Does The Caesium Atom Exist In Time ?

[xyz]

A VERY SIMPLE AND LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS THAT THE CAESIUM ATOM EXISTS IN TIME.......

[DrKrettin]

That's a relief, I was getting extremely worried, and can now enjoy Christmas with gay abandon. 

[xyz]

That's a relief, I was getting extremely worried, and can now enjoy Christmas with gay abandon. 

Obviously you did not consider the consequence of the answer.

[DrKrettin]

Obviously you did not consider the consequence of the answer.

 

Obviously - there doesn't seem to be a consequence.

[xyz]

Obviously - there doesn't seem to be a consequence

Obviously some things are not what they seem. 

 

The Caesium atom exists in time, a Caesium atom ''travels'' through time. 

 

 

Do you not see the consequence of the statement ?

 

Let us try this, 

 

A Caesium atom onboard an aeroplane travels from A to B.

 

The Caesium rate is half the ground state rate. 

 

 

The aeroplane, the Caesium, the rate, all exist in time. 

Edited December 27, 2016 by xyz

[DrKrettin]

Obviously some things are not what they seem. 

 

The Caesium atom exists in time, a Caesium atom ''travels'' through time. 

 

 

Do you not see the problem?

 

The OP was hardly packed with detail was it? What is so special about the caesium atom in particular?

[xyz]

The OP was hardly packed with detail was it? What is so special about the caesium atom in particular?

In reality there is nothing special about the Caesium atom, but in Physics the rate of the Caesium atom is what we use to ''measure'' time.  In motion the Caesium atom changes it's rate, it is said that time slows down , a said time dilation. 

 

However this can simply not be true, the caesium and the Caesium rate exist in time and can not change the time it exists in. 

 

 

I.e time is adjoined from one increment to the next, there is no ''gaps'' in time it is continuous. The rate of time can be measured infinite fast or really slow , however this does not affect the time the measurement exists in . 

[CraigD]

Xyz, I think you're being made fun of because you ask a question that nearly anyone with enough science background to know what an atom is would find silly. Also, you wrote in all capital letters, which many people take as sign that a poster is inept or self-grandiose, and is actually against our site rules.

 

All atoms, and further, all particles, “exist in time”, because their positions at a given instance can be described.

 

I assume you single out the cesium atom because it is used in the SI definition of the second:

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.

However, the CGPM’s use of ¹³³Cs in this definition is not because cesium has some unique property regarding time. It was chosen because the most developed atomic clocks use the hyperfine transition of ¹³³Cs. Other atoms can and have been used in atomic clocks. The most accurate atomic clock built to date uses ytterbium ions. (see this 2016 ScienceAlert article for more)

[exchemist]

In reality there is nothing special about the Caesium atom, but in Physics the rate of the Caesium atom is what we use to ''measure'' time.  In motion the Caesium atom changes it's rate, it is said that time slows down , a said time dilation. 

 

However this can simply not be true, the caesium and the Caesium rate exist in time and can not change the time it exists in. 

 

 

I.e time is adjoined from one increment to the next, there is no ''gaps'' in time it is continuous. The rate of time can be measured infinite fast or really slow , however this does not affect the time the measurement exists in . 

This is rubbish. The rate of time only slows down when seen by an observer in motion relative to the thing observed. From the viewpoint of something moving with a caesium atom, i.e. in the same reference frame, there is no change.

 

Thus it is perfectly possible to define a measure of time unambiguously using a caesium clock, without getting into any trouble as a result of special relativity. 

 

But you are clearly a hopeless case that cannot grasp special relativity. Plenty of people have tried and got nowhere with you. 

[xyz]

Xyz, I think you're being made fun of because you ask a question that nearly anyone with enough science background to know what an atom is would find silly. Also, you wrote in all capital letters, which many people take as sign that a poster is inept or self-grandiose, and is actually against our site rules.

 

All atoms, and further, all particles, “exist in time”, because their positions at a given instance can be described.

 

I assume you single out the cesium atom because it is used in the SI definition of the second:

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.

However, the CGPM’s use of ¹³³Cs in this definition is not because cesium has some unique property regarding time. It was chosen because the most developed atomic clocks use the hyperfine transition of ¹³³Cs. Other atoms can and have been used in atomic clocks. The most accurate atomic clock built to date uses ytterbium ions. (see this 2016 ScienceAlert article for more)

 

My apologies , when I wrote in caps  , it was not meant to be anything more than highlighting my point. 

 

 

You admit all particles ''exist in time'', ok a great start. 

 

 

Yes I singled out the Caesium for the SI definition use and time dilation use in the Keating experiment.

 

 

 

So we agree all particles, e.g Photons, atoms, exist in time. 

 

 

So time is the background ?

 

 

I.e the rate of Caesium atom is relative to the background, in the atomic clock instant a short distance from emit to sensor?

[xyz]

This is rubbish. The rate of time only slows down when seen by an observer in motion relative to the thing observed. From the viewpoint of something moving with a caesium atom, i.e. in the same reference frame, there is no change.

