Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Arbitrageur

While researching Hyperboles question, I read about time dilation experiments using the muon at the LHC.
The description I found from Wikipedia was:

Theory

The emergence of the muons is caused by the collision of cosmic rays with the upper atmosphere, after which the muons reach Earth. The probability that muons can reach the Earth depends on their half-life, which itself is modified by the relativistic corrections of two quantities: a) the mean lifetime of muons and b) the length between the upper and lower atmosphere (at Earth's surface).This allows for a direct application of length contraction upon the atmosphere at rest in inertial frame S, and time dilation upon the muons at rest in S′.[1][2] Time dilation and length contraction Length of the atmosphere: The contraction formula is given by [displaystyle L=L_[0]/gamma ] L=L_[0]/gamma, where L0 is the proper length of the atmosphere and L its contracted length. As the atmosphere is at rest in S, we have γ=1 and its proper Length L0 is measured. As it is in motion in S′, we have γ>1 and its contracted length L′ is measured. Decay time of muons: The time dilation formula is [displaystyle T=gamma T_[0]] [displaystyle T=gamma T_[0]], where T0 is the proper time of a clock comoving with the muon, corresponding with the mean decay time of the muon in its proper frame. As the muon is at rest in S′, we have γ=1 and its proper time T′0 is measured. As it is moving in S, we have γ>1, therefore its proper time is shorter with respect to time T. (For comparison's sake, another muon at rest on Earth can be considered, called muon-S. Therefore, its decay time in S is shorter than that of muon-S′, while it is longer in S′.) In S, muon-S′ has a longer decay time than muon-S.

Therefore, muon-S' has sufficient time to pass the proper length of the atmosphere in order to reach Earth. In S′, muon-S has a longer decay time than muon-S′. But this is no problem, since the atmosphere is contracted with respect to its proper length. Therefore, even the faster decay time of muon-S′ suffices in order to be passed by the moving atmosphere and to be reached by Earth.

I don't understand why the half life of the muon is a factor. As the muon decays, I assume that other particles are formed but some muons will remain in tact and reach the Earth. The muons that reach the Earth are the only ones that count in this experiment (I think). Need a few good links to understand how this works. Thanks

en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks, tho I was after what starts the fission and fusion process and is time a factor in starting the release of neutrons in fission and when the molecules begin to fuse in fusion. It seems to me time has to play a role
a reply to: Phantom423

originally posted by: Phantom423
I don't understand why the half life of the muon is a factor. As the muon decays, I assume that other particles are formed but some muons will remain in tact and reach the Earth.

I don't know if this will answer your question, but the half life of the muon is so short that it should be impossible to detect those entering the atmosphere, at the surface of the Earth, if the relativity deniers were correct. That's why this video is called "Impossible Muons", but of course many observations seem to validate relativity including muon observations, so it's only because of relativistic effects that they can be detected. The relativistic effects differ depending on whether you are an observer on earth's surface, or whether you look at things from the perspective of the muon, as explained in the video. Lorentz transformations allow us to re-calculate relativistic effects in different reference frames, so from that perspective they are not really different in the overall picture of things, just two different observer's perceptions of the same event.

"Impossible Muons"

originally posted by: Phantom423
Time is an independent variable. The reaction time is dependent on the neutron (I think). If we were observing the same reaction in a distant galaxy, it would appear to be slower due to time dilation.

If time played a part in the reaction (faster/slower), then you would have to be able to control time which, to my knowledge, is not possible.

It is interesting that NIST now has such accurate clocks, they can lower a clock half a meter and tell it runs slower at the lower elevation.

It's not controlling time, so much as controlling the position of the clock within a gravitational field, which may be the closest we can get to controlling time (or using the equivalence principle, relative velocity can achieve time dilation as well, which NIST has demonstrated by moving the clock in their lab).

a reply to: Hyperboles

I'm still not sure what you're after here. How the chain reaction starts depends on the specific design of the device and there are different designs.

a reply to: Phantom423

I don't understand why the half life of the muon is a factor. As the muon decays, I assume that other particles are formed but some muons will remain in tact and reach the Earth. The muons that reach the Earth are the only ones that count in this experiment (I think). Need a few good links to understand how this works. Thanks

don't try to understand it, it's a made up "thing" needed for the other theory..
there is no muon

look...

