On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 9:02:11 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> and how could the changing atomic be counted?
> by what macro machine?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

As I understand it, what they do is shoot a photon at a Cesium atom,
the Cesium atom immediately gets rid of that energy by emitting a
new photon, the atomic clock collects that photon and sends another
photon to Cesium atom, which is again rejected.

The clock counts how many times PER SECOND the Cesium atom
rejects the photons sent to it. The answer is: 9,192,631,770.
A second is 1/86,400th of an Earth day, and a Cesium atomic clock
ticks 9,192,631,770 times during that period of time.

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 9:02:11 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> and how could the changing atomic be counted?
>> by what macro machine?
>>
>> Mitchell Raemsch
>
> As I understand it, what they do is shoot a photon at a Cesium atom,
> the Cesium atom immediately gets rid of that energy by emitting a
> new photon, the atomic clock collects that photon and sends another
> photon to Cesium atom, which is again rejected.
>
> The clock counts how many times PER SECOND the Cesium atom
> rejects the photons sent to it. The answer is: 9,192,631,770.
> A second is 1/86,400th of an Earth day, and a Cesium atomic clock
> ticks 9,192,631,770 times during that period of time.
>
> Ed
>

No, that’s completely wrong, Ed. It has nothing to do with how often
photons interact with cesium atoms. It has to do with the light emitted in
a SINGLE de-excitation of a cesium atom. The light has a certain very
precise frequency, and the second is based on the period between
oscillations at that frequency: 9,192,631,770 periods of that oscillation
of light emitted from a single cesium atom de-excitation.

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

On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 16:01:19 UTC+2, det...@newsguy.com wrote:

> A second is 1/86,400th of an Earth day, and a Cesium atomic clock
> ticks 9,192,631,770 times during that period of time.

No, Cs frequency is varying.

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 9:20:50 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 9:02:11 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> and how could the changing atomic be counted?
> >> by what macro machine?
> >>
> >> Mitchell Raemsch
> >
> > As I understand it, what they do is shoot a photon at a Cesium atom,
> > the Cesium atom immediately gets rid of that energy by emitting a
> > new photon, the atomic clock collects that photon and sends another
> > photon to Cesium atom, which is again rejected.
> >
> > The clock counts how many times PER SECOND the Cesium atom
> > rejects the photons sent to it. The answer is: 9,192,631,770.
> > A second is 1/86,400th of an Earth day, and a Cesium atomic clock
> > ticks 9,192,631,770 times during that period of time.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> No, that’s completely wrong, Ed. It has nothing to do with how often
> photons interact with cesium atoms. It has to do with the light emitted in
> a SINGLE de-excitation of a cesium atom. The light has a certain very
> precise frequency, and the second is based on the period between
> oscillations at that frequency: 9,192,631,770 periods of that oscillation
> of light emitted from a single cesium atom de-excitation.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

"Cesium atomic clocks

"This atomic mechanism is based on the idea that atoms have electrons in particular energy states. When an atom absorbs energy, electrons leap to higher energy states and become unstable. They then give out the same energy as photons of light (or some other kind of electromagnetic radiation such as X rays or radio waves), returning to their original or ground state. The cesium atoms used in many atomic clocks have 55 electrons arranged in orbitals. The very outermost electron can oscillate between two different energy states by spinning in two slightly different ways. When it shifts from the higher to the lower of these states, it gives out a photon that corresponds to microwaves with a frequency of exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz (roughly 9.2 billion hertz or 9.2 gigahertz). That means it can be stimulated from its lower to its higher state by exactly the same microwaves."

Source: https://www.explainthatstuff.com/howradiocontrolledclockswork.html

"The second is defined as being equal to the time duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the fundamental unperturbed ground-state of the caesium-133 atom."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

El viernes, 27 de agosto de 2021 a las 10:01:19 UTC-4, det...@newsguy.com escribió:
> On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 9:02:11 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > and how could the changing atomic be counted?
> > by what macro machine?
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> As I understand it, what they do is shoot a photon at a Cesium atom,
> the Cesium atom immediately gets rid of that energy by emitting a
> new photon, the atomic clock collects that photon and sends another
> photon to Cesium atom, which is again rejected.
>
> The clock counts how many times PER SECOND the Cesium atom
> rejects the photons sent to it. The answer is: 9,192,631,770.
> A second is 1/86,400th of an Earth day, and a Cesium atomic clock
> ticks 9,192,631,770 times during that period of time.
>
> Ed
Your understanding is completely wrong.

https://www.livescience.com/32660-how-does-an-atomic-clock-work.html

"It is no surprise then that the international standard for the length of one second is based on atoms. Since 1967, the official definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation that gets an atom of the element called cesium to vibrate between two energy states.

