Einstein notion of time and the oscillation of the cesium atom

[Fredrik]

If Science has to invent words, concepts, difficult mathematical structures, irrational thinking, new definitions that are incomprehensible for anyone expect for a science or math PhD, then for sure, science is wrong about what it has to offer. Wouldn't you think so ?

It seems to me that Science has become the witch of the middle-ages, saying things that are irrational and believing in them. It has to stop.

There's nothing irrational in SR. The vector space version of the math can be understood by anyone who has completed one year at the university. And of course science has to invent mathematical structures. It's not rational to complain about that.

science is getting more and more difficult to understand. Doesn't that ring a bell that it's not going in the right direction ?

It's getting more difficult to understand because the things that are easy to understand were the first things to be discovered.

Is "time" related to a physical mechanical movement ?
OR
Is "time" an effect that's not arisen from technical aspect of the clock ?

Which one is it ?

I don't know what ether of those statements means. Fortunately science (and even some non-science like what I'm about to mention) makes more precise statements than that. You may be interested in something that's been discussed in several other threads recently.

1. It's possible that the reason for the final ages of the twins in the twin paradox scenario is that there's simply less time along the path through spacetime that the astronaut twin takes from the departure event to the return event.

2. It's also possible that the reason is that there's a preferred rest frame, such that clocks at rest in it are ticking at their maximum rates, while clocks that have velocity v in that frame are slow by a factor of $\gamma$. The speed of light is still measured to be c, because physical objects (like meter sticks) are contracted by a factor of gamma when they have a non-zero velocity in the preferred rest frame.

These statements are two attempts to guess what is "actually happening" to clocks and stuff. That's all they are, guesses. However, the former is a straightforward interpretation of the mathematics, and the latter is the interpretation that has fallen out of favor because it seems to require the existence of an undetectable substance (the ether) that fills up all of space, and is such that it slows down clocks and shortens meter sticks that move through it.

So there's no question about which one of these interpretations is a physicist's preferred way to think. The reason I'm mentioning this is that it makes it easier to explain why questions about whether something should be considered an "effect" or not can't always be considered scientific. In the twin paradox, the theory tells us how to calculate the final ages of the twins. It doesn't tell us why they age the way they do. This makes the two interpretations above indistinguishable by experiment. They are interpretations, not theories. They are not science.

A person who adheres to the second interpretation would have to consider the twins final ages an "effect", a result of the interactions between measuring devices and the undetectable ether. But a person who adheres to the former interpretation would not consider it an effect. It's just a property of spacetime.

If your two alternatives are similar to these, it's not a simple matter of "which one is it?". Such questions are not answered by the theory, and are therefore not science.

 

[azoulay]

...

It is an experimental fact that if you set up a coordinate system according to Einstein's convention, then any clock's proper time is slow compared to the coordinate time if that clock is moving in that coordinate system. It is also an experimental fact that if two different clocks take different paths through spacetime between the same pair of events that the amount of proper time they experience may be different.

DaleSpam, is there any experiment that have ever been done that proves that the speed of Oscillation of the Cesium atom is NOT affected when it travels at high speed, let's say in an air plane jet ?

This is, I think, a crucial question because when supposedly "two different clocks taking different paths through spacetime between the same pair of events shows different value of time why would someone prefer the interpretation that it is the "proper time" they experience that are different instead of my above assumption (that the speed of Oscillation of the Cesium atom varies at high velocities) ?

LastOneStanding says that the speed of Oscillation of the Cesium atom varying while traveling at high velocity is "not what happens":

That is not what happens. According to either reference frame, time is running slowly in the other frame. This is possible precisely because of the difference between coordinate and proper time. However, when all the clocks are brought back together for comparison, it is found that different amounts of proper time elapsed for each.

But how can he be sure that's not what's happening ? I think he believes so deeply the actual theory that he is not willing to open up for other possibilities, possibly I'm wrong

If no experiment has been done to disprove the varying speed of the Oscillation of the Cesium atom (which is most probably the case) why would we throw this possibility out to explain why two clocks are showing different values?

