Does The Caesium Atom Exist In Time ?

[xyz]

Why is this put in alternative theory when there isn't any theory in it?

 

 

I have questioned the mechanics of a clock relative  to time. 

[exchemist]

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

Unscientific bilge. 

 

You are not worth wasting any more time on. 

[CraigD]

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.

Yes, you need to provide a link, because your description of the operation is badly wrong. See this Wikipedia article section for a correct description, understandable to a layperson.

 

As our site rules state, you should always provide links or references backing up the claims you make in your posts. This not only makes our site easier to read, it will force you to research your ideas, and hopefully prevent you from making obvious mistakes and harbor obvious misconceptions. This will prevent your posts from being moved to the strange claims forum, where we put posts that are obviously wrong – or, as exchemist termed them, “unscientific bilge”.

[xyz]

Yes, you need to provide a link, because your description of the operation is badly wrong. See this Wikipedia article section for a correct description, understandable to a layperson.

 

As our site rules state, you should always provide links or references backing up the claims you make in your posts. This not only makes our site easier to read, it will force you to research your ideas, and hopefully prevent you from making obvious mistakes and harbor obvious misconceptions. This will prevent your posts from being moved to the strange claims forum, where we put posts that are obviously wrong – or, as exchemist termed them, “unscientific bilge”.

Correct me if I am wrong, a caesium beam has a length .  

 

What is this length?

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/acloc.html

 

Does 3.26 cm sound familiar?

 

A frequency of 9,192, 631,770 cycles  / 3.26 cm per second 

 

3.26cm problem

 

 

 

 

constant 

 

shows you are wrong

I am not wrong you are.

 

lets add time dilation and change the cycles to a slower frequency

 

9,192, 631,760 cycles / 3.26cm per second

 

no length contraction

 

no time dilation

 

a slower ''speed''.

 

 

There is a distance from oven to detector clearly seen here.

 

 

added - something tells me that if i was to decrease 3.26cm, i would speed up the cycles, and vice versus

 

 

I quote '' the si unit of time is the second, it is defined has the interval occupied by 9,192, 631,760 cycles 

of the microwave line of Caesium 133, with wavelength of about 3.26cm''. 

 

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FjKlBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=3.26cm&source=bl&ots=rqAOl1rvyj&sig=7i4JyNc5HlXEjyXTdLG4ezOk7PA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjK-vCT7prRAhUTOFAKHWW5BroQ6AEIUDAK#v=onepage&q=3.26cm&f=false

 

added- time dilation is nothing more than a different wavelength if you want to contract 3.26cm or expand it. 

Edited December 30, 2016 by xyz

[CraigD]

Correct me if I am wrong, a caesium beam has a length .

 

What is this length? ... Does 3.26 cm sound familiar?

You’re not wrong, but you’re asking an unimportant question.

 

Not all atomic clocks that use cesium are of the beam type, so not all have such a length. In those that do, the length is different for different machines. I’ve not been able to find precise specifications, but from photos and illustrations such as those at this Encyclopedia Britannica for Kids article, and this IEEE article about the first commercial available cesium clock, the Atomichron (1956), see that in early models, it was about 6 feet (2 m).

 

There’s nothing special about the exact length of the beam a cesium beam atomic clock. Longer beams allow more space for the various parts of the machine, and allow the effect of its radio frequency signal on the stream of cesium atoms to be stronger and easier for its detector to measure.

 

Xyz, I’m guessing from your questions that you still don’t understand how a beam type, or any other type, of atomic clock, works. I get the impression you believe they work by measuring how long atoms take to travel a precise distance. This is incorrect. The atoms in an atomic beam clock are set in motion by simple heating in an oven, so are traveling at many different speeds, and couldn’t be used to accurately measure time this way. What is really being measured in such clocks is the effect of a radio signal on the atoms. When that signal is very close to exactly 9192631770 hz, the effect is strongest. Detectors in the machine measure this effect, and additional electronics use it to adjust the frequency of the radio signal to maximize it. A simple electronic counter then counts the cycles of the radio to produce the clock’s time measurement.

