The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An analysis of the de Broglie equation  (Read 23557 times)

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #375 on: 20/07/2016 16:49:40 »

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.



You will have to wait a long time because it isn't true. The frequency of every source is higher when viewed from a lower gravitational potential than the source. You know that and everyone else knows that, and you have quoted classic experiments that showed it.  It's nothing to do with the mass of the source.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #376 on: 20/07/2016 18:18:31 »

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.



You will have to wait a long time because it isn't true. The frequency of every source is higher when viewed from a lower gravitational potential than the source. You know that and everyone else knows that, and you have quoted classic experiments that showed it.  It's nothing to do with the mass of the source.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift

Remember that for an observer to observe light, the light has to have entered the eye, or reached the detector.

Therefore the observation of blue shifted light is the frequency it has shifted to when it has arrived in the observers gravity potential.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #377 on: 20/07/2016 18:36:33 »
..and the observed frequency of the clock signal is the frequency it has shifted to when it has arrived in the observers gravity potential.

It's easy when you stick to a consistent nomenclature,
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #378 on: 20/07/2016 18:45:20 »
..and the observed frequency of the clock signal is the frequency it has shifted to when it has arrived in the observers gravity potential.

It's easy when you stick to a consistent nomenclature,
No Alan - that is not true.

NIST atomic clock experiments can observe 2 clocks 1 metre apart in elevation running at different rates with 1 observer.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #379 on: 20/07/2016 18:47:19 »
And the higher one runs faster, no? The observer has to be somewhere!
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #380 on: 20/07/2016 19:10:38 »
And the higher one runs faster, no? The observer has to be somewhere!
Yes the higher one runs faster and the observer is observing both the higher frequency clock and the lower frequency clock at same time. 

The point being that there is no dependence on where the observer himself is viewing the clocks from.  He can bend down and look at the lower clock, and see from that position that the higher clock is running faster than the lower, and he can stand up and see that the higher clock is still running faster than the lower clock.  Place a third clock at 2 metres elevation and he will see that the 2 metre clock has a higher frequency than the 1 metre clock, and the 1 metre clock has a higher frequency than the clock on the ground, and that this will be the case no matter which elevation he places his eyes at.

Place detectors at ground, and 1 and 2 and metre elevations.  Blue shifted light will be lower in frequency at 2 metres than it will be at 1 metre, and lower in frequency at 1 metre than it will be at ground detector.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #381 on: 20/07/2016 20:28:35 »
No. He looks down and sees that the lower clock appears to be running slower than his, and looks up to see the higher clock apparently running faster than his. If he was below the lower clock, both would appear to be running faster.

Here's an old story that explains a lot. A politician, a statistician and a physicist were travelling through Peru in a train. They saw two cows in a field, one black, one white. The politician said "the overwhelming majority of Peruvian cows are black". The statistician said "on a possibly nonrepresentative sample of two frrom an unknown population, my best estimate is that half the cows in Peru are black". The physicist said "At 1800GMT on 23 June 2014 I saw two bovine quadrupeds in a field in Peru. At least one side of one of them was black."

Stick to physics and you won't go far wrong!

 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #382 on: 20/07/2016 21:19:03 »
No. He looks down and sees that the lower clock appears to be running slower than his, and looks up to see the higher clock apparently running faster than his. If he was below the lower clock, both would appear to be running faster.

Here's an old story that explains a lot. A politician, a statistician and a physicist were travelling through Peru in a train. They saw two cows in a field, one black, one white. The politician said "the overwhelming majority of Peruvian cows are black". The statistician said "on a possibly nonrepresentative sample of two frrom an unknown population, my best estimate is that half the cows in Peru are black". The physicist said "At 1800GMT on 23 June 2014 I saw two bovine quadrupeds in a field in Peru. At least one side of one of them was black."

Stick to physics and you won't go far wrong!

Alan - I just said exactly what you said.  Only difference is that you are saying that the clock only appears to be running slower if viewed from above, and only appears to be running faster if viewed from below.

NIST proved that clocks actually do run faster in the higher gravity potential.  Its not an appearance, its a physical fact.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #383 on: 20/07/2016 23:33:25 »
Faster than what?

As far as an observer next to the clock is concerned, it is running at exactly the same speed, wherever it happens to be in the universe, because whatever he is using to measure it, is also at the same gravitational potential.

