On 6/3/2025 11:16 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


On Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 11:40:38 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:



    On 6/3/2025 9:04 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


    On Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 9:57:05 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:



        On 6/3/2025 5:52 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


        On Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 6:29:49 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:



            On 6/3/2025 2:05 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:


            On Monday, June 2, 2025 at 9:50:54 PM UTC-6 Alan
            Grayson wrote:

                On Monday, June 2, 2025 at 9:14:49 PM UTC-6 Brent
                Meeker wrote:



                    On 6/2/2025 6:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


                    On Monday, June 2, 2025 at 7:14:47 PM UTC-6
                    Brent Meeker wrote:

                        And you are too susceptible to casually
                        assuming you understand the familiar just
                        because it's familiar. Your alarm clock
                        measures time by the oscillations of a
                        wheel, which depend on the inertia of the
                        wheel. Do you understand "the reality of
                        that inertia"?

                        Brent


                    You'd be in a much better position to defend
                    Clark if either of you could define the clock
                    inherent in a muon, but you don't seem able to
                    meet that challenge. AG
                    I think John can take care of himself.

                    If muon's don't have an inherent clock, how do
                    they know when to decay?

                    Brent


                You're assuming they have a clock, but avoid
                describing its form, or how it reads the time, if
                it reads the time. So many things assumed but no
                answers in sight. AG


            I suppose you were referring to the atmosphere
            producing an anti-inertial effect on the muons, but
            what's lacking is an explanation, or if you like MODEL,
            of how that effects the half-life of those particles.
            Do you have a model of how relativistic motion makes a
            wrist watch run slower?

            Brent


        In the frame wherein you allege the wrist watch is running
        slower, it isn't. In some other frame, moving at constant
        velocity wrt that wrist watch, it appears to be running
        slower. Which watch should we pay attention to? AG
        The one in the frame where the muons run slower.

        Brent


    That would have been my guess, but it makes no sense. How would a
    muon have contact with another frame as the observer, in which
    its clocks seem to tick at a lower rate? AG
    You seem to have lost the point.  We're not discussing why time
    dilation occurs.


*Pardon me for extending the scope of the discussion. What was it we were discussing? I can't recall. AG*

    It's obviously not a matter of "contact" between frames; but it's
    also beside the point.

*I never claimed anything about "contact", except that the frame observing the decayed muons implies time dilation of those muons, and it's OK IMO to ask how that could happen. AG*

    The point is that whatever is responsible for muons having a
    particular half-life when stationary, changes with speed exactly
    the same way clocks change with speed.  It's a point of evidence
    for muons having the same physical relation to time as clocks.


*If you can't see there's something rather deep occurring to produce time dilation in the frame where clocks are at rest, I can't help you. In effect, you're satisfied with "shut up and calculate", and the underlying physical reality is of no interest. You were ahead of the game when you admitted you don't know why the half-life changes. AG*
*I do know why it changes.  Time dilation is just a consequence of spacetime geometry.  But I don't know why a muon has sense of time; and it can't just be a property of the muon because the muon wouldn't decay if it didn't have the electron state to decay into.  It's a probabilistic event, so it doesn't have a definite time to decay, it just has a constant probability of decay per unit time.

Brent*

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/04c1e4b6-46c2-419a-9c1d-843deb6dc892%40gmail.com.

Reply via email to