Jump to content
Science Forums

Speed of light...instantatious Travel??


fatty_ashy

Recommended Posts

As for muons " at rest, they found that the average lifetime of a muon was around 2.2 microseconds before it decayed into an electron, muon neutrino and an anti-electron neutrino....if we apply time dilation to the cosmic ray muons which have a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds at rest in an inertial reference frame travelling towards earth at 99.98% of the speed of light we find that this resolves the problem and we get around the observed activity." link

 

The flaw in this logic; only SOME muons make it to earth(atmospheric density isn't THAT dence) if all travel at 0.9998C then MOST should reach sea level, not some.

 

This could also be explained by

A) the muons interation with the atomic particles reelative to it's motion (IE we havn't tested muon decay in space)

 

 

The following relates to the parent particle of a Muon, the Pion;

"We suppose that the Muon loses 3.94 MeV by ionization along its path. Using the concepts in "The Third Particle", A17, the Muon's velocity is given by

 

BM1 = (1 - (Mm / (Mm + Kem))2)1/2 (1)

 

= 0.627199159 c

 

The Muon's momentum is

 

pM1 = Bm1 * Mm (2)

 

= 66.269865 MeV/c

 

We suppose that the Muon is stopped by another particle; in this case, a water molecule of 18 mass units." link

 

You'll note "suppose" is in there alot. When special relativity comes into play all kinds of interesting things can be invented to perform magic-math tricks. There is no DEFINITIVE proof, only suppositions, theorys based off of observations of particles that may or may not be what we think they are.

 

" The neutral pion decays to an electron, positron, and gamma ray by the electromagnetic interaction on a time scale of about 10-16 seconds. The positive and negative pions have longer lifetimes of about 2.6 x 10-8 s....Being composed of an up and an antidown quark, the positive pion would be expected to have a mass about 2/3 that of a proton, yet it's mass is only about 1/6 of that of the proton!"link

Again, the example of the matchstick house; predictions which fail to predict, obviously there is a serious flaw in a system whereby the particles refuse to behave as predicted based on assumptions.

 

The problem with SR and infact most hypothesies involving sub-atomic particles is again the limited methods of detection, as well as the fact we're working backwards from larger structures rather than building from the ground up and restructuing the ideas on the larger particles to fit the observed evidence of the smaller ones when acuuracy can be guaranteed.

 

Again, I can't completly disproove it, but there is by no means any difinitive proof of time dialation; it's just the simplist answer. If there is one rule in physics it's that there is atleas one amisingly simple answer to every queston, and this answer is always wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The flaw in this logic; only SOME muons make it to earth(atmospheric density isn't THAT dence) if all travel at 0.9998C then MOST should reach sea level, not some.

Some and most are only terms used to explain the experiment. The point is: Muons decay, they have a certain life time. With time delation this lifetime mathces the experiment, otherwise not. What you call some or most doesn't matter.

This could also be explained by

A) the muons interation with the atomic particles reelative to it's motion (IE we havn't tested muon decay in space)

Yes we have once again: at particle accelerators. (now dont have much time, tomorrow or so, i will post a reference)

The following relates to the parent particle of a Muon, the Pion;

Well the following uses some complete bizarre new age physics called autodynamics which i can hardly take serious...sorry

...Being composed of an up and an antidown quark, the positive pion would be expected to have a mass about 2/3 that of a proton, yet it's mass is only about 1/6 of that of the proton!

you should have read what comes after that (you gave the link yourself): "this is an example of how hadron masses depend upon the dynamics inside the particle, and not just upon the quarks contained." And that's exactly how it goes . This theory is called Quantum chromo dynamics. the fact that the masses of masses of hadrons isn't equal to the sum of the quark masses (just like the sum of the proton and neutron masses arent equal to the mass of the nucleus they're contained within) is one of the successes of QCD instead of a failure of SR...

Again, I can't completly disproove it, but there is by no means any difinitive proof of time dialation; it's just the simplist answer. If there is one rule in physics it's that there is atleas one amisingly simple answer to every queston, and this answer is always wrong.

true. We can't give a definite proof (see my discussion in my previous post in this topic), but we can show that we're getting close. It is also true that we take the 'simplest answer'. But why not? it's deffinitly true that most physicists have some beliefs that nature in its final form is simple and beatifull. And also this tendency to a simple form follows more or less from hamiltons principle (nature always takes the path in which it loses the least energy).