 

[Dale]

DaleSpam, is there any experiment that have ever been done that proves that the speed of Oscillation of the Cesium atom is NOT affected when it travels at high speed, let's say in an air plane jet ?

What kind of experiment are you envisioning here? I.e. How would you propose to test this question?

 

[azoulay]

What kind of experiment are you envisioning here? I.e. How would you propose to test this question?

What about putting an atomic clock in some sort of high speed centrifuge?

Would Einstein theory predict any "time dilation" in this kind of scenario ?

regards, jonathan

 

[Nugatory]

DaleSpam, is there any experiment that have ever been done that proves that the speed of Oscillation of the Cesium atom is NOT affected when it travels at high speed, let's say in an air plane jet ?

Yes.

Every cesium atom (and everything else on the surface of the earth) that is at rest in June is moving at a speed of about 37 miles per second by December, every year (they spend December to next June slowing back down again). No one has ever observed a change in the oscillation frequency of cesium atoms across this change of speed, which is far greater than the speed of any aircraft.

 

[Nugatory]

What about putting an atomic clock in some sort of high speed centrifuge?

Would Einstein theory predict any "time dilation" in this kind of scenario ?

It does, but that's not an effect of the movement, but rather the acceleration.
In fact this is a variant of the twin paradox problem.

 

[Dale]

What about putting an atomic clock in some sort of high speed centrifuge ?

Yes, this experiment was done using muons instead of cesium atoms.

Bailey et al., “Measurements of relativistic time dilation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit,” Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg 301.
Bailey et al., Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1–79 (1979).

Would Einstein theory predict any "time dilation" in this kind of scenario ?

Yes, and the time dilation predicted was observed.

 

[write4u]

Question:
Does time dilation affect time only or could one also say 'spacetime dilation' and be correct?

 

[azoulay]

Yes, this experiment was done using muons instead of cesium atoms.

Bailey et al., “Measurements of relativistic time dilation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit,” Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg 301.
Bailey et al., Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1–79 (1979).

Yes, and the time dilation predicted was observed.

What was observed ? Probably two clocks showing different value in time ? And that's being interpreted as time dilation. Time dilation is, for what I understand of it, only an interpretation.

How is Einstein theory falsifiable ?

 

[ghwellsjr]

Previously I asked you:

Do you consider a light clock to be another example of MECHANICAL MOVEMENT? I'm asking about a pair of mirrors rigidly separated by a fixed distance and with a flash of light bouncing between the two mirrors and a counter that increments each time the reflection bounces off one of the mirrors?

Do you have an answer?

 

[azoulay]

What kind of experiment are you envisioning here? I.e. How would you propose to test this question?

Maybe we could redo the Hafele–Keating experiment and monitor the speed of Oscillation of the Cesium atoms.

I bet that during that famous experiment, no one thought of monitoring the speed of Oscillation of the Cesium atoms.

Is anyone an expert on the subject ?

regards, jonathan

 

[Dale]

What was observed ?

The muons in the centrifuge decayed slower than muons at rest in the lab, as predicted by relativity.

Probably two clocks showing different value in time ? And that's being interpreted as time dilation. Time dilation is, for what I understand of it, only an interpretation.

It is an observed experimental fact: clocks of any construction slow down in an inertial frame where they are moving.

How is Einstein theory falsifiable ?

There are an enormous number of ways that SR is falsifiable. In the Bailey experiment, if no time dilation had been observed or if a different amount of time dilation than predicted by SR had been observed, then SR would have been falsified.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Maybe we could redo the Hafele–Keating experiment and monitor the speed of Oscillation of the Cesium atoms.

What do you mean by "the speed of Oscillation"?

 

[Dale]

Maybe we could redo the Hafele–Keating experiment and monitor the speed of Oscillation of the Cesium atoms.

This a typical "move the goalposts" argument which is very typical of crackpots. When you propose an experiment and find that it has been done and confirmed relativity then propose another experiment and another and another and another until finally you blindly stumble on one which has not been exactly done.