 

If you had difficult reading and understanding the Wikipedia article in my previous link, I recommend you search (google, etc) the internet with phrases like “how does an atomic clock work”. There are many article online, suitable for people of many educational levels, so you should be able to find one that works for you.

 

The YouTube video you embedded in your post seems a good one to me, so I recommend you re-watch it, putting out of you mind how you think an atomic clock works, and paying attention to its explanation.

 

Don’t be confused by the CSAC SA.45s shown at the beginning of the video – this atomic clock doesn’t work the way shown later in the video. It doesn’t have a beam of cesium atoms at all, but rather a closed chamber containing a hot gas of them. It doesn’t measure the atoms as they exit this chamber, or excite them with a RF signal, but rather excites them with an visible light laser electronically pulsed at 9192631770 hz, measuring how much of this light is absorbed and scattered.

[xyz]

You’re not wrong, but you’re asking an unimportant question.Not all atomic clocks that use cesium are of the beam type, so not all have such a length. In those that do, the length is different for different machines. I’ve not been able to find precise specifications, but from photos and illustrations such as those at this Encyclopedia Britannica for Kids article, and this IEEE article about the first commercial available cesium clock, the Atomichron (1956), see that in early models, it was about 6 feet (2 m).There’s nothing special about the exact length of the beam a cesium beam atomic clock. Longer beams allow more space for the various parts of the machine, and allow the effect of its radio frequency signal on the stream of cesium atoms to be stronger and easier for its detector to measure.Xyz, I’m guessing from your questions that you still don’t understand how a beam type, or any other type, of atomic clock, works. I get the impression you believe they work by measuring how long atoms take to travel a precise distance. This is incorrect. The atoms in an atomic beam clock are set in motion by simple heating in an oven, so are traveling at many different speeds, and couldn’t be used to accurately measure time this way. What is really being measured in such clocks is the effect of a radio signal on the atoms. When that signal is very close to exactly 9192631770 hz, the effect is strongest. Detectors in the machine measure this effect, and additional electronics use it to adjust the frequency of the radio signal to maximize it. A simple electronic counter then counts the cycles of the radio to produce the clock’s time measurement.If you had difficult reading and understanding the Wikipedia article in my previous link, I recommend you search (google, etc) the internet with phrases like “how does an atomic clock work”. There are many article online, suitable for people of many educational levels, so you should be able to find one that works for you.The YouTube video you embedded in your post seems a good one to me, so I recommend you re-watch it, putting out of you mind how you think an atomic clock works, and paying attention to its explanation.Don’t be confused by the CSAC SA.45s shown at the beginning of the video – this atomic clock doesn’t work the way shown later in the video. It doesn’t have a beam of cesium atoms at all, but rather a closed chamber containing a hot gas of them. It doesn’t measure the atoms as they exit this chamber, or excite them with a RF signal, but rather excites them with an visible light laser electronically pulsed at 9192631770 hz, measuring how much of this light is absorbed and scattered.

Hmmmmm, probably the first time a reply has bamboozled me. However I have a problem with your reply towards the end , you say but rather excites them with a visible light laser, electronically pulsed, measuring how much of this light is absorbed or scattered.

 

Measuring the absorption of light or scattering has what exactly to do with time in any sense, science claiming the are measuring time, when admittingly by yourself , you have just told me that you don't actually measure time, you are measuring the absorption or scattering of light .

 

Absolutely no relationship to time other than a comparison value, so therefore in saying there is a time dilation, is an utter lie and made up.

[xyz]

What no sarcasm replies or treating me as if I am stupid?

 

 

By the lack of answers to my last post I can only presume that realisation has set in for you all. 

 

You do not measure time in any sense. Light is not time, motion is not time, energy is not time. 

 

 

You all are really confused in knowing what time is and the difference between time and timing. 

 

''YOU''  are timing things in time. 

Edited January 1, 2017 by xyz

[DrKrettin]

 

By the lack of answers to my last post I can only presume that realisation has set in for you all. 

 

 

 

That is a strange interpretation of silence. Shrugging of shoulders does not make much noise - perhaps we all think this is a meaningless waste of time.  :rolleyes:

[xyz]

That is a strange interpretation of silence. Shrugging of shoulders does not make much noise - perhaps we all think this is a meaningless waste of time.  :rolleyes:

Or perhaps arrogance gives you the inability to consider and think correctly. 

 

 

I noticed you focus on me and not the post.   Do you have anything to add to this discussion or are you here just to troll me?

[DrKrettin]

Or perhaps arrogance gives you the inability to consider and think correctly. 

 

 

I noticed you focus on me and not the post.   Do you have anything to add to this discussion or are you here just to troll me?

 

 

Not at all - I was just commenting on your presumption about general silence. I do apologize for the confusion here, I assumed that you were the troll.

[CraigD]

However I have a problem with your reply towards the end , you say but rather excites them with a visible light laser, electronically pulsed, measuring how much of this light is absorbed or scattered.

 

Measuring the absorption of light or scattering has what exactly to do with time in any sense, science claiming the are measuring time, when admittingly by yourself , you have just told me that you don't actually measure time, you are measuring the absorption or scattering of light .

A kind of atomic clock, of which the small, affordable (about US$1,500) CSAC SA.45s is an example, uses a laser and photodetectors to measure a small, electrically heated chamber of ¹³³Cs gas. This is just one of many ways that different kinds of atomic clocks tell time.

 

What these clocks are actually measuring is the change in states of various atoms, such as hydrogen, cesium, strontium and ytterbium. Our best physics theories predict, and experiments done with these clocks confirm, that these changes in state take so nearly exactly the same amount of time to occur that they are good to use for clocks.

 

It’s important to understand, though, that atomic clock are not in general principle different from other kinds of clock, like pendulum clocks, hour glasses, or sundials. Atomic clocks are more accurate than these earlier clocks because what they measure – the state transitions of atoms – are more accurate than the movement of mechanical pendulums, flowing sand, or the rotation of Earth.

 

Atomic clock are more complicated and difficult to understand because measuring the states of atoms is more difficult and complicate than measuring the movement of pendulums, sand in an hourglass, or the motion of the Sun in the sky.

 

Absolutely no relationship to time other than a comparison value, so therefore in saying there is a time dilation, is an utter lie and made up.

Time dilation is a prediction of the theory of relativity, which says that accurate clocks of any kind run at different rates relative to one another depending on where and how they are moving relative to one another. The prediction has been tested many time, actual measurements agreeing very closely with the prediction.

 

By saying this is a lie, you are saying that all scientists are willfully falsifying the results of their experiments. This is insulting in implausible, and a violation of our site rules. Don’t do it any more, or you’ll be banned.

 

Rather than accusing people who know things you clearly do not of lying because what they say doesn’t agree with what you believe to be true, I encourage you to study science, so that you understand better why people who understand science say what they do.

[A-wal]

Telling him that it's just what tests show isn't going to cut because he'll simply refuse to accept it.

 

xyz, this is why time dilation and length contraction have to happen and why you view isn't even valid.

 

In this scenario object B is moving away from object A at half the speed of light and light overtakes A at the full speed of light, therefore without time dilation and length contraction the light would have to overtake B at half the speed of light.

 

0.5c
B<----------------------------------A

<-------------------------------------------------------------------------Light
0.5c                                        1c

 

This isn't what happens because light speed is constant, it moves past all inertial observers at the same speed. This is what actually happens.

 

0.5c
B<----------------------------------A

<-------------------------------------------------------------------------Light
1c                                          1c

 

This means that the light is overtaking object A at 1.5c in frame of reference of object B. Velocity is distance in space over distance in time, so object B is time dilated and length contracted in the frame of reference of object object A. In other words the light is covering a greater amount of space in less time from the perspective of object B than it is from the perspective of object A because it has to travel a shorter distance in space from object B's perspective (length contraction) and also covers the same mount of space in less time from object B's perspective (time dilation).

