Room-temperature superconductivity?

[johanfprins]

I know previously that you have proposed a gravity free clock test. And I am on board with that idea.

Thanks.

But I also have to ask how you consider the current applied theory regarding the two clock component accounting functions regarding SR and GR. Given that there aer now and have been many clocks in low orbit and high orbit, and that the compensation mechanism in place seperates the SR bit from the GR bit as a function of velocity and gravity seperately, and that this compensation mechanism seems to function quite accurately for all the devices in use, How do you account for the velocity correction requirement as a seperate entity from the gravity correction?

As I have stated many times: Of course both have to be dome for a clock in otbit since both effects are then valid relative to earth. The gravitaional correction is however required because the clock in otbit actually keeps time at a faster rate within the sattelite than it will on earth. The SR correction is NOT required for the same reason since the clock is not actually keeping time slower ON THE SATTELITE, but is observed from erath as it it is keeping time at a slower rate.

That is why a flying clock when returned to earth should only show the increase in time caused by gravity and not the decrease in time relative to earth which has NOT actually occurred within the aeroplane or sattelite. The way they analysed the flying clocks is also not acceptable to me. I do not have the time to return to this aspect now but as far as I remember the analysis involved the Sagnac effect (which we probably do not yet understand) as well as choosing the centre of earth as an extra reference point while in SR the only reference points should be the relative positions of the flying clock and the clock remaining behind: i.e. one must be selected as the stationary clock and the other as the moving clock or vice versa. In fact both viewpoints should be analysed and then compared.

I know SR is a fascinating subject, but I must now give all my attention rather to generate faster processor chips that also produce minimal heat, and magnetic batteries that can store higher energy densities. I think the latter devices are of more importance for our planet than whether we understand SR correctly or not; or even wether I will win the Nobel Prize while still alive.

So again,
Best wishes,
Johan

Regards,
Johan

[ScottL]

My understanding of GPS Satellites is that due to GR, the clocks on the satellites tend to be ahead ~45 microseconds than atomic clocks on the surface of the Earth. Due to SR, the tick of each second on the satellite clock is slowed by ~7 microseconds, leaving the total difference at ~38 microseconds ahead of atomic clocks on the surface of the Earth.

Johan, is it your contention that SR plays no effect and that the GR measurement of ~45 microseconds is wrong and that it's actually ~38 microseconds ahead?

Don't confuse this question as though from a position of understanding, but as it is, a question with no current bias.

[ladajo]

Scott,
It is also important to understand that this relationship exists only for the altitude of the gps birds as flown. If you lower or raise the orbits, the realtionship (numbers and magnitude) between the SR and GR components change, and thus the total correction can change in both magnitude and sign. It is dependant on which is dominant, which is a function of depth in the well verses the velocity compared to the reference clock (ie time on the ground).

[ScottL]

Scott,
It is also important to understand that this relationship exists only for the altitude of the gps birds as flown. If you lower or raise the orbits, the realtionship (numbers and magnitude) between the SR and GR components change, and thus the total correction can change in both magnitude and sign. It is dependant on which is dominant, which is a function of depth in the well verses the velocity compared to the reference clock (ie time on the ground).

Yeah I was trying to use the more or less exact number used for the current 24 satellite GPS system.

[johanfprins]

My understanding of GPS Satellites is that due to GR, the clocks on the satellites tend to be ahead ~45 microseconds than atomic clocks on the surface of the Earth.

Correct.

Due to SR, the tick of each second on the satellite clock is slowed by ~7 microseconds,

No! The tick of the clock on the sattelite is not slowed by 7 microseconds, but the relativistically-modified tick as measured on earth is slower by 7 microseconds even though the clock on the sattelite is not slower by this amount.

Thus, although the clock on the sattelite does not slow down on the sattelite, you still have to speed it up by about 7 microseconds so that you determine the positions on earth correctly.

That is the correction that you have to do although the clock on the sattelite is only going faster by about 45 microseconds and not 38 microseconds.

