On 1/30/2022 4:11 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 30 January 2022 at 09:38:46 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 1/30/2022 3:13 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 30 January 2022 at 08:58:29 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 1/30/2022 1:15 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 6:40:30 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip everything, because it's a pile of crap>
>>>>>
>>>>> Muons DO OSCILLATE, FUCKING RETARDED.
>>>>>
>>>>> Orient your research over Japanese sites (use Google Translation tool if necessary).
>>>>>
>>>>> You'll find the Japanese electronic microscope based ON SLOW MUONS, which oscillate and have wavelength.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are using this slow muon's based microscope because of several advantages over their electron based counterpart.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are SO FULL OF SHIT AND IGNORANCE, Bodkin!
>>>>>
>>>> EVERYTHING has a wavelength, Dick Hurts. Everything. Muons, electrons,
>>>> photons, protons, Buckyballs, you, me.
>>>
>>> What is your wavelength, stupid Mike?
>> About 2.21*10^-44 meters, janitor.
>
> How did you measure it?

I didn't measure it, I calculated it.

> How can I measure my wavelength?

First you get this teeny tiny ruler...
>
>> What is the wavelength of your vodka
>> bottle?
>
> I don't have any. Sorry, stupid Mike.

You're out of vodka? You must be in a panic!

> And if I had, I wouldn't know how to measure its wavelengthg.
> Sorry, stupid Mike.

Then you need to learn something for once.

On Sunday, 30 January 2022 at 19:56:20 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 1/30/2022 4:11 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Sunday, 30 January 2022 at 09:38:46 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 1/30/2022 3:13 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 30 January 2022 at 08:58:29 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 1/30/2022 1:15 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 6:40:30 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <snip everything, because it's a pile of crap>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Muons DO OSCILLATE, FUCKING RETARDED.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Orient your research over Japanese sites (use Google Translation tool if necessary).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You'll find the Japanese electronic microscope based ON SLOW MUONS, which oscillate and have wavelength.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They are using this slow muon's based microscope because of several advantages over their electron based counterpart.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are SO FULL OF SHIT AND IGNORANCE, Bodkin!
> >>>>>
> >>>> EVERYTHING has a wavelength, Dick Hurts. Everything. Muons, electrons,
> >>>> photons, protons, Buckyballs, you, me.
> >>>
> >>> What is your wavelength, stupid Mike?
> >> About 2.21*10^-44 meters, janitor.
> >
> > How did you measure it?
> I didn't measure it, I calculated it.

You should measure, stupid Mike. If you don't you
can't be sure.

> > How can I measure my wavelength?
> First you get this teeny tiny ruler...

And then?

> >
> >> What is the wavelength of your vodka
> >> bottle?
> >
> > I don't have any. Sorry, stupid Mike.
> You're out of vodka? You must be in a panic!

No I'am not. Wrong as always, stupid Mike.

> > And if I had, I wouldn't know how to measure its wavelengthg.
> > Sorry, stupid Mike.
> Then you need to learn something for once.

Teach me, stupid Mike. We take this tiny ruler, and...

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 10:09:27 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 8:23:40 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 1:40:30 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 10:40:21 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 6:19:52 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:47:18 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 1:50:18 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 9:26:11 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 7:24:14 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:39:15 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 7:53:01 PM UTC-8, crank patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inspired by Richard's many challenge problems, I now submit a little
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conundrum of my own for this forum's consideration.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have made the startling discovery that the concept of the spacetime
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interval, conceived by Minchumpski, does not work in the general case.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is to say observers in different frames of reference will disagree
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the spacetime interval between two time-like events.. Minchumpski's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formula only works for space-like events. I made this discovery whilst
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toying with the Bodkin Equalities. I may expatiate on this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in another place.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is nonsense, Pattycakes, spacetime is frame invariant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have already conceded to Sylvia that the algebra of spacetime intervals
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is consistent. I am now pressing Sylvia on the point that the LTs and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the spacetime intervals they imply cannot actually represent a consistent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe. The muon and the lab technician will always disagree about how
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much time has elapsed on the Lab clock at the moment of the muon's decay
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the lab's scintillator.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, as I’ve already pointed out, trying to watch a passing clock without
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least trying to compensate for the time delay that it takes the light
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the laboratory clock to get to the muon is going to be a foolish
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notion, and you should not expect this to represent the actual elapsed time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as read on the laboratory clock.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it helps, Pat, please remember that the interval of time between two
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> events that take place in different places in an inertial reference frame
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should probably be measured by TWO synchronized clocks, each close to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two events. And then the question is, in which frame are they synchronized,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they won’t be synchronized in both (and of course, someone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtracting clock readings from two clocks they say are unsynchronized will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not take that to represent any real interval).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am slowly bringing Sylvia along with baby steps to this realization.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usually precise and terse Sylvia is having difficulty at the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment--her word salads are the tell.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin and Sylvia, lets start over and take another run at this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation/demonstration as to why special relativity is not congruent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the real world or the physical logic of the real world. First
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Did Frisch and Smith observe that the muons' clocks slowed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> down? If not, why not?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are asking what is wrong with the popularization presentation by a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> couple of experimenters, rather than what special relativity actually says
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> about the subject.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pat, the lesson here is simple. Stop watching YouTube videos and reading
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> articles in old Omni magazines, and start picking up a real TEXTBOOK that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> teaches special relativity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Taylor and Wheeler is good. Geroch’s little A to B book is good.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How about "Gauge Theories in the Twentieth Century".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> That’s John Taylor, not Edwin Taylor, and that book won’t teach you
> >>>>>>>>>>> anything about special relativity because it assumes you already know it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It's actually John Clayton Taylor, not John Archibald Taylor. It's Edwin Wheeler.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clayton_Taylor
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Of course if you're regular friends of these guys that would be kind of cool.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> How up are you on Fock-Ivanenko, Popov-Faddeev?
> >>>>>>>>> I have Popov and Faddeev’s book. Homework exercise is to find the mistakes.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> https://inference-review.com/article/muons-and-new-physics
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Quote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "At a workshop at the University of Glasgow in 2009, Lee Roberts
> >>>>>>>>>> suggested that three theorists of different groups get together and
> >>>>>>>>>> examine the discrepancies between models. He appointed Joachim
> >>>>>>>>>> Prades, Arkady Vainshtein, and [Eduardo de Rafael] to do the job. Our result was
> >>>>>>>>>> aμ(LbyLS – Glasgow) = (10.5 ± 2.6) × 10–10, the so-called Glasgow
> >>>>>>>>>> consensus. There have been many evaluations of the aμ(LbyLS) contribution
> >>>>>>>>>> since then, using ever more sophisticated models. They turn out to
> >>>>>>>>>> be consistent, within errors, with the Glasgow consensus."
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ^- Muons oscillate.
> >>>>>>>>> But they don’t.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Nambu Goldstone?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That’s a boson. Something different.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> A model with space contraction explains both time dilation / length contraction.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Conway
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks for your reply.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Muons might be leptons, but, they're outside SR.
> >>>>>>> Nonsense. Muons obey SR. It’s just that there are other laws they also
> >>>>>>> obey.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I.e., SR models leptons, they don't oscillate, these are muons,
> >>>>>>>> in particle physics or about the electroweak, that do.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Which is established since the Glasgow consensus.
> >>>>>>> No such “Glashow consensus”.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Bosons end up birthing muons from pions,
> >>>>>>> Yes
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ..., Nambu Goldstone.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> W bosons, actually.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Again, thanks again.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>> What you should say is that in a model of only SR,
> >>>>>> it's incomplete with respect to muons, and, since the
> >>>>>> Glasgow consensus, that's a matter of (scientific) fact.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> These days it's "SR is local".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Muons obey SR. It’s just that there are other laws they also obey." - O.B.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The Glasgow consensus continues "... and it's not just GR and SM".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In the 21'st century theory that then indeed is "muons oscillate".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Of course the electroweak particles and hadronic interactions have
> >>>>>> mostly been sideline with all sorts the "particles" or interactions
> >>>>>> that result, since the 1960's, because mainline national scientists
> >>>>>> have long known of effects in the hadronic in the electroweak.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's fair to say "our theory is not actually vanilla SR but these days'
> >>>>>> STR where STR derives GTR instead of vice versa, and according to
> >>>>>> Pauli and Heisenberg there is only total ignorance of hadronic interactions
> >>>>>> of electroweak particles". (Though, many have that "GR derives SR
> >>>>>> instead and SR is local".) Having said that though, there are hadronic
> >>>>>> interactions/contributions of electroweak particles not modeled in your
> >>>>>> theory.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Which is thusly not universally appropriate.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Copenhagen interpretation ("everything should be written as classical")
> >>>>> has a natural complement in this Glasgow consensus ("muon precession is
> >>>>> effectively anti-classical").
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Precession is not oscillation.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>> https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2752 (2009)
> >>>
> >>> "In principle, the charged leptons may oscillate as well
> >>> but it would need rather strange initial states that could
> >>> be easily obtained in the ultrarelativistic limit only and
> >>> the experimental arrangement would have to be very
> >>> unusual, anyway." --
> >>> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/176221/do-electrons-oscillate-into-muons-just-like-electron-neutrinos-into-muon-neutrin
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Please note that this is a search paper, no evidence found for it.
> >>>
> >>> This is again that besides that muon neutrinos oscillate,
> >>> that muons oscillate.
> >>>
> >>> https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.095001
> >>>
> >>> Phys.Rev.D: "Muonium-Antimuonium oscillations in effective field theory" (2020)
> >> Note that this is a theoretical paper that has no support in experiment.
> >>>
> >>> This is of course that muon-neutrinos and muonium are, states of muons.
> >>>
> >>> (When they are born.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Charm mesons oscillate:
> >>> https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-08-subatomic-particle-seen-changing-antiparticle-and-back-first-time
> >> Not muons.
> >>>
> >>> https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.061801
> >>>
> >>> Alright then, I'll read Phys.Rev.D. and Phys.Rev.Lett., and you can read "babble".
> >> Read all the titles you want. You’re not understanding what they say.
> >>>
> >>> Though, I suppose why I thanked you earlier O.B. was
> >>> that's the first time I've ever seen you explain something.
> >>>
> >>> And, a "norm metric fixed with the R-gauge", is the metric.
> >>>
> >>> Now if you'll excuse me I'm pretty sure as I care about muon physics,
> >>> I'll read it from Phys.Rev. and you can go back to conking trolls.
> >>>
> >>> Though, that your version of SR is only effectively before about 2005..
> >>>
> >>> Which has moved on....
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > You shoud apologize.
> >
> >
> For what?
