THE DECEPTION OF THE MUON TEST AND THE SPEED OF ATOM PARTICLES

INTRODUCTION

We have recently read an author who still attempts to justify the validity of the fallacy of A. Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" by presenting "the muon test."

In this essay, we will demonstrate that such a test is nothing more than a fallacy intended to lend credence to his beliefs.

Next, we provide some definitions to refresh the content of concepts we had already defined in previous essays.

WHAT IS A MUON?

A muon is a subatomic elementary particle that decays shortly after being produced.

HOW ARE MUONS PRODUCED?

Muons are produced naturally when cosmic rays, which contain them, collide with the Earth's atmosphere. Muons can also be produced in nuclear physics experiments in laboratories.

MUON BREAKDOWN TIME (tr). HEIGHT FROM WHICH THEY ARE PRODUCED AND TRAVEL TIME (td).

To perform our calculations, we compiled the following data.

It has been observed that a muon at rest, in the laboratory, in artificial mode, decays in an average time, which we will define as the Breakup Time (tr) = 2.2 microseconds.

The height from where they are produced to the ground surface is estimated to be approximately 50 km/s.

If we assume that a muon travels at the speed of light, or 300,000 km/s, which we will see later cannot be true, the travel time (td) until reaching the ground is calculated to be:

td = 50/(300,000) km/(km/s) = 0.0001666 sec. = 166 microseconds.

In the laboratory, a breakup time (tr) has been estimated to be equal to 2.2 microseconds before a muon decays.

Therefore:

With a td = 166 microseconds of travel to reach the Earth's surface, it would be impossible for them not to have disintegrated. They shouldn't exist, and yet they are.

The following figure is intended to represent the two forms of muon production.

With this reasoning, they admit that time dilates, that is, by adding more time, as if time were a material entity... and thus leaving more time for the muon to decay.

WE AFFIRM THAT MUONS TRAVEL AT A GREATER SPEED THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. TIME DOES NOT DILATE.

In the approach put forward by the followers of the Theory of Special Relativity, they use the speed of light as the muon's travel speed. Based on this erroneous concept, they have no choice but to resort to the fallacy that time dilates. Of course, this statement conceals another fallacy of A. Einstein's. In his book "On the Theory of Special and General Relativity," he gives a mathematical approach that leads to the error of trying to justify that the speed of light cannot be exceeded.

Some time ago, we published an essay on our blog entitled: "Theory of Relativity: It is possible for an atomic particle to travel faster than the speed of light." In this essay, we demonstrated this possibility mathematically. Now, we present this possibility empirically in a real-life scenario.

WE PROVE THAT THE MUON TRAVELS AT A SPEED GREATER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT

We argue that on the journey from the collision with the atmosphere to the Earth's surface, it's not that time dilates, but that muons, as atomic particles, travel faster than the speed of light.

If we propose a proposal in which we demonstrate that a muon can travel faster than the speed of light, we can rule out the fallacy that time dilates.

In this demonstration, we will carry out the following two steps:

1. Express the speed of light in microseconds

2. Determine the speed of a muon in microseconds

By evaluating these concepts in the same unit of measurement, comparisons can be made between them.

1.- EXPRESSION OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT IN MICROSECONDS: µs

Remember that we represent a microsecond as µs, and that it is equivalent to: (1 / 1,000,000) seconds.

We will take the following unit of measurement: µs

The speed of light is represented by (c)

To measure seconds in microseconds, we take the dimension µs as the unit of measurement.

c=300,000 km/sec×(1 sec)/µs=(300,000)/(1,000,000) km/µs=0.3 km/µs

2.- DETERMINE THE SPEED OF A MUON IN MICROSECONDS

We ask ourselves, what speed must muons have to arrive from an altitude of 50 km above the ground without disintegrating?

To answer this question, we proceed as follows:

Identifying the speed of the muon as (Vm); the distance traveled as (e); and the time taken as (t), we apply

the formula: Vm = e/t

We observe that the value of (Vm) is determined by two variables. The value of the Space variable (e) is known: 50 km. To determine the value of time (t), we will rely on the data provided in the laboratory.

In the laboratory, for the entire muon to arrive, the maximum travel time is: (td) = 2.20 µs. We will take this duration of NOT decaying as the time the muon is traveling.

Thus, we have:

Observe the difference in speed obtained with respect to the speed of light. We believe this is the reason why muons reach the ground without decaying.

FALLACIES IN THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY

To conclude this essay, we would like to highlight some of the fallacies that appear in the Theory of Relativity.

We have just analyzed one of these fallacies. We can call it the "muon decay time" fallacy. In truth, this is not a fallacy presented to us directly by the aforementioned physicist. Rather, it is indirectly constructed by "believers" and followers of that theory in order to justify it. However, in the aforementioned theory, we can mention fallacies created and supported by the aforementioned physicist. You can find them summarized in our "little book," published by Amazon, entitled: "The Errors of A. Einstein. A Brief Summary." We briefly comment on these fallacies: When discussing "The Simultaneity of Relativity," he comes to an erroneous conclusion by saying that:

"The time required for a process relative to the wagon cannot be equated with the duration of the same process judged from the reference body of the embankment".

"We ask ourselves: Do you really believe that matter and biological processes are transformed...?"

To this statement, we ironically reply that he is preaching "the miracle of transmutation." This is one of the fallacies.

Another fallacy, also discussed in the aforementioned "little book," is that of the "deformation of space." Through false arguments, the aforementioned physicist attempts to justify the attraction between two masses, not because of a force we call "gravity," but because space is deformed. We jokingly wonder why the supporters of the theory of relativity, when performing the muon test, instead of saying that time dilated, did not argue the nonsense. that space is deformed...

We see that followers of this theory claim that:

Time dilates; space is distorted; processes are modified… What else can be changed?

In this type of "science," one fallacy supports another.

We believe that to justify the presence of such nonsense, we must recall what we have already stated in one of our essays: "the verb SEE was confused with the verb BE."

(NOTE: We draw our readers' attention to an explanation found on Google that may cause confusion. This platform states the following:

“A muon travels at speeds very close to the speed of light, generally around 0.998c. This high speed is key to their detection at the Earth's surface, despite having a very short half-life at rest (approximately 2.2 microseconds).”

The reader will observe that this statement is incorrect or, at the very least, contradicts those who use the muon test as a thesis to justify “time dilation.” Recall that these same people claim that: “due to the time it takes them to travel 50 km, they shouldn't reach the Earth's surface”.

We, contrary to the previous assertion, have shown that the speed of a muon exceeds the speed of light, and this premise allows us to admit that muons do reach the Earth's surface.

A. EINSTEIN'S CONTRADICTIONS – THE FALSE USE OF THE VERBS "SEE" AND "BE"

1. REASON FOR PUBLISHING THIS ESSAY

In our "little book" entitled "A. Einstein's Errors – A Brief Summary," we stated that this physicist's error was confusing the use of the verb "SEE" with the verb "BE" in the thought experiments he proposed to justify his theory.

It is possible that the validity of our statement, perhaps somewhat gratuitous, was doubted. In an attempt to be somewhat pedagogical on this subject and to convince our readers of this assertion, this is the reason why we present this essay.

 

2.- THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY

In A. Einstein's book entitled "On the Theory of Special and General Relativity," on page 18 (Ediciones Altaya S.A.), he cites the following as the Principle of Relativity:

"If (k´) is a coordinate system that moves uniformly and without rotation with respect to (K), then natural phenomena occur with respect to (K´) according to the same general laws as with respect to (K)."

To be consistent in our study, this is the principle we will use as a guideline for our critique.

 

3.- OBSERVER POSITIONING IN THE THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS PRESENTED BY A. EINSTEIN

Thought experiments should allow us, as observers, to deduce the validity of the result to be obtained. If not, what would be the purpose of the thought experiment?

Following this criterion, in the drawings with which we intend to capture A. Einstein's thought experiments, we will position ourselves as the observer, with this figure appearing in the corresponding drawing.

