The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An analysis of the de Broglie equation  (Read 23344 times)

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #325 on: 10/07/2016 17:33:51 »

A photon arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at 1 metre.
(blue shift)


and a GPS clock signal arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at orbital height.

Same phenomenon, same equation, no anomaly.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #326 on: 10/07/2016 18:11:36 »

A photon arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at 1 metre.
(blue shift)


and a GPS clock signal arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at orbital height.

Same phenomenon, same equation, no anomaly.
So - by the very logic you have just described - how can it be said that time runs at a faster rate in space, and a slower rate closer to a body of mass?

Are you saying it is because the frequency of the signal that is transporting the time reading of the clock in space to earth increases as it moves into the stronger gravity field, that we observe the time of the clock to be faster relative to a clock on the ground?

Or does the clock in space actually run at a faster rate? 
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #327 on: 10/07/2016 19:41:23 »
Quote
how can it be said that time runs at a faster rate in space, and a slower rate closer to a body of mass?

Everything depends on where you measure it, relative to where it originated.

Your clock is in space, mine is on the ground, so according to my clock, yours is running faster.

Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so according to my mossbauer receiver on the ground, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground. 

These are undeniable observations. Since neither depends on the mass of the source, we must conclude that gravitation is warping spacetime.

Quote
Are you saying it is because the frequency of the signal that is transporting the time reading of the clock in space to earth increases as it moves into the stronger gravity field, that we observe the time of the clock to be faster relative to a clock on the ground?
No, though it is true that the carrier signal also undergoes blue shift. If you set the space clock to emit a pulse - say a single photon - every second, the pulses will arrive at slightly less than 1 second intervals as measured by my clock. This is what is observed.   
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #328 on: 11/07/2016 00:06:16 »
Quote
how can it be said that time runs at a faster rate in space, and a slower rate closer to a body of mass?

Everything depends on where you measure it, relative to where it originated.

I realize that I haven't contributed to this thread much in the past but I've been watching the development of it from it's inception. Allow me to say just a couple things and then I will butt out.

1. Alan has defined the crux of this argument in my opinion.

The facts are that in my frame of reference, the second passes at a predictable rate and no matter what frame one finds themselves in, their seconds also pass at a predictable and consistent rate. Forget how someone from another frame, whether in a different gravitational environment or in a different state of acceleration might view the passage of time in ours. Their personal experience is also a predictable and consistent second and is measured the same as anyone within a different frame. The only variations in the perceived passage of time occur when viewing another frame from the standpoint of your own.

If there were another variable involved, as timey suggests, it would be reasonable to assume that it should be detectable within someone's personal frame of reference and because none has been observed, we can assume that this variable doesn't therefore exist.

We establish the second by using the speed of light in a vacuum and the permittivity of free space. And the character of free space determines the speed of light which is everywhere the same when measured in a true vacuum. So I fail to understand how a reckoning for a variable second is possible when every local frame observes the speed of light to be exactly the same. The only variation we observe occurs when viewing frames other than our own. And to add another variable to the equation would certainly show up somewhere sometime. And because we can accurately predict those differences between ours and the others, it would suggest no additional variable is at work or necessary.

So forgive me for disagreeing timey, while your idea is provocative, I'm afraid it is without merit.

I will butt out for now but I will continue to follow this thread..........Hopefully, we shall all learn something worthwhile as it develops.
 

 
« Last Edit: 11/07/2016 22:57:43 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #329 on: 11/07/2016 15:00:52 »
Quote
how can it be said that time runs at a faster rate in space, and a slower rate closer to a body of mass?

Everything depends on where you measure it, relative to where it originated.

Your clock is in space, mine is on the ground, so according to my clock, yours is running faster.

Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so according to my mossbauer receiver on the ground, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground. 

These are undeniable observations. Since neither depends on the mass of the source, we must conclude that gravitation is warping spacetime.

Quote
Are you saying it is because the frequency of the signal that is transporting the time reading of the clock in space to earth increases as it moves into the stronger gravity field, that we observe the time of the clock to be faster relative to a clock on the ground?
No, though it is true that the carrier signal also undergoes blue shift. If you set the space clock to emit a pulse - say a single photon - every second, the pulses will arrive at slightly less than 1 second intervals as measured by my clock. This is what is observed.
You said:
"Your clock is in space, mine is on the ground, so according to my clock, yours is running faster.
Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so according to my mossbauer receiver on the ground, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."
Unquote:

I agree, but continue the scenario:
...and these higher energy photons gain even higher energy as they shift towards the bottom of tower ...
...and a clocks frequency (energy is proportional to frequency) will be observed as decreased if placed at bottom of tower relative to clocks frequency at top of tower.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #330 on: 11/07/2016 22:51:21 »
Exactly. Blue shift depends on the difference in gravitational potential between the source and the observer. 

