# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: An analysis of the de Broglie equation  (Read 23625 times)

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4728
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #100 on: 31/05/2016 20:02:28 »
Ah, but there is another difference you have not mentioned, and it is the only difference that I am concerned with here...

The clock's energy and frequency 'decrease' in the stronger gravity field.

The photon's energy and frequency 'increase' in the stronger gravity field.

You say that the closer to the earth the clock is, the less gravity potential is added for a decrease in energy.
So by definition you are saying that a decrease in the energy and frequency of the clock is a decrease in the rate of time.
Don't put words into my mouth.  I said that the clock rate as perceived by an observer at a lower gravitational potential is higher than that of his local clock. Blue shift.

Quote
You say that the KE of the light is the reason that the blue-shifting light is increasing in energy... (So gravity potential isn't affecting the photon's relativistic mass?)
Don't put words into my mouth. I said that the frequency of a photon as seen by an observer at a lower gravitational potential than the source, is increased compared with a photon generated by the same process locally. Blue shift.

Same phenomenon, same effect.

Quote
Returning to the clock scenario, we can see that, (dependant upon its location in a gravity field and the observer's), a stationary clock will, with an observed decrease in a clock's frequency, and therefore it's energy, run at a slower rate.   And with an observed increase in a clock's frequency, and therefore it's energy, run at a faster rate.
With relativistic mass technically being the sum total of energies, if we add motion to the previously stationary atomic clock, the KE must be 'added' and the frequency and energy of the clock must increase, (to be in keeping with how you are saying that KE increases energy and frequency for light)...and if the clocks energy and frequency increase,
Please yourself, but don't kid yourself that you are talking physics, or quoting anything I have said.

Quote
it will be running at a faster rate, and this is NOT what is observed of a clock in motion relative to a stationary clock!!!
Even that old fool Einstein recognised the difference between gravitational shift and velocity shift.

Quote
So there is something a bit wrong with the logic of procedure, far as I've been able to make out...
Only with your persistent attempts to obfuscate the issue by adding meaningless words to a perfectly simple statement of observed fact.

M'lud, if counsel for whatever it is she represents were to stick to the facts and not add random words to the blindingly obvious, I submit that we might make some progress towards whatever it is that she is trying to prove. Or, if she is simply wasting the court's time in the hope of inflating her fees, perhaps you might incline to dismiss the case and award punitive damages.
« Last Edit: 31/05/2016 20:12:50 by alancalverd »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #101 on: 31/05/2016 21:01:56 »
Quote from: timey on Today at 18:45:23
Ah, but there is another difference you have not mentioned, and it is the only difference that I am concerned with here...

The clock's energy and frequency 'decrease' in the stronger gravity field.

The photon's energy and frequency 'increase' in the stronger gravity field.

You say that the closer to the earth the clock is, the less gravity potential is added for a decrease in energy.
So by definition you are saying that a decrease in the energy and frequency of the clock is a decrease in the rate of time.
Don't put words into my mouth.  T said that the clock rate as perceived by an observer at a lower gravitational potential is higher than that of his local clock. Blue shift.

Yes you did say that the closer to the earth a clock is, the less gravity potential is added for a decrease in energy...here:

You gave a clock, say at lunar orbit altitude and it ticks at the gravitational potential of that orbit, so we observe it to run fast according to the gravitational shift of that potential. Then you move the clock to, say, a geostationary orbit so it now appears to tick at a slightly slower rate because its  gravitational potential is lower than for a lunar orbit.

But you have also described the situation as: "that the clock rate as perceived by an observer at a lower gravitational potential is higher than that of his local clock. Blue shift."

Both are correct and are describing the exact same thing!

Quote
You say that the KE of the light is the reason that the blue-shifting light is increasing in energy... (So gravity potential isn't affecting the photon's relativistic mass?)
Don't put words into my mouth. I said that the frequency of a photon as seen by an observer at a lower gravitational potential than the source, is increased compared with a photon generated by the same process locally. Blueshift

Again, I'm not putting words in your mouth, you did say that KE increases the energy of light as it moves towards earth, here:

typical stellar photon started its journey a very long way away. As it approaches Earth, it is losing gravitational potential and thus gaining kinetic energy which appears to the earth observer as a blue shift.

Again, you are just saying the exact same thing with both descriptions.

