Thread: Modern Tests of Relativity

There seems to be an abundance of anti-relativity threads on this ( and all other ) science forums, so I thought it is about time to start a thread in support of relativity !
For this purpose I would like to present some modern day empirical tests of relativity - while everyone knows about the likes of Michelson-Morley etc ( being the classical tests ), there are many more modern empirical tests which are not as widely known. Here's a small sample :


Tests of Special Relativity & Relativity Principle

Cryogenic Optical Resonators : http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/...prl78_4741.pdf
Non-Stationary Optical Cavities : http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/...xiv0510169.pdf
Lorentz Invariance : Special relativity passes key test - physicsworld.com
Time Dilation in Satellites : http://www.quantum.physik.uni-mainz...._861(2007).pdf
Length Contraction in Heavy Ion Colliders : http://home.broadpark.no/~ccsernai/Csernai-textbook.pdf
Relativistic Lorentz Force Tests : The effects of the Aharonov-Bohm type as tests of the relativistic interpretation of electrodynamics
Anisotropy of Inertial Mass Tests : An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Time dilation in mu-mesons : Measurement of the Relativistic Time Dilation Using
Length contraction in free electron Lasers : What is SR, how is it generated and what are its properties?
Length contraction in Penrose-Terrell Rotations : Can You See the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction?
Penning Traps : Antimatter tests of Lorentz violation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Tests of General Relativity

Universality of Gravitational Red Shift : http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/...2-PRL10401.pdf
Gravitational Potential at Short Distances : http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/...2-PRL10401.pdf
Tests of Lorentz Invariance : http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...005-5Color.pdf
Gravitational Red Shift / Pound-Rebka : http://luth2.obspm.fr/IHP06/lectures...avRedshift.pdf
Light Deflection within the Solar System/Shapiro Delay : [astro-ph/0302294] The Measurement of the Light Deflection from Jupiter: Experimental Results
Lunar Laser Ranging to test Nordvedt Effect : Phys. Rev. 169, 1017 (1968): Equivalence Principle for Massive Bodies. II. Theory
Hafele-Keating Experiment for Time Dilation : Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains
Thirring-Lense Effect : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture03007.html
Geodetic Effect : Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 221101 (2011): Gravity Probe B: Final Results of a Space Experiment to Test General Relativity
Orbital Decay through Gravitational Waves in Binary Pulsar System PSR J-0737-3039 : Tests of General Relativity from Timing the Double Pulsar


Needless to say all of these tests confirmed the predictions of the theory of relativity to varying, but very high degrees. No violations of any laws of relativity have ever been observed in empirical experiments, to the best of my knowledge, and more tests and experiments continue to be scheduled for the near future.
Also, one must consider quantum electrodynamics ( QED ), which is built on relativity from the ground up - again, needless to say that all QED effects are in perfect agreement with experiment. In fact, a large part of modern day electronics and technology is directly based on QED, and would not be functioning without it being correct !
Relativity works !!!

Hi Markus, I hope I didn't come off as "anti-relativity" from my recent thread. Was just asking questions (just kidding, heretic. you can't stop the Anti-Relativity Movement with your "empirical evidence" and what-not. relativity is wrong and you know it!)

Originally Posted by epidecus

Hi Markus, I hope I didn't come off as "anti-relativity" from my recent thread. Was just asking questions (just kidding, heretic. you can't stop the Anti-Relativity Movement with your "empirical evidence" and what-not. relativity is wrong and you know it!)

No, don't worry, this wasn't aimed at anyone in particular.
This is simply a general response to the large amount of anti-relativity threads we have had recently....

Hmm... Maybe this should be a sticky?

Originally Posted by epidecus

Hmm... Maybe this should be a sticky?

I think so too.

*Post Removed*

If you have ideas, post them in your own thread in the relevant section, i.e. New Hypothesis please. Don't try and push them in other people's threads. I am editing out your post. You can find the original text by clicking on "edited by" at the bottom of your post if you need it for your own thread.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

If you have ideas, post them in your own thread in the relevant section, i.e. New Hypothesis please. Don't try and push them in other people's threads. I am editing out your post. You can find the original text by clicking on "edited by" at the bottom of your post if you need it for your own thread.

My own thread “informational physics” was closed by some unknown reason in the section Pseudoscience (!).

Cheers

It was closed, since nothing was going on in it, except for you continually bumping it with posts from other forums. And it was nonsense. Since you now seem to have resolved to spamming other threads after my request not to do so, you are no longer welcome here.

Mach rule
Einstein Theory

we can use tool if we have any help if not
we naturaly forget

I've split eaglepass's and related posts off into a separate thread in pseudoscience.

