Room-temperature superconductivity?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

D Tibbets wrote:I may have missed something as I drifted away from this thread once it became an exercise in math.
Has anyone defended their position against undeniable experimental observations? The atomic clocks of course ran at the same rate within their frame of reference and they 'seemed' to run differently in other frames. But the only real test as I see it is the two clocks (or Muons) that recorded different time rates and this difference was persistent even when both clocks were brought into the same frame of reference.
The confusion here is that the muon experiments are assumed to be the same as the flying clocks experiments and prove the same physics. They are two totally different experiments and, in fact, are contradictory

Why?

1. The life-time of the cosmic ray muons, or for that matter the accelerated muons going at an incredible speed relative to the laboratory, measures the lifetime of the fast moving muons on a clock that is stationary relative to the laboratory: Not on a clock that travels with the muons. It is abundantly clear that if one can accelerate a clock to move with the muons, this clock will merasure the lifetime of the muons to be the same as the lifetime that will be measured on the laboratory clock for muons that are stationary within the laboratory. It is thus clear experimental proof that what I am claiming is correct: Namely that a clock moving with the muons MUST keep time at the same exact rate as a clock within the laboratory. Nothwithstanding this inmpeccable experimental evidence that this is so, tomclarke claims that it cannot be so.

2. In the flying clock experiments, you actually have in this case a clock within both reference frames, and afterwards you bring the clocks together and compare. It is then claimed that the clocks show different times as can be derived from the time dilation formula of SR. But if this is so, it contradicts the muon experiments.

The muon results and the flying clock results cannot be simultaneously correct. So there must be a mistake somewhere. The muon results vindicate time-dilation which merely states that although the time rate on clocks are exactly the same within each and every inertial refrence frame (as mandated by Einstein's first postulate) the transformed time from a clock which keeps time at the global time rate at which all clocks keep time when there is no gravity, into another inertial reference frame moving relative to this specific clock with a speed v, will be slower within the reference frame into which the time rate has been transformed. This does not mean that the time rate on the clock itself is slower.

Now if you fly a clock , return it, and found that it slowed down relative to a "stay-at-home" clock as predicted by the time-dilation formula, and you want to accept this result, you have to reject the muon results as well as Einstein's first postulate. If you want to argue that both the muon and flysing clocks results are simultaniously correct, you should go to a psychiatrist to test you for bipolar disorder. With all the information on hand I choose that the muon results are correct and the the flying clocks experiments must thus be flawed in some manner.
mix-up here is the This is a hard fact. It can be resolved by a combination of time dilation, and distance compression depending on which frame of reference you choose to observe from while the two test items (clocks or muon) are not in the same frame of reference. But, can you explain the final common frame of reference results without considering/accepting both effects?
There must always be a concomitant change in length involved, but it is not a length dilation but a length expansion.

Consider a muon being generated in our atmosphere and moving at great speed towards the earth. Within its own inertial reference frame, this muon is stationary and threfore ir decays within its own inertial reference frame at the rate (tau) at which any stationary muon will decay: And this is so since a clock travelling with it will keep time at the standard global rate.

A clock staionary to earth, which also kleeps time at the global rate, detects the demise of the muon at t=0. This observation also synchronises this clock with the clock travelling with the muon so that we can set tp=0. Now, since the clock rate of the clock travelling with the muon is the global rate, we know that the muon was created at a time tp=-(tau) within the inertial reference frame travelling with the muon. Furthermore, the muon has remained stationary within its own inertial reference frame Kp at position xp=0.

Now we ask at which position x and time t was the muon created within Earth's reference frame. To obtain this we have to use the Lorentz transformation to transform tp=-(tau) and xp=0 from Kp into K. The equations that must be used are:

x=(gamma)*(xp-vt)
And
t=(gamma)*(tp-(v/c^2)*xp)

And one thus obtains that

x=(gamma)*(-v*(-tau))=(gamma)*(v*tau) which is far longer than the distance that the muon can travel classically during its own lifetime: Thus there is no relativistic "lenght contraction" involved but a relativistic "length-extension".

and

t=(gamma)*(-tau) giving the transformed lifetime on erath as (tau)(earth)=(modulus)t=(gamma)*(tau) which is longer than tau as measured by a clock that travels with the muon and which keeps the exact same time rate that a clock on earth is keeping.