If you move the source closer to the detector, the blue shift is less.

Please note and understand every word.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #331 on: 11/07/2016 23:52:41 »
Exactly. Blue shift depends on the difference in gravitational potential between the source and the observer. 

If you move the source closer to the detector, the blue shift is less.

Please note and understand every word.

Yes - and if you move the source to ground level there will be no blue shift at all.

I'll try again.

You said:
"Your clock is in space, mine is on the ground, so according to my clock, yours is running faster.
Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so according to my mossbauer receiver on the ground, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."
Unquote:

...and those higher energy photons gain energy as they travel to bottom of tower.

I have two Fe57 sources at top of tower.  Leaving one at top of tower with my assistant, I bring the other down to the bottom of tower and you and I observe that the Fe57 source that we are observing is emitting photons of a lower energy and frequency than the Fe57 source at top of tower.  We are also recording the time of both locations with cesium atomic clocks.  I also have two atomic clocks.

The Fe57 source has emitted a higher energy photon at top of tower than it would at bottom of tower.
The photon has increased in energy and frequency between top of tower and bottom of tower.
The Fe57 source that I moved from top of tower to bottom of tower has decreased in energy and frequency and now emits photons of a lower energy than it did at top of tower.
The atomic clocks at top of tower had an increased frequency relative to your clock at bottom of tower.  You observed that my clocks were running faster than yours.  I observed your clock was running slower than mine.
I also brought one of my clocks with me down to bottom of tower, and my assistant observes that both clocks at bottom of tower are running at a slower rate relative to the top of tower clock.
The cesium atoms energy transitions are lower in frequency and energy at the bottom of the tower than they are at the top of the tower.
The Fe57 photon emissions occur at a lower frequency and energy at bottom of tower than they do at top of tower.
Photons emitted by a Fe57 source at top of tower 'increase' in energy and frequency as they travel from top of tower to bottom of tower.

The changes in energy and frequency for a photon occur in the opposing direction in a gravity field than occurs for a Fe57, or a cesium atom.
« Last Edit: 11/07/2016 23:59:26 by timey »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #332 on: 12/07/2016 08:40:14 »


The Fe57 source has emitted a higher energy photon at top of tower than it would at bottom of tower.


No. The photon emission process and energy is exactly the same. The perceived blue shift is due to the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer.   

Quote
The cesium atoms energy transitions are lower in frequency and energy at the bottom of the tower than they are at the top of the tower.

No. The hyperfine transition process is exactly the same . The change in perceived clock rate is due to the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer.   

Both the photon blue shift and the perceived clock rate anomaly are, as you say, in the same direction. The received photon is at a higher frequency than one generated locally, and the recevied clock rate is at a higher frequency than one generated locally.

As you keep quoting the same experimental results, why do you keep insisting that they are different? Goebbels was not a physicist!
« Last Edit: 12/07/2016 08:46:27 by alancalverd »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #333 on: 12/07/2016 09:22:00 »


The Fe57 source has emitted a higher energy photon at top of tower than it would at bottom of tower.


No. The photon emission process and energy is exactly the same. The perceived blue shift is due to the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer.   

Quote
The cesium atoms energy transitions are lower in frequency and energy at the bottom of the tower than they are at the top of the tower.

No. The hyperfine transition process is exactly the same . The change in perceived clock rate is due to the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer.   

Both the photon blue shift and the perceived clock rate anomaly are, as you say, in the same direction. The received photon is at a higher frequency than one generated locally, and the recevied clock rate is at a higher frequency than one generated locally.

As you keep quoting the same experimental results, why do you keep insisting that they are different? Goebbels was not a physicist!

You said:

Quote:
"Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so according to my mossbauer receiver on the ground, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."
Unquote:

If the Fe57 source was not experiencing a higher energy itself at top of tower, it could not produce a higher energy photon.

Yes that photon is perceived at top of tower from bottom of tower to have an increased frequency and energy.  When that photon arrives at bottom of tower it has an even greater frequency and energy.

But if you take the Fe57 source that emitted that photon down to the bottom of tower, it produces photons of lesser energy and frequency, and therefore has to have less energy and frequency itself at the bottom of the tower.

