What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rate of decay when they move very fast?

if there were an internal clock it wouldn't care how fast it is moving
anyway. the clock moving along with the particle would show the same decay
time as any other clock moving along with a muon at any other speed. the
decay time change is as measured by an observer that has a clock in their
own frame moving at a different speed than the muon.

its all relative.

Post by Michael Levin
Sorry if this is a stupid question - I'm a biologist with an amateur
interest in physics. I was listening to an audio lecture by Richard Wolfson
and he was talking about the experiment where, due to relativistic effects,
the lifetime of muons is extended due to their rapid motion (0.9c or
something like that) and the resulting time dilation. He was making the
point that it isn't just clocks that are affected by time dilation, but
everything (time itself). I think I follow all this stuff so far. But he
keeps talking about "the muon's internal clock". I am sure this must be a
euphemism for something, but what? What's this internal clock? Does a muon
have internal components of some sort which decide when it's to decay? It
would seem that the relativistic explanation for what's going on models the
muon as a physical clock-like process (which can be slowed). But, what is
the relationship between quantum mechanics' assertion that decay is in
principle unpredictable (presumably meaning, not controlled by mechanistic
factors) and this effect where it would seem that some process counts time
for the muon? I hope my question makes sense; I'd like to know if anything
is known about how these two theories intersect in this case. Does the muon
have internal components which decide when to decay? If so, is it different
from "point" particles like electrons (and if yes, can the same sort of
relativistic experiment be done with them)? Any thoughts would be
appreciated!
--
Mike Levin

Rene Tschaggelar

2005-01-29 12:50:51 UTC

As none has been in there, there is only a mathematical
description and it is explained with potential
walls that can be tunneled with a certain probability,
meaning a mean decay time in its own time frame.

Similar to : how long can a paper bag hold when half
filled with water.

Rene

--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

r***@asu.edu

2005-01-29 14:03:19 UTC

Post by Rene Tschaggelar

Post by Michael Levin
Sorry if this is a stupid question - I'm a biologist with an

amateur

Post by Rene Tschaggelar

Post by Michael Levin
interest in physics. I was listening to an audio lecture by Richard Wolfson
and he was talking about the experiment where, due to relativistic effects,
the lifetime of muons is extended due to their rapid motion (0.9c or
something like that) and the resulting time dilation. He was making the
point that it isn't just clocks that are affected by time dilation, but
everything (time itself). I think I follow all this stuff so far. But he
keeps talking about "the muon's internal clock". I am sure this must be a
euphemism for something, but what? What's this internal clock?

As none has been in there, there is only a mathematical
description and it is explained with potential
walls that can be tunneled with a certain probability,
meaning a mean decay time in its own time frame.
Similar to : how long can a paper bag hold when half
filled with water.
Rene

Now that's an explanation the average biologist can take home!
Patrick

Gregory L. Hansen

2005-01-29 13:26:04 UTC

No internal parts. Yes, it's a euphemism for something with a time
dependence. Muons decay with some half-life, and when they go faster the
half-life (measured by the observer in his lab) gets longer.

--
"We don't grow up hearing stories around the camp fire anymore about
cultural figures. Instead we get them from books, TV or movies, so the
characters that today provide us a common language are corporate
creatures" -- Rebecca Tushnet

r***@asu.edu

2005-01-29 14:00:11 UTC

It is a euphemism and nobody knows for what. The answer would require a
special hypothesis or theory all its own. SR (special relativity)
provided no such thing itself.

Post by Michael Levin
What's this internal clock? Does a muon
have internal components of some sort which decide when it's to decay? It
would seem that the relativistic explanation for what's going on models the
muon as a physical clock-like process (which can be slowed).

Einstein's SR is a principle theory that never tried to provide
mechanical explanations per se for the behavior of physical systems.
However, that doesn't mean that people can't invent mechanical
explanations using SR as a constraint on the behavior of the mechanical
models.

Physics is all about the behavior of inanimate physical systems over
time. The muon behaves in accordance to the predictions of SR. That is
a lot to say for SR right there.

No one theory does everything. Long ago I learned to praise SR for what
it can do rather than curse it for what it cannot do.
Hope that helps.

