new physics model

[quantum_wave]

This is the first draft of a physics model I've been working on. I would appreciate some feedback / criticism / questions / comments, etc.

Thanks

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RSWeoc_CxZe73pvy-jl3yxrYrbX1C7SUtenb-4_F0J4/edit?usp=sharing

"It should be noted that these clocks are particular to each particle such that the frequency of two otherwise identical particles need not be equal.Although there have been many proposed models of EM mass, in this paper we shall generally confine particle discussion to electrons using the model proposed by J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark [1]. Figure 1 shows such a particle."

At first I thought you might have some original comments on wave-particle duality, which I would be glad to explore. But then instead of describing how particles interact as a function of their wave nature, you lean on the frequency of the particular particle, referring to it as the "internal clock". To me, if the internal clock is the frequency, then the mechanism of interaction is the waves emitted by the particle at the particular particle's frequency; an out flow of wave energy from the particle. Do you consider that to be the case?

I could relate to how particles that interact are "spatially extended", as you say, (particles expanding to fill space between particles), but it seems to me that the interaction between particles would involve "extended particles" intersecting, and a wave intersection is a momentary event followed by a series of waves overlapping; passing through each other in space, causing a pattern of peaks and valleys. I assume that makes no sense in regard to your model?


I won't bore you with arguments against the particle model you employ, or about the physical nature of a wave-particle, but will just say that if the J.G. Williamson/M.B. Van der Mark particle model is incomplete or even wrong, then your model won't be correct. I would understand if you don't care to respond to this off-topic observation, because no matter how good a model is, without physical evidence, it is going to be subject to alternative approaches, like I am implying could falsify your model?

 

[RJBeery]

At first I thought you might have some original comments on wave-particle duality, which I would be glad to explore. But then instead of describing how particles interact as a function of their wave nature, you lean on the frequency of the particular particle, referring to it as the "internal clock". To me, if the internal clock is the frequency, then the mechanism of interaction is the waves emitted by the particle at the particular particle's frequency; an out flow of wave energy from the particle. Do you consider that to be the case?

The frequency of the internal clock of a particle refers to the cyclic motion of the photon, but it would necessarily need to be compared to "something else", such as the frequency of another particle, to be meaningful. In this model there is no empty space, so there are no "waves emitted"; the emergence of wavelike patterns is a consequence of quantum energy transfers from the source to the absorbing particles whose transmission conditions are dependent upon the internal state of both particles. The cycle of transmitting particle is the cause of this emergence.

I could relate to how particles that interact are "spatially extended", as you say, (particles expanding to fill space between particles), but it seems to me that the interaction between particles would involve "extended particles" intersecting, and a wave intersection is a momentary event followed by a series of waves overlapping; passing through each other in space, causing a pattern of peaks and valleys. I assume that makes no sense in regard to your model?

I do not consider any overlap because that presumes a space-time within which the particles reside. I am considering the "radius of a particle" to be an abstract characteristic which affects its weight and area of contact with particles local to it.

I won't bore you with arguments against the particle model you employ, or about the physical nature of a wave-particle, but will just say that if the J.G. Williamson/M.B. Van der Mark particle model is incomplete or even wrong, then your model won't be correct. I would understand if you don't care to respond to this off-topic observation, because no matter how good a model is, without physical evidence, it is going to be subject to alternative approaches, like I am implying could falsify your model?

If you have any observations which would disqualify the EM mass model I would really like to hear about them.

 

[Neddy Bate]

This isn't right. A/B and C/D would agree that time dilation appeared to have occurred but they would insist that it occurred "for the other guy". You seem to be trying to make that case that time dilation occurred "somewhere," therefore it indeed occurred in some absolute sense, but that simply isn't possible because their respective proclamations are literally contradictory. "You're shorter than me and I'm shorter than you, therefore shortening has occurred in some absolute sense, " is a statement which is absurd. The only answer is that shortening (or time dilation) did not occur at all.

A&B would record C as having elapsed fewer ticks than themselves. And C&D would record A as having elapsed fewer ticks than themselves. Yet you want to conclude that time dilation did not occur at all, because you think there is a contradiction somewhere. But there is no contradiction, watch:

Let's say that clock A displays the time "4" at the instant clock C passes it by while displaying its own time of "7" at that instant. So clock A records A=4, C1=7. And let's say that clock B displays the time "10" at the instant clock C passes it by while displaying its own time of "9" at that instant. So clock B records B=10, C2=9. Collect the data and conclude B-A=10-4=6 and C2-C1=9-7=2. Note that 6>2 and therefore B-A>C2-C1.

