Blatant Dishonesty In Academia To Promote Einstein’s Special Relativity

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

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.

“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.”

“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 traveling 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 dififcult; 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 energy; it depends on which kinetic energy 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 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,”

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,

学术界不诚实地推动爱因斯坦的 狭义相对论。

爱因斯坦在1905年的论文中提出了狭义相对论。Kaufmann(1901)和Bucherer(1908)进行的实验证明,质量随着与狭义相对性的速度而变化;这意味着驳回了牛顿的经典力学。这些原始实验难以复制,因此今天的本科生已经被引入到各种更简单的现代设置中,以通过实验证明狭义相对论。本文只是对一个这样提出的实验示范进行评论。这个具体的例子表明,涉及的物理部门是公然的不诚实行事;这个实验是一个欺骗性的传播者,他们毫无戒心的本科生可能没有太多的时间反思他们在讲座和实验室里被告知的内容。 我们会明白为什么?

Robert E. Marvel and Michael F. Vineyard
Department of Physics and Astronomy,
Union College, Schenectady, NY 12308
arXiv:1108.5977v1[physics.ed-ph] 30Aug2011

我们将提到,只有推荐的文章被允许上传,arXiv档案可能被用来代表同行评议。 此外,维基文章还引用了本文:“相对论能量与动量的测试”。 从认识到,我们可以看到,物理系的教授隐含地对文件的质量给予了批准。

“我们感谢联盟学院物理学  Christopher C. Jones,提出了我们关注的这个实验的想法,以及联盟大学物理与天文学系的技术人员 John Sheehan,他在 设计和建造实验仪器,也高兴地感谢联合学院的  Chad Orzel 教授阅读本文的草稿并提出了意见。“

“我们开发了一个本科实验室实验,进行独立测量来自β源的相对论电子的动量和动能。 势头使用磁谱仪进行测量,并使用硅表面阻挡检测器测量动能。 作为动量函数的动能图经典和相对论的预测清楚地表明了电子的相对论性质。还提取了电子的静止质量和光速的精确值

实验中的想法很简单直接。 该实验具有来自放射源的相对论电子源(以接近光的速度行进的β粒子)。 测量电子的动量和动能,以改变电子速度(通过改变电场和磁场强度)。 绘制动能与动量的数据。 还显示了两条光滑的曲线,表示数据点显示如何根据经典牛顿力学和狭义相对论而变化。 如图所示,实验数据点明确地拟合了狭义相对论的曲线,显然不符合牛顿力学的曲线。 因此,现代本科实验已经能够证实 Kaufmann 和 Bucherer 原来的实验结果。 是真的吗?

如果实验中描述的一切都没有缺陷,那么当然,它可以被认为是我们现代的狭义相对论证明。 但是在这个实验设置中发现的不是在实验设置中被忽略的缺陷,而是公然的不诚实:


摘要说“相对论电子的动量和动能的独立测量”。 正如那些熟悉物理学的人所知道的,实验中的许多物理变量没有直接的测量方法; 间接测量。 一般来说,这样的数量就是相对论电子的动量。 该理论描述了如何通过光谱仪测量动量,这部分是相当普遍的,因为它是从理论间接地和用高斯计测量磁场而完成的。

公然的谎言是“…动能的独立测量”。 由于某种原因,测量相对论电子的动能(近光速)是非常困难的; 没有已知的简单的间接测量粒子的动能。 即使我们可以直接测量电子的速度,我们仍然不能使用这个速度v来计算动能; 这取决于使用哪种动能公式。 牛顿力学:KE =½mv²; 对于狭义相对论,它是:KE = m₀c²/√(1-v²/c²) – m₀c² 其中 m₀=电子的静止质量,c =光速。 测量电子速度不能给我们动能; 这取决于我们认为是正确的动能公式的动力学能量公式。

我们现在的物理学只有唯一的一个“独立”测量动能的量热法。量热法是使电子停止在固体中,其中所有动能以某种方式转化为热能。从温度的升高,可以发现入射电子的动能。这是动能测量的唯一“独立”方式。以前提到这种方法是非常困难的。困难的证据是,从1900年发现高速电子以来,已经尝试了这种量热测量只有一次;是在 1964 年与 William Bertozzi(麻省理工学院)的独立未经验证的实验;自从使用量热法测量电子和质子的动能以后,没有其他人。即使对于大强子对撞机(LHC)中的相对论质子,量热法也不用来测量粒子的动能;它们都是基于其采用的物理学计算的理论值。

所以在提出的实验中,用于测量动能的方法是什么?它使用传感器,“硅表面阻挡检测器,厚度为3毫米,有效面积为25毫米”。 它是一种商业检测器:
“来自 Ortec,Advanced Measurement Technology,Inc.,Oak 的 CB-030-025-3000 型号检测器 Oak Ridge,Tennessee 37831-0895,“

电子传感器依赖于一些物理现象来检测撞击电子并利用一些产生的信号来估计动能。 它可以以制造商想要的任何方式进行校准; 按照1/2mv²的经典动能进行校准,以遵守狭义相对性,或通过两个力学之间的平均来服从经典和相对论动能之间的动力学。 (即不服从物理学!) 我们可以从我们的浴室称重秤中进行比喻。 我们可以使其正常校准或者以 x² 标度校准; 你的15kg的孩子然后将重225kg; 你的体重67kg将成为4489kg! 您可以选择要对秤进行校准的标度。 所以也是用硅表面阻挡检测器; 它给出了校准给出的任何值。



Open Letter On Einstein’s E=mc2.

