"Significant Zero" wrote in message ...

"sue jahn" wrote in message
...

Snip
| But unless all particles exhibit the same curve, we can
| infer nothining about the common denominator, time.
| I have never seen a table of particles that decay in a
| resonable observation time whose life time is extended
| by the Lorentz gamma factor.

If you take half a dozen old guys of varying ages and time dilate them they
wont all keel over on the same day, there will be a spread so the undertaker
don't have to put all the bodies in the domestic freezer with the frozen
chips. What sort of army training have you had to expect us all to die off
at the same moment hower much we have been dilated by the gin {:-)

I never questioned gin's ability alter time space or matter. I tho't that
was some kind of fundamental or axiomatic principle. My beef is
only with model railroads and particles that barely have enough
existance to qualify as particles. If we turn the logic upside down
and say the *internal clocks* are really hidden in the decay products
then the whole notion falls on it's face.

It is probably a good example of relativity but it does nothing for
my opinion of ?time-dilation? .

Sue...

--
Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field, two
unbound field effects
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up nicely. Ooh
ah.{:-)

Didn't know Snif Zero or Obtuse were in the choir.
AD

sue jahn wrote:

"Obtuse" wrote in message ...
sue jahn wrote:

"Obtuse" wrote in message ...

Arthur Dent wrote:

But from *inside* a spaceship travelling at c an observer will measure
c as
being c ?

Yes, light a candle inside the ship and the speed of the light it emits
inside will be c.
To someone outside and ahead of the ship it will be c+v, BLUE shifted.

The frequency gets higher, the wavelength gets smaller by the same amount.
They cancel each other out when multiplied together to get the speed of light:

c = length(wave) /time (frequency)

You will see a blue shift, but the speed of light will still be c.

If idiots like sal think that time would slow down on the ship,
stopping altogether when the ship travels at c, the candle would stop
burning!

Time Dilation for Particles at the Stanford Linear Accelerator:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/th...elativity.html

That web page has always been a burr in my saddle for it's
inconsistancies and omissions.
Specifically we are given no clue what kind of Gnome winds
the muons internal clock.... then on another page (from the same site)
we are given reason to suspect that it isn't internal at all but rather directly
related to the particle's motion.

Any decay that can happen, will happen.
Decay rates depend on the type of interaction and on the
amount of energy "released," that is, energy converted from
mass energy to kinetic energy.
Decays can happen only if all conservation laws can be
obeyed. For example:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/decays.html

Decays can happen only if all conservation laws can be
obeyed. For example:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/decays.html

Few would question that matter zipping past a muon has
all the couplings to affect the particles life-time....
But this is far from any proof of an internal clock that
*goes* as it is *judged* over a non-zero length path.

You could sum that all up and say that: anything *statistical*
like decay times in a Special Relativity proof clouds the
issue of time dilation and is not the kind of SR proof
that we would prefer. I agree with you there.

So now my question is this:
Is the proper time of a Tau particle considered the same as
a mode of a distribution of Tau particle decay times ?

Even though some particles survive longer than their expected
(statistical) decay lifetimes, can we say that this is happening
for all of the particles equally, or is it happening for just some
particles in a particular mode of their distribution of decay times ?

The Slac website says:
"(Of course, we actually observe a spread of decay times
according to the exponential decay law and a corresponding
spread of distances. In fact, we use the measured distribution
of distances to find the tau half-life.)"
So it is not clear to me if they are presenting a tautology here.

One should be clear what a mode, a mean and a median are.
A simple "average" for instance, can be interpreted
(and misrepresented) in many ways:
http://www.andrews.edu/~calkins/math...xts/stat04.htm
I'm also very surprised they didn't present a nice before-and-after
chart showing the shift of the distribution of Tau decay times.

But as I mentioned earlier it does seem to shed
some light on just what the time dilation is.
It is affecting a distribution, the distribution of decay times.

How could it?

Slac says it does.

*Time dialtion* has no basis except as
a metaphysical construction where clocks may go as
they are judged over a non-zero length path. Only the
space between the ears and Never-land permits such
constructions.

If you want to call the Slac scientists idiots or even liars
you can. I would prefer to assume the Slac people are telling
about what they are measuring as much as they want to
without actually lying, too much, and then I'll complain that
they aren't telling enough.