The SR correction is not a correction required because the clock actually slows down by about 7 microseconds within the sattelite, but because of the relativistic transformation to earth it is seen to slow down by 7 microseconds within the reference frame on the ground.

Johan, is it your contention that SR plays no effect

No, no , no! It does play an effect but not because the clock on the sattelite goes slower within he sattelite but it is observed to be slower relative to ground.

the GR measurement of ~45 microseconds is wrong and that it's actually ~38 microseconds ahead?

In fact by increasing the clock rate by 7 microseconds, the clock on the sattelite is actually running at a rate of 52 microseconds faster than the same clock is running on earth.

It is as if, when you look from earth, you are seeing the clock arm as if you have filmed it and is playing it in slow motion: But it is not actually ticking in slow motion on the sattelite. Thus, not to see it in slow on motion relative to earth, you speed up the arm of the clock on the sattelite so that it goes faster than the arm of an identical clock on earth. I hope this is of help.

[tomclarke]

My understanding of GPS Satellites is that due to GR, the clocks on the satellites tend to be ahead ~45 microseconds than atomic clocks on the surface of the Earth.

Correct.

Due to SR, the tick of each second on the satellite clock is slowed by ~7 microseconds,

No! The tick of the clock on the sattelite is not slowed by 7 microseconds, but the relativistically-modified tick as measured on earth is slower by 7 microseconds even though the clock on the sattelite is not slower by this amount.

Thus, although the clock on the sattelite does not slow down on the sattelite, you still have to speed it up by about 7 microseconds so that you determine the positions on earth correctly.

That is the correction that you have to do although the clock on the sattelite is only going faster by about 45 microseconds and not 38 microseconds.

The SR correction is not a correction required because the clock actually slows down by about 7 microseconds within the sattelite, but because of the relativistic transformation to earth it is seen to slow down by 7 microseconds within the reference frame on the ground.

Johan, is it your contention that SR plays no effect

No, no , no! It does play an effect but not because the clock on the sattelite goes slower within he sattelite but it is observed to be slower relative to ground.

the GR measurement of ~45 microseconds is wrong and that it's actually ~38 microseconds ahead?

In fact by increasing the clock rate by 7 microseconds, the clock on the sattelite is actually running at a rate of 52 microseconds faster than the same clock is running on earth.

It is as if, when you look from earth, you are seeing the clock arm as if you have filmed it and is playing it in slow motion: But it is not actually ticking in slow motion on the sattelite. Thus, not to see it in slow on motion relative to earth, you speed up the arm of the clock on the sattelite so that it goes faster than the arm of an identical clock on earth. I hope this is of help.

The hole in Johan's argument here is that light time from satellite to earth is short (< 0.1s I guess) and fixed (because it stays in the ame position each orbit), whereas the observed time relative to earth clock is slower by a constant rate. Hence The real time on the satellite, which must be within 0.1s of the observed time, would after some time be 10s slow. You can make it any amount slow just be waiting long enough.

The sat could be returned to earth, quickly, during which time the sat clock would have to remain about 10s (or longer if you wait longer for the slowr clock rate to have more effect) slow.

This is what most people would expect due to time dilation. But Johan says not.

Best wishes, Tom

[ScottL]

No! The tick of the clock on the sattelite is not slowed by 7 microseconds, but the relativistically-modified tick as measured on earth is slower by 7 microseconds even though the clock on the sattelite is not slower by this amount.

Thus, although the clock on the sattelite does not slow down on the sattelite, you still have to speed it up by about 7 microseconds so that you determine the positions on earth correctly.

So based on what we know, I'm gathering the following (correct if wrong).

2 Clocks sync'd at beginning of day, A being GPS satellite, B being atomic clock on earth.

We know at the end of the day, A is +45 microseconds (ahead) relative to B due to GR. We know that we observe A as being -7 microseconds (behind) relative to B due to SR at the end of the day. So to adjust A's time to such that it's response back to us is completely in sync, we would need to tell A to subtract 45 microseconds, followed by telling it to add 7 microseconds for observational difference per day. This is a 38 microsecond difference based on my math if we're telling A to actually be identical to B at sync. If you were to return A instantly back to Earth, you'd find it ahead 7 microseconds I think. Maybe I did the math wrong, dunno.

