Relativity is wrong!?

[StringJunky]

 

ftfy

Ha!

 

ftfy: Fixed That For You.

[imatfaal]

The Linked article has now changed to a withdrawal - albeit a very graceless one.

 

The Article was prompted by a Eureka Alert - here

and a press release here

and the paper here

by the CEO of the Company that put out the press release

 

 

Frankly the abstract reads like many of the threads we get in speculations regarding SR and rooted in the inability of members to believe in the counter-intuitive reality described by Einstein. It relies on an aether - as we have experimental proof that we are neither moving WRTo nor stationary WRTo any aether then a theory based on this had problems

[Phi for All]

!

 

fd

[StringJunky]

...Frankly the abstract reads like many of the threads we get in speculations regarding SR and rooted in the inability of members to believe in the counter-intuitive reality described by Einstein. It relies on an aether - as we have experimental proof that we are neither moving WRTo nor stationary WRTo any aether then a theory based on this had problems

The experiment was performed with the expectation that it did exist as well by the researchers, wasn't it?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Edited March 3, 2016 by StringJunky

[Strange]

The Article was prompted by a Eureka Alert - here

 

I bet they are glad they include their disclaimer:

 

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

[swansont]

From one of imatfaal's links, http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/press/1march2016.asp

"Challenge to the Special Theory of Relativity" authored by Xinhang Shen, President of NAC Geographic Products Inc. has been published on the issue of March 2016 of Physics Essays

 

So, not anyone with a scientific, much less an academic, affiliation. A little checking up should have raised alarms with the people offering this up. A pity they didn't blame themselves when complaining about others.

 

I'm not shelling out $25 to read the article. (That's at least $50 too much)

[StringJunky]

....I'm not shelling out $25 to read the article. (That's at least $50 too much)

My turn to be thick. I don't get it

[Robittybob1]

My turn to be thick. I don't get it

Should we pay to read it or should we be paid to read it, that is the question. $50 is the difference.

[StringJunky]

Should we pay to read it or should we be paid to read it, that is the question. $50 is the difference.

Ta.

[Alisaworm]

No, after read carefully, you will find relativity is right. Great paper and nice question!

[ajb]

Physics Essays does not have a very high IF. Surely if some real contradiction between SR and experiments were found then it would be published in something like Physical Review Letters or something like that. Maybe even Nature.

[Sensei]

You should always mention which relativity: whether it's special relativity or general relativity.

In the article they said about special relativity.

You truncated it to just "relativity".

Special relativity is all the time used while calculating f.e. high energy particles collisions, and decay of unstable isotopes inside of Cloud Chamber, Bubble Chambers, or other particle detectors.

So newly produced particles, daughter isotope, and f.e. electron, positron, proton, neutron, alpha, etc. there is used special relativity to calculate their energies and momentum.

So amount of direct evidence in front of eyes is tremendous.

One could argue 'what is mass', 'what is energy' etc.

But equations from decays agree to 1 per billion precision or so.

 

Special relativity also conserve mass-energy to every "piece",

(f.e. photon energy prior pair-production = electron mass-energy + kinetic energy of electron + positron mass-energy + kinetic energy of positron),

regardless of FoR, while GR and BB do not.

 

Universal time?

Universal time does not disagree with special relativity, when calcs are done with mass-energy.

 

There is no sensible way to determine 'universal time', as there is no reliable reference points (f.e. always immobile) in the Universe.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Sensei

[Lyudmilascience]

is this saying that what was witnessed was really an illusion? and that it was tested at one point in time and had not got retested more to get proven better? i think this is an onion article but i dont understand it that well i reread it and dont understand the terminology. i dont understand what they mean by "Disproving the STR and other related theories of physics " what is STR? I bet if it was really disproven there will be do much more media coverage, and it will be alot more publicized then it is now, there have got to be scientists that looked at this and said this is bogus no need to do research on it.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Lyudmilascience

[swansont]

STR = Special Theory of Relativity

[Xinhang]

← Strange Claims Forum

Science Forums

»

Challenge To The Special Theory Of Relativity

Like This

Some people here may still misunderstand the core of the paper "challenge to the theory of relativity":

 

The problem of STR is originated from the wrong concept that a clock directly measures time. Actually, a clock only records the number of cycles of its oscillator which is the product of time and frequency. The displayed time of a clock is the recorded number of cycles divided by a calibration constant.

