Gravitational Effects on Atomic Clocks and Other Forces

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the effects of gravitational fields on atomic clocks compared to other types of clocks, exploring concepts of time dilation, atomic decay rates, and the influence of gravity on various physical processes. Participants question the experimental verification of these effects and the implications for aging and physical processes under different gravitational conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that atomic clocks, mechanical clocks, and tuning fork clocks may respond differently to gravitational effects, questioning if there is experimental verification for this.
  • There are inquiries about whether atomic decay rates are influenced by gravity and how this relates to the aging of the body and mind.
  • One participant proposes a connection between atomic emission rates, molecular vibration frequencies, and dissolution rates, seeking clarity on the underlying conclusions.
  • A participant presents a theoretical framework involving a two-level quantum system to illustrate gravitational time dilation, proposing that energy separations and oscillation frequencies are affected by gravity.
  • Some participants express skepticism regarding the assumption of a universal factor affecting all processes without experimental evidence.
  • There are claims of direct experimental comparisons between different types of clocks under varying gravitational potentials, citing the equivalence principle as a foundational concept in General Relativity.
  • One participant describes a thought experiment involving pressure on clocks to illustrate potential differences in timekeeping under gravitational influence, questioning the validity of existing equations related to time dilation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of skepticism and support for the concepts presented, with no consensus reached on the validity of the assumptions regarding gravitational effects on timekeeping and physical processes. Multiple competing views remain regarding the experimental evidence and theoretical implications.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on assumptions about the universality of gravitational effects and the equivalence principle, which may not be universally accepted or experimentally verified in all contexts. The discussion also highlights the complexity of relating atomic behavior to macroscopic phenomena without definitive conclusions.

jreelawg
Messages
125
Reaction score
0
I was thinking that as far as I know, an atomic clock, and a mechanical clock, or a tuning fork clock might be affected differently by gravitation and acceleration. Is there any experimental verification of this?

I'm trying to figure out if atoms will decay faster and that is it.

Or if, your body ages faster all together, but your mind is the same age.

Or, if your mind, body and atoms all slow down together?

Are other forces affected by gravity, for example, covalent bonds? Magnetism?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
But is there any experimental proof?

What is the connection between the rate atoms emit electrons, and the natural frequency molecules vibrate at, or how fast salt dissolves in water? Where does the conclusion come from?
 
The universality of the gravitational time dilation can be demonstrated on the following simple example.

Take a two-level quantum system in free space. The energies are E_i and E_f. The only time-dependent process in this case is the oscillation between the two levels with characteristic frequency (E_i - E_f)/\hbar.


To get the energy levels (E_i', E_f') of the two-state system on the Earth surface we need to add the gravitational potential energy

E_i' = E_i - \frac{GME_i}{Rc^2} = E_i (1 - \frac{GM}{Rc^2})
E_f' = E_f - \frac{GME_f}{Rc^2} = E_f (1 - \frac{GM}{Rc^2})

where E_i/c^2 and E_f/c^2 are gravitational masses of the two states, M and R are the Earth's mass and radius.

This means that in the gravitational field the energy separation between the levels and oscillation frequency reduce by the universal factor of 1 - \frac{GM}{Rc^2}.

For more complex systems (like dissolution of salt in water) the argument is basically the same: All energy separations decrease by the universal factor 1 - \frac{GM}{R}, and rates of all processes (which are proportional to these energy separations) reduce by the same factor too.
 
I am skeptical.
 
meopemuk said:
reduce by the same factor too.

If you multiply two thing's by the same fraction, they will decreased by the same factor. The question is why is a universal factor assumed without experimental evidence?
 
I still assume that if I left Earth in a spaceship at .9C for a while, and came back, my one one thousand count would stay in sync with my Earth twin buddies one one thousand, and I would come back the same biologic maturity of my twin. If you carbon dated me, I would be much older. Is there proof of any change beyond that?
 
jreelawg said:
The question is why is a universal factor assumed without experimental evidence?

As I tried to explain, the universality of time dilation comes from the fact that gravitational energy depends on object's mass (or energy divided by c^2) and nothing else. The gravity force does not depend on the chemical composition or other factors. This is the subject of the well-known equivalence principle, and the validity of this principle has been checked by accurate experiments.

Moreover, there are direct experiments in which the action of gravity on two different clocks is compared. For example, people were comparing the rates of an atomic clock and a clock based on an optical cavity oscillator during long time intervals. As Earth spun and moved around the Sun, the gravitational potential in the laboratory changed; nevertheless, both clocks varied their rates in sync. This is the experimental evidence you are looking for.

Here are some references:

S. Bize et al, "Cold atom clocks, precision oscillators and fundamental tests", http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310112

C. Braxmaier, H. Muller, O. Pradl, J. Mlynek, A. Peters, S. Schiller, "Tests of relativity using a cryogenic optical resonator", Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002), 010401.
 
You can think of it this way - a clock sitting on the surface of the Earth is accelerating -The absolute equivalence of gravity and acceleration is the cornerstone of General Relativity - born out by many experiments
 
  • #10
Components under gravital pressure are going to run slower than those not under such pressure, regardless of time dilation. I can easily display this by placing my hand on top of the hands of a clock while not doing so on an identical clock. The clock whose hands are being pressurized will run slower than the non-hampered clock. Whether its an atomic clock makes no matter, as gravity pulls on all compents that have mass whether its on the inside or out.

Run this experiment, have a long rod, place a watch on both ends of the rod. Place one end of the rod under extreme pressure, but not the other. See if the increased pressure causes the clocks to run at different rates. If time dilation occurs, when you move the rod after the clock's times run apart from each other, you should notice that the pressurized end stays at its old location longer than the part of the rod that wasn't pressurized (you should see that the pressurized side kind of blurrs when it moves, while the non-pressurized size doesn't as its in a quicker time area). In fact, if time dilation occurs, it may well be hard to move the rod at all until both ends of the rods catch up to each other in time.

At this time, regardless of experimental observations, I don't think anyone has equations that don't involve flaws within in that can prove anything in terms of time dilations. If the formulas aren't concrete, then neither can be the assumptions.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 95 ·
4
Replies
95
Views
8K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
8K