There isn’t any experimental evidence to support special relativity!

[Xinwei Huang]

There isn’t any experimental evidence to support special relativity!

 

It’s said that special relativity can be used to interpret phenomena such as mass increase of high-energy electron, life-time dilation of high-energy meson and so on, so it’s assumed as the experimental evidence to support special relativity in the field of physics. However, Lorentz’s theory can also be used to interpret these phenomena which will be considered as the experimental evidence to support Lorentz’s theory in the field of physics if there is no special relativity. For example, in 1938 Ives and Stilwell first detailed spectral measurement of the hydrogen atom and proved that movement results in a time delay, which is assumed as the experimental evidence to support special relativity. But Ives fought against special relativity throughout his life, and repeatedly emphasized that the purpose of this experiment is not to test special relativity while the same equation can be obtained using Lorentz’s theory. He used Lorentz’s theory and his experimental results prove the correctness of this theory. Therefore, these experiments can’t be assumed as the experimental evidence to support special relativity. If someone must believe these phenomena can prove special relativity, then Ptolemy’s followers also say that the earth is the center of the universe because the sun rise in the east and set in the west every day.

What experiment can serve as the experimental evidence to support special relativity? Only these experiments that are able to prove the two hypotheses of special relativity, one of which is the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity, can serve as its experimental evidence.

What does the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity mean?

Does it mean the velocities of light in all directions in one media are the same? No, it doesn’t. If it did then the velocities of sound in all directions in one media are also the same, so we can make hypothesis of constancy of sound velocity.

Does it mean the movement of source does not affect the velocity of light? No, it doesn’t. If it did then the movement of source does not affect the velocity of sound, so we can make hypothesis of constancy of sound velocity.

What does it exactly mean? It exactly means that the velocity of light is constant when we observe the same beam of light in vacuum in different inertial frames.

However, is there any experimental evidence to support this hypothesis?

Let us analyze the so-called experimental evidences proving the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity.

1) Closed optical path experiments (including Michelson-Morley experiment, Essen’s experiment, Jaseja’s experiment, Silvertooth’s experiment, Trimmer’s experiment, Kennedy-Thorndike experiment, etc.) and unidirectional optical experiments (including Cedarholm’s two masers experiment, Champeney’s Mössbauer effect experiment, Cialdea’s two lasers experiment). They show that the velocity of light is isotropic on the Earth’s surface.

Can these experiments prove the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity? If they could, then the velocity of sound is isotropic on the Earth’s surface and the hypothesis of constancy of sound velocity is true too!

2) Moving light source experiments, including the double star observation, Majorana’s rotating mercury lamp experiment, Michelson’s rotating mirror experiment, Kantor’s rotating glass experiment, Luckey-Weil γ-radiation experiment, Sadeh’s positron-electron annihilation experiment, Fillippas-Fox π-meson decay experiment, etc. They show that the movement of light source does not affect the velocity of light.

Can these experiments prove the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity? If they could, then the movements of train, plane and bullet do not affect the velocities of their sound and the hypothesis of constancy of sound velocity is true too!

Many people believe that Luckey-Weil γ-radiation experiment, Sadeh’s positron-electron annihilation experiment and Fillippas-Fox π-meson decay experiment can prove the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity. They think that velocity of movement of light source is v and the velocity of the light from the source is c relative to light source, while the velocity of the γ photon measured in the ground reference frame is c but not c + v, which proves the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity.

In this regard I want to ask how do you know that the velocity of theγ photon given out form microscopic particle is c relative to the source. Have you measured it? You can only guess it. But what is the basis of this guess? It remains the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity. They consider the proposition need to prove as the basis, which is a logical error.

Have the velocities of the sound given out from high-speed train, plane and bullet been 330 m/s relative to the source? Of course, it’s not! Therefore, how can you identify that the velocity of the γ photon given out form microscopic particle is 30 million km/s relative to the source?

Moreover, these experiments can be explained with the ether theory and can be considered as the experimental evidence to support this theory!

Please note: The velocity of the same beam of light in vacuum wasn’t tested in different inertial frames in all experiment above!

The all experiments above were carried out on ground which is an approximate inertial frame, while the observer doesn’t position in another inertial frame which is moving relative to the ground to examine whether the velocity of light is c or not.

Can these experiment carried out in only one inertial frame prove the same results will be in different inertial frames?

According to the analysis above, we can conclude that there isn’t any experimental evidence to prove the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity and there isn’t any experimental evidence to support special relativity!

[ajb]

Have a look at Modern Tests of Lorentz Invariance, David Mattingly, Living Rev. Relativity, 8, (2005), 5.

 

There are many direct and indirect test of special relativity. To date no violation has been found.

