The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An analysis of the de Broglie equation  (Read 23376 times)

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1298
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #250 on: 26/06/2016 10:47:31 »
There was a time when I wasn't proficient in aviation, but out of courtesy to other users of the sky, I took the trouble to learn the basics before charging into Heathrow's airspace and telling everyone else that they didn't understand.


Alan - when have I said that anyone here doesn't understand anything?

I have read books by physicists who say that GR and quantum do not fit together.  That the quest of physics is to unify the theories.  I have studied the situation for 8 years and come up with an idea that if mathematically viable would do the job.
Just because I am unable to actually facilitate the maths and am asking for help, does not mean I am unintelligent.  It is a sign of intelligence to know where ones own limits lie.
I have been studying how maths are put together, but am not going to go on to get work as a physicist or a mathematician, therefore it's not a case of helping me cheat my 'pilots license' as I am not studying for the sake of qualifications.
My idea either holds merit or it doesn't, end of my physics story.

Your stating that maths that I come up with, in the absence of any proper mathematician stepping in and following description in words, are complete poppycock, doesn't lend itself to being explanatory and educational...

I'm not quite sure what it lends itself to - public ridicule for forum ratings perhaps?

What I was expecting was: 'Ah ok - well not that I agree with your theory in the slightest, but I can see what you are trying to do and this is where you are going wrong.  Try doing it this way, see?  ... And what was it you were saying about matching the extra fraction of second to the extra length in wavelength when light changes frequency in redshift?"

Who was it who said that it is the mark of an educated man to be able to intellectually partake in ideas that he does not agree with?
« Last Edit: 26/06/2016 11:07:33 by timey »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #251 on: 26/06/2016 12:22:45 »
Nothing to do with maths, but a lot to do with physics.

Physics: apple falls downwards

Mathematics:v = u + at; a = GM/r2 if m<<M

same thing, expressed as a generalisation.

If you don't understand dimensions, you won't understand where your physics is wrong, or when it makes sense. Get the physics right and the maths will follow.

The basis of dimensions is that mass, length and time are like apples, chickens and toilet rolls: if you put 1 apple, 2 chickens and 3 toilet rolls in your basket, you must find 1 apple, 2 chickens and 3 toilet rolls on your checkout bill - you can't substitute wholly independent variables for one another. 

And it's nothing to do with qualifications, just common courtesy. There's no point in shouting in English if you want to order a meal in China, but a quiet word in Chnese will open all sorts of doors. So please, respect the most basic language of physics: dimensions are not interchangeable.

« Last Edit: 26/06/2016 12:36:13 by alancalverd »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #252 on: 26/06/2016 12:32:25 »
Every time someone tries to actually help you you brush them off and tell them that they don't understand what you are saying. That is because what you are saying isn't expressed in clear terms. When you have been shown how to better express your ideas you ignore that too. Do you think it is satisying to people trying to help to not only have it thrown back in their face but then to be accused of some type of public ridicule to boost their forum reputation. How long do you think they would remain members of this forum if that was what they were doing? I studied mathematics properly 26 years ago. So when I decided to get into it again a few years back I started by buying an algebra book. I read it through and attempted the problems. Until I had finished that I was not confident in my ability to proceed with restarting my interest in physics. When I first studied mathematics I got distinctions. It didn't matter a jot because I had forgotten most of it in the intervening years. I had to jog my memory by re-reading all the subjects again. Members of the forum will correct me when I am wrong. I won't argue with them. I will go back and check what I have done or read up on the subject I have misconceived. I am afraid their is no shortcut. No matter how many books you read that are non technical in nature. Geometry is a good place to start but it is only a starting point. Do you understand polar and spherical coordinates for instance. If not then your geometry is lacking. There is an awful lot to learn and it is not possible to take it all in. Most of all put your listening ears on.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1298
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #253 on: 26/06/2016 14:25:24 »
Every time someone tries to actually help you you brush them off and tell them that they don't understand what you are saying. That is because what you are saying isn't expressed in clear terms. When you have been shown how to better express your ideas you ignore that too. Do you think it is satisying to people trying to help to not only have it thrown back in their face but then to be accused of some type of public ridicule to boost their forum reputation. How long do you think they would remain members of this forum if that was what they were doing? I studied mathematics properly 26 years ago. So when I decided to get into it again a few years back I started by buying an algebra book. I read it through and attempted the problems. Until I had finished that I was not confident in my ability to proceed with restarting my interest in physics. When I first studied mathematics I got distinctions. It didn't matter a jot because I had forgotten most of it in the intervening years. I had to jog my memory by re-reading all the subjects again. Members of the forum will correct me when I am wrong. I won't argue with them. I will go back and check what I have done or read up on the subject I have misconceived. I am afraid their is no shortcut. No matter how many books you read that are non technical in nature. Geometry is a good place to start but it is only a starting point. Do you understand polar and spherical coordinates for instance. If not then your geometry is lacking. There is an awful lot to learn and it is not possible to take it all in. Most of all put your listening ears on.