Patrick

Androcles

2005-01-29 14:17:33 UTC

Post by Michael Levin
Sorry if this is a stupid question - I'm a biologist with an amateur
interest in physics. I was listening to an audio lecture by Richard Wolfson
and he was talking about the experiment where, due to relativistic effects,
the lifetime of muons is extended due to their rapid motion (0.9c or
something like that) and the resulting time dilation. He was making the
point that it isn't just clocks that are affected by time dilation, but
everything (time itself). I think I follow all this stuff so far. But he
keeps talking about "the muon's internal clock". I am sure this must be a
euphemism for something, but what? What's this internal clock? Does a muon
have internal components of some sort which decide when it's to decay? It
would seem that the relativistic explanation for what's going on models the
muon as a physical clock-like process (which can be slowed). But, what is
the relationship between quantum mechanics' assertion that decay is in
principle unpredictable (presumably meaning, not controlled by
mechanistic
factors) and this effect where it would seem that some process counts time
for the muon? I hope my question makes sense; I'd like to know if anything
is known about how these two theories intersect in this case. Does the muon
have internal components which decide when to decay? If so, is it different
from "point" particles like electrons (and if yes, can the same sort of
relativistic experiment be done with them)? Any thoughts would be
appreciated!
--
Mike Levin

The question makes sense, insofar as there is a question as to the
sanity of the proposer.
Here are the facts.
The muon has a perfecty normal half life, I know that you understand
that.
Now, from a statistical evaluation, too many muons travel too far within
the lifetime of the muon.
So what is going on?

Let's place a time bomb in a car set to blow the car to smithereens in 1
hour, and drive it for 1000 miles. If it goes the distance, we'd would
normally say that the car must have travelled at 1000 mph at least.

But now we place a limitation on the speed of the car, 500 mph, and it
still goes
the distance. The only [?] possible explanation is that time, for the
car, must have stretched, or "dilated". The timer of the bomb slowed,
because the speed of the car cannot exceed 500 mph. Not only that, but
the distance the car has to travel
is also greatly reduced, from the car's perspective.
So, if you have a theory that time dilates, you also have a theory that
the speed
of the car is limited to 500 mph.

So now you are faced with a fact.
The car travels 1000 miles without blowing up on the way.

And a theory: The car cannot exceed 500 mph.
This "proves" the theory [???].

Consider the circularity here.
We have already ascertained the speed of the muon to be less than c from
the Lorentz Transforms which produced the time dilation in the first
place.

Proof:

"Required: the motion of the point relatively to the system K. If with
the help of the equations of transformation developed in § 3 "
Reference http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The speed of the car was limited by two factors.
1) The theory said so.
2) Incredulity.

It is simply too incredible to believe that a car can travel at 1000
mph. Forget science. Forget the "car" has wings and is actually built
by Lockheed and not by Ford. Trust the theory.
Never mind that muons are much more light-like than they are
matter-like.
Nothing can go faster than light. The speed of the car is limited. So
there must be time dilation.

Here's how to work it out, with very simple numbers. I shall prove that
the speed
of mosquitoes is exactly 5 fps for everyone, and nothing can exceed the
speed of a mosquito. I shall of course use Einstein's method. Algebra is
a wonderful tool.

Much of this story is credited to Daryl McCullough, only the ladder
was added by me. It explains the origins of Einstein's Special
Relativity
for those having difficulty grasping the subject.

Sam and Joe are housepainters, and are walking along the street at 3 fps
in still air carrying a 32 ft long ladder between them, Joe leading the
way. Sam is carrying some paint cans and Joe has the brushes and
rollers.

At some point along their journey a mosquito name Albert buzzes past
Sam's
ear. Sam swats at it, but drops a can of red paint as he does so.

Albert flies along the ladder from Sam to Joe at a constant speed
of 5 fps. When it reaches Joe, Joe also swats at it, but drops a paint

roller. Albert, still hungry but not liking the smell of Joe's cigar,
flies back along the ladder toward Sam, again with a constant speed of
5 fps in the still air. Upon reaching Sam, once again Sam tries to swat
the
wee beastie but drops a can of green paint. He yells as the mosquito
bites
him and this startles Joe, who drops a paint brush.

Now it's your turn. I'll give the answers further down, but take a
moment
to do the calculations for yourself.

1) How many seconds did it take for Albert to fly from Sam to Joe?
2) How many seconds did it take for Albert to fly from Joe to Sam?
3) How far is it between the red paint can and the roller?
4) How far is it between the green paint can and the roller?

(Answers below)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Assume the speed of the mosquito is c = 5 fps.
The speed of Sam and Joe is v = 3 fps, given.

