[GoC]

timey

   You want the red pill answers in a blue pill world. The mathematicians are in charge of the blue pill world while the engineers are in the red pill world. Blue pill physics allow answers not possible in the red pill world. The blue pill world relates everything to the electron motion (relativity). The red pill world shows why the electron has motion (QM). The blue pill mathematicians control both.

We need to reverse engineer relativity by QM. That takes an engineering mind to do this. Unfortunately the mathematicians removed the tools for this by the authority of their conclusions based on the MMX. There is one grid matrix the MMX did not prove out of existence.

[Ethos_]

Well the differences between having a universally common now and not having one are quite considerable.

This is where I must break my silence about your "standard second" view of reality. There is no such reality where one could define a "universally common now", it simply does not exist.

I have kept my silence regarding your theory Timey out of respect for what I view as your sincere and dedicated efforts. But standing your ground on what you term; "the standard second" will doom your efforts at ever constructing an accurate and acceptable theory of reality.

Sorry my friend, but if your theory is to succeed, you will need to provide evidence for this "standard second" you keep invoking. And frankly, I see no means by which that can ever be achieved.

[timey (OP)]

It is not I who invokes a standard second Ethos, it is physics that has done that.
My observation is that any measurement of anywhere where time is running at a faster or slower rate is held relative to the standard second.
Physics states that if one observes a clock located at a gravity potential from a differing gravity potential, that one will observe a differing rate of frequency than the frequency of a ground state caesium atom, (where the frequency of a ground state caesium atom defines the SI measurement of a standard second)...
... and that if one changes location to place oneself with the clock observed in the differing potential that one has previously observed from the other gravity potential as differing from the frequency of a ground state caesium atom, that one will find when in the same gravity potential with that clock, that it's frequency is the ground state of the caesium atom, this 'being' the definition of a standard second.

So what exactly are you implying when you say you see no means of providing evidence for a standard second?

[timey (OP)]

This is the change that my model makes to the equivalence principle Ethos...
Where the equivalence principle is currently rendering the rate of a second as observed of the other gravity potential as being observer dependent, my model is stating that the observation of the frequency of one's own clock is observer dependent, because one is measuring the frequency of one's own clock held relative to the tick rate of one's own clock...
And the rate of a clock in any other gravity potential is then being held relative to the tick rate of one's own clock.

It's a very subtle difference but the resulting consequences of making this change are immense.

[Ethos_]

So what exactly are you implying when you say you see no means of providing evidence for a standard second?

It's quite simple Timey, there exists no "universally common now". Without that bases, no "standard second" can be established. Each and every individual frame will have it's on definition for what constitutes their measured second, therefore, no standard or universal second exists.

[timey (OP)]

Every time you use the value of c in the maths, you are directly referring to a measurement of the standard second.  The speed of light is held relative to a standard second.
When SR is used in the maths, all percentages and lengths are relating back to a standard second via the speed of light.

As for a universally common 'now', if one considers that observation of differing rates of time is proportional to the difference in rate of time, then a universally common 'now' can physically be achieved, and what we would observe of a differing rate of time would appear quantised (viewing faster time), or inversely quantised (viewing slower time).

Edit: Oh bugs, my b's and d's are giving me trouble again... The slower time viewed from the faster time would have action missing, and the faster time viewed from the slower time would have gaps between action.

[Colin2B]

This is the change that my model makes to the equivalence principle Ethos...
Where the equivalence principle is currently rendering the rate of a second as observed of the other gravity potential as being observer dependent, my model is stating that the observation of the frequency of one's own clock is observer dependent, because one is measuring the frequency of one's own clock held relative to the tick rate of one's own clock...
And the rate of a clock in any other gravity potential is then being held relative to the tick rate of one's own clock.

It's a very subtle difference but the resulting consequences of making this change are immense.

Can you explain why you think current physics is saying something different to the quote in red?
And briefly, what are the immense changes?

