Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Uncle Ben
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 5:50 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
 |
|
On Jul 14, 11:27 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Uncle Ben wrote:
Yes, Jim, there is a Wikipedia article about the Equivalence
Principle. Here is how they lead into the article and its URL:
The equivalence principle is one of the fundamental background
concepts of the General Theory of Relativity. For the overall context,
see General relativity ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
I know all about it.
Please check on Newtons laws and tell me
why an atom is immune to g-force changes at all
and while you are at it find out why a resonant object
will change frequency under acceleration.
Think about it huh?
And I mean think about it not using your ROM memory
you have achieved from relativity.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
|
If you know all about it, and yet you don't understand why an object
in free fall behaves as if were in zero gravity, then I can't help you
any further, Jim.
I wish you well.
Uncle Ben |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:20 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 12:37 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
No, you're right. A straight beampipe starts at one elevation and
goes to a different one. But you missed what I just said. Particles
going through the same beampipe at *different* speeds get
*different* time dilations, even though they are going through the
*same* variation in the gravitational field.
The variation in the differential changes would of course make
different changes in any clock doing such speeds.
Please understand cause and effect. If you
have two objects that exhibit DIFFERENT effects and they are subject
to the SAME influence, then the influence cannot possibly be the
cause of the effect.
Different speeds, is not the "same influence" PD.
Yes, but you don't think that different speeds are what's responsible.
You think g-forces are responsible for time dilation.
|
G-force changes are what causes such. the speed will just cause
the g-force change to occur faster or slower.
If you move fast through different gravitational potentials,
you will simply get a higher rate of change.
| Quote: |
Here you have different particles with different speeds but the *same*
variation in g-forces, and they have *different* time dilations.
|
You have different variations because you have different time frame
for each g-force potential change.
| Quote: |
Please put the beer down and try to think coherently.
|
I don't drink, I think you need to put the hard stuff away,
or maybe whatever you are smoking or popping.
| Quote: |
Different speeds are not the "same variation change"
And even relativity gets that right most of the time.
Usually refered to as "relative" mass.
Are you *sure* that's what it's called? Try again.
|
What do you think relative mass is called?
| Quote: |
Right, but you don't think relativistic mass (an SR prediction) is
what's responsible. You think g-forces are.
|
the g-force changes are what causes the malfunction,
the speed changes going through different g-force changes
cause the variance in such malfunctions.
Sheesh PD.
I have explained this to you.
It is sad you still can't get such basics about clock
malfunctions.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:24 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Greg Neill wrote:
| Quote: |
That would be excellent. Then the microwave cavity could be
reduced to a much smaller size and the overall complexity of
the clock reduced considerably. A freefall environment is an
excellent place to build accurate clocks, as it is completely
isolated from the effects of changing gravity or vibrations
in the environment.
|
No, that would be stupid.
Freefall is an accelerated fram.
Again. you really don't get that huh?
You like to ignore the acceleration rate of freefall huh?
And if you had even the slightest clue, you would know
as you fall during freefall you change gravitational potentials
as you fall.
So that would not be a good zero g-force place at all
because you are actually changing the g's constantly.
accelerating and moving down through different potentials
the whole time.
Sheesh!
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:29 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Uncle Ben wrote:
| Quote: |
You have to specify the frame of reference. If the atom is in
freefall and the clock is in freefall, then the atom will not fall
with respect to the clock. Notice the "with respect to the clock"
phrase; the clock defines a frame of reference.
Earth also establishes a frame of reference; the atom still falls
with respect to the earth.
|
But it does not fall wrt the clock and that is what is doing the
counting.
I really don't see what is so hard to understand about the simple
fact that the clock is malfunctioning.
Sheesh
| Quote: |
But the point is that according to Einstein, both the gravity of the
earth and the acceleration of the atoms have effects of the rate of
clocks. In the case of free fall, they happen to have equal and
opposite effects on the rate of clocks.
|
Falling = acceleration
Where is the equal and opposite effect of acceleration that cancels that
falling part?
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:25 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Uncle Ben wrote:
| Quote: |
The theory of General Relativity says that if a clock is in a
gravitational field it will run slower than if it is not. Worse than
that, the absorption spectrum of an atom is broadend by gravity. That
makes it harder to read the exact frequency of the cesium light. We
want to get rid of that gravitational effect.
|
But you can't get rid of it during acceleration, nor freefall,
When you move downward in freefall you are not "removing"
gravity, you are simply moving from the lesser g-force
to a higher g-force.
