[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 18, Issue 1

[carmam at tiscali.co.uk]

Carl, I have read your attachment and follow ups, and must disagree with you on an important point. You assert that Einstein did not say (or imply) that these effects were real. I have read his book "Relativity The Special And The General Theory" (many times, and again just now to verify (or not) your assertion). Nowhere in his book does he say that these effects are illusory or are not real. It was not until 1921 at the Prussian Academy of Sciences that he backtracked.Here is a quote from part of that speech : -  "Sub specie aeterni Poincare, in my opinion, is right. The idea
of the measuring-rod and the idea of the clock coordinated with
it in the theory of relativity do not find their exact correspondence
in the real world. It is also clear that the solid body and
the clock do not in the conceptual edifice of physics play the
part of irreducible elements, but that of composite structures,
which must not play any independent part in theoretical 
I
I
GEOMETRY AND EXPERIENCE 237
physics. But it is my conviction that in the present stage of
development of theoretical physics these concepts must still be
employed as independent concepts; for we are still far from
possessing such certain knowledge of the theoretical principles
of atomic structure as to be able to construct solid bodies and
clocks theoretically from elementary concepts."The article is here :- https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/2590_Einstein_2015/pdfs/Einstein_Geometry_Experience.pdf

If, in 1921, Einstein changed his mind and said that Poincare was right, then before that time he must have thought Poincare  was wrong, and therefore the idea of the measuring-rod and the idea of the clock coordinated with it in the theory of relativity DID find their exact correspondence in the real world.
About the muon experiment. Has it occurred to you that the very premise of the experiment was flawed? The speed of the muons was calculated (not measured) by using the Bethe formula for speed. A summary of the Bethe formula is here : -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethe_formula

Notice there are two versions: a non-relativistic one for low velocities (eqn. 2), and a relativistic one for high velocities (eqn. 1).  The relativistic one contains the Lorentz Transform.
So which equation do you think they use?  If you are a believer in relativity you will use the relativistic equation, correct?  Otherwise you will get a result that is inconsistent with relativity, and therefore not considered a proper test of relativity.
But by using the relativistic energy equation you get different results for v.  And you guarantee v<c.  Whereas using the classical equation can give v>c, especially for high-energy situations.  But this possibility is immediately rejected because everyone “knows” it’s not possible.  In fact, it is usually not even considered.
So the experiments for muon decay unknowingly end up with the sqrt(1-v2/c2) function built into the outcome.  And thus, no surprise, “confirms” the function to be true!The last paragraph is a quote from http://alternativephysics.org/book/MuonRelativity.htmTom Hollings. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181029/76c84d92/attachment.html>