The results of particle accelerator experiments are impossible to
understand except within the context of special relativity. This
fact, unfortunately, is generally impossible for crackpots to
appreciate, since the relativistic equations used in the analysis
of the results is generally buried in computer codes or in
invisible features of the apparatus used to gather the data.

In a few cases, this is not true. In a previous thread of mine,
"Verifying relativistic predictions with a protractor",
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/f9lekUXbgAQ
I discussed how, in the olden days of cloud chambers and bubble
chambers, representative results of particle physics experiments
were often documented in photographs, and in one experement in
particular that was specifically devoted to studying special
relativity, representative results were published from multiple
views so that any reasonably competent reader should be able to
compensate the views for perspective effects: "On some close
collisions of fast β-particles with electrons, photographed by
the expansion method." Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and
Physical Character 136.830 (1932): 630-637.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1932.0108?download=true

Nowadays, particle physics experiments designed to test special
relativity are very rare, since the vital importance of SR has
been long established. In a few cases, however, the use of SR
results is manifest in the overt physical design of an
experimental setup devoted to other purposes. Such is the case
with Akerlof, C. W., et al. "Elastic Proton-Proton Scattering at
90° and Structure within the Proton." Physical Review 159.5
(1967): 1138. This article is readily accessible online from
university and college library systems. Here is the abstract:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZoXdqu5FuVwq61aFxdS5Hf31MKKQotz7/view?usp=share_link

In Newtonian mechanics, if one particle elastically collides with
an equal mass particle initially at rest, the angle between the
directions of motion of the two particles after collision will be
equal to 90°. On the other hand, in relativistic mechanics the angle
depends on the velocity and offset of the incident particle from an
exact head-on collision, and it is always less than 90°. See my
article section "Elastic collisions" in the Wikipedia page on
Special relativity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Elastic_collisions

The symmetrical case where the two particles emerge at equal
angles from a collision corresponds to the situation where, in
the center-of-mass system, the two particles elastically scatter
at 90°. This is an especially simple scenario to analyze.
Cross-section studies of scattering efficiency at different
energies have been used to probe the detailed structure of
particles and nuclei. For example, consider the sharp break in
the proton cross section seen in Fig. 7 from Akerlof et al.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BaPzufa2Iceb_lANlTLpQsP8TKM9cX7D/view?usp=share_link
The several regions seen in the scattering cross section are firm
evidence for the existence of several regions within the proton.

Here is a different plot designed to subtract the effects of
Lorentz contraction so as to be able to highlight different
features of the cross-section plot. In this graph, which
combines data from multiple experiments covering a wide span of
energies, a small angle diffraction peak is visible along with
two other regions:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pDXLs_hKH4wWcIuhkVxz3y4lxBAb3XMA/view?usp=share_link

These and other plots of proton-proton as well as electron-proton
scattering can be correlated with detailed models of proton
structure.

The physical design of the experimental setup reflects the fact
that relativistic effects cannot be ignored in designing high
energy physics experiments:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IjWADa4qkhdZiF--4umIKogT75Xpb-fx/view?usp=share_link
A proton beam with energies ranging from 5.0 GeV/c to 13.4 GeV/c
impinges on a plastic target (empirical formula CH2). At
9.4 GeV/c, the protons, with a calculated deflection angle of
23.03°, travel directly from the target to the left and right
bending magnets and on through to the scintillation counter
telescopes. At other energies, the protons come out at
angles ranging from 29.16° to 19.87°. So as not to have to
rearrange the heavy apparatus for each energy, the beams are
given additional deflections by precisely calibrated C magnets,
the shape of whose magnetic fields had been precisely determined,
and which were monitored continuously with NMR probes. Without
the C magnets, it would have been necessary to move the bending
magnets more than 10 feet in 50 separate steps during the course
of the experiment. By changing the current through the C magnets,
reversing them as necessary for experimental runs greater than
and less than 9.4 GeV/c, and actually turning the C magnets off
for the 9.4 GeV/c experimental run, the protons always emerged at
23.03°.

The proton deflection angles precisely matched the predictions of
special relativity.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

In the original thread, "Verifying relativistic predictions with
a protractor", Richard Hertz argued that energy loss via
Bremsstrahlung could possibly have altered the electron
trajectories in Champion's experiment so as to precisely mimic
the predictions of special relativity. I presented reasons as to
why this cannot be so, but in any event, I am currently working
on a computer simulation to settle the matter in a definitive
fashion.

Protons, being 1836 times as massive as electrons, are vastly
less subject to having their trajectories affected by the
Bremsstrahlung effect. Moreover, the measurement statistics are
far better in the current experiment. Champion used beta
particles from a naturally occurring radioactive source, and
eventually obtained photographs of only a dozen or so particle
tracks that he could measure with sufficient accuracy to
determine the electron energies and deflection angles. Akerlof
et al. benefited from 35 years of advances in technology.