Jeff - thanks for your post.  Please know that it is not my intention to cause offence to anyone.  I think the problem lies in the fact that when someone such as Alan says that I must first learn the physics before attempting the maths, I am confused as to which physics he means...

This being because I have read 3 books dedicated to the physics of special and general relativity, Einstein's own papers, and at least 8 of the other physics books I've read have adequately covered general relativity, including 'The trouble with physics' which concentrated on where everything in physics 'doesn't' fit together.

No-one here within the remit if forum posts is going to explain these physics to me better than they have been explained already.  There are people here, including you, who have helped me greatly in understanding the maths of these current theories, and Alan is top of the list among them.

So, considering what I have said, it becomes rather frustrating when someone is saying that I have to understand that general relativity bends space time, and that distances are not as the fly crows but follow a curvature of bent fabric of space, in order for me to attempt mathematics that hold distance as the crow flies, and attributes this bend in the fabric of space, this extra distance of curvature, 'to' this proposed inverted time dilation.

Alan, 'I think' is saying that I can't interchange dimensions in the maths.  My model is interchanging the dimensions of distance due to curvature, to inverted time dilation.
It is also interchanging the concept of an accelerating expansion with a much slower but accelerating contraction.

The maths of the theory are naturally going to reflect this...

Not being trained in maths does not negate me from having a potentially relevant idea, and where people have instructed me in maths, I have had my listening ears on, clearly...as before starting posting here last year, I'd never done any.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1298
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #254 on: 26/06/2016 14:30:49 »
If you don't understand dimensions, you won't understand where your physics is wrong, or when it makes sense. Get the physics right and the maths will follow.

In light of what I have said to Jeff above, with all due respect, which physics do I have to get right, current or my proposed alternative?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #255 on: 26/06/2016 15:11:29 »
If you don't understand dimensions, you won't understand where your physics is wrong, or when it makes sense. Get the physics right and the maths will follow.

In light of what I have said to Jeff above, with all due respect, which physics do I have to get right, current or my proposed alternative?

Both. It is not an either or choice.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1298
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #256 on: 27/06/2016 12:57:17 »
If you don't understand dimensions, you won't understand where your physics is wrong, or when it makes sense. Get the physics right and the maths will follow.

In light of what I have said to Jeff above, with all due respect, which physics do I have to get right, current or my proposed alternative?

Both. It is not an either or choice.

(Lol!... I checked the forum yesterday evening and due to the miniature screen of my phone, mistakenly thought that it was Alan who had answered the question, as it was Alan who it was directed towards.  I composed this reply last night, and realised my mistake when I came back to forum to post it...
But as Alan hasn't responded to the question, perhaps the reply I composed last night stands anyway, so I have split it into 2...)

Jeff - In the fact that no-one ever stops learning about anything, you are right on both counts.

Alan - Although you have previously told me that a cyclic universe is interesting to you, you are requiring that I prove the possibility to you mathematically for your interest to be retained, whereas I am requiring that someone recognise the possibility and apply their skills in maths to the purpose of proving, or disproving the possibility.

Therefore I feel that we have come to a bit of an impasse Alan.  I do not think I need to repeat myself in that I have the utmost respect for you...but oops it would seem I have done so anyway. ;).  I don't always agree with your views, but you definitely have my full admiration for wit and panache!

All the very best to you...
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #257 on: 27/06/2016 13:21:36 »
Technically relativistic mass is akin to the sum of all the energies.

So - presumably if we take our caesium atomic clock and accelerate it up to relativistic speeds in a uniform gravitational field, the additional kinetic energy will increase the frequency of cycles? 