...and then you are accusing me of obfuscating the issue, while missing the fact of what I am saying, which is that the energy increases that an atomic clock experiences in motion (in a uniform gravity field) will not add up to a slowing of its time relative to when it was stationary.  An increase in energy will increase the frequency of the clock for an increase in the rate of time, therefore something is wrong with the logic.

You cannot have 1 rule for mass and another rule for light, not when mass and energy are equivalent, and not without a reason for cause... (The 'reason for cause' obviously being my interest.)

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4728
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #102 on: 31/05/2016 21:24:19 »

Yes you did say that the closer to the earth a clock is, the less gravity potential is added for a decrease in energy...here:

You gave a clock, say at lunar orbit altitude and it ticks at the gravitational potential of that orbit, so we observe it to run fast according to the gravitational shift of that potential. Then you move the clock to, say, a geostationary orbit so it now appears to tick at a slightly slower rate because its  gravitational potential is lower than for a lunar orbit.
Quite clearly, I didn't. Don't put words into my mouth. Ever.

Conversation ends.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3929
• Thanked: 55 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #103 on: 31/05/2016 21:41:18 »
ISBN 1439167346, 9781439167342

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #104 on: 31/05/2016 22:30:09 »
Lunar orbit distance: 384,400 km
Geostationary orbit distance: 35,786 km

Gravity potential does tail off in deep space, but otherwise it does increase with distance from Earth, so unless I have very much misunderstood you, not impossible, you were saying that the clock on the geocentric orbit runs slower and this would be because the gravity potential was lower at this orbit.
The clock has less added gravity potential energy, relative to the lunar clock, it runs at a lower frequency for a slower rate of time.  Text book stuff as far as I'm aware.

Sorry, I really don't understand what you think my crime is...  I have not put words in your mouth. (if I was going to do so, believe me, I'd put better ones... please lighten up a bit).

Hopefully a recess till the 'morrow might clarify the matter, the truth always upholds in the end and misunderstandings are inevitable...or alternatively we may perhaps hold each other forever in contempt...

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4728
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #105 on: 31/05/2016 23:12:11 »
Falsely ascribing utter bollocks to an innocent party is as offensive as forging a signature.

Yes you did say that the closer to the earth a clock is, the less gravity potential is added for a decrease in energy...here:
I have highlighted one example of a meaningless jumble of words I did not use.

Quote
You cannot have 1 rule for mass and another rule for light,
Which is why we don't, however many times you claim otherwise.

I really can't waste any more of my life on this crap.
« Last Edit: 31/05/2016 23:15:14 by alancalverd »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #106 on: 01/06/2016 00:59:18 »
Oh for goodness sake, grow up!  You are acting like a little child.

No you did not say those exact words!  Very sorry, please excuse me.  The meaning is clearly the same!  The clock at a higher elevation experiences more gravity potential than a clock at lower elevation, therefore a lesser gravity potential is added to the lower clock, for a slower rate of time.

Anyone would think by your tone and flavour of objection that I was questioning logic that is attributed to you...  I am not.   I am questioning logic that has already been questioned by the very creators of that logic, and by many respected physicists world wide.

This does not mean that my alternate logic is correct.  But if you fancy a progressive chat about some actual 'alternate' physics some time, let me know, aye! (please now imagine my eyebrows wiggling up and down!)

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4728
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #107 on: 01/06/2016 09:19:21 »
Oh very well then.

Exact words are important. To a journalist, priest, politician, philosopher, or the scum at the EU who treat their constituents as morons, "power", "energy", "work", "strength" and "momentum" are interchangeable. To a physicist, they are not. If I wrote X, I didn't mean Y.

And so far you have not shown evidence of any logical inconsistency, other than in your own repeated misinterpretations of several entirely selfconsistent phenomena.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #108 on: 01/06/2016 11:09:29 »
Ok, then.  I shall adhere to wording my posts more carefully, that it does not appear as if I am 'twisting' anything you have said to my purpose, and I shall also be holding you rigidly to the same regime!

So far I have not been able to show you anything at-all, because I do not seem able to bring your attention to focus...

Technically, relativistic mass is the sum of all energies:  True or false?

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4728
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #109 on: 01/06/2016 14:29:48 »
Quote
Many contemporary authors such as Taylor and Wheeler avoid using the concept of relativistic mass altogether:

"The concept of "relativistic mass" is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of spacetime itself."[7]

but if you insist on using it there are umpteen definitions, the simplest of which,  mr = E/c2 clearly does not - indeed obviously cannot - have the dimensions of energy. So: false.