The muon is an elementary particle similar to the electron, with an electric charge of −1 e and a spin of 1/2, but with a much greater mass. It is classified as a lepton. As is the case with other leptons, the muon is not believed to have any sub-structure—that is, it is not thought to be composed of any simpler particles.

... it's what they say..

let's look at the history how they were made up...

Muons were discovered by Carl D. Anderson and Seth Neddermeyer at Caltech in 1936, while studying cosmic radiation. Anderson noticed particles that curved differently from electrons and other known particles when passed through a magnetic field. They were negatively charged but curved less sharply than electrons, but more sharply than protons, for particles of the same velocity. It was assumed that the magnitude of their negative electric charge was equal to that of the electron, and so to account for the difference in curvature, it was supposed that their mass was greater than an electron but smaller than a proton. Thus Anderson initially called the new particle a mesotron, adopting the prefix meso- from the Greek word for "mid-". The existence of the muon was confirmed in 1937 by J. C. Street and E. C. Stevenson's cloud chamber experiment.

well, not discovered but made up.

there is no holding definition for mass, or energy, those are just terms...

on the other hand... if you watch a cloud chamber, you see something, but there is no way to really tell what it is..
all assumptions...
even the trajectory of any particle in the cloud chamber could be anything interacting with anything, you can't tell what it was as you can not take what you see in the chamber and do something to it to "measure" what it is... what you measure is the condensation of the gas in the chamber... not that what caused it !

all comes from math,
an proton "suppose" to "give" a certain trajectory,
an electron "suppose" to "give" a certain trajectory,
an muon was a different trajectory so they made a new name for it..

the point is... all that entries the clod chamber, interacts with it's boundary before entering the cloud chamber..
the assumption, what you see in the chamber is what comes from outside is "just an assumption"

nobody ever "measured" the so called muons anywhere else but on earth and at LHC,

LHC is making a lot "of noise".... bubbles in EM and they think it's new particles

the funny thing is.. they tell you, muons decay at a certain rate... so you should not detect them on earth, because they should decay before they reach the earth, but you can detect them, so this is the "proof" for einsteins time delay...
WTF ???
this is a proof of nothing!

the thing we see is what we see.

if your theory says it "lives" for 2.2 μs and you see it after 1s, the theory is wrong, so simple...
don't transfer "superpowers" to a theory to make it working...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

the muon is so short that it should be impossible to detect those entering the atmosphere, at the surface of the Earth, if the relativity deniers were correct.

You can be a relativity denier and still accept time dilation. The Lorentz transformation was derived by Lorentz in 1904, prior to Einstein's relativity theory, and it included Larmor time dilation. The difference between Lorentz and Einstein is primarily interpretational, although the EPR argument does, with a realist assumption, allow for experimental differences. The Lorentz view kept classical notions of space and time, involved a preferred frame, and had ad hoc proposals for time dilation and length contraction. Einstein replaced all that with two postulates, at the expense of replacing the classical space and time with relativistic space-time while also abandoning absolute simultaneity. But the math is identical - it is the Lorentz transformation. One key difference is that the Lorentz interpretation allows for instantaneous collapse of spatially finite wave functions, something relativity forbids. But the muon lifetime calculations are in complete agreement in the two theories.

a reply to: delbertlarson
By "relativity denier" I mean someone who denies that observations are consistent with relativity. People like hyperboles for example.

If someone agrees that observations are consistent with relativity, but suggests an alternative explanation, like LET of Lorentz Ether Theory, maybe you would refer to them as relativity deniers but I would prefer to refer to their views as Lorenztian or "neo-Lorentzian".

One key difference is that the Lorentz interpretation allows for instantaneous collapse of spatially finite wave functions, something relativity forbids.