[Bob_for_short]

There isn’t any experimental evidence to support special relativity!

 

Then you are unaware of the history of SR. It was a theoretical development by Lorentz, Poincaré, Einstein, Minkowski, etc., to describe the experimental data available at that moment. Read H. Poincaré who wrote articles and books, as well as gave presentations on this development and finally derived everything in his paper.

[John Cuthber]

I always thought that the Mossbauer experiment was a particularly neat demonstration of SR.

Saying (of it and others) "They show that the velocity of light is isotropic on the Earth’s surface." seems rather odd, since it actually directly shows the energy shift of a photon that travels uphill, rather than down. The speed of light may be the same, but the change in energy is perfectly measurable.

[swansont]

I always thought that the Mossbauer experiment was a particularly neat demonstration of SR.

Saying (of it and others) "They show that the velocity of light is isotropic on the Earth’s surface." seems rather odd, since it actually directly shows the energy shift of a photon that travels uphill, rather than down. The speed of light may be the same, but the change in energy is perfectly measurable.

 

 

I think you're thinking of the Pound-Rebka (and later Pound-Snider) experiment, which was a demonstration of GR. The Champeney experiment was for a source/detector on a rotor, at different radii, so it was a rotating coordinate system. The time dilation is v^2/2c^2, which you can get either by viewing it as a potential, and doing a GR-like analysis, or looking at the kinematic dilation of SR. (They all used Mössbauer spectroscopy of Fe-57)

 

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/1426

 

The bald assertion that these experiments (and myriad others) do not support relativity is laughable. A Google search will show that the user has been spamming the internets with this post today.

[John Cuthber]

Oops!

You are right, I had the wrong variety of relativity.

 

(I's still a cool experiment)

As a pointless pedantic point just to try to look like I wasn't totally wrong.

If GR works, doesn't that prove that SR must work as a special case?

[D H]

There isn't any experimental evidence to support special relativity!

Balderdash.

 

 

It's said that special relativity can be used to interpret phenomena such as mass increase of high-energy electron, life-time dilation of high-energy meson and so on, so it's assumed as the experimental evidence to support special relativity in the field of physics. However, Lorentz's theory can also be used to interpret these phenomena ...

Yes, Lorentz ether theory is experimentally indistinguishable from special relativity. So what?

 

Lorentz ether theory is a dead-end proposal. The axioms of Lorentz ether theory are ad hoc and downright ugly. Compare that to the two very simple axioms of special relativity. Those ad hoc axioms of Lorentz ether theory means there is no going forward with this theory. Compare that to special relativity. It leads to general relativity, with special relativity falling out as a special case. Lorentz ether theory does not fall out of general relativity as a special case. The axioms of Lorentz ether theory are just too ad hoc and brittle for that to be the case.

 

Finally, Lorentz ether theory, unlike relativity, is not a physical theory. One of the axioms of Lorentz ether theory postulates the existence of an absolute reference. The theory falls apart without this absolute frame. However, the theory adds the caveat that this absolute reference frame can never be detected, that length contraction and time dilation hides its existence from any experiment designed to detect it. That axiom is unfalsifiable, and that makes Lorentz ether theory a nonscientific theory.

Edited October 21, 2010 by D H

[Xinwei Huang]

Have a look at Modern Tests of Lorentz Invariance, David Mattingly, Living Rev. Relativity, 8, (2005), 5.

 

There are many direct and indirect test of special relativity. To date no violation has been found.

 

 

Most people think there is no experiment against the special theory of relativity. This is because most people do not in-depth analyze these experiments.

If we carefully analyze the current experiments, we will find there isn’t any experimental evidence to support special relativity! Instead, there are some experiments against special relativity.

Please see "Can the Principle of Constant Light Speed be Proved by the Michelson-Morley Experiment?" http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/46855-can-the-principle-of-constant-light-speed-be-proved-by-the-mmx/

 

I always thought that the Mossbauer experiment was a particularly neat demonstration of SR.

Saying (of it and others) "They show that the velocity of light is isotropic on the Earth’s surface." seems rather odd, since it actually directly shows the energy shift of a photon that travels uphill, rather than down. The speed of light may be the same, but the change in energy is perfectly measurable.

 

 

The Mossbauer experiment is not reliable.

The fiber gyroscope can detect the Earth's rotation rate, and the experiment of two-way time transfer between east and west tell us that observations from the Earth's surface, the speed of light in different directions are different.

 

Balderdash.

 

 

Yes, Lorentz ether theory is experimentally indistinguishable from special relativity. So what?

