativity would get through
'peer review' without stating what part of the apparatus was for. Why it
was found necessary. Why the experiment didn't work without it. It has
raised the suggestion that all gamma quanta coming to the detector are
secondary gamma quanta retransmitted by the interior surface of the lead
collimator pipe. Another problem is that in order to get out of the
vacuum chamber the photons have to pass through a window. One
physicist in this NG who had actually been to the place concerned
informed me that the window had no glass in it, it is just a hole in the
wall. "High energy photons like those in that experiment cannot
penetrate much by way of matter without generating a shower."
I for one cannot see how a hole can contain a vacuum and if a 'shower'
is generated what affect that would have on the experiment.

Apparently this was not the first Alvager had done an experiment. I
quote from Waldron's book. re Alvager Nilsson and Kjellman 1963

"From their observations Alvaeger et al concluded that the invariance
postulate was verified. However they published a set of typical
observations and my calculations from these indicated a difference in
the times of flight from the fixed and moving sources. This supports
the ballistic theory and contradicts the Lorentz- Einstein theory. The
reason for this opposed conclusion is not clear and correspondence with
Dr Alvaeger has failed to clear up the discrepancy" Waldron 1977

The only physicist of any stature who has seriously looked at ballistic
theory is Fox and he looked only at Ritz's theory, by then 60 years old
never having been updated. The following quote is of interest:

"Fox claims to have invalidated the majority, if not all, of the speed-
of-light experiments (including binary star observations) that have been
conducted to help us choose between Ritz and Einstein.... Fox gave a
decision in favour of Einstein, but did so in a manner that seems to
suggest that the final verdict is not in. In private correspondence Fox
says:

'...it is of interest for the general philosophy of science that Ritz's
theory, so different in structure from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and
Einstein, could come so close to describing correctly the vast quantity
of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory.'"

Fox having shown that ballistic theory had not been properly disproved
dismissed the 1964 Alvaeger experiment on the grounds that they had not
taken into account the extinction effect and performed his own
experiment of basically similar type which excluded the extinction
effect thus claiming to be the first to 'really' disprove the ballistic
alternative to relativity. While he came up with a reason to reject
Alvaeger which I hadn't thought of he didn't address the other concerns
mentioned above.

Whichever way you look at it. If Fox is right even if his experiment
does what he claims it means that had physics looked more critically at
experiments it would appear that relativity and Ballistic theory were
equally valid for the first 60 years and the fact that that has not been
reflected shows the lack of critical appraisal I have mentioned.

Here are the examples I mentioned:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

_________________________
train [____________X____________] -->v
|
|
|
|
T T'


Imagine you have a train with a laser mounted at right angles at X.
Suppose it fires a very short burst of light, triggered by a switch on
the track when X is exactly opposite distant target T.

Now the train does a high speed run and the laser is triggered at time
zero. What will an observer at the target T see?

Ballistic theory says that the light will have a horizontal component v
which means that although the laser is exactly opposite T when it is
fired the effective source of the light will continue to move with the
train and the flash will, at time t hit T' not T where T' is a distance
vt from T.

SR says that light emitted at point X in the observers FoR (that of T)
will move from X at c. The source of the light remaining at X.

We do not need to perform this experiment - It would hit T' not T just
as predicted by Ballistic theory. We know this because if we look at it
from the PoV of an observer on the train both theories predict the same
thing. He will see the light travel away from the train at c at right
angles to the train. In the trains FoR it is aiming at a moving target.
If you want to hit a moving target you do not aim AT it, you aim in
front of it, you aim at the point where it is going to be when whatever
travels (bullet or flash of light) gets there. If you want to hit T' you
aim at T.

So does this disprove relativity? No someone would have noticed :o) SR
says that what is a right angle in the FoR of the train is transformed
in the FoR of the target to an angle such that SR says that it hits T'
because in the FoR of the target the laser was pointing at T' and not at
right angles to the train. This change of angle is not the result of any
identified physical process, there is no physical explanation. It simply
*has* to be so in order to get the right answer - in order to get the
same answer ballistic theory gives. Ballistic theory has a full physical
explanation of what is going on.