The photons have increased in energy and frequency from top of tower position to bottom of tower position.

The Fe57 source has decreased in energy and frequency from top of tower position to bottom of tower position.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #334 on: 12/07/2016 10:06:16 »
Quote
"Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so ACCORDING TO MY MOSSBAUER RECEIVER ON THE GROUND, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."

Every word matters!

If my receiver was at the top of the tower, it wouldn't see a blue shift. The emitted energy is exactly the same everywhere - because there's no reason for it to change. The received energy depends on the gravitational potential difference between emitter and receiver.

Whjat is the difference between a coconut on the ground (harmless) and one falling from a tree (lethal)? Kinetic energy due to the change in gravitational potential.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #335 on: 12/07/2016 10:58:30 »
Quote
"Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so ACCORDING TO MY MOSSBAUER RECEIVER ON THE GROUND, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."

Every word matters!

If my receiver was at the top of the tower, it wouldn't see a blue shift. The emitted energy is exactly the same everywhere - because there's no reason for it to change. The received energy depends on the gravitational potential difference between emitter and receiver.

Whjat is the difference between a coconut on the ground (harmless) and one falling from a tree (lethal)? Kinetic energy due to the change in gravitational potential.
Yes - of course.

Place the mossbauer receiver and the Fe57 source in a uniform gravity field at bottom of tower.  (horizontal experiment) The receiver receives the emitted photon.

Place the Fe57 source at top of tower, (vertical experiment), the mossbauer receiver cannot receive the photon.
The energy of the photon is too great.

Place the mossbauer receiver at top of tower with the Fe57 source in the uniform gravity field, (horizontal experiment), the mossbauer receiver receives the photon.
The energy of the mausbuar receiver has to have also increased at the top of tower position.

Both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver have increased in energy and frequency at top of tower relative to being placed at bottom of tower.

The photon emitted at top of tower has increased in energy and frequency at bottom of tower relative to when it was emitted at top of tower.

The difference between a photon, and a mossbauer receiver and Fe57 source, is that both the mossbauer receiver and the Fe57 sour e have rest mass and the photon doesn't.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #336 on: 12/07/2016 11:13:19 »
As you insist on making everything more complicated that it needs to be, have it your own way, and don't blame me if the world doesn't make sense.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #337 on: 12/07/2016 11:25:08 »
As you insist on making everything more complicated that it needs to be, have it your own way, and don't blame me if the world doesn't make sense.

Actually Alan - my model is simplicity itself in comparison to GR.

What I'm explaining is not difficult.  I understand that it is unfamiliar to you, but what I am saying has to be true because of quantum physics...

An energy transition must be of the correct value for a photon to be received.

(edit: ...and my model makes a lot more sense than GR because it gives cause for Big Bang, inflation period, Big crunch and describes a cyclic universe without any unobserved additions.  GR cannot do this.  GR can only partially explain our universe and relies heavily on unobserved additions to make the maths work.)
« Last Edit: 12/07/2016 12:04:36 by timey »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #338 on: 12/07/2016 12:43:59 »
Quote
what I am saying has to be true because of quantum physics...
I think you will find that quantum physics actually derives from the fact that what you are saying is not true. But life is too short to go through all this again.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #339 on: 12/07/2016 15:49:06 »
Quote
"Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so ACCORDING TO MY MOSSBAUER RECEIVER ON THE GROUND, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."



Place the mossbauer receiver at top of tower with the Fe57 source in the uniform gravity field, (horizontal experiment), the mossbauer receiver receives the photon.
The energy of the mausbuar receiver has to have also increased at the top of tower position.

Both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver have increased in energy and frequency at top of tower relative to being placed at bottom of tower.

The photon emitted at top of tower has increased in energy and frequency at bottom of tower relative to when it was emitted at top of tower.

The difference between a photon, and a mossbauer receiver and Fe57 source, is that both the mossbauer receiver and the Fe57 sour e have rest mass and the photon doesn't.
The discussion of relative position is always a struggle to grasp. The transmitter is composed of physical things such as crystals. The crystal oscillates at different frequencies depending upon the gravitational field.  If you put it in water, as the pressure increases the crystal will oscillate slower. The transmitter higher up from the bottom of the water will have a higher frequency. thus for the transmitter in the tower it will have a higher frequency due to a lower gravitational pressure. It is also moving faster as the Earth orbits as compared to the ground. This will tend to slow the clock.
   So we get a faster speed due to less gravitational pressure and a slower speed due to the faster motion of the clock. You guys agree that measurements have shown the net result is the tower clock is faster with a higher energy level. You can attribute this to variations in space and time or just simple variations in the gravitational field.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #340 on: 12/07/2016 15:53:09 »
The crystal oscillates at different frequencies depending upon the gravitational field.

