Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS
Hi John,
I hadn't run into this idea before, and I like it. But I have a problem with
the statement:. "If you move through space at 100,000,000 meters per second in
space, then your velocity in the t direction is 283,000,000 meters per second
(because sqrt(100E6^2 + 283E6^2) = 300E6.)" The problem is that your velocity
in the t direction remains the same to yourself, because your velocity as
compared to yourself is always zero. So, yes, velocity with respect to some
other object does change the rate of time as compared to that other object.
But, as is understood from reading your whole post, time is always moving at
the same rate for the one observing himself.
Bob
From: John Miles
To: 'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement'
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS
So, here's how I finally grokked this stuff. c, the speed of light in a
vacuum, is often spoken of as a "speed limit" that nothing can ever exceed.
That's a bad way to put it, and people who have expressed it that way in
popular science writing for 100 years should feel bad.
Instead, the way to visualize relativity is to realize that c is the *only*
speed at which anything can travel. You are always moving at 300,000,000
meters per second, whether you want to or not. But you're doing it through all
four dimensions including time. If you choose to remain stationary in (x,y,z),
then all of your velocity is in the t direction. If you move through space at
100,000,000 meters per second in space, then your velocity in the t direction
is 283,000,000 meters per second (because sqrt(100E6^2 + 283E6^2) = 300E6.)
It doesn't make sense to speak of moving a certain number of "meters" through
time, so your location in time itself is what has to change. You won't
perceive any drift in your personal timebase when you move in space, any more
than you will perceive a change in your location relative to yourself. ("No
matter where you go, there you are.") But an independent observer will see a
person who's moving at 100,000,000 meters per second in x,y,z and 283,000,000
meters per second in t. They see you moving in space, in the form of a
location change, and they also see you moving in time, in the form of a
disagreement between their perception of elapsed time and your own.
Likewise, if you spend all of your velocity allowance in (x,y,z), your t
component is necessarily zero. Among other inconvenient effects that occur at
dt/dt=0, you won't get any closer to your destination, even though your own
watch is still ticking normally. Particles moving near c experience this
effect from their point of view, even while we watch them smash into their
targets at unimaginable speeds.
This is special relativity in action. The insight behind general relativity is
twofold: 1) movement caused by the acceleration of gravity is
indistinguishable from movement caused by anything else; and 2) you don't even
have to move, just feel the acceleration. That second part was what really
baked peoples' noodles. It is what's responsible for the disagreement between
the two 5071As.
-- john, KE5FX
Miles Design LLC
> Hi Mike,
>
> The time rate does remain the same - at the device. The problem is the idea
> that it is the hyperfine transitions that determine the time...
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS
Or, you could just stay at high elevation for a longer period of time and make the travel time less significant. -Chuck Harris Arthur Dent wrote: Tom wrote: "I'll make just a one word correction to your summary. The clocks run a bit faster not because of "the spinning earth" but because of "the earth"." You are correct, I misspoke. While that point may have been wrong I did check the elevation of Mount Sunapee and it is indeed at 2726 feet as measured by USGS and others. When I posted before I 'assumed' the researchers were from MIT or one of the Boston area schools (or UNH) and would therefore be at sea level. Rewatching the video they do say that the second clock is at sea level but they don't mention where they are. The drive up to the base of the mountain would probably be 1 to 1.5 hours so the 1st clock didn't go from sea level to 2726 feet instantaneously so during that travel time it was probably at an average of about 500' which is near the average elevation in New Hampshire. If the experiment had been conducted in the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, United Arab Emirates and the elevator could go from sea level to about 2000 feet, which may be the top floor, the experiment might be more exact because you'd eliminate the travel time. -Arthur ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
[time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS
Tom wrote: "I'll make just a one word correction to your summary. The clocks run a bit faster not because of "the spinning earth" but because of "the earth"." You are correct, I misspoke. While that point may have been wrong I did check the elevation of Mount Sunapee and it is indeed at 2726 feet as measured by USGS and others. When I posted before I 'assumed' the researchers were from MIT or one of the Boston area schools (or UNH) and would therefore be at sea level. Rewatching the video they do say that the second clock is at sea level but they don't mention where they are. The drive up to the base of the mountain would probably be 1 to 1.5 hours so the 1st clock didn't go from sea level to 2726 feet instantaneously so during that travel time it was probably at an average of about 500' which is near the average elevation in New Hampshire. If the experiment had been conducted in the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, United Arab Emirates and the elevator could go from sea level to about 2000 feet, which may be the top floor, the experiment might be more exact because you'd eliminate the travel time. -Arthur ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS
A lot of BBC Horizon episodes are broadcast in the states as Nova, and visa versa. (Often with different narrators and sometimes localized content.) So it's possible this one will make it to the other side of the pond too. I'm pretty sure the bulk of this one was filmed by WGBH (choice of Microsemi formely Symmetricom in NH and New Hampshire mountain). Tim N3QE On Friday, November 27, 2015, Mr Smiley via time-nuts wrote: > Here in the UK, regarding the link below, I get > > " Were Sorry but this video is not available in your region due to right > restrictions" > > So much for science being universal. > > > > On 27/11/15 14:55, Tom Van Baak wrote: > >> Thanks, Joe. I thought it was well done. Note the show (length 53:07) is >> also online: >> >> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/inside-einsteins-mind.html >> "Inside Einstein's Mind - Retrace the thought experiments that inspired >> his theory on the nature of reality." >> >> If you want to skip ahead past the historical acting and modern talking >> head stuff, the 5071A experiment runs from 39:11 to 40:54. >> >> I'll contact Microsemi and find out how much was real and how much was >> staged. I mention this because Discovery channel contacted me a few years >> ago about my Mt Rainier 5071A experiment and when they wanted me to fudge >> things for their camera people I told them I wasn't interested. >> >> /tvb >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Joe Leikhim" >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 6:35 PM >> Subject: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS >> >> >> There is a great special about Einstein on PBS. I think there are two >>> episodes. I watched one, near the end there was some definite >>> time-nuttery going on with portable HP cesium clocks >>> >>> -- >>> Joe Leikhim >>> >> ___ >> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com >> To unsubscribe, go to >> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts >> and follow the instructions there. >> > > ___ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS
So, here's how I finally grokked this stuff. c, the speed of light in a
vacuum, is often spoken of as a "speed limit" that nothing can ever exceed.
That's a bad way to put it, and people who have expressed it that way in
popular science writing for 100 years should feel bad.
Instead, the way to visualize relativity is to realize that c is the *only*
speed at which anything can travel. You are always moving at 300,000,000
meters per second, whether you want to or not. But you're doing it through all
four dimensions including time. If you choose to remain stationary in (x,y,z),
then all of your velocity is in the t direction. If you move through space at
100,000,000 meters per second in space, then your velocity in the t direction
is 283,000,000 meters per second (because sqrt(100E6^2 + 283E6^2) = 300E6.)
It doesn't make sense to speak of moving a certain number of "meters" through
time, so your location in time itself is what has to change. You won't
perceive any drift in your personal timebase when you move in space, any more
than you will perceive a change in your location relative to yourself. ("No
matter where you go, there you are.") But an independent observer will see a
person who's moving at 100,000,000 meters per second in x,y,z and 283,000,000
meters per second in t. They see you moving in space, in the form of a
location change, and they also see you moving in time, in the form of a
disagreement between their perception of elapsed time and your own.
Likewise, if you spend all of your velocity allowance in (x,y,z), your t
component is necessarily zero. Among other inconvenient effects that occur at
dt/dt=0, you won't get any closer to your destination, even though your own
watch is still ticking normally. Particles moving near c experience this
effect from their point of view, even while we watch them smash into their
targets at unimaginable speeds.
This is special relativity in action. The insight behind general relativity is
twofold: 1) movement caused by the acceleration of gravity is
indistinguishable from movement caused by anything else; and 2) you don't even
have to move, just feel the acceleration. That second part was what really
baked peoples' noodles. It is what's responsible for the disagreement between
the two 5071As.
-- john, KE5FX
Miles Design LLC
> Hi Mike,
>
> The time rate does remain the same - at the device. The problem is the idea
> that it is the hyperfine transitions that determine the time...
