On 8/26/21 9:02 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]

A few minutes with Google would answer your question, and provide more
information, and much more reliable information, than you can get around
here. Especially from people who know nothing about atomic clocks or
physics, like Ed Lake.

Try searching "how an atomic clock works" at nist.gov -- they build and
operate atomic clocks, and describe how they work very clearly.

Tom Roberts

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 4:11:29 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/26/21 9:02 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > [...]
>
> A few minutes with Google would answer your question, and provide more
> information, and much more reliable information, than you can get around
> here. Especially from people who know nothing about atomic clocks or
> physics, like Ed Lake.
>
> Try searching "how an atomic clock works" at nist.gov -- they build and
> operate atomic clocks, and describe how they work very clearly.
>
> Tom Roberts

I have a book titled "Splitting the Second: The Story of Atomic Time" by
Tony Jones. Here are a couple quotes from pages 40 & 41:

"All naturally occurring caesium atoms are identical."

"Every naturally occurring caesium atom has 55 protons and 78 neutrons,
giving it an atomic mass of 133. This means that every caesium atom
will emit or absorb spin–flip photons at precisely the same frequency.
Caesium has still more advantages. Its low melting point means it
is easy to form a vapour of caesium atoms."

"And apart from its bigger brother francium—which is so unstable that its
atoms decay in less than half an hour—caesium is the biggest of all the atoms.
As a more or less direct consequence of this, its outer solo electron is only
loosely attached. It is easier to knock an electron off a caesium atom than any
other atom, and this makes it easy to detect."

And here's a key quote from page 48:

"Caesium atoms are like very precisely tuned radio receivers. They will ignore
passing waves of the wrong frequency but respond strongly to waves of the
right frequency, namely 9193 megahertz. An atom in the lower state hit by a
photon will absorb it and flip to the upper state. An atom in the upper state hit
by a photon will release an identical photon and flip to the lower state."

That's the principle behind atomic clocks. If you can create photons that
oscillate at EXACTLY 9,192,631,770 times per second (9,192,631,770 Hertz),
you can use the oscillations of those photons to measure time very precisely.
Each oscillation is like one tick of a clock.

Being hit by a photon that oscillates 9,192,631,770 times per second will
cause a caesium atom to change energy states, but it isn't the changing
of energy states that is counted as a "tick" of an atomic clock, a "tick" of
an atomic clock is one oscillation of the photon that hit the atom.

Ed

On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 8:45:40 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> And here's a key quote from page 48:
> "Caesium atoms are like very precisely tuned radio receivers. They will ignore
> passing waves of the wrong frequency but respond strongly to waves of the
> right frequency, namely 9193 megahertz. An atom in the lower state hit by a
> photon will absorb it and flip to the upper state. An atom in the upper state hit
> by a photon will release an identical photon and flip to the lower state."
>
> That's the principle behind atomic clocks. If you can create photons that
> oscillate at EXACTLY 9,192,631,770 times per second...

The referenced quote is correct, but your paraphrase is wrong. The quote discusses _waves_ of the right frequency, and then mentions photons hitting an atom, tacitly referring to photons with the energy corresponding to the right wave frequency. You read this as claiming that photons oscillate, but photons do not oscillate, and the quote does not say that they do. To understand photons, I suggest consulting an actual text book on quantum electrodynamics.

On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 11:41:48 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 8:45:40 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > And here's a key quote from page 48:
> > "Caesium atoms are like very precisely tuned radio receivers. They will ignore
> > passing waves of the wrong frequency but respond strongly to waves of the
> > right frequency, namely 9193 megahertz. An atom in the lower state hit by a
> > photon will absorb it and flip to the upper state. An atom in the upper state hit
> > by a photon will release an identical photon and flip to the lower state."
> >
> > That's the principle behind atomic clocks. If you can create photons that
> > oscillate at EXACTLY 9,192,631,770 times per second...
>
> The referenced quote is correct, but your paraphrase is wrong. The quote discusses _waves_ of the right frequency, and then mentions photons hitting an atom, tacitly referring to photons with the energy corresponding to the right wave frequency. You read this as claiming that photons oscillate, but photons do not oscillate, and the quote does not say that they do. To understand photons, I suggest consulting an actual text book on quantum electrodynamics.

Quantum electrodynamics is THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION.

A photon that is used in a caesium atomic clock has a FREQUENCY
of 9,192,631,770 Hertz. If the photon does not oscillate at that
FREQUENCY, what does the FREQUENCY represent?

If you believe it represents the number of stationary waves that will
hit an object in one second, then how long would that make the photon?

"As per Einstein’s light quantum theory, photons have energy equal to their
oscillation frequency times Planck’s constant. Einstein proved that light is
a flow of photons, the energy of these photons is the height of their oscillation
frequency, and the intensity of the light corresponds to the number of photons."

Source: https://www.zmescience.com/science/what-is-photon-definition-04322/

Ed

On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 10:02:30 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> If the photon does not oscillate at that FREQUENCY, what does the FREQUENCY represent?

It represents the frequency of the source... and hence the proportionality between the path length and the phase of the amplitude for any specific available path. The phase of a source of electromagnetic radiation advances with a certain frequency, and each photon has a particular phase (that does not advance in transit) and an amount of energy proportional to the frequency of the source. Bear in mind that although a photon may be regarded as a "particle", it is definitely not a classical particle, and likewise electromagnetic radiation is not a classical wave, but there are wavelike and particle-like attributes. The probability of the discrete energy of a photon being received from a given source at a certain time and place is the norm of the sum of amplitudes for the available paths (this is Feynman's "sum over paths" approach). If the paths have different lengths, the amplitudes have different phases (corresponding to different phases of the source), and the proportionality between path length and phase is the frequency of the source, proportional to the energy of each photon. So, in this sense, a photon is associated with a frequency, but a photon does not oscillate. The phase along a given light-like path does not advance.

> Source: https://www.zmescience.com/science/what-is-photon-definition-04322/
> " ...photons have energy equal to their oscillation frequency times Planck’s constant."

To be accurate, that quote should be "photons have energy equal to the oscillation frequency of the source times Planck’s constant." This is why I suggested you consult a text book on quantum electrodynamics, not a web page. Web articles are not intended to be substitutes for texts, for those who want in-depth understanding of a subject.