We see similar things happening elsewhere. A red-shift is
a spectral shift. The spectral distribution of a star is
shifted towards the red end, and (phenomenalogically at least)
we can say that could be because it is moving away from us.
We don't say that the relative motion of the star is actually
shifting it's spectrum in the Star's own rest frame.

Whaddya mean *WE* Kemosabe. There is relative motion
between the star and the matter in the extinction distance.

Okay, not "we". I'll guess that means you've never seen a red-shift.
I have. Have you ever heard the pitch of a sound change with the
Doppler Effect ? Do you believe that the Doppler Effect
shifts the sound spectrum ? Do you believe the Doppler Effect
applies to light ?


Spectral shifts are therefore velocity dependent (speed + direction)
because we'd expect a blue shift if the stars were moving towards us.

I don't think the stars or their local dielectric know very much
about us or what we expect to see.

Yes, yes. I get your point. You don't think candles burn out
at different rates depending who is looking at them. I agree.

I'm not talking about candles though. The Slac people say that
moving Tau particles live longer, and I have no reason at this point
to believe they are outright lying. I'm just trying to figure out why
such a thing would happen and why it would match the relativistic
equations. I don't think the relativistic equations are bogus and
completely useless. I *do* think their interpretation is still open to question.



The Tau decay times are also a distribution and it shifts
according to their speed, except that it always shifts
in the same direction regardless of the direction of the
particles. That is, the decay times always increase,
they never get shorter. So we can tentatively say that the
time dilation of Tau decay time distribution is speed dependent,
but not velocity dependent.

But unless all particles exhibit the same curve, we can
infer nothining about the common denominator, time.
I have never seen a table of particles that decay in a
resonable observation time whose life time is extended
by the Lorentz gamma factor.


What can I say. Keep poking around on the web.
Do you think there's an world-wide conspiracy
to cover up those details ? Naah, come on, really ?
The physicists I've met weren't members of an
international underground cult. Read "Physics Today"
magazine for instance. They're mainly a bunch of old geeks
who are afraid George W. Bush is going to destroy
the world with his cowboy science policies.


If we could make their decay times shorter, then we would
have solved the problem of nuclear waste disposal,
and wine aging.

I have already solved the problem of wine aging.
Vigilent consumption is the best way to prevent it. ;-)

Just my opinion as it stands at this particular moment.
Terms and agreements are subject to change without notice.

Good comments. Many thanks for the input.

Sue...



Relativity The Special and General Theory
The Behaviour of Measuring-Rods and Clocks in Motion
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html

Kind regards,
Sue...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...lativity?hl=en


cc: Helen Quinn
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/owner/quinn



Note the siimilar equation used:

v = distance / time

Now you can decide for yourself whether this means time dilation
has actually slowed down the internal clocks of the Tau particles,
or, that fast Tau motion just red-shifted its spectrum of decay times
leaving its proper time constant.

"Obtuse" wrote in message ...

sue jahn wrote:

"Obtuse" wrote in message ...
sue jahn wrote:

"Obtuse" wrote in message ...

Arthur Dent wrote:

But from *inside* a spaceship travelling at c an observer will measure
c as
being c ?

Yes, light a candle inside the ship and the speed of the light it emits
inside will be c.
To someone outside and ahead of the ship it will be c+v, BLUE shifted.

The frequency gets higher, the wavelength gets smaller by the same amount.
They cancel each other out when multiplied together to get the speed of light:

c = length(wave) /time (frequency)

You will see a blue shift, but the speed of light will still be c.

If idiots like sal think that time would slow down on the ship,
stopping altogether when the ship travels at c, the candle would stop
burning!

Time Dilation for Particles at the Stanford Linear Accelerator:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/th...elativity.html

That web page has always been a burr in my saddle for it's
inconsistancies and omissions.
Specifically we are given no clue what kind of Gnome winds
the muons internal clock.... then on another page (from the same site)
we are given reason to suspect that it isn't internal at all but rather directly
related to the particle's motion.

Any decay that can happen, will happen.
Decay rates depend on the type of interaction and on the
amount of energy "released," that is, energy converted from
mass energy to kinetic energy.
Decays can happen only if all conservation laws can be
obeyed. For example:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/decays.html

Decays can happen only if all conservation laws can be
obeyed. For example:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/decays.html

Few would question that matter zipping past a muon has
all the couplings to affect the particles life-time....
But this is far from any proof of an internal clock that
*goes* as it is *judged* over a non-zero length path.

