21 Mar, 09:16AM in sunny Singapore!
Home Chit Chat

Blatant Dishonesty In Academia To Promote Einstein's Special

Subscribe to Blatant Dishonesty In Academia To Promote Einstein's Special 11 posts

Please Login or Signup to reply.
  • Chanrasjid's Avatar
    17 posts since May '16
    • Blatant Dishonesty In Academia To Promote Einstein's Special Relativity.

      Special relativity was proposed by Einstein in his 1905 paper. There were experiments by Kaufmann (1901) and Bucherer (1908) that proved that mass varies with velocity consistent with special relativity; this means a dismissal of Newton's classical mechanics. These original experiments are rather difficult to replicate and so the undergraduates of today have been introduced to various simpler modern setups  to demonstrate  special relativity experimentally. This paper would just comment on one such proposed experimental demonstration.  This specific example shows that the physics department involved are acting with blatant dishonesty - the experiment is a fraud propagated on unsuspecting undergraduates (more preoccupied with passing their exams and getting their degree) who may not have much time to reflect on what they have been told in their lectures and in the laboratory. We'll see why?

      The relevant paper is :   
      Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory
      Robert E. Marvel and Michael F. Vineyard
      Department of Physics and Astronomy,
      Union College, Schenectady, NY 12308
      arXiv:1108.5977v1[physics.ed-ph] 30Aug2011

      We will mention that the arXiv archive may be taken to represent sort of peer review as only recommended articles are allowed to be uploaded. Furthermore, this paper is also quoted in the Wiki article :"Tests of relativistic energy and momentum". From the acknowledgment, we can see that the professors in the physics department have implicitly given their approval about the quality of the paper.

      "We thank Christopher C. Jones, Emeritus Professor of Physics at Union College, for bringing the idea for this experiment to our attention, and John Sheehan, the technician/machinist for the Union College Department of Physics and Astronomy, for his assistance in the design and construction of the experimental apparatus. It is also a pleasure to thank Professor Chad Orzel at Union College for reading a draft of this paper and providing comments."

      "We have developed an undergraduate laboratory experiment to make independent measurements of the momentum and kinetic energy of relativistic electrons from a β-source. The momentum measurements are made with a magnetic spectrometer and a silicon surface-barrier detector is used to measure the kinetic energy. A plot of the kinetic energy as a function of momentum compared to the classical and relativistic predictions clearly shows the relativistic nature of the electrons. Accurate values for the rest mass of the electron and the speed of light are also extracted from the data."

      The idea in the experiment is simple and straightforward. The experiment has a source of relativistic electrons (beta particles travelling at speeds close to that of light) from a  radioactive source. The momentum and kinetic energy of the electrons are measured for varying speeds of electrons (by varying the electric and magnetic field strengths). The data is plotted for kinetic energy versus the momentum. Two smooth curves are also shown representing how the data points show vary depending on classical  Newtonian mechanics and for special relativity. As the figure in the paper shows, the experimental data points fit clearly the curve for special relativity and clearly do not fit that of Newtonian mechanics. So a modern undergraduate experiment has been able to confirm what the earlier original experiments of Kaufmann and Bucherer proved. Is it true?          

      If everything as described in the experiment are without flaw then, of course, it could be taken to be our modern proof of special relativity. But what is found in this experimental setup is not about overlooked flaws in the experimental setup, but blatant dishonesty:

      Such a setup is nothing other than propagating fraud on unsuspecting undergraduate students.     

      The abstract says "independent measurements of the momentum and kinetic energy of relativistic electrons". As those familiar with physics would know, many physical variables in experiments have no direct means of measurement; they are measured indirectly. In general, this is true of the such a quantity as the momentum of relativistic electrons. The theory describes how the momentum is measured through a spectrometer and this part is rather usual as it is done indirectly from theory and from measuring the magnetic field with a Gauss meter.

      The blatant lie is in "...independent measurements of ...kinetic energy..". For some reason, measuring kinetic energy of relativistic electrons (near light speed) is extremely diffifcult; there is no known simple indirect measurement of a particle's kinetic energy. Even if we can measure directly the speed of the electrons, we still cannot use this velocity v to calculate the kinetic energy; it depends on which kinetic energy formula to use. For Newtonian mechanics: KE = ½mv²; for special relativity, it is : KE = m₀c²/√(1-v²/c²) - m₀c²  where m₀ = rest mass of electron,c= light speed. Measuring the speed of the electrons do not give us the kinetic energty; it depends on which kinetic nergy formula we believe to be the correct kinetic energy formula.
      Our present day physics can only do "independent" measurements of kinetic energy through one, and only one,  means - through calorimetry. The calorimetric method is to allow the electrons to be stopped in a solid where all kinetic energy is somehow converted to heat energy. From the rise in temperature, the kinetic energy of the impinging electrons could be found. This is the one and only "independent" way of measurement of kinetic energy. It is earlier mention that this method is extremely difficult. The evidence in the difficulty is that since the discovery of high speed electrons from the 1900, such a calorimetric measurement has been attempted only once; it is with the lone uncorroborated experiment of William Bertozzi (MIT) in 1964; no other person since has since used calorimetry to measure the kinetic energy of electrons nor protons. Even for the relativistic protons in the Large Hadron Colliders (LHC), calorimetry is never used to measure the kinetic energy of particles; they are all computed theoretical values based on their adopted physics.       

