Questions for Anti-Relativity crowd

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by thed, Nov 4, 2004.

  1. thed IT Gopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    If Special Relativity is wrong then how do you explain that Maxwell's Equations fail under the Galilean Transform. What other transform equations do you propose to fix this problem?

    If special relativity is wrong then so is general relativity. How then do you explain the anomalous precession of the perihelion of mercury, deviation of light paths due to gravity and gravitational lensing. What of the orbits of twin pulsars. For that matter, what of black holes?

    Given that atomic binding energy was deduced from relativistic energy equations , how do you explain atomic fission without invoking relativity?

    Corollary of previous, how do explain the prediction of the neutrino without invoking relativity?

    How does your idea explain cosmological redshift?

    Please derive Kaluza-Kleins work with your theory.

    To be fair, if people post contrary explanations I want to know why your theory is more preferable to the other. Ideally you should post mathematical derivations and not verbiage.

    If you think your ideas are worthy of investigation by serious researchers (not that people here are not) please post them to news://sci.physics.relativity for analysis. The worthies of that group are very open to new ideas and will gladly assist you. If you need help accessing usenet go to http://groups.google.com and register for an account there. Alternatively use any freely available usenet reader.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. lethe Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,009
    no problem. if SR is wrong, then we use Galilean transformations. Maxwell's equations are not invariant under Galilean transformations, so we conclude that Maxwell's equations are only valid in the rest frame of the medium, which is identical to many other wave equations, like waves in water, on a string, or sound in air.

    the precession of mercury's perihelion is very small, and could therefore be successfully modeled with any model that is very close to Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. MOND-like models, for example.

    Black holes, well, there are Newtonian black holes as well. Why do you need GR to have a black hole? Newtonian black holes are pretty different from GR black holes, but whatever, black holes can't be directly observed anyway, so Newtonian black holes could be OK.

    The Taylor-Hulse orbiting pulsar experiment is tough. It would be very hard to find a model with is compatible with those data. Very tough indeed.



    do you mean nuclear binding energy? the atomic binding energy of Hydrogen (-13.6 eV) can be derived by nonrelativistic quantum mechanics.

    as for nuclear binding energy, since the strong nuclear force obeys equations that can't be solved exactly, and for which perturbation theory fails at low energy, bound states are not well understood, so nuclear binding energy can't be predicted that way.

    the prediction of the neutrino was based on conservation of energy. People looking at beta decays noticed that the beta particles had a variable amount of energy. conservation of energy would seem to require that these particles have a fixed amount of energy, unless there is another particle.

    modification of Newton's gravity maybe? why not?

    Kaluza-Klein theory is GR. I'm playing devil's advocate here, so I think GR is wrong, so of course Kaluza-Klein is wrong too. By the way, there has never been any experimental observation of Kaluza-Klein modes. Ever. So this is not a problem for an anti-relativist.

    in summary, gravity is a very weak force, and consequently measured discrepancies from Newton have been relatively few, relatively weak, and don't constrain my models very strongly.

    the classical verification of Eddington was actually not a verification at all, for example. His measurement was simply not precise enough to disprove Einstein. The Taylor-Hulse experiment is pretty strong, I would like to see an anti-relativist reproduce those results with a nonrelativistic theory of gravity.

    The Gravity Probe B experiment which measured frame dragging is also a big deviation from Newton. To reproduce these results, you would have to somehow couple Newton's gravity to angular momentum.

    Finally, I expect LIGO to measure gravitational waves by next year. This will be the worst blow yet for nonrelativistic gravity theories. But it ain't happened yet.