The surface of the earth is not a special point in the universe. Indeed, identical "surface" primary standard clocks at NIST Boulder (altitude 1655m) and NPL Teddington (altitude 3m) run at different rates as seen by each other. Which one is correct? The answer is, of course, "both", because they both use the same fundamental property that is unaffected by any extermal influence. And the same is true of the clock on a space probe, whether in a zero gravity field or approaching Jupiter or a black hole.  The explanation is that time is warped by a gravitational field, and calculations based on known gravitational fields fortunately yield correct clock variation factors, so GR is at least selfconsistent, explanatory and predictive, even if it doesn't explain everything.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #384 on: 21/07/2016 00:01:37 »
Faster than what?

As far as an observer next to the clock is concerned, it is running at exactly the same speed, wherever it happens to be in the universe, because whatever he is using to measure it, is also at the same gravitational potential.

The surface of the earth is not a special point in the universe. Indeed, identical "surface" primary standard clocks at NIST Boulder (altitude 1655m) and NPL Teddington (altitude 3m) run at different rates as seen by each other. Which one is correct? The answer is, of course, "both", because they both use the same fundamental property that is unaffected by any extermal influence. And the same is true of the clock on a space probe, whether in a zero gravity field or approaching Jupiter or a black hole.  The explanation is that time is warped by a gravitational field, and calculations based on known gravitational fields fortunately yield correct clock variation factors, so GR is at least selfconsistent, explanatory and predictive, even if it doesn't explain everything.

I'm not concerned with what clock is correct.  They all are as far as I'm concerned, but we measure physics via the standard second and any variations can be held relative to a standard second.

The explanation that GR gives in that time is warped by the gravitational field holds just as true in my model.  And anywhere that GR uses the symbol g, as in acceleration of gravity, is already calculating inverted time dilation without realising it.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #385 on: 21/07/2016 08:09:09 »
Quote
They all are as far as I'm concerned, but we measure physics via the standard second and any variations can be held relative to a standard second.

Quote
One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10 9 ) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.
No suggestion of where in the universe, because it is exactly the same everywhere. The underlying principle of relativity is that physics doesn't change, because there are no special places in the universe, but our perception at point A of what is happening at point B depends on the relative speed and gravitational potential of A and B.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #386 on: 21/07/2016 12:47:38 »
Quote
They all are as far as I'm concerned, but we measure physics via the standard second and any variations can be held relative to a standard second.

Quote
One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10 9 ) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.
No suggestion of where in the universe, because it is exactly the same everywhere. The underlying principle of relativity is that physics doesn't change, because there are no special places in the universe, but our perception at point A of what is happening at point B depends on the relative speed and gravitational potential of A and B.

NIST proved that the cycles of radiation are increased in frequency when placed in the higher gravity potential.

You are describing the equivalence principle, but when you consider that an observer with the elevated clock ages in keeping with the clock, this suggests that the difference in time is real.  All atoms in the clocks reference frame will experience an increase in frequency proportionally with the clock.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #387 on: 21/07/2016 17:51:47 »
Quote
NIST proved that the cycles of radiation are increased in frequency when placed in the higher gravity potential.

That is impossible, thanks to the equivalence principle. You can only measure the frequency of a clock with another clock. What they measured was the increase in frequency of the elevated clock as seen from the lower clock. Or the decerease in frequency of the lower clock as seen from the upper one.

Note the Scientific American headline

Quote
Newly developed optical clocks are so precise that they register the passage of time differently at elevations of just a few dozen centimeters or velocities of a few meters per second

i.e. it isn't the clock that changes, but time.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #388 on: 21/07/2016 18:27:27 »
Quote
NIST proved that the cycles of radiation are increased in frequency when placed in the higher gravity potential.

That is impossible, thanks to the equivalence principle. You can only measure the frequency of a clock with another clock. What they measured was the increase in frequency of the elevated clock as seen from the lower clock. Or the decerease in frequency of the lower clock as seen from the upper one.

Note the Scientific American headline

Quote
Newly developed optical clocks are so precise that they register the passage of time differently at elevations of just a few dozen centimeters or velocities of a few meters per second

i.e. it isn't the clock that changes, but time.
Good.  Maybe we might be getting somewhere.

Placing clocks in elevation every metre and using the clock on the ground as a standard, we can then say by how much faster each clock is running faster than the clock on the ground.

You say the clock does not physically change, but it is observed that the frequency of its cycles is increased.
You are saying this is because time is running faster at that elevated location.  Time runs faster there because the gravity field shifts in time.