      So in the proposed experiment, what is the method used to measure kinetic energy? It uses a sensor, a
      "silicon surface-barrier detector with a thicknesses of 3 mm and an active area of 25 mm ". It is a commercial detector :
      "Model CB-030-025-3000 detector from Ortec, Advanced Measurement Technology, Inc., Oak
      Ridge, Tennessee 37831-0895, http://www.ortec-online.com/."

      An electronic sensor relies on some physical phenomenon to detect impinging electrons and to make use of some generated signals to estimate kinetic energy. It could be calibrated in any manner the manufacturer want it to be; to calibrate according to classical kinetic energy of ½mv², to obey special relativity or to obey what is in between classical and relativistic kinetic energy by averaging between the two mechanics; i.e obeying no physics! We can take an analogy from our bathroom weighing scale. We can have it calibrated normally or have it calibrated in a x² scale; your child of 15kg would then be weighing 225kg; your weight of 67kg would become 4489kg! You have a choice of what scale you want to have your weighing scale calibrated. So also it is with a silicon surface-barrier detector; it gives whatever values it is calibrated to give. 
      We do not expect such blatant dishonesty from the physics department of an august institution.

      Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,

      Edited by Chanrasjid 15 Aug `17, 12:19AM
  • gekpohboy's Avatar
    2,180 posts since Mar '16
  • Chanrasjid's Avatar
    17 posts since May '16
    • I was struck by lightning. I was hospitalized for 3 days in a coma. The doctors told my family to be prepared to look after a vegetating body. My soul was floating above the hospital bed witnessing the doctors talking and by family members with tears. Suddenly I awoke from the dream. I was in bed. But I felt something changed in me. The dream was just a dream, but the lighting in the dream worked wonders.

      I found I could afterwards do the Rubiks cube blindfold; I could calculate √ of numbers just without any thinking, the answer just come. My IQ now should enable me to be the champion if I participate in China's "Super Brain " program.

      I googled, but the search says "Medical condition is a classified category" and says "please get clearance from the  Interior ministry"

      Pray Only Real Few Get Struck By Lightning,
      Chan Rasjid.

  • gekpohboy's Avatar
    2,180 posts since Mar '16
    • I’m sorry. I’m just gonna dismiss you as a fucking troll. You are obviously a poor fellow who only wants attention. If attention’s what you want, fine, carry on. I’m outta here.

      Edited by gekpohboy 15 Aug `17, 2:00AM
    • Chanrasjid, you don’t have to do this to get attention. If you so want to have attention, go get a fucking job, and everyone will be watching you, making sure that you do your work.

    • Come I clap for you. Coincidentally, seventh month coming.

      Edited by gekpohboy 15 Aug `17, 3:01AM
  • Queen of sgForums
    驚世駭俗醜不啦嘰 moderatress
    FireIce's Avatar
    265,612 posts since Dec '99
    • Originally posted by gekpohboy:

      I’m sorry. I’m just gonna dismiss you as a fucking troll. You are obviously a poor fellow who only wants attention. If attention’s what you want, fine, carry on. I’m outta here.



      fancy u saying that

      Edited by FireIce 15 Aug `17, 11:06PM
  • spidey3's Avatar
    620 posts since Apr '06
  • Chanrasjid's Avatar
    17 posts since May '16
    • I think I understand why most people get irritated when they read about someone saying Einstein's physics is wrong -  it is about "profession".

      For the last century, every creature that moves on one, two, four, six, eight or a hundred have heard the experts telling and writing about how Einstein's theories have been proven right again and again; eg. when two black holes collided far away, when some signals run across the computer screens at CERN, etc. Those people all are professionals having studied physics for many years (not writing from from IMH!) and hold doctorates from the top universities. Most people bet on the these "professionals". In general this is the correct strategy. The probability of being right is very high betting on qualified persons.

      If you are ill, what do you do? You visit a doctor with an MBBS from NUS, not seeking a cure from someone having internet access at IMH! - this is wisdom of the highest order.

      Your Humbled Backstreet Physicist,
      Chan Rasjid.
      B.Sc, Quantum Levitational Physics,
      IMH Singapore.

      Edited by Chanrasjid 16 Aug `17, 8:15AM
  • The Code's Avatar
    494 posts since Jul '14
Please Login or Signup to reply.