We then must have a distance along the road for Joe of
32ft + vt, and for the mosquito, a distance of ct.

Solving for t,
ct = 32 + vt
ct - vt = 32
t(c-v) = 32
t = 32 /(c-v) = 32/(5 - 3) = 16 seconds
So the answer to Q.1) is 16 seconds.

The mosquito coming back is going to meet Sam going forward,
so it flies along the 32 feet of the ladder in time
t = 32/(c+v) = 32/8 = 4 seconds.

The answer to Q.2) is therefore 4 seconds.

The distance from the dropped red paint can to the dropped roller
is just ct, or 5 * 16 = 80 feet, so the answer to Q.3) is 80 ft.
Or we could do it by vt + 32 = 3 * 16 + 32 = 80, once again.
(Remember Joe had a 32 ft head start over the mosquito)

Coming back, Albert again flies at 5 fps but this time
for only 4 seconds, so it reaches the green paint can 20 feet
from the roller, which is the answer to Q.4)

So, as Sam sees it, Albert takes 16 seconds to reach Joe, flying at
5-3 = 2 fps, and 4 seconds to return, flying along the ladder at
5+3 = 8 fps.

Now we think like Einstein with his mosquito brain. Sam wants to know
when the mosquito reached Joe.

He isn't able to see the mosquito, its too small at 32 feet away,
so he guesses that since it went 32 ft each way, and took 20 seconds to
fly
away and back again, it must have reached Joe after 10 seconds = 1/2 of
20.

So we explain it carefully. First we label the red paint can "A" and the
dropped roller "B". We write:

If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer called Sam at
the
red paint can determine the time values of events in the immediate
proximity of the red paint can by finding the positions of the hands
which
are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space
another clock in all respects resembling the one at the red paint can,
it
is possible for an observer Joe at the dropped roller to determine the
time
values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of the roller at B. But
it
is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of
time,
an event at the A with an event at the dropped roller. We have so far
defined only an "A time" and a "B time." We have not defined a common
"time" for the red paint can and the dropped roller, for the latter
cannot
be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time"
required by a mosquito to travel from the red paint can to the dropped
roller equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to the red paint
can,
A.

Now, we want to do this algebraically, because tomorrow Joe and Sam
might
be carrying a different length of ladder, and we want a general
solution.

So we write:
If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system
ladder
must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time.

What that means is the ladder's length is x', so that 32 = 80 - 3 *
16,
and doesn't change as time passes. Did you think it would? Well, we'll
have
to see. Maybe if we water it, it might grow.

According to Einstein, we are to assume the speed of the mosquito is
independent of the speed of Sam (which is fair enough) and also we are
to
assume that the time for the mosquito to make the round trip (20
seconds)
when divided by 2 is equal to the time it took to reach Joe, 16 seconds.

We don't know yet about the 16 seconds, we can only write it
algebraically
and pretend it is 10 seconds.
It is actually written as x'/(c-v) [or 32/(5-3) in real numbers].

Now we say:

From the origin of system ladder let a mosquito be emitted at the time
tau0
along the ladder to x' (the other end of the ladder), and at the time
tau1
be reflected thence (that just means go back) to the origin of the
co-ordinates (which we are deliberately vague about as to whether we
mean Sam on the ladder or the red paint can), arriving there at the time
tau2; we then
must have (don't you just love that phrase, "then must have" ?)

œ(tau0 + tau2) = tau1,
or œ([midmorning + 0] + [midmorning + 20]) = [midmorning + 16], which is
curious to say the least, since Sam and Joe could be doing this in the
late afternoon for all the difference it would make.
But ok, Einstein wanted to be complete, so I guess its fine.

But our hero and physics wizard isn't satisfied with this. Oh no, we
need
to include the length of the ladder as well, or we won't have any
spacetime
to prattle on about later so that people will see just how smart we are.

Here is Einstein's equation:
œ[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

You can read about it at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
(in Section 3)

Putting in the mosquito numbers,

œ[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+32/(5-3)+32/(5+3))] = tau(32,0,0,t+32/(5-3))
œ[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+20)] = tau(32,0,0,t+16)

In agreement with experience (gotta love that phrase!) clearly!
(0,0,0,t)
is pretty meaningless, and we can drop the "t+" since we really don't
care
if Sam and Joe are walking in the midmorning or late afternoon.

So,
œ * tau(0,0,0,20) = tau(32,0,0,16).

