Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity

On Sep 19, 2:39 am, John Kennaugh <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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.

Except the description in general realtivity still assumes zero mass
and propagation along null geodesics. Whups.


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

Congrats you just compared special relativity with general relativity,
and concluded that they aren't the same. Your deep insights could
teach zillions.


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!

It'd *** up quantum field theory but something like Proca's equations
would work and remain covariant. SR would remain undamaged - there
would simply be an uncoupling of c as being the invariant maximum
speed of propagation as well as the speed of light.


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'.

Ignorant prattle. Tom is an experimentalist who does nothing but
_CHECK THEORY_.




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

Ballistic theory has been repeatedly disproved over the century or
so.

deSitter, Ives-Stillwell, Sagnac, the entire field of cosmology...

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.

No they weren't. Ballistic theory was given due muster until the
1950's or so - read Fox's explicit discreditation of ballistic theory
that's dated from around then.


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?

That isn't good enough. The concepts of "photon" and "magnetic field"
do not exist in vacuum - they are built upon things like Maxwell's
equations and quantum mechanics. If you get your way and dismantle
both, you have to build the concepts again from the ground up.

You don't get to arbitrarily rewrite the rules because you don't like
them - yoh have to do it all.

[snip]

The entire basis for modern physics is exceedingly silly.

Except that it works. You can pitch your bitchfits on this newsgroup
until you die of old age like too goddamn many people seem intent on
doing, but you won't change a single fucking thing until you can
substantiate your whining with something other than more whining.

Am i the only one who is amazed that people like you are content to
fight battles with the occacsional scientist or student who feels up
to the challenge? You aren't doing physics at any level, unreal
tournament is a better test of reality than this ***.

How many years have you been whining, John? Have you made any
progress? Too many people have spent most, an entire, or more than a
decade arguing about physics at differing levels of ez. They haven't
made progress either.

Best of luck on your quest. Might as well ask for a pony and command
the sea to recede while you are at it.


--
John Kennaugh

.