Length Contraction in the Muon Experiment

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK, let's gather your view:

Now, everything highlighted in red, you are refering to local curvature due to nearby massive objects. You claim that the overall curvature is based on the average density of all the massive objects in the universe to make the smooth curvature that you described in the part highlighted in blue.

I am saying that this "average" curvature density only applies to regions far beyond any part of the universe "bubble" so to speak in which massive objects exist. Once you are inside the universe, the lumping local stuff supercede any overal curvature that maybe seen from far outside the universe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Also, is the density of the universe pretty much even? The distribution of mass isn't more concentrated anywhere?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From what I gather gravitational data (galatic star rotation) requires that the Dark Matter be in the form of a halo around the galaxy. A rather unique occurance I would think.

 

OR - the dark matter repellent gets stronger with distance

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Seems rather bogus. Though most ad hoc theories seem bogus. Make no mistake... Dark matter is an ad hoc addition to cosmological theories.

Accept that the theory is flawed AND unconfirmed and start over

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Actually "No". Luminous matter is distributed in very understandable physical dynamics.

Also clumping is predicted by UniKEF.

 

Aer, I am not totally convenced of the existence of 'dark energy' yet, not denying its existence, just not totally convenced. Dark matter is different,
it seems to be undeniable to me. There is much evidence for its true existence. Here is a link to a paper about 'Dark Accelerators'. How else can they be explained? If one guesses a black hole, then physics is wrong about them too, as no accretion disk is evident in any wavelength, optical or x-ray.
The high energy particles would have to come directly from inside the event
horizon, not compatible with accepted theory. The link:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/ppa-uth032205.php

 

The muon proper time (dilated) that is .67 microsec (6 microsec earth time) at .994c can only allow it to travel 670 ft (earth's proper length) not 6000 ft (earth's proper length) as observed. Time dilation alone is not sufficient to explain this unless you account for the length contraction that makes 6000ft to shrink to less than 670 ft (earth's proper length) in muon's frame as calculated from earth frame.

 

everneo, from where do you get your values? '6 microseconds earth time'?
How about around 1.5 microseconds half-life. What do you mean by 'The muon proper time (dilated) that is .67 microseconds? From the Earth frame of reference, the muon's clock would tick at 1/7 the rate of an Earth clock, giving the muon 10.5 microseconds half-life time to reach the surface, or
15.4 microseconds mean life to reach the surface, according to an Earth observer. Where do you get 6000 ft as 'earth's proper length'? Are you referring to the 'estimated' distance the muon must travel in Earth's frame of reference? The greatest density of cosmic ray flux occurs at 15,000 METERS.
Are you familiar with cascade theory? Muons are produced by two different
kinds of cosmic rays, the very high energy cosmic rays comming from unknown sources and the low energy cosmic rays arriving with the solar wind.
Only the cascades from cosmic rays of greater than 1 GeV reach sea level.
The very high energy cosmic rays can reach several hundred GeV. There is not just one cascade event per cosmic ray particle (mostly protons) but a
single proton can produce up to five cascade events. A single proton produces a cascade of particles, those particles can produce another cascade
event of more particles, and on and on. The low energy cosmic rays from the
sun never produce enough cascade events to reach the surface. They are usually exausted by 15,000 meters, the reason for the high flux density at that altitude. The flux from the low energy cosmic rays and from the high energy cosmic rays are both very evident at 15,000 meters. Only the high energy rays will continue to cascade until Earth's surface is reached.

 

2inq,

sorry, here is the reference (on the experiment in 1941) i posted in another thread.

http://landau1.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109/lectures/srelwhat.html

the muon detectors were placed atop mount washington and at sea level (6000 ft below). You might be interested to read the full paper.

the following quote is the last portion :

How did they survive? The reason they didn't decay is that in their frame of reference, much less time had passed. Their actual speed is about 0.994c, corresponding to a time dilation factor of about 9, so in the 6 microsecond trip from the top of Mount Washington to sea level, their clocks register only 6/9 = 0.67 microseconds. In this period of time, only about one-quarter of them decay.

What does this look like from the muon's point of view? How do they manage to get so far in so little time? To them, Mount Washington and the earth's surface are approaching at 0.994c, or about 1,000 feet per microsecond. But in the 0.67 micro seconds it takes them to get to sea level, it would seem that to them sea level could only get 670 feet closer, so how could they travel the whole 6000 feet from the top of Mount Washington? The answer is the Fitzgerald contraction---to them Mount Washington is squashed in a vertical direction (the direction of motion) by a factor of 1/sqrt(1-v²/c²), the same as the time dilation factor, which for the muons is 9. So, to the muons, Mount Washington is only 670 feet high---this is why they can get down it so fast!