...this cannot be correct because an increase in the frequency of cycles of a caesium atomic clock would of course register an 'increase' in the rate of the clocks time, and not the decrease in rate of time that is observed of an accelerated clock...

I found this and thought it might interest you Jeff:

http://web.mit.edu/lululiu/Public/pixx/not-pixx/photoelectric.pdf
no. The energy of the hyperfine ground state transition is not dependent on the mass of the cesium atom, as I explained about a month ago.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1298
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #258 on: 27/06/2016 13:53:25 »
Ok, and again I realise this may be where I am going wrong - but if the energy of the hyperfine ground state transition is not dependent on the mass of the cesium atom - then why do we see that the energy transitions of frequency and wavelength in light 'are' dependent on the relativistic mass of the photon?

Edit:  yes I realise that relativistic mass does not enter the gravitational shift equations, but if you are calculating h in relation to the equation, then energy and mass are held as the same thing in relativity,
« Last Edit: 27/06/2016 13:59:19 by timey »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1914
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #259 on: 27/06/2016 20:59:59 »
.......energy and mass are held as the same thing in relativity,
The exact translation is numerically equal, in other words related mathematicaly by a formula. That doesn't make them the same thing, although some pseudoscientists would like you to think they are.
Electricity can be converted to heat and vice versa, that does not make them the same thing. They are related by a formula.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1298
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #260 on: 27/06/2016 22:09:30 »
Well yes Colin.  Thanks!  This being my point in saying that there exists the possibility that an alternative formula, given that it remains proportional, can explain (edit: sorry not explain - 'describe')  the same observation for an alternative reason.
« Last Edit: 27/06/2016 22:14:54 by timey »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #261 on: 27/06/2016 22:50:00 »
then why do we see that the energy transitions of frequency and wavelength in light 'are' dependent on the relativistic mass of the photon?

I regret that, having no more than a PhD and 50 years' professional experience in photon physics, I have no idea what this means. But it's never too late to learn. Can anyone explain, please?
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1914
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #262 on: 27/06/2016 23:07:05 »
.....Can anyone explain, please?
No it puzzled me as well, which is why I answered what I could, but that's been misinterpreted.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #263 on: 27/06/2016 23:15:18 »
Alan - Although you have previously told me that a cyclic universe is interesting to you, you are requiring that I prove the possibility to you mathematically for your interest to be retained, whereas I am requiring that someone recognise the possibility and apply their skills in maths to the purpose of proving, or disproving the possibility.
No mathematical skills are required beyond the functions on your calculator (the square root is handy but a guess is often adequate to prove the point). And you don't even need those until you have sorted out the physics.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1298
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #264 on: 27/06/2016 23:46:07 »
then why do we see that the energy transitions of frequency and wavelength in light 'are' dependent on the relativistic mass of the photon?

I regret that, having no more than a PhD and 50 years' professional experience in photon physics, I have no idea what this means. But it's never too late to learn. Can anyone explain, please?

Sorry Alan - I fail to explain myself properly.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/debrog2.html#c5

We see in the link above that hc/pc=wavelength.

Then it is explained that this is particularly appropriate for comparison with the photon where pc=E.

p is (edit: usually) calculated as mv=p, ...so the wavelength of light is calculated via a mass related aspect that presumably from the description is attributed to KE and 'therefore relativistic mass?' ...as the photon has no rest mass.

http://www.csun.edu/~jte35633/worksheets/Chemistry/5-2PlancksEq.pdf

Here we can see that E=hv where v is frequency.  We can see that frequency in relation to energy is causing changes in wavelength.

So wavelength is calculated from an energy,mass aspect, and energy is calculated from an energy constant.  The photon has no mass.

Therefore... if the energy transitions of the caesium atom are not mass related, why is it that the energy transitions of light are?
« Last Edit: 28/06/2016 00:03:10 by timey »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1298
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #265 on: 28/06/2016 00:38:00 »
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/blahol.html

Here we can see that it is explained, as per general relativity, that it is gravity that causes light not to escape from a black hole.  That light is being shifted due to gravity potential*.  This can only be due to relativistic mass.
(*although I fail to see the logic of a redshift to zero via gravity potential, as we already know that light blue shifts towards the greater gravity field)
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1298
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #266 on: 28/06/2016 02:27:11 »
Alan - Although you have previously told me that a cyclic universe is interesting to you, you are requiring that I prove the possibility to you mathematically for your interest to be retained, whereas I am requiring that someone recognise the possibility and apply their skills in maths to the purpose of proving, or disproving the possibility.
No mathematical skills are required beyond the functions on your calculator (the square root is handy but a guess is often adequate to prove the point). And you don't even need those until you have sorted out the physics.