[timey (OP)]

Because the equivalence principle states that the caesium atom ground state 'is' the frequency in each and every gravity potential, and my model states that it's not.
My model states that the frequency is differing in each gravity potential, but that the caesium atom will be measured as the ground state in each and every gravity potential when measured via the tick rate of the clock in that gravity potential.

The immense changes are a continuum in quantum via the introduction of time dilations factors, and the standard model consequently being united with gravity.

[alancalverd]

The standard second is the time elapsed during

9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. In 1997 CIPM added that the periods would be defined for a caesium atom at rest, and approaching the theoretical temperature of absolute zero (0 K), and in 1999, it included corrections from ambient radiation. Absolute zero implies no movement, and therefore zero external radiation effects (i.e., zero local electric and magnetic fields).

everywhere and always (at least until we redefine it).

[timey (OP)]

...and is it not true that if one observes a caesium atom placed at an elevated position from oneself that it is observed to be of a higher frequency?

[Ethos_]

The standard second is the time elapsed during

9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. In 1997 CIPM added that the periods would be defined for a caesium atom at rest, and approaching the theoretical temperature of absolute zero (0 K), and in 1999, it included corrections from ambient radiation. Absolute zero implies no movement, and therefore zero external radiation effects (i.e., zero local electric and magnetic fields).

everywhere and always (at least until we redefine it).

Yes, when locally defined but not applicable by those who propose associating it with a "universal common now". The notion of a "universal common now" has little, or nothing at all, to do with how we define the standard second.

[GoC]

timey is correct but saying it in an unfamiliar way with a different definition of standard time. She is using the energy form of time. She is just saying the distance traveled for the electron to cycle time of the electron in every inertial frame gives the same standard reaction time as any other inertial frame. The definition of time can be confusing.

There is a universal present in the universe. All of the universe is in the present. The rate of timing is your ratio of available c to c being used by mass as a combination of SR and GR.

There is no standard cycle timing for an electron. There is a standard cycle time to distance measured in every inertial frame. That is the measured speed of light in a vacuum.

There is no standard measurement, only relative measurements

The measured reaction rate in every inertial frame is the same or standard if you like but only as standard as the measured speed of light in a vacuum.

There is more energy in a higher position of a gravity well and your measuring stick becomes shorter. The cycle distance of the electron becomes shorter.

[LB7]

The "standard second" could be the second with a linear and rotational velocity at 0 ?

[Colin2B]

Because the equivalence principle states that the caesium atom ground state 'is' the frequency in each and every gravity potential, and my model states that it's not.

I would say that 'the caesium atom ground state is measured to be the same frequency in each and every gravity potential when measured by an observer at the same location'.  Can't say if there is an absolute frequency for each GP because we can't measure it. I can't see how my view differs from what you are saying:

but that the caesium atom will be measured as the ground state in each and every gravity potential when measured via the tick rate of the clock in that gravity potential.

Which is why I asked what the difference is with the section in red.

The immense changes are a continuum in quantum via the introduction of time dilations factors, and the standard model consequently being united with gravity.

I really don't see it as any change at all.

...and is it not true that if one observes a caesium atom placed at an elevated position from oneself that it is observed to be of a higher frequency?

Yes, when measured using the local time at the observer's location. But change the observer's location and the measured frequency changes.


As Alan says the standard second is a definition. In reality it doesn't matter what time you use. If you design a frequency meter to measure a frequency source then, no matter what clock rate you use in the meter, if you move both source and meter to a different GP the meter will read the same frequency. This is just the physics of the source, meter, and time dilation working together. This is why current physics always refers to a measurement/observer.


As I say, I really don't see a real difference in what you are saying and certainly not one which would result in immense changes. However, you aren't going to change your view, and it isn't significant enough to me, so we will have to agree to differ and leave it at that.
Look forward to seeing the results/proof however.

[timey (OP)]

The difference is that now when I say to you NIST measured that a clock's frequency really is different at 1 metre elevation than at ground level, you will not tell me that it isn't...

