Re: Evidences showing that time dilation does not exist: Universal definition of the second of atomic time
- From: PD <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 05:34:10 -0800 (PST)
GeeOn Jan 12, 7:08 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 11, 11:13 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 10, 2:39 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
1. Quantum zeno effect.
Apply quantum Zeno effect corrections to
cosmic-ray muons moving through Earth's atmosphere,
and once done there is no room for any time dilation
whatsoever.
2. Hyperfine structure splittings are gravitational
potential-dependent and CMB-dependent. Both phenomena
produce additional hyperfine transitions. Consequences
of these phenomena are:
2.1. Atomic clocks at high gravitational potentials
tick faster than those at low gravitational potentials.
2.2 The faster an atomic clock moves through CMB frame, the
slower it ticks. An atomic clock at rest in the CMB frame
would tick at the fastest rate.
3. Universal definition of the second of atomic time:
"The duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine
levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom, which is
at rest in the CMB frame and far away from any meaningful
gravitational field."
Sorry, very basic thing here or two:
* An alternate explanation does not show that the prevailing theory is
wrong.
An alternate explanation shows that the prevailing theory
will be progressively abandoned, if that alternative explanation
is telling us about the real cause that produces the phenomenon.
In the case of time dilation, it is very amusing to see how
time dilation has no physical mechanism, and it just a mere
interpretation.
* The definition of the second is a *local* definition, applicable to
a clock that is stationary relative to the observer. The absence of
that qualification does not imply that the definition is to be taken
as frame-independent.
The definition of the second as
"The duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine
levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom."
is a stupid definition if it results that those hyperfine levels
can be split or even be reduced for locations in different
gravitational potentials. Why? Obviously, if the transition
frequency are affected by additional hyperfine splittings or
by a reduction of those splittings, then that yields a larger
or shorter second at the end.
That's why the standard is a LOCAL standard and does not apply to a
clock at a different gravitational potential or in a different
inertial reference frame. It is a standard that comes with an
instruction booklet that warrants the validity of the standard only if
used locally and in the observer's inertial reference frame. I really
don't care if you find that to be a stupid limitation on the standard,
and neither does NIST.
* The quantum Zeno effect requires decoherence interactions, which is
not something that is obviously present with cosmic ray muons. You are
attempting to defeat unitary time evolution wherever you see fit.
A muon travelling through the Earth's atmosphere is being measured
by the dispersive medium.
No, it's not. The "dispersive medium" is being *ignored* in the
measurement. For reference, the same dilation of muons occurs for
muons traveling in an evacuated beampipe.
The higher the moun speed wrt the medium
the higher the rate of measurements per second. That, translated
to a quantum Zeno effect, yields a larger muon lifetime.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Evidences showing that time dilation does not exist: Universal definition of the second of atomic time
- From: Albertito
- Re: Evidences showing that time dilation does not exist: Universal definition of the second of atomic time
- From: PD
- Re: Evidences showing that time dilation does not exist: Universal definition of the second of atomic time
- From: Albertito
- Evidences showing that time dilation does not exist: Universal definition of the second of atomic time
- Prev by Date: Re: Evidences showing that time dilation does not exist: Universal definition of the second of atomic time
- Next by Date: Re: Galilean transformation equations
- Previous by thread: Re: Evidences showing that time dilation does not exist: Universal definition of the second of atomic time
- Next by thread: Re: Evidences showing that time dilation does not exist: Universal definition of the second of atomic time
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
