| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"fotoobscura" |
| Date: |
05 Jun 2005 07:36:19 PM |
| Object: |
Question about Cesium-133 and time keeping. |
I have been discussing a small "Wager" with someone that includes the
concept that the NIST clocks don't "appreciably" lose time. According
to the NIST website the clocks lose about 1 second every 14m years. To
me thats not losing time. :)
Although the Cesium clocks are built almost entirely devoid of
atmosphere she swears that the clocks will have to be "tuned" if moved
to other locations on the Earth. (Such as Greenwich). My belief if
that there is no difference unless you're nitpicking on 1 second every
14m years.
We were also discussing the slave clocks like the Stratum one and two
and her postulation that they are unable to keep time accurately
without being corrected moderately often. I am under the assumption
they pick up time generally via a radio frequency that keeps them
synched.
So the discussion is- Does time change based on how the scientists have
designed it or is it finite? If I read the NIST website they talk
about clock frequencies that don't change up to the perhaps 20th field
in 20 years. Seems pretty accurate to me :)
All ideas, thoughts appreciated so I can settle this :)
.
|
|
| User: "Isaac Wingfield" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Cesium-133 and time keeping. |
05 Jun 2005 10:23:13 PM |
|
|
In article <1118018179.710474.203810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"fotoobscura" <fotoobscura@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been discussing a small "Wager" with someone that includes the
concept that the NIST clocks don't "appreciably" lose time. According
to the NIST website the clocks lose about 1 second every 14m years. To
me thats not losing time. :)
Although the Cesium clocks are built almost entirely devoid of
atmosphere she swears that the clocks will have to be "tuned" if moved
to other locations on the Earth. (Such as Greenwich). My belief if
that there is no difference unless you're nitpicking on 1 second every
14m years.
We were also discussing the slave clocks like the Stratum one and two
and her postulation that they are unable to keep time accurately
without being corrected moderately often. I am under the assumption
they pick up time generally via a radio frequency that keeps them
synched.
So the discussion is- Does time change based on how the scientists have
designed it or is it finite? If I read the NIST website they talk
about clock frequencies that don't change up to the perhaps 20th field
in 20 years. Seems pretty accurate to me :)
It's a matter of statistics. Cesium clocks are quite "jittery" in the
short term. In the long term, the jitter averages out, and I think they
have absolutely no long-term "drift" or "ageing". Atoms don't "wear out".
Cesium clocks don't tell you what time it *is*, they tell you what time
it *was*. You only know the answer after you do a stastical analysis on
the entire *set* of clocks that actually constitute the primary timebase.
The usual technique is to synchronize rubidium clocks (which have drift
but very little jitter) by using cesium clocks to control the drift.
I think that if you do the numbers, you'd find that the actual meaning
of "loses only one second in X years" is actually just another way of
expressing the absolute uncertainty in the frequency of the fundamental
timebase.
Isaac
.
|
|
|
| User: "srp" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Cesium-133 and time keeping. |
06 Jun 2005 11:36:26 AM |
|
|
"Isaac Wingfield" <isw@witzend.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
isw-CC4A7A.20231305062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <1118018179.710474.203810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"fotoobscura" <fotoobscura@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been discussing a small "Wager" with someone that includes the
concept that the NIST clocks don't "appreciably" lose time. According
to the NIST website the clocks lose about 1 second every 14m years. To
me thats not losing time. :)
Although the Cesium clocks are built almost entirely devoid of
atmosphere she swears that the clocks will have to be "tuned" if moved
to other locations on the Earth. (Such as Greenwich). My belief if
that there is no difference unless you're nitpicking on 1 second every
14m years.
No nitpicking involved. The reference frequency directly reacts to any
change in altitude or more specifically to any change to local gravitational
intensity.
Whenever such a clock is moved to a location where g is locally different
from the original location, it needs to be recalibrated.
André Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Cesium-133 and time keeping. |
08 Jun 2005 01:35:50 AM |
|
|
srp wrote:
"Isaac Wingfield" <isw@witzend.com> a =E9crit dans le message de news:
isw-CC4A7A.20231305062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <1118018179.710474.203810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"fotoobscura" <fotoobscura@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been discussing a small "Wager" with someone that includes the
concept that the NIST clocks don't "appreciably" lose time. According
to the NIST website the clocks lose about 1 second every 14m years. To
me thats not losing time. :)
Although the Cesium clocks are built almost entirely devoid of
atmosphere she swears that the clocks will have to be "tuned" if moved
to other locations on the Earth. (Such as Greenwich). My belief if
that there is no difference unless you're nitpicking on 1 second every
14m years.
No nitpicking involved. The reference frequency directly reacts to any
change in altitude or more specifically to any change to local gravitatio=
nal
intensity.
Whenever such a clock is moved to a location where g is locally different
from the original location, it needs to be recalibrated.
Read "malfunctions when clock is moved". NOT that time duration alters.
This is what happens when atomic clocks were flown around the earth,
and compared to 'stay at homes'- the relocation caused the clock to
malfunction.
This is about as simple as understanding that a pendulum clock
malfunctions with temperature change (expansion).
There IS no 'time dilation'- due either to speed or gravity.
Jim G
c'=3Dc+v
=20
Andr=E9 Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "srp" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Cesium-133 and time keeping. |
08 Jun 2005 05:04:03 PM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> a écrit dans le message de
news: 1118212549.995300.287150@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Read "malfunctions when clock is moved". NOT that time duration alters.
Nothing to do with time duration.
It malfunctions because the frequency variation causes the cesium atoms
to miss the very precisely aligned reference target detector.
Ref: "Physics", Halliday & Resnick, John Wiley & Sons, 1967
page 8
André Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Cesium-133 and time keeping. |
09 Jun 2005 04:23:11 AM |
|
|
srp wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> a =E9crit dans le message =
de
news: 1118212549.995300.287150@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Read "malfunctions when clock is moved". NOT that time duration alters.
Nothing to do with time duration.
It malfunctions because the frequency variation causes the cesium atoms
to miss the very precisely aligned reference target detector.
OK:
But to DHR's, the 'magical' relationship between c and f, whereby
changes to f are NEVER the result of a change in c, WRONGLY attributes
the discrepency
with the atoms missing the target to be due to an alteration of the
time interval- correctly it would be that the c has altered.
Jim G
c'=3Dc+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "srp" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Cesium-133 and time keeping. |
09 Jun 2005 10:30:44 AM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> a écrit dans le message de
news: 1118308991.049291.132800@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
srp wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> a écrit dans le message
de
news: 1118212549.995300.287150@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Read "malfunctions when clock is moved". NOT that time duration
alters.
Nothing to do with time duration.
It malfunctions because the frequency variation causes the cesium atoms
to miss the very precisely aligned reference target detector.
OK:
But to DHR's, the 'magical' relationship between c and f, whereby
changes to f are NEVER the result of a change in c, WRONGLY attributes
the discrepency
with the atoms missing the target to be due to an alteration of the
time interval- correctly it would be that the c has altered.
I vaguely recollect that we may have discussed this before.
There is a major practical problem with c varying. The problem
is the following, eps_0 has been measured to a high degree of
precision from proven capacitance considerations and mu_0
cannot possibly have any other value from proven Ampere's
law which does not involve eps_0.
The link between eps_0 and mu_0 comes to light only when
Ampere's law is generalized to become Maxwell's forth equation,
from which c can have only one value.
eps_0 and mu_0 are definitely established as being invariant.
All the equations we have to calculate electric and magnetic
fields would give wrong results (not match experimental results)
if they were changed.
c varying for the clock case would mean that electromagnetic
laws proven for all other EM phenomena besides the clock
don't work only in the clock case. Don't you think that explanations
that remains in line with proven EM laws that work for all other
cases should be considered ?
André Michaud
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "srp" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Cesium-133 and time keeping. |
09 Jun 2005 05:21:36 AM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> a écrit dans le message de
news: 1118308991.049291.132800@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
srp wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> a écrit dans le message
de
news: 1118212549.995300.287150@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Read "malfunctions when clock is moved". NOT that time duration
alters.
Nothing to do with time duration.
It malfunctions because the frequency variation causes the cesium atoms
to miss the very precisely aligned reference target detector.
