Son of Mulder.

quote:

No the same would be true in a vacuum. It's just that they have a very short half-life that they make a good candidate for observing a real longevity difference due to relative velocity.

There is no such thing as a 'true vacuum', so what proportion of vacuum are you thinking of and what is still 'in it'! They (muons) only have a 'short half life' when at low velocities (as I've previously described, due to 'local interaction')! I don't dispute that muons 'live longer' when moving at 'high velocities', but so would penguins swimming through a pod of orcas. It's a macroscopic phenomena as well.

quote:

Not a typo see the attached reference
Black Holes?

There are black hole candidates at the centre of Galaxies but they must be some other large body of matter if the above theory is correct.

OK. So you realise that 'black hole' is just a label for a thing that displays anything from 'dynamical instability' to 'unreadable (or 'no') data'. I'll try to be more careful with my wording (can't promise anything though).

I'll not comment on your link because, but for one parameter, Jupiter could also be classed as one of these.

quote:

See Dark Star

Like 'black hole', this term is also probably too ambiguous.

quote:

Hawking radiation is derived from applying equations of Quantum Theory to close to the surface of a Black hole(if such a beast exists).

I 'thought' that Einstein's interpretation provided no 'surface' to a 'black hole', only an 'event horizon? There again, I also 'thought' that in Einstein's day and age a muon was thought to have 'no' mass?

I knew there was a reason I avoided quantum theory. However, I do appreciate the fact that you also question the true identity of a 'black hole'.

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

There is no such thing as a 'true vacuum', so what proportion of vacuum are you thinking of and what is still 'in it'! They (muons) only have a 'short half life' when at low velocities (as I've previously described, due to 'local interaction')! I don't dispute that muons 'live longer' when moving at 'high velocities', but so would penguins swimming through a pod of orcas. It's a macroscopic phenomena as well.

The decay is like radioactive decay ie nothing to do with collisions so vacuum is a red herring. Also it has significant mass (for a particle).

See Wiki

quote:

I 'thought' that Einstein's interpretation provided no 'surface' to a 'black hole', only an 'event horizon?

Yes I meant event horizon.

quote:

There again, I also 'thought' that in Einstein's day and age a muon was thought to have 'no' mass?

You may be thinking of the Neutrino which was believed to have no mass just spin.

Son of Mulder.

quote:

The decay is like radioactive decay ie nothing to do with collisions so vacuum is a red herring. Also it has significant mass (for a particle).

Please don't introduce any more 'red herrings' like 'vacuum'.

Muon decay isn't like radioactive decay, the muon owes its existence to a collision and further disintegration, and it has large mass because it's a lump of 'shattered nucleus' from an atom.

quote:

quote:
There again, I also 'thought' that in Einstein's day and age a muon was thought to have 'no' mass?


You may be thinking of the Neutrino which was believed to have no mass just spin.

Nearly right, I think I may have been remembering how Einstein disliked quantum mechanics being used to explain muon-like behaviour. It's a very long time since I've exercised my brain on anything like this. I'll try to do better. This is why I wanted to get my hands on some of the literature that 'leokor' was talking about. I don't think our terminologies are communicating very well so I want to backtrack a little.

quote:

One of the classical tests of special relativity is the extended half-life of fast moving muons. It's an observed fact and a theoretical prediction of the theory so there is no correction required of the clock, the muon or anything else. This is an example of what I was alluding to and I may have misunderstood your point.

Why quote 'special relativity' in this instance? Surely these behaviours can adequately be explained by 'mechanics' and 'electrical charge'?

Special relativity deals with observations within a 'single' reference frame and tries to 'pull together' any varying observations caused by disparities between the 'mechanical' and the 'electromagnetic' evidence. Time dilation doesn't occur until the 'multiple reference frames' of general relativity. Though special relativity may have some uses, each separate observer is usually within the confines of their own 'electromagnetic reference frame' anyway. So 'Doppler shift' of signal frequency is the only factor that can be considered. I also believe the same to be true for general relativity, so how can there be any time dilation?

