Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: Jc333
Indeed!

1. No

2. Very true.

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "when the reality is actually much, much simpler", which to me implied that you knew what that was. How can you make any characterization about the reality if you don't know what it is?

Newton's law of gravity describes the behavior fairly accurately and simply, but Newton said he didn't know or understand the cause. Einstein's model provides more accuracy and more complexity but it still doesn't specify the exact cause of gravity, nor does it describe anything resembling quantum gravity which would allow us to add gravity to the standard model, a challenge which eluded not only Einstein but everyone since. So if the reality is very simple I suppose we will have a tremendous "D'oh" moment when we finally figure it out, because right now it doesn't seem so easy to figure out.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: ErosA433

I disagree. if the atomic clock or a crystal oscillator clock is freq based, the freq of local oscillator will increase in conditions of time dilation and hence a erroneous readout of faster time in lesser gravity

You would get along fabulously with the notorious inventor Savvy aka "Angelic Resurrection" aka "Nochzwei" because they all said the same thing, but none of them understood what "time dilation" means and you don't either. When there's time dilation, it means the clock will run slower, not faster. This is not something you can disagree with, it's by definition:

www.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of time dilation

: a slowing of time...

So no, "freq[sic] of local oscillator" will NOT "increase in conditions of time dilation", by definition of what those words actually mean (assuming "freq" means frequency).

a reply to: Arbitrageur

"duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation"

How are those periods counted/measured? How does the uncertainty principle not come into play? 1 period of radiation, 2 periods of radiation, 3 periods of radiation, 4 periods of radiation, ....

How is the 1st period of radiation counted/measured without disturbing the system?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Those chaps were right. yes i said the same thing, clocks should run slower in time dilation
which is proven by the increase in period of the pendulum.
Yes freq ought to increase in regions of time dilation. but i'll have a look see at your link

a reply to: Hyperboles

What you just said in that post is logically inconstant

Clocks run slower in dilation
Proven by the increase period of the pendulum

a reply to: DanielKoenig

Read up about atomic clocks, i explained what those periods are, and how it is counted, why it is the number it is. up to you here to do a little bit of research

originally posted by: ErosA433
i explained.... how it is counted

Dont believe you did

originally posted by: DanielKoenig
a reply to: Arbitrageur

"duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation"

How are those periods counted/measured? How does the uncertainty principle not come into play? 1 period of radiation, 2 periods of radiation, 3 periods of radiation, 4 periods of radiation, ....

How is the 1st period of radiation counted/measured without disturbing the system?

Let's say you put a frequency counter on your microwave oven and turned it on. The microwave oven is very much disturbing what's inside when it's running, it's oscillating the polarity of water molecules.

An atomic clock also uses microwaves to excite the target atoms, which are typically cesium in the NIST clocks, and the frequency is adjustable. When you shine a laser on the excited cesium atoms and get the greatest light output at a certain frequency of the microwaves, that is the frequency we are looking for, which we use to define a second. The way you know you have the right frequency is that if you increase the microwave frequency the light output will decrease, and if you decrease the microwave frequency the light output will again decrease, so by this result we know we have found the peak light output at a particular frequency.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, a good animation with over 1000 frames is worth a million words. Here's a good animation of how the NIST F2 atomic clock works:



This isn't about the F2 clock specifically but unlike the first video, the animation is narrated:



That second video also happens to mention how pendulum clocks are not very good at measuring time, because they are too easily influenced by things like gravity.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Those chaps were right. yes i said the same thing, clocks should run slower in time dilation
which is proven by the increase in period of the pendulum.
Yes freq ought to increase in regions of time dilation. but i'll have a look see at your link

Again you don't understand the definitions of these words. This is like pointing to the ground and declaring "this direction is up".