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 10:09:27 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 8:23:40 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 1:40:30 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 10:40:21 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 6:19:52 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:47:18 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 1:50:18 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 9:26:11 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 7:24:14 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:39:15 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 7:53:01 PM UTC-8, crank patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inspired by Richard's many challenge problems, I now submit a little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conundrum of my own for this forum's consideration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have made the startling discovery that the concept of the spacetime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interval, conceived by Minchumpski, does not work in the general case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is to say observers in different frames of reference will disagree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the spacetime interval between two time-like events. Minchumpski's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formula only works for space-like events. I made this discovery whilst
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toying with the Bodkin Equalities. I may expatiate on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in another place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is nonsense, Pattycakes, spacetime is frame invariant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have already conceded to Sylvia that the algebra of spacetime intervals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is consistent. I am now pressing Sylvia on the point that the LTs and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the spacetime intervals they imply cannot actually represent a consistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe. The muon and the lab technician will always disagree about how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much time has elapsed on the Lab clock at the moment of the muon's decay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the lab's scintillator.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, as I’ve already pointed out, trying to watch a passing clock without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least trying to compensate for the time delay that it takes the light
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the laboratory clock to get to the muon is going to be a foolish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notion, and you should not expect this to represent the actual elapsed time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as read on the laboratory clock.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it helps, Pat, please remember that the interval of time between two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> events that take place in different places in an inertial reference frame
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should probably be measured by TWO synchronized clocks, each close to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two events. And then the question is, in which frame are they synchronized,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they won’t be synchronized in both (and of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course, someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtracting clock readings from two clocks they say are unsynchronized will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not take that to represent any real interval).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am slowly bringing Sylvia along with baby steps to this realization.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usually precise and terse Sylvia is having difficulty at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment--her word salads are the tell.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin and Sylvia, lets start over and take another run at this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation/demonstration as to why special relativity is not congruent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the real world or the physical logic of the real world. First
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Did Frisch and Smith observe that the muons' clocks slowed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down? If not, why not?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are asking what is wrong with the popularization presentation by a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple of experimenters, rather than what special relativity actually says
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the subject.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pat, the lesson here is simple. Stop watching YouTube videos and reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles in old Omni magazines, and start picking up a real TEXTBOOK that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaches special relativity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taylor and Wheeler is good. Geroch’s little A to B book is good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about "Gauge Theories in the Twentieth Century".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s John Taylor, not Edwin Taylor, and that book won’t teach you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything about special relativity because it assumes you already know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's actually John Clayton Taylor, not John Archibald Taylor. It's Edwin
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wheeler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clayton_Taylor
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course if you're regular friends of these guys that would be kind of cool.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How up are you on Fock-Ivanenko, Popov-Faddeev?
>>>>>>>>>>> I have Popov and Faddeev’s book. Homework exercise is to find the mistakes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://inference-review.com/article/muons-and-new-physics
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Quote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "At a workshop at the University of Glasgow in 2009, Lee Roberts
>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested that three theorists of different groups get together and
>>>>>>>>>>>> examine the discrepancies between models. He appointed Joachim
>>>>>>>>>>>> Prades, Arkady Vainshtein, and [Eduardo de Rafael] to do the
>>>>>>>>>>>> job. Our result was
>>>>>>>>>>>> aμ(LbyLS – Glasgow) = (10.5
>>>>>>>>>>>> ± 2.6) × 10–10, the so-called Glasgow
>>>>>>>>>>>> consensus. There have been many evaluations of the aμ(LbyLS) contribution
>>>>>>>>>>>> since then, using ever more sophisticated models. They turn out to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be consistent, within errors, with the Glasgow consensus."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ^- Muons oscillate.
>>>>>>>>>>> But they don’t.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nambu Goldstone?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That’s a boson. Something different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A model with space contraction explains both time dilation /
>>>>>>>>>>>> length contraction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Conway
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Muons might be leptons, but, they're outside SR.
>>>>>>>>> Nonsense. Muons obey SR. It’s just that there are other laws they also
>>>>>>>>> obey.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I.e., SR models leptons, they don't oscillate, these are muons,
>>>>>>>>>> in particle physics or about the electroweak, that do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which is established since the Glasgow consensus.
>>>>>>>>> No such “Glashow consensus”.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bosons end up birthing muons from pions,
>>>>>>>>> Yes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ..., Nambu Goldstone.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> W bosons, actually.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again, thanks again.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>> What you should say is that in a model of only SR,
>>>>>>>> it's incomplete with respect to muons, and, since the
>>>>>>>> Glasgow consensus, that's a matter of (scientific) fact.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These days it's "SR is local".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Muons obey SR. It’s just that there are other laws they also obey." - O.B.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Glasgow consensus continues "... and it's not just GR and SM".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the 21'st century theory that then indeed is "muons oscillate".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course the electroweak particles and hadronic interactions have
>>>>>>>> mostly been sideline with all sorts the "particles" or interactions
>>>>>>>> that result, since the 1960's, because mainline national scientists
>>>>>>>> have long known of effects in the hadronic in the electroweak.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's fair to say "our theory is not actually vanilla SR but these days'
>>>>>>>> STR where STR derives GTR instead of vice versa, and according to
>>>>>>>> Pauli and Heisenberg there is only total ignorance of hadronic interactions
>>>>>>>> of electroweak particles". (Though, many have that "GR derives SR
>>>>>>>> instead and SR is local".) Having said that though, there are hadronic
>>>>>>>> interactions/contributions of electroweak particles not modeled in your
>>>>>>>> theory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is thusly not universally appropriate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Copenhagen interpretation ("everything should be written as classical")
>>>>>>> has a natural complement in this Glasgow consensus ("muon precession is
>>>>>>> effectively anti-classical").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Precession is not oscillation.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2752 (2009)
>>>>>
>>>>> "In principle, the charged leptons may oscillate as well
>>>>> but it would need rather strange initial states that could
>>>>> be easily obtained in the ultrarelativistic limit only and
>>>>> the experimental arrangement would have to be very
>>>>> unusual, anyway." --
>>>>> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/176221/do-electrons-oscillate-into-muons-just-like-electron-neutrinos-into-muon-neutrin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Please note that this is a search paper, no evidence found for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is again that besides that muon neutrinos oscillate,
>>>>> that muons oscillate.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.095001
>>>>>
>>>>> Phys.Rev.D: "Muonium-Antimuonium oscillations in effective field theory" (2020)
>>>> Note that this is a theoretical paper that has no support in experiment.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is of course that muon-neutrinos and muonium are, states of muons.
>>>>>
>>>>> (When they are born.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Charm mesons oscillate:
>>>>> https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-08-subatomic-particle-seen-changing-antiparticle-and-back-first-time
>>>>>
>>>> Not muons.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.061801
>>>>>
>>>>> Alright then, I'll read Phys.Rev.D. and Phys.Rev.Lett., and you can read "babble".
>>>> Read all the titles you want. You’re not understanding what they say.
>>>>>
>>>>> Though, I suppose why I thanked you earlier O.B. was
>>>>> that's the first time I've ever seen you explain something.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, a "norm metric fixed with the R-gauge", is the metric.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now if you'll excuse me I'm pretty sure as I care about muon physics,
>>>>> I'll read it from Phys.Rev. and you can go back to conking trolls.
>>>>>
>>>>> Though, that your version of SR is only effectively before about 2005.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which has moved on....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> You shoud apologize.
>>>
>>>
>> For what?
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> For mis-representing muon physics.
>

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 7:26:20 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 10:09:27 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 8:23:40 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 1:40:30 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 10:40:21 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 6:19:52 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:47:18 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 1:50:18 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 9:26:11 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 7:24:14 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:39:15 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 7:53:01 PM UTC-8, crank patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inspired by Richard's many challenge problems, I now submit a little
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conundrum of my own for this forum's consideration.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have made the startling discovery that the concept of the spacetime
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interval, conceived by Minchumpski, does not work in the general case.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is to say observers in different frames of reference will disagree
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the spacetime interval between two time-like events. Minchumpski's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formula only works for space-like events. I made this discovery whilst
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toying with the Bodkin Equalities. I may expatiate on this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in another place.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is nonsense, Pattycakes, spacetime is frame invariant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have already conceded to Sylvia that the algebra of spacetime intervals
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is consistent. I am now pressing Sylvia on the point that the LTs and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the spacetime intervals they imply cannot actually represent a consistent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe. The muon and the lab technician will always disagree about how
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much time has elapsed on the Lab clock at the moment of the muon's decay
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the lab's scintillator.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, as I’ve already pointed out, trying to watch a passing clock without
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least trying to compensate for the time delay that it takes the light
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the laboratory clock to get to the muon is going to be a foolish
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notion, and you should not expect this to represent the actual elapsed time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as read on the laboratory clock.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it helps, Pat, please remember that the interval of time between two
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> events that take place in different places in an inertial reference frame
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should probably be measured by TWO synchronized clocks, each close to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two events. And then the question is, in which frame are they synchronized,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they won’t be synchronized in both (and of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course, someone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtracting clock readings from two clocks they say are unsynchronized will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not take that to represent any real interval).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am slowly bringing Sylvia along with baby steps to this realization.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usually precise and terse Sylvia is having difficulty at the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment--her word salads are the tell.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin and Sylvia, lets start over and take another run at this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation/demonstration as to why special relativity is not congruent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the real world or the physical logic of the real world. First
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Did Frisch and Smith observe that the muons' clocks slowed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down? If not, why not?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are asking what is wrong with the popularization presentation by a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple of experimenters, rather than what special relativity actually says
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the subject.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pat, the lesson here is simple. Stop watching YouTube videos and reading
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles in old Omni magazines, and start picking up a real TEXTBOOK that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaches special relativity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taylor and Wheeler is good. Geroch’s little A to B book is good.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about "Gauge Theories in the Twentieth Century".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s John Taylor, not Edwin Taylor, and that book won’t teach you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything about special relativity because it assumes you already know it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's actually John Clayton Taylor, not John Archibald Taylor.. It's Edwin
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Wheeler.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clayton_Taylor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Of course if you're regular friends of these guys that would be kind of cool.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How up are you on Fock-Ivanenko, Popov-Faddeev?
> >>>>>>>>>>> I have Popov and Faddeev’s book. Homework exercise is to find the mistakes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://inference-review.com/article/muons-and-new-physics
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Quote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "At a workshop at the University of Glasgow in 2009, Lee Roberts
> >>>>>>>>>>>> suggested that three theorists of different groups get together and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> examine the discrepancies between models. He appointed Joachim
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Prades, Arkady Vainshtein, and [Eduardo de Rafael] to do the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> job. Our result was
> >>>>>>>>>>>> aμ(LbyLS – Glasgow) = (10.5
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ± 2.6) × 10–10, the so-called Glasgow
> >>>>>>>>>>>> consensus. There have been many evaluations of the aμ(LbyLS) contribution
> >>>>>>>>>>>> since then, using ever more sophisticated models. They turn out to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> be consistent, within errors, with the Glasgow consensus."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ^- Muons oscillate.
> >>>>>>>>>>> But they don’t.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nambu Goldstone?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> That’s a boson. Something different.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> A model with space contraction explains both time dilation /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> length contraction.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Conway
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your reply.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Muons might be leptons, but, they're outside SR.
> >>>>>>>>> Nonsense. Muons obey SR. It’s just that there are other laws they also
> >>>>>>>>> obey.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I.e., SR models leptons, they don't oscillate, these are muons,
> >>>>>>>>>> in particle physics or about the electroweak, that do.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Which is established since the Glasgow consensus.
> >>>>>>>>> No such “Glashow consensus”.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Bosons end up birthing muons from pions,
> >>>>>>>>> Yes
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ..., Nambu Goldstone.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> W bosons, actually.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Again, thanks again.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>> What you should say is that in a model of only SR,
> >>>>>>>> it's incomplete with respect to muons, and, since the
> >>>>>>>> Glasgow consensus, that's a matter of (scientific) fact.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> These days it's "SR is local".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Muons obey SR. It’s just that there are other laws they also obey." - O.B.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The Glasgow consensus continues "... and it's not just GR and SM".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In the 21'st century theory that then indeed is "muons oscillate".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Of course the electroweak particles and hadronic interactions have
> >>>>>>>> mostly been sideline with all sorts the "particles" or interactions
> >>>>>>>> that result, since the 1960's, because mainline national scientists
> >>>>>>>> have long known of effects in the hadronic in the electroweak.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's fair to say "our theory is not actually vanilla SR but these days'
> >>>>>>>> STR where STR derives GTR instead of vice versa, and according to
> >>>>>>>> Pauli and Heisenberg there is only total ignorance of hadronic interactions
> >>>>>>>> of electroweak particles". (Though, many have that "GR derives SR
> >>>>>>>> instead and SR is local".) Having said that though, there are hadronic
> >>>>>>>> interactions/contributions of electroweak particles not modeled in your
> >>>>>>>> theory.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Which is thusly not universally appropriate.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Copenhagen interpretation ("everything should be written as classical")
> >>>>>>> has a natural complement in this Glasgow consensus ("muon precession is
> >>>>>>> effectively anti-classical").
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Precession is not oscillation.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2752 (2009)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "In principle, the charged leptons may oscillate as well
> >>>>> but it would need rather strange initial states that could
> >>>>> be easily obtained in the ultrarelativistic limit only and
> >>>>> the experimental arrangement would have to be very
> >>>>> unusual, anyway." --
> >>>>> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/176221/do-electrons-oscillate-into-muons-just-like-electron-neutrinos-into-muon-neutrin
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Please note that this is a search paper, no evidence found for it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is again that besides that muon neutrinos oscillate,
> >>>>> that muons oscillate.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.095001
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Phys.Rev.D: "Muonium-Antimuonium oscillations in effective field theory" (2020)
> >>>> Note that this is a theoretical paper that has no support in experiment.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is of course that muon-neutrinos and muonium are, states of muons.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (When they are born.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Charm mesons oscillate:
> >>>>> https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-08-subatomic-particle-seen-changing-antiparticle-and-back-first-time
> >>>>>
> >>>> Not muons.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.061801
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Alright then, I'll read Phys.Rev.D. and Phys.Rev.Lett., and you can read "babble".
> >>>> Read all the titles you want. You’re not understanding what they say.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Though, I suppose why I thanked you earlier O.B. was
> >>>>> that's the first time I've ever seen you explain something.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And, a "norm metric fixed with the R-gauge", is the metric.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now if you'll excuse me I'm pretty sure as I care about muon physics,
> >>>>> I'll read it from Phys.Rev. and you can go back to conking trolls.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Though, that your version of SR is only effectively before about 2005.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which has moved on....
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>> You shoud apologize.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> For what?
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > For mis-representing muon physics.
> >
> But I haven’t. You’re the one that has confused theoretical speculations
> about POSSIBLE muon oscillations with there being any consensus that they
> DO oscillate, about which there is both zero experimental evidence and
> substantial theoretical grounds that they do not, as I’ve explained.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 7:26:20 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 10:09:27 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 8:23:40 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 1:40:30 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 10:40:21 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 6:19:52 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:47:18 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 1:50:18 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 9:26:11 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 7:24:14 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:39:15 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 7:53:01 PM UTC-8, crank patdolan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inspired by Richard's many challenge problems, I now submit a little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conundrum of my own for this forum's consideration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have made the startling discovery that the concept of the spacetime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interval, conceived by Minchumpski, does not work in the general case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is to say observers in different frames
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of reference will disagree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the spacetime interval between two time-like events. Minchumpski's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formula only works for space-like events. I made this discovery whilst
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toying with the Bodkin Equalities. I may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expatiate on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in another place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is nonsense, Pattycakes, spacetime is frame invariant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have already conceded to Sylvia that the algebra of spacetime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intervals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is consistent. I am now pressing Sylvia on the point that the LTs and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the spacetime intervals they imply cannot actually represent a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe. The muon and the lab technician will always disagree about how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much time has elapsed on the Lab clock at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment of the muon's decay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the lab's scintillator.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, as I’ve already pointed out, trying to watch a passing clock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least trying to compensate for the time delay that it takes the light
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the laboratory clock to get to the muon is going to be a foolish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notion, and you should not expect this to represent the actual elapsed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as read on the laboratory clock.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it helps, Pat, please remember that the interval of time between two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> events that take place in different places in an inertial reference frame
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should probably be measured by TWO synchronized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks, each close to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two events. And then the question is, in which frame are they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they won’t be synchronized in both (and of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course, someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtracting clock readings from two clocks they say are unsynchronized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not take that to represent any real interval).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am slowly bringing Sylvia along with baby steps to this realization.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usually precise and terse Sylvia is having difficulty at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment--her word salads are the tell.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin and Sylvia, lets start over and take another run at this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation/demonstration as to why special relativity is not congruent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the real world or the physical logic of the real world. First
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Did Frisch and Smith observe that the muons' clocks slowed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down? If not, why not?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are asking what is wrong with the popularization presentation by a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple of experimenters, rather than what special relativity actually says
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the subject.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pat, the lesson here is simple. Stop watching YouTube videos and reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles in old Omni magazines, and start picking up a real TEXTBOOK that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaches special relativity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taylor and Wheeler is good. Geroch’s little A to B book is good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about "Gauge Theories in the Twentieth Century".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s John Taylor, not Edwin Taylor, and that book won’t teach you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything about special relativity because it assumes you already know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's actually John Clayton Taylor, not John Archibald Taylor. It's Edwin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wheeler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clayton_Taylor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course if you're regular friends of these guys that would be kind of cool.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How up are you on Fock-Ivanenko, Popov-Faddeev?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have Popov and Faddeev’s book. Homework exercise is to find the mistakes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://inference-review.com/article/muons-and-new-physics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "At a workshop at the University of Glasgow in 2009, Lee Roberts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested that three theorists of different groups get together and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine the discrepancies between models. He appointed Joachim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prades, Arkady Vainshtein, and [Eduardo de Rafael] to do the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> job. Our result was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aμ(LbyLS – Glasgow) = (10.5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ± 2.6) × 10–10, the so-called Glasgow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consensus. There have been many evaluations of the aμ(LbyLS) contribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since then, using ever more sophisticated models. They turn out to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be consistent, within errors, with the Glasgow consensus."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ^- Muons oscillate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they don’t.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nambu Goldstone?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s a boson. Something different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A model with space contraction explains both time dilation /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> length contraction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conway
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Muons might be leptons, but, they're outside SR.
>>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense. Muons obey SR. It’s just that there are other laws they also
>>>>>>>>>>> obey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I.e., SR models leptons, they don't oscillate, these are muons,
>>>>>>>>>>>> in particle physics or about the electroweak, that do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is established since the Glasgow consensus.
>>>>>>>>>>> No such “Glashow consensus”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bosons end up birthing muons from pions,
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ..., Nambu Goldstone.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> W bosons, actually.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, thanks again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>> What you should say is that in a model of only SR,
>>>>>>>>>> it's incomplete with respect to muons, and, since the
>>>>>>>>>> Glasgow consensus, that's a matter of (scientific) fact.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> These days it's "SR is local".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Muons obey SR. It’s just that there are other laws they also obey." - O.B.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Glasgow consensus continues "... and it's not just GR and SM".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the 21'st century theory that then indeed is "muons oscillate".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course the electroweak particles and hadronic interactions have
>>>>>>>>>> mostly been sideline with all sorts the "particles" or interactions
>>>>>>>>>> that result, since the 1960's, because mainline national scientists
>>>>>>>>>> have long known of effects in the hadronic in the electroweak.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's fair to say "our theory is not actually vanilla SR but these days'
>>>>>>>>>> STR where STR derives GTR instead of vice versa, and according to
>>>>>>>>>> Pauli and Heisenberg there is only total ignorance of hadronic interactions
>>>>>>>>>> of electroweak particles". (Though, many have that "GR derives SR
>>>>>>>>>> instead and SR is local".) Having said that though, there are hadronic
>>>>>>>>>> interactions/contributions of electroweak particles not modeled in your
>>>>>>>>>> theory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which is thusly not universally appropriate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Copenhagen interpretation ("everything should be written as classical")
>>>>>>>>> has a natural complement in this Glasgow consensus ("muon precession is
>>>>>>>>> effectively anti-classical").
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Precession is not oscillation.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2752 (2009)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "In principle, the charged leptons may oscillate as well
>>>>>>> but it would need rather strange initial states that could
>>>>>>> be easily obtained in the ultrarelativistic limit only and
>>>>>>> the experimental arrangement would have to be very
>>>>>>> unusual, anyway." --
>>>>>>> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/176221/do-electrons-oscillate-into-muons-just-like-electron-neutrinos-into-muon-neutrin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please note that this is a search paper, no evidence found for it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is again that besides that muon neutrinos oscillate,
>>>>>>> that muons oscillate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.095001
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phys.Rev.D: "Muonium-Antimuonium oscillations in effective field theory" (2020)
>>>>>> Note that this is a theoretical paper that has no support in experiment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is of course that muon-neutrinos and muonium are, states of muons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (When they are born.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Charm mesons oscillate:
>>>>>>> https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-08-subatomic-particle-seen-changing-antiparticle-and-back-first-time
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not muons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.061801
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alright then, I'll read Phys.Rev.D. and Phys.Rev.Lett., and you can read "babble".
>>>>>> Read all the titles you want. You’re not understanding what they say.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Though, I suppose why I thanked you earlier O.B. was
>>>>>>> that's the first time I've ever seen you explain something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, a "norm metric fixed with the R-gauge", is the metric.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now if you'll excuse me I'm pretty sure as I care about muon physics,
>>>>>>> I'll read it from Phys.Rev. and you can go back to conking trolls.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Though, that your version of SR is only effectively before about 2005.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which has moved on....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>> You shoud apologize.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> For what?
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> For mis-representing muon physics.
>>>
>> But I haven’t. You’re the one that has confused theoretical speculations
>> about POSSIBLE muon oscillations with there being any consensus that they
>> DO oscillate, about which there is both zero experimental evidence and
>> substantial theoretical grounds that they do not, as I’ve explained.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> No, I just point at Phys.Rev. while you babble and conk trolls.