 

But it also works exactly the same way from the frame of reference of object B because all frame are equal and equivalent. This is the exact same scenario from the perspective of object B. In object B's frame of reference object A is moving away from object B at half the speed of light and light overtakes B at the full speed of light, therefore without time dilation and length contraction the light would have to overtake A at half the speed of light.

 

0.5c
B---------------------------------->A

Light------------------------------------------------------------------------->
1c                                         0.5c

 

This isn't what happens because light speed is constant, it moves past all inertial observers at the same speed. This is what actually happens.

 

0.5c
B---------------------------------->A

Light------------------------------------------------------------------------->
1c                                          1c

 

This means that the light is overtaking object B at 1.5c in frame of reference of object A. Velocity is distance in space over distance in time, so object A is time dilated and length contracted in the frame of reference of object object B. In other words the light is covering a greater amount of space in less time from the perspective of object A than it is from the perspective of object B because it has to travel a shorter distance in space from object A's perspective (length contraction) and also covers the same mount of space in less time from object A's perspective (time dilation).

[fahrquad]

I believe that time, space, and matter do not exist.  Moving on...

[xyz]

A kind of atomic clock, of which the small, affordable (about US$1,500) CSAC SA.45s is an example, uses a laser and photodetectors to measure a small, electrically heated chamber of ¹³³Cs gas. This is just one of many ways that different kinds of atomic clocks tell time.

 

What these clocks are actually measuring is the change in states of various atoms, such as hydrogen, cesium, strontium and ytterbium. Our best physics theories predict, and experiments done with these clocks confirm, that these changes in state take so nearly exactly the same amount of time to occur that they are good to use for clocks.

 

It’s important to understand, though, that atomic clock are not in general principle different from other kinds of clock, like pendulum clocks, hour glasses, or sundials. Atomic clocks are more accurate than these earlier clocks because what they measure – the state transitions of atoms – are more accurate than the movement of mechanical pendulums, flowing sand, or the rotation of Earth.

 

Atomic clock are more complicated and difficult to understand because measuring the states of atoms is more difficult and complicate than measuring the movement of pendulums, sand in an hourglass, or the motion of the Sun in the sky.

 

Time dilation is a prediction of the theory of relativity, which says that accurate clocks of any kind run at different rates relative to one another depending on where and how they are moving relative to one another. The prediction has been tested many time, actual measurements agreeing very closely with the prediction.

 

By saying this is a lie, you are saying that all scientists are willfully falsifying the results of their experiments. This is insulting in implausible, and a violation of our site rules. Don’t do it any more, or you’ll be banned.

 

Rather than accusing people who know things you clearly do not of lying because what they say doesn’t agree with what you believe to be true, I encourage you to study science, so that you understand better why people who understand science say what they do.

 

A ban threat is about the normal response to be honest, I do not mean to insult you or scientists in any way.  I have not said scientists wilfully lie about things.  I have mentioned before subjective and objective, I do not honestly think you are being very objective. 

 

Let me quote your own words, 

 

''This is just one of many ways that different kinds of atomic clocks tell time.''

 

Tell time, they speak?  what exactly do you mean by different kinds of atomic clocks tell time?   

 

Please  be objective, what you measure is an equivalent to time but not actual time?

 

Let me discourse the below  statement 

 

 

''Time dilation is a prediction of the theory of relativity, which says that accurate clocks of any kind run at different rates relative to one another depending on where and how they are moving relative to one another.''

 

 

Ok, so please tell me any relationship of the rate of something relative to time?

 

 

 

Why does the different rate of something matter when the rate is only a comparison/equivalent representation of time?

 

I 'see' a timing dilation, but not a time dilation.   You are in affect timing the rate? the rate is timing relative to 0.  Is this not true?

 

Added - timing out of synchronisation does not affect the time the timing is being timed in .. 

 

i.e space does not contract only the ''light'' frequency passing through time and space contracts.