An important point here is that ANY experiment viewed from the FoR of
the source must have the same outcome for both theories as both theories
state that in the FoR of the source light travels at c w.r.t that FoR.
---------------------------------------------------------

OK let us change the experiment a little. Instead of a laser let there
be an omni-directional flash of light from X when the train hits the
switch. Light will hit both T and T'

Ballistic Description
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_________________________
train [__________X______________] -->v


Flash occurs

T T'

_________________________
train [__________X'_____________] -->v
|
|
Flash arrives |
|
T T'

If the frequency of the light as measured on the train is Fo then
according to Ballistic theory the light arriving at T' will have a
frequency Fo because the effective source X' is orthogonal to T' i.e.
the source has no component of velocity either towards or away from the
observer at T' to cause Doppler shift. If the frequency could be
measured [it would actually be very difficult] I can with confidence
predict that it would indeed be Fo exactly as predicted by Ballistic
theory.

Ballistic theory says that the light arriving at T is a lower frequency
than Fo due to Doppler shift because X' is not orthogonal to T but is
moving away from T. Again I have confidence that this would be found to
be the case. My confidence is based upon the fact that SR predicts the
same result:

SR Description
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_________________________
train [__________X______________] -->v


Flash occurs

T T'

_________________________
train [________X'_______________] -->v
|
|
Flash arrives |
|
T T'


What SR says is as illustrated. In the FoR of T light is emitted from
point X and when it arrives at T the source is still at the same point.
i.e. X' is the same place as X relative to T. Light reaching T is
therefore orthogonal. The source is neither moving away from T or
towards T so true Doppler is zero. However SR says that because the
light source is moving at v the 'clock' generating the light will be
'dilated' and the frequency will be lower than Fo. As I will show later
it predicts the same lower frequency as ballistic theory.

SR agrees with ballistic theory that the frequency measured at T' will
be Fo but it says it is because X' is moving towards T' which increases
the frequency due to Doppler shift and at T' this increase is equal and
opposite to the effect of time dilation - resulting in a frequency of Fo
at T'.

I will now show that Ballistic theory predicts exactly the same
frequency as SR at point T.

_______________________
train [__________X____________] -->v





Y T

Again it is back to hitting a moving target. In order for light leaving
X to hit T it has to set out in the direction XY where YT = vt. The
photons have a component of velocity c in the direction XY and a
component v in the X direction such that the resultant is in the
direction XT. What you have is a velocity triangle XY = c YT = v so

the velocity XT = Sqr( c^2 - v^2) by pythag
So Sqr( c^2 - v^2) = F' x L
But c = Fo x L (L = wavelength)
So F'/Fo = Sqr( c^2 - v^2)/c = Sqr(1 - v^2/c^2)

So Ballistic theory predicts the same result using a velocity triangle
as SR predicts as being due to 'time dilation'.

Note again that there is no identifiable physical mechanism which causes
time dilation it is simply assumed to take place as it is necessary to
get the right answer - i.e. the answer given by the credible physical
explanation of ballistic theory.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPS "Time Dilation"

As seen above the frequency measured when orthogonal to the source is
predictably the same for both theories. The centre of the earth is
always orthogonal to the motion of a GPS satellite (assuming a circular
orbit) therefore the frequency will always be Fo x Sqr(1 - v^2/c^2)
whichever theory is used. The ballistic theory explains it without
exotic time dilation. It is simply the result of a velocity triangle.

A year or so back the fact that GPS satellite clocks had to be adjusted
for time dilation was stated as the ultimate proof of SR by people who's
maths are far better than mine. Everyone assumes. No one is prepared to
check.
As Fox said the 'vast quantity' of experiments which most relativists
explain by relativistic electromagnetic theory, and which they are under
the impression can only be described by relativity turn out, as in the
case of the above example, to be explainable by either theory.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"In much later reminiscences, he [Einstein] reports that during the
following year (1895-1896) he conceived of a thought experiment:
what would happen if an observer tried to chase a light wave? Could s/he
catch up with it? If so, s/he ought to see a non-moving light wave form,
which somehow seemed strange to him. In retrospect, he called this "the
first childish thought-experiment that was related to the special
theory of relativity."

Ballistic theory says that if you *could* travel at c away from the
source you would indeed keep pace with the light and *see* a stationary
image of what you are travelling away from - except that the frequency
would be Doppler shifted to zero so you wouldn't *actually* see anything
(i.e. it is a limiting case).

Is it such a silly idea as Einstein assumed? Well his SR theory gives
the same limiting case. If you travel at c away from the source, SR
says time stops for the source so again you would get a stationary image
and again of course the frequency would be Doppler shifted to zero so
you wouldn't actually see anything.

