Update to the SR Experimental FAQ page

On Dec 25, 9:43*pm, Uncle Al wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Bill Hobba wrote:

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
TomRobertswrote:

There is now an update the the FAQ page "What is the experimental basis
of Special Relativity?".

There has been a renaissance in tests of Special Relativity (SR), in
part because considerations of quantum gravity imply that SR may well be
violated at appropriate scales (very small distance, very high energy).

All talk, no action. *"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is,
it doesn't matter how smart you are. *If it doesn't agree with
experiment, it's wrong," Richard Feynman.

True. *But when a theory is like relativity, both beautiful and in accord
with experiment (especially GR), it is guaranteed to bring a smile to a
scientists face, as GR does to virtually all exposed to it.

It has been seven years since the last update of this page, and there
are over 60 new experiments, many of which are recent, ingenious, and
improve bounds on violations of local Lorentz invariance by several or
many orders of magnitude.

Lorentz invariance has suffered not a single instance of empirical
falsification. *It holds at all energies at all scales in all venues
observed to date.

The update also includes a larger section on "Experiments Which
Apparently are not Consistent with SR/GR", giving MUCH better reasons
for dismissing many of the results -- in most cases errorbars or
considerations related to them provide a solid and compelling reason for
considering the experiment to be inconclusive or downright wrong.

A list with zero legitimate entries.

"There is a common thread among most of these experiments: the
experimenters make no attempt to measure and quantify the systematic
effects which could affect or mimic the signal they claim to observe."

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
December 27-30 2007, inclusive. *Three days to wait.

Direct assault upon isotropy of space, Lorentz invariance, BRST
invariance, the Equivalence Principle; conservation of angular
momentum, General Relativity, peturbative string theory. *Uncle Al
says, "to criticize is to volunteer."

A perfectly valid experiment whose result will be interesting regardless of
what the outcome is, but probably a LOT more interesting if it violates
standard GR. *The interplay between experiment and theory is the very
essence of science. *I believe it will validate GR - but opinions are like
bums - everyone has one - it does not make it correct.

Today the smart money is on Einstein. *In two days the smart money
will be on the experiment's observation. *Posted odds don't determine
the winner of a horse race. *The finish line camera determines the
winner after the results are Referee-reviewed.

The 10-in-1 mob of Einstein-bashing idiots, given a theory-allowed
challenge to General Relativity reduced to practice, deny their own
perverse obsession. *Einstein is wrong, but not THAT way! *Bashing is
not about challenging content, it is about denying achievement.
Little people elevate themselves by standing upon piles of corpses.
Scientists mount the shoulders of giants to peer further.

They mount but sometimes, when on the top, they see this:

http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=6603
Harvey R. Brown: "Physical Relativity: Space-time Structure from a
Dynamical Perspective"
"According to (what Brown alleges is) the dominant view among
substantivalists, the geometrical structure of Minkowski spacetime
plays some role in explaining why moving rods shrink and why moving
clocks run slow. Brown rejects this view. He asserts, instead, that in
order to explain why moving rods shrink we must appeal to the
dynamical laws governing the forces that hold the parts of the rod
together. The geometry of Minkowski spacetime plays no role in this
explanation.......I'm not sure what Brown thinks about geometrical
answers to the first why-question, but he certainly thinks that
geometrical answers to the second two why-questions are bad
explanations. He thinks that good answers to these questions say
something about the way in which the forces holding the parts of the
rod together depend on velocity of the rod. Only that is a story of
what causes the particles to get closer together, and so what causes
the rod to shrink."

Do you think Master Harvey Brown will prove Divine Albert wrong in the
end? Could length contraction, as Master Harvey Brown understands it,
be RECIPROCAL, as Divine Albert would want it to be? (Note that Master
Harvey Brown would not be happy if you call him an "Einstein-bashing
idiot".)

Pentcho Valev