photon frequency?

[Phi for All]

How did you draw the conclusion that the Galilean transformations do not work?

They are inadequate for anything besides low-speed phenomena. In much the same way Newtonian physics is inadequate when contemplating phenomena requiring quantum physics. They are contrary to the speed of light postulate, and you can't throw that out without also throwing out Maxwell's wave theory, or the postulate of uniform motion.

[Johnny5]

They are inadequate for anything besides low-speed phenomena. In much the same way Newtonian physics is inadequate when contemplating phenomena requiring quantum physics. They are contrary to the speed of light postulate, and you can't throw that out without also throwing out Maxwell's wave theory, or the postulate of uniform motion.

 

What experiment proves they are inadequate for anything besides low-speed phenomena? And when I say prove, I mean prove. That means there can be no error in the interpretation of the experimental results.

 

I am setting aside Maxwell's wave theory for now.

[Phi for All]

What experiment proves they are inadequate for anything besides low-speed phenomena? And when I say prove' date=' I mean prove. That means there can be no error in the interpretation of the experimental results.

 

I am setting aside Maxwell's wave theory for now.[/quote']If you will accept gedanken experiments, here is a link for dilation of time: http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node135.html.

[Johnny5]

If you will accept gedanken experiments, here is a link for dilation of time: http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node135.html[/url'].

 

I meant a real experiment, not a "thought experiment."

 

Keep in mind, that in order to invalidate the Galilean transformations, you do not have to prove that the Lorentz transformations are correct, it would suffice to show that the Galilean transformations lead to a contradiction.

 

At any rate I will have a look at that link in a little while. But, in the meantime, I would ask you only one thing, if time must dilate according to the formula found in the link, must length contract according to the Lorentz contraction formula?

[swansont]

I meant a real experiment' date=' not a "thought experiment."

 

Keep in mind, that in order to invalidate the Galilean transformations, you do not have to prove that the Lorentz transformations are correct, it would suffice to show that the Galilean transformations lead to a contradiction.

 

At any rate I will have a look at that link in a little while. But, in the meantime, I would ask you only one thing, if time must dilate according to the formula found in the link, must length contract according to the Lorentz contraction formula?[/quote']

 

Muon decay experiments have confirmed the Lorentz transformation. Muons have a measurable lifetime in the rest frame, but high-energy ones, moving at a large fraction of c, don't decay as quickly. As predicted by the time dilation formula.

 

Length contracting in the object's frame is necessary to make the two explanations be consistent. If the muon decays (or not) in one frame, it has to decay (or not) in the other as well.

[Johnny5]

Muon decay experiments have confirmed the Lorentz transformation. Muons have a measurable lifetime in the rest frame' date=' but high-energy ones, moving at a large fraction of c, don't decay as quickly. As predicted by the time dilation formula.

 

Length contracting in the object's frame is necessary to make the two explanations be consistent. If the muon decays (or not) in one frame, it has to decay (or not) in the other as well.[/quote']

 

I've watched the experiment done by a friend.

 

Suppose you and I just performed the experiment. We built a muon detector inside the lab. Give me an example of the kind of data we would be looking at.

[swansont]

I've watched the experiment done by a friend.

 

Suppose you and I just performed the experiment. We built a muon detector inside the lab. Give me an example of the kind of data we would be looking at.

 

I haven't watched the experiment, so I can only guess - you'd get flux and energy measurements from taking data at various elevations, as well as from a lab setup, that allow you to deduce the lifetime of the muons vs their energy.

[J.C.MacSwell]

I haven't watched the experiment, so I can only guess - you'd get flux and energy measurements from taking data at various elevations, as well as from a lab setup, that allow you to deduce the lifetime of the muons vs their energy.

 

Would there not be significant GR element (read non SR) due to decceleration?

[Johnny5]

I haven't watched the experiment, so I can only guess - you'd get flux and energy measurements from taking data at various elevations, as well as from a lab setup, that allow you to deduce the lifetime of the muons vs their energy.

 

Well here is what I was wondering. What possible other interpretations are there for the experimental results, besides time dilation.

 

Also, how do you know that you are detecting muons, and not some other particle.