 

Thus it is perfectly possible to define a measure of time unambiguously using a caesium clock, without getting into any trouble as a result of special relativity. 

 

But you are clearly a hopeless case that cannot grasp special relativity. Plenty of people have tried and got nowhere with you. 

No need for name calling. 

 

If you look Craig has agreed with  me that particles exist in time. 

 

 

The rate of the Caesium you measure is passing through time, i'e space

[xyz]

Do I really need to post a link to how a Caesium clock works and is designed?  there is a constant space between emitter and sensor, the present 1 second is equal to this constant distance between emitter and sensor. The distance does not contract its a mechanical structure.

 

 

added - 

 

R=rate

 

d=distance

 

 

R/d=1.s=t

 

 

-R/d=<1.s=t

 

d=constant

Edited December 27, 2016 by xyz

[exchemist]

No need for name calling. 

 

If you look Craig has agreed with  me that particles exist in time. 

 

 

The rate of the Caesium you measure is passing through time, i'e space

What name calling? And every bloody thing exists in time, that's obvious. So what?

 

The point you seem incapable of grasping is that the rate of the passage of time you perceive, for an object moving relative to you, is slower than if you are moving with it.  

 

This is in fact physically observed in, for example, the lifetime of muons generated from cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. Given the time an observer on the ground measures for them to come down to the surface, and knowing the decay rate of muons as measured in the lab, they should all have decayed by the time they reach the ground. But they haven't. So from our vantage point, the passage of time for them is slowed down. For someone moving with them however, time runs at the normal rate and it is the distance to the ground that is foreshortened, by the Lorenz contraction. So from their vantage point, time "runs as normal" and they haven't all decayed because the distance is not long enough  - and so takes less time to travel. It comes to exactly the same thing, by different routes, depending on what frame of reference the observer is in.  

 

Thus it is that length contraction and time dilation are 100% complementary, such that no inconsistencies arise. You really need to get your head around this. Think about this muon example: it's really helpful. And it has been measured. It is not just a thought experiment: it is real. It happens. 

Edited December 28, 2016 by exchemist

[xyz]

What name calling? And every bloody thing exists in time, that's obvious. So what?

 

The point you seem incapable of grasping is that the rate of the passage of time you perceive, for an object moving relative to you, is slower than if you are moving with it.  

 

This is in fact physically observed in, for example, the lifetime of muons generated from cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. Given the time an observer on the ground measures for them to come down the the surface, and knowing the decay rate of muons as measured in the lab, they should all have decayed by the time they reach the ground. But they haven't. So from our vantage point, the passage of time for them is slowed down. For someone moving with them however, time runs at the normal rate and it is the distance to the ground that is foreshortened, by the Lorenz contraction. So from their vantage point, time "runs as normal" and they haven't all decayed because the distance is not long enough  - and so takes less time to travel. It comes to exactly the same thing, by different routes, depending on what frame of reference the observer is in.  

 

Thus it is that length contraction and time dilation are 100% complementary, such that no inconsistencies arise. You really need to get your head around this. Think about this muon example: it's really helpful. And it has been measured. It is not just a thought experiment: it is real. It happens. 

The point you are failing to grasp is that the rate you are measuring does not and is not the thing you are measuring and in no way affects time. 

What you perceive is an illusion created by subjective thought. 

 

You can't agree that all things are in time, then try to suggest that any of the things could affect the time. 

 

I noticed you avoided the space/distance between emitter and sensor in an atomic clock. 

 

 

Do you dare to comment?

[exchemist]

The point you are failing to grasp is that the rate you are measuring does not and is not the thing you are measuring and in no way affects time. 

What you perceive is an illusion created by subjective thought. 

 

You can't agree that all things are in time, then try to suggest that any of the things could affect the time. 

 

I noticed you avoided the space/distance between emitter and sensor in an atomic clock. 

 

 

Do you dare to comment?

Yes: what you are saying is ballocks. I see no need to start worrying about the construction of clocks, since that is irrelevant to the physics of spacetime. You would see the same thing with a clockwork watch or with radioactive decay (as in my example of the muons). 

 

I will take part in further discussion with you on this at such time as you address my example of the cosmic ray muons and show that you have made some attempt to understand it. 

Edited December 27, 2016 by exchemist

[xyz]

Yes: what you saying is ballocks. I see no need to start worrying about the construction of clocks, since that is irrelevant to the physics of spacetime. You would see the same thing with a clockwork watch or with radioactive decay (as in my example of the muons). 

 

I will take part in further discussion with you on this at such time as you address my example of the cosmic ray muons and show that you have made some attempt to understand it. 

You are incorrect, the construction/mechanics of the clock is important, it is hardly irrelevant although you would like us to believe that. 

 

 

How about we start with the truth ?

 

 

In the Atomic clock there is a distance between emitter and sensor/detector.

 

Yes or no?

Edited December 27, 2016 by xyz

[xyz]

P.s the Muon gains energy from the medium it falls through to sustain its ''life'', the further it falls the denser the medium.