swansont

If there isn't any measurable effect, then time changing doesn't matter - there is no effect. I will borrow and analogy I've read elsewhere: if you propose that there is a massless invisible gorilla in the room, and there are no gorilla effects that can be detected, then your proposition is not a scientific one. It's meaningless. What people investigate is whether dimensionless constants change over time, such as the fine structure constant. And the limit on how much that might have changed is quite small (a part in 10^17 per year as an upper bound)

Some fissions of heavy nuclei will release only one neutron. In general you will not find heavy nuclei that release only one neutron, on average, because they have a large neutron/proton ratio, so the fission fragments are very neutron-rich, so they are highly unstable and shedding the extra neutrons is energetically favorable. Sometimes the neutron emission is immediate, and often you get the lowering of the N/Z ratio via beta decay afterwards. To get only the one neutron out you would need to fission a much lighter nucleus (with a lower N/Z ratio), and that would require a lot of energy to be added.

They aren't, actually, when one gets down to the brass tacks. It's a subtlety that few people care about, but I am one of them. Frequency standards measure a frequency, and can be used as a clock, of sorts, but they are more like a stopwatch, measuring a time interval. Many of them get turned off (often for months at a time), and when they are off you aren't keeping track of the time, so they can't be considered clocks by themselves. Most people just call them clocks, though, because the distinction isn't important to them. The same people (generally) refer to THE atomic clock, as if there is only one, rather than many clocks that make up a master clock that keeps track of the time in the larger countries. (There are undoubtedly some countries that have just one atomic clock contributing to the BIPM) The clocks that I have helped build do not measure a frequency (and most do not use cesium). You can calibrate them with a cesium frequency standard so you know the length of a second. But they run continuously, so you can keep track of the time. That's why the second is defined at the geoid, and in the absence of any other perturbing effects. You make corrections for the elevation of the clock.

! Moderator Note First rule of the speculations section: Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure. I see nothing here that is testable or constitutes evidence. There is no measurement that is suggested. Your diagrams convey far less information than you think they do.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. You can brag about how good it is, but at some point we need to have the pudding. How does one test your ideas? What confirmable predictions does it make?

Yes, and we don’t know which state it’s in once entangled That’s not the point in dispute. Before the measurement the spin is undetermined, so to say it changed (“particle A must change its identity”) has no meaning. It’s not a model, it’s an analogy, and one that (when properly presented) acknowledges that the indeterminate state aspect is not covered by it.

Point 1: if you went to church, you might have a passing familiarity with the Bible. (I haven’t been in literally decades, and yet I know there are passages talking about spiritual rebirth. Googling them isn’t difficult). Try and be minimally informed. Otherwise it just has the appearance of bashing religion. Manufactured outrage.

Really? I’ve always understood it to be a spiritual thing, because that’s how it’s presented. Do you have any evidence that people are under the impression that they will be resurrected, when they aren’t actually dead? I disagree. You could look at the Bible itself and see what it actually says. Is that somehow unreasonable? Like John 3. https://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible/NIV/NIV_Bible/JOHN+3.html It’s pretty clear it’s referring to something spiritual, and explicitly denies that it’s physical.

! Moderator Note You posted a picture, without any scientific basis why the setup should do anything. Word salad isn’t science. Don’t waste any more of our time on this

! Moderator Note The issue is what you can demonstrate. You need an actual model and ways to test it. The rules require it.

A doesn’t “change” its identity, since it doesn’t have one in the first place. Its spin is not determined until the measurement

Decay is a spontaneous reaction, and you are describing an induced reaction or a scattering reaction Fission is one possibility; thermal neutron-induced fission of U-235 releases 2.43 neutrons on average, so one would expect some fraction of the fissions to release just one neutron. For the scatter, a change into a different atom requires the ejection of a proton in addition to the neutron. A possible candidate would be something that undergoes beta+ decay, and the scatter excites the nucleus, which then decays more readily from the excited state.

No, not me, and it’s singlet (as opposed to triplet) Better is in the eye of the beholder. If you look at the wave function, it’s a superposition of the two states (|ud>-|du>)/sqrt(2)) so there’s nothing wrong with saying that.

In a limited fashion. You can send a clock signal into a long optical fiber and there will be a time delay which you can compare with the current output of the clock.

! Moderator Note Responses in science threads need to be mainstream science, and also relevant to the discussion

Is it possible to measure Hawking radiation? Yes. https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6612 (the journal version is paywalled) Not sure why you have to be at the event horizon to do this; that’s an unreasonable restriction, as is requiring that one be at the edge of the observable universe.

You’re the one pushing non-constant time. If you have no way to test it, then it can’t have any measurable effect. Same is true for comparing a clock with itself.

Why can’t it be with another clock at another location, but in the past?

The individual states are indeterminate, but the correlation is there.

Yes, Jesus. (it’s a name, you should capitalize) Where does it say this about anyone else? That it will happen for anyone else? You were talking of this being promised to churchgoers.

How would you test for non-constant time?

No, because GR has evidence to support that it works. But GR works. Tests of the equivalence principle don’t show any problems. Clocks that are supposed to agree, agree.

What parts of the Bible say this?

There’s no evidence that it’s not, for any clock relative to another clock in the same frame of reference. People have looked for deviations from the predictions of relativity and haven’t found any. AFAIK there are none. Certainly none with evidence to support them. How would we not notice this? That there is a time rate difference other than what we know to account for? If frequencies differ from expected, it would show up., and violate Einstein’s equivalence principle. Einstein’s equivalence principle

Are they? Do you have specific examples of anyone saying this? (keep in mind that “born again” is practiced in only a subset of Christian churches/denominations) The Bible speaks in allegory and metaphor a lot, doesn’t it? It speaks of eternal life, but that obviously doesn’t mean physical - everyone dies. So where is the lie if you’re using the same literary devices to sell the same product? It’s all the same truth, or the same lie, depending on if you’re a believer or not. I think you need the religions that incorporate reincarnation for that.