> The meson data is consistent with the predictions made using SR, > and so > can be viewed as supporting it. Other interpretations are certainly > possible, however, and this experiment, alone, certainly doesn't > *prove*that time dilation occurs; to claim so is to step way > outside the bounds > of correct interpretation of the results. (This experiment *does* > disprove the null hypothesis, which is that there's nothing at all > "funny" going on with the meson half-lives.) > > The "failure to prove the theory" is true of any individual > experiment,of course -- you can always find another theory which is > also not > disproved by a particular experiment. The trick, if you want to > replaceSR with something else, is to find a theory which is not > disproved by > *any* of the experiments which have been performed (and replicated). > That's harder than you might think. (copy and paste from the archives, as during my switch, i was not getting emails)
Well, i thought they did experiments with highly accurate atomic clocks, set dead on, and accelerated through very high speed planes for several trips round the world, and had the same... wait... atomic clocks, based on half lifes. hmmm. On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Alexander Hollins<[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Michael Crosiar<[email protected]> wrote: >> I also want to thank you Stephen for your detailed reply to leaking pen. I >> do want to understand all of this as well, but it will take me a while to >> digest! >> >>>You can view it that way, but it's a little hazardous, because time >> dilation isn't really just a simple number. >> >> So is time dilation a vector in space with direction and magnitude? That has >> been my conclusion, but you clearly understand this at a level I do not. >> >>>Thinking of it as a simple ratio leads to a lot of confusion. Time >> dilation, expressed as a number, is dt/dtau for a particular observer, >> "A", relative to a particular reference frame, "F". The "dt" value is >> found by A, by looking at clocks which are stationary in frame F, as A >> passes them by. The "dtau" value is found by "A" by looking at A's own >> clock. >> >> Could you please explain a little more what dtau represents? My >> understanding of dt is that it represents the rate at which time moves >> forward in the frame of reference of "A". Is that correct? Does dtau >> represent the time interval elapsed in "A" between the observation of the >> first clock in "F" to the observation of the second clock in "F"? >> >>>Note well: "A" uses ONE clock in his/her own frame. "A" uses AT LEAST >> TWO CLOCKS in frame "F", located at *different* points in frame "F". >> You can't measure time dilation between two inertial frames without >> using at least two clocks in one of the frames, because once the >> observer has passed a clock, it's gone, and they can't see it any more >> (except at a distance and using a telescope adds unnecessary hair >> without changing the result). >> >> Ok, I think I get this part. >> >>>Thus, time dilation actually measures the rate at which time passes >> along a *particular* *path*. Something that measures a rate of change >> along a path is a directional derivative, or a "1-form". It's not a >> simple number. >> >> Sounds like I need to be educated about directional derivatives, or >> "1-form". I'll do some googling, but any help you can give... How does it >> differ from a simple vector? >> >> Ok, I googled it - calc 3 - Ouch... Only made it partly through calc 2, and >> that is very rusty, so this one is a little beyond my math abilities. But if >> I understand what little I have read we are talking about the rate at which >> time changes in a particular direction. That was my understanding already, >> so I think I conceptually get this, or so I hope. So, knowing the rate at >> which time moves forward in the direction of motion tells us nothing about >> dt in any other direction, correct? >> >> ... >> >> I'll need much more time to absorb the rest of this. >> >> C. Michael Crosiar >> >> > Same >
