Jump to content
Ville502

Speed of light VS 1 Second

Recommended Posts

Speed of Light = C

                        C= 299 792 458 m / s

          1 Second= Frequency (of Cessium 133 Valent Electron)

         Frequency= 9,192, 631,770 Hz

C= 299 792 458 Meters per .000000009192631770 Meters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Since 1967, the second has been defined as exactly "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" (at a temperature of 0 K). This length of a second was selected to correspond exactly to the length of the ephemeris second previously defined. Atomic clocks use such a frequency to measure seconds by counting cycles per second at that frequency.

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

I believe it would look something like this in terms of the math.

1 Hz = 1/s

 9,192,631,770 /  9,192,631,770 Hz = 1 / 1 Hz = 1s

One of our members Swansont actually works on atomic clocks so hopefully he'll be along in a bit to provide more info and/or any corrections.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ville502 said:

Speed of Light = C

                        C= 299 792 458 m / s

          1 Second= Frequency (of Cessium 133 Valent Electron)

         Frequency= 9,192, 631,770 Hz

C= 299 792 458 Meters per .000000009192631770 Meters?

No

There is nothing which you can calculate from those data which has units of metres per metre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ville502 said:

Speed of Light = C

                        C= 299 792 458 m / s

          1 Second= Frequency (of Cessium 133 Valent Electron)

         Frequency= 9,192, 631,770 Hz

C= 299 792 458 Meters per .000000009192631770 Meters?

1 second is the duration of 9192631770 oscillations of the hyperfine transition (or the radiation from it). 1 second is not a frequency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

swansont, The frequency of the valent electron of the cesium 133 atom is what atomic time is measured by; which has the frequency of 9192631770 oscillations per "period". Period=1 sec 
Right?

Frequency, f, is defined as the rate of rotation, or the number of rotations in some unit of time. (https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01sc-classical-mechanics-fall-2016/week-3-circular-motion/9.3-period-and-frequency/)

Endy0816, thank you. I look fowarrd to growth and understanding here in this forum! It's already a help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ville502 said:

The frequency of the valent electron of the cesium 133 atom is what atomic time is measured by; which has the frequency of 9192631770 oscillations per "period". Period=1 sec 

That is an odd way of putting it. The frequency is simply 9192631770 Hz, or 9192631770 oscillations per second. (And this is not the "frequency of the valence electron".)

But this is not relevant to the fact that your original post was a mess because you seem to be trying to equate frequency with metres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ville502 said:

swansont, The frequency of the valent electron of the cesium 133 atom is what atomic time is measured by; which has the frequency of 9192631770 oscillations per "period". Period=1 sec 
Right?

Wrong

It is not a good idea to try to mess with basic definitions.

The period of any vibration or oscillation is the time it takes for one  vibration to complete.  (not 9192631770 of them!)

The physical quantity known as period has a unit of seconds , nanoseconds, femtoseconds etc.

 

Here is a downloadable pdf that may help you now and in the future

It contains some useful tables.

https://i1.dainikbhaskar.com/web2images/education/phy_unt_13659_13897.pdf

 

frequency has units


[math]\frac{1}{{{\rm{seconds}}}}[/math]


or seconds-1 or s-1

or dimensions T-1 in the scheme outlined in the pdf.

Note the distinction between units and dimensions.

 

:-)

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ville502 said:

 

swansont, The frequency of the valent electron of the cesium 133 atom is what atomic time is measured by; which has the frequency of 9192631770 oscillations per "period". Period=1 sec 
Right?

It’s the frequency of the transition, or the radiation, not the electron. And that’s how atomic time is measured only if you are using a Cs clock.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange, thank you for tryn to understand. the frequency is given  9,192, 631,770 Hz.

frequency has a dependent wavelength. wavelength is measured by distance.

1 sec>freq>wavelength.   Basically I'm stating time is distance... (space-time continuum?)

Also using the frequency we can give 1 second a Voltage as well...

Studiot, that is an awesome pdf Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ville502 said:

1 sec>freq>wavelength.   Basically I'm stating time is distance... (space-time continuum?)

Time can be related to distance, but they are not equal. For example, 1 light-year is the  distance light travels in one year (and 1 light-second is the distance light travels in one second). In relativity, spacetime coordinates are given as (x,y,z,ct) to convert the time dimension to the same (distance) units as the spatial dimension.

The wavelength of radiation with a frequency of 9,192, 631,770 Hz is c / 9,192, 631,770 = 3.26 cm. But ... so what?

1 hour ago, Ville502 said:

Also using the frequency we can give 1 second a Voltage as well...

How? What is the relationship between frequency and voltage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ville502 said:

Wow, i'm glad you got it to cm. So just saying: now your 1 second is a distance that you chose to put in cm.

That is nonsense. 1 second does not equal 3.26 cm.

Quote

Now as far as electric voltage goes:  planks constant x frequency = energy in joules

What???

That is the energy of a photon. You can't just arbitrarily associate frequency and energy.

And what does that have to do with voltage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arbitrarily; no, there is perfect relativity. And/or this is why I am here.

