Superconductivity at room temperature??

[theprestige]

Rest mass is an absolute, Lorentz-invariant, gauge-invariant quantity.

No it isn't. That's maybe what you've been taught, but it isn't true.

1. What quantity do you call "rest mass"?
2. If you've reserved "rest mass" as a term for some other quantity, what do you call the absolute, Lorentz-invariant, gauge-invariant quantity that is predicted by theory and confirmed by experimental observation, that everybody else calls "rest mass"?

 

[Ziggurat]

No Ziggurat, it isn't irrelevant. This relates to what Johan was saying about mass. We have an electron and a proton bound together, and together their mass is less than that of the electron and the proton before they were bound. The system radiates a photon, it's a radiating body losing mass just as in Einstein's 1905 paper.

Yes, it really is irrelevant. First off, we can do ALL of this non-relativistically, because NOTHING here is moving fast. So why drag relativity into this when you really don`t need to?

Second, and more importantly, this tells us absolutely nothing about the split between potential energy and kinetic energy.

It really isn't more energy Zig, it's less energy. That radiated photon proves it. It's that simple.

You`re arguing against something nobody claimed.

This relates to what I said in post #2549 on page 64. Hence the electron has mass-energy rather than kinetic energy.

How would you know? All you have referred to is total energy, and we agree on that. Your only claim to zero kinetic energy amounts to hand waving. But I can do better than that. I can calculate the kinetic energy. And I get a positive value. I can use the same techniques to calculate the total energy, and guess what: I get the right answer. Can you do the same? Can you do a calculation to show what the kinetic energy is? Do you even know how to do that in quantum mechanics? Because if all you`ve got is what you`ve offered so far, well, that`s not enough.

There's an underlying dynamical nature to the electron, kinetic energy is in there, but once you've said it's a massive particle you've accounted for your kinetic energy.

No you haven`t.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

Why not? Because you don`t like calling it kinetic energy?

And whatever you say everyone in the field calls it

That`s the way kinetic energy is defined in quantum mechanics. And it`s defined that way for a damned good reason. You can call it something else if you like, but the truth is that you don`t actually have a good reason to call it anything else. All you have is some weird hand-waving attempt to wrap up non-relativistic quantum mechanics in some superficial semblance of relativity.

It really isn't, Ziggurat. The electron in the hydrogen atom is the equivalent of rapidly jiggling a box containing a light wave.

No, actually, it isn`t equivalent to that at all, for a whole host of reasons. For example, electrons are spin-1/2 particles, while photons are spin-1 particles. You can`t construct a spin-1/2 particle out of a spin-1 particle. There`s also the little problem of charge, namely that electrons HAVE charge and photons don`t. This is a really bad analogy meant to hand-wave away your confusion about the complexity of pair creation. But it doesn`t actually work.

 

[Farsight]

Isolated hydrogen atoms have a mass too, and the mass of a H atom is less than the mass of an electron plus a proton. How to account for the difference? It's not because the electron and/or proton lost mass - that's impossible by definition. It's because of the electromagnetic interaction between the two, which, because it's attractive, necessarily contributes a (negative) energy.

Sol, I'm sorry, but that's not accounting for the difference at all, and please do not rely on impossible by definition. Because there is nothing under this sun which is comprised of negative energy. An electron isn't, a proton isn't, and their fields, which are what they are, aren't either. Come on, you know this, remember QFT, or look again at the basic stuff. And you know that the negative binding energy of the earth and cannonball hasn't come about because the gravitational field is attractive and so necessarily contributes a negative energy. A gravitational field is comprised of positive energy, which is why it "shall act gravitatively just like any other form of energy". It's because the positive energy is reduced. And that positive energy has a mass equivalence because it isn't moving at c with respect to you. The mass really does reduce.


Johan if you're there, the analogy between gravitational potential and electromagnetic potential is useful. See for example:

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circuits/u9l1b.cfm

This bit is noteworthy:

When gravitational potential energy was introduced in Unit 5 of The Physics Classroom, it was defined as the energy stored in an object due to its vertical position above the Earth.

When you store energy in an object, you add to its mass. Drop it, and the mass reduces. The difference is kinetic energy, which radiates away, leaving you with a reduced mass.

And so to bed.

 

[ben m]

When you store energy in an object, you add to its mass. Drop it, and the mass reduces. The difference is kinetic energy, which radiates away, leaving you with a reduced mass.

