Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity

Tom Roberts wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
Previously you have used the argument that "relativity is right" therefore photons cannot have mass.

I have NEVER used such an "argument". You need to get your facts right.

Recap. My argument was:
Photons have mass as clearly demonstrated by the fact that they gain energy when attracted to a massive object and lose energy in exactly the same way any projectile does when escaping the gravity pull of a massive object. They have momentum in that when they hit something pressure is felt. If you work out the mass then the same value works in these 3 cases and every other.

SR says nothing with mass can travel at c so current theory is therefore clearly wrong.

What you actually said was:

" Specifically: giving photons a mass larger than the current upper limit causes electrodynamics to not agree with experiments."
TR 11 June 2008

You are saying that photons can't have mass because if they did it would mean current electrodynamics theory, specifically SR, would be wrong!

I believe that; "relativity is right" therefore photons cannot have mass is a perfectly reasonable summery of what you said.


The reason I say that photons have zero mass, for all practical purposes, is that theories in which photons have a nonzero mass have been fit to the experimental results, and they put an INCREDIBLY small upper limit on the mass of the photon: 6*10^-17 eV/c^2.

That is interpretation assuming current theory is correct. As Waldron says "It must be borne in mind that it is facts that a theory must explain, not inferences from those facts on the basis of another theory". For you who have spent so long in a relativistic environment it may be difficult to sort 'fact' from 'inference'.



I say that "Ballistic theory is right" therefore what is demonstrated is that the result of the interaction of an electron and a magnetic field is a photon travelling at c w.r.t the magnetic field.

"Saying" something is not at all the same as formulating a theory.

You have assumed that an alternate theory will say what you want it to say so that you can disprove it. That is a strawman argument. The whole point about an alternative theory is that it is different to current theory. As I have said before Ballistic theory will never be disproved until physics has made a serious effort to try and make it work. So far we have had Ritz who's theory is now 100 years old without further development and Waldron who wasn't a physicist (he lectured in mathematics) and might be described as a part timer. Both were totally ignored.

And you'll have A LOT of difficulty defining the "rest frame of a magnetic field",

How about the rest frame of the magnet then? Any difficulty there? You say I (someone) needs to 'formulate a theory'. What do you mean? are you suggesting a different set of rules for an alternative theory to those which apply to accepted theory? Are you insisting on old fashioned ideas like explaining 'how it works' long abandoned from mains stream physics? Surely if I can write an equation assuming that the photon travels at c w.r.t. the magnet that is a 'theory' in the modern sense?

which is required to "say" this....

Hint: You have just abandoned Maxwell's equations.

In case you have failed to notice I have already abandoned them in the sense of them representing "a sound conceptual model of the working of the real, physical world" and believe that physics should have done the same when it was discovered that light is particulate and that there is absolutely no sound reason to continue assuming that the waves of Maxwell physically exist.

"The great Electromagnetic Theory appears as an analogy of Nature,
sometimes [i.e. within its domain of applicability - engineering!] 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 [...] = my comments

I note that you snipped - without acknowledgement - my comment:

As a matter of interest Murray states that when an electron is accelerated linearly as in an electron gun it does not produce EM radiation.
If this is true it is contrary to EM theory is it not.

In any case SR does not owe its origins to Maxwell's equations but to the assumption that c calculated by Maxwell from Faraday's constants represented the speed of light w.r.t. the aether. i.e. the assumption that Maxwell's equations were describing waves in the aether.

This in turn led to the MMX measuring the speed of an observer on earth relative to the aether and finding it to be always zero,

which in turn led to Einstein's second postulate which describes exactly what an observer whose speed is always zero w.r.t the aether would experience while assuming inherently that because the speed of light is controlled by the aether the speed of the source can have no effect.

Disown the aether - which is what physics has done - and that all falls apart. Maxwell's equations are simply a rearrangement of Faraday's expressions relating to charge derived at low speed. If you don't assume c is the speed relative to the aether then there is no reason to expect any particular result from the MMX and the null result is not a surprise. If you don't assume the aether there is no reason to assume the speed of the source will have no effect. The modern tendency to replace "Maxwell's wave in aether theory" with "Maxwell's equations" does not work. The MMX was not testing Maxwell's equations. Physics is based on the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable when no one now believes in the aether and there is no logical reason to believe that the waves of Maxwell physically exist.

The entire basis for modern physics is exceedingly silly.

--
John Kennaugh

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... that when photons fall under gravity they gain energy. ... There are two methods of measuring mass you either measure the ... without the aether - which you agree does not exist - ... Even sillier physics then decided it ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR theory is simplistic
    ... Unfortunately Ritz died at an early age in 1909. ... Physics today would be different. ... My problem is that with hindsight everything points to the fact that if you accept "no aether" the decision to go with Einstein makes absolutely no logical sense although an enormous amount of rhetoric has been expended trying to present it in a way which makes it seem sensible. ... Einsteins idea that photons travel at c wrt source and observer. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Where physics went wrong
    ... version of physics would see no reason to look for anything better. ... field is not a stress in the aether which can propagate in the aether ... Leave photons out of it, you clearly do not understand them. ... If you say that the beryllium target is the source then it has ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... for sound reasons states that the energy W of a photon ... Plus the relation between mass and energy ... education in physics. ... that is not the definition of aether. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... Photons have mass as clearly demonstrated by the fact that they gain ... energy when attracted to a massive object and lose energy in exactly the ... aether theory is impeccable. ... How long have you been studying physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)