Types Of Clocks Which Have Actually Measured Time Dilation

[exchemist]

I haven't found anything yet about relativistic effects as it applies to inertness of gold, but I did dig out

something I vaguely remembered about the color of gold:

 

 The human eye sees electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength near 600 nm as yellow. As is clear from its reflectance spectrum, gold appears yellow because it absorbs blue light more than it absorbs other visible wavelengths of light; the reflected light (which is what we see) is therefore lacking in blue compared to the incident light. Since yellow is complementary to blue, this makes a piece of gold appear yellow (under white light) to human eyes.

The electronic transition responsible for this absorption is a transition from the 5d to the 6s level. An analogous transition occurs in Ag but the relativistic effects are lower in Ag so while the 4d experiences some expansion and the 5s some contraction, the 4d-5s distance in Ag is still much greater than the 5d-6s distance in Au because the relativistic effects in Ag are smaller than those in Au. Thus, non-relativistic gold would be white. The relativistic effects are raising the 5d orbital and lowering the 6s orbital.^%5B11%5D

Yes, good point. Since gold is a metal there is a delocalised band structure rather than pure atomic orbitals but the origin of the colour is due to the parent 6s being brought down in energy. As I recall, it is all to do with there being no node at the nucleus for s orbitals, so s electrons spend some time right up close to the nucleus, exposed to full nuclear charge, which is considerable for a high atomic number element, leading to relativistic speeds for the electrons in that region. That is why it pulls down the energy of the 6s but not the 5d: 5d electrons never get that close in - they are "shielded" by the underlying s orbitals from the greater proportion of the nuclear charge.

Edited May 28, 2017 by exchemist

[AmishFighterPilot]

Well the idea of inanimate substances "experiencing" time is a bit problematic, but I sort of see what you mean. I think JM Jones, in post 87, has made the best contribution on the nature of time on this thread so far.Time is the yardstick we use to measure CHANGE. If you have a hypothetical situation in which there is no change, then you have nothing that can serve as a CLOCK and no observation to which time can be applied.If however any PROCESS or EVENT were to occur, that would involve a change of some sort. And then time dilation would apply to it of course.

This is the heart of what I'm getting at. Time is only experienced subjectively relative to decay/entropy, and thats limited by e=mc2. If there's no decay in a given frame, it surely can be said to experience all the physical effects of time dilation, without the experiencing that time in any tranformative sense.

 

We know that stable atomic structures never stay in isolation though. Atoms of the most stable types can be destroyed or transformed by astronomical events. It is all connected, and synchronous even though some portions of it aren't changing at a given time. It makes me think its logical that "time" is something that flows through all things and those things change state relative to that flow.

[mrg]

Yes, a bit, but trying to define what time really is is something one can read quite long articles about. I think this is what our poster is groping towards.

 

Yes, I was thinking about that earlier.   However, nobody in practice has any problems understanding what time is.   We all understand the questions:  "What time is it?"  "When do you want to meet?"  "How long will that take?"  There is no confusion or difference of opinion on such things.

 

Now physics has demonstrated that time has a property -- non-invariance -- beyond our ordinary perceptions of it.  However, this does not concern us in our daily lives.  As far as the discussion of the underlying nature of time, that is a discussion among physicists, and effectively irrelevant to everyone else.  We may read a layfolk description of that discussion, and find it amusing, or possibly dodgy.   However, having no way of getting usefully involved in the conversation without acquiring a doctorate in physics, all we can do is shrug and go on.

 

My degree is in electrical engineering.  I am a science geek, but I do not hold the sciences in awe, or no more than I do engineering, and am also aware that great scientists are often really BAD at philosophy.

Edited May 28, 2017 by mrg

[exchemist]

This is the heart of what I'm getting at. Time is only experienced subjectively relative to decay/entropy, and thats limited by e=mc2. If there's no decay in a given frame, it surely can be said to experience all the physical effects of time dilation, without the experiencing that time in any tranformative sense.

 

We know that stable atomic structures never stay in isolation though. Atoms of the most stable types can be destroyed or transformed by astronomical events. It is all connected, and synchronous even though some portions of it aren't changing at a given time. It makes me think its logical that "time" is something that flows through all things and those things change state relative to that flow.

