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 14:44 Jarek Duda wrote: > 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). I think I had a dopey fantasmogaric reason at the time and it was limitation of speed of computation. The idea was that even if nothing came through the screen, the local space time with all those high intensity beams crossing would become computationally intensive for a universe to run as a simulation, and it would have to slow down the muon time to effectively borrow CPU time to process the events behind the screen. So even if no fields had crossed the screen, time dilation would be experienced by the muon.
From: Uncle Al on 8 Jan 2010 17:14 Darwin123 wrote: > > 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. It's worse than that for the OP. The darlings of muonic atoms (not muonium) are *heavy* muonic atoms. The ground state for those muon orbits is *inside* the nucleus. Is that enough electric field, incoming and final? No out of theory observations are recorded. The OP's contentions are bolstered by his ignorance. If he visited arxiv or googled the topic he's eat his own anus before returning his head to his colon. -- 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 18:23 Darwin, I'm referring to the paper which claims to contain these calculations and there is nice table with comparison of this theory with experiment for ten different elements and it looks surprisingly good. The question is if these results were properly verified? These papers were published in quite a good journal (General Relativity and Gravitation), so I believe reviewers checked earlier this controversial result (?) The question is - why there are practically no comments about these papers? I'm trying to contact the author to ask if there were some concrete counterarguments. But are they really so surprising? Standard picture says that electromagnetism is Lorentz invariant because of Maxwell equations, while gravitation requires intrinsic curvature for that ... but this invariance could be just achieved by using second set of Maxwell's equations - with mass density instead of charge density and so on ... .... and there are very popular unification theories with suggest that these interactions aren't so qualitatively different ... Remember that general relativity was experimentally confirmed only up to the first approximation - gravitation, time dilation, Mercury precession, redshift, gravitational lensing ... can we be sure how it looks in higher approximations? 7, it's for completely different discussion, but probably Aharonov- Bohm effect should interest You. Uncle Al, I see that You have full knowledge about the universe, but we don't - please be more specific with Your ultimately wise scientific arguments.
From: Ken S. Tucker on 9 Jan 2010 01:13 On Jan 8, 3:23 pm, Jarek Duda <duda...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Darwin, I'm referring to the paper which claims to contain these > calculations and there is nice table with comparison of this theory > with experiment for ten different elements and it looks surprisingly > good. > The question is if these results were properly verified? > These papers were published in quite a good journal (General > Relativity and Gravitation), so I believe reviewers checked earlier > this controversial result (?) > The question is - why there are practically no comments about these > papers? > I'm trying to contact the author to ask if there were some concrete > counterarguments. > > But are they really so surprising? > Standard picture says that electromagnetism is Lorentz invariant > because of Maxwell equations, while gravitation requires intrinsic > curvature for that ... but this invariance could be just achieved by > using second set of Maxwell's equations - with mass density instead of > charge density and so on ... > ... and there are very popular unification theories with suggest that > these interactions aren't so qualitatively different ... > Remember that general relativity was experimentally confirmed only up > to the first approximation - gravitation, time dilation, Mercury > precession, redshift, gravitational lensing ... can we be sure how it > looks in higher approximations? > > 7, it's for completely different discussion, but probably Aharonov- > Bohm effect should interest You. > Uncle Al, I see that You have full knowledge about the universe, but > we don't - please be more specific with Your ultimately wise > scientific arguments. One can find a solution to the EFE's here that is both a simplification of curvature and includes electrostatic effects that result in gravity, in Eq.(4),(it's 2 pages), http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf That's a unified field theory of GR and electricity within the framework of conventional GR and electricity. The simplified curvature results from the "a.b" in Eq.(4) that is in units of action such as Plancks "h == a.b" Regards Ken S. Tucker
From: eric gisse on 9 Jan 2010 01:36
Ken S. Tucker wrote: > On Jan 8, 3:23 pm, Jarek Duda <duda...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Darwin, I'm referring to the paper which claims to contain these >> calculations and there is nice table with comparison of this theory >> with experiment for ten different elements and it looks surprisingly >> good. >> The question is if these results were properly verified? >> These papers were published in quite a good journal (General >> Relativity and Gravitation), so I believe reviewers checked earlier >> this controversial result (?) >> The question is - why there are practically no comments about these >> papers? >> I'm trying to contact the author to ask if there were some concrete >> counterarguments. >> >> But are they really so surprising? >> Standard picture says that electromagnetism is Lorentz invariant >> because of Maxwell equations, while gravitation requires intrinsic >> curvature for that ... but this invariance could be just achieved by >> using second set of Maxwell's equations - with mass density instead of >> charge density and so on ... >> ... and there are very popular unification theories with suggest that >> these interactions aren't so qualitatively different ... >> Remember that general relativity was experimentally confirmed only up >> to the first approximation - gravitation, time dilation, Mercury >> precession, redshift, gravitational lensing ... can we be sure how it >> looks in higher approximations? >> >> 7, it's for completely different discussion, but probably Aharonov- >> Bohm effect should interest You. >> Uncle Al, I see that You have full knowledge about the universe, but >> we don't - please be more specific with Your ultimately wise >> scientific arguments. > > One can find a solution to the EFE's here that is both > a simplification of curvature and includes electrostatic > effects that result in gravity, in Eq.(4),(it's 2 pages), > http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf But you neither derive the 'solution' nor show that it is a solution, Ken. > > That's a unified field theory of GR and electricity within > the framework of conventional GR and electricity. > The simplified curvature results from the "a.b" in Eq.(4) > that is in units of action such as Plancks "h == a.b" > Regards > Ken S. Tucker Yeah Ken, I'm sure you are going to revolutionize physics with "a.b"... |