Those whose hearts are pure are temples of the Holy Spirit. —St. Lucy

Main Menu

"...physics is broken"

Started by PerEvangelicaDicta, August 12, 2016, 11:27:47 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


a nod to ClarkSmith in another forum for posting this link.  I found the comments following as interesting as the article, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, Geremia.

from ars technica:
Researchers orbita muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken


Mesons (of which muons were thought to be a type), muons, and other subatomic particles are not well-understood. The decay experiments of their half-lives are thought to be proof of time dilation in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, yet there must be other perhaps better explanations.

The OED entry on "muon" has some good quotes:
QuoteOrigin: Formed within English, by derivation. Etymons: mu n.1, -on suffix1.
Etymology: < mu n.1 + -on suffix1, as alteration of mu-meson n. Compare pion n.
Particle Physics.

 An unstable, negatively charged lepton having a spin of ½ and a mass of about 105.7 MeV (approx. 207 times that of the electron), which decays to form an electron, a muon neutrino, and an electron antineutrino, and which is the chief constituent of cosmic radiation at the earth's surface. Also: the positively charged antiparticle corresponding to this.
Originally called a mu-meson (but now no longer classed as a meson).

1951   E. Fermi Elem. Particles i. 3   The μ-meson of Powell (called here muon) is instead a disintegration product of the pion.
1961   Guardian 21 Jan. 2/4   Muons were first discovered in the naturally occurring cosmic rays and identified precisely in Bristol University.
1972   Nature 14 July 86/1   The mass difference of the electron and muon poses one of the inscrutable problems of particle physics. Except for the mass difference the muon does not appear to be any different from the electron.
2001   New Scientist (Nexis) 17 Feb. 9   A tiny discrepancy in the magnetism of the muon, a rare subatomic particle, may signal a crack in the standard model of particle physics.

The excellent critic of Einstein's Special (SR) and General Relativity (GR) theories, the Brazilian physicist Andre Assis—whose "relational (Machian, *Weberian) mechanics" I first heard about from vol. 1 of Sungenis & Bennett's Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right—has this to say about meson half-life experiments allegedly proving SR's time dilation (Relational Mechanics and Implementation of Mach's Principle with Weber's Gravitational Force p. 266-7):
QuoteIt is usually stated that this dilation of the proper time of a body in motion has been proved by experiments in which unstable mesons [aut muons, etc.] are accelerated and move at high velocities in particle accelerators. In these experiments it is observed that the half-lives (time for radioactive decay) of these accelerated mesons are greater than the half-lives of mesons at rest in the laboratory.

But this is not the only interpretation of these experiments. It can be equally argued that these experi- ments only show that the half-lives of the unstable mesons depend on their accelerations and high velocities relative to the distant matter in the cosmos, or that they depend on the strong electromagnetic forces to which the mesons were subject. Recently Phipps derived this alternative explanation based on relational mechanics.

An analogy to this new interpretation is what happens to a common pendulum clock. Suppose two identical pendulum clocks at rest on the Earth, marking the same time at sea level and running at the same pace. We then carry one of them to a high mountain, keep it there for several hours, and bring it back to sea level at the location of the other clock. Comparing the two clocks it is observed that the clock which was carried to the top of the mountain is delayed relative to the one which stayed all time at sea level. This is the observational fact.

This fact can be interpreted in two different ways: (I) It can be argued that time ran more slowly for the clock at the top of the mountain. (II) Or it can be interpreted by saying that time ran equally to both clocks, but that the period of oscillation of the pendulum clock depends on the gravitational force per unit mass, F / m = g. As the gravitational force per unit mass is weaker at the top of the mountain than at sea level, the clock which stayed on the mountain is delayed as compared with the one at sea level.

This interpretation (II) seems to us more natural and simple. It is in agreement with the usual procedures of physics. It gives a correct prediction for this case. Interpretation (I), on the other hand, involves changes in the fundamental concepts of space and time. Although it may give a correct prediction for this case, it is very strange and complex, leading to many confusions and abstractions.

The same reasoning can be applied to the meson experiment. Interpretation (I) is that of Einstein, namely, time runs more slowly for the meson in motion relative to the laboratory than for the other meson which stayed at rest on Earth. Interpretation (II), on the other hand, states that the half-life of a meson depends either on the high electromagnetic forces to which it was exposed during this experiment when it was accelerated relative to the ground, or that its half-life depends on its motion (high velocity and acceleration) relative to the laboratory and also relative to the distant bodies (stars and galaxies) of the cosmos. A meson moving relative to the distant bodies in the cosmos would then have a half-life which is different from the half-life of another meson which is at rest relative to the frame of distant galaxies.

This interpretation (II) seems to us more simple than Einstein's interpretation (I). Interpretation (II) seems also more in agreement with the observational facts than interpretation (I).

Explanation (II) is not only more suitable to explain the meson experiment than explanation (I), but also more in agreement with the standard procedures of physics. It also leads to important new suggestions which might be checked experimentally (a possible influence of gravitation on radioactive processes etc.).
*(Weber was the son of a Protestant theology professor, by the way.)

Assis is also the only contemporary physicist I know of who was profoundly influenced by Electromagnetic Theory (1938) by the ex-Jesuit, Irish physicist Fr. Alfred O'Rahilly, C.S.Sp. (he joined the Holy Ghost Fathers later in life). Fr. O'Rahilly is known for his Father William Doyle, S. J.: A Spiritual Study and Gospel Meditations, inter alia. Richard Feynman read Electromagnetic Theory, too; from p. 426fn9 of his article:
QuoteFor a stimulating and instructive if not always objective century and a half of successes seemed the natural account of early researches on field theory and action at a distance see A. O'Rahilly, Electromagnetics (Longmans, Green and Company, New York (1938)).

In summary, yes, "physics is broken" because it's based on faulty principles. Parvus error in principio, magnus est in fine.


Geremia, thank you for taking the time to provide your excellent commentary at my request.  I especially appreciate that you explained it all in a way that this extreme novice can follow, with many interesting references to further pursue.

A toast to you, and a rosary in thanksgiving.


Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta on August 14, 2016, 07:43:13 PMGeremia, thank you for taking the time to provide your excellent commentary at my request.  I especially appreciate that you explained it all in a way that this extreme novice can follow, with many interesting references to further pursue.

A toast to you, and a rosary in thanksgiving.
Thank God for working through others to impart knowledge of truth to us. "What hast thou that thou hast not received?" [1 Cor. iv, 7]
Contemplari et contemplata aliis tradere. :)