======================================================================
The universe is about 15 billion years old. Astronomers claim to be able
to see back to say 1 billion years after the big bang. At first sight it
would seem that in order to see that far back the source must be 14
billion light years away from us and yet had only 1 billion years since
the big bang to get there = a separation velocity = 14c. Wrong of course
that is without time dilation. Because it is travelling away from us at
nearly the speed of light relativity says that it doesn't age as quickly
as we do so we see it as much younger than one might expect.
I did a worked example:
--------------------------------------------------------

The story according to relativity
=================================
If the universe started at time 0
If the Age of the Universe is Tau
If we and a Far Galaxy have been separating at speed v
and light has just reached us which left at time T
Then we were separated by distance vT when the light left.
It has been travelling for (Tau - T) at speed c.
so vT = c(Tau-T) = cTau - cT
T(c+v) = c.Tau
T = c.Tau/(c+v)

However due to time dilation the age we observe will be
Age = T.sqr(1-vv/cc) = [c.Tau/(c+v)].sqr(1-vv/cc)

Suppose we take Tau = 15x10^9

Age we see of Far Galaxy = (15.c/c+v).sqr(1-vv/cc) billion years

if say v = 0.900c then Age we observe = 3.441236 billion years
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now we cannot directly measure the speed of a receding galaxy we
calculate its speed using Doppler.

The relativistic Doppler equation for a receding source is

fo = fs. sqr(1-vv/cc)/(1+v/c)

If in the above analysis v was calculated from the relativistic Doppler
equation then 0.9c resulted from a Doppler shift fo/fs = 0.2294157.

The Ballistic Doppler shift equation is much simpler than the
Relativistic one:

fo = fs((c-v)/c)

That same Doppler shift would be interpreted by the Ballistic theory as
v = 0.770584266c
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story According to the Ballistic theory
===========================================

The Ballistic explanation is that if the far galaxy is travelling away
from us at near c then its light takes longer to travel to us because it
is only travelling at a modest c-v relative to us.

If the universe started at time 0
If the age of the universe is Tau
If we and a Far Galaxy have been separating at speed v
and light has just reached us which left Far Galaxy at time T
Then we were separated by distance vT when it left.

It has been travelling for (Tau - T) at speed c-v.

so vT = (c-v)(Tau-T)
T(v/(c-v)) = Tau - T
T( v/(c-v) + 1 ) = Tau
T( c/(c-v)) = Tau
T = Tau.(c-v)/c

Age seen of Far Galaxy = 15 (c-v)/c billion years

Now for the same Doppler shift we calculated v = 0.770584266c

So according to Ballistic theory we calculate the Age of the Far Galaxy
as 3.441236 billion years.

To save you having to page back the age previously calculated for SR was
also 3.441236 billion years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
So whether you do the calculation using Relativity or using the
ballistic theory, you again end up with exactly the same result. Compare
the complexity of the equations:

Relativity Ballistic
Age (Tau.c/c+v).sqr(1-vv/cc) Tau(c-v)/c

Doppler sqr(1-vv/cc)/(1+v/c) (c-v)/c)


I did the sums out of curiosity but the result was not unexpected. I
*expect* both theories to give the same result. The ballistic theory
gives a simple, credible, physical explanation and simple maths. If v is
nearly c then c-v isn't very fast so it takes a long time to reach us.
SR says it reaches us relatively quickly at c but looks older because
what we are looking at is subject to "time dilation" so has aged slowly.

Good hunting. Develop your critical faculties. A students birthright is
to question what he is taught.



In studying the results of various experiments there are, obviously,
many that repeat experimental designs, the only purpose of which is to
improve the accuracy of measurement. For my own education, I would be
interested in what set of experiments might be considered fundamental
and if that set was fairly small.

Hopefully, my question has not displayed too much ignorance regarding
the experimental evidence. This may, perhaps, be one of those
questions that is intrinsically unanswerable but I am too ignorant to
know!

Thanks for any input you all might give me.

--
John Kennaugh

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... alternative to relativity provided by more modern versions of Newton's ... Ballistic theory of 1977. ... while relativity is counter intuitive and physics had to give up on ... physical explanation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... alternative to relativity provided by more modern versions of Newton's ... Ballistic theory of 1977. ... while relativity is counter intuitive and physics had to give up on ... physical explanation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... alternative to relativity provided by more modern versions of Newton's ... Ballistic theory of 1977. ... while relativity is counter intuitive and physics had to give up on ... physical explanation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... Ballistic theory of 1977. ... In other sciences, and historically in physics, there have always ... review panel to review evidence supporting relativity. ... last paragraph of the referee report sent back August 15 states "It is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is the official SR explanation of the MMX null result?
    ... >> A ballistic theory is by far the simplest explanation of the result. ... Well it is the speed a photon exits matter. ... medium and cannot conceive of two things propagating at different speeds ... many of the mathematical expressions normally associated with relativity ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading