# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: An analysis of the de Broglie equation  (Read 23343 times)

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4701
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #350 on: 17/07/2016 08:45:48 »

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.
You should, because it isn't true.

Consider the P-R experiment. Put the source at the top of the tower, and fix 22 receptors at 1 m intervals up the tower. They will measure 22 different values of blue shift. Is the source emitting 22 different frequencies? I think not, because it doesn't "know" where the detectors are. The logical explanation is that the difference between emitted and observed frequency depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer.

Quote
Can we recognise and move past this fact of 'accepted' physics now please?
It's important to accept the facts, whatever you think of the explanation.
« Last Edit: 17/07/2016 09:29:59 by alancalverd »

The following users thanked this post: timey

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #351 on: 17/07/2016 14:15:28 »

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.
You should, because it isn't true.

Consider the P-R experiment. Put the source at the top of the tower, and fix 22 receptors at 1 m intervals up the tower. They will measure 22 different values of blue shift. Is the source emitting 22 different frequencies? I think not, because it doesn't "know" where the detectors are. The logical explanation is that the difference between emitted and observed frequency depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer.

Quote
Can we recognise and move past this fact of 'accepted' physics now please?
It's important to accept the facts, whatever you think of the explanation.

If you place clocks in elevation at metre intervals for 22 metres, each clock as you go upwards will have a higher frequency than the clock below.

The mechanism of the cesium atomic clock is such, that if the microwave part of the mechanism is too finely attuned, the cesium atom experiences shift before it has completed its cycle of movement within the remit of the clocks own internal height of 3 feet.  In other words they are capable of recording shift in frequency of the cesium atoms energy transition between elevations of a lesser distance than the physical dimensions of the clock itself allow for.

The clocks working mechanism is entirely comprised of light related phenomenon.  The frequency of the microwave beam has to be of the exact correct energy for the cesium atom to emit a photon...

Yes by all means, if you attribute light with mass then you may say that...
quote: "the logical explanation is that the difference between emitted and observed frequency depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer." unqoute...
...but then please explain to me why anything with rest mass in elevation to earth experiences an increase in frequency, (ie: equivalence principle), when 'already emitted light' is always of lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field?

Or alternatively, just as an exercise in intellectual dexterity, why not consider already emitted light as having no mass, and that this already emitted light is only subject to the acceleration or deceleration of this proposed inverted time dilation of the gravitational field?  (ie: mass value has no bearing in inertia)

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4701
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #352 on: 17/07/2016 23:19:20 »
If you have one clock in orbit (or indeed on the ground) and a dozen receivers at different heights, they all see the clock as running at different speeds. Is it really? How does it know what speed to run at if it doesn't know where the receivers are?

The hyperfine transition of the cesium atom is unaffected by gravitation: it's a spin-spin interaction. But who cares about physics, eh?

Quote
.but then please explain to me why anything with rest mass in elevation to earth experiences an increase in frequency, (ie: equivalence principle), when 'already emitted light' is always of lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field?
if this sentence means anything, it is experimentally untrue.

I see little point in your continually repeating obvious nonsense, or my responding to it.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #353 on: 18/07/2016 01:56:58 »
If you have one clock in orbit (or indeed on the ground) and a dozen receivers at different heights, they all see the clock as running at different speeds. Is it really? How does it know what speed to run at if it doesn't know where the receivers are?

The hyperfine transition of the cesium atom is unaffected by gravitation: it's a spin-spin interaction. But who cares about physics, eh?

Quote
.but then please explain to me why anything with rest mass in elevation to earth experiences an increase in frequency, (ie: equivalence principle), when 'already emitted light' is always of lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field?
if this sentence means anything, it is experimentally untrue.

I see little point in your continually repeating obvious nonsense, or my responding to it.

