Muons II

The following is a summation of how two observers in motion at near light speed relative to each other view the situation, according to relativity. I call these The Facts.

From Observer A’s viewpoint:

• Observer B is in motion.
• Observer B is experiencing time dilation.
• Everything in Observer B’s reference frame (stationary relative to B) is length-contracted, as measured against a yardstick in my reference frame.
• We both measure the same speed for light.

From Observer B’s viewpoint:

• Observer A is in motion.
• Observer A is experiencing time dilation.
• Everything in Observer A’s reference frame (stationary relative to A) is length-contracted, as measured against a yardstick in my reference frame.
• We both measure the same speed for light.

Applying The Facts to biological twins, one asks the relativist, “If one twin stays on Earth and the other goes on a rocket tour of the galaxy before finally returning to Earth, how can each twin have aged less than the other?”

And the relativist answers, “Because the twin on the rocket experiences forces (acceleration) during his trip that the Earth-bound twin does not. This breaks the symmetry and allows us to say that the Earth-bound twin is older upon their reunion.”

(Of course, I’ve written earlier that this answer is really a non-answer, because the instant you bring up acceleration, you’ve brought the so-called paradox into the realm of general relativity, which turns out to be simply shifting the problem without resolving it).

Applying The Facts to the situation of cosmic-ray muons, one asks the relativist, “If observation shows that muons generated by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere live longer than their twins who are stationary relative to the entire atmosphere, why do The Facts predict that each type of muon will outlive the other?”

And the relativist answers, “Because from their viewpoint, the cosmic-ray muons have the same life expectancy as ‘normal’ muons, but the upper atmosphere is length-contracted due to its motion, thus the cosmic-ray muons survive to reach the ground.”

“Yes, but,” one objects, “according to The Facts, from the viewpoint of the cosmic-ray muons, muons stationary relative to the ground and the atmosphere are the ones experiencing time dilation, and so should still be alive when the cosmic-ray muons reach the ground, and should actually outlive the cosmic-ray muons.

“According to Einstein for Dummies (page 141), muons in their own reference frame only live for 2.2 microseconds, while time-dilated muons live for 34.8 microseconds. So in the Earth’s reference frame, a muon on the ground will live for 2.2 microseconds, while a cosmic-ray muon will live for 34.8 microseconds. Conversely, the cosmic-ray muons will see themselves live for 2.2 microseconds, while an Earth muon will live for 34.8 microseconds. So how can each type of muon outlive the other, because the length contraction answer you gave doesn’t seem to pass muster?”

And the relativist answers, “Hey, I never said anything about one outliving the other. We were discussing why cosmic-ray muons are able to traverse the length of the atmosphere, which, without the relativistic effects of time dilation and length contraction, they should not be able to do. Once they reach the ground, what they do after that is their business. They’ve reached the ground, therefore they’re experiencing time dilation.”

And one objects again, “Yes, but you’re not answering the question. Even after they reach the ground, relativity still predicts that each one will decay before the other. How is that possible? You said that in the case of the biological twins, acceleration broke the symmetry and let us know who was really aging faster than the other. There’s no acceleration in the case of the muons. So how do we explain that the cosmic-ray muons definitely outlive the Earth-bound muons? Because obviously they must, since we’ve already established that the cosmic-ray muons are the ones actually undergoing time dilation.”

The only possible resolution I can see is that, despite protestations about there being no acceleration to appeal to here, there actually is acceleration to appeal to here: there’s a gravitational field. And gravitation and acceleration are equivalent, correct?

The problem with this approach is that in this case, both sets of muons are within the same gravitational field. Granted, the Earth-bound muons are deeper inside the gravitational field, so maybe that breaks the symmetry.

But let’s appeal to acceleration anyway, as in the standard Twins Paradox, thereby dragging the problem into the realm of general relativity. As I wrote earlier in another bit of writing, this leads us to pseudo-gravity and other considerations, which ultimately leads to the fact that all reference frames are not created equal, thereby sounding the death knell for relativity.