OK:
But to DHR's, the 'magical' relationship between c and f, whereby
changes to f are NEVER the result of a change in c, WRONGLY attributes
the discrepency
with the atoms missing the target to be due to an alteration of the
time interval- correctly it would be that the c has altered.
I vaguely recollect that we may have discussed this before.
There is a major practical problem with c varying. The problem
is the following, eps_0 has been measured to a high degree of
precision from proven capacitance considerations and mu_0
cannot possibly have any other value from proven Ampere's
law which does not involve eps_0.
The link between eps_0 and mu_0 comes to light only when
Ampere's law is generalized to become Maxwell's forth equation,
from which c can have only one value.
c varying for the clock case would mean that electromagnetic
laws proven for all other EM phenomena besides the clock
don't work only in the clock case. Don't you think that explanations
that remains in line with proven EM laws that work for all other
cases should be considered ?
André Michaud
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "srp" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Cesium-133 and time keeping. |
10 Jun 2005 06:47:33 AM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> a écrit dans le message de
news: 1118308991.049291.132800@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
srp wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> a écrit dans le message
de
news: 1118212549.995300.287150@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Read "malfunctions when clock is moved". NOT that time duration
alters.
Nothing to do with time duration.
It malfunctions because the frequency variation causes the cesium atoms
to miss the very precisely aligned reference target detector.
OK:
But to DHR's, the 'magical' relationship between c and f, whereby
changes to f are NEVER the result of a change in c, WRONGLY attributes
the discrepency
with the atoms missing the target to be due to an alteration of the
time interval- correctly it would be that the c has altered.
I vaguely recollect that we may have discussed this before.
There is a major practical problem with c varying. The problem
is the following, eps_0 has been measured to a high degree of
precision from proven capacitance considerations and mu_0
cannot possibly have any other value from proven Ampere's
law which does not involve eps_0.
The link between eps_0 and mu_0 comes to light only when
Ampere's law is generalized to become Maxwell's forth equation,
from which c can have only one value.
eps_0 and mu_0 are definitely established as being invariant.
All the equations we have to calculate electric and magnetic
fields would give wrong results (not match experimental results)
if they were changed.
c varying for the clock case would mean that electromagnetic
laws proven for all other EM phenomena besides the clock
don't work only in the clock case. Don't you think that explanations
that remains in line with proven EM laws that work for all other
cases should be considered ?
André Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Cesium-133 and time keeping. |
12 Jun 2005 02:59:33 AM |
|
|
srp wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> a =E9crit dans le message =
de
news: 1118308991.049291.132800@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
srp wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> a =E9crit dans le mess=
age
de
news: 1118212549.995300.287150@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Read "malfunctions when clock is moved". NOT that time duration
alters.
Nothing to do with time duration.
It malfunctions because the frequency variation causes the cesium ato=
ms
to miss the very precisely aligned reference target detector.
OK:
But to DHR's, the 'magical' relationship between c and f, whereby
changes to f are NEVER the result of a change in c, WRONGLY attributes
the discrepency
with the atoms missing the target to be due to an alteration of the
time interval- correctly it would be that the c has altered.
I vaguely recollect that we may have discussed this before.
There is a major practical problem with c varying. The problem
is the following, eps_0 has been measured to a high degree of
precision from proven capacitance considerations and mu_0
cannot possibly have any other value from proven Ampere's
law which does not involve eps_0.
The link between eps_0 and mu_0 comes to light only when
Ampere's law is generalized to become Maxwell's forth equation,
from which c can have only one value.
eps_0 and mu_0 are definitely established as being invariant.
All the equations we have to calculate electric and magnetic
fields would give wrong results (not match experimental results)
if they were changed.
c varying for the clock case would mean that electromagnetic
laws proven for all other EM phenomena besides the clock
don't work only in the clock case. Don't you think that explanations
that remains in line with proven EM laws that work for all other
cases should be considered ?
Andr=E9 Michaud
I am sorry that you are greatly overestimating my degree of 'learning'.
I still am confident that I understand the basics of SR, and recognize
the circular logic which underpins 'observations' which support the
theories of AE.