Quote:
" If you have one clock in orbit (or indeed on the ground) and a dozen receivers at different heights, they all see the clock as running at different speeds."
Unquote:

Are you saying a receiver or an observer?  Place observers at different heights that are stationary in relation to a clock on the ground, they will all agree that the clock on the ground is running at the same rate.  If each observer compares the rate of the clock on the ground with their own clock, they will all say the clock on the ground's rate of time is running slower.  If they all check their clock against every other clock, they will soon sort out that each clock is running faster than the clock below it.

Quote:
Is it really? How does it know what speed to run at if it doesn't know where the receivers are?
Unquote:

This is incomprehensible as per accepted physics and to say so, thoroughly disappointing.  The clock on the ground doesn't run at different rates.  The Fe57 source on the ground doesn't emit photons of different energies.

Quote:
The hyperfine transition of the cesium atom is unaffected by gravitation: it's a spin-spin interaction.
Unquote:

The hyperfine transition of the cesium atom is gravitationally shifted! The transition is increased in frequency when subject to a higher gravity potential energy.  Therefore it is affected by gravitation.  So...I am completely lost by your reasoning there.
Spin spin interaction?  Yes indeed - quantum gravity being the goal.

The sentence you complain of means something because the energy of a cesium atom and an Fe57 are increased in the higher gravity potential and the equivalence principle states that all reference frames are equal to each other.  Therefore all atoms will experience an increase in energy in the higher gravity potential.
But already emitted light does not.  It always has a decreased energy in the higher gravity potential, relative to the energy it had (red shift) or is going to have (blue shift) as it travels through changes in the gravity field.

Quote:
"But who cares about physics, eh?"
Unquote:

Enough to do my research 'before' opening my mouth!

There is indeed little point in your responding if you can't even manage to comprehend these simple and accepted facts of "mainstream" physics that are "proven" by experiment.  It would seem you are under the impression that clocks running at faster or slower rates, and the observations of gravitationally shifted light are but an appearance and not actual physical phenomenon.

NIST have proven that clocks do run at a faster rate in the higher gravity potential.

As per the equivalence principle an observer with the clock will age in keeping with the clock.

...and the red shift and blue shift of already emitted light in the gravity field are documented as redshifts decreasing in frequency traveling into the higher gravity potential, and blue shifts increasing in frequency traveling into the lower gravity potential.

'This' post has NOT deviated from currently held accepted mainstream physics.

Honestly Alan, either explain to me specifically exactly where and why 'this' post 'has' deviated from accepted mainstream physics and experimental evidence, or post me an apology because you are wrong.  I'm all out of patience with the non specific nature of your complaints and you are seriously losing my respect!

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4701
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #354 on: 18/07/2016 08:19:35 »
Forget clocks, forget mossbauer photons. Simply imagine one source which emits a signal with a constant frequency. Now place receivers at various gravitational potentials with respect to the source. They all receive signals of different frequencies. So the frequency shift is nothing to do with the mechanism of the source.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3914
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #355 on: 18/07/2016 08:32:07 »
Also say you had a source at elevation and a detector that was moving from the ground towards the source. If the detector stopped at set intervals and measured the frequency it would be found to be converging with the source frequency. It isn't the source frequency changing.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #356 on: 18/07/2016 12:57:38 »
Forget clocks, forget mossbauer photons. Simply imagine one source which emits a signal with a constant frequency. Now place receivers at various gravitational potentials with respect to the source. They all receive signals of different frequencies. So the frequency shift is nothing to do with the mechanism of the source.

I have not ever proposed that the mechanism of a frequency emitting source that is held static in a uniform gravitational field will be responsible for frequency changes that its signal experiences in the non uniform gravity field.

All emitted signals are gravitationally shifted by a non uniform gravity field.

The signal, as it moves into the higher gravity potential  reduces in frequency and this reduced frequency is what the elevated receiver sees.

But if you put the signal emitter into elevation and the receivers in the lower gravity potential, the signal emitter is gravitationally shifted to a higher frequency.  (as with NIST clocks, as per the equivalence principle).  This higher frequency signal, emitted by the gravitationally shifted signal emitter, is further shifted as it moves into the lower gravity potential, and the placed receivers all see respectively higher frequencies as elevation position is decreased.

