Experiment to demonstrate mutual observed time dilation

Not in the generic sense. That is I do not think we will ever identify something or a point which we can claim is at rest to the entire universe.

However, just as we employ infinity in a mathematical way and it doesn't exist physically, I believe we can conclude logically that if we could track each and every particle of mass and its motion (vector) in the universe then in theory such a hypothetical point does exist.

I claim that between the two (A & B) only one can and will demonstrate systemic time dilation. Compared to P both A & B will be dilated by different amounts but both A & B will see themselves as being the standard and one will be dilated and the other will be accelerated (not also dilated - reciproicty does not exist)

That is precisely what GPS demonstrates. Relative perpheral velocity between a surface clock at the equator of earth vs a GPS orbiting clock will yield a gamma of -5.8us/day by an SRT calculation.

The correct number is approximately -7.2us/day and that happens to equal the dilation one gets if you use gamma effective = gamma orbit/gamma surface.

As far as I know GPS doesn't even bother with surface velocity in terms of gamma calculation in that it results in <0.1us/day but they do use orbit velocity referance the center of the earth as a primary calculation.

Now with regard to many experiments and observations i.e. - cosmic muons or particle accelerators, the A, B calculation results in a correct gamma but that is because they are special cases where point C is at rest to point A or B.

That is the muon's velocity toward the center of the earth vs the surface clock velocity toward the center of the earth which = 0, leaves the calculation of the muon's velocity to the surface clock being the same number.

However, even in these cases the correct view using three and not SRT's two points of referance still prohibits reciprocity (which doesn't exits in physical reality) that is inherent in SRT and is advocated by SRT'ists.

Explained above.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nice try but no cigar. Muons are indeed dilated relative to earth clocks but that supports the absolute view because reciprocity (SRT view) isn't supported by the dilation being unilateral.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interesting... would you like to explore the consequences?
What predictions could you make about muon observations in Earth's atmosphere based on your model?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It appears you didn't actually understand. The predictions would be precisely the same as SRT; except there would be no ridiculus claim of reciprocity; which doesnot occur and has never been observed nor recorded in 100 years of relativity..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i used to know guy call juan, and i couldn't figure out what he saw either.

point being how can we predict anything from a muons frame....'tis impossible i would suspect.. we can only speculate based on a theory that can not be proved or falsified.

non-simultaneousness can never be proved by actual observation simply because to do so would prove simultaneity and not non-simultaneousness.

sure the SRT model suggests proof but no actual observable proof can possibly be shown of non-simultaneity.

if you think proof can be shown of a muons frame of reference given non-simultaneousness, I would love to see it.
If you can't then all this is pure speculation and conjecture based on a unfalsifiable theory.

 

jamesR,
I would prefer not to speculate as I don't believe we have the tools to do so. Speculating using a theory that is unfalsifiable in my view would only increase our confusion more than provide any real enlightenment.

It is possible that SRT offers a solution but I would think it would be precarious to suggest that solution to be anything other than speculation.

If i was a pagan witch I would suggest that Doesywhatsit the muon God was responsible....but hey thats just as bad isn't it?

In other words, it doesn't make sense to me to make false assertions as to the physics of muons when we don't know all the conditions in which a muon has to exist in. To suggest time dilation as a solution is fair enough but it is only a possible suggestion and certainly not proof of anything. As puttng a clock on a muon is not possible yes?

 

I can't explain fully how a muon reaches the Earth, but I do find a discrepancy in applying findings. A muon is created in the lab (particle accelerator) traveling at
near the speed of light, the same as they are created when they enter our atmosphere. The 2.2 microsecond average lifetime of a muon 'at rest' in the particle
accelerator is timed by stopping the moun with tremendous acceleration with a 'block'
of some, such as plastic, in a very short distance. It gives up all its kinetic energy,
retaining only its potential energy. Some muons expire in .1 microsecond and some last
for up to 10 microseconds after being stopped. Doesn't this suggest a variable rest
mass for the muon? How do we know for certain that the muons created in the atmosphere have this same range of variation, are created by the exact same particle
collisions? Also, muons created in the atmosphere never give up all their kinetic energy,
since they are not stopped. We have determined that kinetic energy does not add to
a particles rest mass, but do we know for certain additional energy, in the form of kinetic energy, does not add to an unstable particle's average lifetime? Just wondering.