    But leave gravity out of this. If you want a challenge for the anti-relativist, ask him to reproduce the results of QED. QED is the most accurate theory in the history of science. Some of its predictions are accurate to 20 decimal places, so possible replacement theories are very very strongly constrained. It would knock my pants off to see an anti-relativist reproduce the Lamb shift or anomalous magnetic moment of the electron with a nonrelativistic theory.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    I am not sure that ME's equations fail, or if the use of the equations is misunderstood. For instance,in 1/2mv^2 = E, or m= 2E/v^2, to use the v^2 term as returning a "number" describing the dx/dt 0nly is shortsighted and reflects limited thinking. Consider V^2 a "velocity operator", a physical operator expressing the obvious reality that m is functtionaly constructed from, V, linsear motion and F, frequency of mass motion and considering the operative connection between input of energy rate vis a vis the storage rate of the "accelerating energy" For instance, a measure of accelration affects. As V gets large so does F and the efficiency of the energy flow from field to motion enhancment to storing excess energy that was not processed sufficinetly efficient for all intended acceleration energy to be used as such: some goes into pure mass oscilation. so I would start with scrutiny of system designed to recognize the following:

    v^2 = f(V + F).

    The Mercury orbit was calulated Newtonianly before AE.
    Light paths deviated by gravity was not shown, at least in the 1919 experiments.
    Gravitational lensing is a conslusion of the one who wrote about it. Make the paper available and I will answer more appropriarely.
    What of the orbits?
    Where has here been an unambiguus observation of a single black hole?
    I've never explained atomic binding energy with or without relativity, which may be more a function of selective menmory loss, or I don't remember. If you ae referring to mc^2, this was derived newtonionaly before AE,
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. thed IT Gopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    I forgot about that.

    Granted that atomic binding energies, and others I mentioned, can be derived in the non-relativistic limit or are not strictly about relativity. The original ideas where developed using results derived out of relativity though. My thinking was to make people realise jut how many things (mostly accurately reproduced) rely on relativity in some form or another. If you want to replace relativity you have to rethink a lot of other physics as well.

    Same with gravity, for me. Though Minkowskian spacetime was developed before GR it was the fusion of The equivalence principle with light speed invariance that led to spacetime being dealt with as a Reimannian solution, if I have my history right. So again, if you chuck out SR you have to rethink GR as well. Though there is no direct observation of Black Holes (relativistic or newtonian) there is a lot of very good secondary evidence for them.

    The point about neutrinos was related to a well known anti-relativity theory called Autodynamics. Google this at your own risk and wear a tin foil beanie.

    I have absolutely no idea where I am supposed to have said any of the previous. Only the first sentence was said by me.

    Can I suggest you do a google search on Usenet first then read the usenet archives at http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&group=sci.physics.relativity . The group news://sci.physics.relativity has nothing to do with Journals or Journalists but it is populated by working scientists specialising in Relativity who are used to how you do things and what you are trying to acheive.

    Many of the objections I am reading here have been raised previously on that group. They have also been rebutted very strongly as well.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2004
  8. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Well we had to rethink a lot of physics to get relativity.
    So chuck it then we'll survive with the truth.

    OK I missed that day in the history of science.I recopied my quoye below. I wasn't ascribing any of that to what you said. Iwas taking liberties with the pen. I assumed you were repeating another great find by relativity. Were you messing with myh mind on this one? For what my quote described , whoever claims that as somehthing they did, or even predicted myself I would let anybody take all the credit if thats what they wanted. .


    I was expanding on the theme of that was predicted doesn't seem to be in a very stable state of definition, physical attributes or whatever. If all we got was something definite on the level of that described in the quote then, I would ask where is there a predicition of neutrino;s desscribed by relativity that is more explicit and definite than that alluded to by the quote. If the neutrino was predicted withSR then I would say, "see!" and point my finger. Neutrinos suffer the incomopleteness as most subattomic particles with out a clear shematic of nonlocal activity that is essential to the very existence of he particle.

    What is that supposed to mean anyway? You mean these scientists are trying to bury that disicpline of which they are experts, their livilyhood? I don't think so.

    I think your assumptrion was a bit off the mark. I assume then that these scieinists of which you are asking some kind of interaction or communication be developed are in fact SR theorists?

