| Revision as of 01:43, 5 August 2007 editTim Shuba (talk | contribs)1,380 edits "critics" section removed, blogs and usenet post not WP:RS← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:05, 2 November 2024 edit undoCitation bot (talk | contribs)Bots5,436,566 edits Altered doi-broken-date. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | #UCB_CommandLine | ||
| (79 intermediate revisions by 56 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Verify|date=December 2017}} | |||
| <!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled --> | |||
| {{AfDM|page=Autodynamics|date=2007 August 4|substed=yes}} | |||
| <!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> | |||
| ⚫ | '''Autodynamics''' was a ] proposed by Ricardo Carezani (1921–2016) in the early 1940s as a replacement for ]'s theories of ] and ]. Autodynamics never gained status as a viable alternative model within the physics community, and today is wholly rejected by mainstream science. | ||
| ⚫ | == Main tenets of autodynamics == | ||
| {{Infobox Pseudoscience | |||
| |name=Autodynamics | |||
| |topics= | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| |claims= | |||
| The ] equations used in mainstream science are formulated incorrectly, causing ] and ] equations to be invalid. | |||
| |origyear=ca. ] | |||
| |origprop= | |||
| * ] | |||
| |currentprop= | |||
| * David de Hilster | |||
| }} | |||
| ⚫ | The primary claim of autodynamics is that the equations of the ] are incorrectly formulated to describe relativistic effects, which would invalidate ], ], and ]. The effect of the revised equations proposed in autodynamics is to cause particle mass to ''decrease'' with particle velocity, being exchanged with kinetic energy (with mass being zero and kinetic energy being equal to the rest mass at ]). This exchange between mass and energy is the proposed mechanism underlying most of the derived conclusions of autodynamics. | ||
| ⚫ | '''Autodynamics''' was proposed by |
||
| Ancillary predictions of autodynamics include: | |||
| ⚫ | * the nonexistence of the ], | ||
| ⚫ | * the existence of additional particles that have not been observed by mainstream physicists (including the "picograviton" and the "electromuon"), | ||
| ⚫ | * the existence of additional decay modes for muons and interaction modes for energetic atomic nuclei. | ||
| == Status of autodynamics == | |||
| ⚫ | The primary claim of |
||
| Autodynamics is wholly rejected by the mainstream ]. Since Carezani's original publication, no papers on autodynamics have appeared in the scientific literature,{{cn|date=May 2024}} except for additional papers by Carezani published in alternative journals such as '']''.<ref>{{cite journal | doi=10.4006/1.3028710 | author=Carezani, Ricardo L. | title=Nucleus–Nucleus Collision And Autodynamics | journal=Physics Essays | year=1997 | volume=10 | issue=2 | pages=193–197| doi-broken-date=1 November 2024 |bibcode = 1997PhyEs..10..193C }}</ref> A 1999 article in the magazine ] quotes ], a professor at the ], as stating, "autodynamics was disproved. Special relativity is correct" and noting that "mainstream physicists have considered autodynamics a ] for decades".<ref name='Wired'>{{cite news|first=Kristen |last=Philipkoski |title=Shedding Light in the Dark |date=1999-07-13 |url=https://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/07/20663 |work=] |accessdate=2008-02-07 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090110183905/http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/07/20663 |archivedate=2009-01-10 }}</ref> Noyes was a researcher in an experiment attempting to compare the predictions of SR and AD, and concluded that the values calculated by SR were significantly closer to what was observed.<ref>{{Cite journal|doi = 10.1103/PhysRevA.29.2110|title = Calorimetric test of special relativity|year = 1984|last1 = Walz|first1 = Dieter R.|last2 = Noyes|first2 = H. Pierre|last3 = Carezani|first3 = Ricardo L.|journal = Physical Review A|volume = 29|issue = 4|pages = 2110–2113|bibcode = 1984PhRvA..29.2110W|osti = 1446354}}</ref> Carezani later argued that the experiment was not relevant for comparing the two theories by pointing out that AD applies specifically to decay cases, yet the electrons in the Noyes experiment received energy from the external medium (] EM field).<ref>''See endnote 2 of'': {{cite journal |last1=Carezani |first1=Ricardo L. |title=The Muon Decay μ<sup>+</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>−</sup> and Autodynamics |journal=Physics Essays |date=March 1992 |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=19–25 |doi=10.4006/1.3028950 |doi-broken-date=1 November 2024 |url=https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/715-3-ricardo-l-carezani-the-muon-decay-e-e-e-and-autodynamics.html}}</ref> According to ], there has been "no serious attempt to make an argument or to discuss experimental data that refute their basic claims".<ref name="Wired" /> | |||