Nope. I repeat, Farsight, that I can walk over to my lab, right now, turn on a 35 kilovolt Glassman power supply, and put an entire experiment into a potential well. I can drop electrons into this well and experiment on them. I guarantee to you, in the starkest and most unambiguous terms possible, that an electron, while trapped inside the apparatus, and thus with a "total energy" of 511 - 35= 476 keV, behaves exactly precisely like a 511 keV electron, according to any mass-measurement you can possibly come up with.

I can repeat the experiment with -35kV supply (yes, it's a reversible supply) and do the same experiments with electrons that Farsight says I've "added mass" to. No effect.

I've also dropped electrons into a 17 million volt deep potential well. Farsight, I can guarantee, again with the utmost experimental confidence, that these electrons neither lost nor gained 3300% of their normal rest mass. They're just 511 keV electrons with potential energy.

 

[sol invictus]

Sol, I'm sorry, but that's not accounting for the difference at all, and please do not rely on impossible by definition.

Why not?

As far as I can tell, for you "mass" is synonymous with "energy". That's fine - words are just words, after all - except that then you don't have anything to call the quantity that everyone else calls "mass". And it also means that you're going to repeatedly fail to communicate and repeatedly be told you're wrong. You're using standard terms in a non-standard way.

The standard physics definition is that mass (or rest mass, those are synonyms) refers to the square root of the norm of the 4-momentum of the particle or object in question. That's manifestly Lorentz invariant. For a particle, it's an intrinsic property - it's part of what defines fundamental particles.

Because there is nothing under this sun which is comprised of negative energy. An electron isn't, a proton isn't, and their fields, which are what they are, aren't either. Come on, you know this, remember QFT, or look again at the basic stuff. And you know that the negative binding energy of the earth and cannonball hasn't come about because the gravitational field is attractive and so necessarily contributes a negative energy.

Actually, that's exactly where it comes from - that the interaction is attractive is equivalent to saying that when the objects get close together the energy is reduced, i.e., the interaction energy is negative. I don't know how you jumped from there to the conclusion that therefore the energy density in the fields must be negative. It's actually just the opposite - the energy in the field is positive, but bringing the electron near the proton partially screens the field, thereby reducing its energy, thereby lowering the energy of the whole system.

When you store energy in an object, you add to its mass. Drop it, and the mass reduces. The difference is kinetic energy, which radiates away, leaving you with a reduced mass.

Again - replace "mass" with "energy" in that statement and it would be fine.

 

[johanfprins]

I decided to first enjoy my Xmas, but could not resist to quickly scan the posts since I last posted. I will not dive into the arguments by Sol, Ziggurat and Ben, which are as usual paranormal physics, but must make a few comments:

You see what I mean Farsight: These guys just ignore experimental results if the results do not fit the dogma that they want to believe. To them a theory is more important than an experimental result: As you and I have pointed out all the time, the sum of the rest mass of the proton and the electron before they form the hydrogen atom is larger than the rest mass of the hydrogen atom after it has formed. Nothing else can be measured to have changed: Thus the experimental result is as clear as a bell: Rest mass has been reduced and this energy has been radiated away as a photon with energy of 13.6 eV.

But they claim that this cannot be so since they can "calculate" a potential energy and a kinetic energy for the s-electron and therefore the s-electron must have potential and kinetic energy. By claiming this they are lying, since their claim violates the interpretation of quantum mechanics which they also accept: According to this interpretation, one can only measure the eigen-values of eigen-states of a quantum-mechanical operator.

When deriving the energy of the s electron from the Schroedinger equation one calculates an eigen-state of the Hamiltonian given by H_op =((hbar)²/m)(del)²+V(r)). And the eigen-value for the energy of this state is -13.6 eV. Now, this energy eigenstate can only have a kinetic-energy component if the operator for kinetic energy commutes with the Hamilton operator. The kinetic energy operator is T_op=(hbar)²/m)(del)², and it clearly does NOT commute with the Hamilton operator. Similarly, if this energy state has a potential energy component the operator V(r) of this potential energy must commute with the Hamilton-operator: It also does not. Thus for the s-electron energy-state the kinetic energy and potential energy are undetermined and therefore meaningless concepts.

