[Willysmith]

Will continue to be valid the relativity theory?

There are already many objections to the relativity theory: the paradoxes, experiments with speeds superluminicas, experiments with light stopped, the speed of light greater than C (João Magueijo and the data from the quasar), the experiment of Martin Grusenick, etc. , etc. I think we need a radical examination of the theory. By the way i see on youtube a proposal for an experiment very interesting:

Relativistic theory or Neoclassical theory?-1.flv - YouTube

[mathematic]

I believe these questions need to be thoroughly checked out before relativity theory is overhauled.

[IM Egdall]

Willysmith, on 6 October 2011 - 12:11 AM, said:

Will continue to be valid the relativity theory?

There are already many objections to the relativity theory: the paradoxes, experiments with speeds superluminicas, experiments with light stopped, the speed of light greater than C (João Magueijo and the data from the quasar), the experiment of Martin Grusenick, etc. , etc. I think we need a radical examination of the theory. By the way i see on youtube a proposal for an experiment very interesting:

Relativistic theory or Neoclassical theory?-1.flv - YouTube

Wht paradoxes contradict relativity?
What superluninal experiments (outside of recent CERN neutrino issue)?

Experiments with light stopped, as I understand it, do not contradict relativity - do you have a reference that says it does?

I am not familiar with Magueijo and Grusenick -- are their claims recognized by mainstream science?

Outside of the CERN neutrino measurements, I think relativity is on very solid ground. and that could be a measurement issue.

Please provide links to the above questions.

This post has been edited by IM Egdall: 6 October 2011 - 10:40 PM

[swansont]

None of the listed objections have been confirmed to violate relativity.

[Yamoritokage]

Before GR marks its 100th anniversary in 2015, you scientists should thoroughly review not only GR but SR.

For example, I think even the idea of time dilation should be reconsidered. Because the time ticked in a light clock has nothing to do with our conventional time that is measured with spring clock or hourglass.

This post has been edited by Yamoritokage: 7 October 2011 - 11:22 AM

[Janus]

Yamoritokage, on 7 October 2011 - 11:18 AM, said:

Before GR marks its 100th anniversary in 2015, you scientists should thoroughly review not only GR but SR.

For example, I think even the idea of time dilation should be reconsidered. Because the time ticked in a light clock has nothing to do with our conventional time that is measured with spring clock or hourglass.

Do you have any idea of how many independent verifications of time dilation have been done, none of which rely on light clocks? Time dilation is real, deal with it.

[Yamoritokage]

Janus, on 7 October 2011 - 11:55 AM, said:

Do you have any idea of how many independent verifications of time dilation have been done, none of which rely on light clocks? Time dilation is real, deal with it.

If time dilation were proven in the experiment with spring clock or hourglass instead of that with muon beam or atomic clock, I'll appreciate SR.

This post has been edited by Yamoritokage: 8 October 2011 - 03:26 AM

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yamoritokage, on 8 October 2011 - 03:20 AM, said:

If time dilation were proven in the experiment with spring clock or hourglass instead of the experiment with muon beam or atomic clock, I'll appreciate SR.

Why spring clocks and hourglasses rather than atomic clocks?

[Yamoritokage]

Cap, on 8 October 2011 - 03:21 AM, said:

Why spring clocks and hourglasses rather than atomic clocks?

Because the length of the life of atom or particle has nothing to do with the passage of time.

This post has been edited by Yamoritokage: 8 October 2011 - 03:39 AM

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Atomic clocks don't measure the lifetimes of atoms or particles.

Why do hourglasses and spring clocks measure the passage of time, but atomic decay does not?

[swansont]

Yamoritokage, on 8 October 2011 - 03:20 AM, said:

If time dilation were proven in the experiment with spring clock or hourglass instead of that with muon beam or atomic clock, I'll appreciate SR.

Springs and hourglasses have too many susceptibilities to environmental effects, e.g. temperature of the spring affects its length and therefore the spring constant, an hourglass depends on the local value of g. There's no way to stabilize these terms to the level of measurement that is done with atomic clocks. Pendulum clocks are better that what you mention, and they suffer the same shortcomings; it didn't even require atomic clocks to surpass pendulum clocks, either — quartz clocks supplanted them.

