index $ \def \hieruit {\quad \Longrightarrow \quad} \def \slechts {\quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad} \def \SP {\quad ; \quad} \def \OF {\quad \mbox{or} \quad} $
This rules out models by Arp, Narlikar, Van Flandern, etc. that require the mass of electrons to change with time.
Page 564. In addition to providing a critical advance for redefining the SI
second, we use these measurements to test a model of ultralight dark
matter, tightening constraints on its coupling parameter to standard
model fields by as much as a factor of ten over five orders of magnitude
in particle mass.
I am not talking anywhere about "dark" matter. All of UAC's mass is just common mass.
Page 567. In addition to their use in metrology, frequency ratios of optical
clocks are sensitive probes of physics beyond the standard model.
Some models postulate dark matter composed of ultralight bosonic
particles [ .. ]
I don't postulate anything of the kind, therefore I find the article not applicable to my work.
Page 567. The overall constraints are improved
by as much as an order of magnitude across five orders of magnitude
in particle mass compared to previous constraints.
That's nice, but it says nothing. The crux of the matter is that the frequency of an atomic clock
itself is dependent on (electron) mass via the Rydberg constant, according to $f/f_0 = m/m_0$.
We are running in a vicious circle when trying to measure varying particle mass with atomic clocks,
because they consist of the same particle mass and shall be varying accordingly (if theory is right).
Orbital time is no longer used in metrology, time is always based on atomic clocks. And orbital times are not accurate enough to test the Arp/Narlikar cosmological hypotheses, so it is irrelevant.
My argument: In Narlikar's model, an electron is created with a null mass which increases with its age. That's how Arp explains the redshift of distant objects and the discordant redshifts of QSOs.
Single-ion atomic clocks are now so accurate, they can measure the difference in mass between two electrons that were created less than four seconds apart in time. It has been measured that Al+ clocks tick at the same rate for any electron taken from aluminium originating from different places on Earth. So all electrons have been born within 4 seconds of each other. However, over 750000 quasars have been observed in the universe; these would have produced electrons with a wide spread of ages and even electrons born within a quasat would have been created at different times differing by a lot more than 4 seconds (that's what I meant in my last email by "different atoms (created at different times)". Yet, an Al+ clock doesn't detect a difference larger than 4 seconds in the age of any electron used to make it tick. The Arp/Narlikar hypothesis does not stand against these tests.
I will sign you up to the ACG forum, you should receive confirmation and instructions within minutes. Most members have a weaker grasp of physics than you do, so don't be surprised if the discussions are not rigorous. [ .. ]
First your aluminium clock.
[ Use has been made of the formula $\,\Delta m/m \approx H_i\Delta t\,$ according to Hubble Parameter ]
A few calculations with my theory indicate that you may be right:
# 1 megaParsec Mpc := 3.08567758*10^22; # Hubble constant (2022-02-08) hubble := 73.4*1000/Mpc; # Electrons that were created # less than four seconds apart in time # resulting in atomic clock drift difference := hubble*4; 23 Mpc := 0.3085677580 10 -17 hubble := 0.2378732000 10 -17 -18 difference := 0.9514928000 10 > 10 # Age of the earth earth := 4.543*10^9; # Seconds in a year year := 31556926; # Hubble parameter hubble := 2/(earth*year); # Same as above difference := hubble*4; 10 earth := 0.4543000000 10 year := 31556926 -16 hubble := 0.1395058975 10 -16 -18 difference := 0.5580235900 10 > 10So there is something to think about indeed.
I'll find a better paper, but for now consider the clock I was working on 17 years ago (paper [ not ] attached). The Strontium ion is maintained at a temperature of $16\;mK$ (p. 2) which corresponds to a velocity of $2\;m/s$ and a relative time dilation $4.5\times 10^{-17}$. It would take a difference $\gt 3$ minutes in the time origin of electrons for a mass difference to be detectable with that clock.
Considering that the sun sends us electrons (solar wind) and these are absorbed in the atmosphere (auroras), mixed by the winds and mixed into metals such as aluminium, it is hard to imagine that random electrons from distant pasts would not end up in these clocks.
Even in 2005, I could not accept that the individual electrons we were using for the clocks originated within three minutes of the same moment. I discussed this with Halton Arp over a tele-conference but the connection was too lousy (and Arp's hearing was quite bad), he didn't get the implications of the argument). Jayant Narlikar never answered my emails.