You already asked "is there any experiment that have ever been done that proves that the speed of Oscillation of the Cesium atom is NOT affected when it travels at high speed", and when asked what kind of experiment would prove that you mentioned an atomic clock in a centrifuge. It has been done and confirmed relativity. So why are you going back and asking the same question again?

 

[azoulay]

What do you mean by "the speed of Oscillation"?

For Cesium: 9,192,631,770 periods per second.

At high speed, if we could monitor the number of periods (speed of Oscillation) of the Cesium atom it would decrease.

 

[ghwellsjr]

What do you mean by "the speed of Oscillation"?

For Cesium: 9,192,631,770 periods per second.

At high speed, if we could monitor the number of periods (speed of Oscillation) of the Cesium atom it would decrease.

If the Hafele–Keating experiment didn't monitor the number of periods, then what was the experiment all about?

 

[azoulay]

The muons in the centrifuge decayed slower than muons at rest in the lab, as predicted by relativity.

What does that have to do with time dilation ? I see no connection at all.

I don't know the details but that experiment seems to me to show that movement is slowing down at high speed. Am I missing something ?

 

[Dale]

At high speed, if we could monitor the number of periods (speed of Oscillation) of the Cesium atom it would decrease.

What would you use as a reference standard? Atomic clocks make such good clocks because they are very stable, so what could you use where, if a variation were detected, you could attribute the variation to the Cesium and not your reference?

The simple fact is that there are only 4 mechanisms available, EM, strong, weak, and gravity. All 4 exhibit time dilation, as predicted by relativity.

 

[azoulay]

If the Hafele–Keating experiment didn't monitor the number of periods, then what was the experiment all about?

Are you serious with this question ?

Are you saying that the Hafele–Keating experiment was monitoring exactly that: the number of periods of the Cesium atom ?

Because if that's the case, you just proved my point.

 

[Dale]

What does that have to do with time dilation ? I see no connection at all.

A constant fraction of a population muons decay every unit of time, so their rate of decay is a clock. Less decay means less time as measured by the muon clock.

The nice thing about this type of clock is that it has no internal parts to be squished or jostled or otherwise damaged by any motion or acceleration. It is completely insensitive to any type of disruptive effect that might damage macroscopic clocks. It is an ideal clock.

 

[azoulay]

What would you use as a reference standard? Atomic clocks make such good clocks because they are very stable, so what could you use where, if a variation were detected, you could attribute the variation to the Cesium and not your reference?

I don't have an answer to that question.

But I'll ask you a similar question: how can you make sure that when a variation is detected, it is your reference that's causing the difference and not the Cesium ?

 

[ghwellsjr]

If the Hafele–Keating experiment didn't monitor the number of periods, then what was the experiment all about?

Are you serious with this question ?

Are you saying that the Hafele–Keating experiment was monitoring exactly that: the number of periods of the Cesium atom ?

But you already stated that you knew the experiment was monitoring the number of periods of the Cesium atom:

...the electronic board of the atomic clock is programmed to add a second to the time displayed on the LCD screen only when it counted a precise number of periods of the cesium atom (9,192,631,770).

Because if that's the case, you just proved my point.

Since you already stated what I just stated, why are you saying I just proved your point?

 

[azoulay]

A constant fraction of a population muons decay every unit of time, so their rate of decay is a clock. Less decay means less time as measured by the muon clock.

The nice thing about this type of clock is that it has no internal parts to be squished or jostled or otherwise damaged by any motion or acceleration. It is completely insensitive to any type of disruptive effect that might damage macroscopic clocks. It is an ideal clock.

My interpretation is that at high speed, movements of the muon slows down and I'm assuming there's a direct relationship between the number of decays and the speed of movement of the muon.

It would be interesting to make the same experiment with other material (like uranium for example) and see if at high speed, the number of decays slows down also. In that case it would strengthen my belief that there's a direct relationship between the speed of movement of a body and its rate of decay. But it still wouldn't have anything to do with time dilation.