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 10:37:56 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 7:26:20 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 10:09:27 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 8:23:40 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 1:40:30 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 10:40:21 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 6:19:52 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:47:18 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 1:50:18 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 9:26:11 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 7:24:14 AM UTC-8, bodk....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:39:15 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 7:53:01 PM UTC-8, crank patdolan
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inspired by Richard's many challenge problems, I now submit a little
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conundrum of my own for this forum's consideration..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have made the startling discovery that the concept of the spacetime
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interval, conceived by Minchumpski, does not work in the general case.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is to say observers in different frames
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of reference will disagree
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the spacetime interval between two time-like events. Minchumpski's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formula only works for space-like events. I made this discovery whilst
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toying with the Bodkin Equalities. I may
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expatiate on this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in another place.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is nonsense, Pattycakes, spacetime is frame invariant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have already conceded to Sylvia that the algebra of spacetime
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intervals
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is consistent. I am now pressing Sylvia on the point that the LTs and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the spacetime intervals they imply cannot actually represent a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe. The muon and the lab technician will always disagree about how
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much time has elapsed on the Lab clock at the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment of the muon's decay
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the lab's scintillator.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, as I’ve already pointed out, trying to watch a passing clock
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least trying to compensate for the time delay that it takes the light
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the laboratory clock to get to the muon is going to be a foolish
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notion, and you should not expect this to represent the actual elapsed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as read on the laboratory clock.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it helps, Pat, please remember that the interval of time between two
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> events that take place in different places in an inertial reference frame
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should probably be measured by TWO synchronized
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks, each close to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two events. And then the question is, in which frame are they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they won’t be synchronized in both (and of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course, someone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtracting clock readings from two clocks they say are unsynchronized
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not take that to represent any real interval).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am slowly bringing Sylvia along with baby steps to this realization.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usually precise and terse Sylvia is having difficulty at the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment--her word salads are the tell.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin and Sylvia, lets start over and take another run at this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation/demonstration as to why special relativity is not congruent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the real world or the physical logic of the real world. First
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Did Frisch and Smith observe that the muons' clocks slowed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down? If not, why not?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are asking what is wrong with the popularization presentation by a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple of experimenters, rather than what special relativity actually says
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the subject.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pat, the lesson here is simple. Stop watching YouTube videos and reading
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles in old Omni magazines, and start picking up a real TEXTBOOK that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaches special relativity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taylor and Wheeler is good. Geroch’s little A to B book is good.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about "Gauge Theories in the Twentieth Century".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s John Taylor, not Edwin Taylor, and that book won’t teach you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything about special relativity because it assumes you already know it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's actually John Clayton Taylor, not John Archibald Taylor. It's Edwin
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wheeler.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clayton_Taylor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course if you're regular friends of these guys that would be kind of cool.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How up are you on Fock-Ivanenko, Popov-Faddeev?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have Popov and Faddeev’s book. Homework exercise is to find the mistakes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://inference-review.com/article/muons-and-new-physics
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "At a workshop at the University of Glasgow in 2009, Lee Roberts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested that three theorists of different groups get together and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine the discrepancies between models. He appointed Joachim
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prades, Arkady Vainshtein, and [Eduardo de Rafael] to do the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> job. Our result was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aμ(LbyLS – Glasgow) = (10.5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ± 2.6) × 10–10, the so-called Glasgow
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consensus. There have been many evaluations of the aμ(LbyLS) contribution
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> since then, using ever more sophisticated models. They turn out to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be consistent, within errors, with the Glasgow consensus."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ^- Muons oscillate.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But they don’t.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nambu Goldstone?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s a boson. Something different.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A model with space contraction explains both time dilation /
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> length contraction.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conway
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your reply.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Muons might be leptons, but, they're outside SR.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense. Muons obey SR. It’s just that there are other laws they also
> >>>>>>>>>>> obey.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I.e., SR models leptons, they don't oscillate, these are muons,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in particle physics or about the electroweak, that do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which is established since the Glasgow consensus.
> >>>>>>>>>>> No such “Glashow consensus”.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bosons end up birthing muons from pions,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ..., Nambu Goldstone.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> W bosons, actually.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Again, thanks again.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>> What you should say is that in a model of only SR,
> >>>>>>>>>> it's incomplete with respect to muons, and, since the
> >>>>>>>>>> Glasgow consensus, that's a matter of (scientific) fact.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> These days it's "SR is local".
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Muons obey SR. It’s just that there are other laws they also obey." - O.B.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The Glasgow consensus continues "... and it's not just GR and SM".
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In the 21'st century theory that then indeed is "muons oscillate".
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Of course the electroweak particles and hadronic interactions have
> >>>>>>>>>> mostly been sideline with all sorts the "particles" or interactions
> >>>>>>>>>> that result, since the 1960's, because mainline national scientists
> >>>>>>>>>> have long known of effects in the hadronic in the electroweak.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It's fair to say "our theory is not actually vanilla SR but these days'
> >>>>>>>>>> STR where STR derives GTR instead of vice versa, and according to
> >>>>>>>>>> Pauli and Heisenberg there is only total ignorance of hadronic interactions
> >>>>>>>>>> of electroweak particles". (Though, many have that "GR derives SR
> >>>>>>>>>> instead and SR is local".) Having said that though, there are hadronic
> >>>>>>>>>> interactions/contributions of electroweak particles not modeled in your
> >>>>>>>>>> theory.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Which is thusly not universally appropriate.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The Copenhagen interpretation ("everything should be written as classical")
> >>>>>>>>> has a natural complement in this Glasgow consensus ("muon precession is
> >>>>>>>>> effectively anti-classical").
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Precession is not oscillation.
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2752 (2009)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "In principle, the charged leptons may oscillate as well
> >>>>>>> but it would need rather strange initial states that could
> >>>>>>> be easily obtained in the ultrarelativistic limit only and
> >>>>>>> the experimental arrangement would have to be very
> >>>>>>> unusual, anyway." --
> >>>>>>> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/176221/do-electrons-oscillate-into-muons-just-like-electron-neutrinos-into-muon-neutrin
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please note that this is a search paper, no evidence found for it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This is again that besides that muon neutrinos oscillate,
> >>>>>>> that muons oscillate.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.095001
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Phys.Rev.D: "Muonium-Antimuonium oscillations in effective field theory" (2020)
> >>>>>> Note that this is a theoretical paper that has no support in experiment.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This is of course that muon-neutrinos and muonium are, states of muons.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (When they are born.)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Charm mesons oscillate:
> >>>>>>> https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-08-subatomic-particle-seen-changing-antiparticle-and-back-first-time
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not muons.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.061801
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Alright then, I'll read Phys.Rev.D. and Phys.Rev.Lett., and you can read "babble".
> >>>>>> Read all the titles you want. You’re not understanding what they say.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Though, I suppose why I thanked you earlier O.B. was
> >>>>>>> that's the first time I've ever seen you explain something.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And, a "norm metric fixed with the R-gauge", is the metric.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now if you'll excuse me I'm pretty sure as I care about muon physics,
> >>>>>>> I'll read it from Phys.Rev. and you can go back to conking trolls..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Though, that your version of SR is only effectively before about 2005.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Which has moved on....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You shoud apologize.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> For what?
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>> For mis-representing muon physics.
> >>>
> >> But I haven’t. You’re the one that has confused theoretical speculations
> >> about POSSIBLE muon oscillations with there being any consensus that they
> >> DO oscillate, about which there is both zero experimental evidence and
> >> substantial theoretical grounds that they do not, as I’ve explained.
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > No, I just point at Phys.Rev. while you babble and conk trolls.
> And you’re a troll. You’re not any less of a troll because you browse
> Phys.Rev.D, especially since you don’t seem to know what you’re reading.
>
> There are lots of masquerade costumes here. Some people like composing long
> paragraphs using lots of jargon words, where the people who know something
> about the subject will know immediately that the composer has no idea what
> the words actually mean. This is called tossing a word salad. To adorn the
> costume further, some people will start mentioning some important
> physicists’ name, as though name-dropping indicates any familiarity with
> their work, which fortunately is pretty easy to sort out by those who have
> actually read some of their work. Finally, if further adornment to the
> costume is needed, the masquerade ball-goer will start citing random titles
> from journal articles, possibly by doing a topic search in
> scholar.google.com, where again the charade is apparent when it’s clear
> that the composer has no idea what the article is actually about.
> >
> > Ignorance is not a defense.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 10:37:56 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 7:26:20 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 10:09:27 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 8:23:40 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 1:40:30 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 10:40:21 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 6:19:52 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:47:18 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 1:50:18 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 9:26:11 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 7:24:14 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:39:15 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 7:53:01 PM UTC-8, crank patdolan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inspired by Richard's many challenge problems, I now submit a little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conundrum of my own for this forum's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have made the startling discovery that the concept of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spacetime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interval, conceived by Minchumpski, does not work in the general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is to say observers in different frames
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of reference will disagree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the spacetime interval between two time-like events.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Minchumpski's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formula only works for space-like events. I made this discovery
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whilst
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toying with the Bodkin Equalities. I may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expatiate on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in another place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is nonsense, Pattycakes, spacetime is frame invariant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have already conceded to Sylvia that the algebra of spacetime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intervals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is consistent. I am now pressing Sylvia on the point that the LTs and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the spacetime intervals they imply cannot actually represent a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe. The muon and the lab technician will always disagree about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much time has elapsed on the Lab clock at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment of the muon's decay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the lab's scintillator.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, as I’ve already pointed out, trying to watch a passing clock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least trying to compensate for the time delay that it takes the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the laboratory clock to get to the muon is going to be a foolish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notion, and you should not expect this to represent the actual elapsed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as read on the laboratory clock.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it helps, Pat, please remember that the interval of time between two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> events that take place in different places in an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inertial reference frame
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should probably be measured by TWO synchronized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks, each close to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two events. And then the question is, in which frame are they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they won’t be synchronized in both (and of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course, someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtracting clock readings from two clocks they say are unsynchronized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not take that to represent any real interval).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am slowly bringing Sylvia along with baby steps to this realization.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usually precise and terse Sylvia is having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difficulty at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment--her word salads are the tell.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin and Sylvia, lets start over and take another run at this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation/demonstration as to why special relativity is not congruent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the real world or the physical logic of the real world. First
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Did Frisch and Smith observe that the muons' clocks slowed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down? If not, why not?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are asking what is wrong with the popularization presentation by a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple of experimenters, rather than what special relativity actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the subject.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pat, the lesson here is simple. Stop watching YouTube videos and reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles in old Omni magazines, and start picking up a real TEXTBOOK that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaches special relativity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taylor and Wheeler is good. Geroch’s little A to B book is good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about "Gauge Theories in the Twentieth Century".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s John Taylor, not Edwin Taylor, and that book won’t teach you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything about special relativity because it assumes you already know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's actually John Clayton Taylor, not John Archibald Taylor. It's Edwin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wheeler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clayton_Taylor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course if you're regular friends of these guys that would be kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cool.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How up are you on Fock-Ivanenko, Popov-Faddeev?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have Popov and Faddeev’s book. Homework exercise is to find the mistakes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://inference-review.com/article/muons-and-new-physics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "At a workshop at the University of Glasgow in 2009, Lee Roberts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested that three theorists of different groups get together and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine the discrepancies between models. He appointed Joachim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prades, Arkady Vainshtein, and [Eduardo de Rafael] to do the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> job. Our result was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aμ(LbyLS – Glasgow) = (10.5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ± 2.6) × 10–10, the so-called Glasgow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consensus. There have been many evaluations of the aμ(LbyLS) contribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since then, using ever more sophisticated models. They turn out to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be consistent, within errors, with the Glasgow consensus."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ^- Muons oscillate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they don’t.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nambu Goldstone?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s a boson. Something different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A model with space contraction explains both time dilation /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> length contraction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conway
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muons might be leptons, but, they're outside SR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense. Muons obey SR. It’s just that there are other laws they also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> obey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I.e., SR models leptons, they don't oscillate, these are muons,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in particle physics or about the electroweak, that do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is established since the Glasgow consensus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No such “Glashow consensus”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bosons end up birthing muons from pions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ..., Nambu Goldstone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> W bosons, actually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, thanks again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>> What you should say is that in a model of only SR,
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's incomplete with respect to muons, and, since the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Glasgow consensus, that's a matter of (scientific) fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> These days it's "SR is local".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Muons obey SR. It’s just that there are other laws they also obey." - O.B.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Glasgow consensus continues "... and it's not just GR and SM".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In the 21'st century theory that then indeed is "muons oscillate".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course the electroweak particles and hadronic interactions have
>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly been sideline with all sorts the "particles" or interactions
>>>>>>>>>>>> that result, since the 1960's, because mainline national scientists
>>>>>>>>>>>> have long known of effects in the hadronic in the electroweak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's fair to say "our theory is not actually vanilla SR but these days'
>>>>>>>>>>>> STR where STR derives GTR instead of vice versa, and according to
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pauli and Heisenberg there is only total ignorance of hadronic interactions
>>>>>>>>>>>> of electroweak particles". (Though, many have that "GR derives SR
>>>>>>>>>>>> instead and SR is local".) Having said that though, there are hadronic
>>>>>>>>>>>> interactions/contributions of electroweak particles not modeled in your
>>>>>>>>>>>> theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is thusly not universally appropriate.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Copenhagen interpretation ("everything should be written as classical")
>>>>>>>>>>> has a natural complement in this Glasgow consensus ("muon precession is
>>>>>>>>>>> effectively anti-classical").
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Precession is not oscillation.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2752 (2009)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "In principle, the charged leptons may oscillate as well
>>>>>>>>> but it would need rather strange initial states that could
>>>>>>>>> be easily obtained in the ultrarelativistic limit only and
>>>>>>>>> the experimental arrangement would have to be very
>>>>>>>>> unusual, anyway." --
>>>>>>>>> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/176221/do-electrons-oscillate-into-muons-just-like-electron-neutrinos-into-muon-neutrin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please note that this is a search paper, no evidence found for it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is again that besides that muon neutrinos oscillate,
>>>>>>>>> that muons oscillate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.095001
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Phys.Rev.D: "Muonium-Antimuonium oscillations in effective field theory" (2020)
>>>>>>>> Note that this is a theoretical paper that has no support in experiment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is of course that muon-neutrinos and muonium are, states of muons.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (When they are born.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Charm mesons oscillate:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-08-subatomic-particle-seen-changing-antiparticle-and-back-first-time
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not muons.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.061801
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Alright then, I'll read Phys.Rev.D. and Phys.Rev.Lett., and you can read "babble".
>>>>>>>> Read all the titles you want. You’re not understanding what they say.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Though, I suppose why I thanked you earlier O.B. was
>>>>>>>>> that's the first time I've ever seen you explain something.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And, a "norm metric fixed with the R-gauge", is the metric.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now if you'll excuse me I'm pretty sure as I care about muon physics,
>>>>>>>>> I'll read it from Phys.Rev. and you can go back to conking trolls.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Though, that your version of SR is only effectively before about 2005.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which has moved on....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You shoud apologize.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> For what?
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>> For mis-representing muon physics.
>>>>>
>>>> But I haven’t. You’re the one that has confused theoretical speculations
>>>> about POSSIBLE muon oscillations with there being any consensus that they
>>>> DO oscillate, about which there is both zero experimental evidence and
>>>> substantial theoretical grounds that they do not, as I’ve explained.
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> No, I just point at Phys.Rev. while you babble and conk trolls.
>> And you’re a troll. You’re not any less of a troll because you browse
>> Phys.Rev.D, especially since you don’t seem to know what you’re reading.
>>
>> There are lots of masquerade costumes here. Some people like composing long
>> paragraphs using lots of jargon words, where the people who know something
>> about the subject will know immediately that the composer has no idea what
>> the words actually mean. This is called tossing a word salad. To adorn the
>> costume further, some people will start mentioning some important
>> physicists’ name, as though name-dropping indicates any familiarity with
>> their work, which fortunately is pretty easy to sort out by those who have
>> actually read some of their work. Finally, if further adornment to the
>> costume is needed, the masquerade ball-goer will start citing random titles
>> from journal articles, possibly by doing a topic search in
>> scholar.google.com, where again the charade is apparent when it’s clear
>> that the composer has no idea what the article is actually about.
>>>
>>> Ignorance is not a defense.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Segal's "Mathematical Problems of Relativistic Physics"?
>
> Your little parable and homile, where's the word "soup"?
>
>
>

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 12:27:39 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 10:37:56 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 7:26:20 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 10:09:27 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 8:23:40 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 1:40:30 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 10:40:21 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 6:19:52 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:47:18 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 1:50:18 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 9:26:11 AM UTC-8, bodk....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 7:24:14 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:39:15 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 7:53:01 PM UTC-8, crank patdolan
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inspired by Richard's many challenge problems, I now submit a little
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conundrum of my own for this forum's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have made the startling discovery that the concept of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spacetime
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interval, conceived by Minchumpski, does not work in the general
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is to say observers in different frames
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of reference will disagree
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the spacetime interval between two time-like events.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Minchumpski's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formula only works for space-like events. I made this discovery
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whilst
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toying with the Bodkin Equalities. I may
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expatiate on this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in another place.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is nonsense, Pattycakes, spacetime is frame invariant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have already conceded to Sylvia that the algebra of spacetime
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intervals
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is consistent. I am now pressing Sylvia on the point that the LTs and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the spacetime intervals they imply cannot actually represent a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe. The muon and the lab technician will always disagree about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much time has elapsed on the Lab clock at the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment of the muon's decay
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the lab's scintillator.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, as I’ve already pointed out, trying to watch a passing clock
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least trying to compensate for the time delay that it takes the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the laboratory clock to get to the muon is going to be a foolish
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notion, and you should not expect this to represent the actual elapsed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as read on the laboratory clock.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it helps, Pat, please remember that the interval of time between two
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> events that take place in different places in an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inertial reference frame
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should probably be measured by TWO synchronized
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks, each close to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two events. And then the question is, in which frame are they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they won’t be synchronized in both (and of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course, someone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtracting clock readings from two clocks they say are unsynchronized
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not take that to represent any real interval).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am slowly bringing Sylvia along with baby steps to this realization.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usually precise and terse Sylvia is having
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difficulty at the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment--her word salads are the tell.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin and Sylvia, lets start over and take another run at this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation/demonstration as to why special relativity is not congruent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the real world or the physical logic of the real world. First
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Did Frisch and Smith observe that the muons' clocks slowed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down? If not, why not?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are asking what is wrong with the popularization presentation by a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple of experimenters, rather than what special relativity actually
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the subject.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pat, the lesson here is simple. Stop watching YouTube videos and reading
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles in old Omni magazines, and start picking up a real TEXTBOOK that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaches special relativity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taylor and Wheeler is good. Geroch’s little A to B book is good.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about "Gauge Theories in the Twentieth Century".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s John Taylor, not Edwin Taylor, and that book won’t teach you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything about special relativity because it assumes you already know it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's actually John Clayton Taylor, not John Archibald Taylor. It's Edwin
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wheeler.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clayton_Taylor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course if you're regular friends of these guys that would be kind of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cool.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How up are you on Fock-Ivanenko, Popov-Faddeev?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have Popov and Faddeev’s book. Homework exercise is to find the mistakes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://inference-review.com/article/muons-and-new-physics
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "At a workshop at the University of Glasgow in 2009, Lee Roberts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested that three theorists of different groups get together and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine the discrepancies between models. He appointed Joachim
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prades, Arkady Vainshtein, and [Eduardo de Rafael] to do the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> job. Our result was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aμ(LbyLS – Glasgow) = (10.5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ± 2.6) × 10–10, the so-called Glasgow
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consensus. There have been many evaluations of the aμ(LbyLS) contribution
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since then, using ever more sophisticated models. They turn out to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be consistent, within errors, with the Glasgow consensus.."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ^- Muons oscillate.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they don’t.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nambu Goldstone?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s a boson. Something different.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A model with space contraction explains both time dilation /
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> length contraction.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conway
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your reply.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muons might be leptons, but, they're outside SR.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense. Muons obey SR. It’s just that there are other laws they also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> obey.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I.e., SR models leptons, they don't oscillate, these are muons,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in particle physics or about the electroweak, that do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is established since the Glasgow consensus.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No such “Glashow consensus”.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bosons end up birthing muons from pions,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ..., Nambu Goldstone.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> W bosons, actually.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, thanks again.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What you should say is that in a model of only SR,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it's incomplete with respect to muons, and, since the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Glasgow consensus, that's a matter of (scientific) fact.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> These days it's "SR is local".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Muons obey SR. It’s just that there are other laws they also obey." - O.B.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The Glasgow consensus continues "... and it's not just GR and SM".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In the 21'st century theory that then indeed is "muons oscillate".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Of course the electroweak particles and hadronic interactions have
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mostly been sideline with all sorts the "particles" or interactions
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that result, since the 1960's, because mainline national scientists
> >>>>>>>>>>>> have long known of effects in the hadronic in the electroweak.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's fair to say "our theory is not actually vanilla SR but these days'
> >>>>>>>>>>>> STR where STR derives GTR instead of vice versa, and according to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Pauli and Heisenberg there is only total ignorance of hadronic interactions
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of electroweak particles". (Though, many have that "GR derives SR
> >>>>>>>>>>>> instead and SR is local".) Having said that though, there are hadronic
> >>>>>>>>>>>> interactions/contributions of electroweak particles not modeled in your
> >>>>>>>>>>>> theory.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which is thusly not universally appropriate.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The Copenhagen interpretation ("everything should be written as classical")
> >>>>>>>>>>> has a natural complement in this Glasgow consensus ("muon precession is
> >>>>>>>>>>> effectively anti-classical").
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Precession is not oscillation.
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2752 (2009)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "In principle, the charged leptons may oscillate as well
> >>>>>>>>> but it would need rather strange initial states that could
> >>>>>>>>> be easily obtained in the ultrarelativistic limit only and
> >>>>>>>>> the experimental arrangement would have to be very
> >>>>>>>>> unusual, anyway." --
> >>>>>>>>> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/176221/do-electrons-oscillate-into-muons-just-like-electron-neutrinos-into-muon-neutrin
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Please note that this is a search paper, no evidence found for it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is again that besides that muon neutrinos oscillate,
> >>>>>>>>> that muons oscillate.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.095001
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Phys.Rev.D: "Muonium-Antimuonium oscillations in effective field theory" (2020)
> >>>>>>>> Note that this is a theoretical paper that has no support in experiment.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is of course that muon-neutrinos and muonium are, states of muons.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> (When they are born.)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Charm mesons oscillate:
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-08-subatomic-particle-seen-changing-antiparticle-and-back-first-time
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Not muons.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.061801
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Alright then, I'll read Phys.Rev.D. and Phys.Rev.Lett., and you can read "babble".
> >>>>>>>> Read all the titles you want. You’re not understanding what they say.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Though, I suppose why I thanked you earlier O.B. was
> >>>>>>>>> that's the first time I've ever seen you explain something.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And, a "norm metric fixed with the R-gauge", is the metric.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Now if you'll excuse me I'm pretty sure as I care about muon physics,
> >>>>>>>>> I'll read it from Phys.Rev. and you can go back to conking trolls.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Though, that your version of SR is only effectively before about 2005.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Which has moved on....
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You shoud apologize.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> For what?
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For mis-representing muon physics.
> >>>>>
> >>>> But I haven’t. You’re the one that has confused theoretical speculations
> >>>> about POSSIBLE muon oscillations with there being any consensus that they
> >>>> DO oscillate, about which there is both zero experimental evidence and
> >>>> substantial theoretical grounds that they do not, as I’ve explained.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>> No, I just point at Phys.Rev. while you babble and conk trolls.
> >> And you’re a troll. You’re not any less of a troll because you browse
> >> Phys.Rev.D, especially since you don’t seem to know what you’re reading.
> >>
> >> There are lots of masquerade costumes here. Some people like composing long
> >> paragraphs using lots of jargon words, where the people who know something
> >> about the subject will know immediately that the composer has no idea what
> >> the words actually mean. This is called tossing a word salad. To adorn the
> >> costume further, some people will start mentioning some important
> >> physicists’ name, as though name-dropping indicates any familiarity with
> >> their work, which fortunately is pretty easy to sort out by those who have
> >> actually read some of their work. Finally, if further adornment to the
> >> costume is needed, the masquerade ball-goer will start citing random titles
> >> from journal articles, possibly by doing a topic search in
> >> scholar.google.com, where again the charade is apparent when it’s clear
> >> that the composer has no idea what the article is actually about.
> >>>
> >>> Ignorance is not a defense.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > Segal's "Mathematical Problems of Relativistic Physics"?
> >
> > Your little parable and homile, where's the word "soup"?
> >
> >
> >
> Yes, that’s the proceedings of a summer school short course for
> mathematicians interested in working on physics topics, this one having to
> do with relativistic quantum field theory. Keep in mind this summer school
> was only viable in the 1950s to early 1960s, I believe, and U of C did not
> hold these sessions any longer when I was doing my studies in mathematics..
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>
> "Thus it is physically reasonable to postulate that the bounded
> observables of the physical system form a type of algebra,
> the relevant operations being multiplication by scalars, squaring and

quote less you fucking imbecile. You don't even understand computers and
decimal negative numbers. Idiot.

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 2:21:31 PM UTC-8, Fred Bice wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> >
> > "Thus it is physically reasonable to postulate that the bounded
> > observables of the physical system form a type of algebra,
> > the relevant operations being multiplication by scalars, squaring and
> quote less you fucking imbecile. You don't even understand computers and
> decimal negative numbers. Idiot.

Now you see O.B.: that's a troll.

Hey though O.B. I want to thank you some more and not just because of
a usual respect for elders, I haven't often seen demonstrated your
comprehension of the subject material, and all I'd want to relay is
that objectively, the APS Phys.Rev is authoritative, and modern.