Frequency is cycles per second and if all else is equal, when NIST lowers their optical clock 1 meter in their lab, the frequency or cycles per second is lower fitting the definition of time dilation, time is slower. Now one might argue with NIST methodology, but the definitions of "frequency" and "time dilation" are not ambiguous, so you should stop misusing the terms, or you can keep misusing them and nobody will take you seriously and we will just think you're trolling or have some type of cognitive deficiency.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Lol you are the one not understanding.
Period of pendulum is indicative of the time flow at any particular location. Again we are not talking about accuracy of clocks here.
NIST clock
when the time vector is stretched ( meaning time dilation ) can you not superimpose more cycles on it? of course yes so freq increases and clock shows a faster time erroneously. yes or no?
Instead of admitting defeat, you are trying to call me a troll.
For all practical purposes a humble pendulum has debunked general relativity.
now you can go on about nist and atomic clock till the cows come home, but you will not convince anyone
that general relativity is right

a reply to: Arbitrageur

if "duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation" is defined to be one second, and you say "time slows down" if they mover it one meter down, how can it be correct "second" counter if it changes with position !?!

This device has different "second" at any position it is placed,
LOL... very very bad clock !!

look, TIME can not slow down or accelerate, time is a concept, time is counting things, like this machine is counting.
Time is a concept and not a thing that can do anything to anything else. It does not dilete or accelerate, you cant make it faster, or slower.
Time is not a physical thing !

a reply to: Hyperboles


Arbitrageur is providing a valuable service by trying to explain the status quo view on time. The reason he and Eros have suggested you might be a troll is because it appears that you are either trolling or that you are misunderstanding things. If you are trolling, you are a most excellent one! As this discussion is quite vibrant! For the other possibility, there is no shame (in my view) about misunderstanding relativity. I would say that the number of those who truly understand it is very small. Einstein even stated that he wasn't sure he understood it. Many can do calculations with the math - and arrive at answers that agree with experiment - but to actually understand relativity is another matter entirely.

a reply to: KrzYma

Your post is only correct assuming the classical absolute conceptual basis for time. In the present status quo, that classical thinking has been superseded by relativity. It has been one of a few so-far-thankless quests of my career to return physics to its classical roots, so in a sense I agree with your post. However, it is not correct to say that because relativity has a different concept for time and space that therefore relativity is wrong. As scientists we should be open to what experiment tells us, and we must let those experiments decide which of our hypotheses is the closest approximation to truth.

a reply to: ALL

I would still appreciate any comments on my other thread concerning an absolute theory without a Lorentz/Fitzgerald length contraction. Toward the end of that thread I have reproduced verbiage that I would like to post as an introduction to the Absolute Theory page on Wikipedia, and I will follow that intro with my paper from about 25 years ago. (If you want to see the whole article I plan to post, you can click here.) The Wiki asks to flesh out their absolute theory page and I will be happy to do so. I fully expect opposition to arise (from mediocre minds, pace Al E.), and so I'd like it as strong as possible before posting.

a reply to: delbertlarson

man you need to go back to school.
Im not understanding anything. yeah right

originally posted by: Hyperboles
NIST clock
when the time vector is stretched ( meaning time dilation ) can you not superimpose more cycles on it? of course yes so freq increases and clock shows a faster time erroneously. yes or no?

Again you mention two terms which are defined:
-time dilation means the clock runs slower, by definition
-frequency in cycles per second of a clock must be lower for the clock to be running slower.
If the frequency is higher, then the clock is running faster and it's the opposite of time dilation.

This is how these terms are defined, so yes when you continue to abuse these terms contrary to the definitions have been explained to you is a form of trolling or a lack of cognitive ability. It's like pointing down to the ground and saying "this direction is up". Words have meanings and you are failing to comprehend what those meanings are.

Instead of admitting defeat, you are trying to call me a troll.

I said "you're trolling or have some type of cognitive deficiency", could be either or a little of both.

For all practical purposes a humble pendulum has debunked general relativity.
now you can go on about nist and atomic clock till the cows come home, but you will not convince anyone
that general relativity is right

This is kind of a troll statement. People without cognitive deficiency already know that relativity has been supported by many experiments and is generally accepted as one of the best theories we have for now, so I don't need to convince anybody about relativity, it's already accepted by scientific consensus as a good theory.

