[BRrollin]

Not all physicists agree that the muon anomaly represents new physics or a contradiction of the equivalence principle.

The g-2 anomalous magnetic moment of the muon is an entirely different subject, and has to do with quantum electrodynamics. It has nothing to do with relativistic time dilation, and instead involves the deviation from a point like structure as found through higher order loop corrections of Feynman diagrams.

The only connection between this topic and the current discussion is the word “muon.”

Perhaps you wish to start a new thread? I would be happy to talk more about it there, including detailing the mathematics of the renormalization process of the spacetime integrals. But it is not on-topic here.

Nevertheless, it is always important, if you wish to cite disagreement among physicists, to link published articles in peer reviewed journals. Because that is where the dialogues of disagreement takes place. Doing so also ensures one is not inadvertently linking to pseudoscientific tangents that seek to derail legitimate scientific discourse.

Scientists disagree on all sorts of things. This is one power of science

It is talking about how Einstein's Equivalence Principle may have or have not been properly implemented: "It is my melancholy duty to report that these articles are fundamentally flawed in that they fail to correctly implement the Einstein equivalence principle of general relativity."

The article links to a blog by physicist Luboš Motl which also talks about the equivalence principle for this:

https://motls.blogspot.com/2018/02/experiments-may-only-measure-gauge.html

For example, the equivalence principle says that if you perform an experiment inside a small enough and freely falling lab which has no windows, the results don't allow you to figure out whether you're in a gravitational field or not. If the ratio of the electron's and muon's magnetic moments depended on your being near Earth, you could say whether you're near the Earth inside that lab, and the equivalence principle would be violated. That's it.

Again, this description from physicist Luboš Motl is describing about how this muon anomaly may violate the equivalence principle. You are incorrect to claim that this does not have anything to do with relativistic effects.

If not this muon-equivalence-principle anomaly, what muon-equivalence-principle anomaly are you referring to?

Nevertheless, it is always important, if you wish to cite disagreement among physicists, to link published articles in peer reviewed journals. Because that is where the dialogues of disagreement takes place. Doing so also ensures one is not inadvertently linking to pseudoscientific tangents that seek to derail legitimate scientific discourse.

The blog links to the work of physcists, and their disagreements. I can't see that you have linked us to anything.

True, but the blogs are...blogs. Scientific discourse is not conducted in blogs. See here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0010194

Or here:

https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/atoms/atoms-07-00028/article_deploy/atoms-07-00028-v2.pdf

Or one of the seminal papers here:

https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.140.B397

Even entire books have been written:

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-540-72634-0

Which all support the known understanding of what g-2 is about.

You could also look in just about any graduate text on quantum field theory, or quantum electrodynamics...since this is what they teach. See a University course’s PowerPoint:

https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/gan.1/teaching/winter10/Chapter3.pdf

It seems as though you may have confused two topics. The anomalous moment of the muon (g-2) is different than your source’s claimed “anomalous equivalence principle” issue. It would probably be a good start to find a published article on this claimed effect - which should exist if it is legitimate.

I’m not sure how to best help you. Instead of discussing some very interesting implications of particle behavior, we are getting stuck on the basic definitions.

For example, Quantum relativity and relativity are entirely different fields. One is the proper context to discuss time dilation, while the other is not.

I’ll try to help the best I can, but recognize that I won’t be able to teach you all of quantum mechanics and relativity in a forum.

But I do encourage you to learn it somehow. I think it will allow you to distinguish between valid scientific claims and opinions.

[Tom Bishop]

I did link you to a source which was using the anomalous muon magnetic moment as a test of relativistic time dilation:

https://inspirehep.net/literature/133026

Final Report on the CERN Muon Storage Ring Including the Anomalous Magnetic Moment and the Electric Dipole Moment of the Muon, and a Direct Test of Relativistic Time Dilation

Abstract: A comprehensive description of the muon storage ring and its operation is given, and the final results of the experiment are presented and discussed. The anomalous magnetic moments of positive and negative muons are found to be a μ + = 1165911(11) × 10 −9 and a μ − = 1165937(12) × 10 −9 giving an average value for muons of a μ = 1165924(8.5) × 10 −9 . The electric dipole moments were also measured with the results D μ += (8.6 ± 4.5) × 10 −9 e · cm and D μ − = (0.8 ± 4.3) × 10 −19 e · cm. Under the assumption of the CPT theorem these yield a weighted average of D μ = (3.7 ± 3.4) × 10 −19 e · cm. Finally the time transformation of special relativity is shown to be valid to (0.8 ± 0.7) × 10 −3 at γ ≅ 29.3. All the errors quoted here are one standard deviation and contain both statistical and systematic effects.

