| General > General Technical Chat |
| "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ? |
| << < (316/396) > >> |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 16, 2022, 03:15:38 am --- --- Quote from: aetherist on March 16, 2022, 01:10:48 am ---Muons were mentioned by TimFox in #1386. And by penfold in #1310. --- End quote --- Yes - and you have no explanation for them. --- Quote ---The muon is wonderful. It is another fine example where Einsteinist's shoot themselves in the foot. That’s the beautiful thing about Einsteinist's when they proudly crow about another proof of Einsteinian stuff. They love to assert that the new experiment proves or confirms STR or GTR to well within the margin for error. Not realizing that when aetherists show that the experiment has an error then that same experiment has to then be seen to be a disproof of STR or GTR. The muon experiment is one such disproof, within the margin for error. --- End quote --- I'm not wasting my time parsing for errors in a crank paper published on a crank website like 'General Science Journal' though I did derive no small amusement from perusing a few of the submissions there. Rather, I'm going to focus on something else stupid that you're asserting here - that the experiments on muon decay were done once in the 1960s and that's it! I don't care about the 1960s experiment (other than for historical reasons) - because other people did the experiment and the measurements of muon decay and the relativistic calculations associated with it are something so trivial that physics undergraduate students do this experiment ALL THE TIME: https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=phy_facpubs https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0502103.pdf https://www.physlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Muon_cali.pdf https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/projects/muon-lifetime.pdf https://www.ictp-saifr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lab_MuonLifetime_2018.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Muon_lifetime.pdf The list goes on. Let me repeat. This experiment is so trivial that undergraduate physics students do it all the time in universities all over the world. ::) --- End quote --- I don’t understand the undergraduate muon Xs. But it appears to me that all of them (most of them) involve measurement of the lifetime of muons, the Xs do not involve the more complicated confirmation of time dilation. I think that i am ok with the existence of muons (massive electrons), & (perhaps) with the measurement of their lifetimes (i think that their lifetimes depend on where they come to rest)(are some orbiting a nucleus?). But i am not ok with the standard Einsteinian time dilation explanation for the overly high number of muons hitting Earth. Here is how neoLorentz Relativity (my preferred theory)(very nearly) sees ticking dilation & length contraction for muons hitting Earth. LENGTH CONTRACTION. Firstly we have a muon looking at the distance to Earth. Einsteinian Relativity says that if the muon is falling at 0.99c then the distance to Earth appears to the muon to be D/9 approx. Hence the muon has a greater chance of reaching Earth before decaying (half life is 2.2 microsec)(time to reach Earth from 10 km or 33,000 ft is 33,000 ns which is 33 microsec). neoLorentz Relativity says that the muon is length contracted, ie its length is L/9, in which case the distance to Earth which is D appears to the (contracted) muon to be 9D (if using measuring rods carried by the muon)(ie the measuring rods are contracted by L/9). This is 81 times the Einsteinian D/9. Hence neoLorentz Relativity length contraction can't explain why so many muons reach Earth. In fact neoLorentz Relativity apparent length contraction makes the probability almost zero. So, this kind of apparent length contraction cant be involved -- it is irrelevant. TICKING DILATION. Secondly we have an observer on Earth looking at a falling muon. Einsteinian Relativity says that if a stationary observer sees that the muon is falling at 0.99c then the observer sees that the muon's time is passing at T/9 relative to the observer. Hence the muon has a greater chance of reaching Earth before decaying. neoLorentz Relativity possibly says the same. neoLorentz Relativity ticking dilation probably has a different value of ticking dilation for each kind of clock, ie for each kind of atomic or subatomic particle, ie for each kind of subatomic or atomic process. Some processes might have a ticking dilation that is equal to or very nearly the Einsteinian time dilation. So, what is the neoLorentz Relativity value for the ticking dilation of the decay lifetime of a muon? As i said, if that value is equal to the Einsteinian value then every experiment that validates Einsteinian time dilation also validates neoLorentz ticking dilation. And it validates every such theory that has that value, every such theory that has already been invented, & every future theory that has not yet been invented, ie an infinite number of such theories. But, to Einsteinists, the muon decay lifetime experiment proves Einsteinian time dilation, the whole of Einsteinian time dilation, & nothing but Einsteinian time dilation. Einsteinian time dilation says that time is dilated. In which case every clock, every process, is dilated, equally. neoLorentz ticking dilation says that the ticking of every process is affected in a different way, & to a different degree. At the subatomic & atomic level the ticking is affected by length contraction, in every case, the length contraction affecting the strength & speed of every em radiation field & force. Not only that, but length contraction in neoLorentz relativity is due to the speed through the aether, in other words it is due to the aetherwind. Whereas in Einsteinian Relativity length contraction is due to relative velocity & time dilation is due to relative speed. Not only that, but the stationary observer that i mentioned earlier is almost irrelevant in neoLorentz Relativity. In neoLorentz Relativity the observer has to be stationary in the (absolute) aether frame, ie where the aetherwind is zero km/s (ie the absolute reference frame)(the ARF). The background aetherwind near Earth blows at 500 km/s (c/600) south to north about 20 deg off Earth's axis. Hence in some experiments the exact aetherwind is critical, in some it aint. A muon falling to Earth near the north pole might have an aetherwind of 0.99c plus c/600, & a muon falling to Earth near the south pole might have an aetherwind of 0.99c minus c/600. Or, do they have the same aetherwind? Its tricky. |
| penfold:
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 16, 2022, 09:08:04 am ---[...] But, to Einsteinists, the muon decay lifetime experiment proves Einsteinian time dilation, the whole of Einsteinian time dilation, & nothing but Einsteinian time dilation. [...] --- End quote --- Then your beef is with the Einsteinists in that case. To everybody else, it provides validation that the model (incorporating effects described by STR) agrees with measured observations. The proof is gradually produced through repeat measurements and different experiments that gradually build up a case with decreasing doubt that there are other factors involved. No single experiment alone can prove or disprove, but the proof can be gradually formed through observation and well-formed mathematical models. A disproof takes a similar amount of effort in that the disproving experiment must also be able to prove itself through repeatability, demonstration of the well-formedness of the maths, etc. Further on the proof or disproof. It isn't perfect, but if I type "1+4=" into my calculator 1000 times and get mostly 5s, some 8s, a 6, a few 4s, and one 0.998: can I use that as evidence that 1+4=8? does it prove that 1+4=5.005? If many people get similar results and we can rule out calculator mal-function, do we then change the definition of 1+4? or do we do further experiments to produce a model of finger slips on calculator keys? How do I rule out the effects of your-aether? In this case, we can actually invalidate the experiment quite quickly because I clearly made up the results and botched the statistics on purpose. |
| HuronKing:
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 16, 2022, 09:08:04 am ---I don’t understand the undergraduate muon Xs. --- End quote --- Color me shocked. ::) --- Quote ---But it appears to me that all of them (most of them) involve measurement of the lifetime of muons, the Xs do not involve the more complicated confirmation of time dilation. --- End quote --- Can you read? https://www.ictp-saifr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lab_MuonLifetime_2018.pdf --- Quote ---Let us solve a quick exercise to understand how the cosmic muons created high in the atmosphere could reach the Earth's surface, given their lifetime is so short. Consider a muon of 2 GeV, which is a typical energy, produced at an altitude of 15 km above the sea level. How far will it travel before decaying? Consider first a non-relativistic muon, and compare it to the relativistic case. --- End quote --- http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Muon_lifetime.pdf --- Quote ---Questions to ponder • What are cosmic rays primarily composed of? How are muons formed in the earth’s atmosphere? Given the short muon decay time, why do so many make it to the earth’s surface? --- End quote --- https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/projects/muon-lifetime.pdf --- Quote ---The muon has a lifetime of τµ = 2.197 µs. According to classical physics, what is the distance that a muon would travel at the speed of light during its lifetime? Why do muons