[johanfprins]

So based on what we know, I'm gathering the following (correct if wrong).

2 Clocks sync'd at beginning of day, A being GPS satellite, B being atomic clock on earth.

What do you mean by synched? I suppose that you mean that the clock on the sattelite is set to show the exact same time within the sattelite that a clock on earth is showing as seen from earth.

We know at the end of the day, A is +45 microseconds (ahead) relative to B due to GR.

Correct.

We know that we observe A as being -7 microseconds (behind) relative to B due to SR at the end of the day.

Only from the ground, NOT on the clock itself.

So to adjust A's time to such that it's response back to us is completely in sync, we would need to tell A to subtract 45 microseconds, followed by telling it to add 7 microseconds for observational difference per day. This is a 38 microsecond difference based on my math if we're telling A to actually be identical to B at sync.

Identical as observed from earth but not identical on the sattelite.

If you were to return A instantly back to Earth, you'd find it ahead 7 microseconds I think.

You do not have "to think": Obviously when you advance the clock by 7 microseconds to adjust for SR it will be within the sattelite 7 secomds ahead of an identical clock on earth since without this advance and no gravity the clocks will keep the exact same time rate within the satellite and on the earth.

Maybe I did the math wrong, dunno.

If I understand you correctly, you have got it perfect.

[johanfprins]

The hole in Johan's argument here is that light time from satellite to earth is short (< 0.1s I guess) and fixed (because it stays in the ame position each orbit), whereas the observed time relative to earth clock is slower by a constant rate.

This is irrelevant to the argument of instantaneous time differences between the clock on earth (as seen on earth) and the clock on the sattelite (as seen on the sattelite).

Hence The real time on the satellite, which must be within 0.1s of the observed time, would after some time be 10s slow. You can make it any amount slow just be waiting long enough.

Not in the case of SR: The real time interval on the sattelite is (delta)ts and as seen FROM EARTH the time on the sattelite is (delta)tse where (delta)tse=(gamma)*(delta)ts. The difference in time that has to be corrected for, which you stated for this problem is 10s is (delta)tse MINUS (delta)ts. It is not caused by the real time on the sattelite becoming slower but by the fact that from the perspective from earth the clock on the sattelite is running slower while it actually does not run slower on the sattelite.

The sat could be returned to earth, quickly, during which time the sat clock would have to remain about 10s (or longer if you wait longer for the slowr clock rate to have more effect) slow.

It cannot be so since the actual time on the sattelite, ignoring gravity, remains exactly the same as the actual time for an identical clock on earth.

This is what most people would expect due to time dilation. But Johan says not.

Obviously it cannot be so since the time that you call the real time on the sattelite is NOT the slowed down time you observe from earth.

Let me try and make it simpler to you: We have two identical clocks and synchronise them. Each is put in a box and connected to a time dial on the face of each box. In one of the boxes the time is slowed down on its way to the outside dial: The latter is what the Lorentz transformation is doing when time is observed on a moving clock from within the reference frame relative to which the clock is moving. A person who does not know this will conclude that the clocks within the boxes are keeping time at different rates; but it will be stupid for a person who knows that the one dial is being slowed, to assume that when taking the clocks out of their boxes and comparing them directly, they wil still show different times.

So please Tom, stop you paranormal meanderings.

Note added: Furthermore if a person can adjust the time rates on the clocks within the boxes, and he keeps on adjusting the clock which gives a slower time rate on the dial on the box in order to "stay in sync" with the other clock, it will be found when opening the boxes and comparing the clocks directly, that the adjusted cock is ahead of the clock that has not been adjusted.