No I think you are going off the track. Time is not merely subjective, as is shown by all the physics we can do on inanimate objects which clearly are subject to time, in totally objective and reproducible ways.

 

Your reference to E=mc2 does not appear to make much sense in this context. That is an equivalence between mass and energy. What has it got to do with time?

 

I have read articles by physicists in which the everyday concept of time as "flowing" is vigorously challenged. Certainly in relativity one does not consider time as any sort of motion. It is, just as JM Jones said, one of the coordinates you need, in order to fix something in relation to other things.

[AmishFighterPilot]

No I think you are going off the track. Time is not merely subjective, as is shown by all the physics we can do on inanimate objects which clearly are subject to time, in totally objective and reproducible ways.Your reference to E=mc2 does not appear to make much sense in this context. That is an equivalence between mass and energy. What has it got to do with time?I have read articles by physicists in which the everyday concept of time as "flowing" is vigorously challenged. Certainly in relativity one does not consider time as any sort of motion. It is, just as JM Jones said, one of the coordinates you need, in order to fix something in relation to other things.

I'm actually saying it's just experienced subjectively in a given reference frame, but that it isn't capable of being subjective because it is all connected. Mass is gravitation in action and energy is dispersal in action. Think drain versus shower head. If e=mc2, then doesn't m=e÷c2?

[exchemist]

I'm actually saying it's just experienced subjectively in a given reference frame, but that it isn't capable of being subjective because it is all connected. Mass is gravitation in action and energy is dispersal in action. Think drain versus shower head. If e=mc2, then doesn't m=e÷c2?

No mass is not "gravitation in action". Inertial mass is the proportionality factor between the net force on an object and the resulting acceleration. Gravitational mass is proportional to the gravitational force experienced by an object due to another object. It happens that the two are the same. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

 

Energy is not "dispersal in action". Energy is actually quite hard to define but is commonly thought of as that which confers the ability to do mechanical work. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy#Physics

 

There is nothing about time in anything you have said here. Are you still trying to discuss time, or have you flipped onto an unrelated subject?

Edited May 28, 2017 by exchemist

[mrg]

I'm actually saying it's just experienced subjectively in a given reference frame, but that it isn't capable of being subjective because it is all connected. Mass is gravitation in action and energy is dispersal in action. Think drain versus shower head. If e=mc2, then doesn't m=e÷c2?

 

"I dinnae know if the dilithium crystals will stand much more!   At this warp factor, they're runnin' at the limit!"

 

"Commander Scott, have you tried to reverse the hyperpolarity of the heterofrequency multiplexers?"

 

"Aye, Mister Spock!  That might work!"

[exchemist]

"I dinnae know if the dilithium crystals will stand much more!   At this warp factor, they're runnin' at the limit!"

 

"Commander Scott, have you tried to reverse the hyperpolarity of the heterofrequency multiplexers?"

 

"Aye, Mister Spock!  That might work!"

Yeah there is a bit of "Beam me up, Scottie", I grant you. Our poster is lucid one moment but starts talking like a physics buzzword generator the next. Let me stick with it a while longer, though - I'm a tad more patient than you, it seems. Though my fuse will blow at some point.

[AmishFighterPilot]

So here is another thought to try to flesh it out a bit. In nature, as something aggregates, the transfer of energy also changes. No, C is not violated, but instead the vectors change. So you hit one side of an object and impart energy to it, that energy transfers at the speed of light, but it doesn't move in a straight line. Instead the aggregates compress, transfer the energy across crystalline structures, etc and so you get a vibrational wave(speed of "sound"). So the energy travels at C, but still only ends up actually going from A-to-B as an aggregate at the speed of sound.

 

So if this applies to electromagnetic waves and sound waves, would it not make sense that there are types of waves that exist on even larger or smaller scales? If so, how would you measure it? You'd have a hard time detecting light waves with a microphone, so how would traditional wave detection systems measure them? Its easier to detect larger waves I would suspect than smaller waves. Its like how you can only filter something by removing the smallest things first, be it gravel or sound waves via a bandpass filter.