I am pointing out that:

"Emitted signal is always lower in frequency in the weaker gravity field.
Anything with rest mass is always higher in frequency in the weaker gravity field."

You are telling me that this is nonsense...

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #357 on: 18/07/2016 13:02:27 »
Also say you had a source at elevation and a detector that was moving from the ground towards the source. If the detector stopped at set intervals and measured the frequency it would be found to be converging with the source frequency. It isn't the source frequency changing.

Yes - it is interesting that the frequency would be found to be converging with the source frequency...

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3914
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #358 on: 18/07/2016 14:44:00 »
Also say you had a source at elevation and a detector that was moving from the ground towards the source. If the detector stopped at set intervals and measured the frequency it would be found to be converging with the source frequency. It isn't the source frequency changing.

Yes - it is interesting that the frequency would be found to be converging with the source frequency...

Over use of ellipses makes ...

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4701
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #359 on: 18/07/2016 15:10:02 »

I am pointing out that:

Quote
"Emitted signal is always lower in frequency in the weaker gravity field.
Anything with rest mass is always higher in frequency in the weaker gravity field."

You are telling me that this is nonsense...

More "meaningless" than "nonsense", I'll grant you.

Quote
But if you put the signal emitter into elevation and the receivers in the lower gravity potential, the signal emitter is gravitationally shifted to a higher frequency.
No, the received signal is at a higher frequency.

The sign of a spin vector is arbitrary and unrelated to gravitation. The great thing about cesium clocks is that they rely only on the constancy of spin-spin interaction energy. Whilst a pendulum clock would misbehave at altitude (indeed they do) a mechanical wristwatch, or any clock with a torsion-spring or vibrating timebase, is independent of gravitation: its time constant depends only on the elastic and inertial properties of the oscillator. Unfortunately these mechanical devices are too temperature-sensitive to demonstrate the point here in practice, but you can take heart from the fact that rubidium clocks and several mossbauer-type gamma rays all behave in exactly the same way as the cesium clock or an "ideal wristwatch".

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #360 on: 18/07/2016 21:13:36 »

I am pointing out that:

Quote
"Emitted signal is always lower in frequency in the weaker gravity field.
Anything with rest mass is always higher in frequency in the weaker gravity field."

You are telling me that this is nonsense...

More "meaningless" than "nonsense", I'll grant you.

Quote
But if you put the signal emitter into elevation and the receivers in the lower gravity potential, the signal emitter is gravitationally shifted to a higher frequency.
No, the received signal is at a higher frequency.

The sign of a spin vector is arbitrary and unrelated to gravitation. The great thing about cesium clocks is that they rely only on the constancy of spin-spin interaction energy. Whilst a pendulum clock would misbehave at altitude (indeed they do) a mechanical wristwatch, or any clock with a torsion-spring or vibrating timebase, is independent of gravitation: its time constant depends only on the elastic and inertial properties of the oscillator. Unfortunately these mechanical devices are too temperature-sensitive to demonstrate the point here in practice, but you can take heart from the fact that rubidium clocks and several mossbauer-type gamma rays all behave in exactly the same way as the cesium clock or an "ideal wristwatch".

Alan - thing is that one can hardly consider the situation as meaningless when one notes that under the remit of GR, light is calculated as having relativistic mass...

If light has mass then, as per equivalence principle, its frequency should increase in the higher gravity potential, as everything else with mass's frequency does.

Yes - of course the received signal is higher in frequency.  Its been blue shifted.  However the mass of the signal emitter 'has' also been shifted to a higher frequency due to its elevation in the higher gravity potential.   A higher frequency means a higher energy, and if the emitter has a higher energy it must emit at a higher frequency.

We can see this as proven by experiment:

An Fe57 source on ground emits photon.  A mossbauer receiver on ground receives photon.
An Fe57 source on ground emits photon.  A mossbauer receiver in elevation cannot receive photon.  The energy of the photon is not of correct level.
But if you place the Fe57 source at the same elevation as the mossbauer receiver, the mossbauer receiver receives photon.

Presumably both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin - spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation, and therefore the photons emitted at elevation 'are', by the remit of quantum, of higher energy.  The photons then further increase in energy when blue shifted towards earth.

So long as we are clear on all of this, we can progress to discussing these accepted and mainstream physics in the context of a new theory - this being the proposed inverted time dilation and the  consequence of its addition being a cyclic universe.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4701
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #361 on: 18/07/2016 23:22:16 »
Quote
Presumably both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin - spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation, and therefore the photons emitted at elevation 'are', by the remit of quantum, of higher energy.
Garbage. Nothing to do with hyperfine anythings. Nor the mass of anything, let alone its weight. Hence independent of gravitation.

When you invent "presumably"s you run the risk of appearing arrogant, and arrogance often signals ignorance. A toxic combination for your own thoughts, and it lowers you in my estimation to the level of the unemployables who form government inspectorates, for whom Kruger-Dunning is an entry qualification.

Just stick to the experimental facts, and keep them simple. Whatever the source, the received signal is frequency-shifted in the same direction (and indeed by the same fraction) by a given gravitational potential difference between source and receiver.
« Last Edit: 18/07/2016 23:31:08 by alancalverd »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #362 on: 19/07/2016 00:38:34 »
Quote
Presumably both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin - spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation, and therefore the photons emitted at elevation 'are', by the remit of quantum, of higher energy.
Garbage. Nothing to do with hyperfine anythings. Nor the mass of anything, let alone its weight. Hence independent of gravitation.

When you invent "presumably"s you run the risk of appearing arrogant, and arrogance often signals ignorance. A toxic combination for your own thoughts, and it lowers you in my estimation to the level of the unemployables who form government inspectorates, for whom Kruger-Dunning is an entry qualification.

Just stick to the experimental facts, and keep them simple. Whatever the source, the received signal is frequency-shifted in the same direction (and indeed by the same fraction) by a given gravitational potential difference between source and receiver.

So you say that quantum has nothing to do with the energy transition of an Fe57 source emitting a photon, or a mossbauer receiver receiving one... Really?

I wasn't inventing a presumably Alan, I was being polite in that you might take opportunity to add something that is actually  correct to the discussion.

I did run through exactly why it is that experiment shows why what I'm saying is correct.

If you are saying that what I'm saying is incorrect, then state what is incorrect in relation to experimental evidence.  Do not tell me to stick to facts without saying exactly and precisely where I have deviated from them, and may I suggest that doing so 'before' adding insults is the norm in good manners.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4701
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #363 on: 19/07/2016 13:02:03 »
Quote
So you say that quantum has nothing to do with the energy transition of an Fe57 source emitting a photon, or a mossbauer receiver receiving one... Really?
Had I meant that, I would have said it. I am a scientist, not a politician or an idiot.

Quote
both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin - spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation,
none of this is true.
« Last Edit: 19/07/2016 14:25:21 by alancalverd »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #364 on: 19/07/2016 15:44:31 »
Quote
So you say that quantum has nothing to do with the energy transition of an Fe57 source emitting a photon, or a mossbauer receiver receiving one... Really?
Had I meant that, I would have said it. I am a scientist, not a politician or an idiot.

Quote
both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin - spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation,
none of this is true.
Using words like garbage and nonsense is hardly scientific, and responding with "this isn't true" is not in the interests of a discussion.

I could quote some of the physics gaffs you have made in this thread but that would be bitchy.  Why would anyone want to be bitchy?

When I sent you my diagram November last year, you told me that you were a bit rusty on GR.  This being the most refreshingly honest response I've ever had from a physicist, setting you in a class of your own in my opinion.  But to say so, this was of no surprise to me as I had made a full study of your posts that spelt out the same story.