 

In Newton's mechanics, both time and frequency are invariants of inertial reference frames, and therefore, the displayed time as the product of time and frequency is also an invariant of inertial reference frames. If we set the calibration constant to be the same as the frequency of the oscillator, the displayed time of a clock becomes time (i.e. the time of classical mechanics, absolute and universal). Thus, a clock measures time in classical mechanics.

 

However, in special relativity, the situation is completely different: the frequency of the clock's oscillator changes with the change of the inertial reference frame and is no longer the calibration constant of the clock, and thus the displayed time of the clock is no longer time (i.e. the time of special relativity). Thus, a clock in special relativity does not measure time (i.e. the time of special relativity).

 

Moreover, in special relativity, the displayed time of a clock as the product of time and frequency is still an invariant of inertial reference frames because the slowdown of the frequency (Transverse Doppler effect) cancels the dilation of time in the product of time and frequency after Lorentz Transformation to make the product unchanged. Therefore, the time of special relativity is no longer the physical time we use in observing physical phenomena measured with clocks (i.e. the displayed time of a clock), and thus special relativity is irrelevant to real physics.

 

You can find the relationship between the time of classical mechanics and the time of special relativity in my paper which clearly tells you that all what special relativity does is just to redefine time and space to produce an artificial constant speed of light. That artificial speed of light is irrelevant to the real speed of light which I have proved still following Newton's velocity addition formula.

[swansont]

 

However, in special relativity, the situation is completely different: the frequency of the clock's oscillator changes with the change of the inertial reference frame and is no longer the calibration constant of the clock, and thus the displayed time of the clock is no longer time (i.e. the time of special relativity). Thus, a clock in special relativity does not measure time (i.e. the time of special relativity).

 

 

The calibration constant is not changed when going to a different frame of reference, which is precisely why the clock output is different. The clock is counting cycles, which is the time.

 

It appears you have a fundamental misunderstanding of clocks.

[Xinhang]

Swansnt, yes, because the calibration constant never changes with the change of inertial reference frame, the display of the clock is always the time of classical mechanics, invariant of lorentz transformation, absolute and universal. That is, a clock never measures the time of special relativity. The time of special relativity is irrelevant to the clock time which is the time we use in real physics observation.

[swansont]

Swansnt, yes, because the calibration constant never changes with the change of inertial reference frame, the display of the clock is always the time of classical mechanics, invariant of lorentz transformation, absolute and universal. That is, a clock never measures the time of special relativity. The time of special relativity is irrelevant to the clock time which is the time we use in real physics observation.

 

 

You have this backwards. Because it is a calibration constant, it displays the time of SR. 9192631770 oscillations of Cs is one second. That is the calibration constant. If the clock is moving, the frequency changes and 9192631770 oscillation won't be one second in the observer's frame. If gamma was two, then it would be half a second.

[Mordred]

The above makes little sense. I'll assume a language translation barrier.

 

Sounds like your comparing proper and coordinate time.

 

However even that doesn't help. As your post reads that we must recalibrate our clock to what you call SR time. Which is simply foolish, simply due to the fact the clock rates change in inertial frames without a recalibration. Which is the point of SR.

 

A good example is muon decay rates. Muons being so short lived, they should never reach the Earths surface. Yet due to time dilation they do.

 

Feel free to post the math in your theory. Though you should have posted your personal model into our Speculations forum.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Mordred

[Xinhang]

 

 

You have this backwards. Because it is a calibration constant, it displays the time of SR. 9192631770 oscillations of Cs is one second. That is the calibration constant. If the clock is moving, the frequency changes and 9192631770 oscillation won't be one second in the observer's frame. If gamma was two, then it would be half a second.

Let us see:

 

clock_time = time x frequency / calibration_constant.