Well this is where I part company with your reasoning.  Which physics do I need to sort out?

It is quite clear to me that Einstein was completely on the right track.  He got to the point where, in trying to maintain a static universe, he added (before retracting it) a cosmological constant* when the logic clearly pointed to a contracting universe.  Regrettably he was unduly influenced by Hubble.  Had he had the benefit of all of our modern day tech, and the information that the consequence of Hubble's redshift law now means the universe is accelerating in its expansion rather than de-celerating, I think he would have returned to the drawing board in alarm and looked further into his musings on Newton's interpretation of open space being almost 'ether' like in nature. (ie: that open space is comprised of something)
(*not forgetting that the magnitude of the current calculation of the cosmological constant in relation to the standard model is reported to be the worst prediction ever in physics)

In adding inverted time dilation to GR, all I have done to change Einstein's relativity is:
State that the curved geometry of space (that light follows) is inverted time related, not bent fabric of space.  (this renders relativistic mass as un-necessary).
Add to the equivalence principle that light travelling at the constant speed of light cannot exceed or de-ceed the rate of local time. ie: that light travels at 299 792 458 meters per second in all reference frames.  (ie: if you point a light vector into inline motion, that the lights rate of time slows down.)
State that all distance and lengths, in contradiction to the Lorentz transformations, both inverse and non inverse form, are constant as a result of this addition to the equivalence principle, including lights wave'length'.
And that the observation of time dilated/contracted sequential events in 'other' reference frames, 'from' the observation reference frame, are time frame dependant and proportional to the difference in rate of time.

Those are the physics...

The cyclic universe I have described is a physical consequence of these additions. (edit: the reverse is of course also true)

Because the additions are proportional to the rest of GR, despite the fact that they change some of the concepts that are a consequence of GR, or a consequence of GR in relation to Hubble's law, so radically - they change them in a directly opposite and opposing fashion.  So most of the current maths for GR will be valid.  All that needs happen with the maths is that some of the terms need to be interchanged to reflect the opposite and opposing changes, and the consequence will negate the necessity for the complex geometry calculations regarding curvature.  These representations of curvature will naturally emerge as a result of inverted time.

(I have also given suggested experiment and prediction.  Offered alternate explanation for gravity lensing, star displacement, perihelion of Mercury, etc.  And to say so, the mathematical consequences for quantum of measuring beyond the uncertainty principle, are exciting)
« Last Edit: 28/06/2016 02:31:20 by timey »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #267 on: 28/06/2016 08:29:27 »
Study inertia.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #268 on: 28/06/2016 10:28:35 »
Therefore... if the energy transitions of the caesium atom are not mass related, why is it that the energy transitions of light are?
What on earth are the "energy transitions of light"?

If you mean red/blue shift, please say so. The relationship between transmitted and received frequency is entirely governed by the gravitational potential difference between source and observer. Since the same gravitational shift applies to both clock rates and emitted photon frequencies, it clearly has nothing to do with the inertial mass of a photon. Hence the clever Mr Einstein deduced that it is due to gravitational warping of spacetime. 
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #269 on: 28/06/2016 11:19:14 »
Let I be an inertial mass at rest which can be considered invariant. Then I *v is a non relativistic inertial momentum. Its equivalent kinetic energy is then 1/2*I*v^2. If W is then the wavelength of the mass we can divide this into the kinetic energy to get an internal force associated with each cycle or oscillation.
« Last Edit: 28/06/2016 11:21:30 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #270 on: 28/06/2016 11:30:34 »
As energy is input into an inertial system to increase its momentum some may add to internal energies and thus be unavailable as kinetic energy for forward motion.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1298
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #271 on: 28/06/2016 11:31:27 »
Therefore... if the energy transitions of the caesium atom are not mass related, why is it that the energy transitions of light are?
What on earth are the "energy transitions of light"?

If you mean red/blue shift, please say so. The relationship between transmitted and received frequency is entirely governed by the gravitational potential difference between source and observer. Since the same gravitational shift applies to both clock rates and emitted photon frequencies, it clearly has nothing to do with the inertial mass of a photon. Hence the clever Mr Einstein deduced that it is due to gravitational warping of spacetime.