I'm not so sure relativity forbids that, does relativity even discuss wave functions? See this paper:

How the instant collapse of a spatially-extended quantum state is consistent with relativity of simultaneity

A thought experiment is considered on observation of instantaneous collapse of an extended wave packet. According to relativity of simultaneity, such a collapse being instantaneous in some reference frame must be a lasting process in other frames. But according to quantum mechanics, collapse is instantaneous in any frame. Mathematical structure of quantum mechanics eliminates any contradictions between these two apparently conflicting statements. Here the invariance of quantum-mechanical collapse is shown to follow directly from the Born postulate, without any use of mathematical properties of quantum operators. The consistency of quantum mechanics with Relativity is also shown for instant disentanglement of a composite system.

Describing any one design for the 2 devices would suffice, in knowing what mechanism time imparts in starting of the 2 processes
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Shh! What we see is all due to god Einstein
a reply to: KrzYma

Till to date there have been no observations consistent with GR and SR, only wrongly and deliberately, interpreted to be so
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks Arbitraguer. From the link:

I suspected that the linked paper must simply be wrong. The matter of EPR and Bell's Theorem has been around too long for someone to simply say all is OK. However, the assumption of error without study is what almost everyone does with my work, and if we are to be real scientists we must explore all points of view. So I read a bit of the work and found this:

Fortunately for QM, the electron's initial "omnipresence", albeit a real physical characteristic, is more subtle than directly measurable observables. The probability is not steam – its fluctuations are not immediately detectable unless it jumps to 1 at some location. This allows the collapse to be instantaneous in all frames and yet be consistent with SR

The above quote shows the author's error. Of course we can just say "nothing to see here, move along please". But the whole point of EPR is that if we consider the underlying wave to be real, it is indeed just like other real thing such as "steam". The author next makes the philosophical point that no observable event happens during a collapse in the regions of non-collapse, and the only real thing is what happens at the point of collapse, and so everything is OK. But when you take that point of view, then what is causing things to have wave-like characteristics including interference in the two slit experiment? Something must exist in those two slits, if we are to be realists. So I believe the paper is unimportant. As you know, I believe we need to return to Lorentz. (Although I question whether the length contraction exists.)

Unfortunately I got totally swamped with work back in December and remain so. I hope things clear up and that I can return here. I do read the posts, but writing takes more time. What little free time I have is spent on my aether model, which continues to get close, I think. But until it is done I never know how long it will take.

Good luck for your model, but is time factored in somewhere in it. Just wondering
a reply to: delbertlarson

See a few muons a day deep underground here, pretty clear they are not electrons, not only that but also neutrinos, the signals are pretty distinct but hey, no worries right....

Pretty amusing to me when someone who clearly has no idea at all about the evidence present in particle physics starts to dictate what it is and isn't.

Oh well... Love to know what exactly it is that we see 2km underground that produce lovely cherenkov cones in our detector... predominantly downward facing.

for the amount of 'noise' being claimed there is a hell of a lot of unique topology.

Lol, its time to build an LHC in the far east, china or phillipines come to mind

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Describing any one design for the 2 devices would suffice, in knowing what mechanism time imparts in starting of the 2 processes
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I can't make sense out of this "time imparts" part of your question. As Phantom said time in a typical example in a given reference frame is an independent variable.

So let's say you're on one side of the room, and you want to get to the other side of the room. If you walk at 1 kph you'll get there in a given time depending on how big the room is. If you double your speed you'll get there in half the time, but time is passing at the same rate in both cases. It's your speed that varies, and the higher the speed the shorter the elapsed time but I see the elapsed time as a "result" or "outcome" of the event, not as "imparting" anything to the process other than just passing at a given rate for the given reference frame.

So I can't say what time imparts if I don't understand what that means, but the the various mechanisms have a common goal, to make a sub-critical mass into a super-critical mass. One design takes two sub-critical masses, neither of which can sustain a chain reaction on their own, and joins them together. The "Little Boy" design used a "gun" or I'd call it a small cannon to fire a sub-critical projectile mass at a sub-critical target mass, and once they join together in the impact, they then have sufficient mass to become supercritical, and the chain reaction that Phantom described begins once they are joined.