There's some differentiation by Einstein to make himself look smart and
important, he has to show off all his skills if not his common sense,
because "common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age
eighteen", he tells us, and he eventually arrives at

tau = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 )
xi = (x-vt) / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 )
eta = y
zeta = z.

That is what you get when you treat time as if it were a vector and mix
in
some distance.
We can forget y and z, the mosquito didn't fly up into a tree or into
the
ditch at the side.

We apply this to the equations derived:

tau = (16 - 3 * 80 / 25) / sqrt (1 - 3^2/5^2)
= (6.4) / 0.8
= 8 seconds

xi = 32 / sqrt (1 - 9 / 25)
= 40 feet

Sanity check:

c = 40 ft / 8 seconds = 5 fps. Yep, that's the right speed for Albert.

So...
We are standing at the roadside watching Sam and Joe carry a 40 ft
ladder
that they think is a 32 ft ladder, because the speed of mosquitoes is 5
fps
in all inertial frames of reference.

It must be right, its only algebra after all is said and done.

So now you should be able to fully understand Special Relativity, all
you need do is replace the speed of the mosquito with the speed of
light,
have Sam and Joe run at the relativistic speed of 0.6c, the algebra is
perfect, and who needs common sense anyway?

Just remember that 40 ft ladders shrink to 32 ft ladders when you run
with
them at 180,000 km/sec, and you'll be as smart as Einstein the cretin.

For myself, I'll keep the collection of prejudices I acquired by the
time I was eighteen.

Oh, wait. I said I'd prove that nothing can exceed the speed of a
mosquito.

Let's suppose a butterfly travels at speed w = 10 fps, racing the
mosquito
and getting to the other end of the ladder in half the time, 8 seconds.
From Einstein (reference above)

V = (c+w)/(1 + w/c)
= (5 +10) / (1 + 10/5)
= 15 / 3
= 5 fps.

So the butterfly can never exceed the speed of a mosquito, QED.
Simple really.
As with the muon, time stretches for the butterfly's internal clock.

tau = ( 8 - 10/25) / sqrt( 1 - 100 / 25)
= ( 8 - 0.4 ) / sqrt ( 1-4)
= 7.6 / i * 1.7321

Oh dear.... the internal clock has stretched out into the complex plane
:-)

Hmmm...
Let's try it this way.

tau = (t- vx/c^2) / sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2)

Since v = x/t, (80/8 in this case) then x = vt, so

tau = ( t - v * vt / c^2) / sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2)

= t (1 - v^2/c^2) / sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2)

= t * sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2)

= 8 * sqrt ( 1 - 100/25)

= 8 * i * 1.7321.....

Oh dear, we seem to be stuck with complex time... Never mind, let's
accept it
anyway, and work out the shrivelled length.

xi = 40 ft / i * 1.7321

Oh look, we've complex length as well. Still, the speed of the muon....
oops, butterfly, I should have said, is going to be xi/tau, and that
cancels the imaginary part to give 40/8 * i * 1.7321 / i * 1.7321 = 5
fps!! Yippee, we've "proven" the speed of the butterfly cannot exceed
the speed of the mosquito, even if it gets to the other end of the
ladder first.

Well, do carry on, any relativist will assure you it works, I'm sure.
80 ft did you say? what 80 ft?

With that in mind, now listen to the garbage the relativists will feed
you.

Remember that the analogue of the speed of light is the speed of the
mosquito,
the analogue of the muon is the butterfly, the analogue of Special
Relativity is the faeces of the male bovine and that Einstein was
anencephalous.

Have a good day.
Androcles

Dirk Van de moortel

2005-01-29 14:58:21 UTC

The question makes sense, insofar as there is a question as to the
sanity of the proposer.
Here are the facts.

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:users%2Epandora%2Ebe+androcles

Dirk Vdm

Franz Heymann

2005-01-29 16:19:42 UTC

Post by Michael Levin
Sorry if this is a stupid question - I'm a biologist with an

amateur

Post by Michael Levin
interest in physics. I was listening to an audio lecture by

Richard

Post by Michael Levin
Wolfson
and he was talking about the experiment where, due to relativistic effects,
the lifetime of muons is extended due to their rapid motion (0.9c or
something like that) and the resulting time dilation. He was

making

Post by Michael Levin
the
point that it isn't just clocks that are affected by time

dilation,

Post by Michael Levin
but
everything (time itself). I think I follow all this stuff so far.

