The Relativity of Simultaneity

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Motor Daddy, May 12, 2010.

  1. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Done and done both previous posts.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,385
    The answer is two dollars, as you've probably already guessed.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    lol, MD knew the answer, he was just testing us
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    Wrong again, it's my perpetual motion machine.
     
  8. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    So can muons to carry information faster than light? Yes or No?
     
  9. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    How many times do you need to be told?? NO

    Tach said it, I said it, the page you linked to said it. They don't travel at \(2 \times 10^{9}\) m/s, they travel slower than the speed of light. Seriously, do you know you can scroll down that page? You do realise there's a second paragraph underneath the one you've mentioned? Where it draws a box around 0.989c, the actual speed of the muons?

    Why on Earth do you keep asking a question you already have had answered?
     
  10. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    Who cares about the speed!?
    Important that the same distance the muons reach their destination in less time than photons.
    Longer time for the photon. Less time for muons.What is so hard to understand? :shrug:
     
  11. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    What's so hard to understand is that's NOT what happens. From the same distance, with the same emission time, photons ALWAYS reach their destination before the muons.

    That's what speed is about.
     
  12. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Except they don't. The photons reach first. The initial prediction about the speed of the muons is done in terms of muon count, not in terms of how fast they get from A to B.

    If you don't include the fact the muons experience time slower than the Earth you might think they must be moving really quickly for so many to get to the surface before they decay. Faster than light quickly. However, if you were to actually measure their velocity by some means you'd find that isn't the case. The explanation is due to time dilation.

    Did you even read the full page you linked to? It explains it all there, what are you struggling to understand?
     
  13. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    Two cases:
    1) Muons don't reach faster, so there is no length contraction.
    2) Muon reach faster, so there carry information faster than photons.
    May you know any alternative?
     
  14. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    I suggest you carefully read the link that I posted.
     
  15. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,811
    Neither of these statement are correct.

    There is length contraction of the distance between the base and top of the mountain, in the frame of the muons. But in the frame of the muons, light travels at c relative to the muons. Thus in the frame of the muons, a photon traveling at c leaving the top of the mountain at the same time a muon passes it will head towards the base at c while the base rushes toward the muon at 0.989c. The photon will reach the base when the muon is only ~halfway between base and top.

    In the Earth frame, the mountain height is not contracted. The photon and muon both leave the top of the mountain at the same moment. The photon traveling at c and the muon at 0.989c. The photon arrives first.

    In no frame does the muon arrive before the photon.
     
  16. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    That is your interpretation.
    The facts are these:
     
  17. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    The facts are that the muons live longer than would be expected when viewed from a rest frame due to relativistic time dilation.

    I do realise you don't understand this, but then, the universe does not make provisions for your lack of intelligence.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2011
  18. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,811
    And? The lifetime listed is for the rest frame of the muon. In the rest frame of the Earth (where the distance traveled is 1219 meters) it is ~6.5 times longer. Conversely, in the frame of the muon the distance is ~ 188 meters.

    There is no way to conclude from this that a muon crosses the distance in less time than a photon.
     
  19. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,811
    No, these are the facts according to SR.
    Which does not mean what you seem to think it means. It has to be taken in context to the whole explanation on that page. Your idea that this implies that the muon would arrive before light is do to your faulty, and out of context, interpretation of this quote.
     
  20. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    The facts are shown above.
    Denying the facts due to calculation or theorem is called pseudoscience.
     
  21. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Yes, and you're denying the facts.

    In the experiment your link talks about there are at least 2 explanations, either the muons live longer due to time dilation or they move faster than light. If the former is true then in situations where we can measure the speed of the muons directly then we should see time dilation. We can measure the speed of muons in particle accelerators and they live longer.

    Muons have never been seen to move faster than light but they have been seen to live longer when they move faster and the relationship between their lifetime and their velocity is precisely as relativity predicts.

    The only person engaged in pseudoscience here is you. You're ignoring thing you link to.
     
  22. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    Will you please provide the link that proves length contraction is true?

    Thank you.
     
  23. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    Huh....
    experiment:
    distance: 2000 ft , time: 0.596 microseconds , velocity ​​2.0X10 ^ 9 m / s.
    What is there to explain?
     

Share This Page