Mmx Is A False Positive For Special Relativity

[Erasmus00]

Your logic is true only if the standard model is an accurate description of matter. Does the electron have a field, yes one that the sm cannot explain. It has mass which it cannot explain.

 

You miss the point. My point is that, in certain cases, the Larmor radiation formula (and all of classical electrodynamics) makes incorrect predictions. Experiments indicate that electrodynamics is incomplete.

 

Specifically, electrodynamics does not predict the observed properties of photons. This is not a defense of the standard model, rather its pointing out that classical electrodynamics is not the whole story.

 

Isn't it even slightly possible that the collision particles produced in accelerators are temporary distortions of the electron proton fields that exist in every cubic millimeter of space.?

 

Maybe its possible- physicists like Barut and Chew spent time working on various approaches along the lines of what you are suggesting. Unfortunately, no one has ever been able to make these models work. There are technical reasons to believe (Weinberg discusses them in volume 1 of his field theory book) that they are ultimately unworkable, but there is no "proof" that these approaches might not work.

 

The standard model, on the other hand, WORKS, it correctly predicts all observed phenomena in particle accelerators. This means that any model that correctly matches reality must be mathematically equivalent to the standard model, at least in the regions we have measured so far.

[Little Bang]

Your points are very good valid points. I do not see any condition where Lamor radiation will not occur. If a charged particle is accelerated with respect to a stationary observer the observer will detect radiation but, as I have stated in the thread on photon creation, I am certain that an observer accelerated along with the charged particle will not detect radiation. Any idea beyond the standard model must be able to explain the why of discrete energy levels of electrons. I am entertaining the idea that it may be some type of harmonic frequency between the electron and proton.

[jakuta]

You miss the point. My point is that, in certain cases, the Larmor radiation formula (and all of classical electrodynamics) makes incorrect predictions. Experiments indicate that electrodynamics is incomplete.

 

Specifically, electrodynamics does not predict the observed properties of photons. This is not a defense of the standard model, rather its pointing out that classical electrodynamics is not the whole story.

 

 

 

Maybe its possible- physicists like Barut and Chew spent time working on various approaches along the lines of what you are suggesting. Unfortunately, no one has ever been able to make these models work. There are technical reasons to believe (Weinberg discusses them in volume 1 of his field theory book) that they are ultimately unworkable, but there is no "proof" that these approaches might not work.

 

The standard model, on the other hand, WORKS, it correctly predicts all observed phenomena in particle accelerators. This means that any model that correctly matches reality must be mathematically equivalent to the standard model, at least in the regions we have measured so far.

 

I am not sure you can say this.

 

The OP demonstrates MMX is not null. It is just the equipment is not sufficiently accurate. GPS validates the earth's rotational sagnac exists but this does not show up in MMX. Upon further inspection, it is false to conclude MMX is null.

 

 

 

Hence, SR is not validated with MMX.

 

 

 

It may be the case the standard model is sufficient for the accuracy of the experiments being performed just like MMX.

Just look at Tom Roberts website. This is how the mainstream thinks. MMX is absolute proof of SR.

 

 

 

 

 

[Qfwfq]

It may be the case the standard model is sufficient for the accuracy of the experiments being performed just like MMX.

Uhm, that's kinda cart before the horse, the standard model is bsed on relativistic quantum field theory; it isn't necessary for SR.

 

Experiments with cathode rays or other particles at increasingly high energy, Coulomb scattering and whatnot that can be accurately described in classical terms, it all matches up with Minkowskian dynamics. So do the half-lives of unstable things when brought to high velocity. This also goes for cosmic ray muons; their average duratoin can be checked once they are captured (first done by Conversi, Pacini and Piccioni in the '40s) and the flux density can be compared at different altitudes. Plenty of stuff, well before the standard model.

 

Just look at Tom Roberts website. This is how the mainstream thinks. MMX is absolute proof of SR.

Not quite. They were trying plenty of different approaches before 1905 and they certainly sought further support to what was already apparent. In retrospect, with Minkowski's formulation of it, its basic Ansatz is c being a scalar, which is a stronger proposition than the nude result of MM; one can say it is the best interpretation ever found of the MM results but they certainly weren't so automatically taken as proof of it. If you have this impression, it is because today it is all too easy for divulgators to make it seem so.

[jakuta]

Uhm, that's kinda cart before the horse, the standard model is bsed on relativistic quantum field theory; it isn't necessary for SR.

 

Experiments with cathode rays or other particles at increasingly high energy, Coulomb scattering and whatnot that can be accurately described in classical terms, it all matches up with Minkowskian dynamics. So do the half-lives of unstable things when brought to high velocity. This also goes for cosmic ray muons; their average duratoin can be checked once they are captured (first done by Conversi, Pacini and Piccioni in the '40s) and the flux density can be compared at different altitudes. Plenty of stuff, well before the standard model.

 

Not quite. They were trying plenty of different approaches before 1905 and they certainly sought further support to what was already apparent. In retrospect, with Minkowski's formulation of it, its basic Ansatz is c being a scalar, which is a stronger proposition than the nude result of MM; one can say it is the best interpretation ever found of the MM results but they certainly weren't so automatically taken as proof of it. If you have this impression, it is because today it is all too easy for divulgators to make it seem so.

 

 

 

Yes, but math and the GPS sagnac proves MMX is not null.

 

A non-null MMX disproves SR since SR requires a null MMX to be validated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Qfwfq]

math and the GPS sagnac proves MMX is not null.

How that now?

 

I really don't see how the Sagnac effect disproves the Minkowskian description of dynamics.

[jakuta]

How that now?

 

I really don't see how the Sagnac effect disproves the Minkowskian description of dynamics.

 

No, what is shown in the OP is that MMX which has been used to prove lorentz invariance is in fact mathematically a false positive.

 

All I am saying is that if MMX is supposed to prove SR, as has been the case, and MMX is noy actually null, then SR has one choice to remain valid and that is to claim the earth is not an inertial frame as you are contending indirectly above since in the moving sagnac frame, a sagnac speed of light adjustment is measured which violates lorentz invariance.

 

But, if the earth is not an inertial frame and therefore, a non-null MMX does not refute SR because the earth is not an inertial frame, then all experiments done with respect to the earth that claim to support SR are also invalid for the same reasoning.

 

This leave SR without an experimental basis.

 

To prove the Minkowsky space-time is invalid, you mist prove one light beam does not measure c in two different frames or you must prove be an internal contradiction in the postulates of SR.