But clock C also recorded itself displaying the time "7" at the instant clock A passed it by while displaying its own time of "4" at that instant. So clock C records C=7, A1=4. And let's say that clock D displays the time "13" at the instant clock A passes it by while displaying its own time of "6" at that instant. So clock D records D=13, A2=6. Collect the data and conclude D-C=13-7=6 and A2-A1=6-4=2. Note that 6>2 and therefore D-C>A2-A1.

There is no contradiction...
B - A > C2 - C1
D - C > A2 - A1
...but there is time dilation.

This is false. The Penrose-Terrell effect has superseded length contraction as the predicted visual effect of motion, which is exactly why I used it in the analogy. It's what we "see", but we can calculate that it's an illusion.

Length contraction is what remains after you factor out the visual Penrose-Terrell effect.

The fact that you consider the Penrose-Terrell effect to be an appearance but length contraction to be an actual physical phenomenon would demand a preferred frame. I don't think mainstream Physics would agree with you on this point.

Length contraction is reciprocal, so the A&B frame would measure the units on the x axis of the C&D frame to be contracted, and the C&D frame would measure the units on the x axis of the A&B frame to be contracted. This is not a visual effect like the Penrose-Terrell effect, it is what each frame would actually measure of the other (relatively moving) frame. Imagine holding your two hands out in front of you, and touching the front of a fast moving rocket with one hand, while simultaneously touching the rear of that rocket with your other hand. Close your eyes and it makes no difference, because it is not a visual effect. Yet the rest length of the rocket can be larger than what would fit between your hands. There need not be a preferred frame for that kind of measurement to be real for you.

 

[RJBeery]

Length contraction is reciprocal, so the A&B frame would measure the units on the x axis of the C&D frame to be contracted, and the C&D frame would measure the units on the x axis of the A&B frame to be contracted. This is not a visual effect like the Penrose-Terrell effect, it is what each frame would actually measure of the other (relatively moving) frame. Imagine holding your two hands out in front of you, and touching the front of a fast moving rocket with one hand, while simultaneously touching the rear of that rocket with your other hand. Close your eyes and it makes no difference, because it is not a visual effect. Yet the rest length of the rocket can be larger than what would fit between your hands. There need not be a preferred frame for that kind of measurement to be real for you.

Neddy Bate, I ask you to consider what I said earlier: "You're shorter than me and I'm shorter than you, therefore shortening has occurred in some absolute sense..."

The rocket pilot would be approaching me and see me preparing to touch both ends of the rocket. The distance between my hands would be greatly reduced from the normal expectation of, say, a few feet, and certainly much, much less than the length of the rocket. Touching both ends of the rocket is a physical impossibility.

The answer to all length contraction "paradoxes" such as this lies in the relativity of simultaneity; it has nothing to do with actual physical contraction. The pilot sees my hand touch the front of the rocket, and then later my other hand is raised to touch the back of the rocket as it speeds by me.

Agreeing on this point is largely irrelevant, though, because we all agree on actual time dilation when acceleration is involved.

 

[Neddy Bate]

Neddy Bate, I ask you to consider what I said earlier: "You're shorter than me and I'm shorter than you, therefore shortening has occurred in some absolute sense..."

I don't see the problem. We can have equal rest lengths, yet I can measure you as being shorter than me when you fly past me like superman, and you can measure me as being shorter than you when I fly past you like superman.

The rocket pilot would be approaching me and see me preparing to touch both ends of the rocket. The distance between my hands would be greatly reduced from the normal expectation of, say, a few feet, and certainly much, much less than the length of the rocket. Touching both ends of the rocket is a physical impossibility.

The answer to all length contraction "paradoxes" such as this lies in the relativity of simultaneity; it has nothing to do with actual physical contraction. The pilot sees my hand touch the front of the rocket, and then later my other hand is raised to touch the back of the rocket as it speeds by me.

Yes, that is what the rocket frame would record as happening. But in your frame, you would record touching the front and rear of the rocket simultaneously. Unless you think the rocket frame is the preferred frame, you must give equal validity to your own frame. Thus length contraction of the rocket must be real, as measured by you.

Agreeing on this point is largely irrelevant, though, because we all agree on actual time dilation when acceleration is involved.