If the time becomes longer, the distance also becomes longer. Why? Divide the transformed x by the transformed t and you get that x/t=v: As it must be since this is the speed that the muon moves relative to the earth. Thus to use time-dilation in conjunction with length contraction, as is done in text books to explain these results, cannot be correct.
How do you explain the observations with only one effect? Did the pilots flying the atomic clock experience a time dilation effect, or did he just travel a shorted distance than that measured by the ground observer?
Obviously the calculations they used to interpret their results for the flying clocks are deeply flawed.
IE: the math needs to describe reality, otherwise it is meaningless.
Amen!! This means that the mathematics must be correctly interpreted. Thus, when you interpret the mathematics of Minkowski space as if time is a function of position and that time rates are different within different inertial reference frame, you get Voodoo physics!

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

ladajo wrote:
IE: the math needs to describe reality, otherwise it is meaningless.
I believe this has been Johan's point all along.

It is like arguing that if you take a sandwich, and keep eating half of what you have in hand, and keep doing it twice as fast, you will never run out of food, or be hungry. Mathematically sound, but in the real world pure nonsense.
Thanks Iadajo!

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

Enginerd wrote: What is the difference between and engineer, a physicist, and a mathimatician?
An engineer believes equations approximate the world.
A physicist believes the world approximates equations.
A mathematician sees no connection between the two.
I am once more grateful that after my MSc in physics I was offered the opportunity to do Materials Science at an Engineering School, instead of pursuing theoretical physics which was my passion, and still is to a large extent. It shows you that sometimes it is better to accept what is possible to pursue subject to economic constraints than to blindly follow a passion. Thank God I have not just concentrated on theoretical physics and in the process became part of the present deluded mob of "experts" who are hunting for hallucinary Higgs bosons.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

Enginerd wrote:
ladajo wrote:It is like arguing that if you take a sandwich, and keep eating half of what you have in hand, and keep doing it twice as fast, you will never run out of food, or be hungry. Mathematically sound, but in the real world pure nonsense.
A mathematician, a physicist and an engineer were asked to answer the following question. A group of boys are lined up on one wall of a dance hall, and an equal number of girls are lined up on the opposite wall. Both groups are then instructed to advance toward each other by one quarter the distance separating them every ten seconds (i.e., if they are distance d apart at time 0, they are d/2 at t=10, d/4 at t=20, d/8 at t=30, and so on.) When do they meet at the center of the dance hall? The mathematician said they would never actually meet because the series is infinite. The physicist said they would meet when time equals infinity. The engineer said that within one minute they would be close enough for all practical purposes.

What is the difference between and engineer, a physicist, and a mathimatician?
An engineer believes equations approximate the world.
A physicist believes the world approximates equations.
A mathematician sees no connection between the two.
And a theoretical physicist believes the world is the equations. Theoretical physicists also tend to be mathematicians...

CKay
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:13 am

Post by CKay »

johanfprins wrote:The situation at present is that, at last, a large company has approached me through a representative and asked for samples to test and to use to repeat my experiments of 10 years ago. The samples will be ready for them by March.
Will the results be published, or is this a purely commercial venture?

All the best with it.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

Johan wrote: Amen!! This means that the mathematics must be correctly interpreted. Thus, when you interpret the mathematics of Minkowski space as if time is a function of position and that time rates are different within different inertial reference frame, you get Voodoo physics!
That is no doubt true. But you are the only person on this thread arguing that time rates are different in different frames, though I think most people would reckon in 4D spacetime that time is a function of (4D) position, as is space, and that different frames alter the definitions of time and space coordinates within the 4D space.

Note the distinction between:
(1) proper time (time measured by local clock)
(2) calculated time (of distant event, relative to given frame)
(3) directly observed time (on clock seen by telescope)

The only one of these three that could be equated with "time rate" is proper time, and that is defined in any inertial frame by the laws of physics.

Where we disagree, is whether proper time is conservative over all paths through space time. In other words, if you have two twins one stationary the other moving at relativistic speeds, but returning to compare clocks, does the moving twin clock read differently from the stationary one as a result of having travelled a different path through spacetime?