 

If calibration_constant = frequency as in classical mechanics, then

 

clock_time = time x frequency /calibration_constant = time

 

In special relativity, frequency changes with the change of the reference frame, i.e. frequency != calibration_constant, then

 

clock_time = time x frequency / calibration_constant != time

 

Therefore, in special relativity, clock does not measure the time of special relativity which is just an artificial time without real physical meaning.

 

On the other hand, in special relativity, clock_time is still invariant of Lorentz Transformation because the dilation of time (i.e. the time of special relativity) is canceled by the change of frequency (Transverse Doppler Effect) in the product (note: variable with apostrophe is define in the moving frame) :

 

clock_time' = time' x frequency' / calibration_constant

= (gamma x time) x (frequency / gamma) / calibration_constant

= time x frequency / calibration_constant

= clock_time

 

Therefore, no matter in special relativity or in classical mechanics, clock time is always invariant of inertial reference frames, absolute and universal.

[swansont]

Let us see:

 

clock_time = time x frequency / calibration_constant.

 

That's not how a clock measures time. That's how we calculate time.

 

If calibration_constant = frequency as in classical mechanics, then

The calibration constant is not the frequency.

 

clock_time = time x frequency /calibration_constant = time

 

In special relativity, frequency changes with the change of the reference frame, i.e. frequency != calibration_constant, then

 

clock_time = time x frequency / calibration_constant != time

 

Therefore, in special relativity, clock does not measure the time of special relativity which is just an artificial time without real physical meaning.

Since you have two errors in this, the conclusion is not valid.

 

 

On the other hand, in special relativity, clock_time is still invariant of Lorentz Transformation because the dilation of time (i.e. the time of special relativity) is canceled by the change of frequency (Transverse Doppler Effect) in the product (note: variable with apostrophe is define in the moving frame) :

 

clock_time' = time' x frequency' / calibration_constant

= (gamma x time) x (frequency / gamma) / calibration_constant

= time x frequency / calibration_constant

= clock_time

 

Therefore, no matter in special relativity or in classical mechanics, clock time is always invariant of inertial reference frames, absolute and universal.

The time used in that calculation is your own frame's time, which is not affected, since you are at rest. The time of the clock that I see is the accumulated phase that I observe.

 

In the clock's frame, there is no effect, since the frequency is unchanged. At best, all you have done is confirm that in the clock's frame, the time is unchanged. You only see the discrepancy when you compare two different frames.

[Xinhang]

 

 

That's not how a clock measures time. That's how we calculate time.

 

 

The calibration constant is not the frequency.

 

 

Since you have two errors in this, the conclusion is not valid.

 

 

 

The time used in that calculation is your own frame's time, which is not affected, since you are at rest. The time of the clock that I see is the accumulated phase that I observe.

 

In the clock's frame, there is no effect, since the frequency is unchanged. At best, all you have done is confirm that in the clock's frame, the time is unchanged. You only see the discrepancy when you compare two different frames.

No, what I did is how a moving clock is seen on the stationary frame. The moving clock's displayed time is the same observed on both the moving frame and the stationary frame. That is, the moving clock won't show any time dilation. Time dilation is just the property of the time of special relativity, but that time is irrelevant to the clock time.

[swansont]

No, what I did is how a moving clock is seen on the stationary frame. The moving clock's displayed time is the same observed on both the moving frame and the stationary frame. That is, the moving clock won't show any time dilation. Time dilation is just the property of the time of special relativity, but that time is irrelevant to the clock time.

And I'm telling that that's not how the equations are used. You are applying them incorrectly. I get a signal from a clock at some new frequency, but the signal is measured in my frame. My frame's time is not dilated.

 

And all I have to do is count oscillations, which how actual clocks and timekeeping systems work. If I count zero-crossings of the signal, I will get a different result than when I compare to a clock in my own frame. If I beat the signals against each other, I will see they are running at different frequencies. That's a real effect.

 

Clocks display time dilation. It's been observed. Arguing that it doesn't happen is pretty senseless.

[studiot]

 

Clocks display time dilation. It's been observed. Arguing that it doesn't happen is pretty senseless.

 

 

Yup +1

[Strange]

As Galileo might have said: Eppure si rallenta