I'll look for a more recent paper with an explicit value on the error on the relativistic fractional shift.
Clocks can distinguish between the mass of an electron created 13 billion years ago and another electron created half a second later. How could they all have all appeared within such a small time interval? Also, over billions of years, some electrons would have travelled faster than 0.23 m/s relative to others and would have aged differently in their proper time. None of that is seen, different Al-ions in a clock give the same frequency relative to lattice clocks.
Therefore: the change of mass of electron, if linear with time, is insufficient to explain the cosmological redshift. If the mass changes quadratically with time (as in Narlikar's law) then the conclusions from clock measurements are even more restrictive.
Concerning your past emails: time is always based on atomic clocks and only based on atomic clocks. You disagreed by writing that "this not true", but you don't know the time scales and their definition. The atomic scale called TAI (Temps Atomique International) is the reference time scale from which every other is derived. (You don't mention TAI anywhere on your webpages!) The other time scale called UTC (Universal Time Coordinated) is a legal time used by countries around the world. The leap seconds are inserted to keep up with the irregular rotation of the Earth (you have seen the graph, e.g. this one) so that solar noon happens at UTC noon. Please read-up on the topic.
The difference between TAI and the average of UTC has a historical explanation: when the timing of the Earth's orbit was measured 60 years ago astronomers did not have a precise value. The value of "One Second" = "9192631770 oscillation of the hyperfine transition of Cs" was chosen based on an inaccurate measurement. You claim that "the difference between the two time scales can be calculated with your theory", but this is impossible since the difference originates in a measurement inaccuracy and a human construct, not a physical process.
So your point 04. in the email dated 2022-10-08 has no meaning. Instead the Earth's rotation is influenced by weather patterns and earthquakes that are unpredictable, it is not an accurate time scale. For example, between 1999 and 2005 no leap second was inserted because the Earth was spinning faster! If the Earth's rotation is so unreliable over five years, it cannot be used over thousands of years as you do in your calculations. The eight points following point 04. are not valid.
[ .. ] time is always based on atomic clocks and only based on atomic clocks.
I didn't say that varying particle mass is the truth. It's a ("wild") hypothesis, no more, no less.
If you decide to reject that hypothesis, then you are right: orbital time is identical to atomic time.
But if you accept the hypothesis, then you are wrong: then orbital time is not atomic time.
You have to accept eventually that Newton's laws and some simple laws of quantum mechanics are true.
If you accept all of the above, then it's a straightforward exercise to show that there are two time scales.
And if varying particle mass bears truth, then Newton's laws for orbital motion do not work with atomic time.
Fortunately there is force (mass times acceleration) that does work with both orbital and atomic time scales.
Details are found in the sections Time Dilation and Support by Hoyle
at the Unified Alternative Cosmology site.
It all means that: orbital time = atomic time if and only if elementary particle mass is not varying.
UAC theory may be true or false, it is consistent and you cannot dismiss anything without destroying everything.
I could make an axiom system of it, like mathematicians do, but I am too much of a physicist to do it.
Is there a flaw in my maths? Please tell me! Honestly, I'm never sure :-(
This rules out models by Arp, Narlikar, Van Flandern, etc. that require the mass of electrons to change with time.
That's only true for Arp, Narlikar and Hoyle. Van Flandern and Milne did their discoveries independent of Arp's VPM.
More than just independent. For example Arthur Milne's Formula has exactly the opposite physical meaning of mine:
our atomic time is his orbital time, and his atomic time is our orbital time.
MOND theory is independent of UAC too.
Yet many elements in common as well as in alternative cosmologies are in agreement with my theory. Coincidence?
About the experimental verification / falsification. Of course, I have searched for examples with a certain bias in mind.
Yes, physical effects are extremely small (as is also the case with the three tests of General Relativity dismissed by me).
So it's easy to find alternative explanations as a reason why there are three UAC numbers in agreement with experience:
the shrinking kilogram, the leap second ("due to the slowing rotation of the Earth") and the widening orbit of the moon.
But I dare to make a prediction: your atomic clocks shall be running too fast forever, in comparison with orbital time.
However, the most significant evidence of all is found in the ("new") section MOND = UAC. That is not a small effect!