Now focus my attention!
« Last Edit: 01/06/2016 14:32:26 by alancalverd »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #110 on: 01/06/2016 16:04:38 »
Ok - yes, agreed!  There are many interpretations whereas the premiss of GR is altered, and similarly with Newtonian mechanics, such as with MOND.

What I would like to do is look at the summing up of energies in relation to mass, frequency, and time dilation, and investigate the logic in relation to the increase and decrease of the frequency of light, and the increase and decrease in frequency of atomic structures, with respect to their location in a gravity field and their relative motion, or lack of it.

You up for it?
« Last Edit: 01/06/2016 16:07:04 by timey »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4728
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #111 on: 01/06/2016 16:52:29 »
I see no point.

The frequency of electromagnetic radiation is entirely explained by the nature of its source.

The "frequency of atomic structures" by which I hope you mean the deBroglie frequency of a massive particle, is fully determined by the deBroglie equations and, at least for those particles, atoms and molecules for which it has been studied experimentally, seems an adequate model for predicting their "wavelike" properties.

AFAIK conventional relativistic mechanics gives us accurate predictions of the effects of gravitation and relative motion.

If there is a problem I haven't noticed, I'm happy to consider it. The only phenomenon for which we don't seem to have a decent mechanism is why and how gravity sucks, and right now I have no idea to contribute.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #112 on: 01/06/2016 17:11:18 »
Well - as I am proposing that an increase in energy, and therefore frequency, increases the rate of time... A fact (Edit: Not a fact, I'll rephrase that as 'a phenomenon') that does 'seem' to be reflected in the behaviour of the caesium atomic clock, the related concept that an observer in the clocks reference frame is also experiencing a physical time difference in keeping with the clock, the behaviour of light, and some of the related maths...

The resulting logic therefore indicating that an increase in a gravitational field increases the rate of time, which can then be viewed as the rate of time causing an acceleration of gravity, and then this would be 'why' gravity sucks...

But if you see no point...?  So be it...
« Last Edit: 01/06/2016 17:29:52 by timey »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4728
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #113 on: 01/06/2016 17:31:33 »
So what changes the energy of what, such that clocks run faster in a weaker field? If the result is indistinguishable from the conventional prediction of gravitational time dilation, what have you achieved? If not, why does the conventional prediction give the correct answer?

Quote
The resulting logic therefore indicating that an increase in a gravitational field increases the rate of time, which can then be viewed as the rate of time causing an acceleration of gravity,
A causes B causes A causes B..... I think not, unless we live in a permanently shrinking universe in which G is not constant.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #114 on: 01/06/2016 17:57:11 »
Well - it would seem to me that the gravitational shift equation, in order to be in keeping with quantum, needs to have some kind of representation of Planck's constant h.

Mass causes gravity, gravity causes time, time causes acceleration.   G can be constant while the rate of time is not.

If frequency can be related to energy via h, all that is needed, is for the changes in the strength of gravity field to be attributed energy, and energy changes related to h, and this energy can then be attributed to the velocity related aspect of the gravitational Doppler shift in light.

Then the De Broglie wave'length' is not distance related, but time related,  as are Lorentz contraction/expansions.

This then goes on to describe a non expanding, but instead slowly contracting since initial inflation, cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle within the black hole phenomenon.
« Last Edit: 01/06/2016 17:59:38 by timey »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #115 on: 01/06/2016 18:54:04 »
Just a footnote:

When considering that an atomic structure (such as the caesium atom of the atomic clock) must be cooled in order for there to be no thermal energy shift in its frequency, logically, we can now consider - a) the possibility that the phenomenon of time itself may be considered as energy related, and b) the fact of 'emitted' light not being affected by thermal energy rendering light as the best candidate for study...

Relating this back to redshift, Hubble's law, and a time related De Broglie wave'length', Hubble's standard candle is the obvious choice of light for an investigative calculating of such.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3929
• Thanked: 55 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #116 on: 01/06/2016 20:27:47 »
Consider a sine wave. Nothing to do with light or gravity. Forget those. If the wave length is constant we can move along the wave marking it off at regular intervals. Everything will be constant and cyclic. Now if we start again but this time continuously vary the intervals at which we mark off the wave using a function to determine the increase or decrease in the steps we can see how this can make it appear that something has changed. If we were blissfully unaware that our function existed then we may come to the conclusion that it was the wave that was changing.