Again, I'm not an expert on the subject but it seems to me that time dilation is not a fact but an interpretation (an irrational one as far as I'm concerned).

 

[azoulay]

But you already stated that you knew the experiment was monitoring the number of periods of the Cesium atom:Since you already stated what I just stated, why are you saying I just proved your point?

I wrote: "...the electronic board of the atomic clock is programmed to add a second to the time displayed on the LCD screen only when it counted a precise number of periods of the cesium atom (9,192,631,770)."

that is my interpretation of what's going on in an atomic clock. But after reading "experts" on the subject it seems to their eyes that my interpretation is false. So they're saying that it's not the number of oscillation of the Cesium atom that has decreased during the flights but that "time dilation" have happened. So basically they're saying that the atomic clock have experienced "less time" and that's why the clock show a value where there's "time missing". I don't believe in that at all.

The Hafele–Keating experiment was done to test the theory of relativity of Einstein. So I'm GUESSING that the only parameter they were interested in was the value that the clocks displayed after the experiment. And they interpreted that as time dilation and probably never thought there could be another interpretation.

Sometimes you find specific answers to a question but not because you were opened to all possibilities but because you rejected everything that was not conform to your idea of what was going on and you kept only the answers that were conform to what you thought was happening. I think this is what is happening with this "time dilation" non-sense. People want to see time dilation so they interpret an experiment in that sense and are discarding other possibilities.

If you read my other post about muons, it's explicit to me that these people sees time dilation (when the muons in the centrifuge decayed slower than muons at rest in the lab ) but that's only because that's what they want to see. They're rejecting other possible explanation. For example, it is possible that at high speed, movements of the muon slows down and at slower speed, the number of decays slows down also. No Time dilation involved in my interpretation. But of course, they will reject this possibility because they want to maintain a specific interpretation that I find totally magical and non-rational.

 

[azoulay]

Yes.

Every cesium atom (and everything else on the surface of the earth) that is at rest in June is moving at a speed of about 37 miles per second by December, every year (they spend December to next June slowing back down again). No one has ever observed a change in the oscillation frequency of cesium atoms across this change of speed, which is far greater than the speed of any aircraft.

you're funny. :)

You say that no one has ever observed a change in the oscillation frequency of cesium atoms across this change of speed. How do you know that ?

Has anyone ever verified if a change in the oscillation frequency of cesium atoms ever happened at high velocity ?

 

[azoulay]

It will take a real genius to fulfill your request.

However, I have a question:

Do you consider a light clock to be another example of MECHANICAL MOVEMENT? I'm asking about a pair of mirrors rigidly separated by a fixed distance and with flash of light bouncing between the two mirrors and a counter that increments each time the reflection bounces off one of the mirrors? (Notice I didn't use the forbidden word.)

yes, it's looks like a pendulum coming back and forth. why ?

 

[ghwellsjr]

yes, it's looks like a pendulum coming back and forth. why ?

Are you sure it looks like a pendulum?

We can watch the mechanical motion of a pendulum by shining a light on it and since the speed of light is so much greater than the speed of the pendulum, we can use reflected light off the pendulum to look at the pendulum swinging back and forth.

But what are you suggesting that we look at with a light clock? We can't shine light on the bouncing flash of light since they are both moving at the same speed, aren't they? Or do you have something else in mind?

 

[ghwellsjr]

I wrote: "...the electronic board of the atomic clock is programmed to add a second to the time displayed on the LCD screen only when it counted a precise number of periods of the cesium atom (9,192,631,770)."

that is my interpretation of what's going on in an atomic clock. But after reading "experts" on the subject it seems to their eyes that my interpretation is false. So they're saying that it's not the number of oscillation of the Cesium atom that has decreased during the flights but that "time dilation" have happened. So basically they're saying that the atomic clock have experienced "less time" and that's why the clock show a value where there's "time missing". I don't believe in that at all.

I read through this entire thread again and I didn't see where any "expert" said "it's not the number of oscillation of the Cesium atom that has decreased during the flights".

The Hafele–Keating experiment was done to test the theory of relativity of Einstein. So I'm GUESSING that the only parameter they were interested in was the value that the clocks displayed after the experiment. And they interpreted that as time dilation and probably never thought there could be another interpretation.

I would also guess that the only parameter they were interested in was the final values on the clocks. Were you suggesting the experiment be run again but keeping track of the values all along the experiment? And why? What would that tell you?

Sometimes you find specific answers to a question but not because you were opened to all possibilities but because you rejected everything that was not conform to your idea of what was going on and you kept only the answers that were conform to what you thought was happening. I think this is what is happening with this "time dilation" non-sense. People want to see time dilation so they interpret an experiment in that sense and are discarding other possibilities.

Did anybody say they could see "time dilation"? I didn't read that anywhere. I did read that several people tried to explain to you the difference between Proper Time (the time displayed on each clock) and the Coordinate Time (the time used to mark events according to a frame of reference) and that the ratio between them is related to time dilation. This means that "time dilation" is dependent on the selected Frame of Reference which means it is not observable.

If you read my other post about muons, it's explicit to me that these people sees time dilation (when the muons in the centrifuge decayed slower than muons at rest in the lab ) but that's only because that's what they want to see. They're rejecting other possible explanation. For example, it is possible that at high speed, movements of the muon slows down and at slower speed, the number of decays slows down also. No Time dilation involved in my interpretation. But of course, they will reject this possibility because they want to maintain a specific interpretation that I find totally magical and non-rational.

But what is your interpretation?

As near as I can tell, you don't have any complaint with regard to the data that any experiment collects, you just want to say that if two or more clocks experience different dynamic effects, their readings will be different, not that time is actually different, correct? In fact, I would guess that you would agree that the math of Special Relativity correctly calculates what the readings on each clock will be but you just disagree that those reading require that time is different for each clock. In other words, you believe that since we can identify how the readings on clocks will differ due to their motions, then we understand how and why they don't keep track of time, just like if we had a clock that ran faster at higher temperatures, we wouldn't claim that time ran faster at higher temperatures but rather we would factor out that effect so that we would get an accurate representation of time, correct?

But I have never heard you give any answer to the question of what clock does keep track of time legitimately. I asked you this question way back in post #7 but you never answered. Do you have an answer now? Or do you really mean that time is a hopelessly unscientific concept and should be abandoned altogether (like you were saying in post #39)?

 

[Fredrik]

I'm closing this thread since the discussion isn't going anywhere. 6 pages and almost no progress. We should probably have closed it much earlier.

 

[Dale]

My interpretation is that at high speed, movements of the muon slows down and I'm assuming there's a direct relationship between the number of decays and the speed of movement of the muon.

Nonsense. A muon is a fundamental particle so there are no internal movements to slow down. The only movement it has is its velocity, which obviously doesn't slow down at high speed.

It would be interesting to make the same experiment with other material (like uranium for example) and see if at high speed, the number of decays slows down also.

Yes, this experiment has been done with a variety of other fundamental particles as well as composite particles. Regardless of the composition or the mechanism of decay they all slow down the same way by the same amount, as predicted by relativity.

That last part is the clincher, regardless of what other possible explanations might exist, relativity works. It accurately predicts the experimental outcome. So any alternative explanation must reduce to relativity in terms of physical predictions. I.e. anything else you come up with is merely going to be an alternative interpretation of the Lorentz transform.

Again, I'm not an expert on the subject but it seems to me that time dilation is not a fact but an interpretation (an irrational one as far as I'm concerned).

It is an experimental fact that moving clocks tick slower, regardless of their mechanism. That phenomenon is what is known as "time dilation". Therefore time dilation is an experimental fact, not an interpretation.

There may be multiple theories or interpretations of theories which could be used to explain why time dilation occurs, but time dilation itself is an experimental fact.