 

Time and space are an interwoven ''fabric'', light occupies time and space.

C is not time. 

Edited January 2, 2017 by xyz

[xyz]

The rudiment of thought is to break down the existence of the thought to the ''naked'' essentials .......

 

When considering time, the ''naked'' essential is that space and time are interwoven into  a single manifold.  A single manifold that is ''nothing'' , made of nothing, but exists as something in the form of the single manifold of space and time. 

 

 

All things occupy space and time and all things are in motion relative to the interwoven space and time.  Space and time are the stationary reference frame whole that everything of matter in motion is relative too.  The very fact that space and time are transparent to light and space and time has no permeability to light, the light passing through space and time at c because of this. Light travelling at c has no spectral content and can not be seen, light in affect is invisible between eye and object factual by a clear line of sight to the object, a suggestion that the temporal distortion of light , i.e colour, is in its exact geometrical position relative to the observer. 

 

 

Also evidently darkness . the absent of light can be measured to be in its exact geometrical position relative to observer.  A distance away from our minds.

 

 

Please don 't make the mistake of thinking the things we measure are actually the things we measure, the mistake and misinterpretation of the experiment can only lead to false conclusions. 

Edited January 4, 2017 by xyz

[A-wal]

Added - timing out of synchronisation does not affect the time the timing is being timed in ..

:)

 

i.e space does not contract only the ''light'' frequency passing through time and space contracts.

That's Doppler shift!

 

Space and time are the stationary reference frame whole that everything of matter in motion is relative too.

That stationary reference frame is unique to all inertial observers that are in motion relative to each due to the fact that they all measure the same velocity of light despite their velocities relative to each other. If their in motion relative to each other and measure light moving at the same rate past themselves as observers in other frames of reference (in motion relative to them) measure light moving past themselves then each frame of reference has it's own unique measurement for length, in time and in space.

 

That's time dilation and length contraction and why it couldn't possibly work without them with a speed of light that's the same to every inertial object.

[OceanBreeze]

What no sarcasm replies or treating me as if I am stupid?

 

 

By the lack of answers to my last post I can only presume that realisation has set in for you all. 

 

You do not measure time in any sense. Light is not time, motion is not time, energy is not time. 

 

 

You all are really confused in knowing what time is and the difference between time and timing. 

 

''YOU''  are timing things in time. 

 

OK. I agree with you, in a certain sense.

 

If you mean that we should not confuse our measurement of a thing, with the thing itself, that is a perfectly reasonable statement.

 

When it comes to measuring time, we need to rely on some process of change in matter and energy, whether it be an atomic clock or a revolving Earth, for us to be able to distinguish one moment from the next. Are we measuring time itself, or just the change in matter and energy?

 

I don’t pretend to be able to answer that question but I will offer an opinion (of course): Only if we define time as a change in matter and energy, are we actually measuring time when we measure a change in matter and energy. Of course, that is a tautology, but it is a useful one in that it allows us to pretend we can make sense of what time is, and make use of it.

 

It may well be that time is something else entirely, or possibly even nothing at all, and all we really have is matter and energy; and our concept of time is just a result of our imaginative minds.

 

You are certainly not alone in thinking like this! Ruminations about the nature of time have been going on . . . . .well, for a very long time indeed. German philosopher Emmanuel Kant was convinced that our perceptions of reality, including the concepts of space and time, are very different from how they exist in reality, or even if they do exist in reality.

 

Personally, I think these questions are best left to the philosophers. Without an agreement on what time is, and what-time-is-it, it is impossible for us to coordinate well enough to do any useful science, or even make a lunch date.

 

However, scientists are now cutting in on the philosopher’s turf. Take Julian Barbour, for example:

 

 

“If you try to get your hands on time, it’s always slipping through your fingers,” says Barbour. “People are sure time is there, but they can’t get hold of it. My feeling is that they can’t get hold of it because it isn’t there at all.”

 

Is that all you are saying? If so, I don't find it very controversial or particularly interesting unless you have your own theory of what time "really" is. Now, that would be interesting!