 

I agree that mankind will probably never know the location of the center of mass of the universe and that such a point does exist. (Ontologically real, epistemically unknown.) So what? An inertial reference frame is not a point, but a collection of all points in a coordinate system such that these points have zero relative motion wrt each other.
At times there may be particles at a particular point (X1,Y1,Z1) in one reference frame's cordinate system and at other times not. That "particle number one", at (X1,Y1,Z1) is at (X'1,Y'1,Z'1) in some other inertial reference frame. The point is that the universe can be descrbed equally well in either the "primed" of "unprimed" reference frame and the center of mass is very unlikely to be the origin of either frame. The C of M has nothing to do with inertial reference frames and no one frame is "Preferred" or at "absolute rest."
As we live on Earth, humans tend to prefer a frame with origin fixed in Earth or if they are alittle less provential, in the sun. Our choice is convenient for us, but not for the creatures in orbit about star we call X2347. We have no different physics than they do. Physics is invariant wrt the choice of reference frame.

Nonsense! Why only one? and btw, which one is it? (A or B?)

I agree each will, for convience, chose a coordinate system in which he is at rest, but here our agreement ends. Neither sees the other as "accelerating" - by hypothesis, A & B were inertial frames in uniform linear motion, one wrt the other.
I don't know what you mean by "reciproicty does not exist" and avoid "reciproicty" as it seems to mean something to you other than the SRT idea / claim that A will think B's clocks are running slow and B will think A's clocks are running slow, both agreeing that the "slowness factor" is the same time dilation. This is what SRT states and you seem to think untrue because the calculations made by A and B make no use of their speed relative to your preferred frame P, which I infer is the frame with the center of mass of the universe fixed at its origin.

I omit your comments about GPS because I know little about it's details for correction for motion effects. Also the GPS satellites are not in inertial frames (they are in accelerating frames as they orbit Earth). I don't think SRT has any direct application to GPS - the corrections must be done with GR and I at least don't have capacity to do GR calculation, nor any intention to try to learn. I seriously doubt your ability in this field also. It is my understanding that less than 1000 humans really fully understand GR. Try reading some GR in Physical Review, Section D and see if you can even read the math. - At one time I could follow tensor equations, but no longer. It is a very compact notation. For example, if a subscript is repeated, a sumation over that index is implied. etc. Without a very high level of familiarity with the notation you will not understand anything of GR and will be reduced to (at best) third hand, "reader digest" type of "facts".

I don't know what "point C" is. Perhaps you mean reference frame C? If this is the case, and it is as you state, "at rest wrt frames A or B," then it is identical to one of them. Physic is done (calculated) in corrdinate systems, not "points". Your constant reference to "Points" is very confusing/ hard to understand.

Again your emphasis on a point (center of the Earth) is confusing. I assume from what you say that if the muon velocity were not directed at the the center of the Earth, things would some how be different. Well I have news for you - very few muons are directed at the center of the Earth. Most are contained within a small cone that has axis directed along the original cosmic ray direction. This is because the original linear momentum of the cosmic ray is converted to the total momentum of the muons and other particles (Perhaps the Nitrogen nucleus that it probably hit is busted up and after the collision, so their are some protons and neutrons etc. also carrying some of the original momentum.)
In any case, the muon velocities are typically inclined to the vertical, not directed towards the center of the Earth. Your "pont C" has nothing to do with what is happening. They get down because their clocks are running slow, wrt to those anywhere on Earth, just as SRT predicts from their speed (alone - no "point required") relative to Earth.

Some muons that happen to be on a trajectory that is essentailly tangent to the Earth, but misses the surface by a few hundred yards, may continue on back up thru the atmosphers and be far from the Earth when they decay. I don't know if any satellite born muon detector with angle of incidence measuring capacity has actually recorded these "escaping muons" that have twice traversed the atmosphere or not, but I am sure that: They care nothing about "the center of the Earth"!

SRT does not use "two points" Adding a third (center of the Earth) is also nonsense. SRT uses two (any two as none is prefered to any other) inertial reference frames. There is "reciprocity" in that observers in frame A will see time dilated in frame B by the same factor that observers in frame B see time dilated in frame A. From Earth's perspective, the muons are traveling very fast and on our clocks, it takes a long time for their 2.2microsecond lifetimes to elapse on their very time dilated clocks. That is why the can travel far before decaying. (They decay by their own internal clock, not ours or those of any other reference frame.)