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 4:11:29 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 8/26/21 9:02 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> A few minutes with Google would answer your question, and provide more
>> information, and much more reliable information, than you can get around
>> here. Especially from people who know nothing about atomic clocks or
>> physics, like Ed Lake.
>>
>> Try searching "how an atomic clock works" at nist.gov -- they build and
>> operate atomic clocks, and describe how they work very clearly.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> I have a book titled "Splitting the Second: The Story of Atomic Time" by
> Tony Jones. Here are a couple quotes from pages 40 & 41:
>
> "All naturally occurring caesium atoms are identical."
>
> "Every naturally occurring caesium atom has 55 protons and 78 neutrons,
> giving it an atomic mass of 133. This means that every caesium atom
> will emit or absorb spin–flip photons at precisely the same frequency.
> Caesium has still more advantages. Its low melting point means it
> is easy to form a vapour of caesium atoms."
>
> "And apart from its bigger brother francium—which is so unstable that its
> atoms decay in less than half an hour—caesium is the biggest of all the atoms.
> As a more or less direct consequence of this, its outer solo electron is only
> loosely attached. It is easier to knock an electron off a caesium atom than any
> other atom, and this makes it easy to detect."
>
> And here's a key quote from page 48:
>
> "Caesium atoms are like very precisely tuned radio receivers. They will ignore
> passing waves of the wrong frequency but respond strongly to waves of the
> right frequency, namely 9193 megahertz. An atom in the lower state hit by a
> photon will absorb it and flip to the upper state. An atom in the upper state hit
> by a photon will release an identical photon and flip to the lower state."
>
> That's the principle behind atomic clocks. If you can create photons that
> oscillate at EXACTLY 9,192,631,770 times per second (9,192,631,770 Hertz),
> you can use the oscillations of those photons to measure time very precisely.
> Each oscillation is like one tick of a clock.

Closer but not quite. Photons do not oscillate.

But really the trick here is not creating JUST light at this frequency,
because the cesium atoms will be very selective in what they absorb. This
is analogous to the absorption lines in the continuous spectrum of the sun.
There is light of all kinds of frequencies bouncing around in the sun, and
the solar atmosphere absorbs just some of them, which is seen as dark lines
in that continuous spectrum.

This is another example of something from first year physics or chemistry
to understand FIRST before trying to understand cesium clocks.

>
> Being hit by a photon that oscillates 9,192,631,770 times per second will
> cause a caesium atom to change energy states, but it isn't the changing
> of energy states that is counted as a "tick" of an atomic clock, a "tick" of
> an atomic clock is one oscillation of the photon that hit the atom.
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 11:41:48 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 8:45:40 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> And here's a key quote from page 48:
>>> "Caesium atoms are like very precisely tuned radio receivers. They will ignore
>>> passing waves of the wrong frequency but respond strongly to waves of the
>>> right frequency, namely 9193 megahertz. An atom in the lower state hit by a
>>> photon will absorb it and flip to the upper state. An atom in the upper state hit
>>> by a photon will release an identical photon and flip to the lower state."
>>>
>>> That's the principle behind atomic clocks. If you can create photons that
>>> oscillate at EXACTLY 9,192,631,770 times per second...
>>
>> The referenced quote is correct, but your paraphrase is wrong. The quote
>> discusses _waves_ of the right frequency, and then mentions photons
>> hitting an atom, tacitly referring to photons with the energy
>> corresponding to the right wave frequency. You read this as claiming
>> that photons oscillate, but photons do not oscillate, and the quote does
>> not say that they do. To understand photons, I suggest consulting an
>> actual text book on quantum electrodynamics.
>
> Quantum electrodynamics is THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION.

Problem for whom? Problem for you, because you don’t find it
understandable?

>
> A photon that is used in a caesium atomic clock has a FREQUENCY
> of 9,192,631,770 Hertz. If the photon does not oscillate at that
> FREQUENCY, what does the FREQUENCY represent?

Light waves composed of a lot of these photons will have that frequency.
But the photons themselves don’t oscillate. The frequency for a single
photon represents the energy carried by that photon divided by a universal
constant (see Planck).

>
> If you believe it represents the number of stationary waves that will
> hit an object in one second, then how long would that make the photon?

You can’t think of it that way. Photons don’t have a length.

>
> "As per Einstein’s light quantum theory, photons have energy equal to their
> oscillation frequency times Planck’s constant. Einstein proved that light is
> a flow of photons, the energy of these photons is the height of their oscillation
> frequency, and the intensity of the light corresponds to the number of photons."
>
> Source: https://www.zmescience.com/science/what-is-photon-definition-04322/

That’s a really awful reference.

>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 12:37:33 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 10:02:30 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > If the photon does not oscillate at that FREQUENCY, what does the FREQUENCY represent?
> It represents the frequency of the source... and hence the proportionality between the path length and the phase of the amplitude for any specific available path. The phase of a source of electromagnetic radiation advances with a certain frequency, and each photon has a particular phase (that does not advance in transit) and an amount of energy proportional to the frequency of the source. Bear in mind that although a photon may be regarded as a "particle", it is definitely not a classical particle, and likewise electromagnetic radiation is not a classical wave, but there are wavelike and particle-like attributes. The probability of the discrete energy of a photon being received from a given source at a certain time and place is the norm of the sum of amplitudes for the available paths (this is Feynman's "sum over paths" approach). If the paths have different lengths, the amplitudes have different phases (corresponding to different phases of the source), and the proportionality between path length and phase is the frequency of the source, proportional to the energy of each photon. So, in this sense, a photon is associated with a frequency, but a photon does not oscillate. The phase along a given light-like path does not advance.
>
> > Source: https://www.zmescience.com/science/what-is-photon-definition-04322/
> > " ...photons have energy equal to their oscillation frequency times Planck’s constant."
>
> To be accurate, that quote should be "photons have energy equal to the oscillation frequency of the source times Planck’s constant." This is why I suggested you consult a text book on quantum electrodynamics, not a web page. Web articles are not intended to be substitutes for texts, for those who want in-depth understanding of a subject.

Like I wrote before, Quantum electrodynamics is the PROBLEM, not a solution..
That is clearly why you cannot answer the question. How can a photon
represent the frequency of the source if the photon does not oscillate?

Like you say, a photon is not a classic particle, like a grain of sand, nor is it
a classical wave, like sound waves. You claim it does not oscillate, so how
can it have a FREQUENCY?

Ignoring sources which say the photons DO oscillate just indicates that you
have a closed mind to anything that is not Quantum electrodynamics.

"Photons are often described as energy packets. This is a very fitting analogy,
as a photon contains energy that cannot be divided. This energy is stored as
an oscillating electric field. These fields may oscillate at almost any frequency.

Source: https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_%28Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry%29/Quantum_Mechanics/02._Fundamental_Concepts_of_Quantum_Mechanics/Photons

"Photons have an energy E associated with their frequency f of oscillation"
Source: https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/p/Photon

Ed

On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 12:25:14 PM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> How can a photon represent the frequency of the source if the photon does not oscillate?