You could sum that all up and say that: anything *statistical*
like decay times in a Special Relativity proof clouds the
issue of time dilation and is not the kind of SR proof
that we would prefer. I agree with you there.

So now my question is this:
Is the proper time of a Tau particle considered the same as
a mode of a distribution of Tau particle decay times ?

Even though some particles survive longer than their expected
(statistical) decay lifetimes, can we say that this is happening
for all of the particles equally, or is it happening for just some
particles in a particular mode of their distribution of decay times ?

The Slac website says:
"(Of course, we actually observe a spread of decay times
according to the exponential decay law and a corresponding
spread of distances. In fact, we use the measured distribution
of distances to find the tau half-life.)"
So it is not clear to me if they are presenting a tautology here.

One should be clear what a mode, a mean and a median are.
A simple "average" for instance, can be interpreted
(and misrepresented) in many ways:
http://www.andrews.edu/~calkins/math...xts/stat04.htm
I'm also very surprised they didn't present a nice before-and-after
chart showing the shift of the distribution of Tau decay times.

But as I mentioned earlier it does seem to shed
some light on just what the time dilation is.
It is affecting a distribution, the distribution of decay times.

How could it?

Slac says it does.

*Time dialtion* has no basis except as
a metaphysical construction where clocks may go as
they are judged over a non-zero length path. Only the
space between the ears and Never-land permits such
constructions.

If you want to call the Slac scientists idiots or even liars
you can. I would prefer to assume the Slac people are telling
about what they are measuring as much as they want to
without actually lying, too much, and then I'll complain that
they aren't telling enough.

We didn't put in quite those words but there is a copy in this
thread to the pages owner and we are following up with
the g-2 pages that BNL publishes.

You may ASSume... we are going to verify.

Sue...




We see similar things happening elsewhere. A red-shift is
a spectral shift. The spectral distribution of a star is
shifted towards the red end, and (phenomenalogically at least)
we can say that could be because it is moving away from us.
We don't say that the relative motion of the star is actually
shifting it's spectrum in the Star's own rest frame.

Whaddya mean *WE* Kemosabe. There is relative motion
between the star and the matter in the extinction distance.

Okay, not "we". I'll guess that means you've never seen a red-shift.
I have. Have you ever heard the pitch of a sound change with the
Doppler Effect ? Do you believe that the Doppler Effect
shifts the sound spectrum ? Do you believe the Doppler Effect
applies to light ?


Spectral shifts are therefore velocity dependent (speed + direction)
because we'd expect a blue shift if the stars were moving towards us.

I don't think the stars or their local dielectric know very much
about us or what we expect to see.

Yes, yes. I get your point. You don't think candles burn out
at different rates depending who is looking at them. I agree.

I'm not talking about candles though. The Slac people say that
moving Tau particles live longer, and I have no reason at this point
to believe they are outright lying. I'm just trying to figure out why
such a thing would happen and why it would match the relativistic
equations. I don't think the relativistic equations are bogus and
completely useless. I *do* think their interpretation is still open to question.



The Tau decay times are also a distribution and it shifts
according to their speed, except that it always shifts
in the same direction regardless of the direction of the
particles. That is, the decay times always increase,
they never get shorter. So we can tentatively say that the
time dilation of Tau decay time distribution is speed dependent,
but not velocity dependent.

But unless all particles exhibit the same curve, we can
infer nothining about the common denominator, time.
I have never seen a table of particles that decay in a
resonable observation time whose life time is extended
by the Lorentz gamma factor.


What can I say. Keep poking around on the web.
Do you think there's an world-wide conspiracy
to cover up those details ? Naah, come on, really ?
The physicists I've met weren't members of an
international underground cult. Read "Physics Today"
magazine for instance. They're mainly a bunch of old geeks
who are afraid George W. Bush is going to destroy
the world with his cowboy science policies.


If we could make their decay times shorter, then we would
have solved the problem of nuclear waste disposal,
and wine aging.

I have already solved the problem of wine aging.
Vigilent consumption is the best way to prevent it. ;-)

Just my opinion as it stands at this particular moment.
Terms and agreements are subject to change without notice.

Good comments. Many thanks for the input.

Sue...