Bo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

GAHD,

 

To deny special relativity and Ockham's razor is, to say the least, VERY bold indeed.

 

LOL, I don't deny it, I just refuse to accept a flawed system based on math BEFORE recorded results, and one that uses light as it's base detection system, so of course speed that makes said light have to travel increasingly larger distances or shorter distances will indicate dilation; because we are outside observers.

little thought exercise;

Make a chart for 1 light minute with 1 second increments. place a point(labeled 'P') at 60 seconds to represent a ship moving at .5c towards point 0; the light of this point will be labeled 'S1'. next step; move time forward 1 second, 's1' is at place 59, P is at 59.5 and emitting light 'S2'. Next step; time forward by another second. S1 is at 58, S2 @ 58.5, and P is at 59 emitting light again. etc...

Notice a pattern? the light that should be 1 second apart is only 0.5 seconds apart. This would make the object appear to have time dilation. In actuality the object(P) still travels for 120 seconds before reaching point 0, but at 60 seconds into it's journey the light S1 is just reaching point 0. S2, S3, S4, all show up within 0.5 seconds of each other when they were emitted 1 second apart from each other, making the 120 second journey appear to take 60 seconds.

I have no problem with apparent time dilation; it's just when people start applying it to anything but appearances(IE think that time is actually moving slower/faster for the observed object) that I get worked up.

If this example is confusing actually make the graph, with time on x for 120 places(or 12 to be simple) and with distance on y for 60 places(or 6).

 

Originally posted by: Bo

The flaw in this logic; only SOME muons make it to earth(atmospheric density isn't THAT dense) if all travel at 0.9998C then MOST should reach sea level, not some.

Some and most are only terms used to explain the experiment. The point is: Muons decay, they have a certain life time. With time delation this lifetime mathces the experiment, otherwise not. What you call some or most doesn't matter.

In this case it does; muons decay, IF all muons experience time dilation it stands to reason that a large amount of them would reach the surface; without a percentile graph of observed muon decay while at rest the example means nothing because the math cannot be shown. There are other mitigating circumstances that would come into play if and when muons interact with the atmosphere(ie refraction) to scatter them, but these only occur if and when the muons interact with the molecules of the atmosphere; not too likely given the density.

 

I also forgot to paste my B and C options.

B) kinetic energy simply tends to hold an object together, rather than dilating it's time.

C) Gravity causes muon decay(again we haven't done the experiments in space, not just detailing vacuum, but SPACE; away from significantly sized astral body, beyond the Magellan cloud, away from earth.)

 

Originally posted by: Bo

Well the following uses some complete bizarre new age physics called autodynamics which i can hardly take serious...sorry

You are the one who told me to do a google search. you don't like what I found, get some of your own info up here. Autodynamics isn't all that bizzare, no more so than SR, QM, or UP.

 

Originally posted by: Bo

true. We can't give a definite proof (see my discussion in my previous post in this topic), but we can show that we're getting close. It is a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Freethinker/ Bo,

 

Thanks for replying, yes, that does help to explain. ...but alas, I'm not a trained physicist....

 

It is still difficult to wrap my brain around the concept, but I'm getting much closer. Thanks.

 

Hey Uncy Marty, don't feel bad. I am not a trained physicist by any def. I have an AAS in Electronics from long ago and have been in sales almost exclusivly since. I am just curious about such things and have read a lot. Wrapping my brain around these things is a challenge also. It was good to see Bo confirm my assertion as he (?) states he is actually involved in this directly.

 

I'm glad to see this site turn around. The discussions have become much more scientifically valid and reasoned. The religionistws seemed to have dropped out to a large extent and we are spending less time defending science than discussing it now.

 

But then it may have been the assault I saw by the Fundies when I first ran across this site that got me to stop and fight for science and reason. Maybe it'll get boring now? No more religious nonsense to expose and fight? What fun is that? lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Very good point Gahd, if the photons are not actually contacting the observers retinas, no observation!! This was more of a hypothetical thought experiment just meant to prove a point. Google "time dilation" for more info. It is a fascinating subject.

 

Yes, like you Uncy Marty, I assumed the idea of a visible "light beam" when you referred to photons. My bad! Thanks for corecting this GAHD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

 

Very good point Gahd, if the photons are not actually contacting the observers retinas, no observation!! This was more of a hypothetical thought experiment just meant to prove a point. Google "time dilation" for more info. It is a fascinating subject.

 

 

 

Yes, like you Uncy Marty, I assumed the idea of a visible "light beam" when you referred to photons. My bad! Thanks for corecting this GAHD

 

Pardon me, I tend to take things litereally as written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: GAHD

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

 

GAHD,

 

To deny special relativity and Ockham's razor is, to say the least, VERY bold indeed.

 

The reason the 'Simplest answer' should not be used; old Greek schools of thought (everything is composed of fire, water, earth, wind... much simpler than the atomic table), Religion(God made us is simpler than evolution)....the list goes on. Again, there is always a very simple answer; It might be close, usually it isn't, but it is always wrong.

I had a relatively long post on Willam of Ockham and "his razor" somehwere on this site. If you did not see it or need to see it again to comprehd what it actually is ans says, I could do so.

 

But you completely mis-represent it by pretending it says that the "simplest answer is always correct".

 

"Ockham's Razor" is intended to allow an evaluation between two (or more) propositions when ALL ELSE IS EQUAL. And further that it is not the SIMPLEST, but the one with the LEAST AGENTS.

 

e.g. "everything is composed of fire, water, earth, wind..." is NOT ANYWHERE as effective in explaining nature as "the atomic table" is. Thus the two are NOT "all else is equal" and Ockham's Razor CAN NOT be applied.

 

Just as in [/i]" Religion(God made us is simpler than evolution)"[/i] is bogus as when explaining the existence of NATURE, GOD is an additional AGENT as compared to NATURE explaining NATURE. Thus in this case Ockham's Razor would choose NATURE explaining NATURE over GOD explaining NATURE.

 

If you want to 'convert' me on this; give me proof not some second hand info from a half-assed experiment that 'meets predictions' and then expect me to beleive the rest of the hogwash associated with it. Make an effort here,

As I posted the last time I explained Ockham and his razor, there has never been a case in which it did NOT work. I could list EVERY accepted scientific theory along with some rejected alternative in which additional agents were invented, as proof. Such as the one I provided the first time of Einstien's GR allowing the application of OR to shave away the idea of Ether. It became an additional agent that was not needed even though it's formula's arrived at the same solutions.

 

OK, so I have given a specific example of OR working. (as well as clarifying HOW it is to be applied). Now it is your turn, show us an actual example, properly structured, where it does NOT work.

 

sell electronics to people who are scared of their neighbors.

 

Guns work bettter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: GAHD

 

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

 

 

 

GAHD,

 

 

 

To deny special relativity and Ockham's razor is, to say the least, VERY bold indeed.

 

 

 

The reason the 'Simplest answer' should not be used; old Greek schools of thought (everything is composed of fire, water, earth, wind... much simpler than the atomic table), Religion(God made us is simpler than evolution)....the list goes on. Again, there is always a very simple answer; It might be close, usually it isn't, but it is always wrong.

 

When I implied that Gahd's statement denied Ockham's razor I meant it in a very general sense. I should have stated that the simplest answer is not always wrong. I tend to read a post and deduce the overall meaning being expressed. To pick a post apart sentence by sentence would be effective in a court of law, but seems a bit extreme here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: GAHD

Originally posted by: Freethinker

 

Yes, like you Uncy Marty, I assumed the idea of a visible "light beam" when you referred to photons. My bad! Thanks for corecting this GAHD

 

Pardon me, I tend to take things litereally as written.

No apology needed. I appreciate your correcting us.

 

You know I'd do the same given the chance! l0l

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gahd wrote:

without a percentile graph of observed muon decay while at rest the example means nothing because the math cannot be shown.

well the math is quite clear i think see for example http://www.prestoncoll.ac.uk/cosmic/muoncalctext.htm Also at the site of SLAC there is a comparison with experimental data: http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/cosmicrays/tourstop4.html

 

There are other mitigating circumstances that would come into play if and when muons interact with the atmosphere(ie refraction) to scatter them, but these only occur if and when the muons interact with the molecules of the atmosphere; not too likely given the density....

B) kinetic energy simply tends to hold an object together, rather than dilating it's time.

Well you can easely asume there is hardly any interaction wetween the muons and the atmosphere. for example: muons can travel through about .5 meters of solid lead and are still good visible (and as said before: similar experiments are done in vacuum at CERN or other excellarators). Point B i find quite strange. If kinetic energy holds a particle stable, then why can it be that particles with no kinetic energy can still be stable? Visualise for example a thin line on which our particle is situated. If we give it a small push (for the decay these are quantum fluctuations), our particle decays. Now suppose that our particle has some kinetic energy, so it;s moving along the line. The push we have to give our particle to fall of the line is still the same, and also (this you can show, but i wont do it, because of the mathematics) the movement along the line has no influence on the quantum uncertaintys in the direction perpendicular to the line.

C) Gravity causes muon decay(again we haven't done the experiments in space, not just detailing vacuum, but SPACE; away from significantly sized astral body, beyond the Magellan cloud, away from earth.)

Point C also seems strange to me, Gravity is (on particle scales) a tremendously small force compared to the other three forces and once again: the experiments at CERN are at constant height, so there is no change in the gravitational potential (and only a change in potential causes something to happen).

 

you want to 'convert' me on this; give me proof not some second hand info from a half-assed experiment that 'meets predictions' and then expect me to beleive the rest of the hogwash associated with it.

Well i'm very sorry, but that's the best i can do... There is SO MUCH we don't know. For example: 70% of the stuff this universe is made of is unknown, we have no clue what time or space is. We have no clue how some 20 paramaters that shape this universe or so are formed. We have no idea if mathematics is the right language to use, we have no idea if the assumption of causality is correct, etc. The only thing we can do is: do an experiment and try to explain the results with a theory. SR and QFT are the best theorys these days to describe the experiments, but that doesn't mean they're the ultimate truth (we have no idea also what truth is...). As to your points on the simplest answer. It is indeed often true that theories need to be refined, but it is in general true (i wouldnt know an exception) that with our current knowledge the simplest theory is the best. Also when better measurements are done, the theory needs to be refined, but in the limit of our previous experiment, we get the same answer as the 'simple' model gave. For example: SR is a refinement of Newtonian mechanics. But in the limit of lightspeed->infinity we get n

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: Freethinker

OK, so I have given a specific example of OR working. (as well as clarifying HOW it is to be applied). Now it is your turn, show us an actual example, properly structured, where it does NOT work.

I don't know enough about it to disproove it, and it's time dialation that's on trial here, not OR. I could give two shakes of a pig's tail weather or not science chooses the simplist answer, I just think think that "simplest" just means that you're 'playing with half your cards'. given the idea that you only care about the percentage of getting getting (10,20,30,40,50, or 60) from rolling ten six sided dice and rounding the total up(akin to doing anything from average), you might as well just roll a single six sided die and multiply the result by 10; gives the same answers, but you're missing some other variables you just don't care about. Given that definition Autodynamics and NWT both make the same predictions as SR without a lot of the extra stuff associated with SR, so OR actually supports them. GREAT!

 

Originally posted by: Freethinker

sell electronics to people who are scared of their neighbors.

Guns work bettter?

Canada. We have nasty gun-controll laws so electronics are your best bet; cellphones, loud sirens, tazers (under 2000v i think), etc...

also any knife (under 6" to be legal) works. And you technically can't walk in groups over 6 people (municipal law, can be searched/dispersed without question for 'gang activity'), as well as a bunch of other paranoid stuf. great place for alarm companies.

 

Now I'm too tired to post a lengtly reply(mainly to the tune of "neither site has the decay data, just mean average; pull out the full data then we can play with some numbers for this stuff..." as well as 'time isn't a real dimension', and 'energy and mass are interchangeable but they have distinct properties'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Bo,

 

Please don't let some people dissuade you, I, (and many others I'm sure) are very appreciative to have an actual physicist to correct the erroneous assumptions and corroborate the occasional lucky guess.

 

Thanks for the effort, I find it very educational.

 

I "second that emotion". (Old song, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, now it'll be playing in my head for days...). I notice a very definate strain of postmoderism from some. Outright rejection of science by claiming it is all faith based regardless. Occasional promotion of "wierd science" and rejection of well established scientific process while refusing to stand behind it when challenged.

 

Yes Bo, keep up the good work here. Those of us rooted in solid science instead of new age postmoderism do appreciate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...