The more apt response for a physicist to make would be:

On the basis, Vikki, that I think you are equating spin-spin hyperfine energy transitions to quantum process, although the PR used this quantum process to measure gravitational shift, physics is no closer to linking quantum with gravity.

Then you might say:

So - what you got in mind?

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4701
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #365 on: 19/07/2016 16:42:26 »
Spin-spin interactions are indeed quantum processes, but not connected with the ejection of a "mossbauer" nuclear photon following the electron capture process of Co58 -> Fe57*.

So, starting from known facts, and only known facts, what have you got in mind?

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #366 on: 19/07/2016 20:30:52 »
Spin-spin interactions are indeed quantum processes, but not connected with the ejection of a "mossbauer" nuclear photon following the electron capture process of Co58 -> Fe57*.

So, starting from known facts, and only known facts, what have you got in mind?

I cannot claim to be knowledgeable enough in the area of particle physics in relation quantum process to conduct a truly in-depth technological conversation... The only part of the quantum process that I'm looking at is the energy levels required for transitions to occur, and how a photon must be of the correct energy for the mossbauer to receive it.

For me to tell you what I've got in mind, I need for you to confirm that you have understood that:
Blue shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field
Red shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field.

...and that when we view light that is arriving from somewhere, we only see it at the energy level that it is when it arrives, not at the energy level that it was emitted at.

The Fe57 source on the ground emits a photon of a certain energy.  In the horizontal experiment the mossbauer is of the correct energy to receive this photon.
Place the mossbauer in elevation and the photon the Fe57 emits cannot be received by the mossbauer.  The photons energy has been gravitationally shifted...
Clearly if this was all there was to the story then quantum and gravity would have been unified yonks ago.

Looking at the cesium atomic clock and how the frequency of its energy transitions increase in the weaker gravity field, as a quantum process.  A higher frequency means a higher energy level.  Therefore it 'could' be viewed that as clocks are placed at intervals of increasing elevation, the energy levels of each clocks energy transitions are increased...

Taking this logic back to the mossbauer we 'could' now view the mossbauer as having increased energy at elevation.  And when considering that if we move the Fe57 source to the same elevation as we previously moved the mossbauer to, the mossbauer will receive the photon the Fe57 source emits at this elevation because the photon it emits is of the correct energy level - and so... we 'could' view the Fe57 source as having increased in energy.  As per the equivalence principle, and the concept that observers with a clock age in keeping with the clock, we 'could' say that all configurations of mass in elevation increase in energy proportional relative to same mass configurations in a lower gravity potential.

If you follow the logic so far, I'll continue.  If you don't, then please say exactly where you have the problem.

« Last Edit: 19/07/2016 20:36:25 by timey »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4701
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #367 on: 19/07/2016 21:22:21 »

Blue shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field
Red shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field.

These statements are garbled. What we observe is that photons arriving from a higher gravitational potential appear blue shifted, and those arriving from a lower gravitaitonal potential appear red shifted, compared with those generated by the same mechanism at the point of observation.

Not a good idea to confuse "energy levels" with "energy". Different words mean different things in physics.

Quote
The Fe57 source on the ground emits a photon of a certain energy.  In the horizontal experiment the mossbauer is of the correct energy to receive this photon.
Place the mossbauer in elevation and the photon the Fe57 emits cannot be received by the mossbauer.  The photons energy has been gravitationally shifted...
Clearly if this was all there was to the story then quantum and gravity would have been unified yonks ago.
That is what we observe, though quaintly expressed, and as you say, that's all there is to it. It has nothing to do with any relationship between quantum mechanics and gravitation. See next paragaph.

Quote
Therefore it 'could' be viewed that as clocks are placed at intervals of increasing elevation, the energy levels of each clocks energy transitions are increased...
Indeed it could, but even if it were more correctly expressed, it wouldn't be true, because the spin/spin interaction is not gravity-dependent, any more than the timebase of a wristwatch or the energy of a mossbauer photon.