And anyway, what about the case of muons far enough out in space that they are essentially in a gravity-free environment? Suppose we have two rockets in relative motion at near light speed, each carrying a cargo of muons in its stern. The Facts predict that the cargo in each ship will decay before the cargo in the other ship. So which ACTUALLY decays first? There’s no gravity or acceleration to appeal to here to break the symmetry.

I suppose the relativist would object that it’s meaningless to ask the question, because if they attempt to get together to solve the problem, one of them must accelerate to match speeds with the other, thereby breaking the symmetry (but not really, because due to general relativity, we can say that the one who activates his thrusters to apparently maneuver into position with the other rocket is actually merely generating a gravitational field that affects the entire universe, causing the universe and everything in it to accelerate, which is absurd).

Suppose they simply communicate by radio, to which the relativist would object that there’s no hope there due to the meaninglessness of NOW when considering two observers in relative motion. Trying the radio method complicates the issue by adding a relativity of simultaneity problem.

OK, then. Do it this way: we have two identical rockets ships in constant relative motion at near light speed, and one or the other is said to be moving along a straight line that runs parallel to the other ship. Each ship is so long that the muons in its own reference frame, if traveling at near light speed in the absence of time dilation, would decay before they were able to traverse one ship length. The two ships are so closely situated that when their sterns are aligned, a small protrusion in the stern of each ship will just contact the same protrusion in the other ship without causing any impediment to the relative velocity, allowing the exchange of a brief burst of information as to the status of each ship’s cargo. The Facts predict that each ship should receive a burst saying that the cargo of the other ship has decayed. And each observer will say to himself, “Wait a minute! This violates The Facts! That other guy’s cargo should have outlived my own!”

Now wait a minute, I myself protest. Haven’t I been ranting that relativity predicts that each biological twin will outlive the other, yet due to symmetry-breaking acceleration, upon their reunion the twin finds that the Earth-bound twin is older? Why does my little thought experiment above now predict that both sets of muons are decayed at the brief instant of their would-be union?

It’s because I have just logically shown that time dilation in the absence of gravitational influence does not exist.

And since the thought experiment I outlined above is actually just the standard cosmic-ray muon/Earth’s atmosphere setup moved into outer space, what I’ve shown is that The Facts predict complete reciprocity in the decay, which the relativist modifies to predict asymmetric decay due to gravitation, which is what is found in actual experiment.

What we must conclude at this point is that time dilation, by relativity’s own logic, is caused either by gravitation or acceleration, not by simply moving at constant relativistic velocity.

Further following this logic, it must be the case that only things undergoing acceleration or being influenced by gravitation can be time-dilated. When we compare two frames that are simply in relative uniform motion, neither frame will be time-dilated.

Let me outline my logic in case it isn’t clear.

First, we have The Facts, as given at the start of this essay.

Next, we have my thought experiment involving two rockets each carrying a cargo of muons. Each rocket is so long that, in the absence of the existence of time dilation, muons traveling at near light speed would decay before they traversed the length of the rocket. Thus, in the time it takes the moving rocket to traverse the length of the stationary rocket, the stationary rocket’s cargo will have decayed (since each rocket regards itself as being at rest and thus not experiencing time dilation as given in The Facts). Thus, when the protrusions on the stern of each ship come into contact, each rocket will report that its cargo has decayed. In other words, neither cargo of muons has outlived the other as predicted by The Facts, thus leading to the inescapable conclusion that time dilation cannot be a reality in this case.

