Customer Discussions > Science forum

Can Experiments Disprove Special Relativity?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 86 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 5, 2012 6:35:59 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 30, 2012 7:51:39 AM PST
It is said that Special Relativity has been proved in experiments, e.g. time dilation experiments (particle decays in accelerators, atomic clocks on planes). But all such experiments include non-uniform motion and give asymmetric results. However, Special Relativity predicts reciprocal time dilation between relatively moving inertial systems. Therefore, this particular aspect of the theory has never been specifically tested. This can only be done by performing experiments on inertially moving systems, to factor out non-inertial effects (I propose a suitable modification of the accelerator experiment). If the results are indistinguishable from those of the previous experiments (with non-uniform motion), then it must be accepted that inertial motion has asymmetric time dilation, and so Special Relativity is refuted. According to my Theory of Machian Relativity (which modifies Special Relativity by including the relative effects of mass in the universe), symmetric time dilation does not exist, and the dilation during inertial motion is always asymmetric.

So my question is - where is the unambiguous experimental evidence for symmetric time dilation during inertial motion? Have any experiments been performed to look for it? In other words, if inertial motion has reciprocal dilation and acceleration has asymmetric dilation, have scientists proposed experiments to differentiate the two effects? If the answer is "Yes there is evidence", then the whole world needs to hear about it, and all physics books should be reprinted to include this data.

If the answer is "No there isn't evidence", then the experiments need to be done. But if the possibility of such experiments is denied, such as "symmetric and asymmetric results cannot be differentiated" or "inertial motion can never be achieved", then Special Relativity cannot be falsified and so violates Popper's Principle. For physicists to claim that relatively moving inertial clocks work slower than each other is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary levels of proof.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 7:40:22 AM PST
Ambulocetus says:
"If the answer is 'No there isn't evidence', then the experiments need to be done. But if the possibility of such experiments is denied, such as 'symmetric and asymmetric results cannot be differentiated' or 'inertial motion can never be achieved', then Special Relativity cannot be falsified and so violates Popper's Principle."

I know next to nothing about physics, but what you say here about falsification seems wrong. After all, scientific models are rife with false assumptions: bodies in Newton's laws are all point-masses, the Hardy-Weinberg law assumes infinitely large organism populations, and so on. Even if this particular aspect of relativity cannot be experimentally tested, even in principle, maybe this is not an issue. Maybe the other aspects of the model being testable is all that's needed.

Again, though: I know NOTHING about the physics that you're talking about here.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 7:44:48 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 5, 2012 7:45:17 AM PST
Daniel Dickson-LaPrade wrote:
"Again, though: I know NOTHING about the physics that you're talking about here."
===============

You know nothing about Glyn Phillips' s mental illness.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3MTOZFQI1IB73/ref=cm_cd_et_pdp

Quote:
=====
{
I have developed arguments that disprove Special Relativity, and I have developed an alternative theory, Machian Relativity, that is better. The theory preserves many of the features of Special Relativity, but includes the relative effects of mass in the universe. This unites relativity with Mach's Principle. The equations are inherently asymmetric for both inertial and accelerated motions, and this allows simpler explanations of relativity experiments and the Twins Paradox. I have also applied the theory to Maxwell's Equations. I am the sole creator of Machian Relativity, and I have written a book about it: Machian Relativity - The New Theory That No Scientist Can Disprove.

I have a degree and PhD in theoretical physics, so I am as entitled as other scientists and authors to have opinions on the subject. This is my first book, and I am confident no scientist will ever be able to refute my theory.
}
===end of quote===

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

Posted on Nov 5, 2012 7:52:17 AM PST
Ambulocetus says:
Strange. I can't find anything about this theory or this author on Pubmed. Perhaps Web of Science?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 8:04:16 AM PST
Daniel Dickson-LaPrade wrote:
"Strange. I can't find anything about this theory or this author on Pubmed. Perhaps Web of Science? "
==========================

Try Atlantic City Psychic web sites?

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 8:07:51 AM PST
Re OP: Time dilation has been shown in meson decay, and is a factor in GPS systems -- in which both special relativity (because of the relative motion of the satellite with respect to the ground) and general relativity (because of the reduced gravitational potential) come into effect [1]. The proposed experiment could easily be done by having space station astronauts compare on-board clocks with clocks on the ground. I have not heard of anyone actually performing such an experiment; if it were to happen, the results would be interesting.

1. See Wikipedia for more on this.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 5:09:57 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 5, 2012 5:13:52 PM PST
Daniel Dickson-LaPrade wrote:
"scientific models are rife with false assumptions"

I would say it's better to call such models idealised approximations. For example, we can approximate to point masses by considering smaller bodies. Also, we can't test Newton's first law directly by observing bodies moving in straight lines at constant speed, but we can get very close to it by reducing friction. In other words, even though we might not be able to observe a law in its exact form, we can get very close to it and infer it. It also allows us to exclude any competing theories that don't give a closer match.