Anything that absorbs and reflects light in a frequency
is just like a tiny spinning mirror.
the mirror will spin more freely in the lesser g-field
and less freely in a stronger g-field
and will spin different during accelerations that also cause
g-forces.
| Quote: |
To understand why the freely falling atoms are freed from the effects
of gravity by being in free fall, we rely on Einstein's equivalence
principle. You can read about it online. It is why the astronauts
train the way they do in an airplane when they intend to go into outer
speace, simulating lack of gravity by falling freely.
|
Free fall is not a 0 g fact, it is a falling through the different
g-field strengths as it falls.
The acceleration is also such a field.
But, the acceleration force and g-field force simple can not be equal
or you would not fall at all.
:)
| Quote: |
I tried to illusgtrate the equivalence principle for you with my story
about the Empire State Building. It means that physics is the same
whether you are in a field of gravity or you are accelerated. If you
can't detect any gravity, then you may be out in space, or you may be
on earth but freely falling.
|
On the ground I experience 1 g constantly.
In acceleration of freefall I do not feel the 1 g at all
yet it is accelerating me.
You call that "equal"?
On the ground I feel the pressure on my feet,
Falling I feel no such pressure.
Again. not equal.
Check my reply to Harry about the nuclear resonance and such
also.
The clock malfunctioned.
Just as an off balance wheel will change spin rate with
acceleration or any other g-force changes.
It is all Newton stuff being ignored, simple as that.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:27 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Uncle Ben wrote:
| Quote: |
Yes, Jim, there is a Wikipedia article about the Equivalence
Principle. Here is how they lead into the article and its URL:
The equivalence principle is one of the fundamental background
concepts of the General Theory of Relativity. For the overall context,
see General relativity ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
|
I know all about it.
Please check on Newtons laws and tell me
why an atom is immune to g-force changes at all
and while you are at it find out why a resonant object
will change frequency under acceleration.
Think about it huh?
And I mean think about it not using your ROM memory
you have achieved from relativity.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:37 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:CdadnZXcprvAZubVnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@comcast.com
| Quote: |
PD wrote:
Yes, but you don't think that different speeds are what's
responsible. You think g-forces are responsible for time dilation.
G-force changes are what causes such. the speed will just cause
the g-force change to occur faster or slower.
If you move fast through different gravitational potentials,
you will simply get a higher rate of change.
|
That's silly. That would mean that clock rates would
differ depending upon the path they took to their
final orbits. That is not the case; GPS corrections
depend only upon the current orbital radius and velocity.
| Quote: |
Here you have different particles with different speeds but the
*same* variation in g-forces, and they have *different* time
dilations.
You have different variations because you have different time frame
for each g-force potential change.
|
Natural clocks like radioactive particles can be centrifuged
to very, very high g-forces in varying times. It doesn't
affect their decay rates -- only their relative velocity
does.
[snip]
| Quote: |
the g-force changes are what causes the malfunction,
the speed changes going through different g-force changes
cause the variance in such malfunctions.
|
No. That is empirically false. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jerry
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:43 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 14, 10:54 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Jerry wrote:
It doesn't matter Whether you speak of an "old fashioned" cesium
beam clock or a fountain clock, the cesium atoms being monitored
are ALWAYS in freefall.
In the case of a conventional cesium beam clock, you can think of
the cesium atoms as being "thrown" across the Ramsey cavity
(microwave cavity) and, as they traverse the microwave cavity
away from the the magnetic fields of the A- and B-magnets, they
follow a VERY shallow parabolic trajectory.
Take a look at the illustration in the following link:
http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2000/02_sidebar1.html
Note that the freely falling cesium atoms as they cross the
Ramsey cavity do not experience more than a very tiny
gravitational potential change.
------------------------------------------
In the case of a fountain clock, the atoms are gently lobbed
up and down through the microwave cavity. They move MUCH more
slowly than the cesium atoms crossing the Ramsey cavity of a
conventional cesium beam clock, and as a result the cesium atoms
can be much more accurately tuned.
Take a look at the illustration in the following link:
http://tf.nist.gov/cesium/fountain.htm
The microwave cavity in a fountain clock is only a few cm in
length, so the gravitational potential changes that the cesium
atoms experience as they fall through the cavity are relatively
insignificant.
