The Aether Theory of Relativity

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf,

Obviously, relativistic mass increase in particle accelerators is a tricky business given that the system, including the "measurement" systems are designed by relativists. That said, there appears to be some basis for marengo's argument on this point.

He has no argument;

Calorimeter (particle physics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In particle physics, a calorimeter is an experimental apparatus that measures the energy of particles. Most particles enter the calorimeter and initiate a particle shower and the particles' energy is deposited in the calorimeter, collected, and measured. The energy may be measured in its entirety, requiring total containment of the particle shower, or it may be sampled. Typically, calorimeters are segmented transversely to provide information about the direction of the particle or particles, as well as the energy deposited, and longitudinal segmentation can provide information about the identity of the particle based on the shape of the shower as it develops. Calorimetry design is an active area of research in particle physics.

Contents
1 Types of calorimeter
1.1 Electromagnetic versus hadronic
1.2 Homogeneous versus sampling
2 Calorimeters in High Energy Physics Experiments
3 See also
4 References
5 External links

Types of calorimeter

Electromagnetic versus hadronic

An electromagnetic calorimeter is one specifically designed to measure the energy of particles that interact primarily via the electromagnetic interaction, while a hadronic calorimeter is one designed to measure particles that interact via the strong nuclear force. (See types of particle showers for the differences between the two.) The response of a calorimeter can be described in terms of the e/h ratio. This is the measure of how well a calorimeter responds to leptons or photons versus hadrons. Ideally one would want a ratio e/h~1, this condition is called compensation.

Homogeneous versus sampling

Either of the above types can be made as a sampling calorimeter, in which the material that produces the particle shower is distinct from the material that measures the deposited energy. Typically the two materials alternate. One advantage of this is that each material can be well-suited to its task; for example, a very dense material can be used to produce a shower that evolves quickly in a limited space, even if the material is unsuitable for measuring the energy deposited by the shower. A disadvantage is that some of the energy is deposited in the wrong material and is not measured; thus the total shower energy must be estimated.

A homogeneous calorimeter is one in which the entire volume is sensitive and contributes a signal.[1] Only electromagnetic calorimeters can be homogeneous.

Calorimeters in High Energy Physics Experiments

Most particle physics experiments use some form of calorimetry. In most experiments the calorimeter works in conjunction with other components like a Central Tracker and a Muon Detector. All the detector components work together to achieve the objective of reconstructing a physics event.

How do they go about measuring all the energy released in collisions?

See above. However, "all" of the energy? Probably not.

Do you know, are they sure, or even, can they be sure, about the number of protons involved per collision?

No. Estimated to a certain extent but its all on group behaviour so there's some consistency.

....possibly the additional kinetic energy released upon destruction of the proton in collision.

Can it be confirmed with absolute certainty that protons are "destroyed"?

Maybe not but then where do the protons go and where do the other particles come from? Obviously when I say destroyed I just mean no longer in the same form they entered the equipment. They're split or changed in some way.

[Aardwolf]

Please explain why A has run faster while B has run slower? Whose perspective is this from? What do the clocks read when A & B are united?

The two clocks start synchronized and finish un-synchronized, OK. That is they then differ. If they differ one clock, call it A, sees that B has run slow relative to himself (the clocks are their own observers). Thus clock B must also read clock A as having run fast relative to himself. It is so straightforward that I have great difficulty in seeing what else I can say.

Then please explain exactly why A's run faster and B's run slower. Under what circumstance did that happen because A separated from B and then reunited at exactly the same rate and duration as B separated from and then reunited with A.

[viscount aero]

The whole clock test is bunk. It doesn't prove anything about relativity because it can only remain a thought experiment and within the realm of subjectivity. In relativity conditions are true simultaneously for each observer in their independent frames of reference. The planes and clocks tests done in the 1970s and thereafter are not testing for relativity whatsoever. I can't believe such a test was ever considered seriously when its results were to never have anything to do with Einsteinian time dilation. Time dilation is subjective only.

My main point is this. The LHC shows a relativistic mass effect of 15000 times. Mass increase, time dilation and length contraction stem from the same theory. If one is correct then all three are correct. Thus time dilation occurs.

Time to throw out your old and false ideas, viscount aero. You are struggling away in the last ditch.

Ok I'll even give you time dilation but the planes with clocks test doesn't prove anything whatever to do with relativity. In fact no test with physical clocks can ever test for relativity. That is my main point (for now).

[Aardwolf]

Anyway it is not possible to measure mass directly.

Indeed. Yet you keep insisting that it is the mass that increased contrary to all the evidence because it fits your theory, rather than accept the probability it was simply energy transferred from the 40,000,000 watt accelerator to the particles.

[Solar]

Aardwolf,

Obviously, relativistic mass increase in particle accelerators is a tricky business given that the system, including the "measurement" systems are designed by relativists. That said, there appears to be some basis for marengo's argument on this point.

He has no argument...;

I don't think he has an argument either because he hasn't clarified his relativistic terminology to point to any real distinction between his work and the fuzzy nomenclature of a typical Relativist. It is vital that Marengo do this with AToR; not to mention with his on the fly explanations. The particle collisions are energetic electromagnetic interactions (electromagnetic showers, ionization, cascades etc); not billiards balls of "matter". They, the "particles", are energy constructs.

Atlas Calorimetry at the Large Hadron Collider

LHC & Calorimetry

That is why the following paper is important:

On the Abuse and Use of Relativistic Mass

Even LHC's own public face can blur the lines:

Tracking devices reveal the paths of electrically charged particles as they pass through and interact with suitable substances. Most tracking devices do not make particle tracks directly visible, but record tiny electrical signals that particles trigger as they move through the device.

(..)

A calorimeter measures the energy a particle loses as it passes through. It is usually designed to stop entirely or “absorb” most of the particles coming from a collision, forcing them to deposit all of their energy within the detector.
(...)

Electromagnetic calorimeters measure the energy of electrons and photons as they interact with the electrically charged particles in matter. Hadronic calorimeters sample the energy of hadrons (particles containing quarks, such as protons and neutrons) as they interact with atomic nuclei.

(...)

When a charged particle travels faster than light does through a given medium, it emits Cherenkov radiation at an angle that depends on its velocity. The particle's velocity can be calculated from this angle. Velocity can then be combined with a measure of the particle's momentum to determine its mass, and therefore its identity.

When a fast charged particle crosses the boundary between two electrical insulators with different resistances to electric currents, it emits transition radiation. The phenomenon is related to the energy of the particle and so can distinguish different particle types. - How a Detector Works: CERN

[Michael V]

Solar,

Thanks for that. Of all the supposed examples of relativistic effects quoted by marengo, the "mass increase" of LHC protons is the only one that is not immediately available to explanation. In part this is due to the enormous cloud of relativistic haze intrinsic to the notion of "a quantum mechanical truth to be found in particle accelerators". From looking at the "details" of the detector experiments, it is very quickly apparent that the detection methodology is based on a set of theoretically defined inferences: if...if...if...if...if...if...if...if....then, tadah!, it must be true - although that may also be said, to some extent, about all detection and observation. Of course, my scepticism (and sarcasm) doesn't provide me any immunity from being wrong; I'm sure you would agree with that.


Michael

[marengo]

Then please explain exactly why A's run faster and B's run slower. Under what circumstance did that happen because A separated from B and then reunited at exactly the same rate and duration as B separated from and then reunited with A.

Why do I have to keep explaining the same thing over and over again?

When I introduced the 2 clock situation I explained that they took different journeys.
Hence one journey is longer than the other. Thus one clock goes faster than the other. Hence it runs slower. Is that not obvious?

[marengo]

Ok I'll even give you time dilation but the planes with clocks test doesn't prove anything whatever to do with relativity. In fact no test with physical clocks can ever test for relativity. That is my main point (for now).

OK. So you now accept that time dilation does occur.
Then surely it must occur in the Hafele-Keating experiment. It is a classic case of two synchronized clocks parting and taking different journeys before re-uniting. See my reply to Aardwolf above.

[marengo]

Indeed. Yet you keep insisting that it is the mass that increased contrary to all the evidence because it fits your theory, rather than accept the probability it was simply energy transferred from the 40,000,000 watt accelerator to the particles.