| ⚫ | == See also == | ||
| Ancillary claims of Autodynamics include: | |||
| * ] | |||
| ⚫ | *the nonexistence of the ], | ||
| ⚫ | *the existence of additional particles that have not been observed by mainstream physicists (including the "picograviton" and the "electromuon"), | ||
| ⚫ | *the existence of additional decay modes for muons and interaction modes for energetic atomic nuclei. |
||
| ⚫ | == References == | ||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| Autodynamics is wholly rejected by the mainstream ]. Since Carezani's original publication, no papers on autodynamics have appeared in the scientific literature, though some have been published in "alternative" journals such as ''Physics Essays''. A ] article in the popular magazine ]{{ref_label|wired_auto|2|a}} quotes ], a professor at the ] as stating "most scientists consider Autodynamics little more than a 'crackpot theory'". Despite this, Noyes et al. performed an experiment in an attempt to compare the predictions of SR and AD, but concluded that the values calculated by SR were significantly closer to what was observed{{ref_label|noyes_test|9|a}}. Carezani later argued that the experiment was not relevant for comparing the two theories by pointing out that AD applies specifically to decay cases, yet the electrons in the Noyes experiment received energy from the external medium (] EM field){{ref_label|carezani_noyes|10|a}}. According to ],{{ref_label|wired_auto|2|b}}, there has been "no serious attempt to make an argument or to discuss experimental data that refute their basic claims". For example, one AD advocate, when asked whether AD was consistent with early ] results, accused the experiment of "data manipulation" and "deceit and lies"<ref>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/autodynamics/message/2486</ref>. | |||
| {{reflist | 30em}} | |||
| Special relativity, in its pure form, is proven to be mathematically consistent (see the ] article). Alleged errors have been documented in the on-line literature that attempts to support autodynamics, including: | |||
| *a Lorentz contraction is incorrectly applied to the ''distance between'' a stationary observer and a moving object.{{ref_label|auto_frames|7|a}} | |||
| *the claim that reference frames are "unnecessary" and "cannot be measured" is incorrect.{{ref_label|auto_galilean|6|a}} | |||
| *a Lorentz length contraction is incorrectly described as an "extra velocity" and energy is incorrectly attributed to it leading circularly to the claim that special relativity does not conserve energy and momentum..{{ref_label|auto_systems|8|a}} | |||
| *the above claim is further bolstered by autodynamics assumption that the neutrino does not exist, even though relativistic energy-momentum conservation has been tested extensively in neutrinoless phenomena.{{ref_label|auto_galilean|6|a}} | |||
| ==Problem of velocity addition in autodynamics== | |||
| The autodynamics velocity addition equation is{{ref_label|auto_sum|5|a}}: | |||
| :<math>\beta_n=\sqrt{1 - (1-\beta_1^2)(1-\beta_2^2) \cdots (1-\beta_{n-1}^2)} </math> | |||
| where <math>\beta=\frac{v}{c}</math> | |||
| For common experiences where <math>v << c</math>, this reduces to | |||
| :<math>v_n=\sqrt{v_1^2+v_2^2+ \cdots +v_{n-1}^2}</math> | |||
| This fact marks a significant advantage ] has over autodynamics; at speeds much less than the ], the ] reduce to the ], and Special Relativity predicts for <math>v << c</math> the expected result: | |||
| :<math>v_n=v_1+v_2+ \cdots +v_{n-1}</math> | |||
| From this it is clear that autodynamics contradicts common experience. For example, if an object that was traveling at a velocity of 3 meters per second with respect to a stationary observer were to measure a third object moving in the same direction to have a velocity of an additional 4 meters per second, autodynamics would predict that the stationary observer would measure a velocity of approximately <math>\sqrt{3^2+4^2}=5</math> meters per second while special relativity would predict a velocity of approximately <math>3+4=7</math> meters per second. Thus, this prediction of autodynamics is contradicted by simple ] experiments (including such basic ones as those that occur when moving in common modes of transport such as automobiles, trains, and airplanes). | |||
| ==Footnotes== | |||
| ''Caveat lector!'' These links are almost all to de Hilster's website. They are given here so that interested readers can verify the facts stated in the body of the article. | |||
| # {{note_label|calorimeter|1|a}} W. W. Buechner and R. J. Van de Graaff, Physical Review 70:3-4 (1946), Calorimetric Experiment on the Radiation Losses of 2-MeV Electrons | |||
| # {{note_label|wired_auto|2|a}}{{note_label|wired_auto|2|b}} | |||
| # {{note_label|wired_letter|3|a}} | |||
| # {{note_label|alvarez_test|4|a}} | |||
| # {{note_label|auto_sum|5|a}} | |||
| # {{note_label|auto_galilean|6|a}}{{note_label|auto_galilean|6|b}} | |||
| # {{note_label|auto_frames|7|a}}{{note_label|auto_frames|7|b}} | |||