 

The way the experiment worked, is that some large detector was built in the physics lab, inside of the building. So those muons apparently traveled through several feet of concrete, into the lab detector.

 

Then, mass computations were made, which corresponded to muons... I believe. As I said, I didn't do this experiment, I chose to do another, but I did discuss the results with the guys who did the muon experiment, after theyd finished it.

 

One of the questions I've always had about the muon experiment, is even if the particles being detected really are muons, what if there are so many muons created in the upper atmosphere, that statistically some are long lived enough to reach the ground (independent of relativity theory). After all, we are talking about the mean lifetime of a muon, which is statistical.

[swansont]

One of the questions I've always had about the muon experiment, is even if the particles being detected really are muons, what if there are so many muons created in the upper atmosphere, that statistically some are long lived enough to reach the ground (independent of relativity theory). After all, we are talking about the mean [/i'] lifetime of a muon, which is statistical.

 

Yes the mean lifetime is statistical. Which means you can do statistical analysis of it. You take more than one data point.

 

In the experiment, there was a bias - more particles reached the ground than were expected to from a statistical standpoint, and was instead as predicted by relativity.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Yes the mean lifetime is statistical. Which means you can do statistical analysis of it. You take more than one data point.

 

In the experiment' date=' there was a bias - more particles reached the ground than were expected to from a statistical standpoint, and was instead as predicted by relativity.[/quote']

 

GR?

[swansont]

GR?

 

Near the surface of the earth, the redshift is a part in 10¹⁶ per meter (g/c²). Negligible compared to the kinematic term as long as gh << v²

[J.C.MacSwell]

Near the surface of the earth, the redshift is a part in 10¹⁶ per meter (g/c²). Negligible compared to the kinematic term as long as gh << v[sup']2[/sup]

 

Isn't the deccelleration many, many times that in significance? Is it still negligible in comparison to the velocity time dilation?

[swansont]

Isn't the deccelleration many, many times that in significance? Is it still negligible in comparison to the velocity time dilation?

 

What acceleration is present, other than g?

[J.C.MacSwell]

What acceleration is present, other than g?

 

Aren't they created in collisions and deccelerate they're whole "life"?

[swansont]

Aren't they created in collisions and deccelerate they're whole "life"?

 

They are created in a collision, but not of a muon. Cosmic rays collide and produce pions, which subsequently decay to muons. I'm not sure how to account for collisions, but the ones that are detected still have a significant amount of energy, so the average acceleration wouldn't be that big. The ones that scatter with large energy loss would do so through a large angle and not be detected; the ones that scatter through a small angle can't have undergone a large acceleration.

[J.C.MacSwell]

They are created in a collision, but not of a muon. Cosmic rays collide and produce pions, which subsequently decay to muons. I'm not sure how to account for collisions, but the ones that are detected still have a significant amount of energy, so the average acceleration wouldn't be that big. The ones that scatter with large energy loss would do so through a large angle and not be detected; the ones that scatter through a small angle can't have undergone a large acceleration.

 

So if they deccelerate enough to "live longer" they are unlikely to reach the ground?

[swansont]

So if they deccelerate enough to "live longer" they are unlikely to reach the ground?

 

If they slow down their clock speeds up. The also go off at some angle, so their path length increases. Both would make them less likely to reach the ground before they decay.

[J.C.MacSwell]

If they slow down their clock speeds up[/b']. The also go off at some angle, so their path length increases. Both would make them less likely to reach the ground before they decay.

 

1. We would see their clock speed up (due to velocity) if they slowed in our reference frame.

2. We would see their clock slow down (due to acceleration) if they accelerated/deccelerated in our reference frame.

 

So if they deccelerated relative to us "effect 1." would overwhelm "effect 2"?

[swansont]

1. We would see their clock speed up (due to velocity) if they slowed in our reference frame.

2. We would see their clock slow down (due to acceleration) if they accelerated/deccelerated in our reference frame.

 

So if they deccelerated relative to us "effect 1." would overwhelm "effect 2"?

 

I don't know how to evaluate it.

[J.C.MacSwell]

I don't know how to evaluate it.

 

Thank-you anyway. I will give this some thought.