But

Post by Michael Levin
he
keeps talking about "the muon's internal clock". I am sure this

must

Post by Michael Levin
be a
euphemism for something, but what? What's this internal clock?

Does a

Post by Michael Levin
muon
have internal components of some sort which decide when it's to

decay?

Post by Michael Levin
It
would seem that the relativistic explanation for what's going on models the
muon as a physical clock-like process (which can be slowed). But,

what

Post by Michael Levin
is
the relationship between quantum mechanics' assertion that decay is in
principle unpredictable (presumably meaning, not controlled by mechanistic
factors) and this effect where it would seem that some process

counts

Post by Michael Levin
time
for the muon? I hope my question makes sense; I'd like to know if anything
is known about how these two theories intersect in this case. Does

the

Post by Michael Levin
muon
have internal components which decide when to decay? If so, is it different
from "point" particles like electrons (and if yes, can the same

sort

Post by Michael Levin
of
relativistic experiment be done with them)? Any thoughts would be
appreciated!
--
Mike Levin

The question makes sense

Indeed, it is quite a sensible question.
However, Androclown's extremely lengthyreply was devoid of sense, so I
snipped it.

Franz

Uncle Al

2005-01-30 00:12:12 UTC

Androcles wrote:
[snip 450 lines of crap]

<http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be>
You are a spewing psychotic idiot troll.

You have overstayed your toleration. Your ISP will now be forwarded
each and every of your abusive posts with a request to terminate.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Androcles

2005-01-30 00:48:09 UTC

Post by Uncle Al
[snip 450 lines of crap]
<http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be>
You are a spewing psychotic idiot troll.
You have overstayed your toleration. Your ISP will now be forwarded
each and every of your abusive posts with a request to terminate.

ROFL!

Schwartz ("Uncle" Alice) gets his rocks off by following his
own standard procedure:

1) Snip and say "[snip crap]". (Schwartz doesn't actually read the
post.)
2) Insult to poster by saying "psychotic imbecile".

This, Schwartz finds thrilling.

Nobody else gives a damn, but Schwartz is happy.

The best way to deal with Schwartz is simply ignore the idiot,
but failing that, follow his own procedure, its all he'll ever
understand anyway.

Then you'll have a long thread of

[snip crap]
You are a psychotic imbecile.
[snip crap]
You are a psychotic imbecile.
[snip crap]
You are a psychotic imbecile.
[snip crap]
You are a psychotic imbecile.
[snip crap]
You are a psychotic imbecile.
[snip crap]
You are a psychotic imbecile.
[snip crap]
You are a psychotic imbecile.

ad infinitum ad nausem

This demonstrates that one of the two parties involved really IS
psychotic, and believe me, I've tested the theory, Schwartz WILL have
the last word.

Androcles.

Post by Uncle Al
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

jgreenfield@seol.net.au

2005-01-31 00:46:07 UTC

Andro
How do the "clocks" work, which are involved in muon and pion analysis?
I got a twitch when I read somewhere about them being "light
activated/operated". Obviously in a clock which only "ticked" when a
photon arrived, and had a built-in assumption that the photon ALWAYS
arrived at the same speed, would "prove to itself" that c=c+v
Jim G
c'=c+v

Uncle Al

2005-01-31 01:47:46 UTC

Post by ***@seol.net.au
Andro
How do the "clocks" work, which are involved in muon and pion analysis?

Statistical decay half-life.

Post by ***@seol.net.au
I got a twitch when I read somewhere about them being "light
activated/operated". Obviously in a clock which only "ticked" when a
photon arrived, and had a built-in assumption that the photon ALWAYS
arrived at the same speed, would "prove to itself" that c=c+v
Jim G
c'=c+v

Idiot.

Given any achievable velocities V1 and V2 and any finite lightspeed,
the bound on the relative velocities of V1 and V2 as viewed by any
inertial observer cannot exceed

(V1 + V2)/[1 +(V1)(V2)/c^2]

This is transformation of velocities parallel to the direction of
motion. For velocities at an arbitrary angle theta, Jackson gives

u_parallel = (u'_parallel + v)/(1+(v dot u')/c^2)
u_perp = u'_perp/(gamma_v(1+(v dot u')/c^2))

<http://www.physics.umanitoba.ca/~souther/waves02/feb0402/sld011.htm>

Relativistic doppler shift,
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-04/2-04.htm
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/reldop2.html
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~rfield/PHY2061/images/chp39_2.pdf

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Androcles

2005-01-31 04:55:28 UTC

Post by Uncle Al

Post by ***@seol.net.au
Andro
How do the "clocks" work, which are involved in muon and pion
analysis?