I explained in the previous message how a photon is characterized by the frequency of the source. Again, each photon arriving at a particular reception event had a variety of possible classical paths by which it could have traveled from the source. For example, in a two-slit experiment the photon could have gone through the left slit or the right slit. For a typical reception event the paths to that event are of different lengths, and since the photon always propagates at c, the time required for the various paths is different, meaning they would have departed the source at different times, and hence the phase of the photon (which does not change along any path) would be different, depending on which path it followed.

The probability of a photon arriving at a given event is the magnitude of the sum of the amplitudes for the available paths. In effect, the possible paths interfere with each other, because the paths have different phases, like little arrows that may point in the same direction (constructive interference) or in opposite directions (destructive interference). The proportionality between path length and phase is the frequency of the source, so in this sense one can say each photon is characterized by that frequency, but it really exhibits an energy proportional to that frequency, and the phase effect only manifests itself by the interference. Again, the individual paths are light-like, with zero elapsed proper time, and no oscillations along those path, which is why it's incorrect to say that a photon oscillates.

> Like you say, a photon is not a classic particle, like a grain of sand, nor is it
> a classical wave, like sound waves. You claim it does not oscillate, so how
> can it have a FREQUENCY?

See above. A photon is associated with a frequency of the source, which manifests itself (with complex paths) by the interference patterns, but this arises from the different path lengths and hence phases of the available paths, not due to oscillation of a photon.

> Ignoring sources which say the photons DO oscillate just indicates that you
> have a closed mind to anything that is not Quantum electrodynamics.

Well, the sources you quote are all striving (with varying degrees of success) to describe photons in accord with quantum electrodynamics. They aren't making up their theories of the universe with entities that they are calling "photons". They are just trying to describe photons in quantum electrodynamics to you. (If you emailed the author of that article and asked him if he was trying to describe something contrary to quantum electrodynamics, I am quite confident he would say "of course not".)
So if you are rejecting quantum electrodynamics, you need to reject all those articles. But that wouldn't make much sense, because quantum electrodynamics is the most successful theory of fundamental physics ever conceived.

> "This energy is stored as an oscillating electric field."

Again, the quote you cited is correct, but it does not say that photons oscillate. In order to understand the quotes you are reading, you need to understand the relationship between photons and electromagnetic fields. They are not the same thing. The electromagnetic field is mediated by photons, but to say that an electromagnetic field oscillates (which it does) is not the same as saying that a photon oscillates (which it doesn't).

> Like I wrote before, Quantum electrodynamics is the PROBLEM, not a solution.

I don't understand what you mean by that, so I don't know how to respond to it. Quantum electrodynamics is the most successful theory of fundamental physics that we have, so I don't know what you mean when you say it is "the problem". Do you mean you don't understand it? Or do you mean it is wrong? If the latter, in what way is it wrong?

On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 3:11:57 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 12:25:14 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > How can a photon represent the frequency of the source if the photon does not oscillate?
> I explained in the previous message how a photon is characterized by the frequency of the source. Again, each photon arriving at a particular reception event had a variety of possible classical paths by which it could have traveled from the source. For example, in a two-slit experiment the photon could have gone through the left slit or the right slit. For a typical reception event the paths to that event are of different lengths, and since the photon always propagates at c, the time required for the various paths is different, meaning they would have departed the source at different times, and hence the phase of the photon (which does not change along any path) would be different, depending on which path it followed.
>
> The probability of a photon arriving at a given event is the magnitude of the sum of the amplitudes for the available paths. In effect, the possible paths interfere with each other, because the paths have different phases, like little arrows that may point in the same direction (constructive interference) or in opposite directions (destructive interference). The proportionality between path length and phase is the frequency of the source, so in this sense one can say each photon is characterized by that frequency, but it really exhibits an energy proportional to that frequency, and the phase effect only manifests itself by the interference. Again, the individual paths are light-like, with zero elapsed proper time, and no oscillations along those path, which is why it's incorrect to say that a photon oscillates.
> > Like you say, a photon is not a classic particle, like a grain of sand, nor is it
> > a classical wave, like sound waves. You claim it does not oscillate, so how
> > can it have a FREQUENCY?
> See above. A photon is associated with a frequency of the source, which manifests itself (with complex paths) by the interference patterns, but this arises from the different path lengths and hence phases of the available paths, not due to oscillation of a photon.
> > Ignoring sources which say the photons DO oscillate just indicates that you
> > have a closed mind to anything that is not Quantum electrodynamics.
> Well, the sources you quote are all striving (with varying degrees of success) to describe photons in accord with quantum electrodynamics. They aren't making up their theories of the universe with entities that they are calling "photons". They are just trying to describe photons in quantum electrodynamics to you. (If you emailed the author of that article and asked him if he was trying to describe something contrary to quantum electrodynamics, I am quite confident he would say "of course not".)
> So if you are rejecting quantum electrodynamics, you need to reject all those articles. But that wouldn't make much sense, because quantum electrodynamics is the most successful theory of fundamental physics ever conceived.
> > "This energy is stored as an oscillating electric field."
> Again, the quote you cited is correct, but it does not say that photons oscillate. In order to understand the quotes you are reading, you need to understand the relationship between photons and electromagnetic fields. They are not the same thing. The electromagnetic field is mediated by photons, but to say that an electromagnetic field oscillates (which it does) is not the same as saying that a photon oscillates (which it doesn't).
> > Like I wrote before, Quantum electrodynamics is the PROBLEM, not a solution.
> I don't understand what you mean by that, so I don't know how to respond to it. Quantum electrodynamics is the most successful theory of fundamental physics that we have, so I don't know what you mean when you say it is "the problem". Do you mean you don't understand it? Or do you mean it is wrong? If the latter, in what way is it wrong?

Quantum electrodynamics is very good at analyzing the functions of
particles in the sub-atomic world. It is when it tries to FORCE the
universe and the world around us to fit into its equations that it turns
into PURE CRAP.

It is WRONG in saying that photons do not oscillate. It just cannot cope
with a "particle" that isn't just a solid particle. It cannot cope with an
infinite universe, either. Or with the variable speed of light.

Photons oscillate. If Quantum electrodynamics says they don't, then
Quantum electrodynamics is ignoring FACTS because BELIEVERS in the
INFALLIBILITY of Quantum electrodynamics cannot develop a mathematical
model that incorporates those FACTS.

Ed

On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 2:03:06 PM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> Quantum electrodynamics ... is WRONG in saying that photons do not oscillate. It
> just cannot cope with a "particle" that isn't just a solid particle.