Someone else complained that it is impossible to put clock at rest in the muon's frame (the frame in which the muon is at fixed (unchanging) coordinate. This is literally true, but one must recognize that the muon is a clock. Not one with hour hands etc. but one that like radio active carbon etc, can be used to measure time by the fraction that have decayed. Most of geological time is measured by these radio active "clocks." Baloon experiments (coordiated with detectors on Earth) have been done to measure the decrease in muon flux as the Earth is approached. The muons, coming down do decay, just much more slowly than observed in their own rest frame.

 

I certainly understand that prediction... but I don't think you've gone far enough - there's so much more you could consider.

For example... What would you predict for Muon events on opposite sides of the world? What difference would there be for events where the Muon is chasing the Earth, compared to were it's a head-on collision?

 

It is becoming clear that you either do not read others posts, have a reading comprehension problem or deliberately distort what is being said just to argue.

Nothing I have said alters the muon time dilation in any manner what-so-ever. It does preclude claiming reciprocity advocated and inherent in SR but then reciprocity does not exist; hence my view is superior to yours since it matches physical reality and is logical; whereas SR fails to match physical reality and is impossible inspite of the fact that they choose to call that just "Counter Intuitive".

 

MacM - i know people keep you busy defending your views and/or counter attacking them, but I hope you will find time to respond to my comments on your post that placed great emphases on the center of the Earth point when discussion muons getting down to Earth. Specifically did you already know that few muons are headed there, that they are in a narrow cone that is aligned with the initial cosmic ray trajectory, which is generally not directed towards the center of the Earth. I ask also as I don't want this thread to drop off the page without reply.

 

No I hadn't considered any specific angle of interception. However, even if they arrive at some angle the principle would still be the same. I arbitrarily specified the earths center, but a point anywhere along the trajectory line is a suitable point "C" for the three point referance system. Indeed point "C" and point "A" can occupy the same space since they are at rest to each other.

 

Hi James,
As long as the Earth's atmosphere is thinner according to the Muon than its proper thickness, then it makes no difference in the Muon's frame what Earth clocks read, I think?

 

by James R:
"Let's say the muon has a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds at rest. Muons are created at the top of the atmosphere, let's say 100 km above the ground. In 2.2 microseconds, they could travel a maximum of 600 metres, even if they were travelling at the speed of light."
==========================================================

I think it would be more accurate to always state the MEAN (average) lifetime of a
muon at rest is 2.2 microseconds. James R, you seem to want to discount any method
by which the muon could reach the ground other than time dilation. That may be the
correct reason, but there are still unanswered questions regarding muons for me.
Perhaps you have the answers. OK, by just stating that the lifetime of a muon at rest
is 2.2 microseconds, it implies that all muons expire in about that time frame while at
rest. I'm sure you know that is incorrect. A very detailed experiment timing the lifetimes of muons at rest was recently done to help test the accuracy of QED theory.
The muons were captured in gaseous hydrogen, tracking their progress through the
hydrogen until they were certain of the exact instant the muons stopped, then very
accurate timing was made until the muons decayed, both positively charged muons
and negatively charged muons. The decay rates were identical for the two groups.
Although an average lifetime was not calculated for the decay times, it looked to be
about what is usually given, about 2.2 microseconds. Absolutely no reservation on my
part to the accuracy of the experiment. About 50 million decays were charted. So what is my question? James R, or anyone, why does the decay time of individual muons
in their rest frame vary by such a wide amount? A high percentage of muons decayed in less than one microsecond, a great many didn't decay for up to 25 microseconds.
None of these muons were moving, so to what do you attribute the vastly different
decay times , what reason? I have my guess, but I would like to hear from a professional physicist to see if I am wrong. I'm sure you can guess that I am speculating the decay rates of muons is a function of their individual energy, which
also varies widely from muon to muon. Time dilation has no effect on muons in their
rest frame. How can you be certain that the muon traveling through the atmosphere
reaches the ground through time dilation and not because the atmospheric muon lives
longer by virtue of its great energy, most of which it retains while traveling?

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't muon decays non-deterministic in the same way as other radioactive decays? In other words, the life-span of any particular muon is random, but there are probabilistic laws that tell us what distribution of life-spans to expect. If we were just seeing the ones that lived long enough (without time-dilation) to reach the ground, the observed distribution of life-spans should be different than predicted.

