Science > Physics > What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Michael Levin" |
| Date: |
29 Jan 2005 05:15:33 AM |
| Object: |
What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
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
mlevin77@comcast.net
.
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
29 Jan 2005 10:19:41 AM |
|
|
"Michael Levin" <mlevin77@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE20DA85.1F1E2%mlevin77@comcast.net...
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?
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
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?
No, except insofar as the deacy probability per unit time remains
constant.
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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Park" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
31 Jan 2005 07:53:50 AM |
|
|
"Michael Levin" <mlevin77@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE20DA85.1F1E2%mlevin77@comcast.net...
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
mlevin77@comcast.net
I have to try my hand at answering this question.
In biology we can say that it is the DNA and the associated translational
mechanisms that give the cells their properties and behaviors. If a cell
loses its DNA it no longer behaves as a living cell.
We might be inclined to use analogous reasoning in relativity and think that
there is some mechanism in particles, atoms or pieces of matter that enforce
the results of relativity. This was the view of H.A. Lorentz who postulated
that their was some mechanism that caused atoms to compress in the direction
of motion through the ether. But, although Lorentz worked out some of the
essential mathematics, it is Einstein who gets the credit for the theory.
There is nothing in particles, atoms or matter that 'causes' special
relativity. Special relativity is really the geometry of flat spacetime.
Flat Spacetime has a geometry that is different than Euclidean geometry and
it is not caused by the particles that might be moving through it. It is a
geometry that is intrinsic to spacetime itself. That is what Einstein saw
and that is one reason he is famous.
Time dilation and the muon effect is one of the theorems or results that
comes out of spacetime geometry. I'm not going to try to present spacetime
geometry here, or derive time dilation here. It's not horribly difficult to
learn. Time dilation means that moving clocks are seen to run slower than
stationary clocks. But there is nothing different about the clocks, or any
mechanism within the clocks that makes them run slower. It is just a result
of spacetime geometry.
In ordinary Eucliden geometry we have the Pythagorean theorem. But we don't
think that if we looked at the points and lines in a geometrical diagram
closely enough through a microscope we would see a mechanism that 'caused'
the Pythagorean theorem to be true. It is just a result of the axioms of the
geometry. In the same way spacetime geometry has its postulates, which are
well verified by experiment, and time dilation is one of the results.
Geometry not mechanism.
David Park
djmp@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~djmp/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
31 Jan 2005 09:44:45 AM |
|
|
"David Park" <djmp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OLqLd.3315$S3.0@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Michael Levin" <mlevin77@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE20DA85.1F1E2%mlevin77@comcast.net...
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
mlevin77@comcast.net
I have to try my hand at answering this question.
In biology we can say that it is the DNA and the associated
translational
mechanisms that give the cells their properties and behaviors. If a
cell
loses its DNA it no longer behaves as a living cell.
We might be inclined to use analogous reasoning in relativity and
think that
there is some mechanism in particles, atoms or pieces of matter that
enforce
the results of relativity. This was the view of H.A. Lorentz who
postulated
that their was some mechanism that caused atoms to compress in the
direction
of motion through the ether. But, although Lorentz worked out some
of the
essential mathematics, it is Einstein who gets the credit for the
theory.
It was Einstein who put the physics into it, by showing the reason for
length contraction and time dilation.
It was Einstein who took the brave step of rewriting Newton's theory
of motion so as to make it valid at extremely high speeds.
There is nothing in particles, atoms or matter that 'causes' special
relativity. Special relativity is really the geometry of flat
spacetime.
Flat Spacetime has a geometry that is different than Euclidean
geometry and
it is not caused by the particles that might be moving through it.
It is a
geometry that is intrinsic to spacetime itself. That is what
Einstein saw
and that is one reason he is famous.
You are on the ball so far
Time dilation and the muon effect is one of the theorems or results
that
comes out of spacetime geometry. I'm not going to try to present
spacetime
geometry here, or derive time dilation here. It's not horribly
difficult to
learn. Time dilation means that moving clocks are seen to run slower
than
stationary clocks. But there is nothing different about the clocks,
or any
mechanism within the clocks that makes them run slower. It is just a
result
of spacetime geometry.
In ordinary Eucliden geometry we have the Pythagorean theorem. But
we don't
think that if we looked at the points and lines in a geometrical
diagram
closely enough through a microscope we would see a mechanism that
'caused'
the Pythagorean theorem to be true. It is just a result of the
axioms of the
geometry. In the same way spacetime geometry has its postulates,
which are
well verified by experiment, and time dilation is one of the
results.
