Debunk A Few World Famous Experiments

Rongqing Dai

Abstract

20^th Century left us many world famous experiments in physics that are still household names today, especially those experimental verifications of theories of relativity for their simplicity in the designs that are easy to be comprehended without the need of arcane physical terminologies. However, unfortunately, among those famous experiments, it is not hard for ordinary people to find defects either in some experiments themselves or in the interpretations of some of the experimental outcome. In this writing we will discuss the logical errors in three of the most famous 20^th century relativistic experiments and the mistakes in the popular 20^th century interpretations of another two world famous experiments.

Keywords: Relativity, Hafele-Keating, Pound-Rebka,Muon, Sagnac, Michelson-Morley

1.  Introduction

20^th Century is famous for many experiments that have earned the global century long fame for this claimed verification of the special and general theories of relativity, among which the most famous ones would be the Hafele-Keating Experiment, the Pound-Rebka Experiment, as well the Heyde experiment which are claimed by the experimenters as the proof of special and general relativities, as well the Sagnac experiment that is claimed by others instead of Sagnac himself as proved special relativity, the Michelson-Morley experiment that has been portrayed as a pivotal experiment that led to the establishment of special relativity.

However, in the following sections we will see that how the above mentioned experiments either disproved the relativity theories or failed to provide any logical support to the relativity theories.

2. Hafele-Keating Experiment

In 1971, physicist Hafele and astronomer Keating took a set of the most advanced atomic clocks at the time and flew eastward and westward around the earth on commercial airliners to verify what they called as the relativistic clock paradox (i.e. the famous twin paradox) once and for all. Since the Hafele-Keating experiment happened in the gravitational field, it has been considered as the verifications of both special and general theories of relativity.

However, in their experimental report [[1]], they set their frame of reference at the top of the North Pole in order to make it an inertial system without being impacted by the rotation of the earth. Given that their flights were pretty much parallel to the movement of equator, their denial of the earth system as inertial would directly invalidated all classical physics from Galileo to Maxwell which normally treat the earth as an inertial system. To make matters worse, Hafele and Keating did not seem to realize that their selection of the frame of reference would not only completely defy the Lorentzian and Einsteinian principle of relativity, but also make their analysis completely invalid for the twin paradox that they claim to verify,  simply because their view point would not be valid according to special relativity for examining the time dilation issue between the clocks they carried on board of the airplanes and the clocks left on the ground.

The problem that they astoundingly overlooked is that the twin paradox applies only for twins, not for any group of more than two parties. For example, suppose there are triplets A, B, and C. If A and B fly out in opposite directions at the same speed and C stays on the earth, then C would conclude according to the special theory of relativity that that both A and B are younger but they should be equally young, while A and B would not consider themselves as equally young according to the special theory of relativity since they are moving relative to each other.

Now when conducting their theoretical analysis by setting their frame of reference at the North Pole, while their investigated objects were either on the airplane or in the U.S. Naval Observatory, both moving relative to the frame of reference selected for analysis, Hefele and Keating practically turned their analyzed problem into a triplet game instead of a supposed twin paradox issue. Hence, the analysis of Hefele and Keating about their experimental results by selecting the frame of reference over the North Pole would not only be completely meaningless for the twin paradox issue that they were meant to verify but also definitely lead to results that defy the special relativity, just as demonstrated in the above example of triplet A, B, and C. However, surprisingly, they found their experimental data matching their erroneous analysis very well.

Later in 1975 to 1976, a team of University of Maryland did similar experiments based on the idea of Hafele-Keating experiment with a turboprop plane flying at a lower altitude and a slower speed, in the local skies. Their experimental outcome was demonstrated to be basically in consistence with the outcome of the Hafele-Keating experiment. In 1996 National Physical Laboratory (NPL) of United Kingdom imitated the Hafele-Keating experiment by flying a round trip from London to Washington DC and back; in 2010 the same lab once again repeated the experiment in a similar way by flying around the globe along the route of London – Los Angeles – Auckland – Hong Kong – London. Both of the NPL experiments demonstrated good consistency with the Hafele-Keating experiment [[2]]. In 2010 NIST tested the gravitational impact upon time [[3]] and the outcome at a linearly extrapolated scale was very consistent with Hafele-Keating experiment as well.

Now with the awareness that the theoretical analysis of Hafele and Keating completely defied the special relativity, based on the fact that all the above mentioned experimental results including the Hafele-Keating experiment and all other subsequent ones conducted by others were in very well consistency with the theoretical analysis of Hafele and Keating, the simple and straight logical conclusion we can draw is that all those experiments have demonstrated that the special relativity is wrong. Further, in order to verify the effect of special relativity, in all the above mentioned experiments (except for the NIST one) the scientists needed to subtract the theoretical prediction of the gravitational impact according to general relativity, and thus the consistency between the final results and the theoretical analysis of Hafele and Keating also indirectly disproves the prediction of general relativity.

3. Pound-Rebka Experiment

In 1959, Robert Pound and Glen A. Rebka Jr conducted an experiment in a tower at Harvard University’s Jefferson laboratory to test the time-dilation theory of general relativity [[4]]. They put a source of gamma rays at the top of the tower which would shoot gamma rays downwards to a receiving apparatus with substances that would only absorb photons of the frequency close to the emitting frequency located at the bottom of the tower. They claimed that due to the gravitational effect, according to general relativity, time goes slower at the bottom of the tower than at the top of the tower, and thus the frequency of light would increase when the photon moving downward from the top and cause blue-shift, which they argued could be offset with the red-shift effect created by the upward movement of the source so that some photons would be absorbed by the receiving apparatus when reaching the bottom of the tower, serving as the proof that light does experience blue-shift when moving downwards in the gravitational field. They installed their source of gamma rays on a vibrating speaker in order to create the upward movement of the source. As the outcome of the experiment, they reported that the red-shift caused by their artificially created upward movement of the source was offset by the blue-shift effect as predicted by the general theory of relativity.

However, they astoundingly overlooked the fact that it was impossible for their experiment to discern between the impacts of the upward and downward movements of the source with true objectivity without a subjective presumption when the source was installed on a vibrating speaker no matter what kind measures they took. In case that the frequency of the downward light does not increase as general relativity predicted but rather decreases with the same proportionality, they would get the same outcome. Further, since during the vibration on the speaker, the source would also experience the moments of zero speed when changing its direction of movement, their experimental outcome could even be good for the case with no red-shift or blue-shift effect of gravity to the light at all.

The only reason why they could draw the conclusion of having observed the blue-shift of light in the gravitational field through their experiment was because they assumed that the prediction of time-dilation by the general theory of relativity was correct. That is to say they knew the results before the experiment and used their relevant knowledge to judge the results of the experiment. That makes their experiment meaningless or at least redundant.

4. Experiment to Verify Time Dilation with Muons

In this section let’s look into a kind of famous experiments for demonstrating that the apparent elongated lifespan of muons travelling through the atmosphere is the result of time dilation (e.g. [[5]]). The theory behind the so called apparent elongated lifespan of muons travelling through the atmosphere normally goes like this (e.g. [[6]]):

The emergence of the muons is caused by the collision of cosmic rays with the upper atmosphere, after which the muons reach Earth. Suppose T is the lifespan of the muon measured in the earth inertial frame S, and T’₀ is the lifespan of the muon according to the proper time of a clock in the inertial frame S’ comoving with the muon, corresponding with the mean decay time of the muon in its proper frame, then because of time dilation we have

 T = γT’₀ > T’₀,                                                             (1)

where γ = (1- V²/c²)^-½, from which the relativistic scholars conclude: the reason why the muon can pass through the thickness of earth atmosphere within its supposedly very short lifespan is because when observing from the earth inertial frame S its lifespan becomes longer thus it can move farther with the same value of the supposed lifespan at the same relative speed v.

Then when stepping from S into S’, the relativistic scholars would use time dilation no more but shift to length contraction as follows

 L = L’₀ /γ < L’₀,                                               (2)

where L’₀ is the proper distance in S’ that the muon could travel within its lifespan, and L is the distance that the muon can travel in S when calculated in S’, from which the relativistic scholars conclude: the reason why the muon can pass through the thickness of earth atmosphere within its supposedly very short lifespan is because when observing from muon’s inertial frame S’, the earth atmosphere becomes thinner thus muon needs shorter time to pass through it at the same relative speed v.

Here we should take heed of the typical asymmetric uses of the Lorentz transformations: time dilation is cited when the discussion is based on the observation from S while length contraction is cited when the discussion is based on the observation from S’.

This asymmetric uses of Lorentz transformations in S and S’ when explaining the seemingly longer lifespan of the muon is not accidental but due to inevitable causes:

If they continue to use time dilation when stepping into S’, since the relative speed v would not change with the Lorentz transformation, we would have

L = vT = vT’₀/γ = L’₀ /γ < L’₀                                              (3)

Although (3) and (2) look exactly the same, they actually read very differently because with (2) we are focusing on the relativistic change of spatial span while with (3) we are focusing on the relativistic change of temporal duration. More specifically, (2) reads as “the thickness of the earth atmosphere in S that the muon needs to pass through becomes thinner when observing from S’”, but (3) reads as “the distance L that the muon can travel in S within its lifespan is shorter than the distance L’₀ that the muon can travel in its own frame S’ within its lifespan”.

Obviously, the effect indicated by (3) would logically cancel out the effect indicated by (2): even though now the muon only needs to travel a shorter distance in order to pass through the earth atmosphere, it would also die within a shorter distance therefore it might still not be able to pass through that shorter distance.

Here the catch that causes this confliction is that the speed v and the lifespan T’₀ of the muon in S’ are two constants for the analysis. Therefore, when we make observation from S, we might conclude that the muon can travel a longer distance at the same speed v because the earthly observed lifespan is longer than T’₀, but when we make observation from S’, we would find that a shorter period of time T in S would be corresponding to T’₀ in S’ according to Lorentz transformation for time dilation, which entails that the muon would only travel a shorter distance in S within its lifespan T’₀. Obviously, these two conclusions contradict each other.

This need of asymmetric treatment due to the difficulty of symmetric treatment is a common problem with special relativity. In fact, if we cite length contraction instead of time dilation when observing from S, it would right away lead to the opposite conclusion of a longer lifespan for a moving muon: we might find that when observed in S whatever distance the muon travels would become shorter and thus the muon would die within a shorter distance than calculated in S’.

4.1. Reasonable considerations for investigating the muon lifespan issue

Obviously, it is logically unsound to assume that time dilation is the cause of the apparent longer lifespan of muons in the earth atmosphere.

In fact, given that air density is much higher in the lower atmosphere than the  upper atmosphere while cosmic rays are constantly penetrating the atmosphere with high magnetic rigidity [[7]], it would be more reasonable to question the validity of the assumption that muons in the atmosphere are solely created at the upper atmosphere. This is because the increase of air density near the ground compared to the upper boundary of atmosphere is tremendous while the reduction of cosmic rays due to the influence of earth magnetic field is only a small portion as pointed by Viel [7], and thus there would be more chances for the cosmic ray to create muons in the lower region with higher air density.

Besides, it might also be meaningful to investigate the impact of the dynamics of moving in the earth gravitational field upon the lifespan of muons until some definite knowledge can be obtained for the issue.

5. False Interpretations of Two Valid Experiments

In sections 2 to 4, we have seen three examples of world famous experiments that either completely disproved what the experimenters claimed to prove, or would not be able to prove what they meant to prove at all because of the defective designs of the experiments. In other words, the above experiments failed by the experimenters themselves despite they have been hailed by the whole world as the successful verifications of special and general relativities for the past century.

In the following two subsections of this section, we will see two examples of successful experiments that have been misinterpreted by the world as evidences to support the special theories of relativity while they either indeed disprove the special relativity or logically irrelevant to the relativity theory.

5.1. Sagnac experiment

In 1913 French physicist Georges Sagnac conducted an experiment which substantially challenged the second postulate of the special theory of relativity. During the experiment, a beam of light is split into two beams which are made to follow the same path but in opposite directions, and on return to the point of entry the two light beams are allowed to exit the ring and undergo interference as recorded by an interferometer. When Sagnac ([[8]], [[9]]) let the table on which the light paths were established to rotate slowly (1 to 2 revolutions per second), he recorded the difference between the paths of those two beams, which was a clear indication that the speed of light relative to the observers obeys the classic Galilean rule of superposition. The mechanism of the Sagnac experiment has been named as Sagnac effect and devices built with Sagnac effect are routinely used in guidance and navigation systems for commercial airliners, nautical ships, spacecraft, and in many other applications.

However, the physical revelation of the Sagnac experiment has been surprisingly misinterpreted for the past more than a century period of time as a famous support of special relativity. The most hilarious part of this is that the relativistic derivations of Sagnac effect would normally share a commonplace by first admitting that the speed of those light beams in opposite directions equal to c – v and c + v, and then managing to prove that the constant speed of light in vacuum makes sense in Sagnac experiment by citing the Lorentz transformations, as we might see in the work of Mathpages [[10]] when the author even admits that devices made of Sagnac effect are capable of detecting rotation rates as slight as 0.00001 degree per hour. Obviously, these people do not seem to realize that by assuming the speed of light of those beams in opposite directions to be c – v and c + v, they already deny the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum and thus deny the value of special relativity.

5.2. Michelson-Morley experiment

19^th century was the time when physicists were exploring the electromagnetic world by making analogies to the classic mechanics. Naturally, they had the idea of supposing a medium to support light just like air or water as media to carry sound waves or surface water waves, and they called that medium as luminiferous aether as an analogy to the ancient notion of aether for the medium of gravity [[11]]. This idea instigated a surge of researches trying to prove the existence of the luminiferous aether or even to find a way to measure it. This goal failed badly, and the most famous of those efforts was the experiment conducted by American physicists Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley in 1887 and published in November of the same year (e.g. [[12]]). Since then the Michelson-Morley experiment has been called the most famous failed experiment in history because it became an important catalyst for the birth of the special theory of relativity. The establishment of the special relativity in turn caused the denial of the notion of absolute space and time by claiming that space and time are relatively relating to each other through the Lorentz transformations.

However, as discussed by Dai in 2022, the Michelson-Morley experiment could be easily and definitely explained by the following equation based on the revised postulate of speed of light in vacuum [[13]]:

c_ab = c + ∆v                              (4)

where c_ab is the speed of light in vacuum between two objects a and b, c is the speed of light in vacuum given by the Maxwell formula, and ∆v is the relative speed between objects a and b. From (4) we can see that the reason why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed is because with their experimental set up, ∆v = 0, and thus in theory we should have c_ab = c; of course, since the surface of earth is not in pure inertial motion but with slight acceleration, with high precision Michelson-Morley style experiments, we might still detect the tiny ∆v caused by theacceleration of earth.

Now when we look back to the whole thing, we might find that the above logic of using the failed Michelson-Morley experiment to support special relativity is amusingly ill-founded. Here we see such a strange role of the failed Michelson-Morley experiment: people first artificially fabricated the concepts of aether and cosmic center and tried hard to prove their existences, then the failures of proving their existences were used as the evidences that the space and time should not be absolute but rather relatively relating to each other through the Lorentz transformations. In other words, scientists first created some nonexistent things so that they could prove their nonexistence and then used those proofs to conclude that space and time are relating to each other through the Lorentz transformations. It is like in order to prove the existence of A, we first assume the existence of some irrelevant B and set off to prove it; once we failed to prove the existence of B, we conclude that A exists.

6. Final Remarks

In this writing we have seen how amazingly the earth civilization could collectively embrace some experiments with obvious logical defects or some simply illogical interpretations of some experiments, and make them world famous examples for educating the whole earth populace about nature for a century’s long period. We might indeed need to ask what’s wrong with Homo sapiens and learn how to become more mature as a civilization when facing the possible interstellar competitions.

References

---

[[1]] Hafele, J.C. and Keating, R.E. (1972). “Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains”. Science, New Series, Vol. 177, No. 4044 (Jul 14, 1972), 166-168. Retrieved from: https://virgilio.mib.infn.it/~oleari/public/relativita/materiale_didattico/Hafele-Keating-predict_observ.pdf

[[2]] Wikipedia. “Hafele-Keating experiment”. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment. Last edited on 2 September 2023, at 20:39 (UTC).

[[3]] NIST (2010). “NIST Clock Experiment Demonstrates That Your Head is Older Than Your Feet”. Retrieved from: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-clock-experiment-demonstrates-your-head-older-your-feet

[[4]] Wikipedia, “Pound–Rebka experiment”. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment. Last edited on 28 August 2023, at 03:34 (UTC).

[[5]] Heyde, Henrik Bak (2018) [YouTube] “Time Dilation, An Experiment With Mu – Mesons (1962)”. url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wH2UbjGKlw

[[6]] Wikipedia. Experimental testing of time dilation. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation#Atmospheric_tests. Last edited on 21 July 2023, at 03:25 (UTC).

[[7]] Viel, D (2021). Muons atmospheric time dilation experiment. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/66182321/Muons_atmospheric_time_dilation_experiment

[[8]] Wikipedia. Sagnac effect. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect. Last edited on 7 September 2023, at 03:06 (UTC).

[[9]] Sagnac, G. (1913). The luminiferous aether demonstrated by the effect of the wind relative to the aether in a uniformly rotating interferometer. Comptes Rendus, 157: 708-710. translated from French by Wikisource. Retrieved from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:The_Demonstration_of_the_Luminiferous_Aether

[[10]] Mathpages (2022). The Sagnac Effect. Retrieved from https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

[[11]] van Lunteren, F.H. (2002). Nicolas Fatio de Duillier on the Mechanical Cause of Universal Gravitation. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/28429712/Nicolas_Fatio_de_Duillier_on_the_Mechanical_Cause_of_Universal_Gravitation

[[12]] Wikipedia (2022h). Michelson–Morley experiment. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Most_famous_%22failed%22_experiment. Last edited on 9 October 2022, at 18:58 (UTC).

[[13]] Dai, R. (2022). The Fall of Special Relativity and The Absoluteness of Space and Time. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363582341_The_Fall_of_Special_Relativity_and_The_Absoluteness_of_Space_and_Time