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" <mfe...@eozinc.com> To: "'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement'" <time-nuts@febo.com> 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 <golgarfrinc...@gmail.com> > 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.
