Room-temperature superconductivity?

[icarus]

So how did the muon cross the space? It should have decayed before it got here.

1) Was time going slower?
2) Does the distance it travels shorten?
3) Did it travel faster?
4) Was its decay process altered by the journey?

Imagine you are a muon tomclarke.

[johanfprins]

Perhaps I'm not understanding this.

The twins are not symmetrical since the one travelling (in order to return) must experience acceleration and shift in FOR.

In the original twin paradox, acceleration was not considered. If acceleration is actually equivalent to gravity as Einstein has postulated, then one can argue that the clock of the accelerated twin went slower DURING acceleration; but not while moving with a constant speed.

But the twin paradox has nothing to do with this argument since the situation is only considered where the twins move with a constant speed v RELATIVE to one another. In this case either one of the two twins can be chosen as being the stationary twin: And this means that both clocks must be ticking slower within the OTHER inertial reference frame within which they are not stationary): NOT within their own inertial refrence frames. Each twin does thus actually observe that the other twin's clock is ticking slower: But this is not actually happenning within the other twin's reference frame. Thus the clocks of both twins are actually keeping the same time within their own respective inertial reference frames.

This has been verified experimentally using Caesium clocks in aeroplanes. It is entirely self-consistent.

I have read this study many times and have been forced to conclude that the whole analysis that had been used was flawed. Time only REALLY slows down, in the sense that a clock that is moving with an object slows down, when light moves through a gravitational field or when light is absorbed by matter. That is why one can stop a light beam within a Bose-Einstein Condensate. Time does not exist within such a condensate. Just as time does not exist within the largest part of the intensity of a stationary matter wave: This is why the wave amplitude has to be a complex entity.

But as for which twin is "actually" aging slower than the other. I am not sure this question has any meaning!

It does not have any meaning since the time rate of all clocks within all inertial refrence frames must be the same: If not, Galileo's most sacred postulate of inertiial relativity will be null and void. And as a consequence all physics which uses mass as a parameter must then be wrong. The latter is not the case.

[krenshala]

For some reason, when thinking through the various descriptions of the twins paradox in this thread, I get the impression that the solution to the problem is something along the lines of temporal Doppler shifting.

[Aero]

Some of you folks debating here may find the original paper to be an interesting read.

http://www.casavaria.com/hotspring/2008 ... aper-1905/

I certainly found it interesting.

[johanfprins]

Your post of 13 October

Wow!! You cannot expect me to react in detail to all you have posted here. Many of it is repetitive and, in addition, it will require from me to post my whole book.

johanfprins- I agree the clock rate does not change in the Muon's frame of reference. What changes is the distance traveled within that frame of reference.

Impossible since the muon is not travelling within its own frame of reference: It is stationary within its own frame of reference.

As the Wikipedia quote pointed out it is all a matter of perspective. To the Earth stationary frame of reference, the clock does appear to tick slower for the muon.

Correct, but a clock travelling with the muon does not tick slower within the reference frame of the muon: It ticks at exactly the same rate as a clock on earth is ticking.

But, time dilation or distance compression,

There is no distance compression since a moving rod does not become shorter.

one or the other must occur (I think) and both are valid, depending on perspective. I believe that you are completely rejecting distance compression.

The mistake you make here is to think linearly when you should not. But do not feel alone in this, Einstein did the same when he derived the incorrect result that a moving rod shrinks in length.

Thus the muon could not reach the surface of the Earth.

Oh yes it does since the Lorentz transformation transforms its coordinates when it is created at a height H above earth as seen from the earth and its coordinates when it decays as seen from the earth so that the latter position can be, as seen from earth, on the surface of the earth. Assuming that the muon is at the origin of its reference frame when it is created, its coordinates within its own reference frame are x=0 and t=0. The coordinates relative to earth are xe=H and te=0. When the muon decays, its coordinates within its own reference frame are still x=0 but now t=(tau) where the latter is the actual decay time of the muon as will be measured when it is stationary. When now transforming these coordinates into the earth’s reference frame, one finds that if the speed v of the muon is high enough that xe can be smaller than zero; If it is exactly zero the observed dilated time (TAU) is enough so that H=v*(TAU). So there is no length contraction whatsoever involved.

Unless you are invoking some convoluted multiple universe situation that somehow interfaces with the Earth stationary universe perspective where the physics are different.

This will only be the case when you invoke length contraction; which does not occur at all.

Then you could one or the other effect did not exist. Of course, that may be exactly what is occurring. The Universe looks far different to the Muon than it does to the stationary observer on Earth. It is all relative!

Yes the muon is stationary and thus experience the time on earth to be slower than its own time.

What is interesting seems to be the issue of consistency etc.

I did not quote all you have posted here since I found it incoherent. Since it only seems that the clocks are ticking at slower rates while they actually tick at the same rate, there will be no time difference between the clocks when one or the other reference frame slows down to meet up with the other reference frame.

