The Relativity of Simultaneity

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

  1. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    In addition note that they are NOT tracking a specific particle from the top to the bottom, only the number. Whenever we have tracked specific particles, as can be done in an accelerator (or rather bunches are tracked), they always move slower than light.

    What is there to explain with your inability to read things you quote. Do you just not think or do you read and deliberately ignore?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    Ever heard of CERN experiment?
    And there is some time dilation or length contraction?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Firstly that is open to question and can be explained within the realms of special relativity. Secondly, the deviation they claim is parts per million, not 6 times faster than light. Thirdly the experiment you link to isn't tracking specific particles anyway.

    If you ignore time dilation then it seems the muons must be moving faster than light. If you include time dilation they are not. The time dilation effects are confirmed when we generate muons and track them in accelerators. Within accelerators we can create the same conditions which form the muons in the atmosphere, where we can track the muons, and they don't move faster than light.

    The muon experiment you linked to could be interpreted at least 2 ways, hence why other experiments are done. The other experiments, involving colliders, validate the time dilation model. This is why independent experiments are important, hence why everyone should not be rushing around screaming "Neutrinos prove special relativity wrong!!". The only people who are doing that are people like Motor Daddy, who think it validates them somehow.

    Funny how MD is now saying things like "the assumption is not unreasonable since the findings were the results of the most technologically advanced equipment, with some of the finest scientists in the world performing the experiments. Furthermore, the scientists that performed the experiments seem to have exhausted all possible explanations as to any errors that could be the cause of erroneous results.". Suddenly we should all be accepting the word of a few scientists, because they are 'some of the finest scientists in the world' and have 'the most technologically advanced equipment'. I'm sure if someone were using such an argument to support SR he'd be yelling "Argument from authority!" and "You need to be more open minded". This is just another piece of evidence he's not a terribly honest person.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    I'm extremely tempted to report this as trolling.
     
  8. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    Do you have any other idea to contribute to this thread?
     
  9. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Do you? You asked the same answered question about half a dozen times, despite the fact your own link answered it for you!
     
  10. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    Well, my idea saw actual implementation, and may have impact. What have you done, other than annoy everyone?
     
  11. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    No, I have not asked. I affirmed.
    If it was a question it was a rhetorical "How could such a thing to be true?"
    You are even aware of what we discuss?
    We were talking about the assumptions of SR.
    The math is correct, here we have no contradictions. I agree with the math.
    Incorrect assumptions lead to incorrect results.
    Assumptions you can not justify using SR. That's circular reasoning.
    Every time you explain SR. I'm talking about the assumption and again you explain SR.

    The assumption may collide in several ways.
    For example the existence of an absolute reference system. (If you want we can talk about that).
    Or by exceeding the speed of light.

    I gave you two experiments.
    An experiment has two distinct phases. Data collection and analysis (interpretation) of data.
    If I understood well for the experience "Muon Velocity", you are not agree with the data collection phase.
    And I gave you the CERN experiment. Your answer was that you once explained SR.
    If you have something to say about the topic please say, If not please leave.
     
  12. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    There are three variables that use the Lorentz mulitiplier within SR. These are mass, distance and time. Relative reference analysis tends to limit itself to time and distance, when explaining the parameters of a relative reference. Although this works well under certain conditions, it also gives us the option to create illusions.

    To explain the illusion option, we only need to consider relativistic mass. Although explaining relativistic mass in terms of rest mass is nebulous, it is less nebulous if we simply define relativistic mass in terms of energy via E=MC2.

    If reference was relative, than this energy would also be relative, because relativistic mass=energy changes with distance and time via the Lorentz mulitiplier. If we ignore relativistic mass, relative reference can create the impression that we can create and destroy energy= relativistic mass, simply by changing our reference.

    Because of the conservation of energy, creating and destroying energy is not possible. This implies that reference needs to be absolute and/or at least normalized to whatever we wish to call the zero state. If not, illusions based on energy conservation violation are possible.

    As an example, I will create a new weight loss exercise plan that allows you to burn extra calories without doing anything. This is called the relative reference workout. It only works if we ignore the energy balance and use only distance and time references.