 

Anyone even slightly familiar with the use of the term "lifetime" knows that it is the time in which half of the identical unstable particles in a large group can be expected to decay. This is approximately half the mean (average) lifetime of the original group.

For example, lets start with your reference's 50x10^6 muons. Instead of the lifetime, I will use the 600M max travel before half decay as I want to also use the distance/ range max vs number table below for other discussion, but you can consider each step in the table below to be 2.2usec. Lets consider the group that are created at 100,000M altitude:

Altitude (in meters)... Number of muons of original group still "alive" (with no time dilation)
100,000..................50,000,000
99,400.....................25,000,000
98,800.....................12,500,000
98,200.......................6,250,000
97,600.......................3,125,000
97,000.......................1,562,500
96,400..........................781,250
95,800..........................390,625 etc.

Thus the mean lifetime is approximately:
2.2(1+0.5+0.25+0.125+0.0625 +.... This sum converges to 2.0) Thus the Mean life time is twice the "lifetime"

Now to exploit the range characteristic of my above table. Less than 1% of the muons created at 100,000M would still exist at 95,800M, if they did not have some mechanism that caused them to live longer as we, fixed on Earth, measure time lapse.

These "lucky few" still alive at 95,800M have lived for 7x2.2 = 15.2u seconds. Some will live for 20 or 30. I will leave it as an exercise to someone who likes probability theory to calculate how long before there is less than a 50/50 chance for even one of the original 50,000 to still be alive. I am confident that that "last one" does not make it down the full 100,000M but could be wrong about this as I am just guessing to illustrate how badly the actual observations of number vs altitude would be violated without SRT's time dilation (or some ad hoc theory that produces the same result as SRT.)

SRT predicts that many muons do get down to the surface by "time dilation." In addition to many other confirmations of SRT, the observation that a ballon at 100,000M and one at 90,000M see essentially the same flux of muons (Perhaps more as some of the original cosmic rays may create more muons between 100&90K meters - I don't have the actually data on their distribution with respect to Altitude. All I know is that the people who have modeled the observed data for about 50years, think SRT's time dilation is necessary to make any sense of the experimental observations.)

Admittedly you could postulate some new effect (special ad hok physic) that could explain the observations. I am not so inclined as the SRT explanation is adequate and consistent with many other observation. - I much prefer one theory that explains many things instead of many differ theories that each explains some aspect of physical observations as a separate case.

In the case of the muons coming down, the rapid mortality (less that 1% survive a descent of only 4,200M!) if time dilation did not occur is so extremely in conflict with observation that it is, IMHO, silly to reject the widely applicable SRT to this particular case and search for some "special physics" alternative explanation.

If despite this, if you want to invent a special theory for muons getting down to the surface, at least do not build it on their kinetic energy or mass increase (as seen by frame fixed on Earth or Mars) because in their own frame, with their own clocks, there is no kinetic energy or mass increase.

They decay in their own frame, not one fixed in Mars, a star in galaxy z, one fixed in the sun, or one fixed at the center of the Earth. Their physics in their own frame (including their lifetimes) is the same as their physic at rest in a frame fixed to a galaxy z star, or one of Mars where they are at rest. In their own rest frame, their lifetime is the same as muons at rest in a lab on Earth (or Mars etc.). Physic is the same everywhere - Not special on Mars, Earth or star k24367 of galaxy z.

I also advise you not to build your special ad hoc theory on the fact that they are passing thru a gas that is approximately 80%Nitrogen and 20%Oxygen because they have been stopped in many different gases and transparent solid (plastics, crystals, etc.) and never does the nature of the near by atoms have any noticable affect upon the measured life times of muons at rest.

Forget about electric fields, magnetic field affects also - people have looked for theses field affects on all sorts of radioactive decay, (not just muons) always with nul results.

Physicists have no idea why a particular unstable particle (instead of another) decays. What ever is making the selection seem to purely internal - not influced by external fields or atoms near by. Perhaps there are "hidden variable" we don't know about in their internal structure and whenever these "hidden variables" are in an unusual configuration, the particle decays. (I am not suggesting this is the case - just trying to emphase that your ad hoc alternative theory can't be built on things/ facts that we know have no influence on radioactive lifetimes.)

It may be fun to play the "SRT is wrong" game. I.e.time dilation does not exist or exists only "one way" between frames A&B that are both inertial (no accelleration, only uniform , constant, linear relative motion) as I understand MacM's latest version is claiming; but I don't waste my time on this "game" as
SRT follows from the very reasonable claim that physics is the same for all observers in all inertial frames and explains many things observed, not just the muon flux verse altitude observations.