As far as the center of the universe, cosmic background radiation comes from the gas/ plasma of the early universe. Without review, my recollection is that this glowing gas phase is after ~ 300 million years after the Big Bang which then over a relatively short period of time (a few thousand or million years depending on how homogenous the plasma was?) the plasma recombined into hot gas. When most of the opaque plasma cooled to a mostly transparent hot gas that allowed the observation of it from a distance. Or, rather make that: allowed the embedded observer to see further than a very short relative (there is that word again) distance.

I know that this is the official explanation. In my book I point out that the universe started off as a single matter wave having a continuous distribution of mass energy (dark matter). Such a wave can inflate into a massive size within a very short time (Guth’s inflation). Standing light waves formed within this continuous matter wave while it inflated: This formed the cosmic background radiation. Only then did the continuous dark matter start to “precipitate” neutrons which then decayed into protons and electrons. The already existing cosmic background radiation then heated the electrons and protons to form a plasma which made the universe opaque. If we can look further back than this epoch we will most probably see a universe without any normal matter and which is not opaque.

This expanding gas started from a singularity (or at least from a ball that existed at the end of inflation) and subsequently expanded due to conventional physics, or due to the underlying expansion of the universe. It depends upon what the universe is, a product of it's constituent products, or a thing which contains all observable mass and energy and who knows what else.

A gas with a high kinetic energy cannot “expand” out of a singularity. Only a macro matter wave consisting of continuous mass-energy (dark energy) Only later, did this dark matter form neutrons etc.

In any case it expanded.

Of course it did: I have not disagreed with this. I just do not agree that “hot particles” spewed forth from the singularity. What spewed forth was continuous dark matter; and at present our universe is still mostly filled with this primordial matter.

The best analogy that I have seen repeatedly is a 2 dimensional analogy (three with time) of a balloon surface. As it expands the spots on the surface move away from each other.

Exactly! I also use this analogy within my book. If you have read my book you would not have posted such a lot of irrelevant arguments.

From DeltaV,s post the referenced argument that the clock speed does not change seems convenient at best and silly at worse. Admittedly this is my impression of the quote and not the entire paper.

Your impression is wrong.

The argument is that the perception is that the clock hand is moving slower but the clock works are still moving the same.

But this is exactly what happens. All clocks moving relative to one another keep THE SAME TIME within their own inertial reference frames: If this were not the case, we will not be able to assign a lifetime to our universe.

My impression is that the author is arguing that perceived time dilation occurs only in the clock - observer interface, not the clock, ship , etc that is in relative frame of reference.

This is exactly correct, and this is why this author should have won the Nobel Prize.

This rapidly degenerates into philosophy. He gives no reason why an astronaut would perceive time as slower

An astronaut does not perceive his own time as slower since it is not slower than the time measured by any other clock within any other inertial reference frame. He only perceives that the time is slower on clocks moving relative to him since he is perceiving this from his own reference frame and not within the reference frame that the clock is stationary

like on an LSD trip and ignores objective measures of time like with atomic clocks and the linked recorders. Or perhaps the recorders are on an LSD trip also.

It has nothing to do with LSD: If the recorders move with the clock they will measure the actual rate at which all clocks in the universe (excluding gravitational effects) are keeping time. Only when the recorder is moving relative to the clock will it measure a slower time rate.

Perhaps he believes the strict Copenhagen view that reality only exists when it is observed. In that case we are all gods and create the universe anew when ever we observe anything. I've always wondered, do I have to look at the Moon for it to exist, of if I read a book about it, does that also create the Moon?

In fact, if you read Mendel Sachs blogg in depth, which I did last night, you will find that he also rejects the Copenhagen interpretation. My I advise you to first make sure that you fully know and understand what a scientist argues before bringing up arguments on what you “perceive” he is arguing. If you did this in the case of Mendel Sachs as well as my case, you could have made a much more valuable contribution to the discussion on this thread than you are doing at present.

The potential wave aspect of Quantum mechanics that collapses into reality when observed seems rather arrogant. I admit that such convolutions are very useful for consistently predicting results, but that doesn't mean it represents reality.

A wave can collapse or inflate when its boundary conditions change. This is what happens and it has nothing to o with “potential” realities collapsing to form a single reality. The latter is obviously paranormal metaphysics.

I am going to stop at this point since the rest of your post has, in my opinion, already been answered above.

[johanfprins]

So how did the muon cross the space? It should have decayed before it got here.

1) Was time going slower?

NOT within the reference frame of the muon: However, within the reference frame of the earth the time goes slower so that the muon can cover the whole distance H to the earth's surface before it decays.

2) Does the distance it travels shorten?

No.

3) Did it travel faster?

Obviously it must travel fast enough to reach the earth's surface before it decays.

4) Was its decay process altered by the journey?

Not in the least. The muon still decays at the same rate within its own reference frame than it would have decayed if it were created within a laboratory on earth.

[johanfprins]

For some reason, when thinking through the various descriptions of the twins paradox in this thread, I get the impression that the solution to the problem is something along the lines of temporal Doppler shifting.

They do relate.

