• Re: Muon paradox

    From Kent Bazhukov@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Tue Apr 1 21:08:09 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

    Do muons move at a different velocity in the laboratory than in the atmosphere?

    "No, muons generally do not move at a different velocity in a laboratory setting compared to their velocity in the atmosphere; they both travel
    at speeds very close to the speed of light, typically around 99.8% of
    the speed of light" - Google search AI.

    Then why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?

    excellent question. My hunch is that the stupid ๐™ง๐™ช๐™ก๐™š๐™จ ๐™—๐™–๐™จ๐™š๐™™ science
    discretize things in ๐™ฅ๐™–๐™ง๐™ฉ๐™ž๐™˜๐™ก๐™š๐™จ. It's rather ๐™ฅ๐™ง๐™ค๐™—๐™–๐™—๐™ž๐™ก๐™ž๐™ฉ๐™ฎ ๐™™๐™ž๐™จ๐™ฉ๐™ง๐™ž๐™—๐™ช๐™ฉ๐™ž๐™ค๐™ฃ๐™จ, according
    to my theory of "๐™Š๐™ฃ ๐™ฉ๐™๐™š ๐˜ฟ๐™ž๐™ซ๐™š๐™ง๐™œ๐™š๐™ฃ๐™ฉ ๐™ˆ๐™–๐™ฉ๐™ฉ๐™š๐™ง ๐™ค๐™› ๐™ฉ๐™๐™š ๐™ˆ๐™ค๐™ซ๐™ž๐™ฃ๐™œ ๐™Š๐™—๐™Ÿ๐™š๐™˜๐™ฉ๐™จ ๐™ˆ๐™ค๐™™๐™š๐™ก". And they
    should investigate WHAT is causing that.

    ie in quantum mechanics the probaility 1+1=2 MACRO scale logic is
    infinitesimal small close to zero.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to Kent Bazhukov on Tue Apr 1 21:21:20 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 21:08:09 +0000, Kent Bazhukov wrote:

    LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

    Do muons move at a different velocity in the laboratory than in the
    atmosphere?

    "No, muons generally do not move at a different velocity in a laboratory
    setting compared to their velocity in the atmosphere; they both travel
    at speeds very close to the speed of light, typically around 99.8% of
    the speed of light" - Google search AI.

    Then why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?

    excellent question. My hunch is that the stupid ๐™ง๐™ช๐™ก๐™š๐™จ ๐™—๐™–๐™จ๐™š๐™™ science
    discretize things in ๐™ฅ๐™–๐™ง๐™ฉ๐™ž๐™˜๐™ก๐™š๐™จ. It's rather ๐™ฅ๐™ง๐™ค๐™—๐™–๐™—๐™ž๐™ก๐™ž๐™ฉ๐™ฎ ๐™™๐™ž๐™จ๐™ฉ๐™ง๐™ž๐™—๐™ช๐™ฉ๐™ž๐™ค๐™ฃ๐™จ,
    according
    to my theory of "๐™Š๐™ฃ ๐™ฉ๐™๐™š ๐˜ฟ๐™ž๐™ซ๐™š๐™ง๐™œ๐™š๐™ฃ๐™ฉ ๐™ˆ๐™–๐™ฉ๐™ฉ๐™š๐™ง ๐™ค๐™› ๐™ฉ๐™๐™š ๐™ˆ๐™ค๐™ซ๐™ž๐™ฃ๐™œ ๐™Š๐™—๐™Ÿ๐™š๐™˜๐™ฉ๐™จ ๐™ˆ๐™ค๐™™๐™š๐™ก".
    And they
    should investigate WHAT is causing that.

    ie in quantum mechanics the probaility 1+1=2 MACRO scale logic is infinitesimal small close to zero.
    It seems hard to get around the evidence that the muon lifetime is
    longer outside of the laboratory.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edilberto Gayazov@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Tue Apr 1 21:26:11 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 01.04.2025 oย 20:44, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
    Since muons are created at a height ~15 km, and the time for a muon to
    reach the earth is t = 15e3/v = 5.005 s,
    then the part of the muon flux that will reach the Earth is
    ย ย N/Nโ‚€ = exp(-t/tโ‚‘) = 0.556, so 55.6% of the muons would reach the >>> ย ย Earth.

    If the lifetime of the muons had been 2.2 ฮผs,

    If the lifetime of the muons had been 2.2 ฮผs in the Earth frame

    No other frame involved, poor trash. Muons have no, they're quantum particles...

    absolutely, finally a correct observation. These ๐™ง๐™ช๐™ก๐™š๐™จ ๐™—๐™–๐™จ๐™š๐™™ science guys
    should investigate what is all about the ๐™ฅ๐™ง๐™ค๐™—๐™–๐™—๐™ž๐™ก๐™ž๐™ฉ๐™ฎ ๐™™๐™ž๐™จ๐™ฉ๐™ง๐™ž๐™—๐™ช๐™ฉ๐™ž๐™ค๐™ฃ, not the
    particles. My ๐˜ฟ๐™ž๐™ซ๐™š๐™ง๐™œ๐™š๐™ฃ๐™ฉ ๐™ˆ๐™–๐™ฉ๐™ฉ๐™š๐™ง, through the probability distribution, is
    what's ๐™˜๐™–๐™ช๐™จ๐™ž๐™ฃ๐™œ ๐™‚๐™ง๐™–๐™ซ๐™ž๐™ฉ๐™ฎ, the Einstine had not the brain available to realize
    that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Willilam =?iso-8859-1?q?Guti=E9rrez@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Tue Apr 15 09:13:31 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Bailey et al, Phys. Lett. B 55 (1975) 420-424

    this is blatantly incorrectuous. They never know how many muons are
    there, due quantum probability distribution. So your assumed energy
    makes no sense. Not even for detection.