I would like for us to be able to agree on actual time dilation when acceleration is not involved:

B-A=10-4=6 and C2-C1=9-7=2. Note that 6>2 and therefore B-A>C2-C1.
D-C=13-7=6 and A2-A1=6-4=2. Note that 6>2 and therefore D-C>A2-A1.

You cannot deny that 6>2, so what would you say is happening there? Of course, as you noted, C would say that clocks A and B were not synchronous. But, unless you think C is the preferred frame, you must give equal validity to the frame of A and B where the clocks are synchronous. What is the cause for B-A>C2-C1 in that frame? It is not an illusion, so what is it?

 

[RJBeery]

I would like for us to be able to agree on actual time dilation when acceleration is not involved:
...
What is the cause for B-A>C2-C1 in that frame? It is not an illusion, so what is it?

We're bumping into semantics. You're asking me to claim that time dilation absolutely exists "for a specific frame", but that directly goes against the concept of absolute existence. If you're just wanting us to agree that time dilation exists "for a specific frame" then I have no problem doing that because it is inconsequential. I can merely reword my claim to be:

"Absolute time dilation is a result of acceleration and distance and does not exist in the presence of velocity alone."

 

[paddoboy]

We're bumping into semantics. You're asking me to claim that time dilation absolutely exists "for a specific frame", but that directly goes against the concept of absolute existence. If you're just wanting us to agree that time dilation exists "for a specific frame" then I have no problem doing that because it is inconsequential. I can merely reword my claim to be:

"Absolute time dilation is a result of acceleration and distance and does not exist in the presence of velocity alone."

And you would still be wrong.

 

[Neddy Bate]

We're bumping into semantics. You're asking me to claim that time dilation absolutely exists "for a specific frame", but that directly goes against the concept of absolute existence. If you're just wanting us to agree that time dilation exists "for a specific frame" then I have no problem doing that because it is inconsequential. I can merely reword my claim to be:

"Absolute time dilation is a result of acceleration and distance and does not exist in the presence of velocity alone."

In my earlier example, all reference frames in the universe would have to agree that the event where the C clock passed by the A clock happened when those two clocks were co-located and displaying the times C1=7 and A=4 respectively. And all frames in the universe would have to agree that the event where the C clock passed by the B clock happened when those two clocks were co-located and displaying the times C2=9 and B=10 respectively. So all frames in the universe would have to agree on the fact that B-A>C2-C1.

So time dilation due to velocity alone is absolute in that sense, and acceleration does not enter into it at all. The only quibble you have made against this concept is that clocks A and B are not synchronous in all reference frames, but relativity of simultaneity (ROS) requires that, so that is hardly a valid objection.

Even if you disagree with the above, I hope you can understand that D-C>A2-A1 does not contradict B-A>C2-C1 in any way, and it certainly does not make time dilation due to relative velocity magically disappear by means of "literal contradiction".

 

[RJBeery]

In my earlier example, all reference frames in the universe would have to agree that the event where the C clock passed by the A clock happened when those two clocks were co-located and displaying the times C1=7 and A=4 respectively. And all frames in the universe would have to agree that the event where the C clock passed by the B clock happened when those two clocks were co-located and displaying the times C2=9 and B=10 respectively. So all frames in the universe would have to agree on the fact that B-A>C2-C1.

So time dilation due to velocity alone is absolute in that sense, and acceleration does not enter into it at all. The only quibble you have made against this concept is that clocks A and B are not synchronous in all reference frames, but relativity of simultaneity (ROS) requires that, so that is hardly a valid objection.

That isn't "only a quibble", it's the death knell of the scenario completely. There could be another clock E, synchronized with A from my frame, for which E-A<C2-C1. It's entirely irrelevant. When you emphasize that B-A>C2-C1 for all frames, I agree with you, but what all frames are doing is agreeing that time dilation apparently exists in this scenario for the specific, single frame in which A and B were originally synchronized. That's it. Simply acknowledging relativity is not attributing absolute existence to anything.

 

[Neddy Bate]

That isn't "only a quibble", it's the death knell of the scenario completely.

If your "new physics model" contains the postulate that the speed of light is the same constant, c, in all inertial reference frames, then your model will have ROS also.

There could be another clock E, synchronized with A from my frame, for which E-A<C2-C1. It's entirely irrelevant.

Any other clock that is stationary with respect to the AB frame and synchronised to A and B will end up with N-A>Cn-C1 where the C clock passes A first (where C1 is recorded) and then the C clock passes N afterward (where Cn is recorded).

You will not find N-A<Cn-C1 as that would be the opposite of time dilation.