 

So, what if the wave limitation of C is just our perceptible level of aggregation because it's what we and all our equipment are made of?

[exchemist]

So here is another thought to try to flesh it out a bit. In nature, as something aggregates, the transfer of energy also changes. No, C is not violated, but instead the vectors change. So you hit one side of an object and impart energy to it, that energy transfers at the speed of light, but it doesn't move in a straight line. Instead the aggregates compress, transfer the energy across crystalline structures, etc and so you get a vibrational wave(speed of "sound"). So the energy travels at C, but still only ends up actually going from A-to-B as an aggregate at the speed of sound. So if this applies to electromagnetic waves and sound waves, would it not make sense that there are types of waves that exist on even larger or smaller scales? If so, how would you measure it? You'd have a hard time detecting light waves with a microphone, so how would traditional wave detection systems measure them? Its easier to detect larger waves I would suspect than smaller waves. Its like how you can only filter something by removing the smallest things first, be it gravel or sound waves via a bandpass filter. So, what if the wave limitation of C is just our perceptible level of aggregation because it's what we and all our equipment are made of?

How about dealing with one response before launching another fusillade of ballocks? :)

[mrg]

Yeah there is a bit of "Beam me up, Scottie", I grant you. Our poster is lucid one moment but starts talking like a physics buzzword generator the next. Let me stick with it a while longer, though - I'm a tad more patient than you, it seems. Though my fuse will blow at some point.

 

Sadly, I am not at all patient with baloney, I suspect because I am more familiar with it than you and quickly see it coming.   Your fuse will inevitably blow with AFP, I think; he has a great deal of sail, nothing that resembles a rudder.

Edited May 28, 2017 by mrg

[OceanBreeze]

Finally found something on the Relativistic Effects in Properties of Gold specifically pertaining to inertness, if anyone is interested. It is a Pdf open access:

 

"Because of the relativistic 6s-contraction in gold the 6s shell becomes more compact (inert, hence

the nobility of gold) and the (static dipole) polarizability ®D decreases substantially from 9.5 a.u.

(NR) to 5.2 a.u."

 

 

[AmishFighterPilot]

 

How about dealing with one response before launching another fusillade of ballocks? :)

Einstein realized space, matter, and time are all connected, thus the very term space-time. If you cannot remain civil there is no point in further engaging you on this matter. I didn't see your first reply while tying that and you can either ignore it or answer it. There is no reason to come in here like you are the arbiter of all truth and justice. The arrogance and ignorance of people accusing me of the same is disappointing hypocrisy.

[AmishFighterPilot]

 

No mass is not "gravitation in action". Inertial mass is the proportionality factor between the net force on an object and the resulting acceleration. Gravitational mass is proportional to the gravitational force experienced by an object due to another object. It happens that the two are the same. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

 

Energy is not "dispersal in action". Energy is actually quite hard to define but is commonly thought of as that which confers the ability to do mechanical work. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy#Physics

 

There is nothing about time in anything you have said here. Are you still trying to discuss time, or have you flipped onto an unrelated subject?

Does energy spread or condense?

[mrg]

 The arrogance and ignorance of people accusing me of the same is disappointing hypocrisy.

 

Life is tough.  Wear a hat.

[AmishFighterPilot]

 

Life is tough.  Wear a hat.

Its quite the irony that you have replied to this thread a large number of times now and hardly any of your posts include a rational argument of any kind. No refutation of my ideas or understanding of existing ideas. Just attitude problems and snarkiness that has seriously degraded the atmosphere here. If you don't like alternative theories, go away. Your irrational responses might as well be scientology. Explain why you think I am wrong in detail or go away. Put up or shut up. It was you who reminded me of that whole rule so start following your own standard.

[mrg]

Explain why you think I am wrong in detail or go away..

 

Sport, it would take a surgical operation to get a clue into your head.  And then your immune system would reject it.

 

By the way, I don't think you're wrong.  "Das ist nicht eimal falsch!"  "That's not EVEN wrong!"

Edited May 28, 2017 by mrg