A photon is nothing at all like a "solid particle" in quantum electrodynamics, so your complaint is specious, based entirely on misinformation. Indeed, by insisting that "a photon oscillates", it is you who is exhibiting an inability to cope with a "particle" that is not a classical particle at all, let alone a "solid particle".

> It cannot cope with an infinite universe, either.

Again, you are misinformed. Quantum field theory is a local theory of the electromagnetic interaction, and it is perfectly compatible with an infinite universe. (Go ahead and post snippets of quotes you have harvested from web browsing that you think are saying QED is incompatible with an infinite universe, and I'l explain what they actually say.)

> Or with the variable speed of light.

Your complaint is specious, because quantum electrodynamics is perfectly consistent with all the facts of electromagnetic radiation, including the propagation speed, in all circumstances.

> Photons oscillate.

That doesn't make sense, because the word "photon" is defined as the quantum excitation of the electromagnetic field in quantum electrodynamics, and those very definitely do not oscillate. If you are using the word "photon" to refer to something else, something that you think oscillates, then you're just confusing yourself by conflating it with what the rest of the world means by the word "photon". You asked for an explanation of why photons don't oscillate, and I provided that, twice, and both times you simply ignored it. You'll never understand if you keep ignoring the explanation.

How many Cs atoms are in a clock?
How do they watch one of them?
How could any machine count a nano difference?
How is the one Cs atom changing in size?

Mitchell Raemsch

Enters the EE.

The one with the most appropriated answer was Paparios: (Negative) feedback controlled system.
And what does a NFCS minimize: Phase noise.

And what is phase noise?: perturbations over an exact frequency fo, measured as time-variant oscillations
which amplitudes decay with an almost gaussian law as their frequencies depart from fo.

And how phase noise is controlled?: By subtracting from a frequency down-scaled (pre-scaled) electrical signal V(t),
which is collected as the original output of any given oscillator, mixing it with a well-known stable frequency produced
by a controlled oscillator (typically a TCXO) in order to produce a baseband signal centered around f=0, and feeding
negatively such time-variant signal AFTER it passed through a lowpass filter, which slowdown the time-response of
the correcting signal and get rid of unwanted high frequency oscillations.

No photons involved here. Not at all. Only classic electromagnetic oscillations. In general, the expression of V(t) is:

V(t) = Vo.cos φ(t) = Vo.cos [ 2π.fo.t + Φ(t) ]

where fo is the target frequency of the oscillator (of any kind) and Φ(t) is the time-variant perturbation around fo, which
makes difficult or impossible to watch V(t) in an oscilloscope, because the time sweeping reference ramp (like in any CRT
TV set) can't present the same pic sweep after sweep. If Φ(t) = 0, you would see a perfect sinusoidal waveform, which has
not a single drift in time, so it would be stable as if it were a drawing on the screen.

The phase φ(t) = 2π.fo.t + Φ(t) changes with time as dφ(t)/dt = 2π.fo + dΦ(t)/dt, being the last term the phase noise.

That's what happens when second-level cessium or rubidium atomic clocks (of lower cost) are locked to GPS signals, by
using an interface. This allows that every single telephone exchange or master router be in synchronism all around the
planet, allowing digital communications to work flawlessly when they interchange bits at increasing speed since the '90s.

To understand and control phase noise, V(t) has to be analyzed in the frequency domain, with proper instruments.

The behavior of Φ(t) in frequency reveals a gaussian-like shape centered around fo. The bandwidth Δfo, after which the
perturbations are negligible is referred as Δfo = fo/Q, where the Q factor represents the quality of any given oscillator.

For a cessium clock, Q factor is 10^7 or better, so the significant perturbations are confined within 919 Hz or less.

Usually, phase noise is measured in units dBc/Hz, which represent the fall in the spectrum of the signal since fo, and is
considered to be good for an atomic clock if it is below 120 dBc/Hz after a Δfo separation (measured from fo).

Ideally, a bell-shaped curve would be expected at the spectrum analyzer, centered around fo. But, in real life, other
perturbations besides quantum fluctuations happens. Every component of the system introduce a portion of noise,
as well as external vibrations, magnetic fields, heat, etc. Due to this, the spectrum of phase noise is much more complex
than gaussian deviations for Q around 10^7.

The following sites can tell you about stability in time, phase noise and several other aspects of atomic clocks.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=7464875

This one tells everything about oscillators of many types:

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/calibrations/ie79-7.pdf

And finally, remember that cessium clock frequency is down-scaled to 10.26 Mhz, to be compared with state of the art
TCXO differences, which are pondered with a compensation network and then scaled up to 9,192,631,770 Hz using
frequency synthesizers, to excite cessium atoms.

No photons, just waves.

On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 2:03:06 PM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> Quantum electrodynamics ... is WRONG in saying that photons do not oscillate. It
> just cannot cope with a "particle" that isn't just a solid particle.

A photon is nothing at all like a "solid particle" in quantum electrodynamics, so your complaint is specious, based entirely on misinformation. Indeed, by insisting that "a photon oscillates", it is you who is exhibiting an inability to cope with a "particle" that is not a classical particle (nor a classical wave) at all.

> It cannot cope with an infinite universe, either.

Again, you are misinformed. Quantum electrodynamics is a local theory of the electromagnetic interaction, and it is perfectly compatible with an infinite universe.

> Or with the variable speed of light.

Your complaint is specious, because quantum electrodynamics is perfectly consistent with all the well-established facts of electromagnetic radiation, including the propagation speed, in all circumstances.

> Photons oscillate.

That doesn't make sense, because the word "photon" is defined as the quantum excitation of the electromagnetic field in quantum electrodynamics, and those very definitely do not oscillate. If you are using the word "photon" to refer to something else, something that you think oscillates, in a "theory" of your own making, then you're just confusing yourself by conflating it with what the rest of the world means by the word "photon".

You asked for an explanation of why photons don't oscillate, and I provided that -- twice. Both times you simply ignored it. You'll never understand if you keep ignoring the explanation.

On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 9:41:48 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

1) Cesium atomic clocks are more expensive that rubidium ones, and also has an stability about 300 times more than the
second one. Because of the cost, rubidium based AC are the most used at internet hubs where monster routers exist and ,
also, for master timing within telecom operators. Cesium AC are used in national gov. agencies to provide a reference
source for companies, and they are in the 2nd. tier of precision, related to the master site at France.

For more than 25 years, rubidium clocks use GPS based devices to adjust drifts from cesium or to resync guided by them,
in cases of network shutdowns. Every nation has a special network to distribute sync signals on its territory. These centers
interconnect between them, regionally, and with the master reference at France.

