Time Measurement: Vibration of Photon vs Atom

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bassplayer142
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measurement Time
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the concept of measuring time through the vibration of photons instead of atoms, emphasizing that time is not absolute due to relativity. Participants argue for the potential of using photons, which remain constant across the universe, as a more reliable standard for time measurement. The conversation also touches on the implications of the Doppler effect and the need for a fixed wavelength photon to establish a standard unit of time. Ultimately, the discussion suggests that using electromagnetic oscillations could provide a more universal approach to time measurement.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of relativity and its impact on time perception
  • Knowledge of photon behavior and properties
  • Familiarity with atomic clocks and their operation
  • Basic concepts of the Doppler effect in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of using photon vibrations for time measurement
  • Explore the principles of electromagnetic oscillations and their relevance to time
  • Study the differences between proper time and coordinate time in physics
  • Investigate the role of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) in cosmological time measurement
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, metrologists, and anyone interested in the fundamental concepts of time measurement and the implications of relativity on our understanding of time.

bassplayer142
Messages
431
Reaction score
0
After I realized that relativity slowed and speeds up time relative to the frame of reference I realized that time is not absolute. Why would we continue to measure time as the vibration of an atom. Wouldn't we start measuring time by the vibration of a photon? Since a photon is absolute no matter where in the universe it is and it stays constant for that wavelength.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bassplayer142 said:
After I realized that relativity slowed and speeds up time relative to the frame of reference I realized that time is not absolute. Why would we continue to measure time as the vibration of an atom. Wouldn't we start measuring time by the vibration of a photon? Since a photon is absolute no matter where in the universe it is and it stays constant for that wavelength.

which photon would you choose as a standard for a unit of time?

be very careful answering that. if you say "photons of blue visable light" then i would ask how you define blue? if blue photons are the photons that make it through some standardized blue filter, then you're back to defining this in terms of the atoms of some material.
 
measuring time

bassplayer142 said:
After I realized that relativity slowed and speeds up time relative to the frame of reference I realized that time is not absolute. Why would we continue to measure time as the vibration of an atom. Wouldn't we start measuring time by the vibration of a photon? Since a photon is absolute no matter where in the universe it is and it stays constant for that wavelength.

Why not measure time using as an unit the period of the electromagnetic oscillations taking place in the electromagnetic wave in which we are immersed? Besides that we should now which kind of time interval we measure: proper time or coordinate time.
 
To measure time, you need photons of known fixed wavelength, so that you know the frequency. If you are moving in reference to the source, that changes the frequency (doppler effect), but that's not a problem in atomic clocks. So you use a specific atomic vibration, with a specific energy, to generate the photons of fixed frequency.
 
Last edited:
rbj said:
which photon would you choose as a standard for a unit of time?
To measure cosmological time:

Select a photon sampled from the peak emission intensity of the CMB corrected for the Earth's dipole movement.

Then the universe woul be eternal, and if c is defined constant and used to measure radar distance, the universe would also be static, as in the Jordan conformal frame of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-creation_cosmology .

Garth
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess your right about the doppler effect. It just doesn't seem right to measure time with something that changes.
 
bassplayer142 said:
I guess your right about the doppler effect. It just doesn't seem right to measure time with something that changes.

You don't get any Doppler effect if you are not moving wrt the source. In metrology, your clock is supposed to be infinitely small and to lie at rest no farther away from your elbow. So, no Doppler effect, of ny sort.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Determining a stationary point of reference to base all absolute motion
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
3K
High School Can we measure absolute motion of Earth and Sun?
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
High School A well defined thought experiment
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
4K
Graduate Atomic Vibrations & Time Dilation: The Reality Behind Our Perception
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Undergrad Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Undergrad Using position of free particle to measure time
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Undergrad How to Measure Speed of Light & Is It Constant?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Undergrad Why does laser beam hit the same target when fired?
  • · Replies 90 ·
4
Replies
90
Views
4K
High School Time Dilation in Non-Stationary Reference Frame: A, B, C
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Undergrad What causes an accelerated clock to record less events
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K