When distance is actually a measure of time (present definition of a
meter being how far a photon travels in a fraction of a second), and
yet time is ALSO dependent on how many "velocity shrunken" (time
dilated) meter markers are passed in that second, SR has an in-built,
can't fail base.
eg: GPS clocks are "tweaked" to keep the system operating accurately,
but
c'=3Dc+v which causes the drift is attributed to an ACTUAL rate of time
altering.
This kind of circular logic, when not admitted, and as yet not tested
by unambiguous comparison of emr (photon) travel times (races), is
unassailable:
That does not mean that it is CORRECT (c invariant)
Jim Greenfield
c'=3Dc+v
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Cesium-133 and time keeping. |
05 Jun 2005 07:53:41 PM |
|
|
fotoobscura wrote:
I have been discussing a small "Wager" with someone that includes the
concept that the NIST clocks don't "appreciably" lose time. According
to the NIST website the clocks lose about 1 second every 14m years. To
me thats not losing time. :)
Depends on what you are measuring. Bear in mind that they are moving
clocks (Earth's rotation, Earth's orbit) immersed re Special
Relativity in Earth's gravitational field re General Relativity. The
velocity of the Earth about the Earth-moon barycenter and its orbit
around the sun is constantly changing.
Although the Cesium clocks are built almost entirely devoid of
atmosphere she swears that the clocks will have to be "tuned" if moved
to other locations on the Earth. (Such as Greenwich). My belief if
that there is no difference unless you're nitpicking on 1 second every
14m years.
The local gravitational field alters the clocks' rates. Lawn
sprinklers are detectable. Supercon dual levitated ball gravimeters
cleanly detect the change of gravity due to placing a deck of cards
under the dewar - about three feet under the detector itself.
Gravitation cannot be shielded.
We were also discussing the slave clocks like the Stratum one and two
and her postulation that they are unable to keep time accurately
without being corrected moderately often. I am under the assumption
they pick up time generally via a radio frequency that keeps them
synched.
They require constant update, depending on what you consider to be
"accurate."
So the discussion is- Does time change based on how the scientists have
designed it or is it finite? If I read the NIST website they talk
about clock frequencies that don't change up to the perhaps 20th field
in 20 years. Seems pretty accurate to me :)
All ideas, thoughts appreciated so I can settle this :)
Atomic fountain cesium clocks are being replaced with trapped single
atom somethings a factor of ~1000 better. If you want really good
metrology you need really good clocks.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Cesium-133 and time keeping. |
05 Jun 2005 07:53:43 PM |
|
|
fotoobscura wrote:
I have been discussing a small "Wager" with someone that includes the
concept that the NIST clocks don't "appreciably" lose time. According
to the NIST website the clocks lose about 1 second every 14m years. To
me thats not losing time. :)
Although the Cesium clocks are built almost entirely devoid of
atmosphere she swears that the clocks will have to be "tuned" if moved
to other locations on the Earth. (Such as Greenwich). My belief if
that there is no difference unless you're nitpicking on 1 second every
14m years.
We were also discussing the slave clocks like the Stratum one and two
and her postulation that they are unable to keep time accurately
without being corrected moderately often. I am under the assumption
they pick up time generally via a radio frequency that keeps them
synched.
So the discussion is- Does time change based on how the scientists have
designed it or is it finite? If I read the NIST website they talk
about clock frequencies that don't change up to the perhaps 20th field
in 20 years. Seems pretty accurate to me :)
All ideas, thoughts appreciated so I can settle this :)
Time (and therefore clocks) are effected be relative velocity
and by gravitation. The gravitation is different at different
locations on the Earth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fotoobscura" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Cesium-133 and time keeping. |
05 Jun 2005 08:09:34 PM |
|
|
I guess there's a line that reads
"The cesium atoms are kept in a very good vacuum of about 10
trillionths of an atmosphere so that the cesium atoms are little
affected by other particles. All this means that they radiate in a
narrow spectral line whose wavelength or frequency can be accurately
determined"
Which implies to me that inside a vacuum of such a clock cannot be
altered even by a local gravitational field outside the vacuum. I
don't know any better so this could be simply wrong :)
Thanks for the replies!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Cesium-133 and time keeping. |
05 Jun 2005 08:24:42 PM |
|
|
fotoobscura <fotoobscura@gmail.com> wrote:
I guess there's a line that reads
"The cesium atoms are kept in a very good vacuum of about 10
trillionths of an atmosphere so that the cesium atoms are little
affected by other particles. All this means that they radiate in a
narrow spectral line whose wavelength or frequency can be accurately
determined"
Which implies to me that inside a vacuum of such a clock cannot be
altered even by a local gravitational field outside the vacuum. I
don't know any better so this could be simply wrong :)
Thanks for the replies!
