Study on data analysis for Ives-Stilwell-type experiments

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2212.13107
• Title: Study on data analysis for Ives-Stilwell-type experiments
• Author: Changbiao Wang (ShangGang Group)
• Classification: physics.gen-ph
• Publication Date: arXiv preprint (latest version v14, November 10, 2025)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.13107

Abstract

This paper reveals and resolves a fundamental problem long unrecognized in the data analysis of Ives-Stilwell-type experiments: the data analysis methods employed in all such experiments are inconsistent with Einstein's definition of the relativistic Doppler effect, and consequently the Doppler effect and its associated time dilation have not been truly confirmed. The author proposes two first-principles for analyzing and confirming the Einstein Doppler effect, and based on these principles, presents a correct data analysis method that properly confirms the Doppler effect in Ives-Stilwell-type experiments.

Research Background and Motivation

1. Core Problem Addressed

This paper targets a fundamental issue: since the historic 1938 Ives-Stilwell experiment, all Ives-Stilwell-type experiments, including modern laser-based repetitions, employ data analysis methods with fundamental defects that fail to truly verify Einstein's relativistic Doppler effect.

2. Significance of the Problem

• Historical Significance: The Ives-Stilwell experiment is widely regarded by the physics community as a historic confirmation of Einstein's special relativity
• Lasting Impact: For nearly a century, this data analysis method has been emulated by successive generations of physicists
• Theoretical Foundation: The Doppler effect is an important pathway for verifying Lorentz invariance; its correct verification bears on the experimental foundations of special relativity

3. Limitations of Existing Methods

Using the 2014 study by Botermann et al. published in Physical Review Letters as an example:

• The measurement precision definition used, $\varepsilon=\sqrt{\nu_a\nu_p/(\nu_1\nu_2)}-1$, does not satisfy physical requirements
• This definition cannot confirm Einstein's Doppler formula even when $\varepsilon=0$
• The reported precision is on the order of $10^{-9}$, while the actual precision of a single laser beam is only $10^{-4}$, a difference of five orders of magnitude

4. Research Motivation

The author argues that traditional data analysis violates two fundamental principles and requires establishing a correct analytical framework to truly verify relativistic effects.

Core Contributions

1. Proposes two first-principles:
   • Principle (i): The Einstein Doppler effect refers to the same photon (or laser beam) exhibiting different frequencies in different inertial frames
   • Principle (ii): The quantity (or measurement precision) used to confirm the effect must be capable of confirming Einstein's Doppler formula itself
2. Reveals fundamental defects in traditional analysis methods:
   • Demonstrates that the coupled precision $\varepsilon=\sqrt{\nu_a\nu_p/(\nu_1\nu_2)}-1$ cannot represent the Doppler effect precision of a single laser beam
   • Mathematically proves that even when $\varepsilon=0$, the Einstein Doppler formula is not necessarily satisfied
3. Proposes correct data analysis methods:
   • Defines measurement precision for individual laser beams: $\varepsilon_{a1}$, $\varepsilon_{p1}$, $\varepsilon_{a2}$, $\varepsilon_{p2}$
   • Calculations show actual precision is on the order of $10^{-4}$, not the reported $10^{-9}$
4. Re-analyzes historical experimental data:
   • Re-analyzes eight datasets from the original 1938 Ives-Stilwell experiment
   • Finds that the experimental data itself does not support the relativistic Doppler effect

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Verify Einstein's relativistic Doppler effect with specific requirements:

• Input: Experimentally measured frequency/wavelength data, ion beam velocity
• Output: Measurement precision of the Doppler effect for individual light beams
• Constraint: The measurement precision definition must confirm Einstein's Doppler formula when precision equals zero

Theoretical Framework

Einstein's Doppler Formula

For laser beams parallel and antiparallel to the ion beam: $\nu_{a-sh} = \gamma(1+\beta)\nu_a \quad \text{(antiparallel beam)}$$\nu_{p-sh} = \gamma(1-\beta)\nu_p \quad \text{(parallel beam)}$

where $\gamma = (1-\beta^2)^{-1/2}$ is the relativistic factor.

Precision Definition for Individual Laser Beams

For measured frequencies $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ (two transition frequencies of the ion):

$\varepsilon_{a1} = \frac{\nu_1 - \nu_{a-sh}}{\nu_{a-sh}} \quad \text{(antiparallel beam corresponding to }\nu_1)$

$\varepsilon_{p1} = \frac{\nu_1 - \nu_{p-sh}}{\nu_{p-sh}} \quad \text{(parallel beam corresponding to }\nu_1)$

$\varepsilon_{a2} = \frac{\nu_2 - \nu_{a-sh}}{\nu_{a-sh}} \quad \text{(antiparallel beam corresponding to }\nu_2)$

$\varepsilon_{p2} = \frac{\nu_2 - \nu_{p-sh}}{\nu_{p-sh}} \quad \text{(parallel beam corresponding to }\nu_2)$