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

Why quote 'special relativity' in this instance? Surely these behaviours can adequately be explained by 'mechanics' and 'electrical charge'?

Because it is a direct consequence of Special Relativity. Watching the muon from the earth's surface you see a much longer half-life for the relatively moving Muon. If you were moving with the Muon then you'd see it's normal half-life (ie in the rest frame) but the distance between the muon and earth would be seen as shortened ie the Lorentz contraction. It has nothing to do with charge and is certainly incompatible with Newtonian mechanics.

quote:

Time dilation doesn't occur until the 'multiple reference frames' of general relativity.

Time dialation due to relative motion is an special relativity consequence. Time dialation due to changes in Gravity field ie General Relativity is a further example but not relevant for the observed muon 1/2 life change.

Son of Mulder.

quote:

Because it is a direct consequence of Special Relativity. Watching the muon from the earth's surface you see a much longer half-life for the relatively moving Muon. If you were moving with the Muon then you'd see it's normal half-life (ie in the rest frame) but the distance between the muon and earth would be seen as shortened ie the Lorentz contraction. It has nothing to do with charge and is certainly incompatible with Newtonian mechanics.

I think you need to read up on the 'Lorentz contraction'. This only deals with the 'apparent length of an object' under observation and I'm not altogether sure that it is well proven. The 'transformation' in this instance is solely 'geometric' (thus the necessary shrinkage in the length of the object). I'm sure one can't measure the length of a muon on a parallel trajectory towards oneself anyway!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_contraction

A 'shorter wavelength' is all that could be detected from a muon and that would be due to 'Doppler effect' because the object distance is continually decreasing.

quote:

Time dialation due to relative motion is an special relativity consequence. Time dialation due to changes in Gravity field ie General Relativity is a further example but not relevant for the observed muon 1/2 life change.

Again, I must restate (perhaps more clearly), special relativity only describes inconsistencies between 'mechanical vector velocities (velocity addition)' and 'electromagnetic propagation (constant light speed)'. The theory never tried to do anything more and some think that it didn't achieve 'that' with accuracy. Perhaps this is why Einstein laboured towards a 'conclusion' with 'general relativity'.

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

I think you need to read up on the 'Lorentz contraction'. This only deals with the 'apparent length of an object' under observation and I'm not altogether sure that it is well proven. The 'transformation' in this instance is solely 'geometric' (thus the necessary shrinkage in the length of the object). I'm sure one can't measure the length of a muon on a parallel trajectory towards oneself anyway!

Precisely, as the muon moves towards the earth's surface, from it's relative inertial frame the distance to the earth appears less then for the observer on the earths surface. This is exactly compensated for by the time dialation observed from earth. And as a consequence the half life measured from the earth frame is greatly increased. I wasn't suggesting that the length of the muon was relevant to the observation.

quote:

A 'shorter wavelength' is all that could be detected from a muon and that would be due to 'Doppler effect' because the object distance is continually decreasing.

Impresume you are referring to the wavelength in a wave-particle duality context. In counting the number of muoins reaching the earth neither this or light wavelength is relevant - it's a count of impacts. They only reach the earth because of the special relativistic effects.

quote:

Again, I must restate (perhaps more clearly), special relativity only describes inconsistencies between 'mechanical vector velocities (velocity addition)' and 'electromagnetic propagation (constant light speed)'.

And that is what is needed to explain the extended observed half-life of the muon as I've already indicated.

The Michelson-Morely experiment indicated light speed in a vacuum as a constant would explain the apparent shortening of the rod they were measuring in their famous experiment, which led to Lorentz contraction.

The Muon observation is consistent with this conclusion.

Son of Mulder.