Yet you say:

anomalous magnetic moment of the muon is an entirely different subject, and has to do with quantum electrodynamics. It has nothing to do with relativistic time dilation

The only connection between this topic and the current discussion is the word “muon.”

This can be used as a test of time dilation and the equivalence principle.

Now show us how the time dilation muon anomalies are tested with whatever experiments you think that you are talking about. You have not linked us to anything on these time dilation anomalies, only your own opinion.

True, but the blogs are...blogs. Scientific discourse is not conducted in blogs.

Actually Luboš Motl is a respected theoretical physicist, who conducts his scientific discourse in a blog.

[BRrollin]

I did link you to a source which was using the anomalous muon magnetic moment as a test of relativistic time dilation:

https://inspirehep.net/literature/133026

Final Report on the CERN Muon Storage Ring Including the Anomalous Magnetic Moment and the Electric Dipole Moment of the Muon, and a Direct Test of Relativistic Time Dilation

Abstract: A comprehensive description of the muon storage ring and its operation is given, and the final results of the experiment are presented and discussed. The anomalous magnetic moments of positive and negative muons are found to be a μ + = 1165911(11) × 10 −9 and a μ − = 1165937(12) × 10 −9 giving an average value for muons of a μ = 1165924(8.5) × 10 −9 . The electric dipole moments were also measured with the results D μ += (8.6 ± 4.5) × 10 −9 e · cm and D μ − = (0.8 ± 4.3) × 10 −19 e · cm. Under the assumption of the CPT theorem these yield a weighted average of D μ = (3.7 ± 3.4) × 10 −19 e · cm. Finally the time transformation of special relativity is shown to be valid to (0.8 ± 0.7) × 10 −3 at γ ≅ 29.3. All the errors quoted here are one standard deviation and contain both statistical and systematic effects.

Yet you say:

anomalous magnetic moment of the muon is an entirely different subject, and has to do with quantum electrodynamics. It has nothing to do with relativistic time dilation

The only connection between this topic and the current discussion is the word “muon.”

This can be used as a test of time dilation and the equivalence principle.

Now show us how the time dilation muon anomalies are tested with whatever experiments you think that you are talking about. You have not linked us to anything on these time dilation anomalies, only your own opinion.

True, but the blogs are...blogs. Scientific discourse is not conducted in blogs.

Actually Luboš Motl is a respected theoretical physicist, who conducts his scientific discourse in a blog.

Ahh yes, I am familiar with that study. You see, what they intended to do is experimentally constrain the moment. The results they provide are consistent with quantum field theory calculations.

As a bonus, they also use the experiment to constrain relativistic time dilation. They do this by being very clever about their experiment, so that they can extract as much science as possible. This is common.

I can see why this confused you. Both the moment and time dilation are in the same study, so it makes sense that you would conclude that one depends on the other somehow.

Unfortunately, you chose probably the worst possible study to plead your case, because they confirm Lorentz dilation to a gamma factor of 28. You don’t want that, because it SUPPORTS time dilation of the current theory.

Also, I really don’t understand what you mean by:

“Now show us how the time dilation muon anomalies are tested with whatever experiments you think that you are talking about. You have not linked us to anything on these time dilation anomalies, only your own opinion.“

There are no time dilation muon anomalies that I have heard of. This is confirmed in the results of the very study you just linked. It’s what the gamma factor means...

YOU are claiming this world renown physicist thinks there is. Okay, then link one of his publications - in a peer reviewed journal. That would be fun to discuss.

No respected physicist does science in a blog. They publish their science. Folks who can’t get published push their unpublishable ideas in blogs....

Not saying this guy is one of those. Many physicists HAVE blogs....but they publish too.

So? Let’s read some publications from this famous theorist on anomalous muon time dilation equivalence principle thing.