Technical Innovations

1. Relationship Between Coupled and Single-Beam Precision

The author derives: $\varepsilon = \frac{1}{\sqrt{(1+\varepsilon_{a1})(1+\varepsilon_{p2})}} - 1 \approx -\frac{1}{2}(\varepsilon_{a1} + \varepsilon_{p2} + \varepsilon_{a1}\varepsilon_{p2})$

or: $\varepsilon = \frac{1}{\sqrt{(1+\varepsilon_{p1})(1+\varepsilon_{a2})}} - 1 \approx -\frac{1}{2}(\varepsilon_{p1} + \varepsilon_{a2} + \varepsilon_{p1}\varepsilon_{a2})$

This demonstrates that coupled precision $\varepsilon$ is a combination of two different types of Doppler effect precisions and cannot represent the precision of any single beam.

2. Key Mathematical Proof

The author proves the distinction between sufficient and necessary conditions:

• Einstein's formula $\nu_1 = \gamma(1-\beta)\nu_p$ and $\nu_2 = \gamma(1+\beta)\nu_a$ is a sufficient condition for $\varepsilon=0$
• But not a necessary condition

Counterexample: $\nu_1 = 10^{-100} \times \gamma(1-\beta)\nu_p$ and $\nu_2 = 10^{100} \times \gamma(1+\beta)\nu_a$ also yield $\varepsilon=0$, but clearly deviate from Einstein's formula.

3. Velocity Dependence Analysis

• Single-beam precision is highly sensitive to velocity $\beta$
• Example: when $\beta=0.338$, $\varepsilon_{a2} = 4.26 \times 10^{-4}$
• When $\beta=0.338377$, $\varepsilon_{a2} = 9.43 \times 10^{-10}$
• A mere 0.1% change in velocity causes a five-order-of-magnitude difference in precision

Experimental Setup

Data Sources

Modern Experiment (Botermann et al. 2014):

• Ion beam velocity: $\beta = 0.338$
• Transition frequencies: $\nu_1 = 546,455,143.0$ MHz, $\nu_2 = 546,474,960.7$ MHz
• Laser frequencies: $\nu_a = 384,225,534.98$ MHz (780 nm), $\nu_p = 777,210,326.98$ MHz (386 nm)

Historical Experiment (Ives-Stilwell 1938):

• Hydrogen ion beam, $H_\beta$ line (4861 Å)
• Eight datasets at different velocities
• Observation angle: $\theta = 7°$

Analysis Method

1. Calculate Doppler frequency shifts $\nu_{a-sh}$ and $\nu_{p-sh}$
2. Calculate four single-beam precisions $\varepsilon_{a1}$, $\varepsilon_{p1}$, $\varepsilon_{a2}$, $\varepsilon_{p2}$
3. Verify relationship with coupled precision $\varepsilon$
4. For the 1938 experiment, calculate discriminants $D_b$ and $D_f$ to test relativistic effects

Experimental Results

Main Results (2014 Experiment)

Using $\beta = 0.338$, the calculated results are:

Key Findings:

• Single laser beam precision is on the order of $10^{-4}$
• Differs from the reported $10^{-9}$ by five orders of magnitude
• $\varepsilon_{a1}$ and $\varepsilon_{p2}$ nearly cancel each other:
  • $\varepsilon_{a1} + \varepsilon_{p2} = 148.9 \times 10^{-9}$
  • $\varepsilon_{a1}\varepsilon_{p2} = -151.8 \times 10^{-9}$
  • resulting in $\varepsilon \approx 1.47 \times 10^{-9}$

Historical Experiment Re-analysis (1938)

Analysis results for eight datasets:

Discrimination Criteria:

• If $D_b < 0$, then $\varepsilon_b < \varepsilon_c$, the measured wavelength of the backward beam is smaller than the classical Doppler wavelength, indicating no relativistic effect
• If $D_f < 0$, then $\varepsilon_f < \varepsilon_c$, the forward beam shows no relativistic effect

where the critical precision is $\varepsilon_c = 1/\gamma - 1$.

Case Analysis

Detailed Analysis of Case 8 (Plate 177 H2):

• Ion velocity: $\beta = 0.004433$
• Measured wavelength of backward beam: $\lambda_b = 4882.26$ Å
• Classical Doppler wavelength: $\lambda_{b-sh-classic} = 4882.39$ Å
• Measured value is smaller than classical value, indicating absence of relativistic time dilation effect
• $\varepsilon_b = -3.7 \times 10^{-5} < \varepsilon_c = -9.8 \times 10^{-6}$

