Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum There isn't any experimental evidence support SR

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!

http://knol.google.com/k/alex-belov/electrostatic-propulsion-system-concept/1xmqm1l0s4ys/15#

The system has a deal with different relativistic mass on opposite directions. Base on Newtons laws, The COM of isolated system should not change it's own position, because mass of the system is constant. However, relativistic mass is changeable. The system center mass will move (not accelerate) into one direction after particles round trip.

I don't know about that Lorentz's theory, but if the same evidence supports both theories then they're probably equivalent and both equally valid. Do they make different predictions about anything?



Yes it does mean that. But sound is different because the speed of the medium relative to an observer also affects the speed of the sound.


If say Michealson-Morley was done with sound, you'd have to place the equipment in a moving stream of air. And you'd find the velocity of sound actually depended on the orientation - and therefore on the speed relative to the medium. So the result would be the opposite to what was found for light.



Movement of a train relative to an observer still leads to variable sound velocity if the medium is also moving relative to the observer. So it's totally different.





Don't you think someone would have noticed that before? How do they claim to know the velocity relative to the source?

HXW, did I miss the Hafele-Keating experiment in your list? I would be interested to have your comments on that.

If several theories can explain the same experiment, can you determine which theory is correct?

The Hafele-Keating experiment and the Ives-Stilwell experiment have proved hat movement results in a time delay.
However, they can not prove special relativity. Because Lorentz's theory can also explain them.

Probably not, but isn't looking for absolute proof in science a bit like chasing the end of a rainbow? If you want to challenge S R, which I would applaud, would you not be better looking for something that disproves it? That way you are not left trying to decide between rival theories.

Determining which theory is correct is almost always done by excluding the others as possibilities. In science you don't prove things, so much as you disprove the alternatives.

But to come back to the OP, I was under the impression that SR was fundamentally unprovable, as it was a simplified (i.e. basically wrong) version of GR. I.E. it requires impossible actions like instantaneous changes in speed. Ergo, you wouldn't expect to see much in the real world that would support SR; instead results should be consistent with GR.

Bryan

I don't know enough about either to argue the point.

However, I'm not sure how SR requires instantaneous changes in speed. SR can only be used when there is no change in velocity. (Otherwise it's not an inertial reference frame and SR does not apply.)

SR is supported by muon decay rates.

SR and GR are used in GPS satellites.
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

"... because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy. "

We seem to have reached a point where we are saying that however much evidence accumulates to support a theory, even if it is as pivotal as SR or GR, you can never be sure if it is true or false until someone proves it wrong; and even then, that proof could be overturned.
Perhaps that's what makes science so fascinating, even for those of us who don't know much about it.

Yes, well, sometimes skepticism is carried overboard by people who don't have the knowledge to justify such skepticism (as an extreme example, the anti-Darwinian evolution rabble). Personally, I'm among those who don't have much knowledge, but I have a pretty good idea about whom it is wise to place one's bets on - and the answer is not some semi-educated nitwit (no reference to anyone here, mind you). In physics, we are evidently drawing steadily closer to describing reality. We may never achieve complete understanding. That might be impossible. But in his field, Newton was pretty near the mark. Einstein has been proven even nearer the mark. Okay, there's no doubt a way to go yet, but probably not so you'd notice in your daily life.

Not exactly. Eventually the data in support for a theory becomes overwhelming, while all reasonable alternatives are systematically eliminated. At this point, while there is still a minute degree of uncertainty, it is reasonable to treat the theory as being absolutely correct.

Bryan

No problem with that.

To come back to HXW's original assertion: "There isn’t any experimental evidence to support special relativity!" I would say that this is completely untrue, but if he had substituted "prove" for "support", we would have had to accept, however grudgingly, that he was right.

It depends on what you mean by "sure." In the falsificationism paradigm, we are never absolutely certain of facts, laws, or theories. However, there we can be so sure of something that withholding provisional assent is requires a pathological personality.

This is the case with evolution, for example. A well supported theory is one that implies consequences (predictions) which are not contradicted by observation. Is the theory of evolution absolutely true? In a strictly logical sense (which is why we use falsificationism in the first place), no.

However, it was pointed out and I agree that if the theory of evolution were disproved tomorrow, it would be replaced by a new theory that would also be called "the theory of evolution."

SR and GR, I think, have held up pretty well. Are they absolutely true? Again, no. But we would need a serious problem to show up, before rejecting them, or something that would explain the results at least as well.

I distinguish skepticism from denialism. Not the same things. Skepticism is always justified. However, it often happens that people let their religious or political preconceptions determine what science they are willing to accept. A very low bar is established in their minds for "evidence" which is agreeable, and a completely unobtainable bar is set for evidence they just refuse to accept. Often this is justified with some comic book conception of how they think science is supposed to work. Regardless of the justification, the denialist will invariably bring up poorly sourced or unsourced, unverified factoids that simply MUST BE EXPLAINED; meanwhile, they dismiss peer-reviewed papers outright.

Of course there is a very simple solution for this dilemma. We simply pass a law requiring all these so-called "scientists," before submitting their papers for publication, to send copies FIRST to various committees for approval.

For example, require them to get imprimatur from the Vatican and from various Baptist seminaries that it does not contradict the holy scriptures; from Harun Yahya that it's fine with the Quran. Send it to some Worker's party somewhere to make sure it doesn't conflict with Marx, and to the Cato Institute to make sure it's entirely consistent with Ayn Rand. All we need are experts to consult about agreement with tea leaves, Ouija boards, and chicken guts. That would be round one of approvals.

If they get that far, we make 'em send those papers to American Petroleum Institute, various pharmaceutical companies, Haliburten, BP, Koch Industries, etc. to make sure the alleged "science" won't hurt their business plans.

That would fix everything.

Only to the extent that we would make the same claim about every other aspect of science. "Proof" is generally reserved for logic and mathematics. However, if we mean proof in some vague legal sense - "beyond a reasonable doubt" - then many things in science have been established beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm sorry for I rarely reply.
My English is poor. With the help of http://translate.google I read your reply and reply to you.
So I understand your words and reply to you difficulty. I can not respond one by one, Please forgive me.
"Prove" consistent with what I mean more than "support" .

HXW, I have great admiration for your efforts. Some of us find it hard enough to say what we want to say in our own native language

Dear Bill,
Thank you very much for your understanding and encouragement!