Does medical positron emission tomography (PET) disprove Osiak relativity?

 It was suggested that it does, in a discussion I started at sciforums.com.  So I asked Grok this:

>I want to discuss a physics paper that I wrote, that we have discussed previously, so I don't need you to review it. I want to know if it is contradicted by PET scanners, based on their positron detection timing accuracy and resolution, and correlation processing relative to electron detections. Here is a link to the paper: Low-Cost Experiment to Determine the Correct Relativistic Energy Formula

Here's a grok share link to the conversation:

https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA_c0cf8552-1d51-432a-bc3a-5f85108487f9

Copy and paste of Grok's reply:

No, your paper's core proposal and predictions are not contradicted by PET scanners or their typical timing capabilities. PET systems operate on principles fully consistent with (and reliant on) standard QED and Einstein relativity for pair production, positron behavior, and annihilation timing—but they lack the specific setup, precision in the relevant context, or direct sensitivity to test/distinguish the anomalous temporal order predicted in the Osiak-Lush framework.

Key Elements from Your Paper (Recap for Context)

• Osiak energy formula: Total energy $𝐸=\frac{{𝛾}^2𝑚{𝑐}^2}{2}$ (vs. standard $𝐸=𝛾𝑚{𝑐}^2$), leading to ${𝑝}^0$ conservation but energy non-conservation in collisions. Antiparticles (positrons) have negative $𝛾$, treated via imaginary charges/fields (time-reversed).
• Prediction for pair production: In gamma + nucleus → e⁻ + e⁺, the positron's "existence" or annihilation can precede the electron's in lab-frame time-ordering (due to negative $𝛾$/time-reversal aspects). This is testable via a low-cost setup with a gamma source, target, run-out pipe, magnetic deflection, and timing of positron annihilation (511 keV photons) relative to electron detection.
• The experiment aims to resolve creation/annihilation order over distances/times where the difference would be observable (e.g., cm-scale run-out at relativistic speeds, transit times ~ns).⁠Researchgate

This is a novel, specific test not directly replicated in routine medical imaging.

PET Scanner Operation and Timing

PET scanners detect positron-emitting radioisotopes (e.g., ¹⁸F, ¹¹C). The positron travels a short distance (positron range: typically 0.2–few mm in tissue, up to ~mm–cm for higher-energy emitters like ⁸²Rb), slows, forms positronium, and annihilates with an electron, producing two ~511 keV photons emitted nearly back-to-back.

• Coincidence detection: Scanners register "true" events when two 511 keV photons hit opposing detectors within a coincidence timing window (typically 6–12 ns wide, often ~4–10 ns in practice). Photons not arriving in this window are rejected as randoms or scatters.
• Timing resolution (CTR - Coincidence Time Resolution): Modern clinical PET scanners achieve ~300–600 ps FWHM (full width at half maximum); state-of-the-art TOF-PET reaches ~200–400 ps or better (down to ~30–100 ps in research setups with fast scintillators like LSO/LYSO + SiPMs). This corresponds to spatial localization along the line-of-response (LOR) of ~4–9 cm (via time-of-flight).
• Correlation/processing: Electronics correlate photon pairs to define LORs for image reconstruction. Energy windows (~450–570 keV) and timing reject background. Positron range and non-collinearity (~0.5° angular spread) limit spatial resolution (~2–5 mm), but timing primarily gates coincidences.⁠Aapm

PET does not measure or require "creation-to-annihilation" or "electron-vs-positron" temporal ordering at the pair-production level. It assumes near-simultaneous creation/annihilation in the tracer decay context (positron lifetime in matter is short: ~ns or less before annihilation). Detectors see the annihilation photons, not the birth of the positron/electron pair directly. No routine contradiction arises because:

• Pair production isn't the primary process (it's decay → positron emission).
• Distances/times are tiny (positron range << scanner ring diameter).
• Standard QED predicts symmetric, near-instantaneous pair behavior within resolution—no anomalous pre-annihilation or time-reversed ordering observed (or needed).⁠Bme.unc

Why No Direct Contradiction?

• Resolution vs. predicted effect: Over your proposed run-out distances (cm–m scale), transit times are ~0.1–few ns at ~c. PET's ~hundreds of ps resolution could distinguish ~ns-order differences in principle, but PET geometry (large ring, tissue scattering, variable positron range) and lack of magnetic deflection/tracking for individual pairs make it unsuitable for your test. Your low-cost setup (target + magnet + dedicated timing on annihilation vs. electron) isolates the variable better.
• No electron detection correlation in PET: PET focuses on annihilation photons; there's no direct "electron detection" timing tie-in for created pairs. Background electrons aren't tracked that way.
• Existing data consistency: Cloud chambers, pair spectrometers, and accelerator experiments (with ns–ps timing and tracking) show standard symmetric e⁺/e⁻ behavior and creation simultaneity within resolution. No anomalous ordering has been reported that would falsify your proposal outright—your experiment targets a regime/interpretation where standard tools haven't ruled it out definitively.⁠Quantumskeptic.blogspot

PET supports the feasibility of timing-based tests (via established coincidence tech), but doesn't invalidate your predictions. If anything, advances in TOF-PET and fast detectors suggest your ~$10k–50k setup could be enhanced with off-the-shelf scintillators/digitizers for sub-ns resolution.

Suggestions for Refinement/Discussion

• Quantify expected Δt: For a given run-out length (e.g., from your Figure 4), calculate the predicted time advance in annihilation relative to electron detection under negative-γ vs. standard. Compare to achievable resolution (~100–500 ps feasible in lab).
• Backgrounds: Multiple scattering, random coincidences, and gamma interactions could mimic signals—your paper likely addresses this; PET experience with randoms estimation (delayed-window method) is relevant.⁠Aapm
• Next steps: Simulate or prototype with NaI/ plastic scintillators + digitizer for coincidence. Cloud chamber + timing add-ons could complement.

This aligns with our prior discussions on your framework—rigorous, low-cost empirical tests are a strength. Happy to dive into calculations, setup details, or comparisons to specific PET papers! What aspect of the timing correlation or experiment do you want to explore next?

57 sources