Geometry not mechanism.
Yes
Even though you are only a biologist, you are able to run rings about
many of the folkk who post here regularly.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Park" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
31 Jan 2005 12:04:15 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ctljpc$o7r$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
Geometry not mechanism.
Yes
Even though you are only a biologist, you are able to run rings about
many of the folkk who post here regularly.
Franz
Thanks, but I'm not really a biologist. I'm a retired electrical engineer
and computer programmer. I did spend some time consulting for a biochemist
studying cellular differentiation and worked two years in the Theoretical
Biology Group at NIH. Biochemists think in terms of substances and things.
What molecule causes this? What molecule causes that? They find in very
difficult to think in terms of dynamics or geometry. I ran into that quite
often, which is why I could relate to the poster.
David Park
djmp@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~djmp/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
29 Jan 2005 08:17:33 AM |
|
|
"Michael Levin" <mlevin77@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE20DA85.1F1E2%mlevin77@comcast.net...
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
mlevin77@comcast.net
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" ?)
½(tau0 + tau2) = tau1,
or ½([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:
½[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,
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+32/(5-3)+32/(5+3))] = tau(32,0,0,t+32/(5-3))
½[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,
½ * 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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
29 Jan 2005 10:19:42 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:1WMKd.14386$n9.10902@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Michael Levin" <mlevin77@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE20DA85.1F1E2%mlevin77@comcast.net...
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
mlevin77@comcast.net
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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
29 Jan 2005 08:58:21 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message news:1WMKd.14386$n9.10902@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Michael Levin" <mlevin77@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE20DA85.1F1E2%mlevin77@comcast.net...
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
mlevin77@comcast.net
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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateofdecay when they move very fast? |
29 Jan 2005 06:12:12 PM |
|
|
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
29 Jan 2005 06:48:09 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41FC265C.5FC72E88@hate.spam.net...
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.
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.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
30 Jan 2005 06:46:07 PM |
|
|
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
31 Jan 2005 06:03:08 AM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1107132367.293689.32630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
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".
So yu should, because that's crap.
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
30 Jan 2005 09:46:02 PM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1107132367.293689.32630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
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
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
31 Jan 2005 06:03:12 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.com> wrote in message
news:_RhLd.20097$n9.10284@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1107132367.293689.32630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
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
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.
distance apart, the first problem is going to be the detector
slowing
the particle,
Do you think a 200 GeV particle will notice losing a few 100 KeV in
pasing through a scintillator?
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.
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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
31 Jan 2005 03:38:44 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1107132367.293689.32630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
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
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
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
31 Jan 2005 07:12:22 AM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1107164324.560215.36130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1107132367.293689.32630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
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
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
Jim G
c'=c+v
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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateofdecay when they move very fast? |
31 Jan 2005 08:36:50 AM |
|
|
wrote:
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.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateofdecay when they move very fast? |
30 Jan 2005 07:47:46 PM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" wrote:
Andro
How do the "clocks" work, which are involved in muon and pion analysis?
Statistical decay half-life.
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
30 Jan 2005 10:55:28 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41FD8E42.4EF93202@hate.spam.net...
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" wrote:
Andro
How do the "clocks" work, which are involved in muon and pion
analysis?
Statistical decay half-life.
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]
*****. 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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
31 Jan 2005 02:47:49 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip]
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
31 Jan 2005 09:32:51 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107161269.805820.163590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:
[snip]
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.
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
31 Jan 2005 09:48:50 AM |
|
|
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107161269.805820.163590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:
[snip]
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.
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
31 Jan 2005 03:39:52 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107186530.906743.226240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107161269.805820.163590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:
[snip]
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.
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
Hello Eric,
Part enjoyment, part sadness at seeing the extent to which sci.physics
has been invaded by the kooks.
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
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
29 Jan 2005 07:26:04 AM |
|
|
In article <BE20DA85.1F1E2%mlevin77@comcast.net>,
Michael Levin <mlevin77@comcast.net> wrote:
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?
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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateofdecay when they move very fast? |
29 Jan 2005 02:42:35 PM |
|
|
Michael Levin wrote:
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.
Traveling at 0.9c there would be an observed time dilation (increased
half-life to decay) of 2.294X,
1/sqrt{1-[(v^2)/(c^2)]}
Conversely, time in the particle frame would appear to pass only
0.4359X as fast as in the external observers' frame when clocks are
locally compared. That word "locally" is vital. There is no anomaly
in either or any reference frame until clocks are *locally* compared
by sharing the same spacetime. If clocks are not local, lightspeed
delay in information propagation results in relativity.
