Could this experiment prove special relativity to be wrong?

Tags:
1. Jun 21, 2015

Steven2007

Think about an electric charged object moves linely, it will produce current hence the magnetic field.

But if the obserser moves together with the electron charged object, so there is no relative movement between them, that means the electric charged object is static to the observer, hence there is no current and no magnetic field to the observer.

What does that mean? It means that if you bound a magnetic field detector with the object, the detector will not detect the magnetic filed, but if you seperate them, the detector will detect the magnetic field! That is unbelievable!

In fact it was an done experiment by a group of researchers and it proved the bounded detector could detect the magnetic field.

I think that means "ether" may be exist, and a lot of concepts might be different as defined, like space, speed, time etc.

2. Jun 21, 2015

ShayanJ

No, that just means there is no frame-invariant meaning to "there is a magnetic field" or "there is an electric field". The magnetic field in one frame, maybe an electric field in another frame. Its correct that you may measure the magnetic field but the measurement doesn't come with the label "magnetic field"!
Its a very well known situation which can be addressed with special relativity very well. See here and here!

3. Jun 21, 2015

mattt

In fact it is special relativity (the fact the Maxwell Equations are invariant under Lorentz Transformations) what explains those experimental results. :-)

4. Jun 21, 2015

Staff: Mentor

Please provide the reference for this claim.

5. Jun 21, 2015

Steven2007

Hi DaleSpam,

The reference is published in Chinese, I have tried to find the English version but failed. The link is here

It has some discription in English:

"
The Experiments Which is Contradictory of the Special Theory of Relativity

Zhu Yong Qiang

(Department of Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai, 20433) Hao Ji

(Shanghai East electromagnetic wave’s research institute, shanghai, 202150)

Abstract: The paper introduce the successful two experiments in noearch’s inertia system: one is the experiment of used the smashed electro magnetic wave to determine the self-velosity in any vehide on the earth, another is the experiment of the regerence somebody following up the motion of charged body can determine the week magnetic by the motion of charged body.

Key Word: the special theory of relativity, the SEW (smashed electro magnetic wave) , reference somebody following up the motion of charged body.

"

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 21, 2015
6. Jun 21, 2015

Steven2007

According to the experiment I have mentioned(unfortunately it was published in Chinese), the charged object and detector moved at the speed of 1m/s, I don't think it's necessory to take the effect of relativity into account.

If a detector shows different results in these two situation(bounded and seperated ), it means the detector detects the effect of relativity at such low speed, I don't think it would be real.

7. Jun 21, 2015

Steven2007

Thanks.
But moving electric charge produce current and current produce magnetic field, it doesn't have to get this answer through Maxwell Equations, does it? :)

8. Jun 21, 2015

ShayanJ

There is nothing contradictory to SR. They detected a force applied to the charged particle. There is no way to say it was an electric or a magnetic force. As I said, the measurement doesn't come with a label "magnetic field". They need to relearn SR.

Doesn't matter. The $c\to \infty$ limit of the transformations applies here which again explains the experiment.

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 21, 2015
9. Jun 21, 2015

Steven2007

No they didn't detect a force applied to the charged particle, they detected a voltage on a solinoid produced by a changing magnetic field(when accelerating and deaccelerating the charged object), so it must be magnetic field

10. Jun 21, 2015

Staff: Mentor

I am sorry, but this reference does not meet PF's minimum quality standard, which is frankly a very low standard to begin with. This reference is simply not nearly the kind of evidence that would be required to cast even a slightest doubt on SR given the wealth of high quality reproducible data that is available:
http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

The advice that you have received from the other respondents correctly addresses the physics of your question, but we cannot discuss this further here in the context of an unacceptable-quality reference which is claiming a violation of SR.

Last edited: Jun 21, 2015