 

You say that everything is "inside" but you haven't defined what "inside" is. What is at the edge of this "inside" that prevents you from travelling outward? Any answer to this question would be pure speculation. When I said "outside" I meant far away from the mass filled universe.

Yes, dark energy.

OK - I was being disingenuous when I said "start over". I meant one should not be quick to reject any theory that starts from scratch just because it doesn't include the staples of another theory.

 

OK - I am going to need your explicit explaination of how dark matter explains the "dark accelerators".

From article:

Dark Matter:

(1) Name given to the amount of mass whose existence until now has escaped all detections but which is deduced from the analysis of galaxy rotation curves.

(2) Matter that is in space but is not visible to us because it emits no radiation by which to observe it. The motion of stars around the centers of their galaxies implies that about 90% of the matter in a typical galaxy is dark. Physicists speculate that there is also dark matter between the galaxies but this is harder to verify.

 

I'm afraid I can't answer your question. As far as I know, no one knows what
'dark accelerators' actually are. All I have read at this point is that massive
amounts of VERY high energy gamma rays are being emitted from areas of space where NOTHING is detected to exist. Only the gamma rays themselves
are detected. If you are asking for 'speculation', possibly a convential black hole may be feeding on dark matter, which would not detectable in the accretion disk. Does collisions of dark matter particles in the accretion disk produce gamma ray particles? I don't know. Or more 'speculation' may be that
the source is something like a black hole, except the black hole itself is composed of dark matter. Again, I don't think anyone knows yet, this is new
physics. It came as a surprise, and convential physics has no theory to explain what may be happening.

Another observation mentioned in the paper, something I have read in other
papers also, is the Cherenkov light produced by gamma rays entering our atmosphere. Of course, Cherenkov light is produced when a particle travels
faster than light in a medium. The hitch here is that the particles travelling faster than light in a medium are EM RADIATION, the gamma rays are just at the high energy end of the 'light' spectrum. It has been known from GPS that
different wavelengths of the EM spectrum travel at different speeds in our atmosphere, but 'light travelling faster than light' does seem odd.

 

I hardly consider what you are proposing as hard proof of dark matter. Your "proof" is an assumption - that is not good science. It may be a possible explaination - but certainly not "proof". I never said that dark matter cannot exist.

 

I never stated my post provided 'hard proof' of dark matter. I provided one of
many observations of EVIDENCE for its existence. There are many other examples of evidence. Listing evidence is 'not good science'? Possibly you need to read a few papers published in the last couple of years, papers published from observation of actual evidence, not assumptions based on any one 'theory'.

 

Well, it seems only you think that the above is even "evidence" of dark matter. When I initially clicked on the article, I searched with my browser for "dark matter" and came up empty. So I had to resort to searching for "dark accelerators". They didn't link the two in the article, so why should I believe that the two should be linked? Because they both have dark in their name? Now come on - that is just rediculous.

Also, notice how you twisted what I said. I said using this as proof of dark matter is not good science. I did not say that using dark matter as an explaination to the phenomenom is not good science. If you think this is evidence of dark matter - that is your choice. It doesn't appear to be hard evidence to me.

 

by Aer:

"Notice how you twisted what I said."
=============================================================

Yes, I did the same as you did in your response to my post. Isn't that fair?

 

HOW IS IT UNDENIABLE? Where is the hard proof that makes it UNDENIABLE. WTF did I twist?

 

Here is a more complete excerpt from my post. You trunciated my post to alter its meaning. I never said dark accelerators were hard proof. Those are
YOUR words. I said the evidence for dark matter seems undenyable to me.

my post:

"Aer, I am not totally convenced of the existence of 'dark energy' yet, not denying its existence, just not totally convenced. Dark matter is different,
it seems to be undeniable to me. There is much evidence for its true existence. Here is a link to a paper about 'Dark Accelerators'. How else can they be explained?"

Now, Aer, how is dark matter defined? It is not detectable by any EM radiation emitted or reflected in the optical, radio, or x-ray spectrum. How
are the 'dark accelerators' defined? They are not detectable by any EM radiation emitted or reflected in the optical, radio, or x-ray spectrum. Don't seem to be baryonic matter, do they? Are you proposing a third form of matter that is neither baryonic matter nor dark matter?