He was making the
point that it isn't just clocks that are affected by time dilation, but
everything (time itself).
The spacetime four vector is conserved. An inertial frame of
reference that travels further though space travels less through
time. However, let's match units. If space is meters and time is
seconds it doesn't work. (lightspeed)(time), ct, is meters. Time is
a very "long" dimension. It takes a whole lot of space to noticibly
bite into time.
Whether there is a clock present or not is irrelevant. One could set
up the experiment, end all accelerations, and then locally build the
clock starting with smelting metal ore. Makes no difference.
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?
A very large collection of muons at rest has a well-determined
invarient decay half-life. A single muon has only probabilities and a
broad envelope, so one accumulates observations. Counting statistics
improve as sqrt(number of observations). 10,000 times the number of
observations gives you 100X narrower window, events vs. time interval
elapsed.
Does a muon
have internal components of some sort which decide when it's to decay?
Quantum mechanics, Heisenberg Uncertaintly, and an energy barrier to
decay to tunnel through or leap over.
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).
The process (clock) is invariant. The mix of space and time in
spacetime is maleable by velocity (Special Relativity) and
acceleration (General Relativity). It is observer-dependent. Newton
was wrong.
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?
Time is what a clock measures. The mix of observed space and time in
spacetime depends on the observer.
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!
Get in an untethered boat. How fast are you moving? Current, tides,
waves vs. the shore; rotation of the Earth about its axis vs. the
fixed stars; orbit of the Earth about the sun; orbit of the solar
system in the Milky Way... It depends. As space is negotiable
depending on viewpoint, so is time. However, time scales as
lightspeed. Jiggling time gives you small results for great efforts.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
29 Jan 2005 04:15:10 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41FBF53B.1185A01D@hate.spam.net...
[snip]
The spacetime four vector is conserved.
That is nonsense.
Perhaps you meant that that four-vector is Lorentz-covariant?
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "J. Horta" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
31 Jan 2005 07:24:51 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:15:10 +0000, Franz Heymann wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41FBF53B.1185A01D@hate.spam.net...
[snip]
The spacetime four vector is conserved.
That is nonsense.
Perhaps you meant that that four-vector is Lorentz-covariant?
[snip]
Franz
Or more likely the four-vector "length" is invariant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
01 Feb 2005 01:21:45 PM |
|
|
"J. Horta" <bite@me.spam> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.02.01.01.23.06.580285@me.spam...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:15:10 +0000, Franz Heymann wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41FBF53B.1185A01D@hate.spam.net...
[snip]
The spacetime four vector is conserved.
That is nonsense.
Perhaps you meant that that four-vector is Lorentz-covariant?
[snip]
Franz
Or more likely the four-vector "length" is invariant
Perhaps. But do remember that a quantity can be conserved without
being invariant
{:-))
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
29 Jan 2005 04:02:34 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41FBF53B.1185A01D@hate.spam.net...
The spacetime four vector is conserved.
Fuckin' stooopid imbecile. Time is not a vector, it has no additive
inverse.
Learn math.
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~tao/121.1.00s/vector_axioms.html
http://distance-ed.math.tamu.edu/Math640/chapter3/node4.html
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/MathH110/prblms1.pdf
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rateof decay when they move very fast? |
29 Jan 2005 04:12:26 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message news:_JTKd.15129$n9.11488@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41FBF53B.1185A01D@hate.spam.net...
The spacetime four vector is conserved.
Fuckin' stooopid imbecile. Time is not a vector, it has no additive
inverse.
Learn math.
Idiots and vectors:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotVectors.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroVec.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorLength.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorSpaces.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rate of decay when they move very fast? |
01 Feb 2005 04:53:52 AM |
|
|
Michael Levin wrote:
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.
Wolfson is correct in this.
He was making the
point that it isn't just clocks that are affected by time dilation,
but
everything (time itself).
Time dilation is an effect not caused by time but by the variance of an
object's time rates.
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?
Whether a particle decays or not depends on its stability, so that can
be described as an "internal clock", I would think.
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).
AE was one of the founders of qm and he was the sole inventor of
Relativity, but the decay process is not in conflict with SR, AFAIK.
The SR explanation in the Twin Paradox experiment and others the effect
of time dilation is in line with qm's "clock-like process which can be
slowed". The Twins decay (age) but their rates of decay depend on the
speeds achieved during the trip of the experiment.
Obviously, this is an example where the two theories coincide and
support each other.
I hope this is a better answer to your questions than those you have
received so far.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
