
Originally Posted by
Mahesh khati
But problem is why one Cheetah (Neutrino) is disobeying your fundamental laws of physics like SR. My problem is with this Special theory of relativity. QM is all right in quantum mechanics but SR is main problem for me. If SR is correct then you can not explain existence of Neutrino having velocity more than light or even C. There can not be a particles which obeys SR (like electrons), Create SR (Photons) & disobey SR (Neutrinos) in one world.
MY PROBLEM WITH Special Theory of relativity:-
1st problem:-My 1st interaction with SR is at 18 year of age. Dr. Khare explain me light velocity is constant irrespective of observer's state of motion. I asked if I fixed frame of reference on earth, I will get velocity of light constant in all direction on earth but light emitted from nearest star has same velocity with relative to this frame of reference. When I find velocity of this 4 light year away star with relative to this frame of reference revolving with earth. I found that it is much more than C (V=wR). If star velocity is more than C then light velocity emitted from star must be more than C. I said that if velocity of star is more than light then star should not be seen by us.
2nd problem:-Dr Khare was surprise. He check my calculation & found correct. Next day, He try to explain it to me in following way
a)This is an illusion not real velocity. This effect is due to rotation of earth. My answer:- this is not illusion because we can calculate distance travel in that reference frame divided by 24 hrs. As this is calculated quantity, this is not illusion & we can see stars are moving with that velocity from East to West. I say if we have Geosynchronous satellite (just imagine) which is stable with this frame of reference at distance 4 light year then relative velocity of star with this stable satellite will be more than C.
b)Khare said that This reference frame is non inertial frame of reference because it has angular acceleration. My answer:-Every frame of reference in world is accelerating. Earth is accelerating, Sun is accelerating, galaxy is accelerating, after some days, we will find this whole world is accelerating with relative to other world. We all lived in complex falling lift (may be in circular or elliptical in path). As summation of forces in falling lift is zero we fill that we are stable & in inertial frame of reference but perfect inertial frame of reference is not present in the world. Einstein always speak about inertial frame of reference which is not present in the world.
3rd problem:-After completing B.E. in Civil. As I have interest in physics. I complete BSc in physics before joining Engineer job (for bread & butter). In BSc, I come across very interesting problem. If two electrons moving in one direction with same velocity. then both will get attracted towards one another due to formation of magnetic field (Pinch effect). Just for second forget about earth, then Both electrons must be stable with relative to one another & not moving. If I consider one electron as observer for other electron then other electron will not be in any motion (stable). This non relative motion should not create any magnetic field which acts on one another but reverse is happened. Means, Big mass like earth act as special reference frame for electron or elementary particle on earth may be for Photons also.
When CERN is established. I know such result will arise & I published paper on my web site 3 years back. So, people will not think that this is my after thought. I am very confident same result will be get repeated in Fermi lab & else where.
It is completely sound to have a theory that only applies to some particles but not others. One can logically accept a world in which all particles - except neutrinos - follow SR. This is analogous to all particles that are charged being affected by electromagnetic fields, and all uncharged particles not. Some theories apply to some particles, but not all. This is elementary.
You bring up an interesting point - and I must say that your professor was very right: your rotating wheel, star system, or whatever does not hold under SR because it is an accelerating system. SR is simply not applicatble there because a rotating object is accelerating. This was the main feat of Einstein, he developed GR to deal with these kind of issues. GR is thus a generalization of SR, making SR only valid for inertial frames of reference. Here is the crux: it doesn't matter that there are no real inertial frame of reference, what matters is that they
approximately are. For example, you say that SR is not valid on Earth because it is rotating, and thus accelerating. It is shown however that SR does work because the magnitude of such an acceleration is minute compared to, say, the velocity of light (with some appropiate unit conversion) so we can
approximately call it an intertial frame for most purposes.
It doesn't really matter, because we can always be pedantic and try to solve classic SR problems like length contraction and so on directly from GR - even though they are incredibly hard doing so - and obtain the same results! What you are missing is the fundamental point of physics theories: they build on each other and are just generalizations that work in some regimes. Coming up with a different regime in which the theory fails (where the theory didn't claim to work before) is not a valid contradiction of the theory.
You talk about the pinch effect. It is a very interesting problem that all physics majors have to deal with in their studies of E&M - and I don't believe it for a minute that you hold a BSc in Physics because you would know this: Magnetic and Electric fields are two sides of the same coin, and depending on your relative velocity you will see one, the other, or a mix of both. This is the crux of SR applied to E&M. In the pinch effect, if you boost yourself into the electrons frame of reference of course you will no longer see a magnetic field because no charges are moving. You will instead see an electric field that will make the electrons attract. This is covered in elementary E&M books like Griffiths, so I refer you to such a book. There is no need to introduce a vague "earth reference" to account for this effect.
Also, CERN has been well established for decades... I am guessing you mean the LHC (again shows your complete ignorance on these topics) - and if you think that if a particle collision experiment is going to "prove" that SR is wrong in such a fundamental way as you propose you are very wrong.
It would also be nice to at least acknowledge all the points that I have been making in the previous posts and that you are ignoring completely.