[Phys-L] Re: Assignment for Einsteinians

["Fayngold, Moses" <fayngold@ADM.NJIT.EDU>]

At 10:45 AM 7/1/2005, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> An accelerator is a confirmation of special relativity where acceler=
ation
> is absent by definition? The problem with relativity is not that it =
is
> wrong; rather, it leads to a destruction of rationality by forcing p=
eople
> to think in terms of oxymorons like this one.
>
> Pentcho Valev


  I could not answer to this better than Brian Whatcott did - yes, ju=
st go and visit any high energy accelerator facility!
  Or, to save your time, before making any judgement, let alone makin=
g it public, just open any monograph or simply a college textbook on =
Relativity and read carefully a section on Relativistic Dynamics. Try=
 to find a page, where, "by definition" acceleration is exempt from r=
elativity.=20
  Unfortuately, some "popularizations" on relativity stop short of co=
nsidering accelerated motions, implying that such motions are beyond =
the domain of special theory. Some even directly state so. No surpris=
e that those who have formed their background on reading only such po=
pularizations, may think, as Pentcho Valev does, that special relativ=
ity does not, in principle, contain acceleration.
  Similarly, a statement that the twin paradox is a "real physical pa=
radox" is contradiction in terms. The asymmetry of time dilation betw=
een uniformly moving and accelerated observer is not only a theoretic=
al prediction, but already a well established experimental fact: mu- =
mesons in circular motion in an external magnetic field decay slower =
(come back younger) than their counterparts staing in place (see, e.g=
. M.G. Bowler, Gravitation and Relativity, Pergamon Press, 1976, or M=
. G. Bowler, Lectures on Special Relativity, 1986). The similar effec=
t was even confirmed in the domain usually considered as non-relativi=
stic - in the experiments with regular commercial jets making eastwar=
d or westward circumnavigations with the high precision atomic clocks=
 on board (J. C. Hafele, Am. J. of Phys., 40, p. 81-85, 1972;  J. C. =
Hafele,, R. E. Keating, Science, p. 166-170, 1972).=20
  Once in my teaching career I was stunned to come across a physics s=
ophomore student who could not mutiply 3 by 4 otherwise than with a c=
alculator. At least, I felt some satisfaction seeing him, in turn, st=
unned when he, on my suggestion, swapped the factors and realized tha=
t this did not affect the result. It was like a revelation for him, b=
ut he, after some further discussion, correctly adjusted his view of =
multiplication of numbers. I regard that student highly, because, des=
pite of his former ignorance, he did not loose his ability to get sur=
prised and learn. Not everybody retains such ability, and in such cas=
es an old Russian saying comes to my mind (forgive my clumsy attempt =
to make its English version): "Do not blame the mirror if you do not =
like what you see in it." =20

Moses Fayngold,
NJIT
 =20
 =20
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l