Using Muons to find Cavities!
- Thread starter RenUnconscious
- Start date
RenUnconscious
Quantum Scribe
Was it that obvious?
RenUnconscious
Quantum Scribe
Yah, in your face non einstein believing people! I figured this article might stir up the smartest ones on the board. Care to explain why Muons are so important Darby?
Darby
Epochal Historian
Ren,
I know that you already know the answer but here goes:
Mu-mesons (Muons) are unstable particles that are created at the very top of Earth's atmosphere when cosmic rays collide with atmospheric nitrogen molecules. They have a half-life of approximately 1.5 micro seconds. This has been completely verified in particle colliders.
The emitted muons, if they were traveling at very near the speed of light would travel on average about .5 kilometers before they decay - at least that's what classical Newtonian physics would predict.
But we detect muons on the surface of the Earth - lots of them. According to Newtonian physics that is not possible. Muons can't travel 20 milometers, even at near the speed of light, because they decay long before that could happen.
We know the rate of muon creation at the top of the atmosphere so we know what we should be detecting under Newtonian physics. That prediction is that for every billion muons created only 4 should survive the 20 km trip to the surface. Yet we detect most of the billion created - not 4.
Special Relativity, however, introduces the Lorentz Transformation to the mix. When physicists apply the Lorentz Transformation to atmospheric muon decay Viola!. The muons decay just as predicted. From the observer's POV their clocks are slowed according to Special Relativity and they can travel more than 20 kilometers before decaying...
And they are available in Egypt as extremely powerful sources of penetrating radiation to us as "x-rays" for the Pyramids.
I know that you already know the answer but here goes:
Mu-mesons (Muons) are unstable particles that are created at the very top of Earth's atmosphere when cosmic rays collide with atmospheric nitrogen molecules. They have a half-life of approximately 1.5 micro seconds. This has been completely verified in particle colliders.
The emitted muons, if they were traveling at very near the speed of light would travel on average about .5 kilometers before they decay - at least that's what classical Newtonian physics would predict.
But we detect muons on the surface of the Earth - lots of them. According to Newtonian physics that is not possible. Muons can't travel 20 milometers, even at near the speed of light, because they decay long before that could happen.
We know the rate of muon creation at the top of the atmosphere so we know what we should be detecting under Newtonian physics. That prediction is that for every billion muons created only 4 should survive the 20 km trip to the surface. Yet we detect most of the billion created - not 4.
Special Relativity, however, introduces the Lorentz Transformation to the mix. When physicists apply the Lorentz Transformation to atmospheric muon decay Viola!. The muons decay just as predicted. From the observer's POV their clocks are slowed according to Special Relativity and they can travel more than 20 kilometers before decaying...
And they are available in Egypt as extremely powerful sources of penetrating radiation to us as "x-rays" for the Pyramids.
RenUnconscious
Quantum Scribe
Darby,
That was over my head. The part about the muons being created at the poles, not the logic.
That was over my head. The part about the muons being created at the poles, not the logic.
Darby
Epochal Historian
Ren,
The muons aren't created at the poles - they are created at the top of Earth's atmosphere when cosmic rays from space collide with the atmosphere - which is mostly nitrogen.
Newbie,
You're going to wait a very long time for someone to catch a sub-atomic particle on video. These particles are traveling at near the speed of light 20 kilometers up in the air. But they can be detected by means other than video.
We can also "catch" them in particle colliders. The experiments have been done many times so we know that at low velocities they decay after about 1.5 microseconds.
If Special Relativity wasn't true - that is, if time itself was absolute - we should not be detecting muons near the surface of the Earth. Even at a velocity very near the speed of light they should only travel about .5 kilometers before they decay (because it takes approximately 1.5 microseconds, at that velocity, to travel .5 kilometers).
Howwever, we do detect muons at the Earth's surface. The rate that we detect them at the surface is almost the same rate that they are created at the top of the atmosphere some 20 kilometers above us.
There are only two solutions: the particle collider experiments are incorrect even though they've been verifying those experiments for many years or; Special Relativity is correct - at velocities very close to the speed of light time runs much slower. In this case about 40 times slower.
When physicists apply the Lorentz Transformation the results are in line with what Special Relativity predicts. The muons' clocks are running slow enough for them to travel 20 kilometers or more before decaying. As far as the muons are concerned (OK - muons aren't concerned about anything
) they only exist for 1.5 microseconds and travel only .5 kilometers as measured by their own clocks and measuring rods. By our clocks and measuring rods they can exist for at least 60 microseconds - long enough to travel 20+ kilometers.
Muon detection/decay is considered to have been one of the really creative experiments developed to verify STR.
The muons aren't created at the poles - they are created at the top of Earth's atmosphere when cosmic rays from space collide with the atmosphere - which is mostly nitrogen.
Newbie,
You're going to wait a very long time for someone to catch a sub-atomic particle on video. These particles are traveling at near the speed of light 20 kilometers up in the air. But they can be detected by means other than video.
We can also "catch" them in particle colliders. The experiments have been done many times so we know that at low velocities they decay after about 1.5 microseconds.
If Special Relativity wasn't true - that is, if time itself was absolute - we should not be detecting muons near the surface of the Earth. Even at a velocity very near the speed of light they should only travel about .5 kilometers before they decay (because it takes approximately 1.5 microseconds, at that velocity, to travel .5 kilometers).
Howwever, we do detect muons at the Earth's surface. The rate that we detect them at the surface is almost the same rate that they are created at the top of the atmosphere some 20 kilometers above us.
There are only two solutions: the particle collider experiments are incorrect even though they've been verifying those experiments for many years or; Special Relativity is correct - at velocities very close to the speed of light time runs much slower. In this case about 40 times slower.
When physicists apply the Lorentz Transformation the results are in line with what Special Relativity predicts. The muons' clocks are running slow enough for them to travel 20 kilometers or more before decaying. As far as the muons are concerned (OK - muons aren't concerned about anything
Muon detection/decay is considered to have been one of the really creative experiments developed to verify STR.
RenUnconscious
Quantum Scribe
and I thought this happens mostly at the magnetic poles which is the reason there is an Aurora, and I also believed that most of the charged particles in the constant solar winds we receive, usually coagulate (is that the right word?) towards the poles, as an Entrance if you will into the atmosphere at the point of least resistance.
I mean no doubt they are coming in all the time, but wouldn't the degree be higher at the poles?
Darby
Epochal Historian
Ren,
The Aurora are mostly the result of solar ions traveling at .01 to .04 the speed of light. Cosmic rays are created by the sun but most of the cosmic rays come from other stars, super novea, the galactic center...places where the energy is much higher than the sun.
My cosmic ray to muon description is really simplified and it neglects some intermediate particles, other particles that are also created (but which don't live long enough to find their way to the surface) and decay particles...pions, muon-neutrinos, etc. But it is a pretty good description of the ultimate outcome.
The Aurora are mostly the result of solar ions traveling at .01 to .04 the speed of light. Cosmic rays are created by the sun but most of the cosmic rays come from other stars, super novea, the galactic center...places where the energy is much higher than the sun.
My cosmic ray to muon description is really simplified and it neglects some intermediate particles, other particles that are also created (but which don't live long enough to find their way to the surface) and decay particles...pions, muon-neutrinos, etc. But it is a pretty good description of the ultimate outcome.
Darby
Epochal Historian
Creedo,
Hmmm...use them as a bomb? I don't think so. They are charged particles (basically really big electrons). Something tells me that you would have a "confinement" problem similar to Titor's Gadget Problem if you tried to pack a bunch of negatively charged muons together without an equal number (or close thereto) of positively charged particles (like protons).
But they do penetrate into the Earth somewhat but not nearly as far as they can penetrate through air.
Hmmm...use them as a bomb? I don't think so. They are charged particles (basically really big electrons). Something tells me that you would have a "confinement" problem similar to Titor's Gadget Problem if you tried to pack a bunch of negatively charged muons together without an equal number (or close thereto) of positively charged particles (like protons).
But they do penetrate into the Earth somewhat but not nearly as far as they can penetrate through air.