No, no, no. And again, no. So far you have made 'every single factor' a 'variable', with the exception of the 'speed of light in vacuo'. The main problem with this is that (in the scenario of the muon) we do not have a vacuum, we have an atmosphere and the 'refractive index' of this 'slows' the propagation speed of light. Thus. The speed of light isn't as 'fast' as it is in a vacuum (it varies with the electromagnetic [light] frequency too)! The constant is 'c₀', but 'c' is undefined!

With the 'only' constant 'c' being inaccurate and every 'variable' in 'flux' within the equation and its relationship to the 'constant' you can write the math however you want to and it'll always be incorrect (almost, it could be right for the wrong reasons). That's why I said the 'time line' is too valuable to permit a dilation of it. Just because the information hasn't been received yet doesn't mean that an event hasn't already happened (unless you are looking for a philosophical answer).

Personally, I think I'll keep to a mechanical, electrostatic and magneto type of dynamic on this one. I know a muon is 'smaller' than an atom, but to me it seems to adhere to a more classical type of behaviour. The story of the muon is one of vectored velocity and its local interaction for survival. I don't see where 'special relativity', kinetic theory of matter (wave-particle duality), or the 'Michelson-Morely' experiment to discover the 'velocity of aether' can 'practicably' come into this scenario. You can't actually 'observe' the muon anyway and any 'observation technique' to register its passage is 'indirect'. Thus. Our 'reference frame'.

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

I don't see where 'special relativity', kinetic theory of matter (wave-particle duality), or the 'Michelson-Morely' experiment to discover the 'velocity of aether' can 'practicably' come into this scenario.

Well even if you stick to 'electrostatic and magnetic dynamic' scenario you'll agree thay obey Maxwell's equations which (although Maxwell didn't realise it) are Lorentz invariant so implicitly are consistent with Special Relativity.

I've stated my case for demonstrating time dialation with the muon experiment and how the results are explained by Special Relativity and have nothing more to add (and nothing to remove).

Son of Mulder.

It isn't only Maxwell that didn't realise it, Einstein didn't realise it either. In fact I expect that nobody at that time realised that Earth's magnetosphere was the 'aether'. Again, everything is contained within this 'reference frame' in our scenario so, no 'relativistic' effects.

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

In fact I expect that nobody at that time realised that Earth's magnetosphere was the 'aether'. Again, everything is contained within this 'reference frame' in our scenario so, no 'relativistic' effects.

So you are suggesting there is an aether that is equivalent to the magnetosphere hence dragged along by the the earth so the Michelson Morley experiment would not preclude a local aether only a fixed background aether, as the speed of light would be constant in all directions if this local aether were it's medium of propogation.

Would this aether also propogate gravitational force? I've seen it suggested that gravity could provide the local aether for Electromagnetic propogation, and similarly the Michelson Morley result would yield a constant speed for light without need for time dialation or Fitzgerald contraction.

Are there any experiments actual or theoretical that could differentiate between the 2 scenarios of local aether and the scenario of no aether at all?

Son of Mulder.

quote:

So you are suggesting there is an aether that is equivalent to the magnetosphere hence dragged along by the the earth so the Michelson Morley experiment would not preclude a local aether only a fixed background aether, as the speed of light would be constant in all directions if this local aether were it's medium of propogation.

Well light 'is' a part of the 'electromagnetic spectrum' that ranges from 'radio waves', through 'visible light' and on to 'x-rays' etc. It's just that the materials which allow a 'wide band-pass' of these frequencies fall into such wide categories that we often don't tend to recognise that the 'full spectrum' is actually related. Another, evocatively, confusing factor is human eyesight. We don't tend to think of this as a 'focused and wide ranging passive radar system', do we. But I'd have thought that someone would have made the connection between 'electromagnetic' and 'electrostatic', then taken it from there.