Inside a cesium atomic clock, cesium atoms are funneled down a tube where they pass through radio waves . If this frequency is just right 9,192,631,770 cycles per second then the cesium atoms "resonate" and change their energy state.

A detector at the end of the tube keeps track of the number of cesium atoms reaching it that have changed their energy states. The more finely tuned the radio wave frequency is to 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, the more cesium atoms reach the detector.

The detector feeds information back into the radio wave generator. It synchronizes the frequency of the radio waves with the peak number of cesium atoms striking it. Other electronics in the atomic clock count this frequency. As with a single swing of the pendulum, a second is ticked off when the frequency count is met".

In other words, the Cs atomic clock is a feedback control system. The oscillator frequency is feedbakc controlled by the amount of Cs atoms that change their energy states.

El viernes, 27 de agosto de 2021 a las 11:00:58 UTC-4, det...@newsguy.com escribió:
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 9:20:50 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> "Cesium atomic clocks
>
> "This atomic mechanism is based on the idea that atoms have electrons in particular energy states. When an atom absorbs energy, electrons leap to higher energy states and become unstable. They then give out the same energy as photons of light (or some other kind of electromagnetic radiation such as X rays or radio waves), returning to their original or ground state. The cesium atoms used in many atomic clocks have 55 electrons arranged in orbitals. The very outermost electron can oscillate between two different energy states by spinning in two slightly different ways. When it shifts from the higher to the lower of these states, it gives out a photon that corresponds to microwaves with a frequency of exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz (roughly 9.2 billion hertz or 9.2 gigahertz). That means it can be stimulated from its lower to its higher state by exactly the same microwaves."
>
> Source: https://www.explainthatstuff.com/howradiocontrolledclockswork.html
>
> "The second is defined as being equal to the time duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the fundamental unperturbed ground-state of the caesium-133 atom."
>
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

https://www.timeanddate.com/time/how-do-atomic-clocks-work.html

"First, the atoms are heated in an oven and bundled into a beam. Each atom has one of two possible energy states. They are referred to as hyperfine levels, but let's call them state A and state B.
A magnetic field then removes all atoms in state B from the beam, so only atoms in state A remain.
The state-A atoms are sent through a resonator where they are subjected to microwave radiation, which triggers some of the atoms to change to state B. Behind the resonator, atoms that are still in state A are removed by a second magnetic field. A detector then counts all atoms that have changed to state B.
The percentage of atoms that change their state while passing through the resonator depends on the frequency of the microwave radiation. The more it is in sync with the inherent oscillation frequency of the atoms, the more atoms change their state.
The goal is to perfectly tune the microwave frequency to the oscillation of the atoms, and then measure it. After exactly 9,192,631,770 oscillations, a second has passed.

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 9:20:50 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 9:02:11 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> and how could the changing atomic be counted?
>>>> by what macro machine?
>>>>
>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>
>>> As I understand it, what they do is shoot a photon at a Cesium atom,
>>> the Cesium atom immediately gets rid of that energy by emitting a
>>> new photon, the atomic clock collects that photon and sends another
>>> photon to Cesium atom, which is again rejected.
>>>
>>> The clock counts how many times PER SECOND the Cesium atom
>>> rejects the photons sent to it. The answer is: 9,192,631,770.
>>> A second is 1/86,400th of an Earth day, and a Cesium atomic clock
>>> ticks 9,192,631,770 times during that period of time.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>> No, that’s completely wrong, Ed. It has nothing to do with how often
>> photons interact with cesium atoms. It has to do with the light emitted in
>> a SINGLE de-excitation of a cesium atom. The light has a certain very
>> precise frequency, and the second is based on the period between
>> oscillations at that frequency: 9,192,631,770 periods of that oscillation
>> of light emitted from a single cesium atom de-excitation.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>
> "Cesium atomic clocks
>
> "This atomic mechanism is based on the idea that atoms have electrons in
> particular energy states. When an atom absorbs energy, electrons leap to
> higher energy states and become unstable. They then give out the same
> energy as photons of light (or some other kind of electromagnetic
> radiation such as X rays or radio waves), returning to their original or
> ground state. The cesium atoms used in many atomic clocks have 55
> electrons arranged in orbitals. The very outermost electron can oscillate
> between two different energy states by spinning in two slightly different
> ways. When it shifts from the higher to the lower of these states, it
> gives out a photon that corresponds to microwaves with a frequency of
> exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz (roughly 9.2 billion hertz or 9.2 gigahertz).
> That means it can be stimulated from its lower to its higher state by
> exactly the same microwaves."

Yes, that’s in line what I just explained. When a single cesium atom
de-excites, its outermost electron shifts from the higher to the lower of
two states. When it does that, it emits a photon. That photon has a
frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz, which means the number of periods of that
light is 9,192,631,770 periods per second. Do you see now how the
explanation above says that?