The following users thanked this post: timey

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4728
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #117 on: 01/06/2016 21:50:41 »
Well - it would seem to me that the gravitational shift equation, in order to be in keeping with quantum, needs to have some kind of representation of Planck's constant h.
Gravitational shift, Doppler shift, time dilatation, relativistic mass, etc., are continuum phenomena, not quantised.

You may remember from our earlier correspondence that redshift over a short distance (the P-R experiment) is given by f = f0(1+ gd/c2) where g is the acceleration due to gravity, d is the distance travelled  and c turns up as usual. No quantised energies or forbidden states, just an absolutely smooth change in frequency with height. If and when we discover a graviton, it will be possible to describe the mechanism of gravitation with quantum mechanics, but there is no requirement for discontinuties in the redshift of a free photon, any more than in the energy of a free electron.
« Last Edit: 01/06/2016 22:16:34 by alancalverd »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #118 on: 01/06/2016 22:15:02 »
Well to say so Alan, if energy decreases or increases are stretched or compacted into longer or shorter seconds relative to a standard second, then there exists the possibility that quantum is not quantised...

Edit:  This being because when Planck measured the energy in relation to frequency changes, he measured them as joules per standard second, and it is worth noting that frequency is waves per standard second.
« Last Edit: 01/06/2016 23:12:34 by timey »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4728
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #119 on: 03/06/2016 13:10:42 »
All the quantum phenomena I use at work are quantised. The alternative model is too horrible to contemplate. You will be asking for the second to be different for each orbital of a single mercury atom, and to change not only with gravtation but also with chemical bonding of protons.....

The attraction of ordinary everyday quantum mechanics is that it works for ordinary everyday medical physics, nuclear power, and timekeeping, among other things. The attraction of ordinary everyday continuum relativity is that it works for ordinary everyday medical physics, nuclear power, and timekeeping, among other things. The apparent lack of a graviton just adds to the fun of experimental physics, and for as long as governments are prepared to fund the search for it, they won't be wasting your money on pointless wars, destroying the North Sea,  or regulating the curvature of bananas.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #120 on: 03/06/2016 14:59:28 »
Well - Alan, the funny thing is is that what you are describing is exactly the attitude physicists 'seem' to take concerning the differences between Newtonian and Relativity.  Newtonian works just fine for most applications. Relativity works where Newtonian doesn't.

If, and that is a big IF, there comes to pass that there is an element of physics so far undiscovered that gives a more complete understanding of the universe and describes a relationship between quantum and gravity, therefore linking both of physic's best working hypothesis -this would not 'change' anything about the observed 'workings' of either theory, just like relativity didn't detract from any of the 'working' observations of Newtonian.

Calculating particle mass in relation to longer or shorter seconds for a continuum in quantum may well be a more complicated method than the already established method of probability.  (although I fail to see that this method of probability calculation would be 'less' complicated)... In which case, I daresay that in everyday use that physicists in the workplace would carry on in their work as usual in much the same way they did with Newtonian versus Relativity.

Relativity, however, opened the door to technology that couldn't be realised under the remit of Newtonian.  Quantum opened the door to technology that couldn't be realised under the remit of Relativity.  Therefore any understanding of the universe that supersedes these theories is likely to open the door to more 'new' technology.

If seconds do get longer out in space,  I can see the possibility of being able to 'very simply, and 'relatively cheaply', travel across space a lot, lot faster than we are currently able.  Space is an abundant resource of mining opportunity, if we could get there and 'it' back cost effectively.  The prospect of a more quickly and cheaply travelled space would open space up for extensive exploration, and knowing us humans, exploitation,  which may distract us from all this pointless warring each other here on earth, in our bids to be 'first' in the 'space race'...

In this day and age a 'space race', as I have described, might well have the same effect on our planet that the 'silk road' did for the peoples of our history books, where peoples of all creed and religion were tolerant of each other in the face of market commerce, and as a result of such tolerance and trade - the advancement of knowledge, science, and technology blossomed.

In any case Alan, I suppose that my more immediate concern is:

Do you recognise the possibility of the logic I propose?