Fortunately, this is not true. But I no longer care.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #341 on: 12/07/2016 16:43:41 »
Quote
what I am saying has to be true because of quantum physics...
I think you will find that quantum physics actually derives from the fact that what you are saying is not true. But life is too short to go through all this again.

Well Alan - I suppose I shall console myself in being happy that you do at least recognise that I have arrived at the point where quantum and gravity do not unify!

Gravity is linear and quantum is not.  Its the reason they cannot be unified.

But my theory of inverted time is based on the phenomenon of time being energy related.

Gravity sucks because the inverted time dilation phenomenon, that I am proposing is inherent to 'space' in relation to mass, (on a cosmic, macroscopic, and microscopic level), gets increased in its rate with the increasing energy of an increasing gravity field.

And quantum can be linearised because as with the acceleration of gravity being measured in metres per standard second, Planks h constant is a joules per standard second measurement.  (Joules per standard second, being the constant, applied over longer or shorter length second)

The frequency shift of light is the common ground between these 2 phenomenon.

Under the circumstance of quantum remaining so far, and after all this time, unreconciled with gravity, I hardly think it a waste of time to consider an alternative to the current physics if the idea is logically sound, even if the idea turns out under inspection to be mathematically unviable.

My idea is logically sound, and 'is' mathematically proportional to GR as far as I can see.

It surprises me Alan that you are not more pleased to be engaged in an intellectual challenge as such.  Calculating an idea that has never been thought of before has got to be more interesting than the same old run of mill all the time, surely?
« Last Edit: 12/07/2016 16:50:35 by timey »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #342 on: 12/07/2016 23:52:10 »
Always delighted to join in an intellectual pursuit of something worthwhile, but not if it starts from several obviously incorrect premises.

Red/blue shift is a continuum phenomenon. It has nothing in common with quantum mechanics. Nor the mass of the source.

The fact that gravitation does not appear to be mediated by a quantised carrier is interesting, but has nothing to do with units of measurement. What is more interesting is the unipolar nature of gravitation, and the experimental determination of the speed of gravity.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #343 on: 13/07/2016 14:50:04 »
Always delighted to join in an intellectual pursuit of something worthwhile, but not if it starts from several obviously incorrect premises.

Red/blue shift is a continuum phenomenon. It has nothing in common with quantum mechanics. Nor the mass of the source.

The fact that gravitation does not appear to be mediated by a quantised carrier is interesting, but has nothing to do with units of measurement. What is more interesting is the unipolar nature of gravitation, and the experimental determination of the speed of gravity.
You said:
'Red/blue shift is a continuum phenomenon. It has nothing in common with quantum mechanics. Nor the mass of the source."
Unquote:

These phenomenon exist in our 1 universe and cannot logically be isolated from each other.  The energy transition of an Fe57 source emitting a photon and the mossbauer receiving a photon are quantum process.  The vertical experiment (PR) is inclusive of red shift, blue shift phenomenon, and the shift of frequency in light is a quantum process.

I am only setting out on incorrect premise if you state the premise being replaced as absolute.  No physicist anywhere should state GR as the absolute theory.  It clearly isn't!  However any theory that supersedes GR does need to be mathematically proportional to GR or it will not be viable.  To deem something as unworthy one first has to understand it.

So far I cannot seem to persuade you to consider that I am proposing that it is GR gravitational time dilation that is the time phenomenon measuring the length of a standard second - as we humans have defined the measurement of such via the rotations our planet in relation to the sun - in that the frequency of a cesium atom's frequency of energy transition at ground level, earth, exactly matches 1 full rotation of the planet divided into the units of the second that we measure the 'passage' of time by.

...And that it is light that will display behaviour during the 'passage' of time, due to the inverted time dilation phenomenon if viewed without relativistic mass.

Note - the 'passage' of time is sequential events of past, present, future, and the phenomenon of time is gravitational time dilation of both types, (and motion related time dilation).
All sequential events occur 'in' inverted time.

 To understand this, it is required that you recognise that mass will experience time in relation to the main body of mass (earth), and that mass in elevation to mass, its energy and frequency increases.  This being GR gravitational time dilation.