Continuing. We then have the case of the long-lived muons, where cosmic-ray muons traveling at near light speed outlive their Earth-bound counterparts. This is proven by experiment. According to the general relativistic explanation, this asymmetric deviation from the symmetric prediction of The Facts is caused by gravity. But both sets of muons (Earth-bound and upper-atmosphere cosmic-ray muons) are experiencing gravity. However, the cosmic-ray muons are experiencing an increasing gravitational force. They start off in the upper atmosphere where gravity is slightly weaker, and travel downward, into increasing gravitational strength. It thus cannot the mere presence of gravity which breaks the symmetry in the case of the cosmic-ray muons, but changing gravitational strength, or potential.

Considering both situations, I conclude that, if time dilation exists, it must be caused by gravity or acceleration, and that time dilation only exists when either is present. Time dilation is not present in the absence of gravity or acceleration, regardless of relativistic velocity.

Okay, I guess I’m done rambling now.

Muons I

I’m writing a series of essays on cosmic-ray muons, in addition to the video I already did. Why am I doing this? Can’t I explain my ideas in a single essay? No, I can’t. I wrote one, then started second guessing myself and thought of more stuff I might need to address, so I started a second, trying to tackle the subject from a slightly different angle. Then I started second guessing that one, and started a third…

At this point I’m not even sure which one I wrote first, since I keep coming back to each to add and modify, even while working on the others. So if they seem out of sequence, blame it on that. I’m really good at overwriting, and on leaving in details that I think might be or know to be erroneous or superfluous, simply because I don’t want to delete a train of thought that I might snag onto at a later date.

Anyway, some single essay may be incomplete or fail on a key point, but hopefully I’ve written enough to address the fails or unclear points, so that taken together they all get my idea across. Besides, I doubt I’m the first person to see this fatal flaw in the contention that muons are experimental verification of relativity (in fact I know I’m not), so if I don’t get my ideas across, surely someone else has or will.

******

One of the oft-touted experimental verifications of length contraction and time dilation is the case of the long-lived muons. Muons decay rapidly and thus normally live extremely brief lives. However, muons generated by cosmic rays high in the atmosphere and traveling at relativistic speed are able to survive long enough to reach the ground, which their “normal” counterparts (i.e. muons at rest in the observer’s frame) would not be able to do. The speeding muons thus outlive their “normal” counterparts.

In other words, let’s say we have a laboratory on the ground which contains 20 muons, and an observer within the laboratory. We also have 20 muons that have just been generated by cosmic rays near the top of an extremely tall mountain, and these muons speed toward the ground. By the time these muons hit the ground, all 20 muons in the laboratory will long since have decayed. The reason the traveling muons haven’t decayed, and have managed to hit the ground, is that for them, time is dilated and is passing at a slower rate, thus they decay more slowly compared to the “normal” laboratory muons.

But — time dilation is reciprocal, right? From the viewpoint of the “traveling” muons, they are actually standing still, while the ground and the laboratory muons speed toward them at relativistic speed. The laboratory muons are thus experiencing time dilation, and thus should outlive the “normal” muons, which are now the “traveling” muons.

I smell a Twins-type paradox here. Which set of muons actually outlives the other? Seems to me that according to reciprocal time dilation, they should both outlive the other, which is physically impossible.

However, according to relativity’s supporters, everything is fine and dandy. I quote from Relativity and Its Roots by Banesh Hoffmann:

“Let us now look at the situation from the point of view of an observer moving so as to keep pace with the muons. Since the muons are stationary relative to him, he will not observe a relativistic slowing of their decay rates. But he—and the muons—will see the mountain rushing toward them with almost the speed of light, and therefore relative to them the mountain will be much shorter than it was for the observer on the ground. And since, relative to the muons, the factor by which the height of the mountain contracts is the same as that by which, relative to the ground, the time was slowed, the number of muons reaching the level of the base of the mountain will come out the same in either frame of reference.”

That’s all well and good. But who would ever assert that in one frame, only, say, 5 muons will reach the ground, while from another frame, 10 muons will reach the ground? Who exactly is questioning that there will be a discrepancy in the number of muons that reach the ground? This is not a photon analysis problem, where we’re trying to account for all the photons in the Twins Paradox.

