Re-evaluating the Interpretation of Atomic Clock Experiments and Time Dilation

Dear Mr. Peter Jackson, 

I appreciate your engagement and your efforts to test and verify the findings of Hafele and Keating. However, I have reasons to accept that there is a fundamental misunderstanding in the interpretation of the results and the nature of time dilation.

Your statement, "Atomic oscillation speed changes under acceleration," is indeed an important observation. However, this change in oscillation speed is due to physical factors affecting the oscillator, not an inherent dilation of time itself. My previous response detailed how experiments with piezoelectric crystal oscillators demonstrate that changes in wavelength correspond to changes in time intervals, leading to time distortions. This suggests that what is often interpreted as time dilation is actually a result of physical deformations and wavelength shifts.

Consider the following points:

1. Piezoelectric Crystal Oscillators: As mentioned, experiments show that a 1° phase shift on a 5 MHz wave corresponds to a time shift of 555 picoseconds. This illustrates how physical changes in the oscillator can affect time measurements, leading to distortions that are misinterpreted as time dilation.

2. GPS Time Delay: The caesium-133 atomic clock in GPS satellites experiences a time delay of about 38 microseconds per day due to its altitude and velocity. This delay can be attributed to wavelength dilation caused by gravitational and relativistic effects, not a direct dilation of time itself.

3. Hafele and Keating Experiment: The changes observed in the atomic clocks on the commercial airliner can be explained by considering the physical conditions and deformations affecting the clocks. These include mechanical stresses, temperature variations, and other environmental factors that influence the oscillation rates of the clocks, not an inherent dilation of time itself. It's important to note that the Hafele and Keating experiment is not included in the original relativity paper. The original relativity paper does not provide experimental evidence for time dilation.

4. Mechanical Deformation and Wavelength Shifts: Changes under acceleration lead to mechanical deformation, which in turn causes wavelength shifts. These shifts result in time distortions, which are mistakenly interpreted as time dilation.

Your conclusion that "Atomic oscillation speed changes under acceleration" aligns with these observations, but it does not necessarily support the concept of time dilation. Instead, it highlights the importance of considering physical deformations and wavelength shifts in understanding time distortions.

In conclusion, while the observations from the Hafele and Keating experiment and your own tests are valid, they do not inherently prove time dilation. Instead, they demonstrate the need to account for physical factors affecting oscillators and the resulting time distortions. I encourage a re-evaluation of these results with this perspective in mind.

FYI Pardeep Rana Gary Stephens Abdul Malek

Best regards,

Soumendra Nath Thakur