It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: KrzYma
This post KrzYma basically shows me you have zero understanding of the things you call BS.
Smack an electron and positron into each other, you basically generate 2x511KeV in the detector if the electron and positron had zero energy.
However give the electron and positron something like 211MeV split between them and make them collide, you have enough energy to produce a muon and anti-muon pair. It is quite simple you know, general conservation of energy and momentum.
You know, coming down to it, it is not that difficult a concept.
And what direction is it falling? Gravity pulls it toward the center of the Earth, right? By definition such a force and the resulting acceleration is called "centripetal". If you're saying the dictionary definition of centripetal acceleration is wrong, that's kind of a pointless argument. If you're saying that gravity is not accelerating objects toward the center of the Earth, I don't know how you got that idea.
originally posted by: Nochzwei
Heck that quote of yours is all rubbish. Ever wonder why you feel the centrifugal force in a merry go round?
In orbit there is no centrifugal or centripetal force. As far as the spacecraft is concerned it is travelling in a straight line, only gravity makes it fall.
The radial component of the acceleration of a particle or object moving around a circle, which can be shown to be directed toward the center of the circle. (McGraw-Hill Science & Technology Dictionary)
originally posted by: Nochzwei
All celestial bodies move in a straight line as I explained above. there is no centrifugal or centripetal force acting on celestial bodies. That is why you can land a spacecraft on an asteroid. There you have learnt something new and you wont find it on wiki as source is me.
originally posted by: KrzYma
is there any experiment confirming muons charge and mass other than assumptions followed from a theory ??
originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe
The detectors in an accelerator can determine charge and mass. You need to know the particles mass and velocity plus the detectors magnetic field flux density and angle to the particle to determine charge. It's all standard stuff in a particle accelerator.
Assumptions and hypotheses are made in science all the time. They become accepted when backed up by experimental results.
originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: KrzYma
This post KrzYma basically shows me you have zero understanding of the things you call BS.
Smack an electron and positron into each other, you basically generate 2x511KeV in the detector if the electron and positron had zero energy.
However give the electron and positron something like 211MeV split between them and make them collide, you have enough energy to produce a muon and anti-muon pair. It is quite simple you know, general conservation of energy and momentum.
You know, coming down to it, it is not that difficult a concept.
originally posted by: KrzYma
originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe
The detectors in an accelerator can determine charge and mass. You need to know the particles mass and velocity plus the detectors magnetic field flux density and angle to the particle to determine charge. It's all standard stuff in a particle accelerator.
WOW..
so in case of muons...
if I assume it's charge has to be -1 than I get the mass... what if my assumption is wrong ?
if I assume it's mass to be 105.6583715(35) MeV/c, I can calculate the charge... what if my assumption is wrong ?
originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: EasyPleaseMe
Assumptions and hypotheses are made in science all the time. They become accepted when backed up by experimental results.
I assume than that muons mean lifetime of 2.2 microsecond is also assumed by calculations, or is there any muon observed being at rest ?
sorry, but other RELIGIONS are more intrinsic than particle science, they tell me they KNOW FOR SURE !
I can't tell you what Eros will say but I can tell you what Einstein said. This is not true, according to Einstein, who said this isn't the right way to think about it. Some professors have taught this concept contrary to Einstein's advice, but what Einstein said is to refer to the formula I posted the screenshot of above. On the right side of the equation, the first term is based on rest mass, and the second term is based on momentum, not relativistic mass. There is NO RELATIVISTIC MASS in that formula, only rest mass and momentum.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
my question to Eros, stands.
Is a muons mass, relativistic mass?
That is to say, An electron has a rest mass.
An electron accelerated to a significantly fast velocity, now has a greater mass.
originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe
You are the one making assumptions not experimental particle physicists. Science isn't based on assumptions.
I'm not sure why you seem determined to proclaim particle science a religion. You don't appear to know enough to make any judgement on its validity.
Questioning is good and healthy. Making rash assumptions isn't.
Muons were discovered by Carl D. Anderson and Seth Neddermeyer at Caltech in 1936, while studying cosmic radiation. Anderson had 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.
I'm not sure why you seem determined to proclaim particle science a religion.
originally posted by: KrzYma
if you don't understand reading a text, I highlight it for you, again !
you know what, I don't bother explaining it to you, you will not understand it anyway...
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: KrzYma
The old "science is a religion" gambit, frequently played by the credulous when their pet theories and magical beliefs aren't validated by observational experiment.