But I gotta tell ya, just the phrase “anomalous muon time dilation equivalence principle” just sounds like cobbled together physics words, Deepak Chopra style.

But I look forward to being corrected

[pricelesspearl]

You are currently traveling at 0 m/s relative to the couch you are sitting upon. And simultaneously, you are traveling at .996c relative to a really energetic cosmic ray flying in your direction. Both of those frames are equally valid. If you were on a rocket, hurtling directly toward that cosmic ray at, let's say for fun, .5c relative to your couch that you were on moments ago. What do you think your perception is regarding how fast that cosmic ray is now flying at you? And what do you think the cosmic ray, if it had eyes, would perceive your velocity to be? If your answer to both is less than c, I really don't know why you are still posting in this thread. And if your answer is greater than c, then I think you'll understand before you even reply that you need to read some things.

The discussion wasn't about relative velocity...it was about "relative" vs. "proper" acceleration.  Those are two different things. if I am accelerating at a constant 9.8 m/s2 and I am holding an accelerometer...that's what it will read no matter how fast anything is hurtling towards me.
 

[xasop]

That is not quite correct either, because the muon lifetime has been pinned down using other collision experiments. Hence, We also can identify the inertial frame to be the Earth.

Have you published a paper on this? I'm sure modern science would be fascinated to know how you concluded that (the surface of) the Earth is an inertial frame of reference, given that it would discredit the past century of modern physics.

[BRrollin]

That is not quite correct either, because the muon lifetime has been pinned down using other collision experiments. Hence, We also can identify the inertial frame to be the Earth.

Have you published a paper on this? I'm sure modern science would be fascinated to know how you concluded that (the surface of) the Earth is an inertial frame of reference, given that it would discredit the past century of modern physics.

Are the goal posts being moved all of a sudden? Why this call for first author publications for ideas expressed on this forum? I don’t mind actually, as long as everyone is held to the same standard

Or is this a straw man? Changing the debate topic to hide a weakness? I don’t think my publications are the topic here.

Tell ya what: I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and explain the physics.

What is an inertial frame? What absolute standard of rest do we reference? The center of the Milky Way? Whoops, that’s a noninertial frame with respect to the local group. The local group then? Nope. Cause it’s part of the Virgo cluster.

Eh? How do we proceed? Well, it behooves you to consider relevant time and distance scales. Inertial frames reside within this framework, but if you leave it and reference, for example, the CMB, then nothing is an inertial frame.

So how come I can do simple incline experiments on the Earth, under the assumption that we’re in an inertial frame, and have the results agree with theory?

Because the experiments occur on time and distance scales much different than the CMB (or other noninertial frames of reference).

Does this also work on the time and distance scales in the muon dilation experiments? Why yes, yes it does! Just about every physics undergraduate does this problem. It’s classic!

As with all science, there is quite a bit more to it than one can intuit from a few minutes of scrolling Wikipedia.

[xasop]

What is an inertial frame? What absolute standard of rest do we reference?

There is no "absolute standard of rest". This has been generally accepted in the context of Einsteinian relativity for over a century, and Newtonian relativity for far longer. Once again, I invite you to publish if you have evidence to the contrary.

To answer your question, an inertial frame of reference is one without a proper acceleration.

[BRrollin]

What is an inertial frame? What absolute standard of rest do we reference?

There is no "absolute standard of rest". This has been generally accepted in the context of Einsteinian relativity for over a century, and Newtonian relativity for far longer. Once again, I invite you to publish if you have evidence to the contrary.

To answer your question, an inertial frame of reference is one without a proper acceleration.

Yeah, that’s what my previous reply said...glad we agree.

Actually, not to be nit-picky, but the CMB itself is used as an absolute standard of rest in Cosmology. This is an approximation, of course, but is used by many.

Nice answer to the first question though! Textbook answer.

But none of this matters, as the majority of my previous post addressed the muon issue. That is the topic.

Also, how would I publish something that is common, undergraduate knowledge? I am confused by your request.

[xasop]

Yeah, that’s what my previous reply said...glad we agree.

No, your previous reply went off on a tangent about the CMB, as though that is some sort of absolute frame of reference. I ignored everything after the point at which you made that error, because any argument based on a flawed assertion is also flawed.