 

Lorentz ether theory is a dead-end proposal. The axioms of Lorentz ether theory are ad hoc and downright ugly. Compare that to the two very simple axioms of special relativity. Those ad hoc axioms of Lorentz ether theory means there is no going forward with this theory. Compare that to special relativity. It leads to general relativity, with special relativity falling out as a special case. Lorentz ether theory does not fall out of general relativity as a special case. The axioms of Lorentz ether theory are just too ad hoc and brittle for that to be the case.

 

 

I do not agree with Lorentz ether theory. It is also flawed. Truth is still very far away from us.

[uncool]

1) Closed optical path experiments (including Michelson-Morley experiment, Essen’s experiment, Jaseja’s experiment, Silvertooth’s experiment, Trimmer’s experiment, Kennedy-Thorndike experiment, etc.) and unidirectional optical experiments (including Cedarholm’s two masers experiment, Champeney’s Mössbauer effect experiment, Cialdea’s two lasers experiment). They show that the velocity of light is isotropic on the Earth’s surface.

Can these experiments prove the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity? If they could, then the velocity of sound is isotropic on the Earth’s surface and the hypothesis of constancy of sound velocity is true too!

2) Moving light source experiments, including the double star observation, Majorana’s rotating mercury lamp experiment, Michelson’s rotating mirror experiment, Kantor’s rotating glass experiment, Luckey-Weil γ-radiation experiment, Sadeh’s positron-electron annihilation experiment, Fillippas-Fox π-meson decay experiment, etc. They show that the movement of light source does not affect the velocity of light.

Can these experiments prove the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity? If they could, then the movements of train, plane and bullet do not affect the velocities of their sound and the hypothesis of constancy of sound velocity is true too!

 

Err. What?

 

The experiments were specifically done using light. When those experiments are performed using sound waves instead of light waves, you do not get equality.

=Uncool-

Edited October 27, 2010 by uncool

[John Cuthber]

"The Mossbauer experiment is not reliable."

Yes it is.

do you have any evidence to contradict it or are you just trolling?

[swansont]

Most people think there is no experiment against the special theory of relativity. This is because most people do not in-depth analyze these experiments.

If we carefully analyze the current experiments, we will find there isn’t any experimental evidence to support special relativity! Instead, there are some experiments against special relativity.

Please see "Can the Principle of Constant Light Speed be Proved by the Michelson-Morley Experiment?" http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/46855-can-the-principle-of-constant-light-speed-be-proved-by-the-mmx/

 

 

One needs to actually present a careful analysis, which you have not done (here or in the other thread).

[Xinwei Huang]

Most people do not have the insight of Copernicus and Galileo so they can not find special theory of relativity is wrong.

 

This is a fable that reflects the history of scientific development.

 

Biologist Robert found a fly lying on the table. He coughed so the fly were scared to fly. Later, he caught the fly and cut off its wings and placed it on the table. He coughed again but the fly did not fly away. So he concluded that fly heared sounds depend on it's wings, and the wings of fly is equivalent to person's eardrum.

Smith, another biologist was against this interpretation. He believes that fly should also hear sounds depend on it's ear. However, he could not point out where is the ear of fly. He also could not explain why fly without wings did not respond on sounds.

Other biologists repeated the Robert's experiment at different times, different places, different environments with different sounds such as cough sound, alarm sound, explosion sound. They found the same results as Robert. So they agreed that many experiments show that fly heared sounds by it's wings, and the theory that all animals heared sounds depend on ear was wrong. They also believed that Robert changed the biology, he was the greatest biologist in human history.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Xinwei Huang

[ajb]

Most people think there is no experiment against the special theory of relativity. This is because most people do not in-depth analyze these experiments.

If we carefully analyze the current experiments, we will find there isn’t any experimental evidence to support special relativity! Instead, there are some experiments against special relativity.

Please see "Can the Principle of Constant Light Speed be Proved by the Michelson-Morley Experiment?" http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/46855-can-the-principle-of-constant-light-speed-be-proved-by-the-mmx/

 

Modern test of special relativity look for Lorentz and/or CPT violation. The main motivation is to get hints on quantum gravity.

 

To date there is no generally accepted, repeatable, consistent results that disagree with special relativity within the domain of applicability of the theory. My understanding is that the few experiments that suggest something is wrong are themselves flawed.

 

Either way you should now present the analysis for scrutiny.

[Bignose]

Later, he caught the fly and cut off its wings and placed it on the table. He coughed again but the fly did not fly away.

 

If there is any truth to this story, this is the Worst Scientist Ever. No **** the fly didn't fly away --- it had no ****ing wings!

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Xinwei Huang, I will reiterate my call for the presentation of a careful analysis in support of your claim, and invite you to (re)read the speculation forum rules, linked near the top of the page.