Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rate of decay when they move very fast?

From: Tom Capizzi (etianshrdlu_at_verizon.net)
Date: 02/02/05 

Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 02:09:11 GMT

"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107300043.423636.178250@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tom Capizzi wrote:
>> "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1107279972.314247.150990@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> > To: Tom Cappizzi
>> >
>> > Neither of the twins can see each other, and they don't, until the
>> > astronaut twin lands back on Earth. I did not say both of them age
>> > slower; SR claims the astronaut twin ages slower than his
> Earthbound
>> > twin
>>
>> I know that isn't what you said. This particular claim is not the
> paradox,
>> either.
>>
>>
> Your response indicates that you do not understand what I said, and
> that you don't understand the Twin Paradox, either.

What you wrote above is not a paradox. The astronaut twin is simply
younger than his Earthbound twin. Relativity says time is dilated for
the moving frame of reference, and everything in it.

>>
>>
>> This is merely time dilation.
>>
>> > There is no actual time dilation; it is only an effect resulting
> from
>> > the fact that the time rate of the spaceship slowed compared to the
>> > Earth's time rate each and everytime the ship's speed exceeded the
>> > Earth's speed. Each time the ship went faster, it aged at a rate
>> > slower than the Earth.
>>
>> And that is time dilation. Maybe you should inform us what you define
>> time dilation to be.
>>
>>
> That's precisely what I just did above!

You prefaced your remarks by saying "There is no actual time dilation"
and then proceed to describe an effect which is time dilation.

>>
>>
>> > And what does "by the relative nature of velocity" mean?
>> >
>>
>> That means that the earthbound twin observes the traveler to be
> moving
>> away from earth in some direction, say +x, at some velocity +v. The
>> traveler observes the earth moving away from him along the x axis at
> -v.
>> Since the relativistic factor gamma depends on the square of relative
>> velocity, each sees the other as time dilated by the same factor.

Here I should have said, "each expects to see the other as time dilated by
the same factor at the end of the trip", in keeping with the original
version
of the Paradox.

> That is
>> the paradox. Common sense tells us that the spaceship is flying away,
>> while the observer on earth is essentially standing still. Relativity
>
>> asserts
>> this paradox, or else it would in theory be possible to figure out
> which
>> twin was moving and which standing still, while both twins were in
> inertial
>> frames of reference that were not stationary relative to each other.
> If that
>> were possible, it would also be possible to identify absolute motion
> and
>> an absolute frame of reference, something not allowed by Special
> Relativity.
>> >
>> >
> No. As I said, SR does not state anything about the twins seeing each
> other at all during the trip, nor does it have anything to do with
> absolute motion or frames.

SR most certainly has something to say about frames and motion. While
the original version of the paradox may avoid the specifics of what happens
during the trip, SR still applies if we choose to analyze in more detail.

> That is what others have added to the SR
> experiment simply because they don't understand it either. All kinds
> of mumbo jumbo has been added to the experiment and each one only
> confuses people all the more. SR simply states that if one twin were
> to leave Earth for some years and then return, people could see that
> the Earthbound twin aged along with them normally while the astronaut
> twin did not. From there, we know that essentially the only difference
> between the twins during the trip was that one moved faster than the
> other during the trip in escaping from Earth's gravity and also in
> catching up with Earth at the end of the trip.
>
> SR thus infers that the difference of speed during the experiment is
> what causes the apparent time dilation, and I contend that the reason
> for the difference in aging is due to the fact that one twin went
> faster than the Earth during the trip. If so, that shows that time is
> a property of matter

It is a property of the frame of reference as well as everything it
contains.

> and passes inversely proportional to an object's
> state of motion.

Not exactly accurate. Time dilation is explicitly defined by gamma.

> Thus, who moved away from the other is not a relevant
> issue, only who moved faster or slower.
>

But that IS the paradox. Each twin can claim it is the other one who was
moving, but only one of them appears younger when it is finished.

> The issue of relative motion is a strawman thrown in here by those who
> cannot understand the basic thought experiment.

Relative motion is the core of the paradox, not a strawman.

> Another confusing idea
> is SR's claim that there does occur an actual time dilation, or time
> warp, or the folding of time, at some arbitrary point during the trip,

Forget the science fiction. SR claims a real time dilation, which is nothing
like the folding of time of the movies. And SR also asserts that time is
slowed by relative motion.

> which would constitute a real time dilation. But there is no time warp
> or folding of time (as shown in the movie "Dune"), there is only what
> appears to be such fictional occurrences but which can be explained by
> my idea that time rates of objects vary with their speed.
>
> TomGee
>

The subject of this thread is the decay rate of muons. The number of
particles that survive is affected by the velocity of the muons. This is
not an illusion. Depending on the velocity of the observer's frame, it
can be attributed to time dilation, length contraction, or a combination
of the two. The end result is a very real particle count.

Relevant Pages