The issue is time dilation, not the number of muons reaching the ground. The issue is which set of muons actually outlives the other, not the number of muons reaching the ground.

My whole point is, this whole muon business is supposedly a demonstration of time dilation and length contraction. The whole premise is that the cosmic-ray muons outlive their “normal” counterparts because they’re moving at nearly the speed of light.  So why does the relativist say, “Oh, the mountain is shorter from the traveling muon frame by the same degree that time is dilated from the mountain’s frame, therefore the number of muons reaching the base of the mountain is the same in both frames. Problem resolved.”

Huh? What the hell does that have to do with anything?

It’s a non-sequitur. Keep your eye on the ball, people.

There’s a Twins Paradox here that can’t be resolved by claiming that acceleration breaks the reciprocity, as in the actual Twins Paradox.

The mountain is completely irrelevant to the whole discussion. We could just as easily postulate a stationary mountain next to the “traveling” muons, and say the “traveling” muons are stationary at its base. Each frame will then have a tall mountain stationary next to it, with each mountain in one frame inverted relative to the other frame, so that from whatever frame, one set of muons will be speeding toward the base of the mountain in the opposing frame. Thus, from Earth mountain’s frame, the mountain in the frame of the cosmic-ray muons will be length-contracted for the “normal” muons. Only now, we see, there are no such things as “normal” muons. There are only muons in relative motion to one another, and the “normal” muons are merely those muons which happen to be stationary relative to whatever observer we’re considering.

So the Earth muons might just as easily be considered as the cosmic-ray muons, and vice-versa. The length-contraction of the mountain is completely irrelevant. But if you insist on using it, put a mountain in both frames and apply reciprocal time dilation as relativity says must be allowed lest the theory be invalid.

When this is done, each set of muons, viewed from the other frame, will theoretically live to reach the base of the mountain in the other frame, even though experimentally only the cosmic-ray muons reach the base of the mountain, for which relativity has no explanation, since they can’t resort to acceleration in an attempt break the symmetry.

See, here is the heart of the problem: from the viewpoint of the Earth muons, the cosmic-ray muons are still “alive” long after the Earth muons are “dead.” And reciprocally, from the point of the view of the cosmic-ray muons, the Earth muons are still “alive” long after the cosmic-ray muons are”dead.” It’s a physical impossibility. It’s like saying that I lived forty years and my cousin lived fifty years, or vice versa, depending upon which one of us you ask. It’s impossible, and so the theory that gives rise to such impossibilities is an incorrect theory.

The reason the long-lived muons is allowed as a proof of relativity is that proponents only consider the situation with muons in a single frame, with relative motion between that muon-containing frame and a second frame. If you insert muons into both frames, each stationary relative to their own frame, then the Twins Paradox arises, casting the whole situation in doubt and desperately in need of a resolution that doesn’t come, because in this situation you can’t appeal to acceleration to break the symmetry.

The case of the long-lived muons is another iteration of the Twins Paradox, and it has no resolution. The case of the long-lived muons, rather than supporting relativity, actually presents a problem for relativity. The muons disprove relativity, and thus it’s outrageous that it’s touted as a proof of relativity. The muons are, in actuality, proof that proponents of relativity don’t actually understand their own theory, or that they carefully pick and choose which aspect of experimental evidence they’re willing to consider. If the full implications of a bit of experimental evidence don’t support the theory, then they ignore the full implications and only consider the evidence insofar as it supports the theory.

