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: Y.Porat on 9 Jan 2010 02:11 On Jan 9, 12:14 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > 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 Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm ------------------ non of the particles in the nuke or Atom orbits !!! each one hasits FIXED location and geometric address the y vibrates !! see the 'chain of orbitals system' Y.Porat -----------------------------
From: Ken S. Tucker on 9 Jan 2010 03:08 On Jan 8, 10:36 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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"... I find my mentors correct, I'll quote Wheeler, "Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it - in a decade, a century, or a millennium - we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been so stupid? John Archibald Wheeler " Eq.(4) supports their contention. Seems AE's GR finds the departure from an orthogonal space X, to a nonorthogonal space S is by quantized "h = a.b", that's proved in the article we published, and the article is low brow compared to what I usually read. Regards Ken S. Tucker PS:footnote The articles implied predictions are currently being tested by $500,000,000 worth of LIGO type hardware, in that, if 'g-waves' are reliably detected, Eq(4) becomes suspect, and a continuous (non-quantized) continuum will, IMO be discovered.
From: Jarek Duda on 9 Jan 2010 04:29 Many people consider seriously force unification ... I believe now is the time that the second side start saying something concrete, finally say why it's 'disproven by observation', give us some concrete experimental evidence that these forces are really so qualitatively different, maybe that these published in good journal articles are fraud???? ps. Uncle Al - You also promised me the proof that there are completely no protons in neutron stars?
From: Ken S. Tucker on 9 Jan 2010 16:44 Hi Lady's and Gents.... > Ken S. Tucker wrote: .... > >> Yeah Ken, I'm sure you are going to revolutionize physics with "a.b"... > > > I find my mentors correct, I'll quote Wheeler, > > You never studied under Wheeler. LOL, unlike "Knee-pad Eric Grisse", I've never studied 'under' anyone. As I said, I'd get together for a few social hours every few months to go over outstanding common issues for maybe 30-60 minutes with profs then yak for an hour about stuff. The meeting ref material is always prepared in advance, usually I did that. I never actually met Wheeler, and I do regret not parlezing with him in person. > > "Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we > > grasp it - in a decade, a century, or a millennium - we will all say > > to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have > > been so stupid? > > John Archibald Wheeler " I think Wheeler appreciates the EFE's founded from, S.S = (X + a).(X + b) = X.X + a.b == X.X + h , (Eq.4+) that is a breakout of Eq.(4) in our article, unifying GR, EM and QT, but I'll take the blame if it's wrong, albeit well motivated by this gem, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrodynamics That respects Wheeler's contention, it is beautiful! As we published, the EFE's can be used to derive Eq(4+), what came 1st, the chicken or the egg? IMV Eq.(4) is derived from an elementary charge introduced as a constant of integration that is more fundamental than introducing mass as a constant of integration as is done in conventional GR. Regards Ken S. Tucker
From: Androcles on 9 Jan 2010 20:03
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hib791$vf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... [...] |