Furthermore it's not even my position that relativity is "right", just that the theory is supported by many experiments. Apparently theoretical physicists like Nima Arkani Hamed think they might be able to come up with a better theory, but at least he realizes whatever new theory he comes up with will have to explain why previous observations appeared to support relativity, just as Einstein had to explain why previous observations appeared to support Newton's law of gravitation when he came up with general relativity.

So scientists should be willing to accept new models if they explain observations better, and they think Einstein's GR model did so it's currently accepted, but if Hamed develops a model that explains observations better, that could replace relativity as the best model we have. Hamed and DelbertLarson both think relativity can be improved upon and even if they don't think it's right, they have the cognitive ability to understand why other scientists think it's right, an ability you so far seem to be lacking hyperboles.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: delbertlarson

man you need to go back to school.
Im not understanding anything. yeah right

This is a trollish statement, and it's surprising you'd attack DelbertLarson of all people, a mainstream-trained physicist who also says relativity is wrong. But it's frequently the case that people objecting to relativity can't agree on what should replace it, but at least Delbert Larson has proposed a model, something I haven't seen from you hyperboles.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
I would still appreciate any comments on my other thread concerning an absolute theory without a Lorentz/Fitzgerald length contraction.

Yes I haven't replied yet but I want to give it a fair shake and that will take some time since it's not part of my normal thought process.

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur

if "duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation" is defined to be one second, and you say "time slows down" if they mover it one meter down, how can it be correct "second" counter if it changes with position !?!

This device has different "second" at any position it is placed,
LOL... very very bad clock !!

You've never been a careful reader but in this case the difference you needed to recognize was subtle so I'll cut you some slack. I'm not as familiar with the clock technology as the experts at NIST who work on it, but given that limitation it's my understanding that the microwave-excited, cesium based atomic clocks are not capable of measuring such a small discrepancy in the passage of time. If you read my post carefully, I did mention that optical clocks were used, which instead of using microwaves to excite cesium, used higher frequency EM in the optical range to excite other atoms such as Aluminum. To my knowledge this type of result has not been achieved with microwave-excited cesium based clocks:

www.nist.gov...

Here we compare two optical atomic clocks to observe time dilation from relative speeds of less than 10 m/s and changes in height of less than 1 m. This sensitivity to small relativistic clock shifts is enabled by recent accuracy improvements, as well as the high quality factor (Q = 4.2×1014) in the clock's observed atomic resonance.

Emphasis mine.

look, TIME can not slow down or accelerate, time is a concept, time is counting things, like this machine is counting.
Time is a concept and not a thing that can do anything to anything else. It does not dilete or accelerate, you cant make it faster, or slower.

Whatever time actually is, when NIST synchronized two optical clocks at the same level, then changed the elevation of one of them some fraction of 1 meter, they find the clocks don't run at the same rate. The lower clock "ticks" slower and the higher clock "ticks" faster. So I don't know how you can explain this experimentally verified result in a way that's consistent with your comments, it seems to me you can't and maybe you're in denial of experimental findings. Einstein's theory of general relativity explains this experimental result well, which matches predictions within the margins of error.

If I drilled a hole from pole to pole, and jumped into it, how would that play out?
The hole would be lined with a protective coating so I didn't cook at the core.

a reply to: skunkape23

You would eventually come to rest at the center, but this is an interesting thought experiment:

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: delbertlarson

Your post is only correct assuming the classical absolute conceptual basis for time.

assuming ??

time is not a physical quantity !
popcorn is !, sorry... but you can grab a pound o popcorn at do something with it... but you can not take time and do anything with it!
I'm not assuming anything while I say time is a concept and does not exist in the physical world.
I know what time, actually the word time means..
Time is just a word that describes periodic observable phenomena, like 2 moons, or 5 heart beats.
This is what time is, counting periodic repetitions, nothing else.
It is not something physical, it is just a name for something we do, ...counting things.

... it is not correct to say that because relativity has a different concept for time and space that therefore relativity is wrong...

correct or wrong is just a point of view...or better said, the believe one is having.
but believe means not knowing.