    I want to to be able to sit in front of a an SR theorist and have her prove a number of simple facts without invoking SR theory when doing so, without echoing the mantra that thousands of experiments prove this and that.
    Your personal summaary or reccolection of what was rebutted strongly didn't include my posts, nor is of there slighest relevance, value or significance. what y

    What is this a court case you are describing. I was under the assumption that hios was a science fiorum . What does "rebutted very stringly as well" have to do with anything? Are you trying to convince me of something right now with that statement? Are you next going to cite jury verdicts proving SR?
     
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    thed,

    I certainly would be considered "anti-relativists". But I hold a slightly different perspective on all this than I'm sure you do.

    It is not my (or any anti-relavitists) obligation to supply an alternate theory which can match much less replace Relativity.

    Relativity has been quite successful and has considerable utility but it is far from having been proven. Granted there is a long list of successes but where you go wrong is to believe that such sucess is to the exclusion of alternative explantions.

    The only obligation of an anti-relativist is to show a falacy in the theory of Relativity, not to replace it with a more correct and comprehensive theory.

    1,000 verifications of Relativity are moot with only one proven falacy.
     
  10. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Great... we can all drop this now as you haven't been doing this at all.

    You're two main attacks are:
    1) when you feel something is counter-intuitive
    2) when you distort what the theory actually says

    Niether of these are actually a falacy, so perhaps you can take it elsewhere.
     
  11. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I'll not respond here to your BS. If you have anything to say of importance you can do it in the thread where I claim to show the falacy.

    Since you have not properly refutted my claim it stands.
     
  12. thed IT Gopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    Indeed, one falsification is all that is required to overthrow, or replace, a theory. Saying that, if a theory has withstood repeated testing the falsifying evidence has to be very strong before it will be listened too.

    Of course, no theory is considered inviolate even if it has been repeatedly tested and found to be good. If then, someone wishes to replace that theory, without good evidence it is wrong, they are obliged to provide a working alternative. No one in science would get away with simply stating a theorem is wrong without providing some alternatives, or at least an explanation for what the new data implies. It is then expected that you do the same.

    From above, the denizens of sci.physics.relativity are typically inundated by people claiming to have found a fatal flaw in Relativity and providing the replacement. They do understand what is expected of them.
     
  13. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I do not accept your claim. If a theory is shown false it is false that instant regardless if there is a replacement theory. That is nonsense. Now a new theory COULD challenge an old theory and COULD perhaps include new data that also shows the old concept false and it correct.

    But data or information can very well falsify the old concept and be completely without a new explanation.

    .
     
  14. thed IT Gopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    You obviously feel very strongly about this. First rule of the game is hold onto ideas weakly.

    Here is how things work in science. If someone falsifies an existing theory they have to perform an experiment to falsify it. That means they have hard data that is irrefutable. The person making finding that data, assuming they understand all the arguments, can now interpret it. In order to realise you have falsified a theory you have to understand all the arguments first. So, you are in the position to explain the new physical data you have uncovered.

    Simply put, the onus is on the claimant to explain why the data falsifies the theory. You are in now in the position to get your name in history by getting something named after you.

    In reality people do misinterpret data and later researchers can re-interpret it. You still get the plaudits though.

    Working the other way around you can propose a new hypothesis to replace a theory. Then you really work hard to show your hypothesis is better at explaining existing data.

    A new hypothesis does not falsify a theory, only experiment does that.

    It would be a complete fool who published without providing a new explanation.

    There is nothing idiotic here, it is to ensure that no one has made a superb blunder. Which happens more often than not.
     
  15. thed IT Gopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    That was badly put. A new hypothesis can extend an existing theory. It is rare for a theory to be totally falsified by a new hypothesis but it is possible. I'm just not aware of any case to date.
     
  16. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I would disagree to the extent that new data would not necessarily be the result of an experiment. It could just be a coincidental discovery. In which case it need not be preceeded by forthought regarding the impication nor be accompanied by a full explanation. Yet the data could completely falsify an old ltheory.
     
  17. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    when gallileo. kepler at al centered the planetary motion around the sun, Ptolemy's system was used extensively for the next 150 years or so. For the purposes it was designed, it worked to the degree of accuracy that was sufficient at the time. Theories tend to be judged by their utility, which in the modern case, as in the ancient case, the relativity industry isn't being very cooperative being led as they are to the theoretical gallows.
     