Related Work

Historical Development

1. 1938 Ives-Stilwell Experiment: Used hydrogen ion beam, claimed to confirm Larmor-Lorentz theory
2. Jones's Interpretation (1939): Pointed out that Ives-Stilwell's results equally support Einstein's relativity
3. Modern Repetition Experiments:
   • Kaivola et al. (1985): Neon ion experiment
   • McGowan et al. (1993): Improved neon ion experiment
   • Saathoff et al. (2003): Time dilation test
   • Reinhardt et al. (2007): Fast optical atomic clock
   • Botermann et al. (2014): Lithium ion experiment, achieving $10^{-9}$ precision

Relationship of This Work to Related Work

• Inheritance: Uses high-precision data provided by modern experiments
• Breakthrough: First points out fundamental defects in the data analysis methods of all these experiments
• Innovation: Proposes a correct analysis method based on first principles

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Methodological Defects: Traditional data analysis in Ives-Stilwell-type experiments does not conform to Einstein's definition of the Doppler effect
2. Precision Re-evaluation: Actual measurement precision of individual laser beams is on the order of $10^{-4}$, not the reported $10^{-9}$
3. Historical Experiment Failure: The data from the original 1938 experiment itself does not support relativistic effects
4. Correct Verification: Only analysis methods based on first principles can truly confirm the Doppler effect

Limitations

1. Circular Reasoning Problem:
   • If relativistic formulas are used to determine ion velocity $\beta$, then using that velocity to verify relativity creates logical circularity
   • The author avoids this by using $\beta=0.338$ directly provided in the literature
2. Velocity Sensitivity:
   • Single-beam precision is extremely sensitive to the value of $\beta$
   • Independent precise measurement of $\beta$ is required for analysis
3. Scope of Applicability:
   • Analysis primarily targets Ives-Stilwell-type experiments
   • Applicability to other types of relativistic verification experiments requires further research

Future Directions

1. Need to design experimental schemes capable of independently and precisely measuring ion velocity
2. Apply first principles to re-analyze other relativistic verification experiments
3. Explore how to maintain high precision while satisfying first-principles requirements

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Rigor:
   • The two proposed first principles have clear physical meaning
   • Mathematical derivations are strict, with thorough analysis of sufficient and necessary conditions
   • Counterexample construction powerfully supports the arguments
2. Detailed Analysis:
   • Comprehensive calculations of all relevant precision parameters
   • Re-analysis of complete eight-dataset historical experiments
   • Provides detailed supplementary materials (Supplement 1)
3. Challenging Nature:
   • Dares to question nearly a century of traditional understanding
   • Points out systematic problems including those in top-tier journal papers

Weaknesses

1. Publication Platform:
   • As an arXiv preprint (physics.gen-ph category), lacks peer review
   • Author reports comments were rejected by PRL, not sent for external review
2. Circular Argument Controversy:
   • Critics may argue that the author's use of $\beta=0.338$ itself derives from relativistic analysis
   • Although the author defends that this value is directly provided in the literature, the argument may be insufficient
3. Physical Interpretation:
   • If historical experiments truly failed to verify relativity, why do numerous other experiments support it?
   • Lacks in-depth discussion of this contradiction
4. Experimental Suggestions:
   • Does not propose specific improved experimental schemes
   • Lacks clarity on how to apply the proposed methods in practice

Impact Assessment

Potential Positive Impact:

• If accepted, would rewrite the history of relativistic experimental verification
• Would prompt the physics community to re-examine data analysis methods of classical experiments
• Emphasizes the importance of first principles in experimental verification

Controversial Nature:

• Challenges widely accepted experimental conclusions
• Likely to face strong skepticism from mainstream physics
• Requires verification by more independent researchers

Practical Value:

• Provides a more rigorous analytical framework for future Doppler effect experiments
• Reminds experimental physicists to pay attention to physical meaningfulness of measurement precision definitions

Applicable Scenarios

1. Experimental Physics Teaching: As a case study for discussing rigor in experimental data analysis
2. Relativistic Verification Experiments: Consider first principles when designing new experiments
3. Precision Measurement Field: Emphasize physical reasonableness of measurement quantity definitions
4. Scientific Methodology: Discuss how to avoid circular reasoning

References

Key references cited in this paper:

1. A. Einstein (1905): Original special relativity paper
2. H. E. Ives and G. R. Stilwell (1938): Original Ives-Stilwell experiment
3. B. Botermann et al. (2014, PRL): Modern high-precision experiment
4. R. C. Jones (1939): Early interpretation of Ives-Stilwell experiment
5. Other modern repetition experiments series (1985-2007)

Overall Assessment: This is a highly controversial yet rigorously argued theoretical physics paper. Starting from basic principles, the author systematically questions nearly a century of experimental tradition, with mathematical analysis and logical reasoning that are fundamentally sound. However, because it challenges the physics community's consensus and remains unpublished in peer-reviewed journals, its conclusions require broader academic discussion and independent verification. Regardless of final conclusions, this paper raises thought-provoking questions: the physical reasonableness of experimental data analysis methods, and how to truly rigorously verify fundamental physical theories.