Breaking the Universe's Speed Limit

Georgina Woodward

Atomic clocks function in a different way to the light clock in the thought experiment. Some info.on atomic clocks, Atomic Clocks A literature study by Cathelijne Glaser 2015, pdf

They are prone to many different kinds of noise and do not travel well. It isn't a simple periodic motion being measured out but sampling the behaviour of a population of atoms or ions.

I don't think that atomic clock timekeeping when travelling verifies the Pythagorean argument used with the light clock thought experiment.

Georgina Woodward

As the diagonal seen light paths of the light clock are seen, they must be the product of processing received EMr by the observer (not the EMr travelling between the mirrors with wave motion ).It is not comparing same categories of phenomenon when trying to replicate the calculated slowing of time shown by the light clock argument by using a beable (independent of observation) phenomenon i.e. the behaviour of the population of atoms or ions whose frequency is used in the atomic clock timekeeping.

The calculation being Pythagorean mathematics on the seen diagonal light paths. This looks like another category differentiation error, as the seen (light clock) phenomenon and the independently happening (in the atomic clock) phenomena have been treated as if comparable.

Marcel-Marie LeBel

Looking at the very small and the very large, one definite conclusion comes to my mind. The universe does not exist; it happens.

This gives us a very particular context for everything we observe and everything we know from observing. This quiet and dark place we call space or vacuum is just time sizzling away...

Marcel,

Georgina Woodward

The configuration or pattern of all that exists can be considered,and it is continually changing, so the pattern of existence is happening not static.

Marcel-Marie LeBel

To measure time is to measure the local rate of evolution of spontaneous processes. This is why we trust spontaneous processes for the measure of time. The sand falling in the hourglass, the mechanical relaxation of a quartz crystal, the spontaneous electronic transition in some atoms...etc.

But atomic clocks have retroactive corrective processes built-in. Is this taking us away from true local spontaneous time? In that sense, is the atomic clock a source of precise time rather than an actual time measuring device?

Marcel,

Georgina Woodward

It is a time keeping device, intended to generate stable, reliable intervals, not an external world time (time itself) measuring device.

Marcel-Marie LeBel

The answer is no. The atomic clock does measure the relative local rate of time, with precision. The experiments with the same atomic clock at different altitudes show the expected local difference in the rate of evolution of time. (Does sound like a monologue)

Marcel,

Georgina Woodward

The atomic clock does generate an output related to the behaviour of a population of particles that are affected by the local conditions they experience. Such things as electric fields, magnetic fields, temperature and disturbance of the clock can affect timekeeping (not time), as can gravitational pull.

Georgina Woodward

To be more precise: the product of measurement of the behaviour of a collection of beable particles is being compared against the calculation on the seen manifestation of a light beam. A manifestation that has to have been generated by the observer from received EMr. These are categorically different not just variants of the same type of phenomenon.

Georgina Woodward

Re. Hafele-Keating experiment: the atomic clocks were compared on the ground after the experiment and had differences in shown time. That indicates that their timekeeping has been affected. It doesn't confirm Special Relativity is the cause. A co moving observer of the light clock would have to see time passing just the same as a stationary observer of the stationary clock. So it isn't timekeeping of the clock itself that is altered but how it is being seen when a stationary observer views the moving clock. The EMr traveling between the mirrors (rather than the seen manifestation) ought to be invariant with translation, as it is translation of periodic motion. Also the EMr passing between the mirrors would be the source of EMr used in generation of observations of a still clock observer and a co moving who must see the same rate of tick (according to special Relativity).

Georgina Woodward

Back on the ground; Some of the time difference of the atomic clocks is attributable to the difference in exposure to gravity (I agree that that is a plausible environmental effect on the system). The rest was attributed to Special Relativity. Even though the numbers seem close to the predictions it doesn't support the background theory. The prediction ought to be that difference could be observed by a stationary observer but back on the ground there has been no change in timekeeping due to Special Relativity during the flight that has altered the readout of the clock itself. The light clock argument is about what is seen by different observers not about change to the beable clock itself.

Georgina Woodward

Note. Difference in exposure to gravity is a plausible environmental effect on the system. I am not saying difference in regions of spacetime exposed to is causing the effect. My stance being that spacetime is a product of observation and not the foundational, observer independent, space or time where the physics of beables is happening.

Georgina Woodward

Re. my statement - The light clock argument is about what is seen by different observers not about change to the beable clock itself.

In the light clock argument only the seen is considered and what is actually happening inside the clock is omitted. (See earlier posts for why that is so).

The lack of category differentiation between seen manifestation and existing object introduced in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' Einstein, seems to be carried forward to the experiments to try to provide evidence in favour of Special relativity. Change to a material object being presented as giving evidence for what should be only an observed change due to the observers particular reference frame. that is the observers view, i.e. what the observer has generated from the received signals.

Georgina Woodward

About the light clock thought experiment: Not treating the EMr travelling between the mirrors in the material object clock as a separate category for consideration from what the observers see in their own reference frames (that omission), probably also stems from the original category differentiation error in "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies", Einstein 1905. In which there is no category differentiation between the given methods for train length comparison. Now it can be said, one measurement is of a beable material object, the train itself, (an object not dependent on observation) in space (not dependent on observation), and the other the measurement obtained from observing the seen, observer generated, manifestation of a train in observer generated, seen, spacetime.

Georgina Woodward

Hoping that I have given a clear explanation of the categorization errors and their effects. I would be nice to know what people think as I have invested considerable time in thinking about and setting out the arguments. Is there any confusion or disagreement over what I have written? Does anyone think it was well done/ worthwhile?

« Previous Page