Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<seacnbEz3_QfUGL6nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 15:32:18 +0000 Subject: Re: Muon paradox Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity References: <d74079263e98ec581c4ccbdab5c5fa65@www.novabbs.com> <vsh92t$3mltr$1@dont-email.me> <vt97l2$3n9l0$1@tor.dont-email.me> <9sWdnW3IQO1JBGH6nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com> <NkGdnT39Jsn2t2D6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> <1rasspr.1a2oxj41rctw3bN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <jx-dnTdhirpDDmD6nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> <UFidnZ9t3fGDLmD6nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> <1ratxvh.q49unw1gjmfmvN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <mdqdnaFlNJWmPWP6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> <1rauo3y.51apl1020ikiN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <o5qcnW3m9qX_V2P6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> <1ravoen.1k68b4ansq1msN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 08:32:01 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1ravoen.1k68b4ansq1msN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <seacnbEz3_QfUGL6nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 178 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-KxdxhEhqvcfzUKB7+fs0QoNVcLcdXVtMo4Ix1SoC++ynd78SHDGUW565HSNv1mTe+WohOjbzUw7o3cB!s8Rn6RmWbnIIm5sun/F6thyaZvdSCk9twYCyKjjZljCPuV7tmNbrZ9yHZJ8gxWrnMUMb4mgJwPo= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 9482 On 04/16/2025 02:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 04/15/2025 12:34 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 04/15/2025 02:48 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 04/14/2025 04:01 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>> On 04/14/2025 12:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 04/13/2025 10:15 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/25 3:02 PM, Aether Regained wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> There is one flaw I find in the SR explanation, can you confirm if >>>>>>>>>>> it is >>>>>>>>>>> true: >>>>>>>>>>> What is really measured are these (the facts): >>>>>>>>>>> 1. The mean proper lifetime of a muon is t? = 2.2 ?s. >>>>>>>>>>> 2. muons are created at a height ~15 km >>>>>>>>>>> 3. The speed of the muons is ~c, so travel time is ~50.05 ?s >>>>>>>>>>> 4. muon flux measured on the Earth's surface is about 55.6% of >>>>>>>>>>> what it is at 15km. >>>>>>>>>>> From 1, 2 and 3, the expected muon flux on the Earth's >>>>>>>>>>> surface is: N/N? = exp(-t/t?) = exp(-50.05/2.2) = 1.32e-10 = >>>>>>>>>>> 0.0000000132% >>>>>>>>>>> The important point (the flaw) is that the speed of the muon has not >>>>>>>>>>> actually been measured to be 0.999668?c, but instead is computed. >>>>>>>>>>> N/N? = exp(-t/?t?) = .556 => ? = 38.8 => v = 0.999668?c >>>>>>>>>>> The SR explanation would have been more convincing, if the speed >>>>>>>>>>> had actually been measured to that many significant figures. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So consider other experiments that ARE "convincing" (in the sense >>>>>>>>>> you mean). In particular, Bailey et al. They put muons into a >>>>>>>>>> storage ring with a kinetic energy of 3.1 GeV. They measured the >>>>>>>>>> muons' kinetic energy, their momentum, their speed around the >>>>>>>>>> ring, and their rate of decay. All measurements are fully >>>>>>>>>> consistent with the predictions of SR. >>>>>>>>>> (They also measured the muon g-2, which was the primary purpose >>>>>>>>>> of the experiment; confirming SR was just a side issue.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bailey et al, Phys. Lett. B 55 (1975) 420-424 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There are literally hundreds of other experiments that confirm >>>>>>>>>> the validity of SR. Some measure "time dilation", and some >>>>>>>>>> measure other predictions of SR. To date, there is not a single >>>>>>>>>> reproducible experiment within SR's domain that is not consistent >>>>>>>>>> with the predictions of SR. There are so many such experiments >>>>>>>>>> that SR is one of the most solidly confirmed theories/models that >>>>>>>>>> we have today. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> BTW there are over 30,000 particle accelerators operating in the >>>>>>>>>> world today. SR was essential in the design of each of them, and >>>>>>>>>> they simply would not work if SR were not valid. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you truly want to "regain aether" you will have to come up >>>>>>>>>> with an aether theory that is indistinguishable from SR for EACH >>>>>>>>>> of those experiments. And be sure to make it consistent with the >>>>>>>>>> quantum nature of the universe we inhabit. To date, nobody has >>>>>>>>>> done so. AFAIK nobody even has an inkling how to start.... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Tom Roberts >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems that the "convolutive" gets involved, which usually is with >>>>>>>>> regards to lower-bound and upper-bound, except as with regards to >>>>>>>>> that the lower-bound is zero and the upper-bound is infinity, >>>>>>>>> about where the "natural unit" is an upper-bound, instead of >>>>>>>>> being the usual multiplicative and divisive identity. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The natural units have overloaded their roles, with regards to their >>>>>>>>> products, and their differences. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are talking complete nonsense here. >>>>>>>> Natural units are just another well-defined unit system, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Au contraire, classical velocities near zero are related >>>>>>> approximately linearly to light's speed c, yet those near >>>>>>> c have approximately infinite resistance to acceleration, >>>>>>> thus that in otherwise simple translations where acceleration's >>>>>>> drawn out an invariant, what "running constants" vanish or >>>>>>> diverge, obliterate the arithmetic and analytic character >>>>>>> of the expression of the quantity or its implicit placeholder >>>>>>> in the algebraic manipulations and derivations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Natural units for the normalizing and standardizing don't >>>>>>> have this feature, as it were, according to algebra, >>>>>>> the arithmetic and analysis. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can leave it in and observe this, since otherwise >>>>>>> there's a neat simple reasoning why mass-energy equivalency >>>>>>> makes as much a block to any change at all as Zeno, >>>>>>> having the features of both "1" and "infinity". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you even acknowledge that there are three ways to >>>>>>> arrive at "c" vis-a-vis the electrodynamics, electromagnetism >>>>>>> and the statics, and as with light's velocity, as for example >>>>>>> O.W. Richardson demonstrates in his 1916 'The Electron Theory >>>>>>> of Matter'? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A unit as "natural", i.e., to be replaceable with "1" its value, >>>>>>> can only be treated as a coefficient or a divisor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What now you don't allow comprehension of algebra either? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's in a, "system of units", see, all the units. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> How about all the infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration, >>>>>> and their units, how and where do they go? >>>>> >>>>> The system of all units of all physical quantities >>>>> must be a finite-dimensional algebra, >>>>> no matter what your unit system may be, >>>>> and how you choose to define relations between units, >>>>> >>>>> Jan >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> I read that as "finite-dimensional spaces and infinite-dimensional >>>> vector spaces are two different things". >>> >>> Your reading is irrelevant, and does not relate to what I wrote. >>> >>>> There's no arbitrary highest order of acceleration, i.e., >>>> any highest order derivative of position with respect to time, >>>> it's at least "unbounded", and greater than any "finite", >>>> and not less than "infinite". >>> >>> Has it really escaped your notice that finite dimensional algebras >>> have infinitely many elemens? >>> >>> Jan >>> >>> [snip irrelevancies] >>> >>> >> >> Not at all, neither that the classical units have infinitely-many >> higher orders, of "the" their dimension, thusly infinite-dimensionally. > > So your problem is that you don't understand an elementary term > such as 'finite dimensional algebra'. > > This is a structure that contains all elements of the form > [A_1]^{n_1} . [A_2]^{n_2} . ..... [A_k]^{n_k} > with a finite number of basic quantities [A_j] > > Systems of units are (by definition) finite-dimensional algebras. > They can accomodate units for infinitely many physical quantities > with a finite number of base units. > (like all those time derivatives for example) > ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========