[English with Chinese translation]

Open Letter To the World Physics Community: The Failure Of Einstein’s E=mc2.
Dear scientists,

For almost a hundred years, Einstein’s formula E=mc² (the famous energy mass equivalent equation) has been the cardinal equation of physics as it introduced the concept of total energy of matter; all dynamics involves energy of particles and matter. The author has discovered very recently (April 2016) that the formula E=mc² is invalid; energy is fictitious in the formula. The proof is simple and involves no high mathematics. Any good high school students taking physics as a subject could easily come to a definite understanding of the analysis and decides for himself whether the author’s claim is correct; there is no need to rely on the words of any physics professor to know if the formula E=mc² is valid or invalid. The author has the relevant paper in his website:
The Relativistic Mechanics of E=mc2 Fails,
The short paragraphs below are sufficient to convince any physics students that the formula E=mc² is invalid.

The formula for kinetic energy in classical Newtonian mechanics is: KE = ½ mv²; this formula is derived from the application of Newton’s  second law together with the definition of momentum p as: p = mv; where m=mass of particle with velocity v. Energy in classical Newtonian mechanics is based on the definition of: work (energy) = force x distance. Newton’s second law is:
Force is proportional to rate of change of momentum.
It gives force F as: F = d/dt (mv) = m x dv/dt = ma.  This is the well known definition of force as mass times distance: F=ma. The unit for force in the SI system is the newton (symbol N); with work = force x distance, the unit for energy is the Joule (symbol J).

On the other hand, the formula E=mc² is derived from Einstein’s special theory of relativity together with a new relativistic definition of momentum as: p = mv/√(1-v²/c²); where m = rest mass, c=constant speed of light.
With a new definition of momentum, force in special relativity would be different from the classical definition of F=ma; it is now:
F = dp/dt = d/dt{mv/√(1-v²/c²)}  — (I)

As any physics students can see, equation (I) is different from the rather simple F=ma. F=ma is the basis of the SI definition of force, the newton N. There is no way equation (I) may be used in any manner to define a unit of force. The truth is that special relativity has no real unit for force; the physics community just assumes that the equation (I), too, evaluates force in the same classical units of Newtonian mechanics – it does not. Only in classical Newtonian mechanics that the unit of force, the newton N, may be used. The relativistic force as defined in equation (I) evaluates only to a real number with no association with any real unit of force. As force does not have a real unit, so does work and energy in special relativity have no real units. Energy in special relativity is only fictitious. As the formula E=mc² is derived directly from equation (I), energy in the formula, too, is fictitious (the only exception may be when a particle is at rest where E=mc² may apply).

All figures of energy in relativistic physics, including high energy particle physics, is based on the fundamental formula E=mc²; when energy is fictitious, all of particle physics breaks down. The European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN, that operates the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has purportedly accelerated protons to levels of energy as high as 7 TeV (tera electron-volt, 10¹²). As the energy was computed from the formula E=mc², the figure was just a fictitious value. The only kinetic energy formula that computes energy in real units is the simple classical formula: KE =½ mv². With this formula, the proton’s energy within the LHC would only be about 470 MeV (10⁶); the CERN’s reported figure being overstated by a factor of 15,000.

All of high energy particle physics fails.

 对物理学界的公开信:爱因斯坦的 E=mc2 物理学无效.


近一百年来,爱因斯坦的公式E = mc2(着名的能量质量等效方程)一直是物理学的主要方程,因为它引入了物质总能量的概念; 所有动力学都涉及粒子和物质的能量。 作者最近发现(2016年4月),公式 E =mc² 无效; 能量在公式中是虚构的。 证明很简单,不涉及高数学。
任何以物理学为主题的高中生,都可以很容易地明确了解分析,并自己决定作者的说法是否正确; 可以自己决定;
没有必要依赖任何物理教授的话来知道公式 E=mc² 是有效还是无效。 作者在他的网站上有相关文章:
E = mc2 的相对论力学失败,
下面的短段足以说服任何物理学生的公式 E =mc² 无效。