produced in the upper atmosphere, say at 10 km, reach the sea level before they decay? What is the speed β = v/c of a muon with an energy of 2 GeV? How far will the muon travel before disintegrating? --- End quote --- These are classroom exercises for the students to explain why way more muons can hit the Earth's surface than would be expected under classical physics. That's how trivial this is and how ridiculous it is you and the other cranks waste time going after one experiment from the 1960s. This experiment is repeated every semester by juniors in classrooms all over the world. --- Quote ---I think that i am ok with the existence of muons (massive electrons), & (perhaps) with the measurement of their lifetimes (i think that their lifetimes depend on where they come to rest)(are some orbiting a nucleus?). But i am not ok with the standard Einsteinian time dilation explanation for the overly high number of muons hitting Earth. --- End quote --- Stay far away from a junior undergraduate physics laboratory then. |
| TimFox:
Ignoring ignorance about time dilation and muons, the muon itself is a good historical example of how real science progresses. In 1935, the future Nobel laureate Hideki Yukawa published his theory that the "strong force" holding nuclei together (against electrostatic repulsion of the positive protons) was mediated by a massive particle (hence its short range), and estimated its mass as approximately 200 times the electron mass. Hence the term "meson" for a particle of mass intermediate between lepton (e.g., electron) and baryon (e.g, proton). In 1936, Anderson and Neddermayer found a particle in cosmic rays whose trajectory in a cloud chamber (in a magnetic field) indicated a mass close to that value and named it the "mu meson", where mu was the term for the mass in Yukawa's theory. Subsequently, this particle (and its positive-charge antiparticle) were determined to be something else, and are now grouped with the other leptons. In grad school, we learned "the mu meson is not a meson", but the particle had been re-named the "muon". (Recently, there have been reports of discrepancies (excruciatingly small) between the magnetic moment of the muon and theoretical calculations, but the jury is still out.) Then a few things happened in world history, but in 1947 Powell, Rochester, and Butler discovered the "pi meson", or "pion" in nuclear emulsions (special photographic emulsions), again in cosmic rays. Pions (+, -, and neutral charge) have mass roughly 270 times the electron mass. In further work, for which I refer the interested reader to a voluminous literature in particle physics, pions were not the end of the problem, but led to the development of quark theory. |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: penfold on March 16, 2022, 12:08:09 pm --- --- Quote from: aetherist on March 16, 2022, 09:08:04 am ---[...]But, to Einsteinists, the muon decay lifetime experiment proves Einsteinian time dilation, the whole of Einsteinian time dilation, & nothing but Einsteinian time dilation.[...] --- End quote --- Then your beef is with the Einsteinists in that case. To everybody else, it provides validation that the model (incorporating effects described by STR) agrees with measured observations. The proof is gradually produced through repeat measurements and different experiments that gradually build up a case with decreasing doubt that there are other factors involved. No single experiment alone can prove or disprove, but the proof can be gradually formed through observation and well-formed mathematical models. A disproof takes a similar amount of effort in that the disproving experiment must also be able to prove itself through repeatability, demonstration of the well-formedness of the maths, etc. Further on the proof or disproof. It isn't perfect, but if I type "1+4=" into my calculator 1000 times and get mostly 5s, some 8s, a 6, a few 4s, and one 0.998: can I use that as evidence that 1+4=8? does it prove that 1+4=5.005? If many people get similar results and we can rule out calculator mal-function, do we then change the definition of 1+4? or do we do further experiments to produce a model of finger slips on calculator keys? How do I rule out the effects of your-aether? In this case, we can actually invalidate the experiment quite quickly because I clearly made up the results and botched the statistics on purpose. --- End quote --- Yes but the point that i was making was that an experiment confirms every theory that would give that result. And there are an infinite number of such theories, some not yet written. In the case of the muon time dilation experiments, all of them also confirm neoLorentz Relativity (which is an aether theory). But Einsteinists seem to think that Einsteinian time dilation is the only ticking dilation in town. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |