Dingle's Paradoxes

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Real clocks that use atomic spectra to measure time must not slow due to speed or else spectra from sources billions of light years away would be effected in ways not observed. The Lyman Alpha Forrest lines would be effected in some way that is not observed or at least not accounted for in current literature.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Real clocks do slow by an amount determined by their speed. That is no longer in doubt, and has been confirmed in GPS to very high precision.

As for distant spectra, they are changed. That is what cosmological redshift is all about. Leaving aside the issue of whether this change is caused by velocity or by energy loss, why do you say they would be affected in some way not observed? -|Tom|-

Your assertion is certainly worth looking into. I will have to read the paper. But it seems to me that it can not be consistent with the Lorentz transform equations. When you calculate the clock rates they are different.

I think this problem is due to a mistake in Einstein's 1905 paper. He calculated the clock rate incorrectly. Then in 1907 he tried to fix the mistake by inverting the 1905 result. This new interpretation of the symbols made the moving clock, the clock in the moving system, appear to run slow. This caused problems later when he was questioned whether the slowing of clocks and contraction of rods was real or apparent. He avoided giving a clear answer. The confusion has persisted ever since. But it seems that experiments show that the slowing is a real and not an apparent effect. So if a mu meson has a longer lifetime when travelling at a high speed, the effect can't be apparent and can't be reciprocal.

I am having a hard time getting all this in a logical order that can be understood but, the reasoning behind my statement that atomic clocks are not changed by how fast they are moving comes from data and not models. The LAF data is very clear on at least one point and that is the Lyman line emmission is absolute and alpha-lyman radiation is emmitted at 121.5nm or so. This is always true for all data at all frequencies-the speed of the atom that sends the photon has no effect other than to redshift the lines in the spectrum. What is observed is the LAF and that is redshifted from 121.5nm to where it is observed by distance or in the BB model by speed. If the atom's motion caused it to do what a model moving clock does the emmission would have been moved from 121.5nm.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />I am having a hard time getting all this in a logical order that can be understood but, the reasoning behind my statement that atomic clocks are not changed by how fast they are moving comes from data and not models.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

GPS is the ultimate data we have. It has virtually eliminated the need for relativity models to make GPS work. Clocks in GPS orbits run faster by 38,700 ns/day than clocks on the ground. That is a simple statement of observed fact that does not use any model to "explain" what caused this effect, or what part is due to motion and what is due to potential.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The LAF data is very clear on at least one point and that is the Lyman line emmission is absolute and alpha-lyman radiation is emmitted at 121.5nm or so. This is always true for all data at all frequencies-the speed of the atom that sends the photon has no effect other than to redshift the lines in the spectrum.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I hate to contradict one of your building blocks because I know you are struggling with this. But we have no knowledge about the Rydberg constant outside the specialized environment of the laboratory. In other words, we don't know if the observed redshifts of galaxies are due to motion, energy loss, a shifted frequency of emission, or some combination of these. They all look the same.

I know you appreciate the importance of not making unnecessary assumptions or invoking unjustified theories. But while the origin of cosmological redshift still remains a matter of debate, we should not arbitrarily rule out possibilities such as altered frequency of emission.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What is observed is the LAF and that is redshifted from 121.5nm to where it is observed by distance or in the BB model by speed. If the atom's motion caused it to do what a model moving clock does the emmission would have been moved from 121.5nm.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

GPS clocks do not have much redshift or blueshift because they are in circular orbits and maintain a constant distance from the ground. Yet their clock frequencies are altered by motion and gravity (or by something). I haven't thought this point through to examine all its consequences, but I'd have to guess that all atomic processes are affected by the same proportional rate change. That would seem to imply a shift in the emission frequency of all Lyman-alpha lines. -|Tom|-

The issue can easily be resolved with no doubt whatever by testing in particle accelerators. And if the frequency of an atom is changed by motion then some of the LAF datta would indicate less and more of a shift that you suggest may occur. I don't think there is anything in the data that indicates this is so, whereas all the data shows the emmission is at a precise frequency.

The accelerator test does sound like it ought to work. Have you heard anything about why it hasn't been done?

LB