Would you be happy with 6*10^-16 seconds per 2 seconds? How about 9*10^-16 per 3? You can scale the error like that all you like, it still represents the same error rate — fdrake

It seems to me that what you are implying is that expressing the extraordinary accuracy of the atomic in terms of time scales that a non-technical audience might better understand, is not the same as claiming the clock will still exist in 100,000,000 years?

It isn't an extrapolation, it's a rounding of the error rate translated to a timescale that denotes the sheer precision of the measurement to a lay audience. See tom's post.

It seems to me that what you are implying is that expressing the extraordinary accuracy of the atomic in terms of time scales that a non-technical audience might better understand, is not the same as claiming the clock will still exist in 100,000,000 years?

Precisely. There's one necessary and sufficient condition for the clock not to work in accordance with that error rate. That's for the process in the clock that measures the oscillations to change. Not the possibility of its change or the necessity of its change - that it will change.

Edit: or alternatively that the error analysis in the paper isn't accurate!

Edit 2: making this explicit, if the clock stopped working entirely, of course it wouldn't provide a precise measurement of the second. If it stopped working in a more subtle way, say a variation in the laws of physics relevant to the functioning of the clock, then it may stop working entirely or degrade in performance. Otherwise, so long as it functions in accordance with the set up in the paper, it will have that error rate.

It isn't an extrapolation, it's a rounding of the error rate translated to a timescale that denotes the sheer precision of the measurement to a lay auidience. See tom's post. — fdrake

It is an extrapolation. Your changing of the scale, "translating" the "timescale" is by definition an extrapolation. You proceed from known values to estimate values which lie outside the range of the known. That is extrapolation.

Noo.... An extrapolation is an extension of an analysis outside the data range for which it was estimated. Say the error rate is K seconds per second, then you can scale K by a constant to obtain an error rate in terms of years, trillions of years, a googol of years. This is estimating a parameter then expressing the value of that parameter on a different numerical scale.

You may as well say that it's an extrapolation to go from 1 femtogram to 2.20462e-18 pounds!

An extrapolation is an extension of an analysis outside the data range for which it was estimated. — fdrake

Check your facts. Any extension outside the range of known facts is an extrapolation. Your "estimate" is already an extrapolation.

Besides, if you admit that your claim is based in estimation, you've forfeited any claim to necessity in your conclusion.

It's known that the error rate for that clock is about 3*10^-16 seconds per second. This implies the error rate is 3*k * 10^-16 seconds per k*second.

I never made any claim of the necessity of any physical law, in fact if you read through my posts you'll see that I said I was sympathetic to the view that they can change. However, that they can change doesn't entail they will change in a way that destroys the accuracy of the clock. So, tell me when they will change, and how they will change so that the accuracy of the clock is destroyed.

I also said the following to you and @tom

Edit 2: making this explicit, if the clock stopped working entirely, of course it wouldn't provide a precise measurement of the second. If it stopped working in a more subtle way, say a variation in the laws of physics relevant to the functioning of the clock, then it may stop working entirely or degrade in performance. Otherwise, so long as it functions in accordance with the set up in the paper, it will have that error rate.

The clock doesn't work with metaphysical necessity. That it works isn't conditional on the necessity of physical laws. The calculation of the error rate depends solely on the physical process that constitutes the clock and the measurements it generates. So, if the physical process were to stop - if someone took a sledgehammer to the experimental apparatus - the clock would stop. If all protons had already decayed, there couldn't be a clock. What is required to invalidate the error analysis of the clock is to show that the physical process in it will change in a manner that effects the clock, or alternatively find an error in the paper's error calculation.

The error rate in terms of 'how many years would it take for a single second of error to accrue' is equivalent to the original 3*10^-16 ish seconds per second error rate. It is not an extrapolation. Let's look at the google definition:

extrapolation the action of estimating or concluding something by assuming that existing trends will continue or a current method will remain applicable.

So yes, the error rate of the clock remaining the same with changing background conditions requires that the physical process that constitutes it doesn't change in a way which renders the analysis inapplicable. It isn't an extrapolation to say if nature keeps working as it does then the clock will.

Nor is it an extrapolation to translate the error rate to a different numerical scale. Saying that the clock will be there in 100 million years? That might be an extrapolation.

You want to make it an extrapolation, so tell me how and when the physical process constituting the clock will change, in a manner that makes the error analysis inadequate.