[BRrollin]

Yeah, that’s what my previous reply said...glad we agree.

No, your previous reply went off on a tangent about the CMB, as though that is some sort of absolute frame of reference. I ignored everything after the point at which you made that error, because any argument based on a flawed assertion is also flawed.

Your reply makes sense then: you didn’t read the previous entry!

Actually the reply AFTER that detailed the CMB as an approximate standard used in Cosmology. The reply before - which is what you are referencing, did not make that claim.

Well, lemme know if you’d like to reengage. The CMB description was to help you understand how inertial frames are used and defined. Since you don’t seem to believe this assertion, it sounds like the information would be useful to you.

It would probably help you understand how inertial frames are used in the muon problem.

At any rate, nice talking with ya. Toodles.

[xasop]

The reply before - which is what you are referencing, did not make that claim.

Not explicitly, no, but you did imply it:

Inertial frames reside within this framework, but if you leave it and reference, for example, the CMB, then nothing is an inertial frame.

The CMB has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is an inertial frame of reference or not. Indeed, since inertiality is not a relative property, no other frame of reference is relevant. I'm not even sure why you brought it up.

[BRrollin]

The reply before - which is what you are referencing, did not make that claim.

Not explicitly, no, but you did imply it:

Inertial frames reside within this framework, but if you leave it and reference, for example, the CMB, then nothing is an inertial frame.

The CMB has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is an inertial frame of reference or not. Indeed, since inertiality is not a relative property, no other frame of reference is relevant. I'm not even sure why you brought it up.

Well sure it does! You probably aren’t sure why I brought it up because you didn’t read my post . You then lack the proper reference frame when I expand upon it (see what I did there. Like 3 puns in that sentence. That one’s just for you, Perceval /edit: Parsifal. Sorry bout that).

Anyway, back to your point. I think you may have some confusion between inertial frames versus rest frames. I tried to help delineate this for you in my post (that you said you didn’t read). I’m not really interested in wasting my time if you’re just going to ignore content, and then express frustration at not knowing information that content addressed.

Lemme know if you’d like to start fresh. We can renormalize to the crux of the matter, which is the distance and time scales where taking the Earth to be an inertial frame is appropriate and when it is not.

[xasop]

Anyway, back to your point. I think you may have some confusion between inertial frames versus rest frames. I tried to help delineate this for you in my post (that you said you didn’t read).

I never said that. You're the one who, for some reason, keeps claiming I didn't read a post that I responded to, not me. Given that the post in question is utterly wrong, and contains such absurd phrases as "a noninertial frame with respect to", I don't have much regard for what you think I might be confused about.

Lemme know if you’d like to start fresh. We can renormalize to the crux of the matter, which is the distance and time scales where taking the Earth to be an inertial frame is appropriate and when it is not.

Sorry, what? You don't "take" a frame of reference to be inertial, it either is inertial or it isn't. Furthermore, the Earth is not a frame of reference, it is an object consisting of mostly rock and water. Objects are not frames of reference.

[JSS]

Sorry, what? You don't "take" a frame of reference to be inertial, it either is inertial or it isn't. Furthermore, the Earth is not a frame of reference, it is an object consisting of mostly rock and water. Objects are not frames of reference.

I think there is some confusing and mixing up between strict scientific definitions, and what they can be used for experimentally.

A point on the Earth is orbiting the sun, orbiting the center of the milky way, rotating, and standing on the surface means you are not in free-fall.

All of these things mean that a location on the Earth is not an inertial reference frame.

However, if you are just trying to calculate the interaction between two balls you are bouncing off each other, you can consider a point on or near the earth to be an approximate reference frame. Depending on the scale of the experiment, you can consider a point on the Earth stationary.

I think a lot of this argument is about semantics.

'Short' Answer: Earth is not X but a location on it can be considered an approximation of X for specific experiments.

[pricelesspearl]

Sorry, what? You don't "take" a frame of reference to be inertial, it either is inertial or it isn't.

So are you suggesting that proper acceleration is not relative? 

[Pete Svarrior]

So are you suggesting that proper acceleration is not relative?

You understood nothing that's been said to you. Instead of trying to trip people up with "clever" gotchas, please read up on the subject and try to develop an understanding.

[BRrollin]

Anyway, back to your point. I think you may have some confusion between inertial frames versus rest frames. I tried to help delineate this for you in my post (that you said you didn’t read).

I never said that. You're the one who, for some reason, keeps claiming I didn't read a post that I responded to, not me. Given that the post in question is utterly wrong, and contains such absurd phrases as "a noninertial frame with respect to", I don't have much regard for what you think I might be confused about.

Lemme know if you’d like to start fresh. We can renormalize to the crux of the matter, which is the distance and time scales where taking the Earth to be an inertial frame is appropriate and when it is not.

Sorry, what? You don't "take" a frame of reference to be inertial, it either is inertial or it isn't. Furthermore, the Earth is not a frame of reference, it is an object consisting of mostly rock and water. Objects are not frames of reference.

Oh dear, well it looks like this discussion has reached an impasse. Not sure where all the anger is coming from.

When you say that you stopped reading a reply, I take that to mean you didn’t read the rest of it...certainly you could be lying and I wouldn’t know. But why would you do that?

“The Earth is not a frame of reference.”

Yeah...this stuff is covered in like the first week of physics I. The earth is taken as a reference frame all the time. Look in any physics text. Literally ANY.

So it is clear that there is misunderstanding of the basics, yet you are accusing me of being wrong about them - and being rather rude about it too.

Hey - if you’re interested in learning, I’d be happy to teach you. Really sorry that there is such confusion.

But if you just want to hurl insults every time it is pointed out that you are mistaken, well cousin, to you I say good day sir! Some humility would be in order, especially given the obvious lack of understanding fundamental principles.

[xasop]

A point on the Earth is orbiting the sun, orbiting the center of the milky way, rotating, and standing on the surface means you are not in free-fall.

All of these things mean that a location on the Earth is not an inertial reference frame.

Actually, only the last one means you are not in free-fall. An orbit is a free-fall.

I think a lot of this argument is about semantics.

It is not. The point, which has apparently been missed by all involved, is that a frame of reference using a point on the Earth's surface as a fixed point approximates a non-inertial frame of reference precisely as well in FET as in RET. In both cases, there is a proper acceleration of 9.8 m s^-2.

Oh dear, well it looks like this discussion has reached an impasse. Not sure where all the anger is coming from.

There is no anger, but I agree we seem to have reached an impasse, as you continue trying to "explain" incorrect physics to me rather than respond to my points. Teaching other people generally will not get you anywhere if they do not recognise you as more knowledgeable than they are.

“The Earth is not a frame of reference.”

Yeah...this stuff is covered in like the first week of physics I. The earth is taken as a reference frame all the time. Look in any physics text. Literally ANY.

Look, this is not correct, and I have studied physics at university level. The primary reason the Earth cannot be a frame of reference is that, particularly in RET, different parts of the Earth are moving at different velocities as it rotates. That is, different places on Earth are in different frames of reference, even in Newtonian physics.

Now, it is common in introductory physics textbooks to use one fixed point somewhere on the Earth's surface to define a frame of reference. This is very, very far from using the Earth itself as a frame of reference, which simply makes no sense at all.

The reason this is significant in this particular discussion is that it is possible in RET to select a point on the Earth—namely, its centre of mass—to define an inertial frame of reference, given modelling assumptions that ignore external forces such as the solar wind and meteor showers. But unless you have access to a clock measuring muon decay times located in the inner core, this is entirely irrelevant.

So it is clear that there is misunderstanding of the basics, yet you are accusing me of being wrong about them - and being rather rude about it too.

At the risk of devolving this discussion into personal attacks, might I point out that you have been accusing me of not understanding basics as well, even though your grasp of them is very obviously lacking? I don't appreciate the double standard of being called rude for returning the courtesy.

I would appreciate it if we could focus on the subject matter rather than you avoiding responding to my points by just telling me I don't understand basics.

[BRrollin]

A point on the Earth is orbiting the sun, orbiting the center of the milky way, rotating, and standing on the surface means you are not in free-fall.

All of these things mean that a location on the Earth is not an inertial reference frame.

Actually, only the last one means you are not in free-fall. An orbit is a free-fall.

