Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Relativity is a pseudoscience II. The Hafele-Keating HOAX,
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 19:41:19 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <vcf38k$4rdv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <dad338831baa98f3eb1ca50452fd9401@www.novabbs.com>
 <9555d4a308c249eeef996b2957902fc7@www.novabbs.com>
 <vc7ehc$2bg7g$1@dont-email.me>
 <3d19aab5cf2bc8c14868ced3d0dda88c@www.novabbs.com>
 <02841f8e2b10ab216f462f52165399c1@www.novabbs.com>
 <d2fe4505066151ec83cc8e06b8def6f4@www.novabbs.com>
 <XbC5Qu49_RUWjjFOyZdz8vEqTRo@jntp> <w19rV2lulodsexk_EJwR8Y6actc@jntp>
 <KeMng-htXJYDukgVPkyAXjMEQpI@jntp> <pW0qpfhJOU9Jm-_-rywlUddJvKo@jntp>
 <6WUI_7naRSy-LU1S2Cp0-oKjjaw@jntp>
 <83f0b1172e80b46b087dad8e92c09b9d@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 19:39:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="211337b7e5a4d69f9904086a6e1b2e3d";
	logging-data="159167"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/gLuyQGcxl4vVRING5TKm+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dpp1ul9HnnwDL6utueowjZOfYjo=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <83f0b1172e80b46b087dad8e92c09b9d@www.novabbs.com>
Bytes: 6737

Den 18.09.2024 03:57, skrev rhertz:
> 
> The Cs atomic clocks used were HP 5061A, built in 1969. I wanted to be
> sure that THEY DIDN'T HAVE any digital counter able to present clock's
> data with nanosecond, microsecond or even millisecond resolution. All
> that they had was AN ANALOG CLOCK showing time with 1 SECOND RESOLUTION.

My wristwatch  has an analog display with 1 SECOND RESOLUTION.
By experience the precision is ~ 4 seconds/year.

So for a flight lasting a few days, Hafele and Keating could have
used my wristwatch in stead of HP 5061A.
Right?

Could it be that you have missed something, Richard? :-D


> 
> As it happens (by design) with atomic clocks, high frequency
> oscillations of 133Cs (9,192,631,779 Hz) down to a compensated crystal
> oscillator (typically at 5 Mhz or 10 Mhz, which have isolated outputs),
> which frequency is divided by 5x10E+06 or 10E+07, to obtain a 1 Hertz
> stabilized output, which feeds the ANALOG CLOCK.
> 
> You can see, in the pictures or the video, what is inside these HEAVY
> clocks. Pure analog electronics, except for the synthesizer (to excite
> the Cs chamber) or the dividers, to obtain 5/10 Mhz and 1 Hertz. The
> HP5061A is full of DIALS and PRESETS, in order to make permanent
> corrections to the readings at 5/10 Mhz, There are no outputs at the 9
> Ghz oscillators, because for that epoch, frequency measurement (in real
> time) at such range was directly NOT AVAILABLE YET. It would take
> another 20 years to measure 10 Ghz without prescalers. WITH NANOSECONDS
> RESOLUTION (12 digits on a display).
> 
> https://physicsmuseum.uq.edu.au/cesium-beam-frequency-standard-type-5061a
> 
> 
> How an Atomic Clock Really Works: Inside the HP 5061A Cesium Clock
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOti3kKWX-c
> 
> In the video, at 1:52, you can observe the complete path flights that
> H-K performed.

Is your point that the HP5061A doesn't work because it
contains "Pure analog electronics, except for the synthesizer"
and "is full of DIALS and PRESETS"?

Or what is your point?


> 
> In no case, information about WHAT THEY MEASURED to obtain nanoseconds
> resolutions. In particular, NO DETAILS about how did they compensate the
> DRIFTS in the four Cs clocks, or HOW they conciliated data with the
> other TWO Cs clocks in Washington.

I see.
You have still not read the paper you quote parts of below.

> 
> This link is for the 1971 publication:
> 
> http://webs.ftmc.uam.es/juancarlos.cuevas/Teaching/Hafele-Keating-Science-1972b.pdf
> 
> I QUOTE:
> 
> "However, no two "real" cesium beam
> clocks keep precisely the same time,
> even when located together in the laboratory,
> but generally show systematic
> rate (or frequency) differences which in
> extreme cases may amount to time differences as large as 1 usec
> per day. Because the relativistic time offsets expected in our
> experiments
> are only of the order of 0.1 usec per day (1, 4), any
> such time divergences (or rate differences) must be taken into account.
> 
> A much more serious complication is
> caused by the fact that the relative rates
> for cesium beam clocks do not remain
> precisely constant. In addition to short
> term fluctuations in rate caused mainly
> by shot noise in the beam tubes, cesium
> beam clocks exhibit small but more
> or less well defined quasi-permanent
> changes in rate. The times at which
> these rate changes occur typically are
> separated by at least 2 or 3 days for
> good clocks. Some clocks have been observed
> in the laboratory to go as long as
> several months without a rate change (2, 5).
> 
> These unpredictable changes in rate
> produce the major uncertainty in our
> results. Because of the nature of these
> changes, however, their effect on the
> observed time differences can be removed to a large extent in the data
> analysis. Under normal conditions
> changes in relative rates occur independently, that is, there are no
> known
> systematic correlations between rate changes of one clock and those of
> another."
> 

This quote is 1/3 of a page explaining the difficulties of
the measurements.
The following two pages you didn't read were about
how they overcame these difficulties and explained
in  "DETAILS about how did they compensate the DRIFTS in
the four Cs clocks."

Remember this?

| On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 Paul.B.Andersen wrote:>
|> This was what they did:
|> Before the Eastward trip, they compared the clocks to the standard
|> clock at the US Naval Observatory (USNO) for 240 hours, and noted
|> their drift. They did the same for 150 hours between the trips,
|> and again for 110 hours after the Westward trip.
|> This way they could interpolate the drift during the trips.
|>
|> https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
|> See fig.1 and fig.3 and READ the text!
|>
|> When you criticise an experiment without having read the paper
|> _carefully_ you will only make a fool of yourself!
|>

> 
> IF THE ABOVE IS NOT A DISCLAIMER for not being accountable of COOKING, I
> don't know what it is.

Right. You don't know what it is.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/