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS
Hi Tom - It has been a while. Well, I guess I am not in bad company if you struggled with this as well. I also like your take on it and will think some more, but it helped. So, if frequency remains the same, then d(phi)/d(t) ratio remains the same and both phase and time must change. Also, the concept that the number of transitions as a function of elevation (gravity) makes very good sense and of course would explain my dilemma. However, I am sure there is still something I am missing. Thanks & Regards - Mike Mike B. Feher, EOZ Inc. 89 Arnold Blvd. Howell, NJ, 07731 732-886-5960 office 908-902-3831 cell -Original Message- From: time-nuts [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Tom Van Baak Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 1:18 PM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS Hi Mike, It's a good question and I've wrestled with it too. I see two choices: 1) Time is stable and every ultra-precise timing measurement of atomic behavior appears to depend on gravity. 2) Every ultra-precise timing measurement of atomic behavior is stable, and Time appears to depend on gravity. My impression is they are both equivalent and indistinguishable. Practical people like to use #1, for example, the SI second is defined as 9,192,631,770 Hz specifically and only at mean sea level on planet earth; national laboratories, and some time nuts, correct their clocks for elevation. By contrast, astronomers and physicists use #2 because it make everything simpler and universal. So you can say that a cesium clock ticks at 9,192,631,770 Hz +/- some function of gravity and velocity, or you can say that a cesium clock always ticks at 9,192,631,770 Hz in its "own reference frame". But either way, if you leave a clock on a mountain for a while, it comes back the same frequency it left. So what we measure is not the frequency, but the time (clock phase). The time the clock displays contains the sum total history of all frequency changes during the trip. You can't tell this during the trip, since the clock always thinks it is running at a constant and correct rate, wherever it is. /tvb - Original Message - From: "Mike Feher" To: "'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement'" Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 7:37 AM Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS >I just do not get it. I know that now I am 70 and my good smart days are >behind me, but, this should be simple. In all these clocks mentioned, time is >derived from the transition of a hyperfine line of a certain atom within some >element, in this case cesium, In order for any of these clocks to deviate in >relative time at different heights for example, it seems to me that the period >of the hyperfine transitions must change as well, to make the defined second >longer or shorter. So, in these examples the elevation does not change the >time, but the way the atoms behave. What obvious item am I missing, besides >maybe brain capacity? Thanks - Mike > > Mike B. Feher, EOZ Inc. > 89 Arnold Blvd. > Howell, NJ, 07731 > 732-886-5960 office > 908-902-3831 cell > > > -Original Message- > From: time-nuts [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Tim Shoppa > Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 9:19 AM > To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS > > Would've been more fun to see Tom and his kids going to the top of Mt Ranier > in 2005 with the ensemble :-). http://leapsecond.com/great2005/ > > They mentioned some "6 miles per day" offset due to GPS relativity effects. > I think this is the sum of both special relativity (time dilation) and > general relativity (gravitational) effects. The GR correction is 45 > microseconds a day fast; the SR correction is 7 microseconds slow. 38 > microseconds seconds is 11 kilometers which is indeed 6 or 7 miles. While > time drifts 38 microseconds a day, I'm not sure that GPS coordinates would > drift that fast - aren't most of the corrections in the same direction? > > Seeing Kip Thorne describe black holes was a blast - he refused to use the > word mass when describing them, just like when I took a course from him in > 1990. When my advisor taught the same course, I pleaded with him, "please use > coordinates!". (Kip Thorne loves coordinate-free notation, unfortunately my > brain does not work that way!!! I would've failed the course if it was only > GR; fortunately it also had plasma physics in the same quarter, and I was an > ace at that due to some undergraduate work.) > > Tim N3QE > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Arthur Dent > wrote: > >> In the special it looks like they used two HP5071A standards, an >> SRS620 counter, and a scope. They first made sure the stds were in >> sync then took one to the building at the top of the ski lift on New >> Hampshire's Mount Sunapee at 2726' elevation for 4 days where
Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS
Hi Mike, It's a good question and I've wrestled with it too. I see two choices: 1) Time is stable and every ultra-precise timing measurement of atomic behavior appears to depend on gravity. 2) Every ultra-precise timing measurement of atomic behavior is stable, and Time appears to depend on gravity. My impression is they are both equivalent and indistinguishable. Practical people like to use #1, for example, the SI second is defined as 9,192,631,770 Hz specifically and only at mean sea level on planet earth; national laboratories, and some time nuts, correct their clocks for elevation. By contrast, astronomers and physicists use #2 because it make everything simpler and universal. So you can say that a cesium clock ticks at 9,192,631,770 Hz +/- some function of gravity and velocity, or you can say that a cesium clock always ticks at 9,192,631,770 Hz in its "own reference frame". But either way, if you leave a clock on a mountain for a while, it comes back the same frequency it left. So what we measure is not the frequency, but the time (clock phase). The time the clock displays contains the sum total history of all frequency changes during the trip. You can't tell this during the trip, since the clock always thinks it is running at a constant and correct rate, wherever it is. /tvb - Original Message - From: "Mike Feher" To: "'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement'" Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 7:37 AM Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS >I just do not get it. I know that now I am 70 and my good smart days are >behind me, but, this should be simple. In all these clocks mentioned, time is >derived from the transition of a hyperfine line of a certain atom within some >element, in this case cesium, In order for any of these clocks to deviate in >relative time at different heights for example, it seems to me that the period >of the hyperfine transitions must change as well, to make the defined second >longer or shorter. So, in these examples the elevation does not change the >time, but the way the atoms behave. What obvious item am I missing, besides >maybe brain capacity? Thanks - Mike > > Mike B. Feher, EOZ Inc. > 89 Arnold Blvd. > Howell, NJ, 07731 > 732-886-5960 office > 908-902-3831 cell > > > -Original Message- > From: time-nuts [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Tim Shoppa > Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 9:19 AM > To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS > > Would've been more fun to see Tom and his kids going to the top of Mt Ranier > in 2005 with the ensemble :-). http://leapsecond.com/great2005/ > > They mentioned some "6 miles per day" offset due to GPS relativity effects. > I think this is the sum of both special relativity (time dilation) and > general relativity (gravitational) effects. The GR correction is 45 > microseconds a day fast; the SR correction is 7 microseconds slow. 38 > microseconds seconds is 11 kilometers which is indeed 6 or 7 miles. While > time drifts 38 microseconds a day, I'm not sure that GPS coordinates would > drift that fast - aren't most of the corrections in the same direction? > > Seeing Kip Thorne describe black holes was a blast - he refused to use the > word mass when describing them, just like when I took a course from him in > 1990. When my advisor taught the same course, I pleaded with him, "please use > coordinates!". (Kip Thorne loves coordinate-free notation, unfortunately my > brain does not work that way!!! I would've failed the course if it was only > GR; fortunately it also had plasma physics in the same quarter, and I was an > ace at that due to some undergraduate work.) > > Tim N3QE > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Arthur Dent > wrote: > >> In the special it looks like they used two HP5071A standards, an >> SRS620 counter, and a scope. They first made sure the stds were in >> sync then took one to the building at the top of the ski lift on New >> Hampshire's Mount Sunapee at 2726' elevation for 4 days where it would >> be running a little faster because it would be slightly further from >> the center of the spinning earth. After bringing the 5071A back from >> the top of the mountain they checked the difference in the start of >> square waves displayed on the scope and detected the 5071A at altitude >> was now 20ns ahead of the 5071A kept at sea level, as predicted, if I >> understood everything correctly. They explained that the clocks in the >> GPS satellites traveling at a much higher speed had to correct for the >> speed difference which also verified Einstein's theory. >> >> My wife and I were on the top of Mt. Sunapee this summer where we >> enjoyed the views but didn't run any experiments. ;-) >> >> -Arthur ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS
Hi Mike, The time rate does remain the same - at the device. The problem is the idea that it is the hyperfine transitions that determine the time. They are only a measurement of the time in that environment. So, if the rate of time is different at two locations, you will never see it *at* either location, because the clocks will run at the proper speed in either location; even though the rates are actually different between the two locations. Since you are actually *at* that location, you can't tell that time runs at a different rate. It is only by comparing the clocks in two different locations that you can determine the difference in space-time between these two locations. If you are falling into a black hole, your watch will not appear to slow down to you. You will still experience time as if you were sitting on your doorstep at home. (Ignoring the effects of spaghettification, or course.) But generations of people back on earth would live and die for each tick of your watch. Bob From: Mike Feher To: 'Bob Stewart' ; 'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement' Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 12:10 PM Subject: RE: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS Bob - Thanks for attempting to make me see the light. But, I still do not. You said it yourself that hyperfine transitions remain the same. Since "time" on these device are derived from these transitions, they should also remain the same. I agree, from a relativistic point of vie the time will be different. I am just not convinced that using these types of clocks will demonstrate that. Thanks - Mike Mike B. Feher, EOZ Inc. 89 Arnold Blvd. Howell, NJ, 07731 732-886-5960 office 908-902-3831 cell ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS
Bob - Thanks for attempting to make me see the light. But, I still do not. You said it yourself that hyperfine transitions remain the same. Since "time" on these device are derived from these transitions, they should also remain the same. I agree, from a relativistic point of vie the time will be different. I am just not convinced that using these types of clocks will demonstrate that. Thanks - Mike Mike B. Feher, EOZ Inc. 89 Arnold Blvd. Howell, NJ, 07731 732-886-5960 office 908-902-3831 cell -Original Message- From: time-nuts [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Bob Stewart Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 12:48 PM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS Hi Mike, I'm far from an expert on this, but what you're missing is that time and space isn't the same between any two points that are located in different gravity gradients and/or moving at different relative velocities. The hyperfine transitions are happening at the same local rate whether the Cs device is on planet earth, in orbit around the earth, or in close proximity to the sun or even a black hole. But, all of these examples are happening in different space-time environments (i.e. different local frames), so that "relative" to each other, they are experiencing time at different rates. It might help to think of it in terms of doppler effect, though this is not an exact comparison. But, if you have two clocks that are moving away from each other, they may very well be precisely synchronous, but because of the doppler effect, any measurement you make will show them to be running at different rates. Because of the effects of gravity, watches at different altitudes appear to run at different rates to the outsider, although to the person wearing the watch, nothing has actually changed; it is the other person's watch that is acting funny. So, essentially, a clock sitting on the ground at sea level is running in a very slightly different space time than one that is sitting on a mountain. And when you place a clock in orbit, you also have 14,000 odd MPH of velocity that's also having an impact on the space-time of that object. As a result, when you bring the prodigal clock back to sea level, it will have experienced a slightly different amount of time than the one at sea level. Note that the prodigal clock hasn't run at a different rate. It has actually experienced time running at a different rate from that of the clock on the ground. Bob From: Mike Feher To: 'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement' Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS I just do not get it. I know that now I am 70 and my good smart days are behind me, but, this should be simple. In all these clocks mentioned, time is derived from the transition of a hyperfine line of a certain atom within some element, in this case cesium, In order for any of these clocks to deviate in relative time at different heights for example, it seems to me that the period of the hyperfine transitions must change as well, to make the defined second longer or shorter. So, in these examples the elevation does not change the time, but the way the atoms behave. What obvious item am I missing, besides maybe brain capacity? Thanks - Mike Mike B. Feher, EOZ Inc. 89 Arnold Blvd. Howell, NJ, 07731 732-886-5960 office 908-902-3831 cell -Original Message- From: time-nuts [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Tim Shoppa Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 9:19 AM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS Would've been more fun to see Tom and his kids going to the top of Mt Ranier in 2005 with the ensemble :-). http://leapsecond.com/great2005/ They mentioned some "6 miles per day" offset due to GPS relativity effects. I think this is the sum of both special relativity (time dilation) and general relativity (gravitational) effects. The GR correction is 45 microseconds a day fast; the SR correction is 7 microseconds slow. 38 microseconds seconds is 11 kilometers which is indeed 6 or 7 miles. While time drifts 38 microseconds a day, I'm not sure that GPS coordinates would drift that fast - aren't most of the corrections in the same direction? Seeing Kip Thorne describe black holes was a blast - he refused to use the word mass when describing them, just like when I took a course from him in 1990. When my advisor taught the same course, I pleaded with him, "please use coordinates!". (Kip Thorne loves coordinate-free notation, unfortunately my brain does not work that way!!! I would've failed the course if it was only GR; fortunately it also had plasma physics in the same quarter, and I was an ace at that due to some undergraduate work.) Tim N3QE On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Arthur Dent wrote: > In the special it
Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS
Here in the UK, regarding the link below, I get " Were Sorry but this video is not available in your region due to right restrictions" So much for science being universal. On 27/11/15 14:55, Tom Van Baak wrote: Thanks, Joe. I thought it was well done. Note the show (length 53:07) is also online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/inside-einsteins-mind.html "Inside Einstein's Mind - Retrace the thought experiments that inspired his theory on the nature of reality." If you want to skip ahead past the historical acting and modern talking head stuff, the 5071A experiment runs from 39:11 to 40:54. I'll contact Microsemi and find out how much was real and how much was staged. I mention this because Discovery channel contacted me a few years ago about my Mt Rainier 5071A experiment and when they wanted me to fudge things for their camera people I told them I wasn't interested. /tvb - Original Message - From: "Joe Leikhim" To: Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 6:35 PM Subject: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS There is a great special about Einstein on PBS. I think there are two episodes. I watched one, near the end there was some definite time-nuttery going on with portable HP cesium clocks -- Joe Leikhim ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS
Hi Mike, I'm far from an expert on this, but what you're missing is that time and space isn't the same between any two points that are located in different gravity gradients and/or moving at different relative velocities. The hyperfine transitions are happening at the same local rate whether the Cs device is on planet earth, in orbit around the earth, or in close proximity to the sun or even a black hole. But, all of these examples are happening in different space-time environments (i.e. different local frames), so that "relative" to each other, they are experiencing time at different rates. It might help to think of it in terms of doppler effect, though this is not an exact comparison. But, if you have two clocks that are moving away from each other, they may very well be precisely synchronous, but because of the doppler effect, any measurement you make will show them to be running at different rates. Because of the effects of gravity, watches at different altitudes appear to run at different rates to the outsider, although to the person wearing the watch, nothing has actually changed; it is the other person's watch that is acting funny. So, essentially, a clock sitting on the ground at sea level is running in a very slightly different space time than one that is sitting on a mountain. And when you place a clock in orbit, you also have 14,000 odd MPH of velocity that's also having an impact on the space-time of that object. As a result, when you bring the prodigal clock back to sea level, it will have experienced a slightly different amount of time than the one at sea level. Note that the prodigal clock hasn't run at a different rate. It has actually experienced time running at a different rate from that of the clock on the ground. Bob From: Mike Feher To: 'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement' Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS I just do not get it. I know that now I am 70 and my good smart days are behind me, but, this should be simple. In all these clocks mentioned, time is derived from the transition of a hyperfine line of a certain atom within some element, in this case cesium, In order for any of these clocks to deviate in relative time at different heights for example, it seems to me that the period of the hyperfine transitions must change as well, to make the defined second longer or shorter. So, in these examples the elevation does not change the time, but the way the atoms behave. What obvious item am I missing, besides maybe brain capacity? Thanks - Mike Mike B. Feher, EOZ Inc. 89 Arnold Blvd. Howell, NJ, 07731 732-886-5960 office 908-902-3831 cell -Original Message- From: time-nuts [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Tim Shoppa Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 9:19 AM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS Would've been more fun to see Tom and his kids going to the top of Mt Ranier in 2005 with the ensemble :-). http://leapsecond.com/great2005/ They mentioned some "6 miles per day" offset due to GPS relativity effects. I think this is the sum of both special relativity (time dilation) and general relativity (gravitational) effects. The GR correction is 45 microseconds a day fast; the SR correction is 7 microseconds slow. 38 microseconds seconds is 11 kilometers which is indeed 6 or 7 miles. While time drifts 38 microseconds a day, I'm not sure that GPS coordinates would drift that fast - aren't most of the corrections in the same direction? Seeing Kip Thorne describe black holes was a blast - he refused to use the word mass when describing them, just like when I took a course from him in 1990. When my advisor taught the same course, I pleaded with him, "please use coordinates!". (Kip Thorne loves coordinate-free notation, unfortunately my brain does not work that way!!! I would've failed the course if it was only GR; fortunately it also had plasma physics in the same quarter, and I was an ace at that due to some undergraduate work.) Tim N3QE On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Arthur Dent wrote: > In the special it looks like they used two HP5071A standards, an > SRS620 counter, and a scope. They first made sure the stds were in > sync then took one to the building at the top of the ski lift on New > Hampshire's Mount Sunapee at 2726' elevation for 4 days where it would > be running a little faster because it would be slightly further from > the center of the spinning earth. After bringing the 5071A back from > the top of the mountain they checked the difference in the start of > square waves displayed on the scope and detected the 5071A at altitude > was now 20ns ahead of the 5071A kept at sea level, as predicted, if I > understood everything correctly. They explained that the clocks in the > GPS satellites traveling at a much higher speed had to cor
Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS
Hi Arthur, That's a good summary. I'm glad you got to visit the mountain. Did you happen to check the elevation? Are there lodges along the road on the way up? I ask because at 2726 feet a clock will run 9.0e-14 fast (compared with sea level), which is 7.8 ns/day, or 31 ns over 4 days. But they measured 20 ns. So either they didn't stay close to 4 days, or they didn't stay close to the summit or maybe their clock rate was off or they didn't use a high-perf 5071A, or something. I'll make just a one word correction to your summary. The clocks run a bit faster not because of "the spinning earth" but because of "the earth". In other words, the clocks are experiencing a gravitational effect not a velocity effect. Gravity is a tiny bit less as you rise in elevation and this is what the clocks experience. Presumably the experiment would work fine even if the earth did not spin at all, or spun backwards. What's confusing is that in articles about relativity and shows like this, they talk about speed and trains and light and stuff (SR, special relativity) and so people are pre-disposed to be thinking in those terms. Worse yet, we know outer points of spinning objects have greater tangential speed than inner points so again people think of speed. There's mention of satellites, also high speed. But the main thing that is affecting the clocks at home vs. mountain is simply gravity. With a stationary clock at home and a stationary clock on the mountain, there's no velocity to talk about. The situation with airplanes and rockets and satellites is different; in these cases there is a large and combined gravitational and velocity effect. /tvb > In the special it looks like they used two HP5071A standards, an > SRS620 counter, and a scope. They first made sure the stds were > in sync then took one to the building at the top of the ski lift > on New Hampshire's Mount Sunapee at 2726' elevation for 4 days > where it would be running a little faster because it would be > slightly further from the center of the spinning earth. After > bringing the 5071A back from the top of the mountain they checked > the difference in the start of square waves displayed on the scope > and detected the 5071A at altitude was now 20ns ahead of the > 5071A kept at sea level, as predicted, if I understood everything > correctly. They explained that the clocks in the GPS satellites > traveling at a much higher speed had to correct for the speed > difference which also verified Einstein's theory. > > My wife and I were on the top of Mt. Sunapee this summer where we > enjoyed the views but didn't run any experiments. ;-) > > -Arthur ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS
> They mentioned some "6 miles per day" offset due to GPS relativity effects. > I think this is the sum of both special relativity (time dilation) and > general relativity (gravitational) effects. The GR correction is 45 > microseconds a day fast; the SR correction is 7 microseconds slow. 38 > microseconds seconds is 11 kilometers which is indeed 6 or 7 miles. While > time drifts 38 microseconds a day, I'm not sure that GPS coordinates would > drift that fast - aren't most of the corrections in the same direction? Hi Tim, Correct. Here's from the "rel" program (in my http://leapsecond.com/tools/ folder): C:\tvb\NPR>rel 2km 14000kph ** Altitude 2000.000 m (65616797.900 ft, 12427.424 mi) 5.274e-010 blueshift 1898630.424377 ps/hour 45567.130185 ns/day ** Velocity 3888.889 m/s (14000.000 km/h, 8699.197 mph) -8.414e-011 redshift -302888.070815 ps/hour -7269.313700 ns/day ** Net effect (GR+SR) 4.433e-010 shift 1595742.353562 ps/hour 38297.816485 ns/day What this means is that as a *source of UTC*, GPS would in fact be off by 38 us per day if you forgot about relativity when you designed it. But, you're right, you cannot blindly turn that "38 us/day" into "11 km/day". As long as *all* the GPS clocks are running too fast or too slow and as long as the receivers know what that offset is, the navigation system would still work just fine, relativity or not. This is true for any sort of triangulation (actually, trilateration) system. GPS is a PNT (Position, Navigation, and Timing) system. So while GPS is really cool, and relativity is really cool, the navigation part of GPS does not "depend" on relativity, per-se. /tvb ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS
I just do not get it. I know that now I am 70 and my good smart days are behind me, but, this should be simple. In all these clocks mentioned, time is derived from the transition of a hyperfine line of a certain atom within some element, in this case cesium, In order for any of these clocks to deviate in relative time at different heights for example, it seems to me that the period of the hyperfine transitions must change as well, to make the defined second longer or shorter. So, in these examples the elevation does not change the time, but the way the atoms behave. What obvious item am I missing, besides maybe brain capacity? Thanks - Mike Mike B. Feher, EOZ Inc. 89 Arnold Blvd. Howell, NJ, 07731 732-886-5960 office 908-902-3831 cell -Original Message- From: time-nuts [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Tim Shoppa Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 9:19 AM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS Would've been more fun to see Tom and his kids going to the top of Mt Ranier in 2005 with the ensemble :-). http://leapsecond.com/great2005/ They mentioned some "6 miles per day" offset due to GPS relativity effects. I think this is the sum of both special relativity (time dilation) and general relativity (gravitational) effects. The GR correction is 45 microseconds a day fast; the SR correction is 7 microseconds slow. 38 microseconds seconds is 11 kilometers which is indeed 6 or 7 miles. While time drifts 38 microseconds a day, I'm not sure that GPS coordinates would drift that fast - aren't most of the corrections in the same direction? Seeing Kip Thorne describe black holes was a blast - he refused to use the word mass when describing them, just like when I took a course from him in 1990. When my advisor taught the same course, I pleaded with him, "please use coordinates!". (Kip Thorne loves