Statistical decay half-life.

Bullshit. Learn mathematics.

Nothing can exceed 5 fps, because if it travels at 10 fps,
(5+10) / (1+ 10/5)
= 15/3 = 5 fps/
You are a fucking raving lunatic, Auntie Alice.
Androcles.

Eric Gisse

2005-01-31 08:47:49 UTC

Androcles wrote:

[snip]

Post by Androcles
You are a fucking raving lunatic, Auntie Alice.
Androcles.

Look in the mirror. You respond to every post Uncle Al makes with an
increasingly insane retort whether or not he is talking to you. Every
reply to him that you make is full of spite and hatred towards him,
even when the reply he makes to the original poster is fully justified.

Franz Heymann

2005-01-31 15:32:51 UTC

Post by Franz Heymann
[snip]

Post by Androcles
You are a fucking raving lunatic, Auntie Alice.
Androcles.

justified.

Hello Eric,
Surely you know by now that that is the way Androclown acknowledges
that UA has beaten him in some argument some time. It must have been
a real thrashing, judging by the number of times Androclown has
repeated the acknowledgement

Franz

Eric Gisse

2005-01-31 15:48:50 UTC

Post by Franz Heymann
[snip]

Post by Androcles
You are a fucking raving lunatic, Auntie Alice.
Androcles.

Look in the mirror. You respond to every post Uncle Al makes with an
increasingly insane retort whether or not he is talking to you.

Every

Post by Franz Heymann
reply to him that you make is full of spite and hatred towards him,
even when the reply he makes to the original poster is fully

justified.
Hello Eric,
Surely you know by now that that is the way Androclown acknowledges
that UA has beaten him in some argument some time. It must have been
a real thrashing, judging by the number of times Androclown has
repeated the acknowledgement
Franz

Hi Franz. Enjoying sci.physics again, I see! :D

I wonder what Al did that set Androcles off...sci.physics is so
entertaining sometimes.

In any case, it was worth a shot. All I can do is poke him with a stick
and enjoy the responses.

Franz Heymann

2005-01-31 21:39:52 UTC

Post by Franz Heymann
[snip]

Post by Androcles
You are a fucking raving lunatic, Auntie Alice.
Androcles.

Look in the mirror. You respond to every post Uncle Al makes

with

Post by Eric Gisse
an

Post by Franz Heymann
increasingly insane retort whether or not he is talking to you.

Every

Post by Franz Heymann
reply to him that you make is full of spite and hatred towards him,
even when the reply he makes to the original poster is fully

justified.
Hello Eric,
Surely you know by now that that is the way Androclown

acknowledges

Post by Eric Gisse
that UA has beaten him in some argument some time. It must have been
a real thrashing, judging by the number of times Androclown has
repeated the acknowledgement
Franz

Hi Franz. Enjoying sci.physics again, I see! :D

Hello Eric,
Part enjoyment, part sadness at seeing the extent to which sci.physics
has been invaded by the kooks.

Post by Eric Gisse
I wonder what Al did that set Androcles off...sci.physics is so
entertaining sometimes.
In any case, it was worth a shot. All I can do is poke him with a stick
and enjoy the responses.

That was what he was created for, so do continue and enjoy it.

Franz

Androcles

2005-01-31 03:46:02 UTC

Post by ***@seol.net.au
Andro
How do the "clocks" work, which are involved in muon and pion
analysis?

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/applications/phototubes.html
http://cosray2.wustl.edu/tiger/science/instrument/scintillator/

It's not easy to get the same particle to trigger two detectors a
measured
distance apart, the first problem is going to be the detector slowing
the particle,
and the second problem is a very human one. If detector A fires first
and detector B fires second but early, indicating the particle travelled
faster than c, then it MUST have been a different particle that
triggered B, because physicists KNOW that it can't happen. So, hook the
detectors up to a computer and program it ignore anything that triggers
too early. Then you have millions of data items to prove that nothing
goes faster than c.

