Re: Muon paradox

On 04/15/2025 12:34 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 04/15/2025 09:25 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Jared Vakulov Bian <arouj@rvove.ru> wrote:
>

Tom Roberts wrote:
>

So consider other experiments that ARE "convincing" (in the sense you
mean). In particular, Bailey et al. They put muons into a storage ring
with a kinetic energy of 3.1 GeV. They measured the muons' kinetic
energy, their momentum, their speed around the ring, and their rate of
decay. All measurements are fully consistent with the predictions of SR.
(They also measured the muon g-2, which was the primary purpose of the
experiment; confirming SR was just a side issue.)
>
       Bailey et al, Phys. Lett. B 55 (1975) 420-424

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

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

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

>
Yes, but them you have to assume/ignore that there are no other loss
mechaninsms,
>
Jan
>

>
It's a retro-grade process, you're looking at it from the wrong end.
>
Log-normaling the g-2 as after the Hamilton-Jacobi is that it
was already Jacobi-Hamilton and it results "tunes to anything".
>
And cancels out what would be the explanatory, since the
linear accelerator has a plain Galilean interpretation.

>
You clearly haven't the faintest idea of what this is all about,
>
Jan
>

Yeah it's that the apparatus is given the energy input yet
can't include the idea that the beam-line as it were _is_
Galilean, so results improper quantities, then that the
Hamilton-Jacobi equations and out how falls g-2, already
kind of had that built into the assumptions of the Hamiltonian
as was already Jacobian after the Lagrangian, then it results
what's the trace is from the energy input, not the real quantities.