The difference is that now when I say to you that NIST measured that a clock's frequency in relative motion really is different to the stationary clock, you will not tell me that it isn't...

Previously you have told me that the frequency observed of both the elevated clock, and the clock in motion are only occurring as an observer dependent phenomenon, where both of the clock's are only 'appearing' to tick at differing rates.

[GoC]

The difference is that now when I say to you NIST measured that a clock's frequency really is different at 1 metre elevation than at ground level, you will not tell me that it isn't... 

Colin2B understands relativity and should agree with that statement. This is observed with atomic clocks.

The difference is that now when I say to you that NIST measured that a clock's frequency in relative motion really is different to the stationary clock, you will not tell me that it isn't...

Although there are no stationary clocks the NIST measured frequency between different speeds is different.

Previously you have told me that the frequency observed of both the elevated clock, and the clock in motion are only occurring as an observer dependent phenomenon, where both of the clock's are only 'appearing' to tick at differing rates.

I do not think he meant that. Wording has to be accurate for the correct meaning. Can you find where that statement was made?

[timey (OP)]

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68961.msg502838#msg502838

...and other posts within this thread.

[timey (OP)]

So Colin - Can we please now agree that the clock's frequency, or any body of m's frequency is 'actually' shifted 'at' elevation or 'in' relative motion, rather than this being an 'observation' that is shifted 'from' that elevation, or 'from' that relative motion, and that the observation of the clock ticking normally for the observer who is 'at' elevation, or 'in' relative motion is due to the observer 'at' elevation, or 'in' relative motion measuring their clock's frequency via the tick rate of their own 'elevated', or 'in relative motion' clock, as opposed to the case of measuring the 'elevated' clock, or clock 'in relative motion's' frequency via the tick rate of the ground clock, or the stationary clock???

Because if so, then we do indeed have a means of measuring frequency changes in the gravity potential...

[timey (OP)]

Colin - In addition to my posts above:

First you say:

But the clock IS blue shifted 'at' elevation... (this has been the whole point of the thread)

Not from our point of view. We were trying to convince you that it isn't blue shifted 'at elevation'.

And then you say:

Because the equivalence principle states that the caesium atom ground state 'is' the same frequency in each and every gravity potential, and my model states that it's not.

I would say that 'the caesium atom ground state is measured to be the same frequency in each and every gravity potential when measured by an observer at the same location'.  Can't say if there is an absolute frequency for each GP because we can't measure it. I can't see how my view differs from what you are saying:

...and is it not true that if one observes a caesium atom placed at an elevated position from oneself that it is observed to be of a higher frequency?

Yes, when measured using the local time at the observer's location. But change the observer's location and the measured frequency changes.

As I say, I really don't see a real difference in what you are saying and certainly not one which would result in immense changes. However, you aren't going to change your view, and it isn't significant enough to me, so we will have to agree to differ and leave it at that.
Look forward to seeing the results/proof however.

If you were trying to convince me that the clock is not of higher frequency 'at elevation', then how can you say:

"I would say that 'the caesium atom ground state is measured to be the same frequency in each and every gravity potential when measured by an observer at the same location"

... ?

This implies that there 'are' frequency changes 'at' elevation, and that if one measures the frequency via the rate of time 'at' that elevation, one arrives at the frequency of ground state atom, therefore a clock 'does' have a higher frequency 'at elevation'!

I would have thought it significant to you that your understanding appears to be somewhat contradictory...and perhaps more significant that this contradictory understanding may not be yours alone.

[Colin2B]

I do not think he meant that. Wording has to be accurate for the correct meaning. Can you find where that statement was made?

Yes GoC, wording has to be accurate as you say. Given the context of the link provided the wording requires (and deserves) a fuller answer than a simple misleading yes no. Don't have time at the moment, but if have in next couple of days I will write out so we can see where there is common ground and why we try to use very specific wording.