However, that they can change doesn't entail they will change in a way that destroys the accuracy of the clock. So, tell me when they will change, and how they will change so that the accuracy of the clock is destroyed. — fdrake

If you allow the possibility of change, then you cannot derive the conclusion that the error rate will stay the same for that extended period of time. The possibility of change, and the claim that the error rate will stay the same are incompatible, they are contradictory. To insist that the error rate will stay the same is to say that change is impossible.

My argument therefore, does not require proof that the rate will change. This is the point which you do not seem to grasp. You keep insisting that I need to demonstrate that the rate will change, to make my argument, but that is not the case. Because your assertion requires of necessity, that the rate will stay the same, all I need to do is to demonstrate that change is possible to refute your claim. Therefore you cannot assert that the rate will stay the same if you also state that change is possible. This is contradiction. You might want to adjust your assertion to reflect this, by saying that it is possible that the rate will stay the same. And with some evidence you might claim that it is probable that the rate will stay the same.

Nor is it an extrapolation to translate the error rate to a different numerical scale. — fdrake

You have translated the error rate to a different temporal scale, not a different numerical scale. You have gone from an error rate derived from one month of application to an extrapolated error rate of 100 millions years of application.

It isn't an extrapolation to say if nature keeps working as it does then the clock will. — fdrake

Yes, that's exactly what an extrapolation is. So this is your principle of extrapolation then: "things will continue for 100 million years, in the same way that they have done for the last month". This premise, or assumption, makes the extrapolation is valid. The question is whether or not this premise is sound. My claim is that the concept of dark energy is evidence that things will probably not continue for 100 million years in the same way which they have for the last month, so the assumption is not sound. Notice that I have produced evidence, the concept of dark energy, and this evidence puts probability on my side. If you want to bring probability to your side, you need to produce some evidence yourself, and refute my claim of evidence.

(1) The error analysis is correct.
(2) The derived error rate is approximately 3*10^-16 seconds per second.

Do these require metaphysical necessity and unchanging physical laws?

Yes (2) requires an unchanging physical law. The error analysis is performed over a one month period. The "error rate" is derived from that one month period. In (2) the error rate is stated as "per second", instead of as "per second of that particular one month period". So there is a generalization, that whatever occurred "per second" in that one month period will occur "per second" in every second, in this is indicated by the generality of the statement "x per second". Therefore the derived error rate of "per second", is derived from the inductive conclusion (unchanging physical law) that what occurred "per second" in this one month period will continue to be the same throughout the passing of time. Simply put, you have taken what is true for one month, "x is the case in that month", and sated it as an unchanging physical law "x is the case", such that it now is a law for all time instead of just a description of what has occurred in that month.

Say that the radiocarbon dating of a dinosaur fossil took a month, is it then illegitimate to claim that it's more than a month old?

Radiocarbon dating suffers from the very same issue. We understand the rate of decay of C14 from our observations over a relatively short period of time. Then, we extrapolate to a much longer period of time, assuming that the rate of decay has maintained consistency over that period. There are other assumptions involved as well, such as the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. But the point being discussed here is the assumption that the rate of decay, which is observed over a short period, remains exactly the same over a long period.

The waters muddy further with consideration of time differentials that we can quantify as seconds appearing under certain circumstances while the time in another place moves at its usual pace.. I did just post a thread with a postulation for a categorization of time as energy :something we know and understand and have a basis for comparison study and principals for behaviours that we can apply to studying time and behaviours of time. Besides that it is fun to think about, even if there is a proof to refute the idea, which I am curious for; i assume someone must have had the thought before me.

A baby is born at 10pm in New York. Someone looks at their watch. Since the measurement process took a second, we can't justifiably say the baby's been born at 10pm. When you look away from a thermometer after checking the temperature, you can't justifiably say what temperature it is. You can't justifiably say the dinosaurs were around millions of years ago. You can't date trees based off their rings. All of geological history may as well be a myth, all of evolutionary theory has to be thrown away, every single measurement or calculation ever that was done must be discarded because it can't be justified since it's an extrapolation. Measurement error analysis is impossible, every psychological experiment ever done is bunk, every piece of anecdotal evidence is in even worse standing. The fabric of our social life disappears - we can no longer learn and generalise based on our experiences.

You don't live in this world. No one does.

there was no measurement but an observation. Your argument is invalid. There is no spoon.

Observing a thermometer is observing a measurement. Observing a watch is observing a measurement. Observing a radiocarbon dating procedure is observing a measurement. Observing the number of rings on a tree and dividing it by a rate is observing a measurement. Looking back through geological time based on the stratification of soil and rock deposits is a measurement. Every psychology experiment which elicits variables from subjects is a collection of measurements. Every sequencing of genes and study of their change or population genetic calculation based on real data is a measurement.