Thanks Harold14370.

Originally Posted by sunmingxing03

Mach rule
Einstein Theory

Reported for sock puppetry.

Funny, I just did that for spam...
so unforgiving

Neverfly: I believe you sent me a message today. Not sure what it meant but it seemed hostile. I'm a brand new "newbie" to the forum and I don't have a strong background in physics. If I mis-interpreted your message, I apologize. But it seemed a strange way to greet a newcomer. The only credentials I have is that I worked on the first deliverable thermonuclear weapon we put into inventory back in the early 50s'. I submitted a legitimate question about the force needed to move the earth significantly out of its orbit. I have seen old equations attempting to reach an answer and wondered if there are newer thoughts on this subject. I witnessed a "near tragedy" in the special weapons program at White Sands in the 50's and I have wondered about this question ever since.

Originally Posted by daedalus37

Neverfly: I believe you sent me a message today. Not sure what it meant but it seemed hostile. I'm a brand new "newbie" to the forum and I don't have a strong background in physics. If I mis-interpreted your message, I apologize. But it seemed a strange way to greet a newcomer.

For the readers, the following is the message and my response in question from Daedalus37's Introductory thread:

Originally Posted by daedalus37

Answer has been of some debate over the past 60 years...

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Well... I hope you are not expecting an answer, then.

My attempt at humor... As you pointed out that the answer has been a matter of debate for several decades; a definitive answer seems unlikely.

I tend to be a bit deadpan in my humor and lack the experience to consider when it may not go over so well.

Originally Posted by daedalus37

The only credentials I have is that I worked on the first deliverable thermonuclear weapon we put into inventory back in the early 50s'. I submitted a legitimate question about the force needed to move the earth significantly out of its orbit. I have seen old equations attempting to reach an answer and wondered if there are newer thoughts on this subject. I witnessed a "near tragedy" in the special weapons program at White Sands in the 50's and I have wondered about this question ever since.

So, I will try again:
Welcome to the board, Daedalus37. Please accept my apologies for poor humor and a warm welcome. I mean... the apology is for the humor, I am not apologizing for warmly welcoming... Damn. There I go, again...
Trust me, if I get hostile, you will have zero doubt in your mind that I have become hostile.
I think your career entitles you to quite a bit of recognition. Perhaps you're not an In The News Physicist, but neither are most of the rest of us. Your credentials are impressive.
I have not seen the thread about the force required to move the Earth in its orbit. It may be currently awaiting Moderation as some new posts do (Which will pass soon and you will no longer be placed in a Moderator Queue once you have established yourself.)
If the thread is available, can you link to it? If it's not yet appearing on the board, I'm sure it will appear soon.

Off topic: The force required would be immense. The last time the Earth felt a significant orbit altering force was the Big Whack which is thought to have led to the formation of the Moon. The Earth probably did not move very far...
Let's take a quick look...
Looking up a quick figure for the Mass of the Earth on Google, I got:
5.97x10²⁴
Our planet is orbiting the Sun at about 30,000 m/s.
Kinetic energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, approximately 2.677x10³³ joules.

You would need to nearly double that to reach escape velocity from the Sun: 2.485 × 10³³. That kind of energy would annihilate the Earth. While much of the Earth is pretty solid, the Earth in space is not solid like a billiard ball.
Even counting for your question of significantly moving the Earth ("Significantly" would need to be defined) the amount of energy required to move the Earth would be far greater than the Earth can withstand (Edit to clarify: Withstand in a manner that we know it. Any destructive impact would eventually re-coalesce into a rocky planet within a very few billion years...) and even greater still than all the nuclear weapons we could ever build, far greater than all the accessible material for nuclear weapons than we can get.

On the other hand you could just apply a smaller force and let it work over time...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

On the other hand you could just apply a smaller force and let it work over time...

See- that will only lead to asking how much time it would take.

Oh and note to the brains of the group- again- please offer any corrections to my mess of a post above.

I don't get it. Don't our current DNA tests prove relativity just fine?

Correction; I said double earlier because I had a brain dead moment. Strike that (though, I won't alter the post I made for posterity).
To clarify:
Would a 100 megaton bomb provide enough force to bump the Earth from its orbit?
100 megatons is equal to about 4.184 x 10¹⁷ joules.
2.485 × 10³³ joules (subtract) 4.184 x 10¹⁷ joules=2.485 × 10³³ joules.

Rounding is the problem, here. See, that 4.184 x 10¹⁷did not even make a dent in the force needed to move the Earth.
That's
2,485,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000-418,400,000,000,000,000
=
2,484,999,999,999,995,816,000,000,000,000,000.