I do not believe. I ask and question.

experiments are designed set ups to prove a concept... this days at least.

... need to read this other thread of yours.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: skunkape23

You would eventually come to rest at the center, but this is an interesting thought experiment:

en.wikipedia.org...

So both ways would be up? Could I walk around the walls at half gravity?

You know... if i was a gambling man (which Im not) id hazard a guess that as Arb hinted, Savvy aka "Angelic Resurrection" aka "Nochzwei" is back in the form of Hyperboles, based upon this sentence alone
"when the time vector is stretched ( meaning time dilation ) can you not superimpose more cycles on it? of course yes so freq increases and clock shows a faster time erroneously."

After lots of interactions with Nochzwei, he/she is the only person iv ever heard/read such a thing from. "Time vector" oh yeah and the famous superimposing cycles... kinda reminds me of the whole, rase a candle by one meter and it dims thing. Because you know.... a candle is obviously an extremely accurate scientific device... oh wait, trying to debunk relativity with a candle... trying to debunk relativity with a pendulum... we just need a comment about being a engineer in the merchant navy and BINGO!

Interesting parallel don't you think?

Hmmmm

originally posted by: skunkape23
If I drilled a hole from pole to pole, and jumped into it, how would that play out?
The hole would be lined with a protective coating so I didn't cook at the core.

Of you removed friction you would pop out the other end. But there is factors that would prevent that from happening. The atmosphere would cause friction slowing you down. This means you wouldn't quite make it out of thevery tunnel on the other end. And eventually come to rest in the center. But if we exclude friction you would go right out the other side. It would be the exact height you jumped in from.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: skunkape23

You would eventually come to rest at the center, but this is an interesting thought experiment:

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: skunkape23
So both ways would be up? Could I walk around the walls at half gravity?

As the link GetHyped posted says, you can see a sci-fi gravity train in the 2012 re-make of Total Recall.

I'm a science fiction fan but for me to enjoy science fiction it has to be at least somewhat plausible scientifically. If the premise is completely impossible with what we know today, it's not good sci-fi in my opinion. The original Total recall involved a trip to a Martian colony which of course hasn't happened yet but it's completely plausible that trips to Mars and even colonies there might be happen in the future, so to me that made good sci-fi.

The remake substitutes the gravity train for the trip to Mars and in my opinion it's a sci-fi disaster because there are no known materials that can withstand the temperatures and pressures required to hold the tube open for the train. However if you can set that little detail aside (which I'm unable to do), you can note the "flight attendant" style message coming over the gravity train intercom saying "Approaching core, please prepare for gravity reversal" and loose things start floating in the air as the seats rotate 180 degrees since the direction of "up" reverses when the midpoint is passed, but there's some near-weightlessness in the core, which is somewhat accurate if they could actually build the thing.

a reply to: ErosA433
I think the probability is over 99.9%. Little things like spelling frequency as "freq" contribute to the high probability.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You've never been a careful reader but in this case the difference you needed to recognize was subtle so I'll cut you some slack. I'm not as familiar with the clock technology as the experts at NIST who work on it, but given that limitation it's my understanding that the microwave-excited, cesium based atomic clocks are not capable of measuring such a small discrepancy in the passage of time. If you read my post carefully, I did mention that optical clocks were used, which instead of using microwaves to excite cesium, used higher frequency EM in the optical range to excite other atoms such as Aluminum. To my knowledge this type of result has not been achieved with microwave-excited cesium based clocks:

you always say something different than you say before if you can't counterpart an argument...

here is what you said before www.abovetopsecret.com...

Frequency is cycles per second and if all else is equal, when NIST lowers their optical clock 1 meter in their lab, the frequency or cycles per second is lower fitting the definition of time dilation, time is slower.

as a result to that I said
"if "duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation" is defined to be one second, and you say "time slows down" if they mover it one meter down, how can it be correct "second" counter if it changes with position !?!"


So tell me, does the time slows down or it the machine counting different frequencies ?