Short version: you can't use a crappy clock to do a precision measurement.

[IM Egdall]

Yamoritokage, on 8 October 2011 - 03:36 AM, said:

Because the length of the life of atom or particle has nothing to do with the passage of time.

Sure it does. This is demonstrated in particle accelerators all the time. The faster the particles move, the longer they live on average. This is because of time dilation -- time for the particles rus slower than time for the laboratory. So from out point-of-view in the laboratory reference frame, the particles live longer than the same particles at rest.

Fro example, see link: http://www.physlink....perts/ae611.cfm

This post has been edited by IM Egdall: 8 October 2011 - 03:57 PM

[Bart]

IM Egdall, on 8 October 2011 - 03:52 PM, said:

Sure it does. This is demonstrated in particle accelerators all the time. The faster the particles move, the longer they live on average. This is because of time dilation -- time for the particles rus slower than time for the laboratory. So from out point-of-view in the laboratory reference frame, the particles live longer than the same particles at rest.

Fro example, see link: http://www.physlink....perts/ae611.cfm

How does the longer distance traveled by a particle with a specific kinetic energy, is to be evidence of time dilation?
If one egg fall out from the table with a horizontal speed v, and the other egg with speed 2v, the time of life for both eggs before they are broken down, will be the same, despite the fact that the second egg will receive 2 times longer distance.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Sure. But it's not that a particle moving twice as fast is seen to move twice as far before decaying; it's that a particle moving a few percent faster lives very much longer, when it's moving very close to the speed of light.

An example is the cosmic ray muons in the link above. Despite their high speed, the muons should almost all have decayed by the time they reach the Earth's surface. But somehow most of them don't decay.

[Janus]

Bart, on 22 October 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

How does the longer distance traveled by a particle with a specific kinetic energy, is to be evidence of time dilation?
If one egg fall out from the table with a horizontal speed v, and the other egg with speed 2v, the time of life for both eggs before they are broken down, will be the same, despite the fact that the second egg will receive 2 times longer distance.

Muons are unstable particles that decay with within a given half-life by their own clock( 2.2 microseconds). In other words, if you have a bunch of muons sitting on a table in a lab, after 2.2 microseconds, half of them will have decayed into new particles.

Muons are created in the upper atmosphere by cosmic ray collisions. These muons travel at near light speed. If you measure the number of muons at a given altitude, and compare it to the number of muons measured at ground level, you find more muons reach the ground than should according to their half-life.

For example, traveling at c, without time dilation, only half the muons passing a certain point should still exist after traveling a distance of just 0.66 km. After a distance of 1.32 km, only 1/4 should still exist, etc.

What we find instead is many more muons survive the trip, In fact, the number is the same as you would get if the muons decayed at ~1/14 as fast, and this matches the predicted time dilation for the speed they travel.

In your egg falling off a table the equivalent would be to measure how much each egg had gone rotten from the time it left the table to the time it hit the floor. The egg traveling at 2v will be less rotten when it hits the floor than the other. However given the short distance of the fall, this would be hard to measure in real life. Even if 2v was large enough that one egg rotted at 1/14 the rate of the other, you would be talking about comparing eggs in which one rotted a mere fraction of a second less than the other. You would have to drop the eggs from an extreme height to get a measurable difference.

[IM Egdall]

Bart, on 22 October 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

How does the longer distance traveled by a particle with a specific kinetic energy, is to be evidence of time dilation?
If one egg fall out from the table with a horizontal speed v, and the other egg with speed 2v, the time of life for both eggs before they are broken down, will be the same, despite the fact that the second egg will receive 2 times longer distance.

Did you read the link? Like Capt'n said, time dilation has to do with relative speed. A muon has, on average, a certain lifetime before it decays into other particles.

Muons in relative motion have a longer lifetime on average than muons at rest. Why? Because they are moving. Time runs slower for the moving muons, as compared to time at rest.