Relativity The Special and General Theory
The Behaviour of Measuring-Rods and Clocks in Motion
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html

Kind regards,
Sue...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...lativity?hl=en


cc: Helen Quinn
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/owner/quinn



Note the siimilar equation used:

v = distance / time

Now you can decide for yourself whether this means time dilation
has actually slowed down the internal clocks of the Tau particles,
or, that fast Tau motion just red-shifted its spectrum of decay times
leaving its proper time constant.

I'm just trying to figure out why such a thing would
happen and why it would match the relativistic equations.

It is reasonable to assume the muon likes the relative motion
and c is one of it's favorite speeds.

It in not reasonable to assume the muon likes the way we
are looking at it because batting of the eyelashs has no effect.

Einstein's clocks in SR *go* as they are *judged* ... and he
did not say how they should respond to batting eyelashes.
)
Sue...

"sue jahn" wrote in message
...
|
| "Significant Zero" wrote in message
...
|
| "sue jahn" wrote in message
| ...
|
| Snip
| | But unless all particles exhibit the same curve, we can
| | infer nothining about the common denominator, time.
| | I have never seen a table of particles that decay in a
| | resonable observation time whose life time is extended
| | by the Lorentz gamma factor.
|
| If you take half a dozen old guys of varying ages and time dilate them
they
| wont all keel over on the same day, there will be a spread so the
undertaker
| don't have to put all the bodies in the domestic freezer with the frozen
| chips. What sort of army training have you had to expect us all to die
off
| at the same moment hower much we have been dilated by the gin {:-)
|
| I never questioned gin's ability alter time space or matter. I tho't that
| was some kind of fundamental or axiomatic principle. My beef is
| only with model railroads and particles that barely have enough
| existance to qualify as particles. If we turn the logic upside down
| and say the *internal clocks* are really hidden in the decay products
| then the whole notion falls on it's face.
|

Sorry the last sentence is not clear to me as my first question is, what
logic are we turning upside down and the second ."*internal clocks* are
really hidden in the decay products" are you saying .*internal clocks* are
really hidden in the products of the decaying particle ?
From my personal pov it seems clear, events\particle or people have internal
clocks the rate of which is determined by the item in question and its
relationship with its environment, the sum of this is their rate of decay.
If any of these items increase their rate relative their surroundings they
become time contracted if they reduce their rate then they become time
dilated the confusion perhaps comes when an *increase* in velocity produces
a decrease in their rate. One way this might be explained might be to say
that an increase in velocity reduces the involvement of the item in the
surrounding process so the wear and tear of existence is not so sever.


| It is probably a good example of relativity but it does nothing for
| my opinion of ?time-dilation? .
|
| Sue...
|
| --
| Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field,
two
| unbound field effects
| http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
| Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up nicely. Ooh
| ah.{:-)
|
|
|
|

"Significant Zero" wrote in message ...

"sue jahn" wrote in message
...
|
| "Significant Zero" wrote in message
...
|
| "sue jahn" wrote in message
| ...
|
| Snip
| | But unless all particles exhibit the same curve, we can
| | infer nothining about the common denominator, time.
| | I have never seen a table of particles that decay in a
| | resonable observation time whose life time is extended
| | by the Lorentz gamma factor.
|
| If you take half a dozen old guys of varying ages and time dilate them
they
| wont all keel over on the same day, there will be a spread so the
undertaker
| don't have to put all the bodies in the domestic freezer with the frozen
| chips. What sort of army training have you had to expect us all to die
off
| at the same moment hower much we have been dilated by the gin {:-)
|
| I never questioned gin's ability alter time space or matter. I tho't that
| was some kind of fundamental or axiomatic principle. My beef is
| only with model railroads and particles that barely have enough
| existance to qualify as particles. If we turn the logic upside down
| and say the *internal clocks* are really hidden in the decay products
| then the whole notion falls on it's face.
|

Sorry the last sentence is not clear to me as my first question is, what
logic are we turning upside down and the second ."*internal clocks* are
really hidden in the decay products" are you saying .*internal clocks* are
really hidden in the products of the decaying particle ?