2) Without considering other factors but quantum ones, atomic clocks suffer from phase noise. it can be explained by telling
that emissions of radiation from cesium atoms due to the microwave exciting signal is NOT PERFECT, as physicists would
prefer, because cesium atoms at states A or B are not in a perfect energy state with EXACT differences Eo = h.fo, but are
distributed in a way that they verify gaussian-like differences in the amount of atoms around such exact difference.

So, as any oscillator, a factor Q (stability) is assigned to the amounts of atoms outside of their exact (predicted) differences,
as is related to the amount of atoms at which transitions are made at fo compared to those at nearby frequencies.

Then, a quantum Q factor is measured as a quotient between fo and the noise bandwidth Δfo. Averaging the energies hf' at
every slot of the spectrum shape, sideways fo, the number of atomic transitions at every narrow bandwidth can be calculated.

The quantum Q factor is further degraded by several other perturbations within or outside the atomic clock. The approximate
value of the quantum Q factor is calculated by subtracting the effect of other known degradations that exist and that are
explained here (NIST):

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/calibrations/ie79-7.pdf

3) In cesium clocks, at a chamber where atoms transitioned back from level F= 3 to level F=4 (A and B state) are guided, by a
a magnet, to a hot wire ionizer, where an electric current proportional to the number of atoms that were at F=4 is produced.

Since here, and applied to GPS atomic clocks (for instance), there are two versions:

3.1) The feedback is done entirely in the microwave region:

This current regulates a microwave oscillator, so it can excite atoms in a Ramsey cavity to maximize the output current
produced at 9,192,631,770 Hz (exact fo). And this signal (current) is amplified and scaled down to regulate an TCXO
oscillator at 10.230000 Mhz (exactly).

3.2) The feedback is done with a loop that involves a TCXO at 10.23 Mhz:

This current oscillates at 9,192,631,770 Hz, in the microwave region, and is amplified and scaled down and non-linearly
mixed with that of an TCXO (10.230000 Mhz exactly). The difference below 1000 Hz is low-pass filtered and
processed to obtain the lowest error signal possible, by fine-tuning the TCXO (using varicaps). The 10.23 Mhz output
is upscaled up to 9,192,631,770 Hz, containing by then the error compensation to maximize the current output.


At any case, the ratio between 9,192,631,770 Hz and 10.230000 Mhz is a number with many decimal places, around 898.

So, traditional digital frequency dividers or digital synthesizers can not be used, and special digital techniques are required.

According to NIST page, the noise bandwidth Δfo for commercial products is narrowed to the range of 600 to 1000 Hz. Probably,
more stable and costly cesium clocks are available for space and military applications.

In GPS systems, the reference OCXO oscillates at 10.230000 Mhz (exactly), which is multiplied by 154 to obtain the L1 band carrier
frequency of 1575.42 Mhz (exactly). But the ratio of cesium fo to OCXO 10.230000 Mhz makes the downscaling factor a non-integer
number which is, exactly, 898.595480938416 (exactly), so special frequency synthesizers are required.

Fractional-N systems have been used in commercial signal generators since 1989, with initial 0.1 Hz frequency resolution. Such
devices had to be evolved across several generations to offer much greater decimal resolution as a multiplier.

Between other advanced techniques, in DDS (Digital Direct Synthesis), chips with accumulative phase (digital counters with very
large modulus (64/128 bits counters) generate a continuous signal with slow phase increase, which output is transformed in an
analog signal, using DAC (Digital to Analog Converters) with accurate precision on its frequency.

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 12:37:33 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 10:02:30 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> If the photon does not oscillate at that FREQUENCY, what does the FREQUENCY represent?
>> It represents the frequency of the source... and hence the
>> proportionality between the path length and the phase of the amplitude
>> for any specific available path. The phase of a source of
>> electromagnetic radiation advances with a certain frequency, and each
>> photon has a particular phase (that does not advance in transit) and an
>> amount of energy proportional to the frequency of the source. Bear in
>> mind that although a photon may be regarded as a "particle", it is
>> definitely not a classical particle, and likewise electromagnetic
>> radiation is not a classical wave, but there are wavelike and
>> particle-like attributes. The probability of the discrete energy of a
>> photon being received from a given source at a certain time and place is
>> the norm of the sum of amplitudes for the available paths (this is
>> Feynman's "sum over paths" approach). If the paths have different
>> lengths, the amplitudes have different phases (corresponding to
>> different phases of the source), and the proportionality between path
>> length and phase is the frequency of the source, proportional to the
>> energy of each photon. So, in this sense, a photon is associated with a
>> frequency, but a photon does not oscillate. The phase along a given
>> light-like path does not advance.
>>
>>> Source: https://www.zmescience.com/science/what-is-photon-definition-04322/
>>> " ...photons have energy equal to their oscillation frequency times Planck’s constant."
>>
>> To be accurate, that quote should be "photons have energy equal to the
>> oscillation frequency of the source times Planck’s constant." This is
>> why I suggested you consult a text book on quantum electrodynamics, not
>> a web page. Web articles are not intended to be substitutes for texts,
>> for those who want in-depth understanding of a subject.
>
> Like I wrote before, Quantum electrodynamics is the PROBLEM, not a solution.
> That is clearly why you cannot answer the question. How can a photon
> represent the frequency of the source if the photon does not oscillate?

The photon doesn’t oscillate. It carries a certain amount of energy. That
energy is a constant times the frequency of the source. The photon also has
a phase. A phase is a physics term you’ll have to learn. That phase goes
through 2pi at a rate equal to the frequency.

>
> Like you say, a photon is not a classic particle, like a grain of sand, nor is it
> a classical wave, like sound waves. You claim it does not oscillate, so how
> can it have a FREQUENCY?
>
> Ignoring sources which say the photons DO oscillate just indicates that you
> have a closed mind to anything that is not Quantum electrodynamics.

That depends on the quality of the source material, doesn’t it? Textbooks
don’t say the photons oscillate. There are lots of crappy web resources
that do say they oscillate, but they’re crappy web pages.

>
> "Photons are often described as energy packets. This is a very fitting analogy,
> as a photon contains energy that cannot be divided. This energy is stored as
> an oscillating electric field. These fields may oscillate at almost any frequency.

Yes, that’s an example of a VERY poor website.

>
> Source:
> https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_%28Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry%29/Quantum_Mechanics/02._Fundamental_Concepts_of_Quantum_Mechanics/Photons
>
> "Photons have an energy E associated with their frequency f of oscillation"
> Source: https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/p/Photon
>

There’s another.

> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 3:11:57 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 12:25:14 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> How can a photon represent the frequency of the source if the photon does not oscillate?
>> I explained in the previous message how a photon is characterized by the
>> frequency of the source. Again, each photon arriving at a particular
>> reception event had a variety of possible classical paths by which it
>> could have traveled from the source. For example, in a two-slit
>> experiment the photon could have gone through the left slit or the right
>> slit. For a typical reception event the paths to that event are of
>> different lengths, and since the photon always propagates at c, the time
>> required for the various paths is different, meaning they would have
>> departed the source at different times, and hence the phase of the
>> photon (which does not change along any path) would be different,
>> depending on which path it followed.
>>
>> The probability of a photon arriving at a given event is the magnitude
>> of the sum of the amplitudes for the available paths. In effect, the
>> possible paths interfere with each other, because the paths have
>> different phases, like little arrows that may point in the same
>> direction (constructive interference) or in opposite directions
>> (destructive interference). The proportionality between path length and
>> phase is the frequency of the source, so in this sense one can say each
>> photon is characterized by that frequency, but it really exhibits an
>> energy proportional to that frequency, and the phase effect only
>> manifests itself by the interference. Again, the individual paths are
>> light-like, with zero elapsed proper time, and no oscillations along
>> those path, which is why it's incorrect to say that a photon oscillates.
>>> Like you say, a photon is not a classic particle, like a grain of sand, nor is it
>>> a classical wave, like sound waves. You claim it does not oscillate, so how
>>> can it have a FREQUENCY?
>> See above. A photon is associated with a frequency of the source, which
>> manifests itself (with complex paths) by the interference patterns, but
>> this arises from the different path lengths and hence phases of the
>> available paths, not due to oscillation of a photon.
>>> Ignoring sources which say the photons DO oscillate just indicates that you
>>> have a closed mind to anything that is not Quantum electrodynamics.
>> Well, the sources you quote are all striving (with varying degrees of
>> success) to describe photons in accord with quantum electrodynamics.
>> They aren't making up their theories of the universe with entities that
>> they are calling "photons". They are just trying to describe photons in
>> quantum electrodynamics to you. (If you emailed the author of that
>> article and asked him if he was trying to describe something contrary to
>> quantum electrodynamics, I am quite confident he would say "of course not".)
>> So if you are rejecting quantum electrodynamics, you need to reject all
>> those articles. But that wouldn't make much sense, because quantum
>> electrodynamics is the most successful theory of fundamental physics ever conceived.
>>> "This energy is stored as an oscillating electric field."
>> Again, the quote you cited is correct, but it does not say that photons
>> oscillate. In order to understand the quotes you are reading, you need
>> to understand the relationship between photons and electromagnetic
>> fields. They are not the same thing. The electromagnetic field is
>> mediated by photons, but to say that an electromagnetic field oscillates
>> (which it does) is not the same as saying that a photon oscillates (which it doesn't).
>>> Like I wrote before, Quantum electrodynamics is the PROBLEM, not a solution.
>> I don't understand what you mean by that, so I don't know how to respond
>> to it. Quantum electrodynamics is the most successful theory of
>> fundamental physics that we have, so I don't know what you mean when you
>> say it is "the problem". Do you mean you don't understand it? Or do you
>> mean it is wrong? If the latter, in what way is it wrong?
>
> Quantum electrodynamics is very good at analyzing the functions of
> particles in the sub-atomic world. It is when it tries to FORCE the
> universe and the world around us to fit into its equations that it turns
> into PURE CRAP.

Well, the only way you could show that they are pure crap is by showing
where they say something should happen that is not observed to happen, or
say something else should never happen that is observed to happen. Did you
have something in mind here? That’s how science works.

>
> It is WRONG in saying that photons do not oscillate.

And what makes you think they do? Why do you think that’s a FACT?

> It just cannot cope
> with a "particle" that isn't just a solid particle.

Why do you think that?

> It cannot cope with an
> infinite universe, either.

And why do you think that?

> Or with the variable speed of light.

And why do you think that?

>
> Photons oscillate. If Quantum electrodynamics says they don't, then
> Quantum electrodynamics is ignoring FACTS because BELIEVERS in the
> INFALLIBILITY of Quantum electrodynamics cannot develop a mathematical
> model that incorporates those FACTS.
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, 29 August 2021 at 12:15:49 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Well, the only way you could show that they are pure crap is by showing
> where they say something should happen that is not observed to happen, or
> say something else should never happen that is observed to happen. Did you
> have something in mind here? That’s how science works.

Or, at least, that's how poor idiot woodworker imagines it works;
thinkers more advanced (Poincare, Kuhn, Lakatos) knew better,
however.
Anyway, in the real world the real clocks of real GPS keep indicating
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 6:38:54 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> How many Cs atoms are in a clock?

Probably millions.

> How do they watch one of them?

They don't. They watch all of them.

> How could any machine count a nano difference?

They don't count or measure size. They measure its energy.

> How is the one Cs atom changing in size?

Its size isn't measured. It loses an electron, which causes it to
lose energy. They can separate low energy photons from high
energy photons, and they can measure what percentage of the
total photons are low energy. When most of the photons have
been changed to low energy, then they know they are using
photons that oscillate 9,192,631,770 times per second to cause
the changes. And they can use that to set the clock so that it
"ticks" 9,192,631,770 times per second.

Ed

On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 10:52:01 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 2:03:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Quantum electrodynamics ... is WRONG in saying that photons do not oscillate. It
> > just cannot cope with a "particle" that isn't just a solid particle.
> A photon is nothing at all like a "solid particle" in quantum electrodynamics, so your complaint is specious, based entirely on misinformation. Indeed, by insisting that "a photon oscillates", it is you who is exhibiting an inability to cope with a "particle" that is not a classical particle (nor a classical wave) at all.

I'm doing just the opposite. An oscillating photon is not like
a classical particle nor like a classical wave. It is YOU who
cannot cope with such a thing as an oscillating photon.

> > It cannot cope with an infinite universe, either.
> Again, you are misinformed. Quantum electrodynamics is a local theory of the electromagnetic interaction, and it is perfectly compatible with an infinite universe.

Nonsense. Quantum electrodynamics proposes a universe that
is like an expanding balloon, with nothing outside of the balloon.
Space is ONLY the space between objects INSIDE the balloon.

> > Or with the variable speed of light.
> Your complaint is specious, because quantum electrodynamics is perfectly consistent with all the well-established facts of electromagnetic radiation, including the propagation speed, in all circumstances.

QM is incompatible with NONRECIPROCAL time dilation. And
NONRECIPROCAL time dilation means seconds can have different
lengths. And that means that 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND
depends upon the length of a second at the point where a photon
is emitted.

