On Wednesday, June 4, 2025 at 8:57:23 PM UTC+2 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/3/2025 11:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Wednesday, June 4, 2025 at 12:17:40 AM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/3/2025 11:00 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 11:33:26 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/3/2025 10:05 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 10:46:58 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/3/2025 8:53 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 9:42:30 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/3/2025 3:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: *OK, let's split hairs. If "assumed" means zero evidence for a muon's clock, then "inferred" is better IF you believe a muon has some structure for defining a clock. OTOH, if a muon has no such structure, then it's OK to "assume" the existence of the clock. * *IF* you *assume* a clock requires some internal structure. *But instead of splitting hairs, how about a description of the structure of a muon's clock? * So you want to *assume* that the muon can't keep time just by moving thru spacetime, but requires some structure. Do you have a proof or is this mere surmise? *It's a surmise, not a mere surmise, based on clocks I am familiar with. You're the relativity expert. You teach the masses. What's your concept of time keeping by a muon? AG* *And if that clock shows no time dilation within the muon's frame of reference, how would that FACT effect its half-life? AG* I guess that would show that it wasn't *the* clock that determines the muon's decay. *So what clock does it, if any? AG * *I don't know. But it must that something to do with the mass of the muon, the electron, and neutrino and the coupling of the neutrino, muon, and electron fields since a muon decays into and electron and a anti-neutrino. Brent* *I don't see how those factors would effect the muon's half-life. I appreciate your honesty. I suspect the issue I have raised is unsolved, and this is what troubles me about Relativity. AG* *Why are you troubled by lack of a model. Inertia is a farm more common phenomenon, but you're untroubled by it. Why...I suspect because you have lots of experience of inertia. Well scientists, particularly particle physicists have lots of experience of relativistic time dilation. Brent* *Why should I be troubled by inertia? It's easily understood. * Then perhaps you can explain why a muon has about 200x the inertia of an electron? And why inertia and gravity are always proportional? Brent *It's caused by its larger mass, about 200x, compared to the electron. * That's just saying the same thing in different words. In the context of decay you're demanding a mechanism. What's the mechanism for resisting acceleration? Saying it's "mass" is just giving it a name. *The statement of Inertia, what it is, is easy to grasp. However, many experimental findings of physics are not physically grounded, that is, understood, so why do you expect me to answer your questions? In physics, there's too much bluster about what is known, and too little is grounded in physical reality. AG* *You're the one who's blustering about what's known. I'm pointing out that "known" can mean different things. Physic students soon realize that "known" means we know how to predict its behavior. Sometimes this is based on the "known" behavior of subsystems. But this kind of reductionism has to stop at some level where we just know how to predict behavior but not based on some deeper or more general level. Engineering is even more this way. What is known about materials is often just tables of empirical data. If I want to know the yield strength of 17-40 steel I look it up in a table based on testing many samples. I know it's made of atoms of iron and carbon and nickel and chromium, but it would be foolish to try to calculate the yield strength from that. * But has this stopped anyone on the list before? I'm sure if Alan ran around screaming it's impossible, unknown, physics is bs, and accused you of sweeping the issue under the rug, you would start determining the lattice parameters of the phases (e.g. Burgers vector) and using density functional theory, calculate elastic constants of 17-4 PH stainless steel alloy's matrix, model solid solution strengthening, compute misfit strain fields caused by atoms of chromiu, nickel, copper on the iron lattice to see to what degree they impede dislocation motion (=> thereby increasing yield strength), model nucleation and growth of the hardening phases (Ni3Cu) for precipitation strengthening, using thermodynamic predctions from molecular dynamics simulations to obtain size, distribution etc. of these prcipitates, model the dislocation-precipitate interactions, grain boundary strengthening (idk, but I'm sure you do) and add all the stuff in all the units that I don't care to look up... without any need to calibrate these calculations against experimental yield strength data. That's for lazy people. *So what do you think we "know" about the strength of steel? Is it unknown? Am I sweeping an issue under the rug?* Yes, you are. Because the "real issue" is how the steel knows that these interactions might not be linear. Because when chromium, nickel, and copper have a conversation with the iron lattice, they could conspire to make the engineer with his table fail, and effectively decide to dislocate below the stress level. That's why there are accidents in the oil and gas sectors at times, as everybody knows that those companies are so rich, they would never buy substandard steel. They would never be that cheap as it would impede the greed. -- 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/6ff69238-69ea-454a-9929-d7f05c8f91edn%40googlegroups.com.