    What you do is get a chair and sit in the middle of a field inside a running track. You then focus on a particular runner and pretend that reference is relative, and you are the one that is moving and he is stationary. This allows you to burn calories without having to run. Since the runner is now stationary, in this relative reference, he doesn't lose any calories even though he is doing all the work.

    If we do an energy balance, we will notice problems in terms of energy but not in terms of relative motion. If you and the runner were twins, the net energy may be a wash so conservatino sort of applies. But say the runner is lean and you are portly, this relative speed of running might impact each of you differently in terms of the calories burnt by the body. The efficient body of the runner might be burning less for the same amount of exercise. Now the energy balance is off. If we assume it is relative in space-time we have this extra energy for special effects.

    Say we start with the energy balance before we even try relative reference. We would set up a normalized reference. that would tell us who is moving and who is sitting based on energy balances.
     
  13. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    That is , of course, incorrect. Here are a few more : energy, momentum, E, B. Can you name a few more?


    Ever heard of the Lorentz transforms?


    How do you think \(E=mc^2\) was derived in first place? Hint: using the Lorentz transforms.

    Perhaps your time would be better spent learning than posting BS and trying to pass it as science.
     
  14. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    You apparently did not understand well: the "Muon Velocity" (actually, "speed", but no matter), is not collected data.

    So, there.
     
  15. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    Muon Velocity:
    Say your version.
     
  16. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Emil, the experiment you link to doesn't measure the muon velocity directly, it is inferred by making assumptions about how fast the muons decay. This is what Funkstar says, that the velocity isn't collected data, the collected data is the count rate.

    You obviously have some kind of comprehension problem.
     
  17. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    I know what I say. The vast majority understand by "muons example" what I said and as described in "Muon Velocity".
    I asked Funkstar to tell the data.
    Or this experiment is an some kind of fake?
     
  18. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Nah, you some kind of ignorant. Don't worry, the condition will not pass with time, it will only get worse.
     
  19. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    Troll.
     
  20. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    I would be very, very careful about slinging out terms like "the vast majority" in contexts like this. You'll be hard pressed to back it up.
    You can use AN's answer, which is exactly what I meant. I didn't write it out because I was hoping you might take a moment to think, but, well, apparently you aren't interested in that.

    Which is why I reported you for trolling, earlier.
     
  21. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    Please respond you to the question posed in experiment.
    If you don't want to participate directly and make judgments on the person rather than contribute to the thread please again to leave.
     
  22. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Emil,

    I would not call it a fake, but stop and think for even a few seconds. The distance involved is 4000ft? And there is no mention as to the accuracy of that measurement... There is no timing mechanism available with today's technology that could even begin to time the actual speed of a muon over that short distance. Remember it would take two clocks one at each location and they would have to be synchronized to within.., just how long would it take light to travel 4000 ft, something like 0.000,000,4 seconds?.

    The recent CERN neutrino data was dealing with 60 nano seconds or 60 ft., in a path of travel just under five hundred miles and both the timing and distance measurements, are almost certainly being reviewed by others outside the CERN group now.

    There is just no real way the experiment you have been discussing could even approach an accuracy sufficient to make the kind of claims you are making.

    Your arguments lack both reason and logic. Stop and think it over. If you are really interested in science you have to be willing to deal with the facts even if they do not meet your expectations.
     
  23. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Either you're exceptionally stupid or you're trolling. You've had it explained to you many times now.

    The experiment doesn't directly measure muon velocities, it infers the velocities by making assumptions about how fast the muons decay. If you think fast moving muons decay at the same rate as stationary muons then you end up thinking they must be moving faster than light. If you think fast moving muons decay slower, in accordance with relativity, then you end up thinking they must be moving slower than light.

    Since the experiment alone cannot distinguish between these two scenarios you must consider additional data. In experiments where we do measure the velocity of muons directly, ie in an accelerator, then we observe their decay rates are slowed, in precise agreement with relativity. Thus the mountain experiment you link to does NOT support the proposition muons move faster than light. None of us are claiming it's a fake, how you got that conclusion I don't know (stupidity or trolling I imagine). The data is completely consistent with relativity, why would we claim it's a fake?

    You're asking like Chinglu, asking the same answered question again and again, all the while come across thicker than extra thick honey in the Arctic.
     

Share This Page