>
> > Photons oscillate.
>
> That doesn't make sense, because the word "photon" is defined as the quantum excitation of the electromagnetic field in quantum electrodynamics, and those very definitely do not oscillate. If you are using the word "photon" to refer to something else, something that you think oscillates, in a "theory" of your own making, then you're just confusing yourself by conflating it with what the rest of the world means by the word "photon".
>
> You asked for an explanation of why photons don't oscillate, and I provided that -- twice. Both times you simply ignored it. You'll never understand if you keep ignoring the explanation.

The explanation is not an explanation, it's just a repeat of your
BELIEF that photons do not oscillate.

The electric and magnetic fields in a photon OSCILLATE. The
frequency of the oscillations is the frequency of the photon.
A photon cannot have a frequency UNLESS its electric and
magnetic fields oscillate.

Ed

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 5:12:17 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 12:37:33 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> >> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 10:02:30 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> >>> If the photon does not oscillate at that FREQUENCY, what does the FREQUENCY represent?
> >> It represents the frequency of the source... and hence the
> >> proportionality between the path length and the phase of the amplitude
> >> for any specific available path. The phase of a source of
> >> electromagnetic radiation advances with a certain frequency, and each
> >> photon has a particular phase (that does not advance in transit) and an
> >> amount of energy proportional to the frequency of the source. Bear in
> >> mind that although a photon may be regarded as a "particle", it is
> >> definitely not a classical particle, and likewise electromagnetic
> >> radiation is not a classical wave, but there are wavelike and
> >> particle-like attributes. The probability of the discrete energy of a
> >> photon being received from a given source at a certain time and place is
> >> the norm of the sum of amplitudes for the available paths (this is
> >> Feynman's "sum over paths" approach). If the paths have different
> >> lengths, the amplitudes have different phases (corresponding to
> >> different phases of the source), and the proportionality between path
> >> length and phase is the frequency of the source, proportional to the
> >> energy of each photon. So, in this sense, a photon is associated with a
> >> frequency, but a photon does not oscillate. The phase along a given
> >> light-like path does not advance.
> >>
> >>> Source: https://www.zmescience.com/science/what-is-photon-definition-04322/
> >>> " ...photons have energy equal to their oscillation frequency times Planck’s constant."
> >>
> >> To be accurate, that quote should be "photons have energy equal to the
> >> oscillation frequency of the source times Planck’s constant." This is
> >> why I suggested you consult a text book on quantum electrodynamics, not
> >> a web page. Web articles are not intended to be substitutes for texts,
> >> for those who want in-depth understanding of a subject.
> >
> > Like I wrote before, Quantum electrodynamics is the PROBLEM, not a solution.
> > That is clearly why you cannot answer the question. How can a photon
> > represent the frequency of the source if the photon does not oscillate?
> The photon doesn’t oscillate. It carries a certain amount of energy. That
> energy is a constant times the frequency of the source. The photon also has
> a phase. A phase is a physics term you’ll have to learn. That phase goes
> through 2pi at a rate equal to the frequency.
> >
> > Like you say, a photon is not a classic particle, like a grain of sand, nor is it
> > a classical wave, like sound waves. You claim it does not oscillate, so how
> > can it have a FREQUENCY?
> >
> > Ignoring sources which say the photons DO oscillate just indicates that you
> > have a closed mind to anything that is not Quantum electrodynamics.
> That depends on the quality of the source material, doesn’t it? Textbooks
> don’t say the photons oscillate. There are lots of crappy web resources
> that do say they oscillate, but they’re crappy web pages.

OR the textbooks are crap and the web pages are correct.

Ed

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 5:15:49 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 3:11:57 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> >> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 12:25:14 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Quantum electrodynamics is very good at analyzing the functions of
> > particles in the sub-atomic world. It is when it tries to FORCE the
> > universe and the world around us to fit into its equations that it turns
> > into PURE CRAP.
> Well, the only way you could show that they are pure crap is by showing
> where they say something should happen that is not observed to happen, or
> say something else should never happen that is observed to happen. Did you
> have something in mind here? That’s how science works.

Time dilation is NONreciprocal. Experiments show that. There was
nothing reciprocal in the time dilation measured by the Hafele-Keating
experiment --- or by any other time dilation experiment.

> >
> > It is WRONG in saying that photons do not oscillate.
> And what makes you think they do? Why do you think that’s a FACT?

Because radar guns measure the oscillation rates of photons when
they measure the speed of targets. They compare the oscillation
rate of the photons the gun emits to the oscillation rates of the
photons that return from the target.

> > It just cannot cope
> > with a "particle" that isn't just a solid particle.
> Why do you think that?

Because a photon is a particle that oscillates, and QM cannot
cope with that.

> > It cannot cope with an
> > infinite universe, either.
> And why do you think that?

Because QM uses a universe that is like a balloon. It's size
is its diameter, and space is only the space between objects
in or on the balloon. When asked "What is outside of the balloon?",
QM believers say that is not a valid question, because there is
NOTHING outside of the balloon. They cannot cope with a
balloon that is expanding into infinite space.

> > Or with the variable speed of light.
> And why do you think that?

Because they cannot cope with NONreciprocal time dilation, and
NONreciprocal time dilation results in the speed of light being
different whenever the length of a second is different for the emitter.

Ed

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 7:51:31 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> > A photon is nothing at all like a "solid particle" in quantum electrodynamics, so your complaint is specious, based entirely on misinformation. Indeed, by insisting that "a photon oscillates", it is you who is exhibiting an inability to cope with a "particle" that is not a classical particle (nor a classical wave) at all.
>
> I'm doing just the opposite. An oscillating photon is not like
> a classical particle nor like a classical wave.

That's not true. The concept of an "oscillating particle" moving along a definite trajectory is entirely classical, and is completely different from the actual photon, which is a probabilistic interaction consisting of a non-classical superposition of the available classical interactions, represented by Feynman's "sum over paths". Your conception of a "photon" is completely incapable of accounting for any of the characteristic interference phenomena of light, such as Young's two-slit experiment (first performed over 200 years ago). It was this kind of experiment that convinced physicists for centuries that light must be a wave in a medium, rather than particles, because no classical particles could produce interference effects. It wasn't until the beginning of the 20th century that quantum theory showed how a particle theory could be reconciled with interference, but only by realizing that the "particles" were nothing like what you (Ed) have in mind.

> It is YOU who cannot cope with such a thing as an oscillating photon.

Again, an "oscillating photon" of the kind you have in mind is a classical model that is completely incompatible with the observed facts of interference (among other things). The problem isn't that scientists "can't cope with" your beliefs; the problem is that scientists understand that your beliefs are wrong.

> Quantum electrodynamics proposes a universe that
> is like an expanding balloon, with nothing outside of the balloon.