When you emphasize that B-A>C2-C1 for all frames, I agree with you, but what all frames are doing is agreeing that time dilation apparently exists in this scenario for the specific, single frame in which A and B were originally synchronized. That's it. Simply acknowledging relativity is not attributing absolute existence to anything.

You agree that clocks are ticking at different rates depending on their state of relative motion, yet you deny that time dilation results from relative motion. You are doing mental gymnastics far more complicated than simply accepting that time dilation results from relative velocity.

 

[RJBeery]

You agree that clocks are ticking at different rates depending on their state of relative motion

No, I don't. "Ticking at different rates" implies that it is actually happening in some absolute sense. There will always be a frame which would claim that any two clocks in relative motion are ticking at the same rate. Neddy Bate, this is a futile discussion because I'm willing to "concede" that everyone can agree on the appearance of time dilation for some particular frame (which is not necessarily their own), but that's all I will concede. If that isn't satisfactory to you then I'm sorry.

What would interest me is to discuss:

"Absolute time dilation is a result of acceleration and distance and does not exist in the presence of velocity alone."

I assume we agree on the definition of "absolute time dilation"?

 

[Neddy Bate]

There will always be a frame which would claim that any two clocks in relative motion are ticking at the same rate.

Yes, and that particular frame would be the one in which the magnitudes of the velocities of those two clocks are equal. And that frame would also record that each of those two clocks not only tick at the same rate as each other, but at a rate which is slower than the clocks which are stationary with respect to that particular frame. I don't understand how you can understand all of this, and yet still claim that relative velocity does not cause time dilation.

Neddy Bate, this is a futile discussion because I'm willing to "concede" that everyone can agree on the appearance of time dilation for some particular frame (which is not necessarily their own), but that's all I will concede. If that isn't satisfactory to you then I'm sorry.

If you would take out the word "appearance" and just say, "Everyone can agree on the measurement of time dilation (i.e. the recorded times A, B, C1 and C2 where B-A>C2-C1) for some particular frame not necessarily their own," then I would be happy with that. The word "appearance" sounds like you really want that recorded time dilation to be a visual effect, or "illusory" in some way, but it is not. If we cannot agree on that, then so be it, there is no need for either of us to be sorry. It was a good discussion anyway.

What would interest me is to discuss:

"Absolute time dilation is a result of acceleration and distance and does not exist in the presence of velocity alone."

I assume we agree on the definition of "absolute time dilation"?

I understand the idea that acceleration and distance can break the symmetry of many twin "paradox" type situations. I also understand that in your paper you have one clock at the center of a circle, and another clock traveling around the perimeter of that circle. I think you consider the time dilation of the perimeter clock to be "absolute" in the sense that the perimeter clock measures the clock at the center as ticking faster than itself, rather than slower as would be the case with inertial motion. So there is a certain type of agreement between both clocks in what you call "absolute time dilation".

However, I do not believe that type of agreement is necessary to make time dilation real. If you change the shape of the circle to a square with slightly rounded corners, when the perimeter clock is traveling the straight segments it will not agree that the center clock is ticking faster than itself, but rather slower. The perimeter clock would record the center clock as speeding up its rate quite a bit as the perimeter clock rounds the corners, but not during the straight segments. I think your new model is based on the hope that the two clocks might actually be ticking at the same rate during the straight segments. It might seem like a neater way of looking at it, but it is not quite the same as SR.

Consider the postulate that the speed of light is the same constant in all inertial frames. Next, imagine a light clock made of a photon bouncing up and down between two mirrors. When you are stationary with respect to the clock, it must tick at its maximum rate, because the light path is the shortest possible, a vertical line up and down, somewhat like this ||. But when you are moving at constant velocity with respect to the clock, it must tick at a slower rate, because the light path is now longer, diagonal lines like this / \ / \ / \ / \ / \. There is no way to justify the idea that that the clock might just tick at the same rate in both cases, unless you abandon the speed of light postulate. That is what makes your idea less satisfactory than SR, even if it does seem neater to you.

 

[RJBeery]

If you would take out the word "appearance" and just say, "Everyone can agree on the measurement of time dilation (i.e. the recorded times A, B, C1 and C2 where B-A>C2-C1) for some particular frame not necessarily their own," then I would be happy with that.

Fair, I agree to remove the word "appearance" in the terms that we can agree on, but it still does not rise to the definition of "absolute" by any standard.