[tomclarke]

Let me try and make it simpler to you: We have two identical clocks and synchronise them. Each is put in a box and connected to a time dial on the face of each box. In one of the boxes the time is slowed down on its way to the outside dial: The latter is what the Lorentz transformation is doing when time is observed on a moving clock from within the reference frame relative to which the clock is moving. A person who does not know this will conclude that the clocks within the boxes are keeping time at different rates; but it will be stupid for a person who knows that the one dial is being slowed, to assume that when taking the clocks out of their boxes and comparing them directly, they wil still show different times.

So please Tom, stop you paranormal meanderings.

(1) There are two effects: "real" slowdown due to rate different (time dilation) and "apparent slowdown due to difference between frames.

(2) the difference between real and apparent cannot be larger than light time between sat and earth, which is bounded and small

(3) the rate difference observed leads to an unbounded time discrepancy between sat and earth.

In this case observed evidence trumps any (incorrect) theoretical notion of "they must have the same rate".

Consider, the satellite could slow down and be made geosynchronous, in principle this could be instantaneous. the decelleration has no effect on clock rate. Once the satellite is in same frame as earth it is indisputable that any frame difference time error between its clock and earth clock is bounded by light time, and therefore small.

I notice you are maybe arguing that corrections during flight even things up, so the original correction is counteracted. But the original rate correction is true. Any subsequent corrections are very small and not systenmatic when compared with this (I expect others can confirm that this is the case).

Best wishes, Tom

[johanfprins]

(1) There are two effects: "real" slowdown due to rate different (time dilation) and "apparent slowdown due to difference between frames.

In SR you ONLY have the latter

(2) the difference between real and apparent cannot be larger than light time between sat and earth, which is bounded and small

This is irrelevant since the time-dilation formula on its own tells you that this apparent slowdown is ONLY determined by the relative speed v; just as the apparent lengthening of position coordinates, which go hand in hand with the apparent dilation of time, is only determined by the relative speed between the clocks.

The other issues you are bringing in have NOTHING to do with the Lorentz transformation and are therefore irrelevant.

[tomclarke]

(1) There are two effects: "real" slowdown due to rate different (time dilation) and "apparent slowdown due to difference between frames.

In SR you ONLY have the latter

(2) the difference between real and apparent cannot be larger than light time between sat and earth, which is bounded and small

This is irrelevant since the time-dilation formula on its own tells you that this apparent slowdown is ONLY determined by the relative speed v; just as the apparent lengthening of position coordinates, which go hand in hand with the apparent dilation of time, is only determined by the relative speed between the clocks.

The other issues you are bringing in have NOTHING to do with the Lorentz transformation and are therefore irrelevant.

Johan, you have not answered my point about the experimental data, which is clear. Theoretic arguments are fine, but not if they contradict experiment. The data clearly shows that the sat clocks run slower than earth clocks and therefore will increasingly show earlier times (having compensated for GR corrections). You claim, as I understand it, that this is not the case.

You have attempted to muddy the water, I am just pointing out that the clear experimental evidence in this case, as in the clocks on planes experiment cases, agrees with me and 99% of physicists, and does not agree with your theory.

Young or old, and I am not ageist so do not believe my or your age is relevant, it is proper for anyone advocating a physical theory to be interested in whether the experimental evidence supports it. Denying evidence which is contrary seems to me an arrogant position (I know you have accused me of arrogance, for arguing with you, but in truth I am just arguing the facts as I understand them).

[johanfprins]

Johan, you have not answered my point about the experimental data,

Do you know about experimental data where a clock was sent away and returned without any gravity changes along the way? I do not know of such data which can be clear on this issue.

You have attempted to muddy the water, I am just pointing out that the clear experimental evidence in this case, as in the clocks on planes experiment cases, agrees with me and 99% of physicists, and does not agree with your theory.

Physics is not determined by majority opinion but by facts. I disagree that the flying clock experiments produced clear evidence since averages etc. have been used in the analysis. On another issue: 100% of physicists will probablyagree that the measurement of the superconducting flux quantum is clear evidence that the charge-carriers are doubly-charged, even though this deduction has been made by violating the rules of vector calculus.