Like the example of walking across the room where speed was a factor, speed is also a factor in firing the projectile. If it moves too slowly, then some criticality can result before the two masses are fully joined, and you could get a partial explosion or a "fizzle" which separates the two masses by a very small explosion. That's not what bomb designers want, so it needs to be going fast enough to join the masses as fully as possible before any such "fizzle" has a chance to separate the masses.

a reply to: delbertlarson
I think the ontological question is deeper. The Copenhagen interpretation posits a collapse, but the point made by Sean Carrol in the OP video is that physicists who have given thought to which interpretation of QM is correct like him may still not know the correct interpretation among the options, but he says that the Copenhagen seems to him and other physicists who have really thought about it to be the least likely interpretation to be true. Half the other interpretations listed in this table don't even have a collapse, and if there's no collapse then the question of how relativity deals with collapse doesn't seem relevant.



So from my perspective, to "put the horse before the cart" so to speak, it seems like we need to know if there is a collapse or not. If there is a collapse then other theories like relativity must be able to deal with it but if there isn't a collapse, then relativity (or any alternative theory) has something else to deal with besides a collapse.

a reply to: ErosA433
I think Dunning and Kruger can explain it.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Lol, its time to build an LHC in the far east, china or phillipines come to mind

Inside the plans for Chinese mega-collider that will dwarf the LHC
If built, it would collide electrons and positrons giving cleaner results than the proton-proton collisions at the LHC, but I don't know if it will be built or not. The LHC is pretty big, so something that will dwarf it must have a mind-boggling size. I don't think we will see such a thing in the Philippines in the foreseeable future.

speed of compression = impact loading = gravity++ of core = time compression , wouldn't it?
I think at fermilab they were doing electron positron also at LHC they were doing both
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Hyperboles
speed of compression = impact loading = gravity++ of core = time compression , wouldn't it?
I think at fermilab they were doing electron positron also at LHC they were doing both
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Let's try a unit analysis:
"speed of compression = impact loading = gravity++ of core = time compression , wouldn't it?"
Your dimensional homogeneity is as bad as that of your anti-relativity hero, Savvy; bad enough to make me think you're the same person. Or did you get those equations from the turbo encabulator documentation?

It would have been impossible to detect the Higgs boson at LHC using electron-positron collisions, they used proton-proton collisions for that. There was a facility in that 27 km CERN tunnel before the LHC that collided electrons and positrons (the LEP), but it was dismantled around 2001 to make way for the LHC. The LEP energies were tiny compared to the LHC (way too small to make a Higgs boson) or the proposed collider in China. The larger CEPC accelerator proposed for China would be able to detect the Higgs with electron-positron collisions, resulting in cleaner collisions than the proton-proton collisions created.

Inside the plans for Chinese mega-collider that will dwarf the LHC

The CEPC will produce Higgs bosons by smashing together electrons and their antimatter counterparts, positrons. Because these are fundamental particles, their collisions are cleaner and easier to decipher than the LHC’s proton–proton collisions, so once the Chinese facility opens, in about 2030, it will allow physicists to study the mysterious particle and its decay in exquisite detail.

Lol, common sense replace = with ->
isn't LHC conducting proton/ anti proton collisions
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Hyperboles

LHC is proton - proton collisions

a reply to: Hyperboles
The old Tevatron collided protons and anti-protons at lower energies than the LHC, where there are some advantages to using anti-protons to collide with protons, but my understanding is that at the higher energies of the LHC those advantages disappear and are outweighed by the disadvantages which is why the LHC used proton-proton collisions instead.

Another advantage of designing the LHC as a collider of positive ions is that it can also collide heavy ions, like lead nuclei. If it was designed to collide positive ions with negative ions, I don't think many heavy ion collisions would be possible since I don't think we can make negatively charged lead nucleii populated with anti-protons.

Ah ok, thanks for the info. What would be the advantage of colliding heavy nuclei?
a reply to: Arbitrageur