Lots of good vacuum between the Earth and the Moon yet the gravities
of each have an effect on the other.
Gravity is doesn't care about vacuum.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Cesium-133 and time keeping. |
05 Jun 2005 08:21:49 PM |
|
|
fotoobscura wrote:
I guess there's a line that reads
"The cesium atoms are kept in a very good vacuum of about 10
trillionths of an atmosphere so that the cesium atoms are little
affected by other particles. All this means that they radiate in a
narrow spectral line whose wavelength or frequency can be accurately
determined"
Which implies to me that inside a vacuum of such a clock cannot be
altered even by a local gravitational field outside the vacuum. I
don't know any better so this could be simply wrong :)
Thanks for the replies!
The local gravity is not affected by a vacuum.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Cesium-133 and time keeping. |
06 Jun 2005 12:47:06 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
fotoobscura wrote:
I have been discussing a small "Wager" with someone that includes the
concept that the NIST clocks don't "appreciably" lose time. According
to the NIST website the clocks lose about 1 second every 14m years. To
me thats not losing time. :)
Although the Cesium clocks are built almost entirely devoid of
atmosphere she swears that the clocks will have to be "tuned" if moved
to other locations on the Earth. (Such as Greenwich). My belief if
that there is no difference unless you're nitpicking on 1 second every
14m years.
We were also discussing the slave clocks like the Stratum one and two
and her postulation that they are unable to keep time accurately
without being corrected moderately often. I am under the assumption
they pick up time generally via a radio frequency that keeps them
synched.
So the discussion is- Does time change based on how the scientists have
designed it or is it finite? If I read the NIST website they talk
about clock frequencies that don't change up to the perhaps 20th field
in 20 years. Seems pretty accurate to me :)
All ideas, thoughts appreciated so I can settle this :)
Time (and therefore clocks) are effected be relative velocity
and by gravitation. The gravitation is different at different
locations on the Earth.
Once again, the significance of the FACT that all points on/within the
earth take the SAME amount of time to circle the sun, regardless of
gravity or local velocity, completely escapes Einstein's disciples!
Hint: time alters for NOTHING - 'Observers' confuse delay in
information transfer dependent on emr, with actual alterations to event
durations.
Jim G
c'=c+v
PS: Even with a 'perfect' clock, it would be of no use to DHR's, who
would always confuse observed durations by way of c+v to be clock
malfunctions, and would tweak its operation to suit the wrong
interpretation.....
(eg GPS)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
NucleiWires form in metal-oxides and not fluorine cesium
NucleiWires form in metal-oxides and not fluorine cesium
Quantum Gravity 133.3: An Uncountable Generalization of a Tensor Via Constant Angle Riccati Systems
Quantum Gravity 133.0: Angle As a Dimension in Krantz, Luce, Suppes, Tversky And in Complex Analysis
Quantum Gravity 133.1: More Re Angle As a Dimension in Krantz, Luce, Suppes, Tversky And in Complex Analysis
Quantum Gravity 133.2: More Re Angle As a Dimension in Krantz, Luce, Suppes, Tversky And in Complex Analysis
Quantum Gravity 133.6: Why The Universe Would Choose a "Preferred Direction"
Quantum Gravity 133.5: Why The Universe Does Not Simultaneously Vary As A Complex Variable In Both Magntitude and Angle
| Quantum Gravity 133.4: More Re An Uncountable Generalization of a Tensor Via Constant Angle Riccati Systems
Oh, Oh!, One of Alien Darla's Level Six Clues To Nightbat About AdvancedMethod of Time Keeping May Be Coming True
Keeping cool with oxide films
Re: Spies among us are keeping tabs on ordinary Americans
Keeping updated.
Keeping it simple, primes and randomness
Keeping out the rain
|
|
|
