Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Great work in graphing the OP. Here's Post #2 drawn as an overlay of your image:
Thank you!
SR Issue
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
Thank you!
What is the name of that experiment? What value is measured and what value is predicted by classical physics?
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Most would probably say the Michelson-Morley experiment. But all experiments which measure the speed of light in a vacuum agree that the speed of light is always c, regardless of the motion of the source. Classical physics would predict a value of c-v or c+v where v is the speed of the source.
Also, don't forget the list that Trippy gave you. There is a lot more experimental support for relativity than just the speed of light experiments.
Are you sure that prediction is not related to aether theory rather than classical physics?
Can you pick for me the most convincing of those experiments which I should not be able to explain with just classical physics?
Aether theory is classical physics.
My personal favorite wasn't listed: time dilation in GPS satellites.
There is more than one theory of aether, so that doesn't make sense. In any case, is there any of those SR experiments that would not involve aether to make classical prediction?
The list is so extensive... That one occured to me, don't recall why I didn't include it.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Please explain the extended half-lives of muons created by cosmic ray spallation in the earths atmosphere using just classical physics.
That sounds more like QM than SR. Isn't there something simple with photons and clocks like in the OP, but that it does not involve any aether theory for classical prediction?
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Cosmic muons can be explained by the time dilation of moving particles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles
It's not QM, it's SR. Please tell us the classical explanation that you would like us to accept instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles
It's not QM, it's SR. Please tell us the classical explanation that you would like us to accept instead.
That example is layered on multiple presumptions I am not familiar with and I'd rather not investigate now. If there is something simple like this whole thread was about, with photons and clocks, that would be nice, otherwise I can't be bothered. Or how about time dilation in GPS satellites? That seems fairly simple. Can you point some nice link with a description of that GPS experiment?
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
If your goal is to explain a relativistic experiment using only classical physics, you will probably not find very many experiments which suit your needs.
My goal is to explain relativistic experiments using only classical physics despite it supposedly be impossible. I want to see for myself is there actually any need for SR in the first place. Not to prove SR is wrong, but rather unnecessary.
How else do you explain the observed anomalies when near light speeds are obtained and errors are noted when adding velocities and making wrong assumptions re time being absolute.
Was SR necessary?...100% certain it was. Otherwise it would not have come about.
zgmc
Registered Senior Member
Do you think that you are the first to go down that road?
I don't think you know what the term "classical physics" means.
That doesn't make any sense.
So apparently, you don't know anything about Relativity either, but you know you don't like it. This is sad. This should be such an exciting time for you, being first introduced into the new world of science, opening your mind to discovering new things. Instead, you're fighting against learning anything that doesn't fit with the only thing you've ever learned at all. So sad.
Petty assertive argument, again. You are talking about ME, instead of trying to justify your claim.
Please provide reference to your claim that some or all aether theories are part of modern "classical physics".
Stop barking. Here we are, so let's go, bring it on!
Here's a not very comprehensive list:
We could add:
Time dialation in the GPS network.
The behaviour of particles in a paericle accelerator.
I would suggest, however, that if you're as intent on this as you seem to be, that you start with the precession of the orbit of mercury and the measured deviation of starlight passing close to the sun. I recommend these two because they were two of the phenomena observed around the end of the 19th century and 20th beginning of the 20th century that lead to the development and confirmation of relativity in the first place.
You were given a challenge, and so far all you have done is evade it.
Let's do this one. Do you know of some nice reference to that experiment?
Aren't both of those under the jurisdiction of General Relativity rather than Special Relativity? Shouldn't Special Relativity experiments be about photons and clocks, like something this whole thread was about?