Quote
As per the equivalence principle, and the concept that observers with a clock age in keeping with the clock, we 'could' say that all configurations of mass in elevation increase in energy proportional relative to same mass configurations in a lower gravity potential.
You could indeed say that, though a scientist probably wouldn't. You could neatly express what I think you mean,  as "potential energy = mgh", just like in the textbooks of classical physics. But that doesn't explain why the clock with more potential energy appears to run faster, nor does it have anything to do with quantum mechanics.
« Last Edit: 19/07/2016 22:57:56 by alancalverd »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #368 on: 20/07/2016 00:47:29 »

Blue shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field
Red shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field.

These statements are garbled. What we observe is that photons arriving from a higher gravitational potential appear blue shifted, and those arriving from a lower gravitaitonal potential appear red shifted, compared with those generated by the same mechanism at the point of observation.

Not a good idea to confuse "energy levels" with "energy". Different words mean different things in physics.

Quote
The Fe57 source on the ground emits a photon of a certain energy.  In the horizontal experiment the mossbauer is of the correct energy to receive this photon.
Place the mossbauer in elevation and the photon the Fe57 emits cannot be received by the mossbauer.  The photons energy has been gravitationally shifted...
Clearly if this was all there was to the story then quantum and gravity would have been unified yonks ago.
That is what we observe, though quaintly expressed, and as you say, that's all there is to it. It has nothing to do with any relationship between quantum mechanics and gravitation. See next paragaph.

Quote
Therefore it 'could' be viewed that as clocks are placed at intervals of increasing elevation, the energy levels of each clocks energy transitions are increased...
Indeed it could, but even if it were more correctly expressed, it wouldn't be true, because the spin/spin interaction is not gravity-dependent, any more than the timebase of a wristwatch or the energy of a mossbauer photon.

Quote
As per the equivalence principle, and the concept that observers with a clock age in keeping with the clock, we 'could' say that all configurations of mass in elevation increase in energy proportional relative to same mass configurations in a lower gravity potential.
You could indeed say that, though a scientist probably wouldn't. You could neatly express what I think you mean,  as "potential energy = mgh", just like in the textbooks of classical physics. But that doesn't explain why the clock with more potential energy appears to run faster, nor does it have anything to do with quantum mechanics.

OK - to clear up any terminology problems, when I refer to energy, frequency and wavelength, I am referring to lights energy, frequency and wavelength, and I am also referring to the energy, frequency and wavelength of De Broglie matter wave.

Garbled or not, red shifted light is of lesser frequency when it is in the weaker gravity field, and blue shifted light is of lesser frequency when it is in the weaker gravity field.
If I say that light when travelling through changes in a gravity field always has a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field - may I then have your agreement?

All mass is gravitationally affected by the proximity of other mass, including the interactions of particles within atoms. The spin-spin interactions within the cesium atom are increased in frequency in the weaker gravity field.   This has been proven by NIST atomic clock experiments. An increase in frequency is inclusive of an increase in energy.

Just saw the editted additions.  Yes - calculating gravity potential for the clock would increase frequency with the added energy... Calculating light without the additional gravity potential (ie: no relativistic mass) would leave lights observed behaviour open to the introduction of my idea of this proposed inverted time dilation of the open space gravity field.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4701
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #369 on: 20/07/2016 06:51:29 »
Quote
If I say that light when travelling through changes in a gravity field always has a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field - may I then have your agreement?
Why misuse a perfectly good language to confuse yourself? The frequency of any received signal depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and receiver. That is the observed fact.

Quote
The spin-spin interactions within the cesium atom are increased in frequency in the weaker gravity field.   This has been proven by NIST atomic clock experiments. An increase in frequency is inclusive of an increase in energy.
Wrong. The frequency of any clock appears higher when the observer is at a lower gravitaional potential. Don't attempt to intepret or embellish the facts: this is physics, not politics.