Aardwolf, you are still trying to do away with the mass/energy relationship in order to support your false beliefs.
Give it up man. You cant turn the whole world upside down merely so you dont have to change your mind.

[Michael V]

Aardwolf,

Thanks for the insight into calorimeters.

Maybe not but then where do the protons go and where do the other particles come from? Obviously when I say destroyed I just mean no longer in the same form they entered the equipment. They're split or changed in some way.

Well, exactly. The collision process provides the protons with a temporary high mass signature and then, a billionth of a second later, they "decay" back into protons. Or you could say that they turn into Ws, Zs and gluons, very much in the same way that a pixie turns into a leprechaun on nights when the moon shines green.


Michael

[marengo]

I don't think he has an argument either because he hasn't clarified his relativistic terminology to point to any real distinction between his work and the fuzzy nomenclature of a typical Relativist. It is vital that Marengo do this with AToR; not to mention with his on the fly explanations. The particle collisions are energetic electromagnetic interactions (electromagnetic showers, ionization, cascades etc); not billiards balls of "matter". They, the "particles", are energy constructs.

If you find anything unclear in my explanations then why not choose something specific for me to reply to rather than continually make airy and obscure accusations.
Of all the posts that have appeared on this thread NO-ONE has argued in a specific manner.
The only person to attempt to get down to real points was Michael V.
I am afraid that I must interpret your obscurity as having nothing of any real importance to say.

By the way, I have never said that particles are 'billiard balls' of matter. My Aether theory dictates that there is no substance of matter. You are another one who find it too much trouble to read my 30 page booklet.

[marengo]

Well, exactly. The collision process provides the protons with a temporary high mass signature and then, a billionth of a second later, they "decay" back into protons. Or you could say that they turn into Ws, Zs and gluons, very much in the same way that a pixie turns into a leprechaun on nights when the moon shines green.

Very funny. But of course for our purpose it is totally irrelevant what the protons decay into. Actually, of course they dont decay, they are smashed to pieces by colloding with other protons coming from the opposite direction, hence LH Collider.
So the LHC scientists are lying. Mass doesn't exist and neither does Time. The whole world is wrong or telling fibs but you and Solar, Aardwolf etc are correct. Everybody is out of step other than you.

Now I dont mind people who are rebels. I am one myself. BUT YOUR ARGUMENTS MUST BE LOGICAL AND REASONABLE.
Yours aren't.

[Michael V]

marengo,

Actually, of course they dont decay, they are smashed to pieces...

A bold claim indeed.

BUT YOUR ARGUMENTS MUST BE LOGICAL AND REASONABLE.
Yours aren't.

Well, we must work harder then, mustn't we.


I am just in the process of preparing some material for discussion of the derivation and validity of the Lorentz Factor and transforms. Visitors and children are adding delays, please bear with me for a few days.


Michael

[marengo]

I thought I might introduce you to some of the errors and problems of Einstein's Special Theory.

His theory is based upon observations between IRFs. IRFs are theoretical mathematical constructs known as Spacetime.
Einstein postulates that the speed of light is identical in every IRF.
Now Einstein may postulate what he wishes BUT the postulates cannot be illogical even though they may be bizarre.
How can a mathematical IRF support the physical electromagnetic waves of light? Einstein is mixing maths with reality. It cant be done.

Space time is given as x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - c^2t^2 = 0.
This merely saying that t = d/c where d is the sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2).
I dont argue with that BUT you cannot then extrapolate that time to bodies which are not moving at velocity c, in other words matter bodies.

I think that is enough to be getting on with.

[viscount aero]

Solar,

Thanks for that. Of all the supposed examples of relativistic effects quoted by marengo, the "mass increase" of LHC protons is the only one that is not immediately available to explanation. In part this is due to the enormous cloud of relativistic haze intrinsic to the notion of "a quantum mechanical truth to be found in particle accelerators". From looking at the "details" of the detector experiments, it is very quickly apparent that the detection methodology is based on a set of theoretically defined inferences: if...if...if...if...if...if...if...if....then, tadah!, it must be true - although that may also be said, to some extent, about all detection and observation. Of course, my scepticism (and sarcasm) doesn't provide me any immunity from being wrong; I'm sure you would agree with that.


Michael

That applies, too, to the so-called Higgs boson.