On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:19:55 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> This fact, unfortunately, is generally impossible for crackpots to
> appreciate, since the relativistic equations used in the analysis
> of the results is generally buried in computer codes or in
> invisible features of the apparatus used to gather the data.

<snip>

Unfortunate indeed. And quite convenient.

On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 12:49:49 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:19:55 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > This fact, unfortunately, is generally impossible for crackpots to
> > appreciate, since the relativistic equations used in the analysis
> > of the results is generally buried in computer codes or in
> > invisible features of the apparatus used to gather the data.
> <snip>
>
> Unfortunate indeed. And quite convenient.

That is rather an inadequate response on your part. My basic
point is that the physical layout of the Akerlof et al experiment
proves that Newtonian mechanics absolutely does not work to
describe the behavior of high speed elementary particles,
whereas special relativity works extremely well.

There is no amount of data manipulation or selective misuse
of statistics that can possibly explain away their need to design
the experiment the way that they did. To particle physicists,
special relativity is not a theory that needs to be proven. Rather,
it is a routine engineering concern.

I have other examples.

On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 12:09:47 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 12:49:49 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:19:55 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > This fact, unfortunately, is generally impossible for crackpots to
> > > appreciate, since the relativistic equations used in the analysis
> > > of the results is generally buried in computer codes or in
> > > invisible features of the apparatus used to gather the data.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Unfortunate indeed. And quite convenient.
> That is rather an inadequate response on your part. My basic
> point is that the physical layout of the Akerlof et al experiment
> proves that Newtonian mechanics absolutely does not work to
> describe the behavior of high speed elementary particles,
> whereas special relativity works extremely well.
>
> There is no amount of data manipulation or selective misuse
> of statistics that can possibly explain away their need to design
> the experiment the way that they did. To particle physicists,
> special relativity is not a theory that needs to be proven. Rather,
> it is a routine engineering concern.
>
> I have other examples.

You are right about my inadequacy. But, having a little bit of sense of humor
make life less unbearable when dealing on a daily basis with this crazy world.

I respect your work and your dedication, no doubt about it. Take my comment
as produced by an irresistible and wicked force.

On Sunday, 15 January 2023 at 16:09:47 UTC+1, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> That is rather an inadequate response on your part. My basic
> point is that the physical layout of the Akerlof et al experiment
> proves that Newtonian mechanics absolutely does not work to

And that comunism is much better than rotten capitalism.

Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 12:49:49 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:19:55 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c... :
> >
> > <snip>
> > > This fact, unfortunately, is generally impossible for crackpots to
> > > appreciate, since the relativistic equations used in the analysis
> > > of the results is generally buried in computer codes or in
> > > invisible features of the apparatus used to gather the data.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Unfortunate indeed. And quite convenient.
>
> That is rather an inadequate response on your part. My basic
> point is that the physical layout of the Akerlof et al experiment
> proves that Newtonian mechanics absolutely does not work to
> describe the behavior of high speed elementary particles,
> whereas special relativity works extremely well.
>
> There is no amount of data manipulation or selective misuse
> of statistics that can possibly explain away their need to design
> the experiment the way that they did. To particle physicists,
> special relativity is not a theory that needs to be proven. Rather,
> it is a routine engineering concern.
>
> I have other examples.

Best example perhaps:
at really relativistic energies you need a collider, (LEP, LHC)
because a fixed target machine really won't do,
(by relativistic conservation law)

Jan

On Sunday, 15 January 2023 at 22:26:14 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 12:49:49 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:19:55 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c... :
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > This fact, unfortunately, is generally impossible for crackpots to
> > > > appreciate, since the relativistic equations used in the analysis
> > > > of the results is generally buried in computer codes or in
> > > > invisible features of the apparatus used to gather the data.
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Unfortunate indeed. And quite convenient.
> >
> > That is rather an inadequate response on your part. My basic
> > point is that the physical layout of the Akerlof et al experiment
> > proves that Newtonian mechanics absolutely does not work to
> > describe the behavior of high speed elementary particles,
> > whereas special relativity works extremely well.
> >
> > There is no amount of data manipulation or selective misuse
> > of statistics that can possibly explain away their need to design
> > the experiment the way that they did. To particle physicists,
> > special relativity is not a theory that needs to be proven. Rather,
> > it is a routine engineering concern.
> >
> > I have other examples.
> Best example perhaps:

Whatever. For a believer of God everything shows
the existence and activity of God, for a believer of
Shit everything shows that their idiot guru was
right.