next previous contents
Next: Some relativistic solutions Previous: Criticism of the conventional interpretation   Contents

On "confirmation" of the SRT conservation laws

Not so unambiguous, as the relativists believe, are SRT confirmations by the nuclear physics and elementary particle physics. Note that one equation (equality) can check no more than one dependence between physical quantities (remember Poincare). Here, all physical quantities appeared in this equation should be defined a priory independently, otherwise it will be not a law, but a postulative definition of some unmeasured quantity. Whether the relativistic conservation laws are confirmed? The properties of a new particle are often simply postulated; for example, in formation or participation of neutral particles they are always postulated. May be it is that particular reason, why so many particles "arose" (to cover a dress of the "bare king")? Consider now in detail the response from the book [33] analyzed with the purpose of demonstrating the SRT "possibilities":

H^2(\mbox{rapid}) + H^2(\mbox{resting}) \rightarrow H^1 + H^3.

Even for such a "demonstration" response (here, seemingly, all values must be measured, and all balances must be agreed) it occurs that:
1) it is impossible to measure kinetic energies of all participating particles; therefore, the energy conservation law was not verified;
2) in the full energy-momentum balance participate several SRT equations, which (a priori) have not be verified yet (as a result, the quantities to be verified become simply postulated);
3) in the momenta balance expression the momenta have to be artificially separated in directions, and there is no warranty that separated particles belong to the same act of interaction (and that they are still not different in the place and time of formation);
4) there are also no tolerances for particles' dispersion angles, which makes doubtful the relative accuracy of $2\cdot 10^{-6}$ indicated in the book (so, even the deuteron energy was measured to the relative accuracy of $10^{-3}$ only!);
5) the process of any collision itself, for large particles' dispersion angles especially, represents the accelerated motion of charged particles. Therefore, according to the modern views, some radiation should always be observed. However, except the case of direct recording gamma-quanta, the accounting of the energy and momentum of arising field is not encountered anywhere. Thus, the balance in the conservation laws is not verified. Simply, such a value is assigned (postulated) to the quantities not measured independently, that no contradictions with SRT would arise. And SRT tries to prolong this continuous chain of postulations up to infinity.

next previous contents
Next: Some relativistic solutions Previous: Criticism of the conventional interpretation   Contents
Sergey N. Arteha