| Line 58: |
Line 58: |
| | | | |
| | Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity). | | Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity). |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Experimental Tests of Relativity==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Generally speaking, the effects of relativity, that is, the differences in physical observations between a formulation under relativity and a purely classical formulation, are extremely tiny. This is related to the extremely high speed of light, <math>3 \times 10^8 m/s</math> relative to ordinary phenomena observed by humans. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered a relativistic effect, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas ([[Maxwell's Equations]]) governing electricity and magnetism.)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905. In fact, at the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?"], he speculates on the possibility that the equation <math>E = m c^2</math>, which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly-discovered phenomenon of radioactivity. It was in fact verified, and this equation, more generally known as mass-energy equivalence, is now a cornerstone of nuclear physics, nuclear energy, and modern physics.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. This has been verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons. In fact, time dilation must be taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Predictions of general relativity turned out to be more obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets. The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation of what the effect would be, by several people including Einstein himself, and some selective data analysis techniques that would not pass muster today. Nevertheless, it has been verified with ever-increasing precision in subsequent eclipses, and in the observations of quasar 3C273.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::''We may need a section or sections involving criticism of these tests.''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known reasonably accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of about 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly. General relativity predicts this extra precession.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[sun]]]]
| |
| − | As the 20<sup>th</sup> century progressed, more tests of general relativity were proposed. One was the ''Shapiro effect'', involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Another is ''gravitational time dilation''. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Later in the 20<sup>th</sup> century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of ''gravitational radiation'', or "gravity waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and have never been observed. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16 confirmed the energy loss consistent with the predicted radiation.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Two other effects, ''geodetic precession'' and the ''Lense-Thirring effect'' (also known as "frame dragging") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21<sup>st</sup> century. The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{clear}}<!-- make the Shapiro picture not obliterate the next section heading -->
| |
| | | | |
| | ==Lack of evidence for Relativity== | | ==Lack of evidence for Relativity== |
| Line 113: |
Line 88: |
| | Despite [[censorship]] of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of [[liberal]] universities.<ref>http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=8&idContribution=922</ref> | | Despite [[censorship]] of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of [[liberal]] universities.<ref>http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=8&idContribution=922</ref> |
| | | | |
| | + | ==Fallacious Claims of Experimental Verification of Relativity== |
| | + | |
| | + | Generally speaking, the effects of relativity, that is, the differences in physical observations between a formulation under relativity and a purely classical formulation, are extremely tiny. This is related to the extremely high speed of light, <math>3 \times 10^8 m/s</math> relative to ordinary phenomena observed by humans. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered a relativistic effect, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas ([[Maxwell's Equations]]) governing electricity and magnetism -- but these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.) |
| | + | |
| | + | Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905. In fact, at the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?"], he speculates on the possibility that the equation <math>E = m c^2</math>, which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly-discovered phenomenon of radioactivity. The significance of that equation, however, remains debatable as nothing in [[quantum mechanics]] depends on it. |
| | + | |
| | + | Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. This has been verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons. In fact, time dilation must be taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments. |
| | + | |
| | + | Predictions of general relativity turned out to be more obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets. The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919, but in fact the data were manipulated to try to fit the theory. An objective review of the data was inconclusive. Note that Newtonian mechanics also predicts the bending of light around massive objects. |
| | + | |
| | + | The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known reasonably accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of about 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly. At first relativists claimed that the precession is explained by general relativity, but more accurate measurements revealed that general relativity is disproved by the observations of the precession. Newtonian mechanics can explain the precession if the exponent of the distance in the force equation is not precisely 2, or if the tug on Mercury from other planets in the solar system is taken into account. |
| | + | |
| | + | [[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[sun]]]] |
| | + | As the 20<sup>th</sup> century progressed, more tests of general relativity were proposed. One was the ''Shapiro effect'', involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this. |
| | + | |
| | + | Another is ''gravitational time dilation''. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959. |
| | + | |
| | + | Later in the 20<sup>th</sup> century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of ''gravitational radiation'', or "gravity waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and have never been observed. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16 confirmed the energy loss consistent with the predicted radiation. |
| | + | |
| | + | Two other effects, ''geodetic precession'' and the ''Lense-Thirring effect'' (also known as "frame dragging") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21<sup>st</sup> century. The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011. |
| | + | |
| | + | {{clear}}<!-- make the Shapiro picture not obliterate the next section heading --> |
| | ==Predicted consequences of the Theories== | | ==Predicted consequences of the Theories== |
| | ===Time dilation=== | | ===Time dilation=== |