0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Well the differences between having a universally common now and not having one are quite considerable.
So what exactly are you implying when you say you see no means of providing evidence for a standard second?
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.
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).
The standard second is the time elapsed during Quote 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).
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.
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.
...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?
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.
Quote from: timey on 20/11/2016 11:23:56But 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'.
But the clock IS blue shifted 'at' elevation... (this has been the whole point of the thread)
Quote from: timey on 18/03/2017 15:35:52Because 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:Quote from: timey on 18/03/2017 16:04:24...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.
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"
I do not think he meant that. Wording has to be accurate for the correct meaning. Can you find where that statement was made?