Excuse me, but that's completely untrue. You are confusing quantum electrodynamics, which is a local theory of the electromagnetic interaction, with a cosmological model based on general relativity, and in fact you are referring to a model that has actually been ruled out. One possible solution of the Einstein field equations of general relativity is a closed universe (analogous to the surface of a sphere or balloon), but current astronomical observations have fairly conclusively ruled that out, since they indicate the universe is actually open and infinite... which is also compatible with general relativity. So you are wrong in two ways: (1) your statement about cosmology has nothing to do with quantum electrodynamics, which works the same regardless of the cosmological model, and (2) the cosmology you are describing has long since been ruled out observationally, so it wouldn't even be relevant to a discussion of cosmology in general relativity, let alone quantum electrodynamics. I say again, your complaint is based on nothing but misinformation and misunderstanding.

> QM is incompatible with NONRECIPROCAL time dilation.

Again, your statement is utterly false, and even senseless. Quantum electrodynamics (and, more generally, quantum field theory), is perfectly compatible with local Lorentz invariance, which has been more conclusively established than any other physical fact, and yes, given any two relatively moving objects, the proper time of each object runs slow in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other object is at rest. (In other words, the relationship between local inertial coordinate systems is reciprocal.) Again, this is firmly established by experimental results for over a century.

> The explanation is not an explanation, it's just a repeat of your
> BELIEF that photons do not oscillate.

Excuse me, but that is flatly false. I gave you a careful and detailed explanation. It is you who simply repeats your senseless mantra that "photons oscillate", whereas I have written detailed explanations of actual photons.. It is simply dishonest for you to claim that I have not provided you with the explanation. True, you have repeatedly ignored the explanation, but that doesn't mean I haven't provided it to you.

As explained in the previous message, a photon is characterized by the frequency of the source. Each photon arriving at a particular reception event had a variety of possible classical paths by which it could have traveled from the source. For example, in a two-slit experiment the photon could have gone through the left slit or the right slit. For a typical reception event the paths to that event are of different lengths, and since the photon always propagates at c, the time required for the various paths is different, meaning they would have departed the source at different times, and hence the phase of the photon (which does not change along any path) would be different, depending on which path it followed.

The probability of a photon arriving at a given event is the magnitude of the sum of the amplitudes for the available paths. In effect, the possible paths interfere with each other, because the paths have different phases, like little arrows that may point in the same direction (constructive interference) or in opposite directions (destructive interference). The proportionality between path length and phase is the frequency of the source, so, in this sense, one can say each photon is characterized by that frequency, but it really exhibits an energy proportional to that frequency, and the phase effect only manifests itself by the interference. Again, the individual paths are light-like, with zero elapsed proper time, and no oscillations along those path, which is why it's incorrect to say that a photon oscillates.

> The electric and magnetic fields in a photon OSCILLATE.

That's senseless, because the electromagnetic field is mediated by photons, so you can't say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields! Your beliefs are completely irrational and illogical.

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 10:45:28 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 7:51:31 AM UTC-7, wrote:
(snip repetitive crap)
> > QM is incompatible with NONRECIPROCAL time dilation.
> Again, your statement is utterly false, and even senseless. Quantum electrodynamics (and, more generally, quantum field theory), is perfectly compatible with local Lorentz invariance, which has been more conclusively established than any other physical fact, and yes, given any two relatively moving objects, the proper time of each object runs slow in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other object is at rest. (In other words, the relationship between local inertial coordinate systems is reciprocal.) Again, this is firmly established by experimental results for over a century.

You argue that time dilation IS reciprocal. You CLAIM there are
experiments which show that. But the experiments you name
(Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann) do NOT show that, and you
IGNORE all the experiments which show that time dilation is
NOT reciprocal. Examples:

1. Hafele-Keating
2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
4. Muon experiments
5. University of Maryland
6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
7. Briatore and Leschiutta
8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
9. Van Baak - 2005
10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
11. Van Baak - 2016
12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020

> > The explanation is not an explanation, it's just a repeat of your
> > BELIEF that photons do not oscillate.
> Excuse me, but that is flatly false. I gave you a careful and detailed explanation. It is you who simply repeats your senseless mantra that "photons oscillate", whereas I have written detailed explanations of actual photons.. It is simply dishonest for you to claim that I have not provided you with the explanation. True, you have repeatedly ignored the explanation, but that doesn't mean I haven't provided it to you.

Again, your explanation is NOT an explanation. It is just a repeat
of your BELIEF that photons do not oscillate.

> As explained in the previous message, a photon is characterized by the frequency of the source.

That is just memorized words with no meaning.

> Each photon arriving at a particular reception event had a variety of possible classical paths by which it could have traveled from the source. For example, in a two-slit experiment the photon could have gone through the left slit or the right slit. For a typical reception event the paths to that event are of different lengths, and since the photon always propagates at c, the time required for the various paths is different, meaning they would have departed the source at different times, and hence the phase of the photon (which does not change along any path) would be different, depending on which path it followed.

Experiments show that if you fire one photon at a time through the double-slit
experiment, you eventually get the same pattern on the wall. That indicates
that the oscillations of the photon determine what path it will take through the slits.

>
> The probability of a photon arriving at a given event is the magnitude of the sum of the amplitudes for the available paths. In effect, the possible paths interfere with each other, because the paths have different phases, like little arrows that may point in the same direction (constructive interference) or in opposite directions (destructive interference). The proportionality between path length and phase is the frequency of the source, so, in this sense, one can say each photon is characterized by that frequency, but it really exhibits an energy proportional to that frequency, and the phase effect only manifests itself by the interference. Again, the individual paths are light-like, with zero elapsed proper time, and no oscillations along those path, which is why it's incorrect to say that a photon oscillates..

The FACT that a photon oscillates is what CAUSES it to take
different paths though the 2 slits, all depending upon what is
happening with the photon when it hits the experiment.

> > The electric and magnetic fields in a photon OSCILLATE.
> That's senseless, because the electromagnetic field is mediated by photons, so you can't say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields! Your beliefs are completely irrational and illogical.

OR your beliefs are completely irrational and illogical.

You write BELIEFS. "The electromagnetic field is mediated
by photons." WHAT electromagnetic field? The only electric
and magnetic fields a photon has as it moves through space
are the oscillating fields it CONSISTS of. Without those
oscillating fields, THERE IS NO PHOTON.

Ed

On 8/29/21 10:45 AM, Townes Olson wrote:
> [...]

You have given an appropriately accurate description of this.

You are also learning that Ed Lake is completely unable to read what you
write, primarily because he simply does not know what the words you use
actually mean -- he makes up his own meanings and ascribes them to your
words. His own opinions sound too loudly in his ear that he cannot hear
what you actually say. Hopeless.

It is futile to try to teach a pig to sing....

Tom Roberts