Androcles

jgreenfield@seol.net.au

2005-01-31 09:38:44 UTC

Post by ***@seol.net.au
Andro
How do the "clocks" work, which are involved in muon and pion analysis?

travelled

Post by Androcles
faster than c, then it MUST have been a different particle that
triggered B, because physicists KNOW that it can't happen. So, hook the
detectors up to a computer and program it ignore anything that

triggers

Post by Androcles
too early. Then you have millions of data items to prove that nothing
goes faster than c.
Androcles

More "outs" than a beehive!
I for one, will never fall for the idea that the time of an event is
when you see it!

Sooner or later someone will see a cosmic trail at point A through a
telescope at time A1, and another B will view the SAME trail a distance
away at time B1, the calculation of which will show the ray (particle)
going A, B at >c

Jim G
c'=c+v

Androcles

2005-01-31 13:12:22 UTC

Post by ***@seol.net.au
Andro
How do the "clocks" work, which are involved in muon and pion analysis?

travelled

Post by Androcles
faster than c, then it MUST have been a different particle that
triggered B, because physicists KNOW that it can't happen. So, hook

the

Post by Androcles
detectors up to a computer and program it ignore anything that

triggers

Post by Androcles
too early. Then you have millions of data items to prove that nothing
goes faster than c.
Androcles

More "outs" than a beehive!
I for one, will never fall for the idea that the time of an event is
when you see it!
Sooner or later someone will see a cosmic trail at point A through a
telescope at time A1, and another B will view the SAME trail a
distance
away at time B1, the calculation of which will show the ray (particle)
going A, B at >c

What, like this, you mean?
http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/ap041117.html

Androcles

Post by Androcles
Jim G
c'=c+v

Post by ***@seol.net.au
I got a twitch when I read somewhere about them being "light
activated/operated". Obviously in a clock which only "ticked" when

Post by ***@seol.net.au
photon arrived, and had a built-in assumption that the photon

ALWAYS

Post by ***@seol.net.au
arrived at the same speed, would "prove to itself" that c=c+v
Jim G
c'=c+v

Sam Wormley

2005-01-31 14:36:50 UTC

Post by ***@seol.net.au
I for one, will never fall for the idea that the time of an event is
when you see it!

If Greenfield and I are separated by, say, ten feet... He won't see
me as I am now, but as I was 10 ns ago. When he looks at the Moon he
sees it as it was more than a second ago. He see the Sun as it was eight
minutes ago. If the Sun blew up, he wouldn't know it for eight minutes.
And when he goes out into the country side, far away from city lights, and
looks at the faint smudge of light that is the Andromeda Galaxy, he doesn't
see that galaxy as it is now, but as it was 2.3 million years ago.

Astronomer Sandy Faber points out:

"These giant telescopes, they are the only true time machines
that human beings have and they are totally faithful. There's
nothing hokey about this. You look through a giant telescope, you
get a view of a very distant region of space, and it is as though
you were a historian and could put your eye to a telescope and
actually see Hannibal crossing the Alps and all those elephants
trotting along. We are actually seeing the Universe and the
things in it behaving as they did billions of years ago".

The deeper into space we peer, the farther back in time we
venture. This notion that we can study the history of the cosmos
is less than a century old.

Franz Heymann

2005-01-31 12:03:12 UTC

Post by ***@seol.net.au
Andro
How do the "clocks" work, which are involved in muon and pion analysis?

It is in fact a piece of cake.
In a typical counter experiment, a charged particle might in fact
trigger half a dozen or more counters.

Post by Androcles
distance apart, the first problem is going to be the detector

slowing

Post by Androcles
the particle,

Do you think a 200 GeV particle will notice losing a few 100 KeV in
pasing through a scintillator?

Post by Androcles
and the second problem is a very human one. If detector A fires first
and detector B fires second but early, indicating the particle

travelled

triggers

Post by Androcles
too early. Then you have millions of data items to prove that

nothing

Post by Androcles
goes faster than c.

Your understanding of how physicists set up and synchronise counters
is cracked, to say the least.
Has it not occurred to you that counters are always timed in pairwise
during the setting-up runs by varying the relative timings in steps of
typically 0.5 nS in order to determine the time window during which
the desired particles appear, by drawing the counting rate as a
function of relative timing?

Franz

Franz Heymann

2005-01-31 12:03:08 UTC

Post by ***@seol.net.au
Andro
How do the "clocks" work, which are involved in muon and pion

analysis?

Post by ***@seol.net.au
I got a twitch when I read somewhere about them being "light
activated/operated".

So yu should, because that's crap.