经典牛顿力学中的动能公式为:KE =½mv²; 该公式来自牛顿第二定律的应用以及动量p的定义:p = mv;
其中 m =具有速度v的粒子质量。经典牛顿力学中的能量基于以下定义:工作(能量)=力x距离。 牛顿的第二定律是:
它给出力F:F = d/dt(mv)= m×dv / dt = ma;
这是众所周知的作为质量乘积距离的力的定义:F = ma。 SI系统中的力单位是牛顿(符号N); 与工作=力x距离,能量的单位是焦耳(符号J)。

另一方面,公式 E=mc² 是从爱因斯坦的特殊相对论得出的,动量的新的相对论定义如下:p = mv /√(1-v²/c²); 其中
m = 静止质量,c = 光的恒定速度。
有了动量的新定义,狭义相对论的力量与F = ma的经典定义不同;就是现在:
F = dp/dt = d/dt{mv /√(1- v²/c²)} —(II)

任何物理学学生都可以看到,方程(II)不同于相当简单的F = ma。 F = ma是 SI 系统对力的定义的基础,牛顿 N. 无法以任何方式使用方程(II)来定义力单位。事实是狭义相对论没有真正的力量单位;物理学学界只假设方程(II)也是在牛顿力学的相同经典单位中评估力 – 它不是。
只有在古典力学中,可以使用力单位牛顿N。方程(II)中定义的相对论力量仅评估与任何实际的力单位无关的实数。由于力量没有真正的单位,在狭义相对论中的工作和能量也没有真正的单位。狭义相对论的能量只是虚构的。由公式 E=mc² 直接从等式
(II)得出,公式中的能量也是虚构的(唯一的例外可能是当粒子处于静止时,E=mc² 可能适用)。

所有能量数字在相对论物理学中,包括高能粒子物理学,都是基于公式E=mc²;当能量是虚构的,所有的粒子物理学都会崩溃。 欧洲核研究组织(CERN)运营大型强子对撞机(LHC),据称将质子加速至高达7 TeV(tera电子伏特,10¹²)的能量水平。 由于能量是从公式 E=mc² 计算的,这个数字只是一个虚构的值。 计算实际能量的唯一动能公式是简单的经典公式:
KE=½mv²。 使用这个公式,LHC内的质子能量将仅为470MeV(10⁶); CERN的报告数字被夸大了15000 倍。


Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,

China Should Not Build Super Particle Collider.


Chen-Ning Yang Says China Should Not Build Super Particle Collider.

On 7 September, Dr. C.N. Yang released an article on WeChat expressing his views that China should not build the world’s largest particle collider. His main reason, other than being very costly, is that such a machine would not gain us much scientific knowledge or benefit to society. We may even read into his reason as a hint that particle physics – strictly the Standard Model of particle physics – may lead us to nowhere. We will examine if particle physics is indeed useful.

International Press of Boston:

David Gross, a foreign member of the Chinese Academy of Science, responded to Dr.Yang’s comment on:
High-energy physics produced any “tangible benefits” to society?

Yes! Even taking an extremely narrow view of this question, the technologies directly springing from particle physics have spawned huge industries that generate revenues far exceeding the magnitude of the investment in basic science. The multi-billion dollar accelerator industry, operating thousands of small-scale particle accelerators around the world ranging from light sources, to medical accelerators for cancer-fighting radiation therapies, owes its existence to particle physics. And the need for powerful magnets at proton colliders necessitated the development of superconducting magnet technology, itself a billion dollar industry, which are the critical component for MRI machines, a five billion dollar industry.

David Gross, being a physicists, seems to not know much about economics. You can hypothetically create a “billion dollar industries” from a huge unused mountain and you spend billions moving it back and forth between two locations – repeatedly ad infinitum. Surely, billion dollar secondary industries may arise around new technologies for moving mountains around  “better and faster” giving larger revenues – they somehow would still end up to be of some use somewhere.

It is a myth that particle physics from CERN (operator of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) which discovered the Higgs Boson) has given society any new physics that resulted in any new technology – not one item, directly. The Standard Model involves so far only in fanciful concepts like quark, color charge, etc and none has anything to do with what engineers could use in their work. The very great technological advances of the past decades have nothing at all to do with the experiments carried out at CERN; they were nothing other than the result of empirical experimentation based on physics that have been around for decades since the breakthrough in quantum mechanics of the 1930’s.

Einstein’s Special Relativity and E=mc² Fictitious
(What follows has minimal physics which any freshman physics undergraduate could easily follow – and see for themselves; don’t ever need to blindly believe)
Most people would react with disbelief when told that E=mc² is fictitious. Is it not the famous “atomic bomb” formula, the reason why the atomic bomb works, why the nuclear reactor works. Yes indeed! The formula is probably correct as a estimate of the huge energy released from nuclear fission reactions when some mass goes “missing” and it is estimated to be converted to energy according to E=mc². What is fictitious is not about the physics of the relation between mass-deficit and nuclear binding energy, but when E=mc² is extended through special relativity to the topic of relativistic mechanics. According to relativistic mechanics, a particle’s mass approaches infinity (just keep increasing) as the particle is accelerated to near the light speed c (299792458 m/s). Its speed may go as close to c as technology permits, but it will never go faster than c – nothing travels faster than light. That’s the theory from special relativity. But is the theory good and well tested? Yes! – and so they say from the physics departments of  top universities like Princeton and Cambridge.