There is no simple comparison of proper times in different frames - the issue is one of whole paths leading to different times. Any two path which allow comparison must be non-inertial (at least one of the paths must so be) so you can't talk about single "frames".

The analogy here would be two paths, one going over a hill, one tunnelling straight through it. You can't simply compare the "rate of distance" on the two paths unless you decide which point in the tunnel corresponds to which point on the overhill path. But you can certainly say when they meet on the other side what is the difference in distance.

Johan believes, contrary to GPS and "clock-on-plane" evidence, that proper time is conservative. That is what (Newtonian) physical intuition would lead us to expect, indeed in spacetime where time is entirely separate from space it is necessarily true.

Best wishes, Tom

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

johanfprins wrote:
Enginerd wrote: What is the difference between and engineer, a physicist, and a mathimatician?
An engineer believes equations approximate the world.
A physicist believes the world approximates equations.
A mathematician sees no connection between the two.
I am once more grateful that after my MSc in physics I was offered the opportunity to do Materials Science at an Engineering School, instead of pursuing theoretical physics which was my passion, and still is to a large extent. It shows you that sometimes it is better to accept what is possible to pursue subject to economic constraints than to blindly follow a passion. Thank God I have not just concentrated on theoretical physics and in the process became part of the present deluded mob of "experts" who are hunting for hallucinary Higgs bosons.
It may be a hallucination. But if so the CMS and Atlas teams at the LHC appear to have consistent hallucinations even though they are measuring entirely different things and not aware of each other's results.

Perhaps it is just a coincidence, we will see...

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

Johan wrote: 1. The life-time of the cosmic ray muons, or for that matter the accelerated muons going at an incredible speed relative to the laboratory, measures the lifetime of the fast moving muons on a clock that is stationary relative to the laboratory: Not on a clock that travels with the muons. It is abundantly clear that if one can accelerate a clock to move with the muons, this clock will merasure the lifetime of the muons to be the same as the lifetime that will be measured on the laboratory clock for muons that are stationary within the laboratory. It is thus clear experimental proof that what I am claiming is correct: Namely that a clock moving with the muons MUST keep time at the same exact rate as a clock within the laboratory. Nothwithstanding this inmpeccable experimental evidence that this is so, tomclarke claims that it cannot be so.
Johan. Please re-read the above paragraph. There is no experimental evidence for what you claim. We both agree that a muon-relative clock would measure normal (rest-frame) lifetime for muons. We don't much disagree about "keeping the same rate" - merely about what this means.

The only experimental evidence is that the moving muons appear to have lifetime longer than stationary ones. We both agree that the observed lifetime of the mouns in the lab frame will the the rest-frame lifetime divided by the time dilation factor. we both agree that a clock with the muons would be slowed down as the muons are relative to lab frame and so measure the normal muon decay time.

So where is the disagreement? Only in the interpretation of your "muon clock must keep the same time as lab clock" statement. You extend this to mean "global time equality". I don't.
2. In the flying clock experiments, you actually have in this case a clock within both reference frames, and afterwards you bring the clocks together and compare. It is then claimed that the clocks show different times as can be derived from the time dilation formula of SR. But if this is so, it contradicts the muon experiments.
It contradicts your interpretation of "keep the same time as", but nothing else.

Consider a muon twin paradox. One is muon set is kept stationary. the other set of muons is fired to the moon at high speed, reflected and we check how many have decayed on return.

Now, I would expect the moving muons to decay less (as determined by number of muons on return) than the stationary muons. It is the logical result of the muon experiments, and an experiment with a muon mirror would provide a more exact example.

Johan would presumably expect the muons to decay the same amount, because he thinks the age of the voyaging twin to be the same as that of the stationary twin. The cases are exactly parallel, unless you believe that slowing down magically alters age.

So muon mirror experiments would show rest-frame muon lifetime, if Johan is right?

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

CKay wrote:
johanfprins wrote:The situation at present is that, at last, a large company has approached me through a representative and asked for samples to test and to use to repeat my experiments of 10 years ago. The samples will be ready for them by March.
Will the results be published, or is this a purely commercial venture?
We have only agreed at this stage that I will prepare the samples and allow them to do experiments on the samples. We still have to nail down the specifics. I am not averse to them publishing esults that confirm or contradict what is already within the public domain. This is in the interest of physics.

In order for them not to waste time, I will probably have to also reveal some proprietary information. The latter will obviously have to be covered by an NDA until the date that it is safeguarded by appropriate patents. After that date hey will also be free to publish any other data.
All the best with it.
Thanks!

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

It is a waste of time to argue with tomclarke since like most theoretical physicists he is standing with his feet solidly anchored in the clouds. As an example:

tomclarke wrote: Consider a muon twin paradox. One is muon set is kept stationary. the other set of muons is fired to the moon at high speed, reflected and we check how many have decayed on return.

Now, I would expect the moving muons to decay less (as determined by number of muons on return) than the stationary muons. It is the logical result of the muon experiments, and an experiment with a muon mirror would provide a more exact example.
If you want to formulate a thought experiment it should at least in principle be physically possible. The average lifetime of the muons kept within the laboratory is 2.2 microseconds. It is easy to work out that if you want to send muons to the moon and back for comparison before the muons in the laboratory go "poof", then the speed with which you have to send the muons to the moon and back is approximately 2x10^12 m/s. Light speed is 3x10^8 m/s. Are you enjoying yourself in Alice's Wonderland Tom?

Best wishes,
Johan

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

johanfprins wrote:It is a waste of time to argue with tomclarke since like most theoretical physicists he is standing with his feet solidly anchored in the clouds. As an example:

tomclarke wrote: Consider a muon twin paradox. One is muon set is kept stationary. the other set of muons is fired to the moon at high speed, reflected and we check how many have decayed on return.

Now, I would expect the moving muons to decay less (as determined by number of muons on return) than the stationary muons. It is the logical result of the muon experiments, and an experiment with a muon mirror would provide a more exact example.
If you want to formulate a thought experiment it should at least in principle be physically possible. The average lifetime of the muons kept within the laboratory is 2.2 microseconds. It is easy to work out that if you want to send muons to the moon and back for comparison before the muons in the laboratory go "poof", then the speed with which you have to send the muons to the moon and back is approximately 2x10^12 m/s. Light speed is 3x10^8 m/s. Are you enjoying yourself in Alice's Wonderland Tom?

Best wishes,
Johan
Johan - have you given up substantive argument?

And, BTW, since muon lifetime will be longer due to relative velocity, all you need is gamma ~ 10,000, or 1TV, for 1% return rate

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

johanfprins wrote:In order for them not to waste time, I will probably have to also reveal some proprietary information. The latter will obviously have to be covered by an NDA until the date that it is safeguarded by appropriate patents. After that date hey will also be free to publish any other data.
Have you communicated directly about the use of an NDA? Most will not be willing to go that route. I hope you have a plan B that does not include you divulging proprietary information. Even if it for some reason were to take more time, seems the simplest, safest route to testing.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

clonan
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:16 pm

Post by clonan »

johanfprins wrote:It is a waste of time to argue with tomclarke since like most theoretical physicists he is standing with his feet solidly anchored in the clouds. As an example:

tomclarke wrote: Consider a muon twin paradox. One is muon set is kept stationary. the other set of muons is fired to the moon at high speed, reflected and we check how many have decayed on return.

Now, I would expect the moving muons to decay less (as determined by number of muons on return) than the stationary muons. It is the logical result of the muon experiments, and an experiment with a muon mirror would provide a more exact example.
If you want to formulate a thought experiment it should at least in principle be physically possible. The average lifetime of the muons kept within the laboratory is 2.2 microseconds. It is easy to work out that if you want to send muons to the moon and back for comparison before the muons in the laboratory go "poof", then the speed with which you have to send the muons to the moon and back is approximately 2x10^12 m/s. Light speed is 3x10^8 m/s. Are you enjoying yourself in Alice's Wonderland Tom?

Best wishes,
Johan

Johan, I admit that I am not a physicist but as I understand it, as a particle approaches C the time of the frame of the particle slows down to infinity at C.