#### hamdani yusuf

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 173
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #370 on: 20/07/2016 07:53:19 »

Yes by all means, if you attribute light with mass then you may say that...
quote: "the logical explanation is that the difference between emitted and observed frequency depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer." unqoute...
...but then please explain to me why anything with rest mass in elevation to earth experiences an increase in frequency, (ie: equivalence principle), when 'already emitted light' is always of lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field?

I think you are confusing between "gravitational potential" and "gravitational field strength".
Higher gravitational potential doesn't necessarily means higher gravitational field strength.
A building's floor has lower gravitational potential than its roof, but generally it has higher gravitational strength (unless it is significantly below average level of earth surface).

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #371 on: 20/07/2016 13:26:24 »
Quote
If I say that light when travelling through changes in a gravity field always has a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field - may I then have your agreement?
Why misuse a perfectly good language to confuse yourself? The frequency of any received signal depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and receiver. That is the observed fact.

Quote
The spin-spin interactions within the cesium atom are increased in frequency in the weaker gravity field.   This has been proven by NIST atomic clock experiments. An increase in frequency is inclusive of an increase in energy.
Wrong. The frequency of any clock appears higher when the observer is at a lower gravitaional potential. Don't attempt to intepret or embellish the facts: this is physics, not politics.

Alan - the frequency of a third clock that is higher in elevation than the first clock we put in elevation, will see that the clock below it is running slower than itself.  But it will also see that the clock on the ground is running slower than the clock in the middle.

Therefore a clock always has a higher frequency when it is in the higher gravity potential.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #372 on: 20/07/2016 13:30:43 »

Yes by all means, if you attribute light with mass then you may say that...
quote: "the logical explanation is that the difference between emitted and observed frequency depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer." unqoute...
...but then please explain to me why anything with rest mass in elevation to earth experiences an increase in frequency, (ie: equivalence principle), when 'already emitted light' is always of lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field?

I think you are confusing between "gravitational potential" and "gravitational field strength".
Higher gravitational potential doesn't necessarily means higher gravitational field strength.
A building's floor has lower gravitational potential than its roof, but generally it has higher gravitational strength (unless it is significantly below average level of earth surface).

Hi Hamdani - thanks for joining the discussion.  I've been following your posts and welcome your commentary.

However, to say so, I am not confused about gravity potential.  I understand that the higher gravity potential is in the weaker gravity field.

To give you background, I have a theory of time that attributes the phenomenon of time to being a byproduct of energy.
In brief: More energy = faster rate of time, and frequency 'is' timing.  The consequences of the addition of an inverted time dilation for open space result in a cyclic universe. (If you are further interested I can send you a more in depth synopsis via private message)

Alan has said (I think) that gravity potential energy can be calculated via mgh.  If the mass was on the ground that would just be mg.  I'm suggesting that  light without the relativistic mass concept can be calculated as gh, and that the acceleration of g 'is' the inverted time dilation that I am proposing should be added to GR.  (Holding speed of gravity as constant and equal to speed of light - via speed, distance, time formula, transpose acceleration into time value... I attempted maths at this earlier this thread, and can repost if you are interested.)

This concept, and this being just one of many relevant consequences, gives the acceleration of gravity a cause.

When I can manage to bring anyone's attention to the fact that light, as it travels through space, is always of a lesser frequency when in the weaker gravity field.  And that anything with rest mass is always of a higher frequency in the weaker gravity field, I can move on to putting this theory into context with regards to shifts in frequency that are temperature related.

Planck's h constant being the linking factor between changes in lights energy with regards to frequency and wavelength, and being the significant phenomenon of quantum.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3914
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### hi Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #373 on: 20/07/2016 13:40:47 »
More kinetic energy = increased time dilation.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: hi Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #374 on: 20/07/2016 13:57:34 »
More kinetic energy = increased time dilation.

A clock increases in frequency in elevation, relative to clock below.
A clock decreases in frequency in motion, relative to a stationary clock.

Put a stationary clock into motion in a uniform gravity field - adding kinetic energy will increase the frequency of the clock, not decrease it.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: hi Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #374 on: 20/07/2016 13:57:34 »