(Edit: As well as the space travel aspects, I also see the possibility that a better understanding of frequency in relation to mass may have beneficial medical applications relating to treatment that would be directly applicable in particular to your line of work Alan, and may also be usefully in the capacity of receiving signal frequencies from a 'type' of illness as a means for more precise diagnosis.)
« Last Edit: 03/06/2016 15:39:41 by timey »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4728
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #121 on: 03/06/2016 18:16:30 »
Just to point out in passing that there is no "versus". Relativistic mechanics works at all speeds and gravitational fields, but for anything less than about 0.1c or 50 km above the earth, newtonian mechanics is an adequate approximation.  Likewise we recognise that if your quantum mechanical calculations don't look like continuum mechanics for a whole bucketful of photons, electrons or whatever, you may have made a mistake.

Quote
Calculating particle mass in relation to longer or shorter seconds for a continuum in quantum may well be a more complicated method than the already established method of probability.
You have the advantage of me here. How do you use probability to calculate particle mass? And what is a continuum in quantum (apart from a pretentious title for a work of art, perhaps)?

Quote
If seconds do get longer out in space,
No "if" about it. We have the data on time dilation, and, boringly, it's exactly as Einstein predicted.

Quote
where peoples of all creed and religion were tolerant of each other in the face of market commerce, and as a result of such tolerance and trade - the advancement of knowledge, science, and technology blossomed.
Until people abandon religion, there is no hope for humanity. Trade good, logical, caring and sharing. Religion bad, illogical, promotes loathing and justifies egregious behaviour.

Quote
Do you recognise the possibility of the logic I propose?
I haven't seen it yet. I am still groping through the murk of pseudoscience and numerology to get a peek at whatever it is you think is happening in the real world.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #122 on: 03/06/2016 20:05:11 »
I get your point about versus... I used the word as a shortcut which fuzzed the actual meaning...so consider my post rephrased in the words you have used.

I wasn't suggesting that one use probability to calculate particle mass...  I am suggesting that if longer and shorter seconds are associated with particle mass energy, or the relationship that particles mass energy have with each other within atomic structures, the use of probability to calculate quantum is 'already' calculating this relationship, and being as this 'proposed' relationship is 'the' unknown function, this unknown function constitutes the reason for the necessity of calculating via probability in the first place...  As probability calculation is perturbation theory, which is a 'time' related function, this is not as improbable as you may imagine...

Agreed wholeheartedly on the religion aspect, but it ain't ever going to happen.  As resources become more limited due to the 'greed' of the elite, and the probability of over population, logically the religious fervour is only apt to escalate.

I'm sorry you haven't seen that it appears directly from observation and experiment that an energy increase increases the rate of time.  I have tried from all angles now to explain to you why the observation of the behaviour of the atomic clock, the related concept that an observer with the clock will experience physical time dilation effects in keeping with the clock, (equivalence principle), suggesting that all atomic structures individual rates of time will escalate proportionally as to their elevated location in a gravity field, as with the actual particle constituents of the atomic structures themselves that will escalate in energy proportionally as to their relationship within the atom as the energy of the atom is increases, and that light also increases in energy, but, unlike atoms, does so in the increased gravity field, where the gravity potential is lower
That there is something funky going on about the logic when one looks at adding KE, because more energy will increase the frequency, and an increase in frequency for the atomic clock constitutes an increase in its rate of time.  This being contrary to the observed behaviour of an atomic clock in motion relative to the stationary clock.  A clock in motion, it's frequency will decrease for a slower rate of time, rendering the logic of mass (or is that relativistic mass?) being the sum total of all energies as suspect.

A clock in a higher gravity potential is increased in energy relative to a clock at a lower gravity potential...
Light in a higher gravity potential has less energy than light in a lower gravity potential...  So... being as this 'is' our 'observed reality', what I am talking about here is not numerology, nor pseudoscience.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2016 20:17:41 by timey »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3929
• Thanked: 55 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #123 on: 03/06/2016 20:22:27 »
I can't even remember why I started the thread.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4728
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #124 on: 03/06/2016 20:24:17 »
rate of time
this is an awkward phrase, since "rate" means "number of occurences per unit time" so the rate of time, if it has any meaning,  is always 1, by definition.

What we know is that a stationary clock at a higher gravitational potential runs faster than one at a lower potential, so potential energy distorts time, and increasing the kinetic energy of a photon, since it can't travel any faster, increases its frequency. Same phenomenon, same effect. Nothing funky or illogical.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #124 on: 03/06/2016 20:24:17 »