hoola

thing have cause unless god is in the equation....seems a good presumption he isn't

does the tree fall from a bulldozer or from termites from within...

it seems in a logic sense that if muon decay is in any way predictable, then some process is causing that predictability...hence process is movement...whether from internal or external sources...and probably irrelevant to my case if the timing is averaged or precise...if causation is external, your case is stronger

I have a question...is the 20 microsecond delay in the muon decay a reliable rate, or is that an average time?

seems there is evidence of strings, and what about the quantum foam that surrounds everything? There is plenty of evidence for that. Even if the muon is just sitting there waiting to decay, with no internal movement, isn't it subject to a sort of "quantum brownian movement", from the foam ?

so you are describing the muon "process of decay" with it's 20ms delay to visible, measurable movement. Perhaps, but on the plank scale, something is clicking off those 20 micros or else they would not occur...I do presume the "movement" is strictly in the mathematical sense, but I still say that mathematical (via the strings) movements culminate in physical movement (decay). Strings are described as "wiggling". I see that they are perhaps only moving in a math sense, changing numerical values, as the calculation of it's algorithm plays out...but that is still movement...

decay doesn't signify motion? Do you mean the process that culminates in decay has no motion...?

I have a general idea of what you mean, but nothing specific to the question at hand in dealing with stable decay rates of the muon. Do you mean that the muon contains no internal parts? I am referring to a sub component of physical system with a string theory like basis. Even if no movement can be measured, aren't strings supposed to be wiggling about non-stop? You can't read a muon by the cover....

I accept that the muon sits there for 20 microseconds being a muon. That does not mean that there is no movement within the moun, or how would it know when to decay? There is either an internal source for this definite time, or external sources trigger the event.. I rather think the causation is internal...something is counting down that time....something within the muon's informational description is moving, in a mathematical sense...even though the external physical properties description remain stable until the countdown is completed...

if time is judged as movement, a default minimum "movement" is the changing informational states of the quantum foam, and a definition of time having passed does seem to indicate "movement" or change of information... the reference for defining the second does require movement, that of the particles making up the human brain...what other examples do you have of time passing with no movement involved?

presumably a test of transmission of energy through a casimir gap could be more easily accomplished with microwaves or even radio waves, with the gap not having to be so small, as related to the sharnhorst effect. It does look like the aether is an obsolete term. The quantum foam is still there and may act as a resistance to EMF instead of a conductor...

It seems the main problem with measuring anything, light included, against a proposed aether, is that the particles disappear too quickly for any particular measurement to take place, so there is no stable point with which to reference anything against...that doesn't mean the aether doesn't exist, only that part of it's particular properties preclude reference against any (virtual) point in normal space. But the sharnhorst effect supposedly opens the door to the possibility of the aether (as virtual particles), affecting photon speeds...a major point of contention is considering VPs as the aether...which I presume is discounted as too simplistic or simply incorrect...

The sharnhorst effect predicts a speeding up of light if one could remove virtual particles...I was thinking that the particles were possibly the "aether" and all energy transmissions depended upon them, including light. I was thinking that as particle density was lowered, a dimunition of light would follow....and that the higher frequency vs. lower freq. proportions of the overall particle density would also affect a non-linear response to certain light colors passing through the gap more easily...as the gap closes, the reds are reduced first, then as the gap closes further, colors towards the blue end become increasingly dim...and the affected photons would be reflected back to source, as a mirror effect would take place at the gap entrance.

as virtual particles are supposed to diverge and recombine in space, what is the dominant frequency of such actions? I have seen reference to a range of available frequencies.

that sounds very familiar.....it was about 2 wks ago there was discussion of it...or some link to it I read at the time....it does seem that as light travels far distances, the smearing effect on the light signal corrupts basic information about the original pulse, setting a theoretical limit on resolution vs. distance, unless some real-time error correction was applied single observation. I guess that is what long base inferometry physically accomplishes..the resolution limit is extended although the methodology is different

I thought I had read a reference to a rule that photons had to travel together. I presumed it came from some basic research in optics and was well established....perhaps I misinterpeted the conversation or it was simply incorrect...

there is something odd about the scharnhorst effect though. If photons get delayed by particle interactions, wouldn't that violate the idea of "all photons must hang together"? Wouldn't traveling through normal space tend to lengthen a pulse as well as distort information contained in the lightwave? Wouldn't wavefronts be slightly blurred if some individual photons get shifted behind others? The wiki scharnhorst effect is written with consideration of single photon behavior. It seems to have different implications when considering a light beam.