We must thus go to experiment to find the correct interpretation for this energy state and the experimental data is unequovical that rest mass has been radiated away as light energy. There is not any other experimental measurement since one cannot measure this energy and the kinetic energy and the potential energy simultaneously. To thus claim that there is kinetic energy just proves once again that Sol, Ben and Ziggurat are totally clueless when it comes to quantum mechanics. They are also clueless to the concept that experimental results determine theory and not the other way around.

Now I must definitely enjoy my Christmass and will not peek again for a few days.

 

[sol invictus]

But they claim that this cannot be so since they can "calculate" a potential energy and a kinetic energy for the s-electron and therefore the s-electron must have potential and kinetic energy.

I claimed to be able to calculate the average kinetic energy, <p²/2m>, in the ground state of hydrogen. That is totally standard QM - calculating that average is a typical question you'd ask an undergraduate on an exam or as a homework problem. The answer? +13.6eV

By claiming this they are lying, since their claim violates the interpretation of quantum mechanics which they also accept: According to this interpretation, one can only measure the eigen-values of eigen-states of a quantum-mechanical operator.

That last part is true, but there's no contradiction with the above whatsoever.

When deriving the energy of the s electron from the Schroedinger equation one calculates an eigen-state of the Hamiltonian given by H_op =((hbar)²/m)(del)²+V(r)). And the eigen-value for the energy of this state is -13.6 eV. Now, this energy eigenstate can only have a kinetic-energy component if the operator for kinetic energy commutes with the Hamilton operator.

Wrong. It can only have a unique or definite value of the kinetic energy under that condition. But the KE always has an average value (obviously - how could it be otherwise? Did you think something would stop you from measuring it?).

In other words if they commute, you can find a state where measurements of the total energy always return the same definite value, and measurements of the KE also always return some other definite value. If they don't commute - and indeed they don't - then at most one of the two can have that property.

For the ground state of hydrogen, the total energy has a definite value, namely -13.6eV. The KE does not have a definite value, meaning you get different answers each time you make a measurement - but obviously it must have an average value, and that average is +13.6eV.

We can also compute the variance in measurements of the KE. We can compute higher moments of the distribution too. In fact we can compute everything there is to know about it. You, unfortunately, can't do any of that, and you've just made clear (yet again) that you don't understand it even qualitatively.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

What?

A common synonym for rest mass is invariant mass. Look it up. It doesn't change under the Lorentz transformation. (Another quantity---formerly called "relativistic mass" but now more commonly called "energy"---does change under a Lorentz transform, and I hope that's what you're thinking of.)

Other than "look it up" I don't really know what to say.

One thing we can say is that Farsight, like johanfprins, is arguing with Albert Einstein even as he claims to use Einstein as his authority.

1. What quantity do you call "rest mass"?
2. If you've reserved "rest mass" as a term for some other quantity, what do you call the absolute, Lorentz-invariant, gauge-invariant quantity that is predicted by theory and confirmed by experimental observation, that everybody else calls "rest mass"?

This division of an object's energy into rest mass and kinetic energy goes back to Einstein's papers of 1905 and 1906. One of those papers happens to be the paper in which Einstein describes the relativistic length contraction that both Farsight and johanfprins have been denying:

A Einstein. Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper. Annalen der Physik 17 (10), pages 891-921. 30 June 1905.​

I'll use John Walker's translation:

A Einstein. On the electrodynamics of moving bodies.​

I will also refer to one of my freshman-level textbooks:

A P French. Special Relativity, from The MIT Introductory Physics Series. Norton & Company, 1968.​

But in relativity that kinetic energy is the mass-energy. Johan was referring to special relativity repeatedly.

...snip...

I went back and read page 60 and didn't see anything that I thought was untoward from Johan. The gist of what he's saying is that the kinetic energy is now mass-energy. So go with the flow and say that a massless particle where the kinetic energy is rotational exhibits mass. But you can't then have your cake and eat it. Once you call it a massive particle you can't say it's got kinetic energy any more.