Yes - the energy transitions of the caesium atomic clock are gravitationally shifted (not due to mass of the caesium atom you say)
Yes - the redshift/blue shift energy transitions of light are gravitationally shifted (due to gravitational potential you say)

If light is shifted due to gravity potential, (mass related), then how can it be said that the caesium atom is not shifted due to gravity potential which 'would' be mass related?

Yes - clever Einstein deduced that it must be space time warping.  However, the curve of a graph of GR gravitational time dilation does NOT describe the curve of space that light follows, hence the complex geometry equations and a combination of SR, Lorentz transformations and a concept of 'fabric of space' that rendered distances as variable and stretching as the universe expands at speeds faster than the speed of light.

What I have done is attribute the warping of space time to inverted time dilation, and all distance remains constant at 299 792 458 meters per second, but it is the second that is being stretched as it gravitationally shifts.

The curve of a graph of inverted time dilation will exactly describe the curve of space that light follows...

As I said, it is my belief (edit: sorry not belief, 'opinion') that Einstein was most regrettably influenced by Hubble's redshift observations... ...And Hubble's redshift law is the singular reason for the premiss of an expanding universe and the current Big Bang notions.
« Last Edit: 28/06/2016 11:50:04 by timey »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #272 on: 28/06/2016 11:57:50 »
The people most likely to truly understand time dilation are the engineers at the LHC and other accelerators. Since the particle velocities far exceed the escape velocity of the solar system the effects of gravitation are different to the norm. This is more like special relativity territory. Exactly as you find in intergalactic voids. They are the perfect ones to ask.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1298
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #273 on: 28/06/2016 12:39:57 »
The people most likely to truly understand time dilation are the engineers at the LHC and other accelerators. Since the particle velocities far exceed the escape velocity of the solar system the effects of gravitation are different to the norm. This is more like special relativity territory. Exactly as you find in intergalactic voids. They are the perfect ones to ask.

If the physicists at LHC truly understood gravity and time dilation they would not be confused as to the slight time differences recorded between the heavy and light mass neutrino.

Study inertia.

Study inertia:

All objects in free free in a gravitational field accelerate at the same rate despite the difference in their mass.  Simply attribute the acceleration to a shortening in the length of a second (inverted time dilation) due to the gravitational field.

Let I be an inertial mass at rest which can be considered invariant. Then I *v is a non relativistic inertial momentum. Its equivalent kinetic energy is then 1/2*I*v^2. If W is then the wavelength of the mass we can divide this into the kinetic energy to get an internal force associated with each cycle or oscillation.

I see where you are going with this but I prefer:

Wavelength divided by frequency equals speed of light.

The extra length in gravitationally redshifted wavelength divided by the extra speed of the gravitationally shifted frequency equals inverted time dilation.

(edit: sorry, actually I didn't complete properly.  It would be:
Extra length in wavelength divided by extra speed in frequency equals speed of light.
Extra length in wavelength divided by speed of light equals inverted time dilation)
« Last Edit: 28/06/2016 13:26:08 by timey »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #274 on: 28/06/2016 14:03:48 »
Yes - the energy transitions of the caesium atomic clock are gravitationally shifted (not due to mass of the caesium atom you say)
Yes - the redshift/blue shift energy transitions of light are gravitationally shifted (due to gravitational potential you say)
PLEASE, for the sake of your own sanity (mine disappeared years ago) don't add random words like "energy transitions" when talking to scientists. You could end up believing that there is some meaning in what you say. Gravitational redshift is due to a diffrence in gravitational potential between source and detector. That's it. Finished.

Quote
If light is shifted due to gravity potential, (mass related), then how can it be said that the caesium atom is not shifted due to gravity potential which 'would' be mass related?
Related to the mass of what? Not the photon or the clock atom, but the distribution of lumps of other matter between source and observer. Just look at the bloody equation! And it's gravity potential difference,please. Don't subtract important words either!

Quote
Simply attribute the acceleration to a shortening in the length of a second (inverted time dilation) due to the gravitational field.
That won't give you an acceleration vector, nor do the numbers stack up aganst the measured acceleration of particles near the earth's surface. 
« Last Edit: 28/06/2016 14:08:02 by alancalverd »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #274 on: 28/06/2016 14:03:48 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length