Oscillations in the magnetosphere, or electrostatic oscillations in or around matter. Take your pick. Anything in the magnetic flux area is liable to be low frequency though. So electrostatic oscillation looks to be a more likely candidate (if a contradiction in terms), with the magnetosphere as an attenuating influence if anything (a 'bit' like saturating an AC electrical transformer 'core' with a 'variable voltage' DC coil to vary the AC power transmission to the secondary AC coil). If atoms are the medium through which electromagnetic oscillations are transmitted then the 'reference frame' for the aether is dragged around with the atoms at roughly Earth speed.

However, I'm not implying that atoms are the aether, but if the effect of a propagated aetherial 'transmission' is observed by its interaction with atoms as coincident with the atoms' reactions to it, it only follows that the 'aether's propagation vector' and the 'atoms' perceived propagation vector' are identical.

quote:

Would this aether also propogate gravitational force? I've seen it suggested that gravity could provide the local aether for Electromagnetic propogation, and similarly the Michelson Morley result would yield a constant speed for light without need for time dialation or Fitzgerald contraction.

Don't know that it's the same kind of thing, but even Einstein said he could envision the effect of gravity better if he thought of 'nothing' pushing against 'something'.

I think I'll need to hypothesise here because I'm out of my depth. However, we need to look for an 'all pervading' particle that has a 'weak interaction'. What about a shard from a neutron that has been shattered. To survive near electrons it would need to cloak itself as a 'weak negative charge', or collide with them. They would certainly be neutrinos of a weak nature and offer an 'inverse square law' with increased grouping as they would exert a greater group pressure where less mass exists (forcing mass to agglomerate). Your guess is as good as mine.

quote:

Are there any experiments actual or theoretical that could differentiate between the 2 scenarios of local aether and the scenario of no aether at all?

Split coherent beam of light type interferometer with one arm attenuated by an electromagnetic coil would prove magnetic affectation. Same set-up with varying/alternating linear gas 'vector' replacing the electromagnetic coil would prove atomic affectation. I think! Don't know how to 'disprove' aether though, when nobody is sure what it is.

Why?

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

Why?

I'm assuming the 3 scenarios for ether / no ether are different and hence I'd expect an experiment(s) could be constructed to eliminate 2 of them.

I don't know of any experiment that contradicts special relativity (within it's predicted domain of effect). If an aether were the medium for light transmission it would have to pervade all observable space and by analogy with waves on the sea, shallow water is not conducive to transmissions of the same amount of wave energy as deep water is. EM and gravity intensities change through space whereas nothing doesn't.

So at present I'm more comfortable with a no aether solution.

Son of Mulder.

quote:

I'm assuming the 3 scenarios for ether / no ether are different and hence I'd expect an experiment(s) could be constructed to eliminate 2 of them.

I think I've described two experiments that, should either give a positive result, would question the validity of the 'Michelson-Morely' experiment. However, they could not disprove the existence of something that can't be detected, only partly prove the 'reference frame/frames' to which light propagation aligns itself should either or both experiments prove positive.

quote:

I don't know of any experiment that contradicts special relativity (within it's predicted domain of effect).

I thought it was the domain of its effect that we were discussing?

quote:

If an aether were the medium for light transmission it would have to pervade all observable space and by analogy with waves on the sea, shallow water is not conducive to transmissions of the same amount of wave energy as deep water is.

The 'waves on the sea' analogy doesn't fit well at all and neither does the wave top outrunning the wave causing it to become a 'breaking wave'. Though they are good visualisation tools for 'wave theory'.

Have you already forgotten your two links to Black Holes and Dark Star? Perhaps wiki hosts yet a better description.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

quote:

EM and gravity intensities change through space whereas nothing doesn't.

The 'nothing' analogy was used by Einstein, I've merely repeated it. Hope it hasn't confused things. The wiki link above seems to agree with Einstein. The stuff is so difficult to detect and there seems to be so much of it.

quote:

So at present I'm more comfortable with a no aether solution.

What? Not even if it is only an interpolation/extrapolation of where relativity should or should not be applied?

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

What? Not even if it is only an interpolation/extrapolation of where relativity should or should not be applied?