Falsification has been a useful tool throughout the history of science, and the Popper's law requires scientific theories to be somehow falsifiable. I think it would be astonishing for physicists to claim that falsification applies to all scientific theories, except one crucial aspect of Special Relativity. If they think that's the case then they need to tell the world about it, and give very good reasons why.

One of my suggestions allows a straightforward comparison, between my theory and Einstein's. Introduce a straight line section into an accelerator, and allow the particles to drift along it inertially. If the dilation behaviour of the particles is indistinguishable from when they moved non-inertially - and if it has been previously accepted that the non-inertial experiments produce asymmetric dilation - then the inertial motion experiment must similarly produce asymmetric dilation. Because this outcome matches my theory rather than Einstein's, then his theory is refuted.

In addition, physicists have already claimed that reciprocal dilation exists. If this is the case, then it must be somehow detectable. If they deny this, then they need to explain why it isn't detectable and why the asymmetric version is. But I don't think this would be a credible stance.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 5:12:29 PM PST
"You know nothing about Glyn Phillips' s mental illness."

Haha Mohamed!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 5:17:20 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 6, 2012 8:32:34 AM PST
Robert A. Saunders' post:

Yes, that would be another way to test for it. Assume all the other effects have been accounted for. If the motional dilation effect for ground observers gives a delayed satellite clock reading, and astronauts get a correspondingly advanced reading for ground clocks, then this is an asymmetry.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 5:23:40 PM PST
Re Phillips, 11-5 5:17 PM: " If the Special Relativity effect for ground observers gives a delayed satellite clock reading, and astronauts get a correspondingly advanced reading for ground clocks, then this is an asymmetry." But this is not what the theory predicts. EACH observer in relative motion will opine that the OTHER observer's clock is running slow.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 6:33:22 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 5, 2012 6:33:46 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 8:57:58 PM PST
yes sort of

relativity is not compatible with quantum physics AND gravity

so anything that brings all of them into a single model will probably have to change relativity some thus disproving it

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 8:59:05 PM PST
it is a self published e book that is a total krock of krappp

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 9:19:00 PM PST
Re Horsie, 11-5 8:57 PM: "relativity is not compatible with quantum physics AND gravity" Neigh! Read up on quantum electrodynamics, which ties relativity with quantum physics. However, it is true that we don't yet have a tie between quantum mechanics and gravity.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 9:22:41 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2012 5:22:08 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 6, 2012 8:31:16 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 7:14:34 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 10:29:42 PM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
I saw a TV show where this guy is creating a virtual telescope by using super computers. This telescope will have the equivalent powers of a physical telescope with a dish the size of the United States or even larger.

The goal is to study the Super Massive Black Hole in the center of the Milky Way galaxy and another galaxy. There is speculation that Einstein's theories may not be true around a black hole.

This is also related to something called quantum gravity.

I think that's what this web page is about:

http://www.paul-marsden.com/page.php4?folder=&page=274

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 10:46:25 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 9, 2012 10:47:01 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 11:04:56 PM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
Mohamed F. El-Hewie says:

[Isn't science about gainful contribution to real life ?]

You don't find the subject of Super Massive Black Holes fascinating ? Studying the SMBH in the center of the galaxy is like peering back through time to the origins of the universe itself.

Astronomers can see stars orbiting around the SMBH in the center of the galaxy at 1/6th the speed of light. This is an unimaginable velocity for such a massive object. Occasionally a star falls into the black hole, down into that mysterious, inescapable realm.

As far as real life stuff creating the virtual telescope with computers will undoubtedly have applications in many areas. I guess they combine the light from different physical telescopes or something along those lines. There must be some serious computer programming going on there.

As far as understanding Einstein's theories and perhaps showing how they don't hold true under certain unusual conditions who knows where this might lead. Time travel perhaps assuming we don't already have it.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 11:14:42 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 10:47:32 AM PST
Actually just about everything we know about what goes on in the vicinity of a black hole is through general relativity. It predicts unusual effects like "frame dragging", jets, etc, all of which have been confirmed observationally. Black holes have been a major category of confirmation for general relativity.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 12:59:03 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
From black holes? Who knows. But we can't exclude the possibility unless we understand the phenomena.
From relativity generally? GPS[1].

Just because you are ignorant of something does not mean that there is not or cannot be an application.

[1] http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 1:24:24 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 10, 2012 1:25:51 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 2:56:01 PM PST
meh

too bad you dont understand any science
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  16
Total posts:  86
Initial post:  Nov 5, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 14, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions