Talk:Tests of special relativity

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the relativity task force.

Recommendation for article move

I recommend moving this article to Tests of special relativity. This move would make it correspond exactly to General relativity / Tests of general relativity. I have documented this issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Taskforces/Relativity#Inconsistencies_in_special_relativity_articles_and_categories.Jarhed (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article in its current shape serves no purpose. Does anyone care, when I remove the useless "compatibility" sections and instead of it expand the experimental passages? After that, the article can be moved to Tests of special relativity. --D.H (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the article based on the German version, and moved it to Tests of special relativity. --D.H (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand this illustration

This illustration has a very strange appearance. The circle-plus looks like it may have been intended to represent a vector perpendicular to the plane of the illustration, but it appears to have positioning problems due to librsvg getting confused... this is the sort of thing that often happens if librsvg is confronted with a font that isn't available on the server and which it therefore does not understand. This illustration does not appear to come directly from the Bucherer article, but seems to represent somebody's interpretation of Bucherer's written description. Can you help explain it to me? Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made some corrections to the image. The arrow-heads were tilted 90 degrees from the direction that they were intended to display. I replaced the arrowheads with my own do-it-yourself arrowheads. The circle-plus was indeed intended to represent a vector perpendicular to the plane of the illustration, and the problem originated, as I guessed, from a text rendering issue. Converting all of the text to paths corrected the centering issues. However, I am still unhappy with the image, since I still don't know for sure what is going on. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still very unhappy about the image. The image seems to imply that the electron is being accelerated in a parabolic arc, when its path through a uniform magnetic field ought to be circular. I need to study the paper. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historically interesting, but inconclusive experimental results

Many/most of the experiments referenced in this article in support of special relativity were shown by Fox in the 1960's to be flawed, mostly on the basis of the effects of dispersion, and of the Extinction Theorem. In particular, any double-star experiment (including Michelson-Morley, and de Sittar), and any experiment in air, were shown to be equally supportive of emission theory as of special relativity. Those experiments should all be described as historically interesting, but unsupportive, in this article. Filippas and Fox, and also the Alvagar experiment, were the first experiments, using gamma rays from moving sources, to fully support special relativity. See Martinez for a full historical perspective. Pgf 08:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgf (talk • contribs)

The experiments "paving the way to relativity" are connected with the development and experimental refutation of certain aether theories, which were the predominant models in the 19th century. In this context, the experiments are clear and conclusive, and led to the development of the Lorentz transformation. Now, emission (corpuscular) theories were already abandoned in the second part of the 19th century, and the attempts of its revival by Ritz and others in the early 20th century found only little support. That Fox (in the 1960ies) showed that extinction can make emission theories consistent with historical experiments, is certainly an interesting development, but it doesn't change the main point: the refutation of the classical aether theories. (Of course, also emission theories incorporating extinction effects were refuted in the 1960ies). PS: We already have a section on dependence on source velocity in this article. Any clarification should be made in that section. --D.H (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about the aether theories to comment in that context. My point is that a number of famous experiments done prior to the 60s were historically taken to support the theory of special relativity when, in fact, they only did so coincidentally. It would seem appropriate to note those cases. Pgf 23:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgf (talk • contribs)

I've updated the "No dependence on source velocity" section, as suggested. Pgf 14:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgf (talk • contribs)

Thanks. Note that de Sitter's experiment was repeated using x-rays by Brecher under consideration of the extinction theorem, therefore I've re-inserted it into the section. --D.H (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good. It's a nice little diagram -- I'm glad it could be saved. I've added one more minor clarification I realized was missing. I think I'm done now. Pgf 13:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgf (talk • contribs)

References in relation to isotropy and anisotropy of one-way speed of light

My edit to this page got deleted by Dvdm, not at all unexpected. Dvdm left the following message on my talk page: "We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Tests of special relativity, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)"

"which no reliable, published sources exist; " This claim is just false, that Dvdm not have good access to scientific journals and older publications is more likely the case here.

I think it is sad that one not can refer to references even published by established academic journals by Springer like: General Relativity and Gravitation as well as Precision Measurements and Fundamental Constants II published by National Bureau of Standards USA. These where my two reference sources. Is sources one can refere to on wikipedia limited to only what is Easily accessible online, open? If so wikipedia will easily be get quite biased on several pages related to science. There exist a long series of publications, many highly ranked academic journals that not are public available without subscription, but it is public available in good libraries. The idea of Wikipedia is great; unfortunately the aggressive editing of contributors that give some flavors that make the reader think a little outside the main consensus is often deleted, despite many scientists not subscribing to the established consensus on a series of still open questions.

I strongly doubt the deleting done by Dvdm is in the spirit of those who once created wikipedia, but we see this type of deletion quite frequently on wikipedia these days. I hope wikipedia, other editors will stop (change) such attitude. One should expect people deleting other contributions to do a decent attempt to get hold of excellent source material referred to, not everything is on the web these days, well these references are even accessible on the web, and good libraries have them. More and more scientists I know are getting irritated over how many pages on wikipedia is heavily biased towards only the main frame view, and how even well known published papers in good journals and by even National Bureau of Standards USA gets deleted when not falling in taste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelAlone (talk • contribs) 21:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I undid ([1]) the edit because it is a typical example of original research by synthesis, as outlined in our policy wp:SYNTH. I think that this speaks entirely for itself, so I can't add much to this, I'm afraid. - DVdm (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" You have indicated you not even have read the sources, my comments were very objective. This is what wikipedia says now: " A series of one-way measurements were undertaken, ALL of them confirming the isotropy of the speed of light" I corrected to many and then referred to several papers not agreeing on one-way being isotropic when getting around Einstein-Poincare synchronization. This is an excellent example of how biased wikipedia gets on certain topics when the varied view among scientists are ignored and one only present the main stream view and edit away everything else. People not well studied on the literature get the impression that every experiment and physicists agree, something that is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelAlone (talk • contribs) 22:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only one view is presented, namely the main stream view. That a series of scientists, several of them with experiments published in high ranked academic publications not agree with the main stream view is edited away (deleted). This is not at all unexpected as some editors (due to lack of reading most of the literature) or for political reasons are deleting any reference to any source not in line with the main frame view. Where there still are open questions this should be reflected in the wikipedia articles, if not wikipedia will loose its credibility over time. This is unfortunate as wikipedia is such a nice platform for information. TravelAlone — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelAlone (talk • contribs) 22:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)TravelAlone (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) and indent the messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT. Thanks.

I have reverted again ([2]) and put a second level warning on your user talk page—see wp:SYNTH and wp:BURDEN. By the way, also have a careful look at wp:edit warring and wp:BRD. - DVdm (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And again reverted for same reasons ([3]). Continue this, and you will end up blocked. - DVdm (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your deletions, as they make no sense. I recommend you to read the Torr and Kohlen 1984 experiment as well as the 1979 Stefan Marinov experiment, the citations are real, and published in reliable sources, that you should check and study before deleting. If the experiments hold can only be confirmed or disconfirmed by repeating them, not by ignoring them. Also there is naturally a question of how to interpret them. Your editing makes it looks like everyone agree. This is non-scientific.

You simply throw out wp:SYNTH as an argument. Can you point out exactly how my editing is in conflict with this “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.” . If this is your point this is clearly false if you study the references I listed. Did you study the references I listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.39.3.89 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final warnings on user talk page: [4]. - DVdm (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dvdm posted on my talk page "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Tests of special relativity. - DVdm (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)"

This is a subjective opinion of Dvdm. One should study the references I gave. For example Stefan Marinov that published his view on the one-way speed of light in several established academic journals claimed he got around the Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure and that he detected anisotropy in the one-way speed of light. Other physicists do not agree on his view, but the question is still open to debate, and this is my whole point that I objectively stated. As late as 2010 MiT in their Technology Review claimed this was a still open question https://www.technologyreview.com/s/421603/the-one-way-speed-of-light-conundrum/. It is sad that User:Dvdm try to edit away references that simply show it is still is an open question and far from a full agreement on this point. Science is not democracy, it is about repeating experiments. If a handful of experiments that do not agree with main stream view simply get ignored, ridiculed and deleted (their references) then I think many will call this non-scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.39.3.89 (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call it what you like, but Wikipedia needs sources. Your analysis and conclusion from the sources is not sourced. A textbook example of wp:original research through wp:synthesis. - DVdm (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A series of experiments, some of them published in high ranked academic publications claim to have got around the Einstein-Poincare problematic and claim to have found anisotropy in the one-way speed of light. That a series of totally independent experiments using different methods and done by different researchers have found about the same one-way speed of light, and anisotropy should not be ignored, but at least be mentioned. It is fair enough to state that the main consensus is isotropic one-way speed of light, but good science is not a voting process. One experiment can falsify a theory, or prove that it is incomplete. There could be errors done in single experiments, this is why one should have debate on this and repeat the experiments to settle the question "once" and for all. To make this happen one need an open debate, not a scientific-political biased medium. Has the Marinov experiment been repeated? No. Has the Kohlen and Torr experiment been repeated? They claimed to likely have found anisotropy in the one-way speed of light without relaying on clock synchronization. Their experiments is described in Fundamental Constants II published by National Bureau of Standards USA, volume 376. pages 675--679, 1984. To ignore experiments and even delete references to them is ignorance at best.

It is sad that talk:Dvdm not can look up sources referred to that are accessible on the internet as well as in good libraries on science. These are references published in highly ranked academic publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelAlone (talk • contribs) 10:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dvdm claim "Call it what you like, but Wikipedia needs sources." is simply false, I put out full references to published academic work in high ranked academic publications and simply very modestly also pointed out that there still was a ongoing debate on this question. Instead Dvdm clearly preferred the false statement on wikipedia is standing: " A series of one-way measurements were undertaken, ALL of them confirming the isotropy of the speed of light". Such attitude is not unexpected, but will likely weaken Wikipedia’s standing as a reliable source of information over time. It is fair to state what is the main view, but one should not hide under the carpet that there is actually published research in established academic publications that challenge this view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelAlone (talk • contribs) 10:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "" A series of one-way measurements were undertaken, ALL of them confirming the isotropy of the speed of light"." should be modified to " A series of one-way measurements were undertaken, MOST of them confirming the isotropy of the speed of light"." As it stands it will weaken the credibility of wikipedia as anyone who has studied the literature on one-way speed of light over some years should know this statement is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelAlone (talk • contribs) 10:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) and indent the messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT.

Yes, you "put out full references to published academic work in high ranked academic publications" and then you draw conclusions that are not in the sources. Now read wp:SYNTH. And wp:BURDEN. This policy is not hard to understand. - DVdm (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DmV: "Yes, you "put out full references to published academic work in high ranked academic publications" and then you draw conclusions that are not in the sources." Did not Stefan Marinov claim that he had detected anisotropy in the one-way speed of light. He even claimed it was contradicting special relativity. Exactly how was what I wrote not reflecting his view?

Do not Torr and Kohlen in their 1984 published experiment claim they did not relay on clock synchronization and claim they found anisotropy in the one-way speed of light. However they state that the experiment should be repeated. Torr and Kohlen claimed

"there is no theory available which can account for these variations." (concerning their detection of anisotropic one-way speed of light when claiming not relaying on clock synchronization) page 678 Precision Measurements and Fundamental Constants II, ed. by Taylor B. N. and Phillips W. D. Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.) Spec. Pub. volume 376. Published 1984.

This is why I stated the experiments referred to possibly could indicate that SR is incomplete (and I said still if such experiments should be confirmed they do not show SR is wrong as SR is based on assumption of Einstein-Poincare synchronized clocks and that we then per definition get isotropic one-way speed of light). Still SR could potentially be incomplete and this is still an open question. Such experiments should be studied further and repeated, not ignored and deleted by scientifically unethical editors. This is a view among a series of physicist, even if this is not the main stream view. The main stream view is reasonably reflected on the wikipedia page, the alternative view that has a series of published independent experiments is deleted and ignored. I mentioned both views, but as expected (as political biased editors now seems to have taken over) to mention that this is a still open question got quickly deleted. Science is not politics or a voting process. What we have seen is unethical editing behavior deleting references that my writing was totally in line with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelAlone (talk • contribs) 11:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC) TravelAlone (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) and indent the messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT.