coordinate-free notation, unfortunately my brain does not work that way!!! I would've failed the course if it was only GR; fortunately it also had plasma physics in the same quarter, and I was an ace at that due to some undergraduate work.) Tim N3QE On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Arthur Dent wrote: > In the special it looks like they used two HP5071A standards, an > SRS620 counter, and a scope. They first made sure the stds were in > sync then took one to the building at the top of the ski lift on New > Hampshire's Mount Sunapee at 2726' elevation for 4 days where it would > be running a little faster because it would be slightly further from > the center of the spinning earth. After bringing the 5071A back from > the top of the mountain they checked the difference in the start of > square waves displayed on the scope and detected the 5071A at altitude > was now 20ns ahead of the 5071A kept at sea level, as predicted, if I > understood everything correctly. They explained that the clocks in the > GPS satellites traveling at a much higher speed had to correct for the > speed difference which also verified Einstein's theory. > > My wife and I were on the top of Mt. Sunapee this summer where we > enjoyed the views but didn't run any experiments. ;-) > > -Arthur > ___ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS
Would've been more fun to see Tom and his kids going to the top of Mt Ranier in 2005 with the ensemble :-). http://leapsecond.com/great2005/ They mentioned some "6 miles per day" offset due to GPS relativity effects. I think this is the sum of both special relativity (time dilation) and general relativity (gravitational) effects. The GR correction is 45 microseconds a day fast; the SR correction is 7 microseconds slow. 38 microseconds seconds is 11 kilometers which is indeed 6 or 7 miles. While time drifts 38 microseconds a day, I'm not sure that GPS coordinates would drift that fast - aren't most of the corrections in the same direction? Seeing Kip Thorne describe black holes was a blast - he refused to use the word mass when describing them, just like when I took a course from him in 1990. When my advisor taught the same course, I pleaded with him, "please use coordinates!". (Kip Thorne loves coordinate-free notation, unfortunately my brain does not work that way!!! I would've failed the course if it was only GR; fortunately it also had plasma physics in the same quarter, and I was an ace at that due to some undergraduate work.) Tim N3QE On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Arthur Dent wrote: > In the special it looks like they used two HP5071A standards, an > SRS620 counter, and a scope. They first made sure the stds were > in sync then took one to the building at the top of the ski lift > on New Hampshire's Mount Sunapee at 2726' elevation for 4 days > where it would be running a little faster because it would be > slightly further from the center of the spinning earth. After > bringing the 5071A back from the top of the mountain they checked > the difference in the start of square waves displayed on the scope > and detected the 5071A at altitude was now 20ns ahead of the > 5071A kept at sea level, as predicted, if I understood everything > correctly. They explained that the clocks in the GPS satellites > traveling at a much higher speed had to correct for the speed > difference which also verified Einstein's theory. > > My wife and I were on the top of Mt. Sunapee this summer where we > enjoyed the views but didn't run any experiments. ;-) > > -Arthur > ___ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS
Thanks, Joe. I thought it was well done. Note the show (length 53:07) is also online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/inside-einsteins-mind.html "Inside Einstein's Mind - Retrace the thought experiments that inspired his theory on the nature of reality." If you want to skip ahead past the historical acting and modern talking head stuff, the 5071A experiment runs from 39:11 to 40:54. I'll contact Microsemi and find out how much was real and how much was staged. I mention this because Discovery channel contacted me a few years ago about my Mt Rainier 5071A experiment and when they wanted me to fudge things for their camera people I told them I wasn't interested. /tvb - Original Message - From: "Joe Leikhim" To: Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 6:35 PM Subject: [time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS > There is a great special about Einstein on PBS. I think there are two > episodes. I watched one, near the end there was some definite > time-nuttery going on with portable HP cesium clocks > > -- > Joe Leikhim ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
[time-nuts] Einstein Special on PBS
In the special it looks like they used two HP5071A standards, an SRS620 counter, and a scope. They first made sure the stds were in sync then took one to the building at the top of the ski lift on New Hampshire's Mount Sunapee at 2726' elevation for 4 days where it would be running a little faster because it would be slightly further from the center of the spinning earth. After bringing the 5071A back from the top of the mountain they checked the difference in the start of square waves displayed on the scope and detected the 5071A at altitude was now 20ns ahead of the 5071A kept at sea level, as predicted, if I understood everything correctly. They explained that the clocks in the GPS satellites traveling at a much higher speed had to correct for the speed difference which also verified Einstein's theory. My wife and I were on the top of Mt. Sunapee this summer where we enjoyed the views but didn't run any experiments. ;-) -Arthur ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