They probably aren't, or of any measurable amount, and thanks for the scharnhorst link swansontea..... to verify C being influenced by interactions seems an interesting result if a measurement is ever possible...

I hadn't considered light speed as a possible variable, only with frequency and brightness..

has any optic experiment been done within the context of the casimir experiment? That is, as the plates near each other and the gap narrows so as to interfere with VP resonance, has anyone sent light through the narrow gap to see if light is affected in correlation to this particle behavior?

whatever is restraining the VP existence time, the distortions of the VP orbit is the salient point. Thanks for pointing out my error...I thought I had read that the plank limit was the determinant factor...I can also imagine a possible reason the earlier universe had a period of contraction. Earlier increased overall matter density caused distortions to associated VP orbits, thus warping space and allowing an increased graviton exchange overall. Then when average density drifted lower, a critical percentage of VP orbit durations fell below the heisenberg limit, in a sense de-coupling space from low mass (microscopic) baryonic matter. This would ensure the contraction was halted as much of the universe became invisible to the graviton genesis mechanism that may be within space ...In my thinking the VPs are space, and their duration of existence determines the overall gravitational force expressed...from slight positive to highly negative..but I see a semantic issue with calling gravity a "negative" force. If gravity is really space warping, then space pushes down, so is in a sense positive also...as it results in an outward force, but applied in a (normally) downward fashion...so the VP force would be slight positive when at default state, then increasingly positive as orbit changes allow them to exist past the heisenberg limit. The greater the orbit durations, the smaller the particle masses can be coupled to space, hence greater graviton exchange. To somehow warp the orbits of VPs with some kind of engine would create a region of higher gravity force (a sort of gravitational monopole ?) and since it is a tensor force, no overall craft movement would be immediately practical. If the force could be delivered in a scalar form, then an exhaustless propulsion system might be possible...but even in tensor form, a craft with an artificially increased gravitational signature slingshot past a planet could turn it's gravity enhancer off at the closest approach to the planet, adding extra speed to the slingshot effect as it zooms away with normal gravity...

Virtual particles exist below the plank length of time, and do not "show up" long enough for their full compliment of field properties to be expressed. If that is true, then perhaps the lengthening of their orbits by "bending space" will extend their duty cycle to above the plank time limit, therefore become existent long enough for a "hidden field" to express. That hidden field could be gravitation, or the graviton... The longer the 2 particles exist (above plank limit) before annialation, the stronger the field or more particles exchanged. This could be why microscopic particles seem to escape gravity, that they don't warp the local VP orbital relationships strongly enough to bring the particles' duty cycle above the plank limit, leaving space essentially flat and unresponsive...the event horizon of a black hole is again the ultimate expression of gravity with the attendant complete separation of particles with hawking radiation...the maximum distortion of the orbits...

I mean to consider as possible candidate of one component of gravity, the warpage of the orbits of virtual particles as the components of space that do the actual "bending". Of course, that says nothing about why the mass bends the orbits in the first place, if indeed they do get bent....space gets bent with or without VPs, so one presumes some mechanism of space is altered which appears to measurement as "bending", and that bending results in gravitation. Since virtual particles are a fundamental component of reality, isn't it appropriate to consider the virtual particles as space itself?

on the subject of gravity in general, supposedly mass warps space and the action of gravitation stems from this behaviour. If so, then why does mass affect space? If space consists of a flux of virtual particles within it, is the distortion of the flux orbits the cause of "bent space", perhaps by perturbing the normal circular particle orbits into an ovoid? The strong example of this would be hawking radiation, from distortions of the orbits to the point of separation of the particles...If a particle orbit is lengthened by the change of orbit shape, perhaps the delay in the annialation of a particular particle once it appears in space is part of the underlying mechanism of gravitation. The extra time the particles exist would indicate a longer exposure of the particles natural charges to that particlar region of space, and that slightly longer exposure would manifest itself as an overall increase in energy available within that region...

I see that consciousness affects the particles but only indirectly, as certain mechanical interactions result in selective information extraction of a particle, reducing/masking overall or partial descriptive content of the particle, limiting expression to one property aspect only (default minimum). Is there a test that would allow for wave only results, and isn't that the "weak measurement" test I heard about? Label me and I am less...spinoza What about a weak label? Now, what about a test that is run that normally would provide a particle only result, the setup is complete, the test performed, by no one looks at the results on the test display screen, only the screen that the particles impact? Does the equipment act as our proxy by observing for us, although those machines that run the test are an unnatural intrusion caused by human consciousness, so therefore, still casually responsible?