I know you can't just exchange dimensional values of a variable in a formula and remain absolute. 

So; why is 1 second a frequency with a wavelength that has an energy, which are based on (cesium 133) the properties that determine our "Period/Time" of 1/second.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ville502 said:

So; why is 1 second a frequency with a wavelength that has an energy, which are based on (cesium 133) the properties that determine our "Period/Time" of 1/second.

The current standard for defining the second is based on the hyperfine transition of caesium 133 because (I assume) it is a stable and accessible reference. As swansont works on atomic clocks he may know more about why the standard was chosen. 

But it has nothing to do with energy, distance or voltage. (Why do you think voltage is related to frequency?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I will continue to prove this true.

I see I need to go elsewhere to find the understanding and not just a view of opposition. 

I think Stevie Wonder can see the correlations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ville502 said:

So I will continue to prove this true.

I see I need to go elsewhere to find the understanding and not just a view of opposition. 

Rather than running away, why not just answer questions and explain what you are talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Ville502 said:

Wow, i'm glad you got it to cm. So just saying: now your 1 second is a distance that you chose to put in cm. 

Now as far as electric voltage goes:  planks constant x frequency = energy in joules  

The units of volt are joules/coulomb, so no, that does not work.

17 minutes ago, Ville502 said:

So; why is 1 second a frequency with a wavelength that has an energy,

It’s not. 1 second is a duration. 

Time, frequency, wavelength and energy are distinct concepts and quantities. Physics  shows us that they can be related to each other.

 

17 minutes ago, Ville502 said:

which are based on (cesium 133) the properties that determine our "Period/Time" of 1/second.

Which was a choice. It’s not based on any fundamental behavior of nature.

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

The current standard for defining the second is based on the hyperfine transition of caesium 133 because (I assume) it is a stable and accessible reference. As swansont works on atomic clocks he may know more about why the standard was chosen. 

Stable, accessible and also the largest hyperfine splitting of stable alkalis.

(accessible includes the fact that there is only one stable isotope)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, swansont said:

(accessible includes the fact that there is only one stable isotope)

What is the advantage there? Does it mean it is easier to ensure you only have the one isotope?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Strange said:

What is the advantage there? Does it mean it is easier to ensure you only have the one isotope?

It’s potentially a cleaner measurement. Another isotope being present might introduce mechanisms that would shift the frequency, making the measurement more difficult and/or less precise. Collisions, for one example, can alter the response.

You don’t have to do isotope separation to get the better result. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s potentially a cleaner measurement. Another isotope being present might introduce mechanisms that would shift the frequency, making the measurement more difficult and/or less precise. Collisions, for one example, can alter the response.

I can see the advantage of using a single isotope, I was more wondering about how there being only one stable isotope helps with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last call. The speed of light is traveling at a "speed" of 300000000 meters per second.

One second is a "period" of time that 9000000000 oscillations of an electron in the valence shell of a cesium 133 atom are completed.

As this "period" of oscillations are completing there is a distance being traveled in the form of a wave between each oscillation called "wavelengths".

the total number of oscillations multiplied by the distance between each, equals the complete length of your "period" in distance.

ALL I WANT TO SAY IS THAT THE WAVE OF LIGHT IS TRAVELING METERS IN A DISTANCE OF NANO METERS. 

Please just crunch the numbers.

Time is a made up measurement with no absolute value.

 

Edited by Ville502

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ville502 said:

ALL I WANT TO SAY IS THAT THE WAVE OF LIGHT IS TRAVELING METERS IN NANO METERS.

But that is wrong. Speed is distance/time not distance/distance.

What you could say is that the wavelength is 3.261 cm, multiply that by the number of cycles in one second (9192631770) and you get 2.997 x 1010cm, which is the distance light travels in one second. But that just follows from the relationship that speed = frequency * wavelength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Ville502 said:

Last call.

Good we drop this silliness!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Strange said:

I can see the advantage of using a single isotope, I was more wondering about how there being only one stable isotope helps with that.

Naturally occurring samples will only contain that isotope. If you used rubidium, for example, you have two. And the more desirable one (larger hyperfine splitting) is only about 25% of your sample.

15 hours ago, Ville502 said:

Last call. The speed of light is traveling at a "speed" of 300000000 meters per second.

One second is a "period" of time that 9000000000 oscillations of an electron in the valence shell of a cesium 133 atom are completed.

Which is a spin flip of the electron. It’s not going anywhere.

 

Quote

As this "period" of oscillations are completing there is a distance being traveled in the form of a wave between each oscillation called "wavelengths".

What is traveling this distance?

 

Quote

the total number of oscillations multiplied by the distance between each, equals the complete length of your "period" in distance.

ALL I WANT TO SAY IS THAT THE WAVE OF LIGHT IS TRAVELING METERS IN A DISTANCE OF NANO METERS. 

There are microwaves in a cavity, but they are not traveling meters.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2019 at 8:37 PM, swansont said:

(accessible includes the fact that there is only one stable isotope)

Strictly, that's also true of Rb- you just need to wait about 10^12 years for the unstable one to decay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.