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: Edward Green on 6 Feb 2010 21:53 On Jan 8, 5:29 am, 7 <website_has_em...(a)www.enemygadgets.com> wrote: > 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. Since light is a source term for GR, you are apparently correct. You may as well place mass behind the screen.
From: Edward Green on 6 Feb 2010 22:01 On Jan 8, 7:38 am, Jarek Duda <duda...(a)gmail.com> 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 Yes. I believe something like that is the mechanism for SR -- i.e., Lorentz invariance, or the excellent approximation thereof. > ... and so that particle decays/ > collisions aren't just a magical 'poooof' like perturbative QFT > suggests, but is some concrete continuous process ... That also matches my preferences, but here we are more on the grounds of preferences. > 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: Edward Green on 6 Feb 2010 22:08 On Jan 8, 2:44 pm, 7 <website_has_em...(a)www.enemygadgets.com> wrote: .... > 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 Well, that's a dopey phantasmagoric reason! :-)
From: BURT on 7 Feb 2010 13:14 On Feb 6, 7:08 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > On Jan 8, 2:44 pm, 7 <website_has_em...(a)www.enemygadgets.com> wrote: > ... > > > 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 > > Well, that's a dopey phantasmagoric reason! :-) Gravity is the only force that dilates time. This is gravitational slower timerate. Mitch raemsch
From: Ste on 7 Feb 2010 23:18
On 7 Feb, 18:14, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 6, 7:08 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 8, 2:44 pm, 7 <website_has_em...(a)www.enemygadgets.com> wrote: > > ... > > > > 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 > > > Well, that's a dopey phantasmagoric reason! :-) > > Gravity is the only force that dilates time. This is gravitational > slower timerate. Nonsense. Non-gravitational acceleration also dilates time. |