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
https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977
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.
Acknowledgments:
"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."
Abstract:
"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,
Singapore.
http://www.emc2fails.com