I understand the idea that acceleration and distance can break the symmetry of many twin "paradox" type situations. I also understand that in your paper you have one clock at the center of a circle, and another clock traveling around the perimeter of that circle. I think you consider the time dilation of the perimeter clock to be "absolute" in the sense that the perimeter clock measures the clock at the center as ticking faster than itself, rather than slower as would be the case with inertial motion. So there is a certain type of agreement between both clocks in what you call "absolute time dilation".

Yes, and it isn't just a certain type of agreement. ALL frames would agree on the clock rate disparity. That is the very definition of absolute - everyone agrees because it is indisputable. The clock on the edge of the circle can spin and spin for as long as he so chooses to put any arbitrary amount of time separation between himself and the clock at the center of the centrifuge.

However, I do not believe that type of agreement is necessary to make time dilation real. If you change the shape of the circle to a square with slightly rounded corners, when the perimeter clock is traveling the straight segments it will not agree that the center clock is ticking faster than itself, but rather slower. The perimeter clock would record the center clock as speeding up its rate quite a bit as the perimeter clock rounds the corners, but not during the straight segments. I think your new model is based on the hope that the two clocks might actually be ticking at the same rate during the straight segments. It might seem like a neater way of looking at it, but it is not quite the same as SR.

Let me consider the square clock. My model would claim that the absolute time dilation differential would occur during the short perimeter turns, so maybe I'll plug some numbers in tomorrow.

Consider the postulate that the speed of light is the same constant in all inertial frames. Next, imagine a light clock made of a photon bouncing up and down between two mirrors. When you are stationary with respect to the clock, it must tick at its maximum rate, because the light path is the shortest possible, a vertical line up and down, somewhat like this ||. But when you are moving at constant velocity with respect to the clock, it must tick at a slower rate, because the light path is now longer, diagonal lines like this / \ / \ / \ / \ / \. There is no way to justify the idea that that the clock might just tick at the same rate in both cases, unless you abandon the speed of light postulate. That is what makes your idea less satisfactory than SR, even if it does seem neater to you.

You really should read my paper on the mirror reflecting the photon. The idea is that the speed of light remains constant, but that the circumference of a given particle if affected by the additional energy of the absorbed photon. Additionally, a photon classically "bouncing" between two moving, parallel mirrors would also necessarily be travelling a distance around the perimeter of the particle orbit cycle which is different than one classically bouncing between two stationary mirrors due to the angle involved. To visualize the difference, let the mirrors begin their movement after the photon has been emitted but before the first absorption (i.e. the photon will "miss" the second mirror because it was not emitted at the proper angle).

 

[Dr_Toad]

This is incredible: Two known cranks having a semi-coherent discussion.

Where is Farsight? Why not make this a triple?

 

[Neddy Bate]

Fair, I agree to remove the word "appearance" in the terms that we can agree on, but it still does not rise to the definition of "absolute" by any standard.

Okay, that sounds good. I never really thought time dilation, length contraction or ROS were supposed to be "absolute" anyway, since they are dependent upon relative velocity, which is relative.

Yes, and it isn't just a certain type of agreement. ALL frames would agree on the clock rate disparity. That is the very definition of absolute - everyone agrees because it is indisputable.

Not so under SR. An inertial reference frame which is momentarily co-moving with the perimeter clock would record the velocity of the perimeter clock as essentially zero (for a sufficiently small period of time) and therefore its rate would be very close to its proper rate. But such a frame would record the velocity of the center clock as moving at constant speed, so its rate would be time-dilated in such a frame.

Granted, such a frame would record that the rate of the perimeter clock would slow down quite significantly for other portions of its journey, so that over each full cycle, the perimeter clock elapses less time than the center clock. But the clock rates over the whole cycle would not be agreed upon by all frames, and thus would not really be "absolute" given your definition. At least not in SR, though it may be so under your model.

The clock on the edge of the circle can spin and spin for as long as he so chooses to put any arbitrary amount of time separation between himself and the clock at the center of the centrifuge.

When you say "spin" I hope you mean it can travel a circular path around the center clock, not just spin in place. Your paper seems to claim that spinning in place would cause a clock to be time-dilated, but that is not the case for a clock with essentially the dimensions of a point. Consider the light clock with the photon bouncing up and down, and rotate it around the axis parallel to the light path -- it should not become time dilated, because the photon path does not become longer in length.

Let me consider the square clock. My model would claim that the absolute time dilation differential would occur during the short perimeter turns, so maybe I'll plug some numbers in tomorrow.