No attempt is made to monitor the cesium atoms throughout their
ENTIRE trajectory. As you rightly point out, there would be a
significant difference in the measured resonant frequencies at
the bottom and the top of the trajectory, and the clock designers
are a lot smarter than to attempt such a foolish notion.
Basically, the microwaves in the cavity are generated by a highly
stable oscillator, and once every second, this oscillator is
re-tuned as the puff of cesium atoms crosses the microwave cavity.
resonant frequency of an imbalanced spin.
Do you know that actually changes with accelerations?
Do you know that is what is "being counted"
I am bummed that not one person has any classical mechanics
smarts here at all.
Ooops.. of course they don't this is the relativity group!
LOL
|
Not so long ago, you were grateful because I was the only person
who understood the confusion you were having distinguishing
between the difficulty of -achieving- ultrahigh vacuums with the
pressure difference that exists between the inside and outside of
a vacuum chamber.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/004d1c5cf3787549
I spent considerable time carefully crafting an answer that
focused on the single point that you seemed to be obsessed with,
(freefall vs. gravitational potential changes), leaving out tons
of detail that I figured would only confuse you at this point
(for example, laser cooling... what does the puffball of cesium
atoms lasting for a whole second imply about the temperature of
atoms in the puffball, and what does that imply about doppler
shift and the sharpness of the spectral lines) and what happens?
It's obvious that you didn't spend more than ten seconds reading
my answer, and certainly you didn't follow up on any of the
links nor looked at the diagrams, nor gave my answer any thought
at all.
You're not worth wasting my time on. Goodbye.
Jerry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:44 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:JYSdnd99rtLFYebVnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com
| Quote: |
Greg Neill wrote:
That would be excellent. Then the microwave cavity could be
reduced to a much smaller size and the overall complexity of
the clock reduced considerably. A freefall environment is an
excellent place to build accurate clocks, as it is completely
isolated from the effects of changing gravity or vibrations
in the environment.
No, that would be stupid.
Freefall is an accelerated fram.
|
No, all parts of a freefalling object in a locally uniform
gravitational field respond identically to the field, so
there is no relative acceleration between components of
the clock.
| Quote: |
Again. you really don't get that huh?
You like to ignore the acceleration rate of freefall huh?
|
You don't understand the implications of the equivalence
principle and how it governs the effects of freefall on
falling systems. Freefall in space is a great place to
have things like atomic clocks. Zero g's and access to
as much hard vacuum as you could wish for.
| Quote: |
And if you had even the slightest clue, you would know
as you fall during freefall you change gravitational potentials
as you fall.
|
Not in a circular orbit you don't. Now, who doesn't have
a clue?
| Quote: |
So that would not be a good zero g-force place at all
because you are actually changing the g's constantly.
accelerating and moving down through different potentials
the whole time.
|
Nope. Circular orbit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:48 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Greg Neill wrote:
| Quote: |
That's silly. That would mean that clock rates would
differ depending upon the path they took to their
final orbits. That is not the case; GPS corrections
depend only upon the current orbital radius and velocity.
|
That is because they are set after they take the dang path
up to there moron.
| Quote: |
Natural clocks like radioactive particles can be centrifuged
to very, very high g-forces in varying times. It doesn't
affect their decay rates -- only their relative velocity
does.
|
LOL
So wrong it is not even funny.
LOL
| Quote: |
the g-force changes are what causes the malfunction,
the speed changes going through different g-force changes
cause the variance in such malfunctions.
No. That is empirically false.
|
No, it is not.
You love to say that "emperically" word even when
when things never were emperically done like such.
You truly have not even got a tiny bit of classic mechanical physics
in your brain huh?
You must have skipped all that stuff to jump into the rubber ruler
Kingdom
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:50 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Greg Neill wrote:
| Quote: |
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:JYSdnd99rtLFYebVnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
That would be excellent. Then the microwave cavity could be
reduced to a much smaller size and the overall complexity of
the clock reduced considerably. A freefall environment is an
excellent place to build accurate clocks, as it is completely
isolated from the effects of changing gravity or vibrations
in the environment.
No, that would be stupid.
Freefall is an accelerated fram.
No, all parts of a freefalling object in a locally uniform
gravitational field respond identically to the field, so
there is no relative acceleration between components of
the clock.
|
Who cares about "in the clock only".
