Lorentz factor as a source of infinities/singularities in the relativity theory?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Ultron, Sep 21, 2021.

  1. Ultron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    243
    You have spent some time and effort with some nice example, but I have never written, that because the measurement of neutrino gives c, that is means that Lorentz factor equation or relativity is wrong. I have speculated that there is maybe some other, better equation, which could give c for neutrino. And because of the margin of error, my speculation cannot be ruled out either. It does not rule it in, or in other word it is not a confirmation of my speculation, but it simply can not be ruled out based on measurement. Theoretically in future there could be some measurement where the theoretical speed difference is clearly above the margin of error, but we have no such measurement as of today.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2021
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ultron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    243
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,481
    To within the margin of error of our detectors.

    All that tells us is that the max speed for neutrinos is closer to c than we can currently detect.

    The expected value for neutrinos is very close to - but still less than - c, and our data is perfectly consistent with that.

    And that article explain why we are only detecting neutrinos moving at such high speeds:

    "In theory, because neutrinos have a non-zero rest mass, it should be possible for them to slow down to non-relativistic speeds. ...

    But experimentally, we simply don’t have the capabilities to detect these slow-moving neutrinos directly. Their cross-section is literally millions of times too small to have a chance at seeing them, as these tiny energies wouldn’t produce recoils noticeable by our current equipment. Unless we could accelerate a modern neutrino detector to speeds extremely close to the speed of light, these low-energy neutrinos, the only ones that should exist at non-relativistic speeds, will remain undetectable."




    Our current models match the data and remain perfectly serviceable.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2021
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ultron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    243
    That is simply ridiculous statement after decades of failed search for dark matter, quantum gravity and for explanation of dark energy. Billions have been spent without any result. There is a broad agreement that GRT is an incomplete theory. And my personal opinion is that it is not only incomplete, but it is also partially wrong, so Im trying to develop something better.

    Bonus videos from Sabine:



     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,481
    Kind of throwing out the baby with the bathwater there. If we still have open questions, that means we throw everything away and start again?

    Your use of the word "failed" seems to completely miss the nature of scientific research.

    It's universally agreed upon that it's an incomplete description of nature. It's not intended to be complete. It describes very well what it is meant to describe.*
    That has nothing to do with being wrong.

    * In fact, it is one of the most tested theories in all science, and it has passed with flying colours every time.


    Don't you think that might require at least a completed high school education in math, if not maybe a smidge of post-secondary math?

    I mean, I want to overhaul the criminal justice system of the world, but I never studied it in school and know naught but the most basic aspects of it - not to mention that there are huge gaps in my knowledge. How do you think I'll do? Think maybe a course in Criminal Law might be a wiser place to start?
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2021

Share This Page