They Invented Relativistic Momentum
Relativistic mechanics began when they invented a “new” momentum to replace the old momentum of Newton’s which was the working momentum that never ever failed for three centuries and still is as valid as ever before – with a caveat of course depending on which “camp” you belong to. Classical Newtonian mechanics defines momentum  as: p=mv;  the Newtonian force F = d/dt(mv) = ma giving the famous formula of Newton’s second law as : F = ma or mass x acceleration. It is also through this definition of force in physics that the standard SI unit of force, the newton, is defined as kg.m/s² (kilogram.meter/second²). After the introduction of Einstein’s special relativity in 1905, they began developing a “new and better” mechanics to replace Newtonian mechanics. They first invented a new relativistic momentum – through a redefinition of momentum. They replaced momentum p=mv with
p = (1/√(1-v²/c²))mv = γmv where  γ = 1/√(1-v²/c²). In other words, having an extra “gamma” factor to the old momentum of p=mv.

The New and The Old Mechanics Do Not Mix
Of course, when a fundamental definition of a physics theory is changed, it becomes a new physics – another physics and another mechanics. The new and the old do not mix – the Heaven accepts one and will reject the other. So which of the mechanics will Heaven accept – the 300-years-tested Newtonian mechanics or the popular-100-year special relativity mechanics? Only Heaven knows? But we may try to find an answer based on a rigorous scientific argument.

With a new relativistic momentum definition of p= γmv, the new relativists assumed that they could invoke Newton’s second law for their definition of force.  In “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy”, the “Principia” of Newton, the second law is:

Law 2. Change of motion is proportional to impressed motive force.

Newton’s “motion” is our momentum of mass x velocity; in calculus, it would mean: force is proportional to rate of change of momentum; or F = d/dt(mv) = ma. Isaac Newton himself wrote “force proportional to motion”  – and forgot about what he had written earlier about proportionality! He just used “force= mass x acceleration” himself. No one after Newton tried to define a “new momentum” and then invoked the original Newton’s second law with it until physicists invented relativistic mechanics. They then go back to the “original” laws of motion of Sir Isaac Newton, picked the second law, hoping to create a new mechanics to be “better” than Newton’s mechanics. You have the wish to create a “better” mechanics, but how about the Heavens – will your new creation find favor with Heaven? Newton’s mechanics received the full Blessings of the Heavens for a full 300 years and Heaven showed no sign that Newton was ever wrong – not once. What about relativistic mechanics? Heaven permits controversies on Einstein’s relativity theories to rage unabated on Earth for more then a hundred years since special relativity was proposed in 1905.

LHC Protons with energy 6.5 TeV or 470 MeV?
The new definition of force in relativistic mechanics is now f = d/dt {(1/√(1-v²/c²))mv}; any freshman physics undergrad can easily see that it is very different from f = d/dt(mv) = ma. Kinetic energy is derived from the work-energy theorem of : work = force x distance. So a new definition certainly would give rise to new formula  for kinetic energy. The classical kinetic formula for kinetic energy is KE = ½ mv². Of course, we expect a very different formula of kinetic energy for relativistic mechanics as momentum and force definitions have changed. The derivation of relativistic KE formula is given in most modern textbook of physics; the formula is  KE = (1/√(1-v²/c²) – 1)mc² or KE = (γ-1)mc². As an example, it is reported by CERN that the kinetic energy of their protons have been accelerated to as high as 6.5 TeV (6.5 x 10¹² electron volts). This is because the speed of the protons are traveling at almost 0.99995c  – almost at the light speed (γ is large and therefore KE large). But if we use the classical kinetic formula of
KE = ½ mv², the kinetic energy would be just 470 Mev (½ mass-proton x c²) – different by a factor of 15,000!  So what is the true kinetic energy of the protons within the LHC – 6.5 TeV or 470 MeV? No one knows the answer! No one has ever measured the energy of such protons directly (the only direct measure in general is through calorimetry – conversion to heat energy for measurement).

Relativistic Kinetic Energy is Fictitious
Physics need to have a system of standard of units for various fundamental quantities. We currently have the SI units which has standard definitions of mass, length and time with the kilogram, meter, second. The standard unit for force is the newton (symbol N) making use of Newton’s second law as an axiom: force = mass x acceleration giving the newton to be kg.m/s². The definition of force determines the unit for energy and energy in SI unit is the joule, or
kg.m²/s²  or newton-meter. What about the new relativistic mechanics with their definition of force as:

f = d/dt {(1/√(1-v²/c²))mv} — (I)

Question: What is the relativistic standard of unit for force in the SI units?