I am talking about acceleration effects wrt outside the
frame dingbat.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:54 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Jerry wrote:
| Quote: |
It doesn't matter Whether you speak of an "old fashioned" cesium
beam clock or a fountain clock, the cesium atoms being monitored
are ALWAYS in freefall.
In the case of a conventional cesium beam clock, you can think of
the cesium atoms as being "thrown" across the Ramsey cavity
(microwave cavity) and, as they traverse the microwave cavity
away from the the magnetic fields of the A- and B-magnets, they
follow a VERY shallow parabolic trajectory.
Take a look at the illustration in the following link:
http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2000/02_sidebar1.html
Note that the freely falling cesium atoms as they cross the
Ramsey cavity do not experience more than a very tiny
gravitational potential change.
------------------------------------------
In the case of a fountain clock, the atoms are gently lobbed
up and down through the microwave cavity. They move MUCH more
slowly than the cesium atoms crossing the Ramsey cavity of a
conventional cesium beam clock, and as a result the cesium atoms
can be much more accurately tuned.
Take a look at the illustration in the following link:
http://tf.nist.gov/cesium/fountain.htm
The microwave cavity in a fountain clock is only a few cm in
length, so the gravitational potential changes that the cesium
atoms experience as they fall through the cavity are relatively
insignificant.
No attempt is made to monitor the cesium atoms throughout their
ENTIRE trajectory. As you rightly point out, there would be a
significant difference in the measured resonant frequencies at
the bottom and the top of the trajectory, and the clock designers
are a lot smarter than to attempt such a foolish notion.
Basically, the microwaves in the cavity are generated by a highly
stable oscillator, and once every second, this oscillator is
re-tuned as the puff of cesium atoms crosses the microwave cavity.
|
resonant frequency of an imbalanced spin.
Do you know that actually changes with accelerations?
Do you know that is what is "being counted"
I am bummed that not one person has any classical mechanics
smarts here at all.
Ooops.. of course they don't this is the relativity group!
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:59 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:u7WdnWGYH57ahOHVnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@comcast.com
| Quote: |
Uncle Ben wrote:
Yes, Jim, there is a Wikipedia article about the Equivalence
Principle. Here is how they lead into the article and its URL:
The equivalence principle is one of the fundamental background
concepts of the General Theory of Relativity. For the overall
context, see General relativity ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
I know all about it.
Please check on Newtons laws and tell me
why an atom is immune to g-force changes at all
|
You put atoms into freefall to *avoid* gravitationally
induced forces (weight). As long the local field
is relatively uniform (like it is with objects like
planets) and the "inquiry" time is short so that there
is no chance that the atom will be traversing any
significant change in gravitational potential anyways,
the particular signal being read (a hyperfine transition
which is a particular quantum effect) will be sharp and
precise.
| Quote: |
and while you are at it find out why a resonant object
will change frequency under acceleration.
|
First, a freefall object does not experience any forces
due to acceleration. Second, in its own frame of
reference the atom won't experience any change in the
hyperfine transition frequency. The thing to avoid is
rapid motions of the atoms being interrogated with
respect to the apparatus performing the interrogation in
order not to have the spectral lines muddied by Doppler
effects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:06 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:9NednTLY3egiheHVnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com
| Quote: |
On the ground I experience 1 g constantly.
In acceleration of freefall I do not feel the 1 g at all
yet it is accelerating me.
You call that "equal"?
On the ground I feel the pressure on my feet,
Falling I feel no such pressure.
Again. not equal.
Check my reply to Harry about the nuclear resonance and such
also.
|
Standing on the ground you feel 1g worth of force on all
parts of your body. If you were in a spaceship accelerating
at 1g and you were standing on its deck, you would again
feel 1g worth of force on all parts of your body. The
rocket supplied acceleration and its effects would be
indistinguishible from gravity's effects (including
the force "turning off" if you jump into freefall aboard
ship or down a hole on Earth - at least for short excursions!).
That is the equivalence principle at work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:16 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:xYSdnTeV0-D7guHVnZ2dnUVZ_hzinZ2d@comcast.com
| Quote: |
resonant frequency of an imbalanced spin.
Do you know that actually changes with accelerations?
Do you know that is what is "being counted"
I am bummed that not one person has any classical mechanics
smarts here at all.
|
No, it is not. It is a hyperfine quantum transition
which has essentially no direct counterpart in
classical mechanics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
97 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