But far from any mass or significant EM field it would still hold as light travels these regions. If not then there would be a boundary layer somewhere that seperates behaviour near earth from behaviour elsewhere; where and what evidence?.

Hence the idea that EM or gravity field is the aether seems very implausible to me.

And if no aether than back with the muon experiment we have demonstrated time dialation.

If particles were wavelike as well as particle like then they would carry their waveform with them and again no need for an ether (absolute or relative).

Son of Mulder.

quote:

But far from any mass or significant EM field it would still hold as light travels these regions. If not then there would be a boundary layer somewhere that seperates behaviour near earth from behaviour elsewhere; where and what evidence?.

Do you realise you have just proposed a fundamental principle as to 'why' the aether must exist?

There are no 'boundary layers, or 'boundaries'. Just a 'variant' speed of light!

A prism in a vacuum is struck by a beam of 'white' light at a 'particular' incident angle. The light enters the prism and is 'slowed' by varying degrees dependant on light frequency and defracted by varying degrees dependant on light frequency. On exit of the prism the white light has been 'split' into a spectral array and continues at its original speed from 'before' it entered the prism. The same slowing down and speeding up happens if a plain piece of glass is used, but no spectrum is evolved.

quote:

Hence the idea that EM or gravity field is the aether seems very implausible to me.

I concur, but what is it?

quote:

And if no aether than back with the muon experiment we have demonstrated time dialation.

No. Aether or no aether, all this demonstrates is extended survival with high velocities where no direct collision occurs. As the muon passes at high speed there is insufficient time for an interaction to take place with its surroundings. If it slows, or is slowed, sufficiently for an interaction, that's another matter.

quote:

If particles were wavelike as well as particle like then they would carry their wave form with them and again no need for an ether (absolute or relative).

What? So now interpolations are allowed? No need for an aether? To quote "But far from any mass or significant EM field it would still hold as light travels these regions" and so how does this 'wave' travel? Magic, or aether and what causes the 'shift' in it (don't you dare say 'time dilation', or 'chaos')?

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

Do you realise you have just proposed a fundamental principle as to 'why' the aether must exist?

No I haven't. If one were out in the remote parts of space and you did the muon experiment you'd still see the fast moving muon living longer than the slow moving muon as on earth, no collisions just decay into other particles as usual. And if you did the Michelson Morley experiment out there you'd still measure the speed of light equal in all directions and independent of the relative uniform speed of the measuring equipment.Existence of an aether in which the speed of light was absolute would be disproved. So no need for an aether.

quote:

A prism in a vacuum is struck by a beam of 'white' light at a 'particular' incident angle. The light enters the prism and is 'slowed' by varying degrees dependant on light frequency and defracted by varying degrees dependant on light frequency. On exit of the prism the white light has been 'split' into a spectral array and continues at its original speed from 'before' it entered the prism. The same slowing down and speeding up happens if a plain piece of glass is used, but no spectrum is evolved.

Special Relativity always talks of speed of light in a vacuum and relative to a uniformly moving observer so is seperate from the effect of light travelling through a dielectic material.

quote:

and so how does this 'wave' travel?

It travels in a particle (wave packet) that displays wave like behaviour which in turn is related to the energy of say the photon by the Planck equation or more generaly to it's mass by the de Broiglie equation as demonstrated experimentally many times.

Hence my question earlier which was essentially "what experiment shows need for an aether ie eliminates the no aether option?". I don't know of one do you? The rest is left to Occam.

Son of Mulder.

quote:

No I haven't. If one were out in the remote parts of space and you did the muon experiment you'd still see the fast moving muon living longer than the slow moving muon as on earth, no collisions just decay into other particles as usual. And if you did the Michelson Morley experiment out there you'd still measure the speed of light equal in all directions and independent of the relative uniform speed of the measuring equipment.Existence of an aether in which the speed of light was absolute would be disproved. So no need for an aether.

With all due respect SoM, you have.