The world is so much more realistic when you restrict the knowledge of it to anecdotal evidence, which you can't form anyway since anecdotal evidence consists in records of experience or generalisations thereof that are not confined to the same time period as their generation.

You be trolling.

Good response though :)

And I think you spelled refuting wrong. No troll in it and I kinda thought the first one I replied to was trolling...but yea

I can't refute this argument so I will leave you with this. Those who want to know the meaning of life do not know they have posed the answer as a question.

The word 'refuting' doesn't appear in any of my recent posts in this thread. My last response to @Metaphysician Undercover is an attempt to detail how his position undermines our ability to know pretty much anything.

Also, stop with the chicken-caesar word salad.

Yeah. Was a joke about the trolling thing nevermind. Oh and you refuted your own argument and so also, invalid.

And no chicken.

Just word salad then.

Indeed someone is eating their words ;)

You do realize we can't know everything I hope..

On a side note. Time is energy.

A baby is born at 10pm in New York. Someone looks at their watch. Since the measurement process took a second, we can't justifiably say the baby's been born at 10pm. When you look away from a thermometer after checking the temperature, you can't justifiably say what temperature it is. You can't justifiably say the dinosaurs were around millions of years ago. You can't date trees based off their rings. All of geological history may as well be a myth, all of evolutionary theory has to be thrown away, every single measurement or calculation ever that was done must be discarded because it can't be justified since it's an extrapolation. Measurement error analysis is impossible, every psychological experiment ever done is bunk, every piece of anecdotal evidence is in even worse standing. The fabric of our social life disappears - we can no longer learn and generalise based on our experiences. — fdrake

We're talking about precision in measurement, not whether or not we should discard extrapolations which may have some inaccuracy in precision. I am not arguing that we ought to throw away the measurements of the atomic clock, just because they may not be as precise as you think they are. I am arguing that the clock may not be as precise as you claim it to be. Do you realize that if one very small factor is overlooked, then that factor is multiplied over and over again in extrapolation?

But here again, you extrapolate using a principle which may or may not be correct. Your principle here appears to be that if it is possible that a measurement may not be as precise as some believe it is, it ought to be discarded. So you extrapolate and say that all of our knowledge ought to be discarded because it may not be as precise as some people think it is. It's not the measurement that ought to be discarded, it's the belief that the measurement is more precise than the degree of precision which is justified, that ought to be discarded.

What reduces the accuracy of the measurement from its purported value?

How many times do I have to repeat myself? The inaccuracy is not in the rate derived from a month of observation, the average of x amount per second, for one month. The inaccuracy is in the claim that what was for one month will continue to be for 100 million years.

Would you agree that while the clock is going, its error rate will be as stated?

No , I wouldn't agree to that. Try this explanation as to why I don't agree. The caesium clock uses a frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz. This means 9,192,631,770 times per second. "Second" here is derived from the earth's orbit around the sun. So this number represents a relationship between the radiation of a caesium atom, and the earth's orbit around the sun. Until we understand why that relationship is exactly as stated, we cannot validly claim to know that the relationship will continue to be as stated.

How much less precise is the error than stated?

How would I know? If I knew, then those measuring would know, and you wouldn't be making the claims that you do. Remember, my claim is that error in the extrapolation is possible, and therefore the claim you make, that the extrapolation will be the case, is not justified until you provide proper principles to back up this claim. Further, I argue that such claims about accurate measurement of temporality in the past, have proven to be wrong. And, the concept of dark energy indicates that we do not have a complete understanding of temporality. This evidence supports my claim that not only is the extrapolation possibly wrong, it is probably wrong. I do not claim to know anything about what the error actually is.

You need to watch this.

This evidence supports my claim that not only is the extrapolation possibly wrong, it is probably wrong. I do not claim to know anything about what the error actually is.

:o

I think this has gone on long enough.

You need to watch this. — tom

Interesting, but the point is this. The reason why the frequency is precisely 9,192,631,770 times per second, rather than 5 billion, 10 billion, or some other arbitrary number, is that the second is already is defined in relation to the year. So if they chose one of those other numbers, 5 billion times per second, for example, there would not be the right number of seconds in a day, and in a year. So what this statement ("9,192,631,770 times per second") represents, is a relationship between the activity of those caesium atoms, and the motion of the earth in relation to the sun. If that relationship is not absolutely stable, then that number cannot be represented as a stable number.