  18. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    I understand that tou never opened any book in Quantum Field Theory. Because if you would have try to read what physicists do, you would have known that all you have written here is pure nonsense.

    1. All neutrinos like particles are one of the representations of the Poincare group.

    2. All the Lagrangians used in particle physics are relativistic.

    3. All the interaction parts of the Lagrangian (look for example at the standard model Lagrangian) are local.
     
  19. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    1100f, you are more correct than in error, so I wont quibble. I was answering Thed's post (I mispelled his name, Thad for Thed, for which I apologize here) regading the predictions of relativity theory and one of the examples presented was the neutrino. I never said the neutrino didn't exist, I did though, indicate that what is known, or supposedly known, is far fom a definitive and clear. The short paragraph I quoted from was just an indication of what I see as a fairly low level of advancement into the knowledge pool of te structure of the neutrino, which by the fundamntal ;omitations and restrictions of quantum mechanics, we will never get much farther than we are (maybe, when "nonlocal" isn't a dirty 2word anymoe. If I read the paper correctly there was an observation that would require the adjustment of a parameter 9 orders of magnitude for the proposed "correction"..

    Your references to theiory are intresting and they show what physicists do, and you are probably correct, I don't know what they do, not those, but that doesn't mean I am unable to look at some of their product and observe and offer an opinion.

    I did make a rather thorugh searchb of Richard Feynamn's basic physics and I discovered some huge loopholes, which, even though they represent "error" are of the nature of 'enlightening.' , to say the least.

    I will not bias you in the slightest, but here is a research project that should , I say, should, stimulate you in an unfamiliar manner. Reading chapter 5 of Vol. III of Feynman's "Lectures on Physics" scan that with as unbiased and objective of an eye that you are capable of, and see if you can find any "loop holes". The chapter is self contained, and you will need no other references or external assistance. I will say only that the chapter deals with spin-1 particle transition experiments using Stern-Gerlach inhomgeneous magnetic fields segments as the operative medium. You need not review any charatersitics of quantum theory, spin-1 phenomena or theory, everything is there. Take your time but pick the chapter clean. This is the very basic stuff.

    Some are far off the track 1100f. Some beacuse of flawed theory, some because of incomplete theory. Some from analyzing too many of Einstein's train station and passenger train gedankens experiments.

    The standard model is an anethema for me for if the scientific world is limiting its curiosity in any way by the 'standard model", or judges success or failure, or correctness or error, or physics or rumopr, by some "stabndard", the limitation is at the very best, sad. I know I am not going to "stop that" I wouldn't if I could, but I would appreciate it if they would simply use another word other than 'standard'. This is how invariant conservative industries are structured. Is physics, or science an industry?
     
  20. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    I agree with you, you don't know what they do or what they know.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Maybe you should start a new thread about your misunderstandings of quantum mechanics, geistkiesel. Specifically, what errors do you see in Feynman Vol.III, Ch.5?

    (I don't have a copy, but I've read it.)
     
  22. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    I told you James R, I told you a thousand times, don't you dare, ever, never throw me in that briar patch.

    Now look at what you did. Damn!

    Geistkiesel
     
  23. thed IT Gopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    Been meaning to comment on this quote.

    Without the rest of the article to put this into context it seems to refer to the flatness of the Universe, &omega; <sub>0</sub>. That is, the amount of hadronic matter neeed to ensure flatness is 9 times greater than observed. One possibility is the contribution of neutrinos.

    What the article is saying is that you need 10^9 more neutrinos than anti-neutrinos for the neutrino to be cosmologically significant. for this to work it requires the decay of neutrinos (currently unknown) or the decay into neutrinos to be different than currently observed. In other words, the author thinks they are not important. Context is every here.

    This has nothing to do with the accuracy of the measurements of neutrinos. Nor has it anything to do with how neutrinos where first detected.
     

Share This Page