I think a lot of this argument is about semantics.

It is not. The point, which has apparently been missed by all involved, is that a frame of reference using a point on the Earth's surface as a fixed point approximates a non-inertial frame of reference precisely as well in FET as in RET. In both cases, there is a proper acceleration of 9.8 m s^-2.

Oh dear, well it looks like this discussion has reached an impasse. Not sure where all the anger is coming from.

There is no anger, but I agree we seem to have reached an impasse, as you continue trying to "explain" incorrect physics to me rather than respond to my points. Teaching other people generally will not get you anywhere if they do not recognise you as more knowledgeable than they are.

“The Earth is not a frame of reference.”

Yeah...this stuff is covered in like the first week of physics I. The earth is taken as a reference frame all the time. Look in any physics text. Literally ANY.

Look, this is not correct, and I have studied physics at university level. The primary reason the Earth cannot be a frame of reference is that, particularly in RET, different parts of the Earth are moving at different velocities as it rotates. That is, different places on Earth are in different frames of reference, even in Newtonian physics.

Now, it is common in introductory physics textbooks to use one fixed point somewhere on the Earth's surface to define a frame of reference. This is very, very far from using the Earth itself as a frame of reference, which simply makes no sense at all.

The reason this is significant in this particular discussion is that it is possible in RET to select a point on the Earth—namely, its centre of mass—to define an inertial frame of reference, given modelling assumptions that ignore external forces such as the solar wind and meteor showers. But unless you have access to a clock measuring muon decay times located in the inner core, this is entirely irrelevant.

So it is clear that there is misunderstanding of the basics, yet you are accusing me of being wrong about them - and being rather rude about it too.

At the risk of devolving this discussion into personal attacks, might I point out that you have been accusing me of not understanding basics as well, even though your grasp of them is very obviously lacking? I don't appreciate the double standard of being called rude for returning the courtesy.

I would appreciate it if we could focus on the subject matter rather than you avoiding responding to my points by just telling me I don't understand basics.

Alright, it looks like you’ve done some kind of an effort to extend an olive branch. I’ll meet you half way, even if my half is more like 3/4

I’ll believe you that you’ve studied physics in university. So then I’ll advance the conversation a bit to include your prior knowledge.

In astrophysics the ecliptic plane is defined in terms of the Earth’s rest frame. So this serves as an example that you absolutely CAN do this, and it happens at the introductory level. Moreover, the epicycle theory advanced by Tom uses this same reference point.

Furthermore, think back to your physics course. Did you compute a block sliding down an incline? I’m sure you did. How did you do this problem without introducing fictitious forces that arise from a noninertial frame?

You see, you’re missing my point. If you take two points on the Earth that are far away, then in the frame of one of them, the other will have fictitious forces (of course, in steradian measures they will not - so your used metric matters!). But if you have two objects close enough together (muon+detector), then the noninertial terms in your equations are small, and introduce an uncertainty into the result that is smaller than other systematic and random errors.

You do not need a clock at the inner core, because on the timescales of the experiment (really it’s the spacetime interval) the clock on the core and another on the surface will remain synchronized (enough). This is just straight forward basic relativity.

All these topic are studied in intro mechanics, upper division experimental physics courses (folks often DO the muon experiment here), and your first relativity course.

Now I don’t know how many courses you took in physics. If you tell me, then I would be able to hone my replies to better meet your understanding. Presently, I’m just guessing what you know. One on hand it seems like you know some definitions, but then those definitions are mis-applied. When I try to point this out you get defensive. I would guess you took two courses - mechanics and E&M. But let me know.

I’m here to help, Parsifal. I’m not your enemy. I’m not here to fight you.

[xasop]

Furthermore, think back to your physics course. Did you compute a block sliding down an incline? I’m sure you did. How did you do this problem without introducing fictitious forces that arise from a noninertial frame?

How would you do this without the fictitious force of gravity?

You do not need a clock at the inner core, because on the timescales of the experiment (really it’s the spacetime interval) the clock on the core and another on the surface will remain synchronized (enough).

I agree. But this is equally true in FET as in RET, which is my whole point. (Except, of course, that there is no inner core in FET, so replace "the core" with "an inertial frame of reference beginning at rest with respect to the clock on the surface".)