There have been many important developments since 1984: explanations for proton-proton and electron-electron annihilation, muon decay, nucleus-nucleus collision, pion decay, and the Compton Effect; all without the neutrino.
But the breakthroughs, which derived from the 1984 Stanford experiment, consisted of the definitive New RaE experiment (1985, Carezani), and the transformation of g AD into SR (1991, Carezani) showing AD as being more general.
Following is the explanation of the results of the 1984 Stanford Experiment.
Explanation for the Apparent Failure of the 1984 Experiment at SLAC
From the scientific point of view, there are no negative experiments. All experiments in science are positive in some way. The classic example is the Michelson-Morley experiment, which set out to prove the existence of ether. At the time, the experimental results were considered a failure by the scientific community as a whole and by the experimenters themselves.
But the failure was not with the experiment, but rather with the attitude of the scientists of that day. Today, the experiment is looked upon as a great success! Einstein himself used it later to demonstrate his theory of relativity.
Twenty years ago, the theory of AD reached Stanford. The talk of physicists at that time was whether the electron took energy from an electro-magnetic field or from itself. Another heated discussion involved electric charge and mass conservation. (J.D. Stranathan. The “Particles” of Modern Physics. Blakistone Co. Toronto, Philadelphia, 449(1948).
In the paper “Calorimetric Test of Special Relativity” by D.R. Walz, H.P. Noyes, and R.L. Carezani, physical Review A, 2110 (1984), H.P. Noyes, the paper’s author, says: “The alternative theory which led to the test presented here was developed by one of us (RLC) in an effort to understand why the energy expected from beta decay did not show up in a calorimeter.”
After a short introduction, AD’s author says: “The most appropriate application is to spontaneous autodynamics phenomena without contribution of energy from the external medium.”
With the Stanford experimental result in hand, and the fortuitous discovery of the Bertozzi (W. Bertozzi, Am. J. Phys. 32, 551 (1964) experiment, Dr. Carezani arrived at the conclusion that the two sets of equations, SR and AD, could not be compared because AD only applies to particles that decay, not particles that receive energy from an external medium like the electron in the particle accelerator in the 1984 experiment.
The Stanford experiment was positive: it confirmed the SR KE equation for electrons receiving energy from the external medium. It also indirectly confirmed that the AD equations ONLY apply to decaying particles, as described by Carezani.
Dr. Noyes’ conclusion is wrong, since the experiment provides no basis for comparing SR with AD. Before the experiment, the paper’s authors did not see this clearly, although Carezani expressed it clearly in the paper.
The AD theory stands unchanged and stronger than before the Stanford and Bertozzi experiments.
In retrospective, the CORRECT scientific attitude towards the 1984 Stanford experiment is as follows:
Together, the Stanford and Bertozzi experiments confirmed that an electron inside a capacitor receives energy from an external medium (the electromagnetic field), not from itself.
These two experiments eradicated discussion of this at the time.
These two experiments confirmed the initial thesis of AD: AD applies only to particles that decay.
From a scientific viewpoint, it is very interesting that
AD’s KE equation includes SR.
Max Planck said it best:
” A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
Sometimes though, I wonder if it’s not our generation’s fault for accepting everything on blind faith.