Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

[Anders Lindman]

As I have already said before, Einstein's theories are flawed. This result from CERN confirms it.

It's very easy to show that Einstein's special relativity is false. Two photons traveling in opposite directions have the relative velocity between them of two times the speed of light, not one time the speed of light as special relativity claims.

In this case, the emperor of science has no clothes.

 

[Roboramma]

As I have already said before, Einstein's theories are flawed. This result from CERN confirms it.

So a tentative result that could be nothing more than measurement error, which has not been reproduced, confirms that one of the most well tested theories in physics is flawed?

It's very easy to show that Einstein's special relativity is false. Two photons traveling in opposite directions have the relative velocity between them of two times the speed of light, not one time the speed of light as special relativity claims.

Wow, it's amazing that no one ever though of that before!

Now, in which reference frame do they "have the relative velocity between them of two times the speed of light"?
Because let's say I have two flashlights, one held in my outstretched left hand, and the other in my outstretched right hand, such that they are pointing in opposite directions.

Relative to me the light from the left flashlight moves away at c to the left, and the light in the right flashlight moves away at c to the right. I can find that according to my own measurements the distance between the front edge of the light from the L flashlight and the front edge of the R flashlight increases at 2c. That doesn't contradict relativity.

What does it look like in a frame that's inertial with respect to the light emitted by my right hand flashlight? The light from the left hand flashlight moves away at c. So nothing contradictory there. The fact that this result appears to contradict the one found in a frame inertial with respect to me is due to the fact that they are different reference frames.

 

[Roboramma]

Anybody else wondering when will we see the first crackpot thread that claims this validates their crazy 'theory'?

Is this close enough:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220131

As I have already said before, Einstein's theories are flawed. This result from CERN confirms it.

It's very easy to show that Einstein's special relativity is false. Two photons traveling in opposite directions have the relative velocity between them of two times the speed of light, not one time the speed of light as special relativity claims.

In this case, the emperor of science has no clothes.

 

[Anders Lindman]

So a tentative result that could be nothing more than measurement error, which has not been reproduced, confirms that one of the most well tested theories in physics is flawed?



Wow, it's amazing that no one ever though of that before!

Now, in which reference frame do they "have the relative velocity between them of two times the speed of light"?
Because let's say I have two flashlights, one held in my outstretched left hand, and the other in my outstretched right hand, such that they are pointing in opposite directions.

Relative to me the light from the left flashlight moves away at c to the left, and the light in the right flashlight moves away at c to the right. I can find that according to my own measurements the distance between the front edge of the light from the L flashlight and the front edge of the R flashlight increases at 2c. That doesn't contradict relativity.

What does it look like in a frame that's inertial with respect to the light emitted by my right hand flashlight? The light from the left hand flashlight moves away at c. So nothing contradictory there. The fact that this result appears to contradict the one found in a frame inertial with respect to me is due to the fact that they are different reference frames.

I read that they have verified the result for three years and checked all kinds of possible alternatives. So the result seems scientifically solid. They MAY soon tell us that it was a measuring error or something like that as a lie ordered by gatekeeper scientists to protect their hoax theories.

I was not not talking about the relative velocity in relation to you. I described the relative velocity between two photons traveling in opposite directions, which is two times the speed of light.

 

[Roboramma]

I was not not talking about the relative velocity in relation to you. I described the relative velocity between two photons traveling in opposite directions, which is two times the speed of light.

In which reference frame please?

 

[Wudang]

I was not not talking about the relative velocity in relation to you. I described the relative velocity between two photons traveling in opposite directions, which is two times the speed of light.

Or would be if Newtonian physics applied. You might like to read a little about relativistic velocity when you have a spare moment.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html

 

[Anders Lindman]

In which reference frame please?

Either one of the photons.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Or would be if Newtonian physics applied. You might like to read a little about relativistic velocity when you have a spare moment.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html

If we as an experiment send out two photons into space in opposite directions and then wait one year, then the distance between the photons, in actual reality, will be two lightyears. The relative velocity between the photons -> two times the speed of light.

 

[Roboramma]

Either one of the photons.

Ah, then you are simply wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula

 

[Roboramma]

If we as an experiment send out two photons into space in opposite directions and then wait one year, then the distance between the photons, in actual reality, will be two lightyears. The relative velocity between the photons -> two times the speed of light.

The distance between the photons as measured in our reference frame. I thought you wanted to measure it in the frame of one of the photons?

 

[bjornart]

If we as an experiment send out two photons into space in opposite directions and then wait one year, then the distance between the photons, in actual reality, will be two lightyears. The relative velocity between the photons -> two times the speed of light.

That's not the relative velocity between the photons. As roboramma points out that's in your reference frame. You're experimentally verified, high-school physics-wrong in your understanding of relative velocities.

 

[Wudang]

If we as an experiment send out two photons into space in opposite directions and then wait one year, then the distance between the photons, in actual reality, will be two lightyears. The relative velocity between the photons -> two times the speed of light.

So you didn't have enough time to read the link but enough time to post?

 

[tkmikkelsen]

If we as an experiment send out two photons into space in opposite directions and then wait one year, then the distance between the photons, in actual reality, will be two lightyears. The relative velocity between the photons -> two times the speed of light.

I can't give you math behind it, maybe Roboramma can, but the idea of relativity is that particles traveling at light speed will always be observed as traveling at light speed relative to your reference point.

In your example where two photons start from a mutual starting point and then travel in opposite directions. Observed from the mutual starting point both particles would be traveling at light speed. Observed from one of the photons the other photon would be traveling at light speed. Remember speed is dependent on from where you observe it. Our slow speeds here on earth does that Newtonian theories works fantastic for us, but in the universe Newton and his theories must bow to Einstein and relativity and now maybe someone will update Einsteins ideas, if the result from CERN gets verified.

 

[Roboramma]

I can't give you math behind it, maybe Roboramma can, but the idea of relativity is that particles traveling at light speed will always be observed as traveling at light speed relative to your reference point.

That math is in either the link I posted or this one which wudang posted: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
(I just looked at it and I think it's easier to follow than the wiki link I posted )

Anyway, to Anders: SR predicts the same outcome of your experiment that you predict, so you have no contradiction there. Is there any experiment that you do predict a different outcome than the outcome predicted by special relativity?

 

[Tubbythin]

If we as an experiment send out two photons into space in opposite directions and then wait one year, then the distance between the photons, in actual reality, will be two lightyears. The relative velocity between the photons -> two times the speed of light.

What co-ordinate transformation did you use to go from the lab to photon reference frames?

 

[Anders Lindman]

The distance between the photons as measured in our reference frame. I thought you wanted to measure it in the frame of one of the photons?

It comes to the same. Instead of two photons sent from Earth we can take two photons traveling in opposite directions in space without knowing anything about their sources.

 

[Anders Lindman]

That's not the relative velocity between the photons. As roboramma points out that's in your reference frame. You're experimentally verified, high-school physics-wrong in your understanding of relative velocities.

We can take two photons traveling in space in opposite directions without Earth as a reference frame. The relative velocity between them is two times the speed of light.

 

[Roboramma]

It comes to the same. Instead of two photons sent from Earth we can take two photons traveling in opposite directions in space without knowing anything about their sources.

In which case, by using the correct velocity addition formula, if you measure the velocity of one photon from the frame of the other, it comes out to c.

 

[Anders Lindman]

That math is in either the link I posted or this one which wudang posted: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
(I just looked at it and I think it's easier to follow than the wiki link I posted )

Anyway, to Anders: SR predicts the same outcome of your experiment that you predict, so you have no contradiction there. Is there any experiment that you do predict a different outcome than the outcome predicted by special relativity?

The reference frame is one of the photons.

 

[Anders Lindman]

What co-ordinate transformation did you use to go from the lab to photon reference frames?

It's basic stuff. Two photons traveling in opposite directions for one year will have a distance between them of two lightyears. This means that the relative velocity between them is two times the speed of light.