Yes, that is what I thought you would have in your model. In SR, the time dilation differential would occur during the short perimeter turns to an even greater extent than your model, because it would have to make up for the time dilation that occurs during the straight segments of the journey. Your model simply dismisses any effects which might be incurred during the straight segments, due to not being "absolute". You assume the clock rates will be identical during the straight segments.

You really should read my paper on the mirror reflecting the photon. The idea is that the speed of light remains constant, but that the circumference of a given particle if affected by the additional energy of the absorbed photon. Additionally, a photon classically "bouncing" between two moving, parallel mirrors would also necessarily be travelling a distance around the perimeter of the particle orbit cycle which is different than one classically bouncing between two stationary mirrors due to the angle involved. To visualize the difference, let the mirrors begin their movement after the photon has been emitted but before the first absorption (i.e. the photon will "miss" the second mirror because it was not emitted at the proper angle).

When you ask for the mirrors to begin moving while the photon is somewhere between the mirrors, you are asking that the light clock undergo acceleration. Sure the photon could miss an accelerating mirror, but I do not see any reason to bring acceleration into this, considering the light speed postulate itself requires that the light clock must be time-dilated due to nothing more than relative motion at a uniform velocity. Simply start with a light clock stationary in an inertial frame, and the photon's path in that frame is vertical, like this | |. The photon will not miss the mirror, even though some other frame is moving relative to that frame and therefore records the light path as diagonal, like this / \ / \ / \. The photon does not miss the mirror, it simply takes longer to complete each cycle, hence time dilation.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

This is incredible: Two known cranks having a semi-coherent discussion.

Where is Farsight? Why not make this a triple?

"semi-coherent" in the sense of "perfectly clear while on a bad acid trip" maybe

 

[RJBeery]

Yes, that is what I thought you would have in your model. In SR, the time dilation differential would occur during the short perimeter turns to an even greater extent than your model, because it would have to make up for the time dilation that occurs during the straight segments of the journey. Your model simply dismisses any effects which might be incurred during the straight segments, due to not being "absolute". You assume the clock rates will be identical during the straight segments.

One important thing to remember here is that one way to settle all discussion about absolute effects on time dilation is to begin and end any experiment with the clocks co-located. To discuss what "really" happens is philosophical unless we do this (technically there are other ways, but they all involve acceleration), and that means that only my model is testable. Basically, the contention that velocity causes time dilation in some "real" sense is untestable which, ironically, would normally relegate a theory to being unscientific.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Do you two live on regurgitated bullshit, or is it just like McFast food? Eat it now for whatever reason, then barf it up and eat it again, like dogs?

God.

 

[Confused2]

One important thing to remember here is that one way to settle all discussion about absolute effects on time dilation is to begin and end any experiment with the clocks co-located.

Let's take a look at the Muon Experiment...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html

As a quick start...
The muons are created in the upper atmosphere and thereafter proceed at constant velocity.

Call the counter at 10km height A. Call the counter at ground level B.
The counters effectively give the time of flight of the muons (need help with this?).
When you are at counter A the muons are heading away from you.
When the muons head away from you at 0.98c it is found that time in their frame is 'dilated' by a factor of five.
When you are at counter B the muons are heading towards you.
When the muons head towards you at 0.98c it is found that time in their frame is 'dilated' by a factor of five.
Although not the same muon it can be seen that the time dilation factor is constant (approx 5) regardless of whether the muons are heading towards you or away from you. This has all the qualities of a 'round trip' involving 'going away' and 'coming back'. There is good confirmation of SR that does not involve acceleration.

 

[RJBeery]

Let's take a look at the Muon Experiment...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html

As a quick start...
The muons are created in the upper atmosphere and thereafter proceed at constant velocity.

Call the counter at 10km height A. Call the counter at ground level B.
The counters effectively give the time of flight of the muons (need help with this?).
When you are at counter A the muons are heading away from you.
When the muons head away from you at 0.98c it is found that time in their frame is 'dilated' by a factor of five.
When you are at counter B the muons are heading towards you.
When the muons head towards you at 0.98c it is found that time in their frame is 'dilated' by a factor of five.
Although not the same muon it can be seen that the time dilation factor is constant (approx 5) regardless of whether the muons are heading towards you or away from you. This has all the qualities of a 'round trip' involving 'going away' and 'coming back'. There is good confirmation of SR that does not involve acceleration.

Confused2, this is good! Let me think about it, I've always considered the muon experiment from the length contraction POV but you may be right. I'm leaving in the morning for Cancun so I may not respond until next weekend...