What about electromagnetic time dilation?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Ooh! Ooh! I know the main ingrediend of "dark matter"--it's "Planck matter"! (Re: Would proton decay allow for black holes?)
Next: Why physicists refuse to measure the one-way speed of light directly?
From: 7 on 8 Jan 2010 05:29 Jarek Duda wrote: > I've recently found 30 old years David Apsel's article showing clear > experimental argument that electromagnetic field also causes time > dilation - such dilation is required to explain muon lifetimes in > muonic atoms: > http://www.springerlink.com/content/wtr11w113r22g346/ > > It's strong argument for unification theories - that electromagnetic > and gravitation interactions are not so qualitatively different as > general relativity says - that gravity doesn't have monopole for time > dilation and so probably also for other effects like redshift or > gravitational lensing ... > In another papers the author suggest this effect is the reason of > practically infinite neutron lifetime in deuteron > http://www.springerlink.com/content/p32t67t121351422/ > or use it to explain observed pulsar behavior > http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104025 > > What do you think about these arguments (especially muon decay) ? > Why these inconvenient for Einstein's picture arguments are just > ignored for 30 years?? I don't know enough about muons to comment. But I do remember a simple experiment that could settle this. Supposing you had a particle or a spec of something that could be affected by time dilation behind a thin screen. So you then pass a very large pulse of high intensity light behind the screen. This particle cannot know the light beam had passed behind the screen because we make sure the screen is both thin but doesn't allow EM waves to pass through it. Also, to make sure, the light passes parallel to the plane of the screen, so there is no way to know if light did pass behind the screen if you are standing on the other side of the screen. The gap between light beam and thin screen is large enough to make sure that it is greater than the wavelength of light and any diffraction effects that could steer light to hit the screen. Increase the intensity of light arbitrarily. Behind the screen, you are still none the wiser about whats going on on the other side. But is that true? For some reason that I can't remember now, I was predicting a particle would experience time dilation effects. The more light that passed behind the screen, the more the time dilation effect.
From: Jarek Duda on 8 Jan 2010 07:38 Sue, I know well Noether theorem, it's also the basis for all gauge theories ... but I don't see a relation to the topic? Generally in GR there are problems with defining mass and so different conservation laws ... About time ... for me it's the speed of reason-result chains. These relations are usually made by electromagnetic interactions - with (local) speed of light. So time dilation for muons would also suggest that they have nonzero radius and some internal structure in which there are transmitted interactions with speed of light ... and so that particle decays/ collisions aren't just a magical 'poooof' like perturbative QFT suggests, but is some concrete continuous process ... 7, if the light haven't come through the wall, it didn't influenced electromagnetic field there. For time dilation there would be needed strong gravitational/electric field and for example such field created by large electric charge would probably go through such wall (if not screened).
From: Uncle Al on 8 Jan 2010 10:59 Jarek Duda wrote: > > I've recently found 30 old years David Apsel's article showing clear > experimental argument that electromagnetic field also causes time > dilation - such dilation is required to explain muon lifetimes in > muonic atoms: > http://www.springerlink.com/content/wtr11w113r22g346/ Muonic atoms are relativistic. > It's strong argument for unification theories - that electromagnetic > and gravitation interactions are not so qualitatively different as > general relativity says - that gravity doesn't have monopole for time > dilation and so probably also for other effects like redshift or > gravitational lensing ... Write predictive and therefore testable theory. Wearing Klauza-Klein jeans won't help you at all. > In another papers the author suggest this effect is the reason of > practically infinite neutron lifetime in deuteron > http://www.springerlink.com/content/p32t67t121351422/ > or use it to explain observed pulsar behavior > http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104025 "practically infinite"? Alas, there is a Canadian neutrino detector containing 1000 tonnes of heavy water, http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/sno2.html 1000 tonnes of D2O is 2[(1000 tonnes)(10^6 g/tonne)(6.022x10^23 formula units/mole)/(20.02776 g/mole)] = 6.014x10^31 deuterons. ZERO DEUTERON DECAYS DETECTED over years of observation. Tell us the minimum half-life of a deuteron. pookie pookie > What do you think about these arguments (especially muon decay) ? > Why these inconvenient for Einstein's picture arguments are just > ignored for 30 years?? Disproven by observation. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: Jarek Duda on 8 Jan 2010 12:34 On 8 Sty, 16:59, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > Muonic atoms are relativistic. So? Special relativity wasn't enough, so the author used this electromagnetic time dilation and there is a nice table in the paper showing that with them everything is as it should be... > "practically infinite"? Alas, there is a Canadian neutrino detector > containing 1000 tonnes of heavy water, And so for proton decay required by many theories like GUT and without which there is a problem with nonzero total baryon number of our observed universe ... ? Practically infinite means - we cannot observe such decay, but we cannot prove that this time is really infinite (as for electron?), not e.g. 10^200 years... > Disproven by observation. Could You be more specific? Such experiment would need extremely strong electromagnetic field - like very near particles or near pulsars ... And placing 'muonic clock' on atomic orbital, suggests existence of such dilation... Isn't it?
From: Darwin123 on 8 Jan 2010 14:35
On Jan 8, 12:34 pm, Jarek Duda <duda...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 Sty, 16:59, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote:> Muonic atoms are relativistic. > > So? > Special relativity wasn't enough, so the author used this > electromagnetic time dilation and there is a nice table in the paper > showing that with them everything is as it should be... > > > "practically infinite"? Alas, there is a Canadian neutrino detector > > containing 1000 tonnes of heavy water, > > And so for proton decay required by many theories like GUT and without > which there is a problem with nonzero total baryon number of our > observed universe ... ? > Practically infinite means - we cannot observe such decay, but we > cannot prove that this time is really infinite (as for electron?), not > e.g. 10^200 years... > > > Disproven by observation. > > Could You be more specific? > Such experiment would need extremely strong electromagnetic field - > like very near particles or near pulsars ... Or like the electric field very close to a proton, where muons orbit. > And placing 'muonic clock' on atomic orbital, suggests existence of > such dilation... Muonic atoms are muons orbiting protons. The muon replaces the electron in a hydrogen atom. Of course, the bound muon decays in a way similar to the free muon. However, muon is subject to a strong electric field and a strong magnetic field from the proton. The bound muon shows a characteristic emisson spectrum, just like the hydrogen bound electron shows a characteristic emission spectrum. The emission spectrum in both is subject to relativistic effects. I think Al is claiming, which I don't know is true, that time dilation is seen in these muons. The decay lifetime of the muons is consistent with SR. There has been no phenomenon in muonic atoms consistent with your conjectures. (?) I didn't think the decay lifetimes are really affected by relativistic effects. However, these muons are in a very stron electric and magnetic field. You should look at the studies of muonic atoms and tell us how they fit with your theories. I suspect that if the electromagnetic field affected decay times, we would see it in a muonic atoms. I know that many people have measured lifetimes of muons in muonic atoms, and never reported a discrepancy. Your post may be provoke more thought if you discuss muonic atoms. A little confusion in reading the articles is that the decay time in a muonic atom could be the decay time of the orbital state, or the decay time of the muon itself. So read these articles with caution. I don't think the decay tome of the muon itself is at all affected by electric or magnetic fields. The decay time of the orbit is of course affected by electromagnetic fields. |