At CERN, muons traveling at 99.7 percent the speed of lights showed a 12X increase in their lifetime. This as measured by laboratory clocks (laboratory reference frame). The muons last longer because they were moving at 99.7 % c . And Einstein's time dilation formula says this speed produces a slowing of the muon time of 12x. REF: C. M. Will, Was Einstein Right? Putting General Relativity to the Test, p. 255.

This post has been edited by IM Egdall: 22 October 2011 - 05:35 PM

[Bart]

IM Egdall, on 22 October 2011 - 05:34 PM, said:

Did you read the link? Like Capt'n said, time dilation has to do with relative speed. A muon has, on average, a certain lifetime before it decays into other particles.

Muons in relative motion have a longer lifetime on average than muons at rest. Why? Because they are moving. Time runs slower for the moving muons, as compared to time at rest.

At CERN, muons traveling at 99.7 percent the speed of lights showed a 12X increase in their lifetime. This as measured by laboratory clocks (laboratory reference frame). The muons last longer because they were moving at 99.7 % c . And Einstein's time dilation formula says this speed produces a slowing of the muon time of 12x. REF: C. M. Will, Was Einstein Right? Putting General Relativity to the Test, p. 255.

Well, yes. But whether can not appear here also some other, unknown to us reason which so much improves the health of muons during their movement? If in earth's atmosphere, muons are created at an altitude of 60km and reaches 99.98% the speed of light, according to the theory of SR, the average of its lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, should extend to 50 times. Thus, the path length of muons could reach at most 33 km (2.2 x50x300 = 33,000 m). How, therefore, they achieve the level of the oceans and in such big amounts?

At CERN the particles are accelerated to a speed exceeding 99.995% of light, therefore, whether the lifetime of particles should extend at least 120 times?

[Janus]

Bart, on 23 October 2011 - 04:49 PM, said:

Well, yes. But whether can not appear here also some other, unknown to us reason which so much improves the health of muons during their movement?

That gives results that quantifiably match the predictions of Relativity across a wide range of velocities? That seems a lot like grasping at straws.

Quote

If in earth's atmosphere, muons are created at an altitude of 60km and reaches 99.98% the speed of light, according to the theory of SR, the average of its lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, should extend to 50 times. Thus, the path length of muons could reach at most 33 km (2.2 x50x300 = 33,000 m). How, therefore, they achieve the level of the oceans and in such big amounts?

I don't know where you got the 60 km figure from. The majority of muons are created at an altitude of 15 km. But even if we use the 60 km distance, we are talking about half-lives. So after traveling 33 km, half of the muons would be left, after 66 km, 1/4 would be left, etc. Compare this to the nominal half-life of 2.2 us. Half would be gone after only 660 meters, 1/4 would be left after 1.32 km, 1/8 after 1.98 meters. After 60 km, an extremely small number would be left compared to the amount expected with time dilation.

[Bart]

Janus, on 24 October 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

That gives results that quantifiably match the predictions of Relativity across a wide range of velocities? That seems a lot like grasping at straws.

I don't know where you got the 60 km figure from. The majority of muons are created at an altitude of 15 km. But even if we use the 60 km distance, we are talking about half-lives. So after traveling 33 km, half of the muons would be left, after 66 km, 1/4 would be left, etc. Compare this to the nominal half-life of 2.2 us. Half would be gone after only 660 meters, 1/4 would be left after 1.32 km, 1/8 after 1.98 meters. After 60 km, an extremely small number would be left compared to the amount expected with time dilation.

Thanks Janus for your reply. The 60 km I got from the link given at IM Edgall's post, as below:

"Fro example, see link: http://www.physlink....perts/ae611.cfm "

[Myuncle]

Janus, on 7 October 2011 - 11:55 AM, said:

Do you have any idea of how many independent verifications of time dilation have been done, none of which rely on light clocks? Time dilation is real, deal with it.

No matter which clock you are using, even an atomic clock will never be perfect. Time dilation is not real at all, since "time" exists only in our fantasy, but not in reality, deal with it. For centuries we have been taught a wrong definition of time. In science time is defined as "that which gets measured by a clock", it doesn't make sense at all (it would make sense only in a human social way of speaking, but not in a physics context). It would be more precise to define time as a human concept used to keep track of the atoms and subatomic particles movement in their sequence and progression.