The only clear evidence for what you claim for clocks when SR applies will be when the clock that is sent on a round trip journey finds itself all the time experiencing the same gravity as the clock that stays behind. Before such an experiment has been done, the evidence is definitely NOT clear. The analysis that has been used all along to extract this data is questionable.

Young or old, and I am not ageist so do not believe my or your age is relevant, it is proper for anyone advocating a physical theory to be interested in whether the experimental evidence supports it.

No doubt, I agree fully. That is the only final arbiter and that is why it is so important that the data should not be contaminated by other effects. The evidence must be REALLY clear and directly measurable, which is not the case with the flying clock experiments.

And as I have pointed out, if the deductions about SR reached by the flying clocks experiments are correct, they violate Einstein's postulates on which he based SR. It is then really a proof that SR is wrong. Therefore it is
essential that a better experiment must be done.

Denying evidence which is contrary seems to me an arrogant position (I know you have accused me of arrogance, for arguing with you, but in truth I am just arguing the facts as I understand them).

I am not denying evidence that is contrary, and even not denying the possibility that they might be correct in this case, even though it is contrary to Einstein's postulates and the Lorentz transformation. I would just prefer a more clearcut experiment where one does not have to "filter out" the effect of gravity afterwards.

You say you are arguing the facts as you undersdtand them: Then PLEASE tell me when (delta)tes=(gamma)*(delta)ts, is the the time interval (delta)ts on the clock within the sattelite dilated or is it the transformed time interval (dela)tes of the time interval (delta)ts on the satttelite that is dilated? Do you really think that (delta)ts and (delat)tes are the same as you are claiming that they are?

A More simple example that comes from Newton: When an object with mass passes by with momentum p, does it also have momentum p within the inertial refrence frame within which this object is stationary?

[ladajo]

The only clear evidence for what you claim for clocks when SR applies will be when the clock that is sent on a round trip journey finds itself all the time experiencing the same gravity as the clock that stays behind. Before such an experiment has been done, the evidence is definitely NOT clear. The analysis that has been used all along to extract this data is questionable.

Johan,
With a clock that remains in orbit, it accumulates offset. So if one were to take the ground clock to the clock in orbit, and compare them side by side, the total error to the point of comparison would be that of the SR and GR components. Would it not? And vice-versa as has been done with clocks that returned from orbit?

Then from that point on, the clocks would track together, but with an offset (GR+SR) incurred during the initial period of seperation, yes?

I am still unsure how you think that the SR component is not an actual accumulation when observed functioning of exisiting orbital clocks says that it is.

I think that this is also possible to demonstrate as with two opposing orbits at the same altitude. The clocks would have experienced the same gravity history, but would accumulate error based on the clsoing velocity as they orbit against each other.

I agree that an aircraft flown clock test is subject to more drama than one done in orbit. I would run this experiment as a Low Earth Orbit run with identical launch times into the proposed opposing orbits to ensure the gravity component difference is minimized as much as possible. The entire point being to have two clocks compared in a velocity only environment. I also agree that the idea of a truly gravity free test also has merit. Although finding a space volume with no gravity is obviously a challenge while we are deep in the solar well.

I also posit that something of the proposed nature of my experiment has already been done, if not directly, then as a data analysis of existing flown clocks. I will look around for it.

[D Tibbets]

....
A More simple example that comes from Newton: When an object with mass passes by with momentum p, does it also have momentum p within the inertial refrence frame within which this object is stationary?

Um, yes it does. This hedge is due to the need for interaction for anything to have existance, at least measurable existance. It matters not where you assign momentum, so long as it answers the acceleration interaction when two objects interact. I suspect that you are treading on the borders for perceived need for a Higgs field, which sounds like a reworked aether to me.


And, back to the time and length dilation. You say they need to match in magnitude, but does that imply that they need to match in sign? If so, then how do you explain a relativisticle particle reaching a destination in any manner other than straight forward Newtonian motions? And, would this eliminate the concept of special relativity?

Dan Tibbets