And that emitted lights frequency is always reduced in elevation from earth, no matter its direction of travel into or away from a gravity field.  You don't need to bring relativity into it, just 2 graphs.  One showing the decreased energy changes of blue shifted, or red shifted light in the gravity field of 'space' receding away from earth, and the other showing the increase in energy experienced by the cesium atomic clock in the gravity field of 'space' receding away from earth.

The increase in energy and frequency for light increases the closer it gets to the body of mass.
The increase in energy and frequency for anything with rest mass increases the further away it is placed from the body of mass.

I think I am correct in stating these 2 phenomenon as proven by experiment, although I appreciate that nobody has been viewing the results in the way that I am proposing.

Yes the speed of gravitational acceleration is well documented, and is a measurement recorded via a GR time dilated clock in free fall
as per metres per standard second.  The clock is not travelling at relativistic speeds, so motion related time dilation is not relevant, and the changes it experiences due to the slowing of its time as it moves into the lower gravity potential, within the remit of the experiment, are negligible.  The clock has measured metres per standard second.

To calculate inverted time dilation... via the speed, distance, time formula, turn the acceleration of gravity, this being a speed, into a time value, (time value (a)), and add, (or subtract if calculating a value of g that is above 9.807m|s2), this value of time to, (or from), the length of a standard second. (as per maths earlier this thread)

Turn the extra or lesser length of wavelength of gravitationally  shifted light into a time value (time value (b)), by dividing the extra or lesser length by speed of light.

The relevant time values of (a) 'should' match the gravitationally shifted time values of (b).
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #344 on: 14/07/2016 23:16:58 »
Quote
To deem something as unworthy one first has to understand it.
  It certainly helps.

Quote
the shift of frequency in light is a quantum process.
it is not.


Quote
in that the frequency of a cesium atom's frequency of energy transition at ground level, earth, exactly matches 1 full rotation of the planet divided into the units of the second that we measure the 'passage' of time by.
It doesn't. Never a good idea to base physics on an untruth.

Quote
And that emitted lights frequency is always reduced in elevation from earth, no matter its direction of travel into or away from a gravity field.
Insofar as this sentence means anything, it is untrue.

Quote
decreased energy changes of blue shifted
oxymoron

Most of the rest is beneath contempt. Merely arranging scientific terms into a sentenmce does not constitute science, logic, or even a fun way to spend time.

I suggest you start with experimental facts and work from there.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #345 on: 15/07/2016 00:58:21 »
Quote
To deem something as unworthy one first has to understand it.
  It certainly helps.

Quote
the shift of frequency in light is a quantum process.
it is not.


Quote
in that the frequency of a cesium atom's frequency of energy transition at ground level, earth, exactly matches 1 full rotation of the planet divided into the units of the second that we measure the 'passage' of time by.
It doesn't. Never a good idea to base physics on an untruth.

Quote
And that emitted lights frequency is always reduced in elevation from earth, no matter its direction of travel into or away from a gravity field.
Insofar as this sentence means anything, it is untrue.

Quote
decreased energy changes of blue shifted
oxymoron

Most of the rest is beneath contempt. Merely arranging scientific terms into a sentenmce does not constitute science, logic, or even a fun way to spend time.

I suggest you start with experimental facts and work from there.
If you draw a graph of blue shifted light blue shifted towards earth, and then you look back at the path it has taken, the frequency the light was at each position of increased elevation from earth will be lesser.  Both red shifted and blue shifted light are lesser  in frequency in the weaker gravity field.

There are 86400 standard seconds in a full rotation of our planet and the cesium atomic clock is the most precise measurement of a standard second to date.  What's the problem?

Wavelength and energy changes involved in the frequency changes for light are related to Planck's h constant.

Exactly what is beneath contempt please?

A model of a cyclic universe that has been slowly contracting from initial point of inflation is, of course, going to have 'different' physics.  As long as these alterations are proportional to that which they replace, the model should be viable.

I don't see where your problem is and you are not being particularly specific.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #346 on: 15/07/2016 07:51:40 »
There is no cure for wilful ignorance and arrogant disregard of facts. You clearly have a glittering career ahead of you in the Health and Safety Executive, Care Quality Commission, or European Union, but not physics. I give up.

In case anyone else is reading this, h is just a number: it doesn't magically confer quantum properties on a continuum.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #347 on: 15/07/2016 13:58:40 »
There is no cure for wilful ignorance and arrogant disregard of facts. You clearly have a glittering career ahead of you in the Health and Safety Executive, Care Quality Commission, or European Union, but not physics. I give up.