Therefore by my numbers, for a muon with a 2.2 microsecond clock to reach the moon (at 384402 km) and back it must have a time dilation factor of 1165.664 which is a speed of 0.9999996320207617 C.

Have I done my math wrong?

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

I admit I am confused. Johanfprins arguments may or may not be true and consistant. But, what I am confused with is how his interpretation can explain the survival of the Muons till they reach the surface of the Earth (or bounce back from the Moon, or survive in a Muon storage ring (which is a real world lab apparatus). The math may be elegant and even true in certain situations, but unless it can explain real things (to a simpleton like me) then it is useless (at least to me)...

PS- There is a free E book written about Einstein by Lorentz. I have not read it completely, but it seems the man (author of the transformation formulas?) has no problems with Einstein's conclusions.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

tomclarke wrote: Johan - have you given up substantive argument?
What substantive argument? The only substantive argument there is, is that for the time dilation formula you have (delta)t(T)=(gamma)*(delta)tp where (delta)tp is the "stationary" time interval of the moving clock within its own inertial reference frame within which it is stationary while (delta)t(T) is the transformed time within the inertial reference frame relative to which the clock is moving and is therefore the apparent relativistic rate at which the moving clock keeps time when it is viewed from the inertial reference frame relative to which it is moving.

An identical clock which is stationary within the latter reference frame will keep time at the exact same rate within the latter reference frame than the identical moving clock keeps within its own inertial reference frame; Thus for a time interval (delta)tp of the moving clock within its own inertial reference frame, an identical clock which is stationary within the inertial reference frame relative to which it is moving, will measure a time interval (delta)t=(delta)tp: Exactly the same time interval! Muons within both reference frames must thus decay at exactly the same rate relative to their own inertial reference fames. From the other reference frame it will seem as the moving muons decay slower. This is s totally symmetric view and is not really happening within either inertial reference frame.

You are arguing that if you consider one inertial reference frame as stationary, and bring the other reference frame back to this "stationary" reference frame, then the muons within the reference frame you brought back will be younger owing to the time-dilation formula. Special relativity does not predict this at all since its formulas do NOT apply to situations where you accelerate. It only unequovocally states that the clocks within the two reference frames MUST keep time at the same rate relative to their own inertial reference fames. Which means that there is no difference in clock-rate with position or when changing inertial reference frames.

Thus, for as long as there is no gravity it is senseless to interpret Special Relativity as if it is defining time as an actual fourth coordinate which has different values at different postions, since at the same instant in time on any clock the other clocks everywhere will show exactly the same time. The transformed time into another inertial reference fame does show that separated events that occur simultaneously within an inertial reference frame will occur at different times within another reference frame. It is, however, totally daft to interpret this result as actual clocks keeping different time at different positions.

What it really means is that clocks at these positions which keep the exact same time, record simultaneous events that occur within another inertial reference frame, at different successive times. Thus, to interpret the Lorentz transformation as an actual coordinate transformation of a time coordinate that changes with position might be mathematically useful, but it is physics-nonsense.
And, BTW, since muon lifetime will be longer due to relative velocity, all you need is gamma ~ 10,000, or 1TV, for 1% return rate
I still say that one can use any radio-active material and if there is no change in gravity, the amount of decay on each material will be exactly the same when they are brought back together. If they are not the same the difference cannot be a result of the the time-dilation formula of SR, since this formula applies in both directions while the clocks within both inertial reference frames keep exactly the same time.

Thus, when twins fly apart at a speed v, a twin that ages by 10 years will know that at that exact instant in time on his clock, his borother has also only aged 10 years. There is no "time warp" that projects the one twin into the future of the other. The latter conclusion is obviously paranormal metaphysics which makes interesting movies like Star Trek, but is pure physics nonsense since it is based on the assumption that mathematics IS reality while this is not the case. Reality determines the mathematics that must be used, not the other way around.

If you want to argue that the twins will have different ages when brought back together again, you must seek the reason for this in the time that the one twin decelerates to meet up with the other twin. But before this deceleration starts, the twins will be the exact same age as mandated by the symmetry of the Lorentz transformation and Einstein's first postulate. Therefore such an age difference cannot be caused by the formula of time dilation that is derived from SR.

Post Reply