[johanfprins]

Some of you folks debating here may find the original paper to be an interesting read.

http://www.casavaria.com/hotspring/2008 ... aper-1905/

I certainly found it interesting.

This paper is standard bedside reading matter for me. I would not have dared to criticize Einstein's derivation of length contraction without first studying what he has written in detail. A pity that most scientists at present do not extend the same courtesy to me.

[ladajo]

Johan,
So do you think a physical object can move in excess of c? I am following your arguments and see your logic, but am curious of the corollary implications regarding mass/velocity.

[tomclarke]

Perhaps I'm not understanding this.

The twins are not symmetrical since the one travelling (in order to return) must experience acceleration and shift in FOR.

In the original twin paradox, acceleration was not considered. If acceleration is actually equivalent to gravity as Einstein has postulated, then one can argue that the clock of the accelerated twin went slower DURING acceleration; but not while moving with a constant speed.

But the twin paradox has nothing to do with this argument since the situation is only considered where the twins move with a constant speed v RELATIVE to one another. In this case either one of the two twins can be chosen as being the stationary twin: And this means that both clocks must be ticking slower within the OTHER inertial reference frame within which they are not stationary): NOT within their own inertial refrence frames. Each twin does thus actually observe that the other twin's clock is ticking slower: But this is not actually happenning within the other twin's reference frame. Thus the clocks of both twins are actually keeping the same time within their own respective inertial reference frames.

This has been verified experimentally using Caesium clocks in aeroplanes. It is entirely self-consistent.

I have read this study many times and have been forced to conclude that the whole analysis that had been used was flawed. Time only REALLY slows down, in the sense that a clock that is moving with an object slows down, when light moves through a gravitational field or when light is absorbed by matter. That is why one can stop a light beam within a Bose-Einstein Condensate. Time does not exist within such a condensate. Just as time does not exist within the largest part of the intensity of a stationary matter wave: This is why the wave amplitude has to be a complex entity.

But as for which twin is "actually" aging slower than the other. I am not sure this question has any meaning!

It does not have any meaning since the time rate of all clocks within all inertial refrence frames must be the same: If not, Galileo's most sacred postulate of inertiial relativity will be null and void. And as a consequence all physics which uses mass as a parameter must then be wrong. The latter is not the case.

Right. we agree about the situation of constant v. It is noparadox, since the two frames are different, and symmetrical.

We disagree about the twin leaving & returning, where it is the change in FOR, not the acceleration per se, that makes for the difference in elapsed time.

Why do you consider the experiment flawed? Most do not?

[tomclarke]

So how did the muon cross the space? It should have decayed before it got here.

1) Was time going slower?
2) Does the distance it travels shorten?
3) Did it travel faster?
4) Was its decay process altered by the journey?

Imagine you are a muon tomclarke.

many arguments, incl this, are invalid because they assume time has some meaning independent of FOR. It does not, so "time going slower/faster" is meaningless without further qualification.

A clock travelling with the muon would appear to be going slower if observed from earth FOR. Also a clock on earth would appear slower from muon FOR. No contradiction.

[johanfprins]

Johan,
So do you think a physical object can move in excess of c? I am following your arguments and see your logic, but am curious of the corollary implications regarding mass/velocity.

Not during classical motion when a matter wave's centre-of-mass follows a path. But the mass-energy of the wave can relocate faster than the speed of light when the wave has to change its shape or size. For example, an electron-wave around a nucleus has to instantaneously change its shape and size when it absorbs or emits light. This faster-than-light change in the wave's mass distribution has become known as a "quantum jump". Similarly when a single-electron wave splits in two entangled parts and move through both slits of a double slit diffraction apparatus, a measurement behind the slits causes one-half of the wave to collapse into the other half at a near instantaneous rate. Another example is the initial Guth inflation that generated our universe. It started of as a single macro-entangled wave (a single Bose Einstein Condensate=dark matter?) that expanded at a rate which vastly exceeded light speed. Another example is the single, superconducting, macro electron-wave that I can generate between a diamond surface and an anode. When injecting electrons on one side, they teleport and appear on the other side at a speed faster than light speed. I am now wildly speculating: But if we can build a spacecraft that can "entangle" with the dark matter in our universe, we might be able to go where-ever we want to go.

[johanfprins]

Right. we agree about the situation of constant v. It is noparadox, since the two frames are different, and symmetrical.

Thus you agree that while they are moving relative to one another both clocks tick at the stationary rate?

We disagree about the twin leaving & returning, where it is the change in FOR, not the acceleration per se, that makes for the difference in elapsed time.

I am probably stupid but I do not know what you mean by FOR.

Why do you consider the experiment flawed? Most do not?

Since it does not measure the change in the clock rates for linear motion at a constant relative velocity. Thus there is no proof that the differences they obtained were not caused by other effects. Furthermore, the uncertainties in their measurements are horrifically large.

[93143]

FOR probably means Frame Of Reference.

[johanfprins]

FOR probably means Frame Of Reference.

Yes you are right. I just realised it myself.