Tag Archives: CERN

Waarom nie spesiale relatiwiteit verwerp nie,,en,Niks sal my anargiese verstand meer bevredig as om die Spesiale Teorie van Relatiwiteit te sien nie,,en,kom tumbling down,,en,Ek glo dat daar dwingende redes is om SR onakkuraat te oorweeg,,en,indien nie eintlik verkeerd nie,,en,Alhoewel die fisika-gemeenskap niks daarvan sou hê nie,,en,Ek sal my bedenkinge vis-a-vis SR lys en my saak teen hom voorstel as die laaste pos in hierdie reeks,,en,maar in hierdie een,,en,Ek wil graag uitvind waarom dit so moeilik is om SR uit die venster te gooi,,en,Die spesiale relatiwiteitsteorie is 'n uiters goed getoetste teorie,,en,Ten spyte van my persoonlike besprekings daaroor,,en,die bewys van die geldigheid van SR is regtig enorm en die teorie het die toets van tyd gestaan,,en,ten minste tot dusver,,en?

Nothing would satisfy my anarchical mind more than to see the Special Theory of Relativity (SR) come tumbling down. In werklikheid, I believe that there are compelling reasons to consider SR inaccurate, if not actually wrong, although the physics community would have none of that. I will list my misgivings vis-a-vis SR and present my case against it as the last post in this series, but in this one, I would like to explore why it is so difficult to toss SR out the window.

The special theory of relativity is an extremely well-tested theory. Despite my personal reservations about it, the body of proof for the validity of SR is really enormous and the theory has stood the test of time — at least so far. Maar dit is die integrasie van SR in die res van moderne fisika wat dit alles as onmoontlik maak om dit af te skryf as 'n mislukte teorie,,en,In eksperimentele hoë energie fisika,,en,ons bereken die resmassa van 'n deeltjie as sy identifiserende statistiese handtekening,,en,Die manier waarop dit werk, is dit,,en,om 'n swaar deeltjie te ontdek,,en,jy identifiseer eers sy dogterdeeltjies,,en,verval produkte,,en,meet hul energie en momentum,,en,voeg hulle by,,en,vektore,,en,en bereken die invariante massa van die stelsel as die modulus van die totale energie-momentumvektor,,en,In ooreenstemming met SR,,en,die onveranderlike massa is die resmassa van die ouerpartikel,,en,Jy doen dit vir baie duisende tye en maak 'n verspreiding,,en,histogram,,en,en enige statisties beduidende oorskot by enige massa opspoor,,en. In experimental high energy physics, byvoorbeeld, we compute the rest mass of a particle as its identifying statistical signature. The way it works is this: in order to discover a heavy particle, you first detect its daughter particles (decay products, dit is), measure their energies and momenta, add them up (as “4-vectors”), and compute the invariant mass of the system as the modulus of the aggregate energy-momentum vector. In accordance with SR, the invariant mass is the rest mass of the parent particle. You do this for many thousands of times and make a distribution ('n “histogram”) and detect any statistically significant excess at any mass. Such an excess is the signature of the parent particle at that mass.

Almost every one of the particles in the particle data book that we know and love is detected using some variant of this method. So the whole Standard Model of particle physics is built on SR. In werklikheid, almost all of modern physics (physics of the 20th century) is built on it. On the theory side, in the thirties, Dirac derived a framework to describe electrons. It combined SR and quantum mechanics in an elegant framework and predicted the existence of positrons, which bore out later on. Although considered incomplete because of its lack of sound physical backdrop, hierdie “second quantizationand its subsequent experimental verification can be rightly seen as evidence for the rightness of SR.

Feynman het dit verder geneem en die kwantum-elektrodinamika voltooi,,en,QED,,mt,wat al die strengste getoetsde teorie ooit was,,en,Om 'n bietjie uit te trek,,en,Feynman is een keer by CERN gewys,,en,en die gids,,en,waarskynlik 'n prominente fisikus self,,en,het die eksperimente verduidelik,,en,hul doelwitte ens,,en,Toe onthou die gids skielik wie hy praat,,en,Die meeste van die CERN-eksperimente was gebaseer op Feynman se QED,,en,jy weet dit alles,,en,Dit is alles om jou voorspellings te verifieer.,,en,Feynman gesit,,en,jy vertrou my nie,,en,Om terug te keer na my punt en herhaal dit,,en,Die hele gebou van die standaardmodel van deeltjiefisika word op die top van SR gebou,,en,Die sukses alleen is genoeg om die moderne fisika onmoontlik te maak om SR te verwerp,,en,as jy SR neem,,en,jy het nie die standaard model en QED nie,,en (QED), which has been the most rigorously tested theory ever. To digress a bit, Feynman was once being shown around at CERN, and the guide (probably a prominent physicist himself) was explaining the experiments, their objectives etc. Then the guide suddenly remembered who he was talking to; na al, most of the CERN experiments were based on Feynman’s QED. Skaam, het hy gesê, “Natuurlik, Dr. Feynman, you know all this. These are all to verify your predictions.” Feynman quipped, “Hoekom, you don’t trust me?!” To get back to my point and reiterate it, the whole edifice of the standard model of particle physics is built on top of SR. Its success alone is enough to make it impossible for modern physics to discard SR.

So, if you take away SR, you don’t have the Standard Model and QED, en jy weet nie hoe versneller eksperimente en kernbomme werk nie,,en,Die feit dat hulle dit doen, is bewys genoeg vir die geldigheid van SR,,en,omdat die alternatief,,en,dat ons al hierdie dinge kon bou sonder om regtig te weet hoe hulle werk,,en,is net te vreemd,,en,Dis nie net die eksotiese nie,,en,kernwapens en CERN-eksperimente,,en,maar die alledaagse wat ons moet oortuig,,en,Fluorescerende beligting,,en,laser pointers,,en,LED,,en,selfone,,en,GPS navigators,,en,iPads,,en,kortliks,,en,al die moderne tegnologie is,,en,een of ander manier,,en,'n bevestiging van SR,,en,Daarom moet die OPERA-resultaat waargeneem word, baie belangrik wees,,en,Maar ek wil dit reg hê,,en,En ek sal verduidelik hoekom in my volgende pos,,en,Waarom alles wat ons aanvaar as 'n verifikasie van SR, kan 'n geval wees van wanhoop,,en,amper letterlik,,en,Maxwells Vergelykings,,en,CERN Argiewe,,en. The fact that they do is proof enough for the validity of SR, because the alternative (that we managed to build all these things without really knowing how they work) is just too weird. It’s not just the exotic (nuclear weaponry and CERN experiments), but the mundane that should convince us. Fluorescent lighting, laser pointers, LED, rekenaars, mobile phones, GPS navigators, iPads — in short, all of modern technology is, in some way, a confirmation of SR.

So the OPERA result on observed superluminalily has to be wrong. But I would like it to be right. And I will explain why in my next post. Why everything we accept as a verification of SR could be a case of mass delusion — almost literally. Bly ingeskakel!