Replies

This thread is weaving in and out of different topics. I’ll leave all but one alone: the absurd claim that “relativity is a scam.”

I am motivated to write something because I strongly believe in the conservative cause, and I don’t want to see this cause damaged by the appearance of flat earth-type nonsense on Free Republic, which is an embarrassment. We must vote Obama’s enablers in Congress out of office in November, and can use all the support we can get. When nonsense regarding established, entirely non-controversial (frankly, baby level) physics appears uncontested on Free Republic, the job of gaining converts to conservatism is made much more difficult.

No, “relativity” is not a “scam.” Although it is not possible to properly and fully explain this topic in a brief posting in a blog, especially without mathematical equations, there are a few things that can be pointed out. Specific predictions of special relativity are confirmed literally thousands of times every day, and have been for decades, in the form of the vast amount of data from particle accelerators located in the US and in a number of other countries around the world. These are measured data that are in agreement with the predictions of special relativity, and that are not in agreement with the predictions of any other physical theory. These data are produced all the time at places like SLAC, Fermilab, Brookhaven, etc. Special relativity is manifested by a very specific set of mathematical constraints on the forms of the differential equations of motion of the elementary particles (these constraints are collectively referred to as Lorentz invariance, which means that a certain functional of elementary particle fields (a functional is a generalization of a mathematical function) known as the Lagrangian density, transforms covariantly under the application of arbitrary elements of the Lorentz group – equivalently, that the action transforms invariantly. “Covariant” transformation refers to the tensor structure of the elementary particle fields upon which the Lagrangian density depends, which is beyond the scope of this post.). One calculates from the solutions to these equations of motion various physical quantities of interest, such as scattering amplitudes, distributions of energy with respect to time and angle, particle decay widths and many others quantities. In particular, the lifetimes of literally hundreds of identified resonances and particles are calculable, and these predictions of special relativity are all in accord with the measured results (actually, to be technically precise, the data are in accord with the predictions of what is called “quantum field theory,” which is a self-consistent melding together of special relativity and quantum mechanics. The predictions of one quantum field theory in particular, quantum electrodynamics, provide closer agreement with experiment – to many decimal places – than any other physical theory thus far developed.) General relativity is likewise manifested by a very specific set of mathematical constraints, collectively referred to as Poincare invariance. Analogously to Lorentz invariance in special relativity, Poincare invariance means that the underlying Lagrangian density (now including dependence on the gravitational field) transforms in a specified way under application of arbitrary elements of the Poincare group (which contains the Lorentz group as a subgroup, hence the names “special” and “general.”) Over the years literally millions of data points have been accumulated that are in agreement with the predictions of special relativity. There is less data available with which to assess the predictions of general relativity (for practical reasons that are well understood, related to the differences between experimental astronomy and cosmology versus experimental particle physics), but there are a number of experimental confirmations of the predictions of general relativity that are not explained by any physical theory other than general relativity. I will not take the time or space to enumerate these, but I will only mention the famous prediction of the shift of the perihelion of Mercury, which decades ago was the first experimental result found to be in agreement with general relativity (and in disagreement with non-general relativistic gravitational theory). Regarding those confirmations that I am not taking the time to list here, there is MUCH more explanation of the agreement between theoretical predictions of relativity and experimental results provided in a clearly written book (“Was Einstein right?”) by Professor Clifford Will. Cliff wrote this book for a popular audience many years ago in an attempt to fight the spread of flat earth-type nonsense. The contents of that book have been supplemented by much more experimental confirmation since its publication almost 25 years ago.

VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT IN NOVEMBER.