If you want to apply Occam's razor on this we'll need to go back to basics again.

quote:

Special Relativity always talks of speed of light in a vacuum and relative to a uniformly moving observer so is seperate from the effect of light travelling through a dielectic material.

Special Relativity utilises c₀, which is an 'absolute vacuum' notwithstanding the fact that an absolute vacuum is theoretical and can't exist. Just like absolute zero temperature is also theoretical. Similarly, an absolute vacuum is also at absolute zero temperature, as if a vacuum contains a readable temperature there has to be something in it (in the vacuum, that is) which is causing the 'warming'. One recent discovery is that light can 'not' travel at temperatures 'very close' to absolute zero temperature, even when there is mass present. What does this say about c₀ as a constant?

The 'prism', or 'glass' experiment is stationary to the observer. Is that a 'uniform' enough 'movement' to apply. When it comes to 'dielectric materials', the 'atmosphere' is also one of these in the 'muon scenario'.

quote:

It travels in a particle (wave packet) that displays wave like behaviour which in turn is related to the energy of say the photon by the Planck equation or more generaly to it's mass by the de Broiglie equation as demonstrated experimentally many times.

"It travels in a particle (wave packet) that displays wave like behaviour" is an 'interpolation', or 'interpretation', used in math to include a statistical energy factor (usually as an RMS) that the particle theoretically contains from its 'macroscopic' manifestation within a wave energy propagating medium. It's impractical to advance from this 'interpolation', as to do so induces great 'dynamical instability' in most calculations that remove the particle from its 'macroscopic' environment (your 'quantum leap').

I can't see what this has to do with photons, unless you are describing 'particles that carry the photon' (particles that are the substance of aether). Wave energy is always carried by many 'particles'!

quote:

Hence my question earlier which was essentially "what experiment shows need for an aether ie eliminates the no aether option?". I don't know of one do you? The rest is left to Occam.

As I said earlier, I don't know! However, if you would accept findings from an experiment a few years ago to produce a Bose-Einstein 'condensate', the result of arresting a beam of light and then allowing it to continue on its path is 'strongly suggestive' of a 'frozen aether' scenario. This is a link to a report on this subject. I guess you'll have an answer for this phenomenon by now.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/17/waa117.xml

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

I can't see what this has to do with photons, unless you are describing 'particles that carry the photon' (particles that are the substance of aether). Wave energy is always carried by many 'particles'!

In the case of wave-particle duality there is one particle and one wave - see Youngs slit experiment where a single photon causes an interference pattern with itself and also an experiment that shows that a single photon can travel two paths at once albeit by the use of mirrors.

But the world of special relativity becomes much stranger when mixed with Quantum Physics, which is what your doing with your reference to the Quantum entanglement quoted in the Telegraph article. But none of it needs an aether.

Son of Mulder.

quote:

In the case of wave-particle duality there is one particle and one wave - see Youngs slit experiment where a single photon causes an interference pattern with itself and also an experiment that shows that a single photon can travel two paths at once albeit by the use of mirrors.

All I can find on this subject amounts to the 'double slit experiment', which of course involves a 'wave front' that comprises of many particles within a 'compressible' medium and it produces the well known 'interference pattern' on a 'plate' (standing waves etc).

The 'two paths at once' scenario looks like a probability assumption of the 'wave' going down, when the 'particle' goes up ('assumption' of electron direction following an insertion into a reality situation)! How real is this?

quote:

But the world of special relativity becomes much stranger when mixed with Quantum Physics, which is what your doing with your reference to the Quantum entanglement quoted in the Telegraph article. But none of it needs an aether.

Quite the opposite SoM. I've stated my disbelief in this! I believe that a 'homogenous propagated wave-form' requires many 'particles' to effect a 'wave'! Please describe otherwise if you feel this is true. Quantum Physics is your introduction, not mine.

This all seems a major diversion from 'Hawking Radiation'.

Best regards, suricat.