Farsight is telling us we can't call it kinetic energy, but Einstein called it "the energy of motion W" and derived this formula for that kinetic energy:

[latex]
\[ W = m c^2 \left\{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2 / c^2}} - 1 \right\} \]
[/latex]​

In French's textbook, that's equation (1-19) on page 22:

But the kinetic energy of a particle, so valuable a quantity in classical dynamics, now takes on a secondary status. It is merely the difference between the total energy E and the rest energy E₀:

[latex]
\[ K = m_0 c^2 \left\{ \frac{1}{(1 - v^2 / c^2)^{1/2}} - 1 \right\}
\hbox{\ \ \ \ (1-19)} \]
[/latex]​

Backtracking a couple of pages to understand how the rest energy E₀ was derived, Einstein's E=mc² combines with the Newtonian momentum p=mv to produce E=c²p/v. If you apply a force F, the resulting increase in kinetic energy is

[latex]
\[ dE = F \; dx = \frac{dp}{dt} dx = v \; dp \]
[/latex]​

Combining that with E=c²p/v, integrating both sides, and multiplying through by 2 yields

[latex]
\[ E^2 = c^2 p^2 + E_0^2 \]
[/latex]​

where E₀² is the constant of integration written as the square of some rest energy E₀. (For readers who remember page 65 or thereabouts, that equation should look familiar.)

For a while there, johanfprins responded to many of our calculations by alluding to boundary conditions he falsely claimed we had been ignoring. Here, however, there really is a relevant boundary condition: The relativistic equation above must converge to the Newtonian limit as the momentum p approaches zero. That boundary condition implies

[latex]
\[ m_0 = \frac{E_0}{c^2} \]
[/latex]​

which is more famously known as E₀=m₀c².

All of the above is covered in chapter 1 of French's textbook. Although the textbook doesn't cover length contraction until chapter 4, Einstein deduced the fact of length contraction in the same paper that contains his derivation of the equation above for kinetic energy.

First, let's recall what johanfprins and Farsight have been saying about length contraction:

You can also check the length of the rod within K by using a srop watch which you activate when the front end passes you and stop when the rear end passes you. This is what you have to do when you cannot see OR observe the front and rear end simultaneously. You will then also find that the length within K is the same as the length within K^/. Clinger go and get yourself a goldfish and become wise.

Note well that johanfprins is saying there is neither length contraction nor length expansion.

Farsight appears to think he agrees with johanfprins on this point, but Farsight says there is length stretching, which you just happen to perceive as length contraction. I am not making this up:

Mind you, he was right about this:

"If you apply the Lorentz transformation correctly for a passing rod, you will find time dilation and length-stretching".

That's a bit of a surprise, it certainly sounds like "boutique" SR, but honestly it isn't, and it's quite simple to see why. Imagine you're in a gendanken spaceship looking at a star. It appears spherical. Press the accelerator, and now you see the star looking flattened. It's too far away from you for light to have travelled back and forth, you know that your action cannot have changed the star. So you know your action has changed your observation of the star. You know that it looks flattened because you've changed. And you've changed in that you're "smeared out". You're length-stretched rather than length-contracted, and as a result everything you see outside your spaceship looks length-contracted. I know that isn't what's taught,

The reason that isn't what's taught is that it's a confusingly cock-eyed way to look at it, and the "smeared out" business is just wrong.

Farsight's story is such a confusing way to think about length contraction that Farsight has apparently talked himself into believing that johanfprins's unequivocal denials of length contraction are compatible with Einstein's equally unequivocal derivation of length contraction.

(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated “the length of the rod.”

In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be discovered by the operation (a)—we will call it “the length of the rod in the moving system”—must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod.

The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call “the length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system.” This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it differs from l.

 

[sol invictus]

Einstein also points out in that paper that a clock that travels out and back on some path will indicate that less time has passed than the clock that remains at rest. So, according to Johan, Einstein was wrong about his own theory in his very first paper on the topic.

If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be (1/2)t(v/c)² seconds slow.

 

[Farsight]

You see what I mean Farsight: These guys just ignore experimental results if the results do not fit the dogma that they want to believe.

I do, Johan. I find this kind of thing pretty amazing coming from professional physicists. It's as clear as a bell, the evidence is patent. Rest mass has been reduced and this energy has been radiated away as a photon. But they dismiss it. It reminds me of the line from Avatar: It is hard to fill a cup that is already full.

 

[Farsight]

I'll leave off the catchup for now and address the current posts.

Farsight, you make a series of mistakes. It is irrelevant in a very important sense: keeping track of that missing mass does not tell you anything about the bound electron. An electron that falls into the 1s state of hydrogen radiates 13.6 eV. An electron that falls into the 4d state of Be^{3+} also radiates 13.6 eV. Quantum mechanical measurements of these states will tell you that they're very different.

Yes they're different. The cannonball and the earth is different too. But we still have energy radiated away, and a mass defect.

Make repeated measurements of positions (or electrostatic potentials) momenta (or kinetic energies) etc., and you'll find two totally different situations. By saying "it's all just mass" you're ... ... well, frankly, what you're doing is waiting for people like Ziggurat to actually apply the laws of physics that tell us these numbers. Then you're taking the number, saying "Look, I know this number", and behaving as though that's all anyone ever needs to know to understand everything.

I'm not doing that at all. And please don't put words into my mouth.

It's like going into a Chevrolet office, grabbing some car designs, and saying: "Aha! All of your cars are horizontal. This is very simple." And an engineer tries to show you that the car has to be engineered to be horizontal, because the engine's weight pushes down and the shocks push up, and if you perturb that you can see, etc., and ... "Look,", you interrupt, "You're making it complicated when it's simple. The car is horizontal to begin with. End of story."

It's nothing like that. I'm supporting my case with robust logic and references along with simple illustrations that make it patently clear. You're evading all that and asserting that what I'm saying is irrelevant and mistaken, and then your only supporting evidence is a very poor "it's like" analogy! Come on ben, this is spectacularly unconvincing.

 

[TjW]

I'll leave off the catchup for now and address the current posts.

Yes they're different. The cannonball and the earth is different too. But we still have energy radiated away, and a mass defect.

I'm not doing that at all. And please don't put words into my mouth.

It's nothing like that. I'm supporting my case with robust logic and references along with simple illustrations that make it patently clear. You're evading all that and asserting that what I'm saying is irrelevant and mistaken, and then your only supporting evidence is a very poor "it's like" analogy! Come on ben, this is spectacularly unconvincing.

But no math. There's a separate section for Religion and Philosophy.

 

[ben m]

robust logic and references along with simple illustrations that make it patently clear.

I disagree. You're simply repeating the same flawed logic and intuition that you started with.

 

[johanfprins]

I disagree. You're simply repeating the same flawed logic and intuition that you started with.

Where is Farsight's logic flawed? You always post bombastic statements like this without any proof whatsoever. Consider the following: A metal with a workfunction W. Thus the energy of an electron at the Fermi-level is W below the vacuum level; and since the energy of a stationary electron at the vacuum level is equal to m_e0*c², where m_e0 is its rest mass energy, and since an electron at the Fermi-level (ignoring temperature fluctuations and assuming there is no applied electric field) is the energy of a standing wave, such an electron's energy is also purely rest mass energy m_eb*c²; So that:

Eq.1: m_e0*c^2-m_eb*c²=W

A photon of energy h*(nu) comes along and entangles with the standing wave-energy of the electron and thus increases its rest mass energy from m_eb*c² to become m*c², where m>m_eb. Thus:

Eq.2: m*c²-m_eb*c²=h*(nu)

Combining Eqs. 1 and 2 by eliminating m_eb one obtains that:

Eq.3: m*c²-m_e0*c² +W=h*(nu)

Now we know from SR that ONLY when m*c² is larger than m_e0*c² one has kinetic energy T=(m-m_e0)*c². Thus from Eq. 3 one obtains that for m>m_e0, one has that:

Eq. 4: h*(nu)=T+W

This is Einstein's equation for the photo-electric effect derived purely in terms of two waves that entangle: NO PARTICLES INVOLVED. Furthermore this equation will not have been obtained if it were not assumed that the energy of an electron at the Fermi-level is anything else than pure rest mass energy.

To rub it in: When m<m_e0, there is NO kinetic energy whatsoever, and no photoelectrons are then ejected!

QED

 

[D'rok]

You see what I mean Farsight: These guys just ignore experimental results if the results do not fit the dogma that they want to believe.

This, from the person who claims that the results of all time dilation experiments are fudged because he just doesn't believe them. The cognitive dissonance on display here is mind-boggling.

 

[johanfprins]

This, from the person who claims that the results of all time dilation experiments are fudged because he just doesn't believe them. The cognitive dissonance on display here is mind-boggling.

Again the typical argument one can expect from a "legal" mind: One-sided and a distortion of the truth.

I have stated it clearly many times that if the results of Hafele and Kaeting are correct, it means that the Special Theory of Relativity is wrong; since this theory DOES NOT predict that any clock will ever keep time at a slower rate within its own inertial reference frame (within which it is stationary) than another clock (moving relative to the first clock) will give within its own inertial reference frame within which it is stionary. All stationary clocks keep the same time rate and the clocks that have been flown around the world remained stationary with respect to the aeroplane. Thus if Hafele and Keating did, indeed measure what they claim to have measured, it will mean then STR must be wrong. On the other hand, if STR is not wrong, then they could only have found the results that they found by having fudged their results.

Of course, the lifetimes measured for muons which are moving at a high speed relative to the clock that is used to do the measurements, are longer. This is what Special Reltivity predicts.. The latter experimental results thus give further credence to my conclusion that the flying clock results cannot be correct. For this reason I have proposed a simple experiment which can give an unequovical answer for once and for all.

 

[sol invictus]

I have stated it clearly many times that if the results of Hafele and Kaeting are correct, it means that the Special Theory of Relativity is wrong; since this theory DOES NOT predict that any clock will ever keep time at a slower rate within its own inertial reference frame (within which it is stationary) than another clock (moving relative to the first clock) will give within its own inertial reference frame within which it is stionary.

Yes, Johan, we all know about your mistakes. You've made them very clear.

Einstein himself - in his first paper on the topic - predicted the effect that Hafele and Keating measured. Every other physicist (with the exception of your predecesor Dingle) agrees with Einstein. The calculation is trivial - but you're incapable of doing any calculations, no matter how simple, so you get it wrong over and over again.

But according to you, Einstein and every physicist since is wrong, and only you and Dingle got it right. Sure.

 

[D'rok]

Again the typical argument one can expect from a "legal" mind: One-sided and a distortion of the truth.

I have stated it clearly many times that if the results of Hafele and Kaeting are correct, it means that the Special Theory of Relativity is wrong; since this theory DOES NOT predict that any clock will ever keep time at a slower rate within its own inertial reference frame (within which it is stationary) than another clock (moving relative to the first clock) will give within its own inertial reference frame within which it is stionary. All stationary clocks keep the same time rate and the clocks that have been flown around the world remained stationary with respect to the aeroplane. Thus if Hafele and Keating did, indeed measure what they claim to have measured, it will mean then STR must be wrong. On the other hand, if STR is not wrong, then they could only have found the results that they found by having fudged their results.

Of course, the lifetimes measured for muons which are moving at a high speed relative to the clock that is used to do the measurements, are longer. This is what Special Reltivity predicts.. The latter experimental results thus give further credence to my conclusion that the flying clock results cannot be correct. For this reason I have proposed a simple experiment which can give an unequovical answer for once and for all.

In other words, you are dogmatically clinging to your personal interpretation of theory despite all the experimental results disconfirming it. The very thing you accuse the other physicists on this thread of doing. Try to at least show some intellectual honesty, Johan.

 

[johanfprins]

If any one of you have any integrity you will respond to post 2784: However, it is possibly not a lack of integrity but just a lack of the ability to argue physics!

I also note that you all avoid post 2647 like the plague.

Furthermore I have quoted Einsteins's two postulates from the text book of Ray D'Inverno: i.e.

1. All inertial observers are equivalent
and
2. The velocity of light is the same in all inertial systems.

And asked you whether you agree or disagree with these statements. Nobody came back! May I infer that you do not agree with this text book material?

 

[ben m]

Of course, the lifetimes measured for muons which are moving at a high speed relative to the clock that is used to do the measurements, are longer. This is what Special Reltivity predicts.. The latter experimental results thus give further credence to my conclusion that the flying clock results cannot be correct. For this reason I have proposed a simple experiment which can give an unequovical answer for once and for all.

no, Johan, the two experiments are using the SAME prediction, they both agree with each other and with Einstein's original paper. They both agree with the two postulates you are quoting.

In both experiments, a moving object undergoes fewer X'es during its out-and-back trip, as seen by comparison to an object which stayed at rest during the same trip. In one experiment the Xes are "muon half lives", in the other experiment the Xes are "cycles of an atomic maser".

As Sol pointed out, this was stated clearly in Einstein's 1905 paper, and it is exactly predicted from the two Principles. Your reasoning on the topic is wrong, your conclusions are inconsistent with each other AND inconsistent with STR and also inconsistent with the experiments.