| # {{note_label|auto_system|8|a}}{{note_label|auto_system|8|b}} | |||
| # {{note_label|noyes_test|9|a}}{{note_label|noyes_test|9|b}} D.R. Walz, H.P. Noyes, and R.L. Carezani, Phys. Rev. A 29:2110-2113 (1984), Calorimetric Test of Special Relativity | |||
| # {{note_label|carezani_noyes|10|a}} ''See endnote 2 of'': Ricardo Carezani, The Muon Decay muon+ -> e+ e+ e+ and Autodynamics, Physics Essays: Volume 5, no. 1, March 1992 | |||
| # {{note_label|ellis_neutrino|11|a}} C.D. Ellis and B.A. Wooster, Proc. Roy. Soc. A117, 109 (1927) | |||
| # {{note_label|meitner_neutrino|12|a}} L. Meitner and W. Orthmann, Zeits. f. Physik 60, 143 (1930) | |||
| # {{note_label|carezani_losses|13|a}} | |||
| # Ricardo Carezani, ''Autodynamics: Fundamental Basis for a New Relativistic Mechanics'', ISBN 0-9665533-0-6 | |||
| # Ricardo L. Carezani, ''Autodynamics - A Storm in Physics'', ISBN 0-9665533-4-9 | |||
| # {{note_label|auto_home|16|a}} | |||
| # {{note_label|auto_faq|17|a}} | |||
| ⚫ | ==See also== | ||
| *] | |||
| ⚫ | ==References== | ||
| *, by Dieter R. Walz, H. Pierre Noyes, and Ricardo L. Carezani | |||
| *{{cite journal | author=Carezani, Ricardo L. | title=Nucleus-Nucleus Collision And Autodynamics | journal=Physics Essays | year=1997 | volume=10 | pages=193-197}} from autodynamicsuk.org website. | |||
| == External links == | == External links == | ||
| * | * | ||
| * | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
Latest revision as of 04:05, 2 November 2024
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Autodynamics" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Autodynamics was a physics theory proposed by Ricardo Carezani (1921–2016) in the early 1940s as a replacement for Einstein's theories of special relativity and general relativity. Autodynamics never gained status as a viable alternative model within the physics community, and today is wholly rejected by mainstream science.
Main tenets of autodynamics
The primary claim of autodynamics is that the equations of the Lorentz transformation are incorrectly formulated to describe relativistic effects, which would invalidate special relativity, general relativity, and Maxwell's equations. The effect of the revised equations proposed in autodynamics is to cause particle mass to decrease with particle velocity, being exchanged with kinetic energy (with mass being zero and kinetic energy being equal to the rest mass at c). This exchange between mass and energy is the proposed mechanism underlying most of the derived conclusions of autodynamics.
Ancillary predictions of autodynamics include:
- the nonexistence of the neutrino,
- the existence of additional particles that have not been observed by mainstream physicists (including the "picograviton" and the "electromuon"),
- the existence of additional decay modes for muons and interaction modes for energetic atomic nuclei.
Status of autodynamics
Autodynamics is wholly rejected by the mainstream scientific community. Since Carezani's original publication, no papers on autodynamics have appeared in the scientific literature, except for additional papers by Carezani published in alternative journals such as Physics Essays. A 1999 article in the magazine Wired quotes H. Pierre Noyes, a professor at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, as stating, "autodynamics was disproved. Special relativity is correct" and noting that "mainstream physicists have considered autodynamics a crackpot theory for decades". Noyes was a researcher in an experiment attempting to compare the predictions of SR and AD, and concluded that the values calculated by SR were significantly closer to what was observed. Carezani later argued that the experiment was not relevant for comparing the two theories by pointing out that AD applies specifically to decay cases, yet the electrons in the Noyes experiment received energy from the external medium (klystron EM field). According to Lee Smolin, there has been "no serious attempt to make an argument or to discuss experimental data that refute their basic claims".
See also
References
- Carezani, Ricardo L. (1997). "Nucleus–Nucleus Collision And Autodynamics". Physics Essays. 10 (2): 193–197. Bibcode:1997PhyEs..10..193C. doi:10.4006/1.3028710 (inactive 1 November 2024).
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link) - ^ Philipkoski, Kristen (1999-07-13). "Shedding Light in the Dark". Wired. Archived from the original on 2009-01-10. Retrieved 2008-02-07.
- Walz, Dieter R.; Noyes, H. Pierre; Carezani, Ricardo L. (1984). "Calorimetric test of special relativity". Physical Review A. 29 (4): 2110–2113. Bibcode:1984PhRvA..29.2110W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.29.2110. OSTI 1446354.
- See endnote 2 of: Carezani, Ricardo L. (March 1992). "The Muon Decay μ → eee and Autodynamics". Physics Essays. 5 (1): 19–25. doi:10.4006/1.3028950 (inactive 1 November 2024).
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)