Answer: There is no provision in the SI units for a standard of force for relativistic mechanics.

Raw from gut feelings, you react immediately with disbelief  – How could it be! How could anyone create a mechanics and which has not a defined standard unit for force.  Without a defined unit for force, how are they to have a standard unit of energy (work = energy= force x distance) with which they calculate energy? I don’t know – you may try and think about it yourself. The SI unit of newton comes from f=ma and the relativistic force comes from : f = d/dt {(1/√(1-v²/c²))mv} – try staring intently at this latter formula and see if you could convince yourself that you could finally come out with a way to a unit of energy (W=E = force x distance) that is the same SI units as the joule.

Only a miracle could make the unit of energy for Newtonian mechanics compatible to any unit of energy (if any) in relativistic mechanics.

You could go ask the physics professors in Fudan university, Tsinghua University or the Chinese physicists from the Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP).

The relativists 100 years ago created a new relativistic mechanics redefining momentum arbitrarily and assumed that – just because they followed Newton’s original second law to the letter – that everything else would follow naturally. Heaven allows only one way to define the concept of momentum so that the mechanics may be used to predict dynamic motions with their equations. You either define p = mv or p = γmv – only one will work. The Newtonian units for force and energy have been implemented and used successfully for a full 300 years without failure. The new relativistic mechanics cannot be used at all to define any real standard unit of force or energy with which to calculate. So how have they “successfully” incorporated relativistic mechanics into their high energy physics and their Standard Model of particle physics? Answer:  They are all calculating energy based on a fictitious scale; they just assume that they still could calculate force in SI newton and energy in SI joule. They cannot! Their physics are all based on fictitious values.

It is not without reason that the Standard Model of particle physics has not given us any technological innovation from their physics that enters into our everyday life – not one! CERN initially was meant to be for peaceful nuclear research for the betterment of society, but they have not given us any practical nuclear physics despite their “God” particle of the Higgs boson. They could not solve the fundamental of fusion of hydrogen into helium which would have solved all our energy needs – hydrogen is cheap and freely available from water(H₂O).

So the reason for the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters (also the smog “disaster” of China) is because we are still using the same “dirty” fission nuclear reactors whose basic physics is no different from what we already know a hundred years back – all very old physics.

We have been sidelined from investing our resources into real physics by pursuing  fictitious particle physics. Should China build the next generation of super particle accelerators? Should China follow the lead of the physicists from Princeton and Cambridge? Following the leaders on a sure path to nowhere!

Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,


9月7日2016,杨振宁博士先生发表了一篇关于中国不应该建立世界上最大的粒子对撞机的意见的文章。 他的主要原因,除了非常昂贵的是,这样的机器不会获得我们更多的科学知识或对社会有利。 我们甚至可以看出他的理由,暗示粒子物理学(严格的粒子物理学标准模型)可能导致我们无处可寻。 我们将研究颗粒物理学是否确实有用。

International Press of Boston,,
中国科学院外国人戴维·格罗斯(David Gross)回应杨博士的评论:

“是的,即使对这个问题的看法非常狭窄,从粒子物理学直接出现的技术也产生了巨大的行业,这些行业的收入远远超过了基础科学投资的规模,数十亿美元的加速器行业, 世界范围内的尺寸粒子加速器,从光源到用于抗癌辐射治疗的医疗加速器,其存在于粒子物理学中。在质子碰撞器中需要强大的磁体需要开发超导磁体技术,其本身为十亿美元 行业,这是MRI机器的关键组成部分,一个50亿美元的行业。“

作为物理学家,大卫·格罗斯(David Gross)似乎对经济学不太了解。 你可以假设从一个巨大的未使用的山地创造一个“十亿美元的工业”,你花费数十亿美元在两个地点之间来回移动山脉,反复无限。 当然,新兴技术可能出现十亿美元的第二产业,围绕“更好,更快”地提高收入 – 他们以某种方式仍然会在某些地方使用。

这只是一个神话说,CERN大型强子对撞机(LHC)的粒子物理学给了社会新的物理学,直接导致了新的技术。到目前为止,标准模型仅涉及奇特的概念,例如夸克,色彩收费,没有任何工程师可以在工作中使用。 过去几十年的巨大技术进步与CERN进行的实验无关;他们只是在二十世纪三十年代量子力学突破以来的数十年来,对物理学的经验实验结果。

爱因斯坦的狭义相对论和E =mc²虚构:
以下是最 简单的物理学,任何新生物理学本科生都可以轻易地遵循 – 并且自己看;不要盲目相信)
当被告知E=mc²是虚构的时候,大多数人会不敢相信。是不是着名的“原子弹”公式,原子弹的原因是什么,为什么核反应堆工作。确实是的!该公式可能是正确的,因为当一些质量“缺失”时,从核裂变反应释放的巨大能量的估计是正确的,并且估计根据E=mc² 将其转换为能量。虚构的不是关于大规模赤字与核能结合能量之间的关系的物理学,而是当 E=mc² 通过相对论力学来延伸。根据相对论力学,当粒子加速到接近光速 c(299792458 m/s)时,粒子的质量接近无穷大(只是持续增加)。它的速度可能会像技术许可一样接近c,但是它永远不会比c快 – 没有比光快。这就是狭义相对论的理论。但是,这个理论是否良好,测试良好?从普林斯顿大学和剑桥大学这样的顶尖大学的物理学系来说,答案是,是!

相对论力量开始时,他们发明了一种“新”的动力来取代牛顿的老势头,这是三个世纪以来从未失败的工作动力,仍然像以往一样有效;当然这取决于你所属的“阵营”。古典牛顿力学将动量定义为: p = mv; 牛顿力: F=d/dt(mv)= ma 给出牛顿第二定律的着名公式为:F = ma 或质量x加速度。 通过物理学力量的这种定义,将标准 SI 力单位牛顿定义为 kg.m/s²(千克/秒)。 在爱因斯坦在 1905 年的狭义相对论之后,他们开始开发一种 “新的更好的” 力学来取代牛顿力学。他们首先发明了一种新的相对论动力 – 通过重新定义动量。 动量: p = mv 现在被 : p =(1 /√(1-v²/c²))mv =γmv 取代了;其中 γ= 1/√(1-v²/c²)。换句话说,对于旧的动量 p = mv 具有额外的 “γ” 因子。

当然,当物理学理论的基本定义发生变化时,它将成为一种新的物理学,另一种力学。 新老不能共在; 天只接受一个,拒绝另一个。 那么天接受哪一个呢? 经过 300年考验的牛顿力学还是受欢迎的100年的狭义相对力学。 只有天才知道吗。 但是我们可能会尝试根据严格的科学论证找到答案。

新的相对主义者以 p =γmv 的新的相对论动量定义,假设他们可以援引牛顿第二定律来定义力量。 在“自然哲学的数学原理”中,牛顿的“原则”第二定律是:

法则2. 运动的变化与压力的动力成正比。

牛顿的“动作”是我们的质量x速度的动量;在微积分中,这意味着:力与动量变化率成比例;或: F=d/dt(mv)=ma。 艾萨克·牛顿本人写道:“与动作成比例的力量”,但很快就忘记了自己写了什么,只使用了“力=质量加速度”。牛顿之后没有人试图定义一个“新的动力”,然后用它引用了原来的牛顿第二定律,直到物理学家发明了相对论力学。然后他们回到以艾萨克·牛顿爵士的“原始”议案,挑选了第二部法律,希望能创造出一种比牛顿力学更好的新理论。你希望创造一个“更好的”,但天怎么样看呢?  你的新创作将会与天相处吗?牛顿的力学 已经收到了全天的祝福,满 300年,天没有表明牛顿是错的 – 不是一次。相对论力学呢?自1905年提出狭义相对论以来,天允许爱因斯坦相对论的争议在地球上继续了一百多年。

LHC质子能量为 6.5 TeV 或 470 MeV?
在相对论力学,力的新定义现在是: f=d/dt{1/√1-v²/c²))mv}; 任何新生物理本科都可以很容易地看到它与: f=d/dt(mv)=ma  是不同。  动能来自于工作能量定理:工作=力x距离。所以一个新的定义肯定会产生新的动能公式。 动能的经典动力学公式为: KE=½mv²。 当然,对于相对论力学,我们预期动力学的动力与动力定义发生了变化。大多数现代物理学教科书都给出了相对论KE公式的推导;公式为: KE=(1/√(1-v²/c²)-1)m₀c² 或 :KE=(γ-1)m₀c²。 例如,CERN报道,其质子的动能已经加速到高达 6.5 TeV(6.5 x 10¹¹电子伏特)。 这是因为质子的速度几乎在 0.99995c – 几乎以光速。但是,如果我们使用:KE =½mv² 的经典动力学公式,则动能将仅为 470MeV – 这不是相当于 15000 倍的差异吗?那么 LHC 内质子的真实动能是什么? 6.5TeV 或 470MeV? 没有人知道答案!没有人直接测量这些质子的能量 (唯一的直接措施是通过量热法 – 转换为热能 进行测量)。

物理学需要有各种基本量的单位标准体系。我们目前拥有质量,长度和时间的标准定义的SI单位,千克,米,秒。力的标准单位是使用牛顿第二定律作为公理的牛顿(符号N):force =ma,使牛顿为 kg.m/s²。 力的定义决定了SI单位的能量和能量单位是焦耳,或 kg.m²/s² 或牛顿米。 新的相对论力量与力的定义如何:

f=d/dt{ (1/√(1-v²/c²)) mv} -(I)

