Room-temperature superconductivity?

[MSimon]

I thought the muon results were because the measurement takes place in a gravity field, not because of the velocity.
Best regards

So you are saying that the gravity field of earth causes the muons to live 4 times longer than other muons also measured on earth?

That is a novel approach.

Now what about muons in a particle accelerator which also show the a similar life vs speed result?

Does that mean if I get off the Earth and live in space that my lifetime will be reduced by a factor of 4? That is going to put a big dent in the number of people who want to try space travel.

[DeltaV]

Why? I don't see any problem with a fast muon aging slower (in my frame) than it does in its frame. And in fact that is what is observed.

It's not aging at all in your frame. It's aging in its (inertial) frame.

In your frame you are just seeing a time-dilated (delayed) image of what is actually occurring in its (inertial) frame.

Your observation involves primarily geometry (kinematics), not calculus (dynamics).
Its aging involves primarily calculus (dynamics), not geometry (kinematics).

Calculus involves integration (integrators). Integrators embody system "memory" (aging).
There is no "memory" intrinsically associated with the kinematics of the Lorentz transform.

Edit: For the Twin Paradox, replace "dynamics" above with "biochemical dynamics".

[MSimon]

Why? I don't see any problem with a fast muon aging slower (in my frame) than it does in its frame. And in fact that is what is observed.

It's not aging at all in your frame. It's aging in its (inertial) frame.

In your frame you are just seeing a time-dilated (delayed) image of what is actually occurring in its (inertial) frame.

Your observation involves primarily geometry (kinematics), not calculus (dynamics).
Its aging involves primarily calculus (dynamics), not geometry (kinematics).

Calculus involves integration (integrators). Integrators embody system "memory" (aging).
There is no "memory" intrinsically associated with the kinematics of the Lorentz transform.

Edit: For the Twin Paradox, replace "dynamics" above with "biochemical dynamics".

OK. I get it. We see many more muons at the earth surface when they are going fast because their speed..... uh. I'm having a little trouble here. Perhaps you can fill in the blanks.

So what you are saying is that all that changes is space and time is invariant? The fact that things appear to live longer in my frame the faster they are going is only appearance.

So the lifetime of fast moving muons is only a function of space and not time?

My understanding is poor and my math not so good (my calculus is very rusty) so could you put up the appropriate math and explain it?

[mvanwink5]

Simon,
It is not my theory and I am not a proper defender.

On the other hand, looking at the muon's clock it's life is not extended, so maybe your argument is with the muon.

[icarus]

A muon decays in a time T seconds.

It is traveling at the speed of light, C.

It should decay after traveling a distance, D = C*T, yet it travels a distance D1 further than than D before decaying.

Explain the extra distance D1 traveled (choose any reference frame you like).

[D Tibbets]

A muon decays in a time T seconds.

It is traveling at the speed of light, C.

It should decay after traveling a distance, D = C*T, yet it travels a distance D1 further than than D before decaying.

Explain the extra distance D1 traveled (choose any reference frame you like).

I stopped following this thread closely because my head was hurting. But I cannot resist. I know that the length compression is disfavored by some, but it seems to me that it is required to allow the two frames of reference to correlate with each other. Using reference frame time keeping alone does not permit a reasoned method for resolving the seeming paradox. In one frame you can talk about time dilation, in the corresponding frame you can talk about distance compression. Just as in the Wikipedia article about Muons, both are required to explain the proven results, that is why both perspectives are needed. Illusion doesn't explain the results.
At the risk of being ridiculed, I'm of the opinion that if the math/ world view does not represent measured reality, despite its attractiveness or mathematical consistency, it is flawed.

Dan Tibbets

[D Tibbets]

I thought the muon results were because the measurement takes place in a gravity field, not because of the velocity.
Best regards

So you are saying that the gravity field of earth causes the muons to live 4 times longer than other muons also measured on earth?

That is a novel approach.

Now what about muons in a particle accelerator which also show the a similar life vs speed result?

Does that mean if I get off the Earth and live in space that my lifetime will be reduced by a factor of 4? That is going to put a big dent in the number of people who want to try space travel.

Concerning time dialation for Muons on the Earth's surface, without involking acceleration down a gravitational well, or change of position within a gravitational well (high altitude to Earth's surface) it seams from page 5 of this paper, that such conditions are not needed. It is all a function of velocity (in this example):

http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/test-fn/000 ... n-0319.pdf

"As noted above, 45 GeV/c muons can be stored for - 1 millisecond or
- 300 km, and in the design conception outlined in this note the muons
produced by pion decay in the IT beam lines are inserted into a storage ring, which is adjusted to accept 45 GeV/c particles,... "

Dan Tibbets

[ladajo]

So if a material is at absolute density, does that mean if you tap one side, the energy pops out the other with no time transition? Hmmm.

[DeltaV]

So what you are saying is that all that changes is space and time is invariant?

No. Space and time, together, form an invariant quantity called the interval, which is the spacetime analogy of spatial distance. The interval is invariant with respect to Lorentz transformations. But the transformed time is not age.

The fact that things appear to live longer in my frame the faster they are going is only appearance.

The appearance is a direct result of the Lorentz transform, which defines how things appear between inertial frames, so, yeah. Pure kinematics. No calculus, just spacetime geometry. The Lorentz transform has no magical "power" over those things, to change how they age.

So the lifetime of fast moving muons is only a function of space and not time?

The average lifetime of a muon, in its own inertial frame, is a function of "muon stuff" (let's call it internal muon dynamics; dynamics needs calculus). It's constant for any inertial frame attached to a muon. For a fast moving muon, the Lorentz transform warps the average, muon-frame lifetime into an apparent lifetime and the muon end-of-life position into an apparent position. Both space and time are involved.

My understanding is poor and my math not so good (my calculus is very rusty) so could you put up the appropriate math and explain it?

Why do you need calculus for the pure kinematics of the Lorentz transform?

Here's the math you're after, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation , but you may need to modify that with the Sachs/Prins insights, where necessary.

[MSimon]

Yes I agree that the aging does not change in the particle frame. But in my frame they live longer the faster they are going.

[DeltaV]

They appear to live longer as observed from your frame.

So, you're certain that the muons really die when and where you think they do?

It's just a mapping, somewhat like pointing a projector at a curved wall.
What makes your curved wall more special than anyone else's?

Edit: This is supposed to be about Special Relativity, so maybe I should say tilted, flat walls!

Way past my bedtime...

[MSimon]

They appear to live longer as observed from your frame.

So, you're certain that the muons really die when and where you think they do?

It's just a mapping, somewhat like pointing a projector at a curved wall.
What makes your curved wall more special than anyone else's?

Edit: This is supposed to be about Special Relativity, so maybe I should say tilted, flat walls!

Way past my bedtime...

But they do in fact live longer in my frame. Thus the twin "paradox". i.e. both twins experience of 100 years of life. However, given enough speed, one twin will be dead millions of years before the other. At least that is the experience with muons.

[mvanwink5]

Simon,
The problem is that from the muon's point of view it is you that are moving fast and living longer. So who is really living longer if the effect is real?

[MSimon]

Simon,
The problem is that from the muon's point of view it is you that are moving fast and living longer. So who is really living longer if the effect is real?

Good question. I'd ask a muon but they don't stay around long enough to answer.

[Teemu]

Concerning light and time stopping in a Bose Einstein condensate (BEC), this author implies that the light does not stop, it is absorbed and it's characteristics are preserved. When the BEC is prodded to release the light ( stored information) it gives the illusion that a specific photon was stoped. No need for stopping time.

Obviously it is "absorbed" (please explain to me how this "absorption" occurs): But to be "absorbed" the speed of the incoming light must become zero.

This also happens when an orbital electron-wave absorbs a light photon. The photon stops within the electron-wave to become mass energy so that the mass-intensity of the electron-wave increases. This causes the electron-wave to morph into another shape and size in order to accomodate this mass-energy. If you are stupid you will claim that this involves a "jump by a particle to a higher energy": It is beyond my comprehension why otherwise rational people want to believe such paranormal metaphysical claptrap!!

The intensity of a stationary electron wave is time independent since the amplitude of the wave is a complex function. Thus the absorbed light energy is now also time-independent mass-energy. Thus, within the mass intensity of the electron-wave, time does not exist. If it did the electron would have exploded owing the the concomitant charge-distribution within it.

I don't think any scientist really thinks that electrons actually "jump", that this picture would be actually some detailed representation of physical reality

Pictures like that, are supposed to be a handy way to represent data, nobody, expect maybe some students initially, thinks that picture represents how the electron actually jumps up and down on some flat levels that actually exist. Some may still use term jump, because that is handy short way to write it, and they take the liberty to use semantics that makes it shorter for them to write, but I doubt they actually think that literally.

Also I would be interested to understand what is the practical difference between between your stationary electron wave and concept of stationary state, first used by Bohr? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationary_state

For example for hydrogen, the stationary state Schrödinger wave equations are well known, do you have a link to calculations for your stationary orbital electron-wave calculations for hydrogen, would be interesting to see them for comparison if possible.