Ohhhhhh! That was just an aside anyway. I shouldn't have brought it up
since there aren't any internal clocks.
From my personal pov it seems clear, events\particle or people have internal
clocks the rate of which is determined by the item in question and its
relationship with its environment, the sum of this is their rate of decay.
So I am going to get Helen at SLAC to swear on a stack of Kama Sutras
that THEIR AINT' ANY INTERNAL CLOCKS.
If any of these items increase their rate relative their surroundings they
become time contracted if they reduce their rate then they become time
dilated the confusion perhaps comes when an *increase* in velocity produces
a decrease in their rate.
And I am going to get somebody at BNL g-2 to swear on 300,000,000
slips of "who ordered that" post-it notes
that THEIR AINT' ANY INTERNAL CLOCKS
One way this might be explained might be to say
to say..." that THEIR AINT' ANY INTERNAL CLOCKS" )

-------Relativistic Beaming---------
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
that an increase in velocity reduces the involvement of the item in the
surrounding process so the wear and tear of existence is not so sever.
-------Relativistic Beaming---------
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Yes dear.... that doesn't require any internal clocks. )

Sue...



| It is probably a good example of relativity but it does nothing for
| my opinion of ?time-dilation? .
|
| Sue...
|
| --
| Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field,
two
| unbound field effects
| http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
| Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up nicely. Ooh
| ah.{:-)
|
|
|
|

"sue jahn" wrote in message
...
|
| "Significant Zero" wrote in message
...
|
| "sue jahn" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | "Significant Zero" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | "sue jahn" wrote in message
| | ...
| |
| | Snip
| | | But unless all particles exhibit the same curve, we can
| | | infer nothining about the common denominator, time.
| | | I have never seen a table of particles that decay in a
| | | resonable observation time whose life time is extended
| | | by the Lorentz gamma factor.
| |
| | If you take half a dozen old guys of varying ages and time dilate
them
| they
| | wont all keel over on the same day, there will be a spread so the
| undertaker
| | don't have to put all the bodies in the domestic freezer with the
frozen
| | chips. What sort of army training have you had to expect us all to
die
| off
| | at the same moment hower much we have been dilated by the gin {:-)
| |
| | I never questioned gin's ability alter time space or matter. I tho't
that
| | was some kind of fundamental or axiomatic principle. My beef is
| | only with model railroads and particles that barely have enough
| | existance to qualify as particles. If we turn the logic upside down
| | and say the *internal clocks* are really hidden in the decay products
| | then the whole notion falls on it's face.
| |
|
| Sorry the last sentence is not clear to me as my first question is, what
| logic are we turning upside down and the second ."*internal clocks* are
| really hidden in the decay products" are you saying .*internal clocks*
are
| really hidden in the products of the decaying particle ?
|
| Ohhhhhh! That was just an aside anyway. I shouldn't have brought it up
| since there aren't any internal clocks.

I bet if I put my head to your chest I would hear your internal clock and if
I had very small ears I would hear the tau's internal clock.

| From my personal pov it seems clear, events\particle or people have
internal
| clocks the rate of which is determined by the item in question and its
| relationship with its environment, the sum of this is their rate of
decay.
| So I am going to get Helen at SLAC to swear on a stack of Kama Sutras
| that THEIR AINT' ANY INTERNAL CLOCKS.

Good for you I hope you get it authenticated by god with the seal of St
Peter and the boot print of Paul.

| If any of these items increase their rate relative their surroundings
they
| become time contracted if they reduce their rate then they become time
| dilated the confusion perhaps comes when an *increase* in velocity
produces
| a decrease in their rate.
| And I am going to get somebody at BNL g-2 to swear on 300,000,000
| slips of "who ordered that" post-it notes
| that THEIR AINT' ANY INTERNAL CLOCKS

There wont be after you've ****ed on them that's for a fact.
Tau's dont like **** they go rusty.

| One way this might be explained might be to say
| to say..." that THEIR AINT' ANY INTERNAL CLOCKS" )
|

Fart {:-)

| -------Relativistic Beaming---------
| :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
| that an increase in velocity reduces the involvement of the item in the
| surrounding process so the wear and tear of existence is not so sever.
| -------Relativistic Beaming---------
| :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
| Yes dear.... that doesn't require any internal clocks. )
|
| Sue...
|
|
|
| | It is probably a good example of relativity but it does nothing for
| | my opinion of ?time-dilation? .
| |
| | Sue...
| |
| | --
| | Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic
field,
| two
| | unbound field effects
| | http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
| | Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up nicely.
Ooh
| | ah.{:-)
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|