The common statement that SRT requires speed of light to have the same numerical value is not required. All that is require is the assumption that physics must be the same for all inertial frame observers. This is because, as Maxwell did, the speed of progation of the electromagnetic waves of his equations can be computed from two lab measurement that superficially have nothing to do with light. That is, if you measure the magnetic permability and dielectric constant of a vacuum, the speed of all EM waves, (gamma rays, radio waves, light etc.) is known from Maxwell's equations. - If physics is the same for all, these two lab measurments on the properties of vacuum yield the same results for all and hence the value of c is the same for all. All SRT requires to be a true consequence (derivable from math alone) is the assumption that physics does not vary from one inertial frame to another! This is such as simple, I think beautiful, assumption that to dispute SRT results with a bunch of constantly changing "ad hoc" postulates with no observational basis is, IMHO, really silly.

 

Billy T,

I know you don't want to hear this, but as you recall in a previous thread that I stated that I believe that the speed of light is only equal to c relative to the local gravitational field. This would mean that the speed of light inside a muon that is travelling through the Earth's gravitational field would change. If you do the math, you would find that this would cause the average speed of light inside that muon to decrease.

Now, for the sake of arguement, lets imagine a particle as a ball with smaller balls, or particles, bouncing within in it. If one of the bouncing particles reaches the shell of the larger particle, and the bouncing particle is of a certain energy, the bouncing particle escapes the larger particle causing the larger particle to decay. If the bouncing particle reaches the shell but its energy is not of that specific value, it gets reflected by the shell and continues to bounce.

Now lets assume that normally those bouncing particles are moving at the speed of c inside the larger particle. If the larger particle is moving through a gravitational field, then based on what I said above, the average speed of the bouncing particles would decrease. Since the bouncing particles are now moving slower, it takes them longer to reach the shell of the larger particle, and therefore it would take the larger particle a greater amount of time to decay.

Yes I am reaching, but do you have a better explanation for particle decay?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

as I don't know what "math" you are referring to, I can "do it" - Please supply the math formulae and explain what the terms in it refer to.

Your "bouncing balls" inside the muon is a somewhat pictorial version of the less specific "hidden variable" idea. I have no proof that hidden varriable do not exist, but there is considerable constrant on them. I forget most of the facts, but if interested read up on Bell inequality, localism and realism. These results are sort like the old joke that the supplier told the purching agent: "you can have it quick, cheap and well made, but not all three."

Bells results are sort of like that in that to have "hidden varriables" acting locally you must give up some other things that seem necessarily true.

I prefer not to adopt any new theory, including postulating some hidden variable explaination, because (1) I don't currently understand the constrant Bell's inequality places on them and the price I would need to pay to make "hidden variables" a possibility consistent with Bell's math and physics observations; and (2) There is no need to postulate, especially without any evidence from physics measurements, some new ad hoc theory when SRT's time dilation works (to explain the muon disturbition with altitude and many other things unrelated to muons); and (3) SRT only requires the very reasonable (to me at least) assumption that all inertial observers observer the same physical laws. (See final paragraph of my last post)

I am particularly opposed to your theory about an effect of gravity on light speed (instead of upon photon energy) as it would imply the light from the center of a galaxy would have to have left its source much earlier that light from stars near the outer edge. This "fact" (according to your unsupported theory) when combined with the well established fact the the universe has been (and is) expanding and galaxies typically have some velocity component transverse to our line of sight strongly conflicts with observations.

For example, assume that in celestrial coordinates the galaxy is moving Eastward. The the center of the galaxy would be west (where it was earlier) of the center of the circulating outer stars. That is, west of the center that all the outer stars are seen circulating about, because (according to your theory) we see these outer stars with less delay. (closer to their current actual position.) I don't know of any astromical photo that shows the outer stars of a galaxy circulating about one point well displaced from the core stars, which would appear to be at the location the core was earlier, according to your theory.

Thus your theory is not only unfounded, but contray to all observations. I mentioned the Earth based "Mosbauer experiment" in another post, but that may have been in a different thread. I assume you have seen photos of spiral galaxies. How can you explain that the spiral arms are circulating about the photo center if light from the center left earlier than that from the spiral arms?

Gravity does not slow (or speed) light. It only change the energy of the photons.