See, here’s a typical statement of the muon “problem:”

“The measurement of the flux of muons at the Earth’s surface produced an early dilemma because many more are detected than would be expected, based on their short half-life of 1.56 microseconds. This is a good example of the application of relativistic time dilation to explain the increased particle range for high-speed particles.” (Source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html)

That’s it. There are more muons, therefore time dilation. End of story. But that’s NOT the end of the story. That’s far from the end of the story. The muons are a huge problem for relativity. But I will say this. The above excerpt is correct. The muons ARE indeed “a good example of the application of relativistic time dilation to explain the increased particle range for high-speed particles.” The muons ARE indeed a good example of how relativity is very shoddily and selectively applied to explain physical phenomena. Sure, we can explain the muons using time dilation. But we’ll ignore the rest of the story of the muons, which is a Twins-type paradox with no resolution, thereby disproving special relativity. You can’t even resort to the ultimately dead-ended explanation of symmetry-breaking acceleration, since there’s no acceleration involved in the muon problem.

The standard spiel of the Twins Paradox asserts that the paradox is resolved due to the fact that the traveling twin experiences forces, due to acceleration, which the stay-at-home twin does not experience. Inherent in this is the implied fact that if no acceleration occurred, the paradox could not be resolved. If the case of the long-lived muons can be shown to be an iteration of the Twins Paradox, and I think it has been shown to be such an iteration, then the paradox has not been resolved, because there is no acceleration.

So why do cosmic-ray muons outlive their “normal” counterparts? I don’t know, but I DO know that it’s not for the reasons relativity puts forth. Look elsewhere for an explanation.

Murderers and Pedophiles and Geocentrists, oh my!

I was just browsing some forums where Geocentrism vs. heliocentrism was being debated, and ran across some interesting comments.

One involved a guy saying that the need to invent “fictitious” forces to explain things in a geocentric universe, forces that only existed on a geocentric Earth, was proof that an absolute Geocentric frame did not exist. The guy in question didn’t specify exactly which “fictitious” forces he was referring to, but I suspect he may have meant Coriolis and centrifugal forces. Never mind that those forces exist in a rotating reference frame, which the Earth is not (rotating, that is) in a Geocentric universe. Although, of course, in some Geocentric models the Earth is rotating, but not moving through space.

So, thought I. This guy thinks that, when he uses a physics developed for a non-Earth-centered universe over the last few hundred years, it is significant that he has to modify that physics to accommodate an Earth-centered universe, and that the need to make such modifications somehow proves that we don’t live in an Earth-centered universe.

That’s ridiculous. Don’t say that shortcomings in your own model are actually shortcomings in the other guy’s model.

I should rather think it would be strange if Earth occupied a special place in the universe and there were NO forces unique to it.

Having to modify non-Earth-centered physics to explain an Earth-centered universe could just as easily be taken as proof that we don’t live in a non-Earth centered universe. In such a case, the so-called “fictitious” forces are not really fictitious at all. Maybe they’re real, and the rest of your physics is “fictitious,” or at the very least, inadequate.

I also found it interesting that a great many of the comments are extremely vicious and nasty. Apparently, a person who believes the Earth is at the center of the universe is right down there with murderers and pedophiles in terms of the public’s contempt. There’s some sort of deep-seated and irrational hostility that is stirred up by the mere mention of Geocentrism. “Geocentrists are stupid; they’re liars, cheats and whores who will say anything to twist your words; they’re best avoided, because you can’t have any sort of logical, intelligent, peaceful or honest debate with them; they’re scum, because everyone knows that the Earth isn’t at the center of the universe, it’s so well-known and proven that we don’t even need to discuss it. Besides, if you really are stupid enough to think the Earth is at the center of the universe, then your puny mind couldn’t possibly understand my rebuttal, so I won’t even bother. So just shut your mouth, damn you! Just shut up! Freaking religious wacko! Crawl off and die somewhere, why don’t you? Scumbag! Tea Party butthole. You probably voted for Bush, you right-wing neo-con! Geocentrism! Bah! I spit on your grave! Get out of this forum, and take your intolerance and idiocy with you! You hateful bigot!”

Geez. All that merely because someone coughs and says, “Geocentrism.”

But to be fair, I think they were forums where a lot of atheists hang out. So, well…you know.

Seriously, though. That’s the level of debate on a lot of the forums. A Geocentrist tries to explain his position, and instead of an intelligent rebuttal, he’s met with, “You’re stupid! You’re so freaking stupid! The Earth can’t possibly be at the center of the universe. Everyone knows that, so I won’t even discuss it. But you’re wrong! You’re stupid! Geostationary satellite! ‘Nuff said! Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m giving a lecture to my physics class in ten minutes. Retard.”

And no, I didn’t make any comments on the forums. I merely lurked and read what has gone before.

But mainstream science has been developing a non-Earth-centered model of the universe for a good five hundred years. Over the course of that development, there have been a great many things that are unexplainable based on the state of the mainstream model at that time. But despite this, the standard model was retained, and development continued until the model COULD explain the previously unexplainable.

So if you point out anything at all that can be explained in terms of a non-Earth-centered model, but cannot currently be explained in terms of an Earth-centered model, don’t conclude that that therefore means the Earth-centered model absolutely does not and will never work. There are huge problems and gaps in your own standard model, but do you take this as evidence that your model is wrong? Of course not. You make up things like dark matter and dark energy to spackle over your gaps, having faith that dark matter and dark energy will eventually be discovered.

It’s wholeheartedly stupid and disingenuous to assert that, in light of the history of the development of the non-Earth-centered model, a bit of polishing and development of the Earth-centered model could not eventually explain the very things which you point out are currently unexplainable other than with a non-Earth-centered model.

Why is it that when a gap in standard physics is exposed, it’s viewed as an opportunity for further refinement of the theory, a positive thing, but when a similar gap in geocentric physics is exposed, it’s viewed as an impassable brick wall for Geocentrism, a show-stopper, the end of the line?

For example, from what I’m reading, opponents of an Earth-centered universe believe that geostationary and geosynchronous satellites are the most damning piece of evidence against Geocentrism. Geocentrism can’t currently explain those things, therefore geocentrism will never be able to explain those things, and Geocentrism is therefore disproved.

But shouldn’t you rather be saying that a non-Earth-centered physics cannot explain those things in terms of an-Earth-centered model?

And anyway, there are already at least a few explanations that I’ve run across to explain geosynchronous satellites in terms of Geocentrism. So the assertion that Geocentrism cannot explain them is demonstrably false.

The weakness of standard non-Earth-centered physics in explaining observations in terms of an Earth-centered model is a strike against standard non-Earth-centered physics, not against the tenability of an absolute Earth-centered model.

The fact is that human ingenuity can come up with tenable and consistent theories to explain any observation. That’s what makes us so great. We can come up with multiple theories to explain the same observation, all of them tenable, or with the potential to be made tenable with enough development. It’s all a matter of which theory you want to invest your time and your life in.

And maybe that’s what mainstream, dogmatic scientists don’t like. They aren’t comfortable with the notion that there could be other theories waiting in the wings, equal to their own, thereby rendering their life’s investment worthless. And Geocentrism is the most diametrically-opposing theory out there, for the standard model of cosmology. So of course it gets a guttural, trapped-in-a-corner kind of primal reaction from proponents of the standard model. The Copernican principal is fundamental to standard cosmology, so of course people who fundamentally reject the Copernican principal are going to be the object of an instinctive hatred for proponents of the standard model.

The truth is that IF you care to look deeper into the issue than flinging ad hominem attacks against Geocentrists, AND you can get past your a priori assumption that the Earth cannot possibly be at the center of everything, then you will find that Geocentrists are on a much firmer foundation than you think they are.

New Death to Einstein! video

I've put a new Death to Einstein! video on YouTube. This one is on the long-lived muons that are allegedly evidence of time dilation and length contraction.

This one is way too pixelated, so I'll be swapping it out with a higher-resolution render sometime over the next few days or weeks. But this one looks okay on a 7" tablet at least (bit of an eye strainer, though), so I'm leaving it up for now.