By the way, please note that we also have a guideline about wp:FRINGE theories (—and see wp:UNDUE—), and a policy about wp:personal attacks. The edits that you label "unethical editing" are actually applications of standard Wikipedia policies. - DVdm (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dmv also throws out wp:BURDEN as argument for deletion, without saying anything specific. wp:BURDEN basically says "..and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." I referred to two references in highly ranked academic publications. These are considered highly reliable sources. One from a well respected springer journal: General Relativity and Gravitation. vol 12. no 2. and one from Precision Measurements and Fundamental Constants II, ed. by Taylor B. N. and Phillips W. D. Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.) Spec. Pub. My comments were very moderate, I reflected that there could be several views around these experiments. • contribs) 11:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)TravelAlone (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again I ask if this wikipedia sentence should be considered scientific reliable: "A series of one-way measurements were undertaken, ALL of them confirming the isotropy of the speed of light." . To claim ALL experiments confirm isotropic one-way speed of light when a handful of experiments claim something else is false. When physics professors at well known US academic institution with government supported research over several years with very accurate atomic clocks claim they found anisotropy in the one-way speed of light without relaying on clock synchronization one should reflect this if one wants the wikipedia page to be reliable. And again I refer to what they stated in their 1984 publication: "there is no theory available which can account for these variations.". They are very modest and say the experiment should be repeated before making final conclusions, this is the scientific method! And when I even just refer to such experiment and moderately claim there could be different views on such experiments and on the isotropy of the one-way speed of light it gets deleted (as expected as I have noticed some aggressive political tinted editors), and tried ridiculed. Read the full publication and look again at my edit (that got deleted). I think such editing unfortunately over time will weaken the standing of wikipedia.TravelAlone (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DmV "applications of standard Wikipedia policies". Is this really so? You throw out such things as wp:BURDEN and wp:SYNTH without being specific. I cannot see how I am in conflict with these when I simply refer to two references published in highly ranked academic publications. I did not draw any final conclusions from these. I just repeated what these researchers themselves claimed, that the results indicate our theories are incomplete. However I also said what theses modest researchers themselves claim in the references given, namely that the experiments should be repeated. In other words I simply pointed out modestly with references that this is still and open question and that it is false to claim ALL one-way experiments claim isotropic one-way speed of light. When there exist at least a handful of independent experiments claiming the same: anisotropy in the one-way speed of light should this at not deserve a few sentences on a long wikipedia page. The "alternative" view should naturally not dominate the page, but to sweep it all under the carpet is not good science, and it will over time likely weaken the credibility of wikipedia. TravelAlone (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: regarding [5]: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TravelAlone. - DVdm (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Postulate or Prediction?

It seems to me that this article mixes up the postulates of special relativity (such as the invariance of the speed of light) with the predictions (such as time dilation).

The article describes experiments to corroborate both, but puts them together in the section describing experiments that confirm the predictions of special relativity.

I think the whole article needs to be restructured so that the experiments to confirm the postulates are separated from the experiments to confirm the predictions.

I hesitate to carry out this editing until I get some agreement from the community. DouglasBell (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it really matters, as both the postulates and the predictions are tested.

But I don't see a section in the article with a title suggesting to talk about tests of predictions only. To which section are you referring? - DVdm (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the article is the text:

“Special relativity offers a large number of testable predictions, such as:”

which is followed by a table. This table includes the item “constancy of the speed of light”

So I think the article muddles up postulates and predictions.

i think this is a pity because they are fundamentally different. A reader might infer from the article as it stands that the constancy of the speed is light is a prediction. DouglasBell (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha yes, now I see. But note Special_relativity#Relativity_without_the_second_postulate where the constancy of the speed of light is essentially taken as a prediction from a different set of postulates.

But anyway, problem solved

. Feel free to hone. - DVdm (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No dependence on source velocity

The Gamma-ray burst reference could be complicated by more details. Reports of Gamma-ray bursts are careful not to say that the evidence arrives in order of wavelength (Afterglow). That would make this a contradiction by face value of the evidence, so this is all a theory exercise looking for a mechanism that maintains Relativity. Radio is always last to arrive, and the value of radio astronomy over visible light is that radio is not stopped by debris, so at the very least, radio should arrive before visible light. This is fact, and it should be included in "popular" science, but referencing contradictions is not a thing. Jnhrtmn (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]