SI 单位的力量单位标准是什么?答:SI 单位没有规定相对论力学的力量标准。从肠道的感觉中,你不可思议地立即作出反应 – 怎么可能?任何人都可以创建一个力学,而且没有一个确定的标准的力量单位。没有一个确定的力量单位,他们如何计算能量的标准能量单位(工作=能量=力x距离)?我不知道 – 你可以尝试自己想一想。牛顿的SI单位来自: f=ma,相对论力来自:f=d/dt{(1/√(1-v²/c²)) mv} – 试图盯着后一个公式,看看是否可以说服自己,终于可以以一种能量的方式出来,这是与焦耳相同的SI单位。



100年前的相对主义者创造了一种新的相对论力学,任意地重新定义动量。并假设 只是因为他们遵循牛顿的原来的第二定律, 其他一切都将自然而然地遵循。天只允许一种方式定义动量概念,以便力学可以用它们的方程来预测动态运动。你定义p = mv或p =γmv, 但只有一个是正确的。 牛顿力学的力量和能量部队已经实施并成功应用了300多年,从来没有失败过。新的相对论力学根本不能用来定义任何实际的标准力或力量单位来计算。那么他们如何“成功”将相对论力学纳入其高能物理学及其粒子物理学的标准模型呢?答:他们都是以虚构的尺度计算能量;他们只是假设他们仍然可以计算SI牛顿和SI焦耳中的能量的力。他们不可以!他们的物理学都是虚构的。

粒子物理学的标准模型没有给我们任何真正的物理学突破,允许我们的工程师用来研究和发明新技术。CERN最初是用于核研究(可能是和平利用核能改善社会),但是尽管他们的“神”粒子是希格斯玻色子,但是他们还没有给我们任何新的核物理学。它们无法解决氢气与氦气的融合,这将解决我们所有的能源需求(氢气便宜并且可以从水 H₂O 中自由获得)。所以切尔诺贝尔和福岛灾难的原因(也是中国的烟雾“灾难”)是因为我们仍然在使用同样的“脏”裂变核反应堆,其基本物理学与我们已经知道的一百年前没有什么不同非常古老的物理学。

我们坚持追求虚构的粒子物理学,而不是把我们的资源用于研究实际的物理学。 那么中国是否应该建立下一代超级粒子加速器。中国是否应该跟随普林斯顿大学和剑桥物理学家的领导,跟随领导者走一个确定无结果的路径!



Large Hadron Collider’s Fake Rating

The CERN Large Hadron Collider not working to specifications

The CERN physicists operating the Large Hadron Collider(LHC) believe that they could push their protons to higher – and yet higher – energy levels with stronger machines. The theory is based on the Lorentz electric force: F = qE (force is electric field per unit charge). As long as the protons pass through additional electric field regions, they would gain greater energy; there is no upper limit for energy according to the mechanics of special relativity. Currently, the physicists of CERN reported that they have propelled protons to energy level of 7 TeV (10¹² electron-volt). Is it true?

The belief of the CERN physicists is outdated by a hundred years. The Lorentz force law: F = q(E + vxB) was developed at about  1890. At that time, Hendriek Lorentz and others had not much information on particles that travel near light speed and  they assumed that the law was true even for particles at near light speed. They were wrong. Their Lorentz force law was only a very approximate law for charge particles at low speeds. The law fails when charged particles reach near the light speed.

The so called “proof” of mass increasing with speed as founded on special relativity come from experiments such as that of the 1908 Bucherer experiment. But the interpretation of the Bucherer experiment was wrong; it was not a proof that mass increases with speed, but that the Lorentz force law (which is the underlying assumption of the experiment) was wrong – it was only an approximation. When the Lorentz law is corrected, the result would come back to the original definition of the invariant mass of Newton – the invariant quantity of matter. The author has a shortpaper which reinterpreted the Bucherer experiment to give the corrected Lorentz force law:
The Bucherer Experiment And The Lorentz Force Law:

Instead of : F = q(E + vxB), the corrected Lorentz force law is now :
F= q((1+v²/c²)√(1-v²/c²)E + √(1-v⁴/c⁴)vxB) — (I)
q is the electric charge of a particle moving at speed v; c = speed of light in vacuum; E = electric field; B=magnetic field.

The CERN physicists have their protons passing through regions after regions with strong electric fields E and think that, by such accelerations, they could accelerate their protons to ever higher levels of energy (only limited by the power of their machines) – but it is only a belief. They relied on the force equation: F=qE; so with push after push of E on the charge q, there is no limit to the pushing and so the energy of the protons have no limit – as they believe. But with the corrected law (I),  we can see from the square-root factor of √(1-v²/c²) that as the speed of the protons reach near that of light speed c, the electric force become weaker and weaker. Extra pushing does not work any more as the force tends to zero; pushing becomes like we pushing against air – emptiness.

Currently, the CERN physicists purportedly have accelerated protons within the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) to energy as high as 7 TeV, moving at speed greater than 99. 99% of the speed of light. But none of the physicists ever measured the quoted actual energy figure of 7 TeV – it is only a figure based on their theory, from their formula. There is no known technique at present to “catch” a proton flying past at near speed of light and to determine its energy experimentally. So the CERN physicists use the “next-best-option” – they use their kinetic energy formula and compute  a theoretical energy figure, hoping (probably with a prayer) that it is what the energy is in reality.

If kinetic energy is computed based on the non-relativistic classical formula of ½mv² – where mass is correctly invariant – a proton’s energy is limited to a maximum of ½mc² or 470 MeV (10⁶ electron-volt), the 7 TeV being overstating energy by a factor of 15,000. If their energy formula is wrong, their theory would simply collapse.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

Boiling Kettles of Water With E=mc2.

For the laymen who has not much of a picture of how E=mc² fails, I’ll give a simplest of example. Energy may most accurately (even when it involves energy of flying protons within those most advanced Large Hadron Collider, the LHC) be estimated by how man kettles of water that may be brought to boil with an amount of energy. A chemist can do a very good estimate of how many kettle of water may be brought to boil by burning 1 litre of gasoline (after some estimates of heat lost). Engineers too have good estimates of how many miles a gallon of petrol may give to a model of a motorbike.

What about the physicists at the CERN running the Large Hadron Collider? Say there is a process which produces an amount of energy. The CERN physicists make an estimate of how much that amount of energy is, in the number of kettles of water that may be brought to boil; say their estimate is 15,000 kettles. Then a gadget is invented to convert the amount of energy of the process to boil kettles of water (assuming no significant energy wastage). It is found that the amount of energy can only boil 1 kettle of water – not 15,000 kettles! There is no excuse for the CERN physicists to make an estimate that is out by a factor of 15,000! What really is the problem is that they are using invalid formulas; had they stick to using the old formula for kinetic energy as what high school students are taught, their estimate would come out right – 1 kettle of water.

The method of computing the energy through heat produced is called calorimetry.

My Webpage:

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

Beta Particles Going faster than light?

Beta particles going faster than light speed?

On September 2011, there were headlines around the world that scientists at CERN had found neutrinos that traveled faster than light; it was headline news as it would mean a violation of relativity theory, something rather serious in physics. It was later found that mistakes were made due to some loose cables. So there is no violation – nothing can exceed the speed of light in vacuum according to relativity theory.

But there is a simple way to settle, once and for all – conclusively – if anything can travel faster than light. It is well known that no particles, including electrons and protons, has ever been detected to go faster than the speed of light within particle accelerators; they go almost a few parts per million below the speed of light, but never exceeding it. But these particles are accelerated and energized through the electromagnetic forces. We don’t select such particles. We select particles that are energized by the nuclear forces.

Radioactive beta decay has been known and studied since the 1920’s. One type would have an unstable heavy nucleus decaying releasing high energy electrons – originally named beta particles. Unlike within particle accelerators, these electrons are energized directly by the nuclear binding energy from within the nucleus. These electrons have an energy distribution that may be from 0 to 1.16 MeV. If relativity theory is not violated, such electrons would never be able to go faster than light. On the other hand, if relativity theory is violated, then any electron that has energy greater than 1 MeV would have a speed of about 2c – twice the speed of light – based on the old kinetic energy formula of 1/2 mv².

But until now, no such experiment has ever been done to measure the speed of such beta particles using the direct time-of-flight method. It would be interesting to have such an experiment done to convincingly settle the question if anything can travel faster than light.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

My Webpage:

E=mc2 And Special Relativity Wrong.

Quite recently, I made some rather fundamental discoveries in physics.

First is the discovery that the well-known equation E=mc² does not work. The formula for the related relativistic kinetic energy evaluates only to a pure fictitious number, not a figure with real units of energy. This has been confirmed in 2009 by Chinese physicists who are members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. They measured energy through direct calorimetry and their experiment conclusively repudiated the relativistic energy of special relativity. They concluded that the 7 TeV (10¹² electron volts) of energy purportedly acquired by protons in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) of CERN have only real energy of about 650 MeV (10⁶ electron volts), off by a factor of 15000 – it is the same as what my new theoretical discovery concludes.

Second, the Lorentz magnetic force law F = q(vXB) is invalid. The force law had been experimentally repudiated since 1901. Without the experimenters realizing it, the purported verification of relativistic mass were actually experimental repudiation of the Lorentz magnetic force law.

Further, the so called experimental proof of special relativity verifying the relativistic energy and momentum relation are illusions. Their theoretical basis starts with assumptions of variable mass, relativistic momentum and a relativistic definition of force in Lorentzian reality. Their equipments, too. were all electronic sensors relying on electromagnetism that give figures that belong also to Lorentzian reality. It would be a miracle if such experimental setups could come up with data that fits the Newtonian kinetic energy of 1/2 mv² which belong to another world – that of Galilean reality.

Comments are welcomed. Anonymous comments are accepted.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

My Webpage: