|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Faster-than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity
On Oct 16, 7:10 am, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity: SolomonW wrote: Sounds plausible and if so Einstein not wrong. http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/ That article is wrong. The author obviously does not understand how the GPS actually works. The satellites are NOT moving "West to East in a plane inclined at 55 degrees to the equator" -- SOME of them may well do so, but there are three different orbits, and two others are at quite different inclinations. Moreover, the clocks are all synchronized in the ECI frame the GPS uses, which is not rotating, and in which the center of the earth is at rest. That is, each satellite's clock displays the coordinate time of the ECI frame at its current location -- all effects due to the satellites' altitude and motion relative to the ECI are fully accounted for. Moreover, the presence of the atomic clocks at the two locations are used to reduce systematic errors, but they are synchronized via the GPS, so it is the GPS synchronization that matters. That is known to be accurate to 2-3 ns (with a suitable integration time, which they have). The OPERA result of superluminal neutrinos will be extremely interesting, IF IT HOLDS UP. At present, many/most physics do not believe it will hold up. But then, I have not seen any plausible description of an error.... Tom Roberts Bravo, Honest Roberts! But you still believe, don't you, that the Michelslon-Morley experiment, helped by the absurd "length contraction" hypothesis advanced by Fitzgerald and Lorentz, correctly promoted the acceptance of Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity instead of promoting the resurrection of Newton's (Ritz's) emission theory of light: http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/...periments.html Tom Roberts: "The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was intended to measure the velocity of the Earth relative to the lumeniferous ether which was at the time presumed to carry electromagnetic phenomena. The failure of it and the other early experiments to actually observe the Earth's motion through the ether became significant in promoting the acceptance of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, as it was appreciated from early on that Einstein's approach (via symmetry) was more elegant and parsimonious of assumptions than were other approaches (e.g. those of Maxwell, Hertz, Stokes, Fresnel, Lorentz, Ritz, and Abraham)." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768 "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CERN's faster-than-light neutrino report | Thad Floryan | Amateur Astronomy | 17 | October 1st 11 08:13 AM |
WHY THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | September 9th 08 06:45 PM |
Pentcho Valev and the constancy of the speed of light in special relativity | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 10 | July 31st 07 07:32 PM |
SPECIAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT THE LIGHT POSTULATE | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 9 | June 25th 07 12:44 PM |
Light Speed Test versus Special Relativity | Stan Byers | Astronomy Misc | 35 | April 4th 05 01:43 PM |