Through the following drawings, we will see that:

IF A. EINSTEIN DOESN'T SAY THAT THEY LOOK DIFFERENT, AND SAYS THAT THEY ARE DIFFERENT, IT CONTRADICTS THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY, WHICH REQUIRES THEY BE EQUAL.

Below, we reproduce the thought experiments mentioned in the aforementioned book by A. Einstein in which the observer shown in the drawing (Fixed Reference System (K)) is ourselves.

 

1.- REFLECTION OF A RAY OF LIGHT IN THE MIRROR OF A MOBILE CAR

Time LOOKS different

2.- DISTANCE MEASURING BAR

The length LOOKS different

3.- THE RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY

We, as observers, SEE that the flashes of the two rays do not reach the person riding in the carriage simultaneously. But they are simultaneous for us.

 

4.- TRANSFORMING THE VISION OF THE EXTENSION OF AN EVENT

We must note that in this case, it is the observer who moves (SRM), while the event occurred in a fixed location. Furthermore, we see the extent of the event transformed, not because the translational motion or velocity (v) has transformed it, but because the field of view has been deformed due to distance.

 

4.- OUR DISTINCTION IN THE USE OF THE VERBS "SEE" AND "BE"

If, as we indicated in the previous section, we are the ones who stand at the observation point (SRF) in the drawings, to be consistent with the Principle of Relativity, we must say that we SEE phenomena differently, but that they ARE NOT different. This is the error Einstein makes, contradicting himself, going so far as to state in his book that we take the following as a reference:

"The time required for a process relative to the wagon cannot be equated with the duration of the same process judged from the reference body of the embankment."

If we accept this contradiction imposed by Einstein as correct, we must ironically say that the "miracle of transmutation" occurs.

In our essay on the Lorentz Transformation Formulas, Einstein's error in accepting the verb "TO BE" as valid instead of the verb "TO SEE" is most clearly evident. In our study, we demonstrate that it is: "The transformation of the vision of the extension of an event." These formulas measure the extension of an event not because it has been transformed due to movement, but because the field of vision has been modified due to distance.

5.- GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY. THE SAME ERROR AS IN THE SPECIAL THEORY.

In the so-called general theory of relativity, we can highlight the same confusion between the application of the verbs "SEE" and "BE."

Recall that to demonstrate the validity of this theory, Einstein used the thought experiment of the elevator. We will draw this thought experiment, posing as observers. We will be the Fixed Reference System (FRS).

Reasoning in the same way we did previously when considering the theory of special relativity, we say the following:

We translate SEEING as noticing the "trick" of the rope pulling the elevator at an accelerated speed (∆v).

The IS NOT refers to the elevator pulling the traveler's body and IS NOT a gravitational field that produces compression on their feet.

As the reader can see, this is another way of arguing the invalidity of the aforementioned thought experiment, in addition to what we explained in our aforementioned "booklet."

A COMMENT ADDED TO THE ESSAYS OF THIS BLOG

PURPOSE OF THIS COMMENT

The inclusion of this writing within the different essays that we have presented in our Blog, obeys the purpose of making known to our regular readers, the appearance of a “little book” that we have titled:

“The errors of A. Einstein. A brief summary”.

This “little book”, published on AMAZON, with about 50 A5 pages, aims, in a few words, and trying to be as pedagogical as possible, to make known how A. Einstein proposed his theory of relativity, and the errors he made in his approach and his conclusions obtained.

In this “little book” we believe that, briefly and with the help of schematic drawings, we can present our criticism of the book by the aforementioned physicist, entitled: “On the theory of special and general relativity”. In the “little book” the reader will be able to appreciate the nonsense committed both in the approach and in the answers obtained in “the special theory and in the general theory of relativity”.

Although in the essays that appear in the cited Blog these essays are presented with a certain independence from each other, in the mentioned “little book” we will see that all the errors that A. Einstein commits both in his approach and, as a consequence, in his results, obey the same common cause. This allows us to express in a few words the interconnection of errors in his theory.

A. Einstein, connecting between each other the different nonsense that he proposes and that he intends to authenticate by relying on the mental experiments that he proposes to carry out.

We hope that this new approach is to the liking of our readers.