    Au contraire, it is you who are 'blatantly incorrectuous', [sic]
    and you obviously have no idea of what you are talking about.
    It is easy to measure how many muons there are in the storage ring at
    any given moment, by picking up their electromagnetic fields, Jan

    au contraire yourself, which also reveals you dont capisce how phisics are
    done in laboratories. If you think those particles are immune for quantum probability distribution, you are fooling yourself. Also, once you tap
    that electromagnetic field, that's already invasive, so essentially
    destroy that particle.

    learn advanced physics, me friendo..

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Erick =?iso-8859-1?b?VGFt4XM=?=@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Wed Apr 16 09:53:31 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    Tom Roberts wrote:

    this is blatantly incorrectuous. They never know how many muons are
    there, due quantum probability distribution. So your assumed energy
    makes no sense. Not even for detection.

    Au contraire, it is you who are 'blatantly incorrectuous', [sic]
    and you obviously have no idea of what you are talking about.
    It is easy to measure how many muons there are in the storage ring at
    any given moment, by picking up their electromagnetic fields,

    Yes.
    Moreover, to measure the RATE of decay, one need not know the number of
    muons circulating, one merely needs to measure the number of decays as a function of time. Bailey et al naturally do that, as part of their measurement of g-2.

    indeed, your yes looks like a no, admitting what is been said above.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andrij Kabuzan@21:1/5 to Paul.B.Andersen on Thu Apr 17 11:04:28 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 15.04.2025 22:33, skrev J. J. Lodder:
    In a real experiment a lot of parameters must be measured.
    See: https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf

    Of course it is doable, and done routinely, at CERN for example.
    They detect the decays of highly relativistic muons to time the
    creation of the neutrinos, in the neutrino speed experiment for
    example. That's why the muon drift tube has to be as long as it is.
    That time dilatation costs a lot of real money, Jan

    I don't think you read my post properly. What I described is not an experiment at all.

    excellent parenthesis, my friend. Many scientists around the world are not aware that measuring particles destroy those particles, unless you
    resupply instantaneously the info taken from them. Which as much I see it impossible. Very good post, thank you making it obvious. We are friends.

    *_โ€˜West as we knew it no longer existsโ€™ โ€“ EUโ€™s von der Leyen_* https://%72%74.com/news/615876-west-no-longer-exists-leyen-tariffs/

    That super whore sold herself to US, now she wants RF back, soon she will
    crawl to China.

    Stupid woman. Go to Saudi Arabia to give them a laugh.

    Von der Leyen supports Banderites, Azov brigade and right sector this
    indicates she would have supported Hitler, does she realise this?

    this stupid woman thinks the fucking collective_west really was something
    on the face of the earth. Something ill defined misnamed and abused as /*_western_democracy_*/, values and crap like that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Garth Bakshtanovski Jian@21:1/5 to Paul.B.Andersen on Thu Apr 17 11:23:40 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Nothing but the mean lifetime is really measured in my scenario above.
    What I described above is no doable experiment, it was just to point out
    the basic principle for how the mean lifetime is used to calculate the reduction of the flux with time.
    In a real experiment a lot of parameters must be measured.
    See: https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf

    yes, sure, the measurements means destruction. Many scientists dont know
    these things. As the buildings of tartaria sent under "renovation" to kill history. And also, speaking the witch, by the indian proverb

    /*_you can have "western_democracies" and "values".._*/
    /*_until the tiger comes and eats you_*/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Terrance Bahuta Lao@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Apr 17 16:36:52 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
    I don't think you read my post properly.

    And you did not read mine properly.

    What I described is not an experiment at all.

    I know, so I wondered if it could be made into one. (detecting the
    creation of muons at 15 km altitude, and their detection on the ground sometime later)

    While impractical in the atmosphere it is quite doable,
    and routinely done, at CERN,
    where they have relativistic muon (and neutrino) beams,

    what you suggest is impossible, my friend. Especially quantum level. You
    can fake an non-invasive measurement with bodies, but not at quantum etc..
    It looks like you guys lost all your money given to the little wanker
    actor of kiev. You guys are completely dismounted. The mother Russia will
    never forget.

    also, it looks like in the cacamerica somebody didnt undrestand relativity
    very much. Myohhmy..

    *_US can manipulate time and space โ€“ White House_*
    President Trump recently claimed that the country possesses weapons
    โ€œnobody has any ideaโ€ about https://w%77%77%2e%72t.com/news/615871-us-manipulates-time-space/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cash Kalabekov Lew@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Apr 18 14:11:29 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Ross Finlayson <[email protected]> wrote:
    Physicsts care where their derivations come from,m and fundamental
    physicists don't allow much in the way of definition.

    That's your craziest comment, so far,

    Jan

    the gay america is gay again. They are gays all the time

    *_SHOCK! Time Travel is real and here's how it works,_*
    *_government has been hiding it ๏ฝœ Redacted_* https://bi%74%63%68%75te.com/v%69%64%65o/hFF7BN7IUYEt

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)