In case anyone else is reading this, h is just a number: it doesn't magically confer quantum properties on a continuum.

If I asked you about dark energy, you would say, yes Vikki.  Dark energy exists because something has to be pushing the universe apart at the accelerating speed.  If I asked what dark energy is, you would have to tell me that you haven't got a clue...
 
If I asked you about dark matter, you would say yes Vikki, dark matter has to exist to account for all the gravity it would require to stop galaxies from flying apart.  If I asked where all this dark matter is, you would have to tell me that you haven't got a clue...

If I asked you about the Big Bang, you would tell me that the Big Bang occurred and that all of our universe originated from a point.  If I asked how that happened, you would have to say that you haven't got a clue.

If I asked you about the Inflation Period, you would tell me that just after the Big Bang everything became exponentially expanded before the expansion rate slowed, only to start speeding up again as per discovery of accelerated expansion.  If I asked you what caused inflation to happen, you would have to say that you don't have a clue.

These would be legitimate current physics conversations that presumably you would be quite content to discuss with me.

Yet - if I suggest that I want to attribute the velocity of Doppler shift of gravitationally shifted  light - that is currently attributed to the 'speed' that a light source is accelerating away from us at - to a proposed phenomenon of inverted time dilation.
(challenging Hubble's law, and the concept of universal expansion, negating the necessity for dark energy and leading to a cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle, and inflation period, fully accounted for by the black hole phenomenon).

...Or suggest that the acceleration of gravity can be attributed to this proposed inverted time dilation.
(giving the 'suck' of gravity a cause that negates the need for dark matter)

...Or that because for light E=hf, or E=hc|wavelength, suggest that changes in the wave'length' might be inverted time dilation related.
(giving cause for the curvature, or the stretching of space fabric into longer distances, because it is time (length of second) in 'space' that is being stretched, not the geometrical distance, and it is the changes in the length of a second in the gravity field that causes the curvature)

...Or suggest that calculating inclusive of inverted time dilation could make a continuum of quantum.
(already being calculated via perturbation theory which is a time related method)

...you are considering that 'my' notions are beneath contempt?

You said:
Quote:
" There is no cure for wilful ignorance and arrogant disregard of facts."
Unquote:

I really couldn't agree more.

(P.S.  I do not see any cause for the hostile undertones Alan.  What I'm suggesting is logically sound)
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #348 on: 15/07/2016 23:19:40 »
If you repeatedly tell me that gravitation has a different effect on photons from clocks, in spite of the experimental evidence; or introduce pseudoscientific drivel like "the velocity of Doppler shift of gravitationally shifted  light" then I really can't help you, because I only understand physics. However sound your logic, if it is based on untruth and mystic concepts, it won't lead you anywhere useful.
« Last Edit: 15/07/2016 23:21:45 by alancalverd »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #349 on: 16/07/2016 00:42:43 »
If you repeatedly tell me that gravitation has a different effect on photons from clocks, in spite of the experimental evidence; or introduce pseudoscientific drivel like "the velocity of Doppler shift of gravitationally shifted  light" then I really can't help you, because I only understand physics. However sound your logic, if it is based on untruth and mystic concepts, it won't lead you anywhere useful.

In that there is a Doppler shift associated with gravitationally shifted light, it would be reasonable to assume I am referring to it.  I might say that your reference to pseudo science, untruths and mysticism is drivel, but Jeff did mention about civility.  In all fairness I might point out that his comment also applies to yourself despite your moderator status.

No - I am not saying that light and a clock are differently affected by gravity.  I am saying that without the relativistic mass concept, light can be viewed as being unaffected by gravity potential energy.

A clock has a higher frequency when placed in the weaker gravity field.

Light that has already been emitted of both red shifted and blue shifted variety has a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field.  I understand this is where you have the problem, so...

Light source is at 1 metre.  Point light source at ground, the light when it reaches ground is of higher frequency.
Light source is on ground.  Point light source away from earth, the light when it reaches 1 metre elevation is of lower frequency.

Perhaps your confusion arises in that the light source emitter emits a photon of a higher frequency at 1 metre elevation than it does on the ground.  I'm not disputing this fact.  I'm merely pointing out that when that already emitted higher frequency photon reaches the ground it will be of an even higher frequency.

Therefore emitted light is always of a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field.

Can we recognise and move past this fact of 'accepted' physics now please?
« Last Edit: 16/07/2016 00:49:55 by timey »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #349 on: 16/07/2016 00:42:43 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums