## Tag Archives: neutral pion decay

### Revisiting Emitter theory and Neutral Pion decay

According to the Emitter theory, the velocity of an emitted particle is influenced by the velocity of its source. For example a bullet fired from a moving gun (from the top of a moving train) travels at a higher velocity than when it gets fired from a stationary gun. Of course this is what most of us would expect to happen with any particle or projectile in our everyday life. So when a photon gets emitted from a fast moving pion travelling at velocity ‘v’, relativists predicted that, if light particles behaved like the ‘ordinary’ particles/projectiles of our everyday life, the emitted photon would travel at a speed of ‘c+v’. But apparently the emitted photons from the decaying pions only travelled at velocity ‘c’ irrespective of the pion’s velocity. Hence relativists concluded that the speed of light is indeed constant and is not affected by that of the source.

Let’s now explore the truth without being biased by the scientific superstitions.

### Is Emitter theory true?

Contrary to the commonly held belief, the velocity of an emitted body doesn’t get boosted by the motion of its source. And there is nothing special about photons in that regard.

To realise that, imagine a golf player standing on the top of a stationary train and hitting a golf ball. Imagine that the ball travels at 10meters/sec eastward. Now imagine that the train moves at 5meters/sec towards the east and the golfer hits another identical ball with exactly the same force as before. According to the Emitter theory, the golf ball should now travel at 15meters/sec with respect to a stationary observer. But it doesn’t because the ball now faces more resistance from air winds. As the source (which includes the train, the golfer and the golf ball) moves at 5meters/sec, it experiences winds coming from the opposite direction at the same speed i.e. 5meters/sec. So the golf ball now has to travel against strong winds unlike the situation when the train was stationary. And the faster the train moves, the stronger will be the winds, the more will the resistance to the ball and hence the slower will be the launching speed of the golf ball.

Similarly as the pion moves at velocity ‘v’ in the Ether medium, it feels Ether wind ‘blowing’ in the opposite direction at the same velocity. And this Ether wind offers more frictional force to the emitted photon. That explains why the speed of an emitted photon remains the same whether it gets emitted from a slow moving pion or a fast moving pion.

Having said that, Emitter theory holds true in one special scenario – when the golfer hits the golf ball inside the compartment of a moving train, the ball travels at a higher velocity. The reason is obvious- air resistance remains the same inside the compartment whether a train is moving or stationary. We can call this as ‘frame dragging’ though relativists may have a delusional description for the phrase.

### Where were the photons before they got emitted from the pion?

Or from where do the photons come into existence when the pions decay?

When JJ Thompson observed beta rays being emitted from the ‘indivisible’ atoms, he didn’t make the stupid assumption that the rays suddenly popped into existence from nowhere by some divine synthesis. Rather he rightly concluded that these rays (later identified as electrons) must be coming from inside the atoms and hence must have existed inside them before the decay process. This was at a time when atoms were considered as fundamental and indivisible. Obviously an atom (or any object) can’t release something without being in possession of the same.
But when an electron releases a photon as it jumps to a lower energy level, or when a pion emits a photon as it decays, why don’t we apply the same simple logic? Why don’t the scientific folk think that the photons must have to be inside their ‘parental’ particles first, before they can get released or ‘fired’? Of course doing so would destroy their beautiful and mesmerising theory of relativity. So they feel comfortable by just saying- ‘a photon gets released’ or ‘photon just pops in’ etc and never try to clarify from exactly where and how that photon comes into existence.
The so called fundamental and indivisible particles may not actually be fundamental and indivisible. They could well have some internal architecture and composition, and photons may well be part of their internal milieu. We simply consider some particles as fundamental because we have not been able to ‘peep’ into these tiny particles. But our inabilities as humans can’t be sworn upon as Nature’s laws. The fact that photons get released during the decay of the ‘indivisible’ neutral pions indicates that the photons must be existing inside the pions in some yet undetectable format/ arrangement.
As pointed above, relativists won’t accept the above logical argument because that will destroy their superstition of constant speed of light – If photons are ‘allowed’ to exist inside the pions before getting emitted, then their relative velocity with respect to the pion before the decay would become zero and not ‘c’ (just like how a horse’s velocity with respect to the ‘horse-rider system’ would be zero).

### ‘Particle engines’

Imagine a horse that normally runs at a velocity of 10meters/sec. And imagine that the horse is made use of to ‘drive’ a cart. Obviously the horse can’t drive the cart faster than its lone velocity. Say for example the horse-cart moves at a velocity of 8 meters/sec. Now imagine that the horse gets ‘released’ from the cart and runs on its own. What would the velocity of the horse now? Obviously it would only run at its normal velocity i.e. 10 meters/sec. It would be stupid to apply the emitter principle here and expect the horse’s velocity to get boosted by the cart’s velocity.
Similarly imagine that a spaceship (pion) is flying at a speed of say 1000meters/sec with the help of 4 rocket engines (photons). If one of the rockets gets detached, this detached rocket will only fly at its own speed and will not get ‘boosted’ by the spaceship’s motion.
We believe that photons are the fundamental particles of energy. So it is logical to imagine them as providing the driving force to various particles of the quantum world, whether it is electrons or neutral pions or others. Obviously for any mass or particle to move through space, it needs energy. Because we believe that photons are the fundamental particles of energy, it must obviously be these particles which are responsible for the motion of any object at the most fundamental level. In other words, photons must be seen as the engines of the quantum world.
So when a particle decays, photons do not get ‘ejected’ but just get freed. And just like how a horse’s velocity doesn’t get boosted by the velocity of the cart it was driving, a photon’s velocity can’t get boosted by the velocity of the particle that it was moving.

### Layman and a Scientist

Layman: In the light of the observations on cosmic ray muons, why don’t we believe that muons could travel at 8×109 meters/sec having observed them travel 16000meters in 2 microseconds?

Scientist: because that exceeds the speed of light

Layman: then what?

Scientist: Special relativity (SR) prohibits speeds faster than light which is 3×108meters/sec.

Layman: on what grounds?

Scientist: From the law of constant speed of light

Layman: What is that?

Scientist: Speed of light is constant to all observers i.e light always travels at velocity ‘c’ i.e. 3×108meters/sec with reference to all observers irrespective of their own motion. A ‘stationary’ observer, a fast moving electron or the cosmic ray muon, all ‘measure’ the same speed of light.

Layman: how weird!

Scientist: Yes, it is weird but proven by many experiments including the muon’s time dilation.

Layman: ???

Scientist: So if light travels at speed ‘c’ with reference to the cosmic ray muon, how can the latter travel faster than light? Obviously it can’t. If at all something (e.g. cosmic ray muon) appears to travel faster than light, it is just an illusion. What actually happens there is time dilation and space contraction in muon’s reference frame. Obviously we can’t appreciate this in our reference frame.

Layman: Why should we believe in time dilation which we can’t appreciate, and ignore what we actually appreciate?

Scientist: Because that’s what is exactly predicted by the theory of special relativity.

Layman: Pardon me sir; but muon’s time dilation is a prediction or a proof of special relativity?

Scientist: The problem is you neither understand the mathematics nor the reference frames. Though the muon appears to travel 16000 meters in 2 microseconds, it is impossible according to special relativity and the law of constant speed of light. What actually happens is time dilation and space contraction in muon’s reference frame. So this muon’s time dilation proves special relativity.

Layman: I am feeling dizzy; it appears to me that we are going round and round. That could be my ignorance. May be muon’s time dilation is in fact true and possibly proves special relativity!

Scientist: Of course, numerous experiments have proven special relativity beyond doubt.

Layman: Now I am getting the gist of relativity. Everything in relativity is counterintuitive, isn’t it?

Scientist: Well, you are right but there is a lot more to go through before you can even dream of understanding relativity. Even I didn’t believe in it initially, but having seen the vast support and evidence, I had no choice but to accept it. And over the course of time, as I thoroughly understood the theory and the maths, I got converted and became a believer of relativity.

Layman: So, cosmic ray muons prove time dilation because nothing can travel faster than light. Is there an equally strong proof for the idea of constant speed of light?

Scientist: Well, plenty. Neutral pion decay and Michelson-Morley experiments are among the top. The former proves that the photon’s velocity is unaffected by that of the source. The latter proves many aspects of SR, but as a layman it will be too much for you to grasp.

Layman: I accept my ignorance. May be you can tell me about the pion’s story.

Scientist: You know, the velocity of a stone thrown out of a moving train depends upon the train’s velocity. That is, the velocity of any projectile/ emitted body depends upon the velocity of the source/ emitter.

Layman: Of course!

Scientist: But that’s not the case with light photons. We know velocity of light is ‘c’. Neutral pions are fundamental particles with a high velocity and emit photons as they decay.  If the neutral pion’s velocity is ‘x’, we would expect the emitted photons to move at speed ‘c+x’. But the photons were noted to travel at just ‘c’ in an experiment studying the decay of neutral pions. This proved beyond doubt that velocity of light is indeed constant and unaffected by that of the source.

Layman: Well, the speed of an engine (photon) obviously doesn’t depend upon the vehicle (pion) it was driving.

Scientist: What do you mean?

Layman: If the lone speed of a rail engine is 100kmph, this remains the same even when the engine gets detached from the moving train it was driving.

Imagine a horse which runs at 50kmph when free of load. Also imagine that this horse is pulling a cart at 40kmph. If the horse gets ‘released’ from this moving cart, it will only run at its original speed of 50kmph and not at 50+40kmph.

So like SOL, the speed of a horse and the speed of a rail engine are also constant!

Scientist: Neutral pion decay was a real observation which proved that the speed of light is constant. You are equating a real experiment and published evidence with your imaginary and silly experiments on bullock carts and rail engines.

Layman: I am only…

Scientist: You can’t make wild propositions without published evidence from peer reviewed journals and strong mathematics.

Layman: Sorry sir, I didn’t mean to dishonour science. I am just thinking that photons may be behaving just like horses and rail engines for the particles in the quantum world. If so, then we don’t need the weird law of constant speed of light to explain the observations on neutral pion decay!

Scientist: But that’s not what special relativity (SR) predicts.

Layman: I am again feeling giddy. I am not able to appreciate whether something is a logical conclusion, a proof or a prediction.

Scientist: Well, don’t forget that relativity is counterintuitive, so commonsense obviously fails. The problem is you don’t understand the maths. We the scientists are not fools to believe in relativity if this was wrong.

Layman: I realise that we the lay people shouldn’t try to understand Relativity but religiously believe in what the great scientists like you preach. Thank you sir.

(So we must not believe in what we have observed because that is simply prohibited by some weird theory. And we should believe in the weird phenomenon of time dilation, though we haven’t observed – because that is what is proposed by SR. Note the awkward logic here- Special relativity proposes time dilation. Time dilation then proves special relativity!!!

Dear ‘unscientific’ and ‘uneducated’ lay minds, read the full ‘stories’ of the cosmic ray muons and the neutral pions to realise how ‘intelligent’ are our great physicists)