[snip]

Franz

Tom Roberts

2005-01-29 15:36:08 UTC

Post by Michael Levin
due to relativistic effects,
the lifetime of muons is extended due to their rapid motion (0.9c or
something like that) and the resulting time dilation. He was making the
point that it isn't just clocks that are affected by time dilation, but
everything (time itself). [...] What's this internal clock? Does a muon
have internal components of some sort which decide when it's to decay?

The standard model of particle physics is the currently-accepted theory
of the interactions of elementary particles; it accurately describes
about 99% of what we know about particle interactions. The standard
model is a quantum-mechanical gauge theory of strong, weak, and
electromagnetic interactions.

The muon decay is (essentially 100% of the time):
mu- => e- + nu_ebar + nu_mu
In the standard model there are several Feynman diagrams that contribute
to this process, involving the weak intermediate bosons. Those bosons
have masses about 800 times that of a muon and about 150,000 times the
mass of an electron. The incredibly slow rate of muon decay is basically
due tho this large disparity in these masses ("incredibly slow" is about
2.2 microseconds).

The "clock" involved in muon decay is related to the various parameters
of those Feynman diagrams, including their coupling constants, masses,
and the resulting phase space for the decay. As the underlying theory is
Lorentz invariant, the decay lifetime of moving muons behaves according
to the usual time dilation of SR.

Post by Michael Levin
what is
the relationship between quantum mechanics' assertion that decay is in
principle unpredictable (presumably meaning, not controlled by mechanistic
factors) and this effect where it would seem that some process counts time
for the muon?

The underlying process is stochastic. That is, its rate is determined by
the amplitude computed from the Feynman diagrams, but the amplitude for
the process only determines a probability of decaying.

Post by Michael Levin
Does the muon
have internal components which decide when to decay?

Yes and no. This is a quantum theory, and the number of "internal
components" present is not well defined. Basically, most of the time
(>>99%) there is just a muon present, but there is nonzero probability
of other particles being present -- these are virtual particles. Decay
occurs when these virtual particles happen to emerge in such a way that
permits them to propagate macroscopic distances (called "on mass shell")
-- for muon decay there is only a very tiny probability of this happening.

Post by Michael Levin
If so, is it different
from "point" particles like electrons

Electrons are stable, meaning there is no set of particles into which
they are allowed to decay. All less massive particles have zero charge,
but the electron is charged; conservation of charge prevents this decay
(as do several more subtle conservation rules).

Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com

Franz Heymann

2005-01-29 16:19:41 UTC

It is just a colloquial way of saying that, in gthe frame in which the
clock is stationary, the probability per unit time of decaying is a
constant, the reciprocal of which we refer to as the mean life of a
muon.

What's this internal clock? Does a muon

Post by Michael Levin
have internal components of some sort which decide when it's to decay? It
would seem that the relativistic explanation for what's going on models the
muon as a physical clock-like process (which can be slowed). But, what is
the relationship between quantum mechanics' assertion that decay is in
principle unpredictable (presumably meaning, not controlled by

mechanistic

Post by Michael Levin
factors) and this effect where it would seem that some process

counts time

Post by Michael Levin
for the muon? I hope my question makes sense; I'd like to know if anything
is known about how these two theories intersect in this case. Does the muon
have internal components which decide when to decay?

No, except insofar as the deacy probability per unit time remains
constant.

Post by Michael Levin
If so, is it different
from "point" particles like electrons (and if yes, can the same sort of
relativistic experiment be done with them)? Any thoughts would be
appreciated!

The muon is also a point particle.
And the electron never decays.

Franz

2005-01-29 16:36:09 UTC

mechanistic

Post by Michael Levin
factors) and this effect where it would seem that some process counts time
for the muon? I hope my question makes sense; I'd like to know if anything
is known about how these two theories intersect in this case. Does the muon
have internal components which decide when to decay? If so, is it different
from "point" particles like electrons (and if yes, can the same sort of
relativistic experiment be done with them)? Any thoughts would be
appreciated!
--
Mike Levin

Simply addressing the point as to whether the time dilation is real (as
viewed in a frame where the particle is moving), note that g-2
experiments store muons in storage rings (where they precess). Thus,
both the speed of the muons is known (the muon bunches would proceed
from station to station on the ring at a rate that is measurable), and
the lifetime in the laboratory is known (by the decay rate from the
population dN/dt). Thus the time dilation in this case is NOT simply
inferred by the distance traveled.

PD

Tom Capizzi

2005-01-29 17:49:54 UTC