Einstein notion of time and the oscillation of the cesium atom

[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.