There is NOTHING in the explanation you just quoted about the number of
times a cesium atom rejects a photon sent to it. It’s like you read it, and
then spewed out something completely different than what was said. The
explanation given in the quote above was very clear, and it’s obvious you
had trouble following what it said. Why is that?

>
> Source: https://www.explainthatstuff.com/howradiocontrolledclockswork.html
>
> "The second is defined as being equal to the time duration of
> 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition
> between the two hyperfine levels of the fundamental unperturbed
> ground-state of the caesium-133 atom."

Yes, that’s completely consistent with what I said, and also consistent
with the explanation for laypeople from www.explainthatstuff.com.

>
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>

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

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 11:26:12 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El viernes, 27 de agosto de 2021 a las 11:00:58 UTC-4, escribió:
> > On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 9:20:50 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > "Cesium atomic clocks
> >
> > "This atomic mechanism is based on the idea that atoms have electrons in particular energy states. When an atom absorbs energy, electrons leap to higher energy states and become unstable. They then give out the same energy as photons of light (or some other kind of electromagnetic radiation such as X rays or radio waves), returning to their original or ground state. The cesium atoms used in many atomic clocks have 55 electrons arranged in orbitals. The very outermost electron can oscillate between two different energy states by spinning in two slightly different ways. When it shifts from the higher to the lower of these states, it gives out a photon that corresponds to microwaves with a frequency of exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz (roughly 9.2 billion hertz or 9.2 gigahertz). That means it can be stimulated from its lower to its higher state by exactly the same microwaves."
> >
> > Source: https://www.explainthatstuff.com/howradiocontrolledclockswork.html
> >
> > "The second is defined as being equal to the time duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the fundamental unperturbed ground-state of the caesium-133 atom."
> >
> > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> https://www.timeanddate.com/time/how-do-atomic-clocks-work.html
>
> "First, the atoms are heated in an oven and bundled into a beam. Each atom has one of two possible energy states. They are referred to as hyperfine levels, but let's call them state A and state B.
> A magnetic field then removes all atoms in state B from the beam, so only atoms in state A remain.
> The state-A atoms are sent through a resonator where they are subjected to microwave radiation, which triggers some of the atoms to change to state B. Behind the resonator, atoms that are still in state A are removed by a second magnetic field. A detector then counts all atoms that have changed to state B.
> The percentage of atoms that change their state while passing through the resonator depends on the frequency of the microwave radiation. The more it is in sync with the inherent oscillation frequency of the atoms, the more atoms change their state.
> The goal is to perfectly tune the microwave frequency to the oscillation of the atoms, and then measure it. After exactly 9,192,631,770 oscillations, a second has passed.

Okay, so they shoot microwaves (a.k.a. "photons") at cesium atoms.
The microwaves oscillate AROUND 9,192,631,770 times per second.
The cesium atoms will change their energy state IF they are hit by
microwaves that oscillate EXACTLY 9,192,631,770 times per second.
The clock then fine-tunes the oscillation rate of the microwaves it
emits until it gets the highest percentage of atoms to change their energy
states. When that happens, the clock KNOWS it is emitting photons
that oscillate 9,192,631,770 times per second. And as long as it
continues do that, it can COUNT 9,192,631,770 TICKS per second.

Thanks.

Ed

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 7:01:19 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 9:02:11 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > and how could the changing atomic be counted?
> > by what macro machine?
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> As I understand it, what they do is shoot a photon at a Cesium atom,
> the Cesium atom immediately gets rid of that energy by emitting a

How do they see that Cs atom?

Mitchell Raemsch

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 11:58:38 AM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 7:01:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 9:02:11 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > and how could the changing atomic be counted?
> > > by what macro machine?
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > As I understand it, what they do is shoot a photon at a Cesium atom,
> > the Cesium atom immediately gets rid of that energy by emitting a
> How do they see that Cs atom?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

They do not need to see or target a specific atom. They shoot microwave
photons at a STREAM of cesium atoms. They then measure the percentage
of atoms in that stream that changed their energy states because they were
hit by the microwave photons. The greater the percentage that changed their
energy states, the more certain the clock is that it is emitting photons that
oscillate 9,192,631,770 times per second. Cesium atoms won't change
their energy state UNLESS they are hit by photons that oscillate
9,192,631,770 times per second.

Ed

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 10:07:47 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 11:58:38 AM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 7:01:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 9:02:11 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > and how could the changing atomic be counted?
> > > > by what macro machine?
> > > >
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > As I understand it, what they do is shoot a photon at a Cesium atom,
> > > the Cesium atom immediately gets rid of that energy by emitting a
> > How do they see that Cs atom?
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> They do not need to see or target a specific atom.

Then why would they need to be used you moron?

>
> Ed

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 12:09:01 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 10:07:47 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 11:58:38 AM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 7:01:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 9:02:11 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > and how could the changing atomic be counted?
> > > > > by what macro machine?
> > > > >
> > > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > > As I understand it, what they do is shoot a photon at a Cesium atom,
> > > > the Cesium atom immediately gets rid of that energy by emitting a
> > > How do they see that Cs atom?
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > They do not need to see or target a specific atom.
> Then why would they need to be used you moron?

They don't target a specific atom, they target a specific TYPE of atom.
They target a TYPE of atom that ONLY changes its energy state IF
it is hit by a photon that oscillates 9,192,631,770 times per second.
That is what the cesium atom does.

When you shoot a stream of photons at a cloud of atoms, you are
bound to hit some of the atoms. You just need to build a device that
enables you to hit as many atoms as possible.

Ed

Ed

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 1:16:12 PM UTC-4, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 12:09:01 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Then why would they need to be used you moron?
> They don't target a specific atom, they target a specific TYPE of atom.

ed, why do you keep responding to the troll?
You know it's just making fun of you, it's just seeking attention. And you keep falling for it or since you are desperate for attention you decide to stroke it... Seriously, instead of responding to that troll, just report it, reporte it as spam, since it is not discussing physics at all it is just putting a few common words to lure you people in. And the idiots get lured in.

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 12:33:23 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 1:16:12 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 12:09:01 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Then why would they need to be used you moron?
> > They don't target a specific atom, they target a specific TYPE of atom.
> ed, why do you keep responding to the troll?
> You know it's just making fun of you, it's just seeking attention. And you keep falling for it or since you are desperate for attention you decide to stroke it... Seriously, instead of responding to that troll, just report it, reporte it as spam, since it is not discussing physics at all it is just putting a few common words to lure you people in. And the idiots get lured in.

He asked legitimate questions. Plus, it was a subject I wasn't
sure about myself. So, I explained things "as I understand them,"
and that understanding turned out to be mostly wrong.

During the subsequent discussion I learned the KEY to clearing
up my misunderstandings.

The fact that he called me a "moron" doesn't bother me. I expect
name calling from nearly EVERYONE on this forum.

I think this was the most productive discussion I've ever had on this forum..

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 12:33:23 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
>> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 1:16:12 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 12:09:01 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Then why would they need to be used you moron?
>>> They don't target a specific atom, they target a specific TYPE of atom.
>> ed, why do you keep responding to the troll?
>> You know it's just making fun of you, it's just seeking attention. And
>> you keep falling for it or since you are desperate for attention you
>> decide to stroke it... Seriously, instead of responding to that troll,
>> just report it, reporte it as spam, since it is not discussing physics
>> at all it is just putting a few common words to lure you people in. And
>> the idiots get lured in.
>
> He asked legitimate questions. Plus, it was a subject I wasn't
> sure about myself. So, I explained things "as I understand them,"
> and that understanding turned out to be mostly wrong.
>
> During the subsequent discussion I learned the KEY to clearing
> up my misunderstandings.
>
> The fact that he called me a "moron" doesn't bother me. I expect
> name calling from nearly EVERYONE on this forum.
>
> I think this was the most productive discussion I've ever had on this forum.
>
> Ed
>

If I might offer one general comment, Ed: I’ve noticed that you are trying
to understand topics that are beyond the elementary physics level, like
time dilation, how atomic clocks work, and the like. You do some web
research to try to find resources you understand, and though they try to
explain things in accessible language, it’s fairly common that you still
find them impenetrable. Like Einstein’s book for laypeople, in which he
still expects the reader to do some algebra.

Part of this is that the shortness of the resources you read requires them
to take some shortcuts and use words that you don’t really understand,
because you’ve not had the prior basic materials. No one who has not
studied first year physics or chemistry will not know what an “electron
orbital transmission” means. No one who has not studied first year physics
or chemistry will understand what the frequency or wavelength of light
actually means.

What I’m trying to convey is that in order to understand even these web
pages written for the populace (like Wikipedia and other resources) to help
explain these topics you find fun, you’ll probably need to start with
reading more basic information about physics fundamentals, which are topics
that are likely less interesting to you. But what that WILL do for you is
to prep you for what the words mean in the topics you find more
interesting.

There really aren’t any shortcuts. Lead guitarists have to practice scales
first. Architects have to learn perspective drawing skills first.
Electrical engineers have to learn how to solve differential equations
first.

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

On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:58:51 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:

> "It is no surprise then that the international standard for the length of one second is based on atoms. Since 1967, the official definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation that gets an atom of the element called cesium to vibrate between two energy states.

In the dreams of some brainwashed morons; not in the
real measurement devices like GPS.