I am suggesting that it is the atom that is shifted by the gravity field, and that its frequency increases because of the addition of gravity potential energy at elevation.  All atoms will be shifted in frequency and energy in elevation proportionally, and the equivalence principle is upheld.

Now it is possible to view the gravity field itself (open space) as being subject to inverted time dilation, where time runs slower in the weaker gravity field.
Looking at the red shift blue shift phenomenon, light when travelling through space, is always of a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field.  Light viewed without relativistic mass is not subject to gravity potential energy.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #389 on: 21/07/2016 20:39:35 »
Quote
but it is observed that the frequency of its cycles is increased.
note the word OBSERVED, and it is only as observed FROM BELOW. You cannot measure any change in frequency of you are at the same level as the clock, because the clock has not changed. If it had, you would get different results with different clocks or different mossbauer photons, but you don't. The fractional frequency shift is exactly the same for all sources, regardless of mechanism, so it's nothing to do with the source. So all the stuff about the atom's frequency changing is nonsense.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #390 on: 21/07/2016 20:53:06 »
Quote
NIST proved that the cycles of radiation are increased in frequency when placed in the higher gravity potential.

That is impossible, thanks to the equivalence principle. You can only measure the frequency of a clock with another clock. What they measured was the increase in frequency of the elevated clock as seen from the lower clock. Or the decerease in frequency of the lower clock as seen from the upper one.

Note the Scientific American headline

Quote
Newly developed optical clocks are so precise that they register the passage of time differently at elevations of just a few dozen centimeters or velocities of a few meters per second

i.e. it isn't the clock that changes, but time.
Good.  Maybe we might be getting somewhere.

Watford?

Quote
Placing clocks in elevation every metre and using the clock on the ground as a standard, we can then say by how much faster each clock is running faster than the clock on the ground.

Not from the perspective of each clocks local frame. If you moved to each clock in turn the laws of physics would be the same and the clock would appear to run normally.

Quote
You say the clock does not physically change, but it is observed that the frequency of its cycles is increased.
You are saying this is because time is running faster at that elevated location.  Time runs faster there because the gravity field shifts in time.

Time only apparently runs differently when viewed from a frame in a differing gravitational potential. Remove gravity and the effect should disappear. Even in remote outer space voids.

Quote
I am suggesting that it is the atom that is shifted by the gravity field, and that its frequency increases because of the addition of gravity potential energy at elevation.  All atoms will be shifted in frequency and energy in elevation proportionally, and the equivalence principle is upheld.

You only observe the effects of gravitation upon time and distance non-locally.

Quote
Now it is possible to view the gravity field itself (open space) as being subject to inverted time dilation, where time runs slower in the weaker gravity field.
Looking at the red shift blue shift phenomenon, light when travelling through space, is always of a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field.  Light viewed without relativistic mass is not subject to gravity potential energy.

I totally disagree with the last paragraph.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #391 on: 21/07/2016 21:09:39 »
Quote
but it is observed that the frequency of its cycles is increased.
note the word OBSERVED, and it is only as observed FROM BELOW. You cannot measure any change in frequency of you are at the same level as the clock, because the clock has not changed. If it had, you would get different results with different clocks or different mossbauer photons, but you don't. The fractional frequency shift is exactly the same for all sources, regardless of mechanism, so it's nothing to do with the source. So all the stuff about the atom's frequency changing is nonsense.

Yes - that is exactly synonymous with what I said.  An observers atoms are in keeping with the clock, and the observer with the clock will observe no difference in his clocks time.  Only clocks in 'other' reference frames will appear different.

Physics has no theory of time.  All that is understood is that sequential events happen in it, and that motion and gravity have an affect on the rate it happens at.

All of the wiki, text books, clock data, etc, all state that the cesium atom's cycles increase in frequency in the higher gravity potential.

For an increase in frequency to occur, there must be an increase in energy.  These occurrences are physical process.  They cannot occur by magic!  There has to be causality...
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #392 on: 21/07/2016 23:57:50 »
Quote
All of the wiki, text books, clock data, etc, all state that the cesium atom's cycles increase in frequency in the higher gravity potential.

No they don't, because that would be wrong. Here, for example , is a standard (Ohio State University) text on GPS time correction

Quote
A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will SEEM to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites APPEAR to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground.
My capitals. Note the non-magic words of physics. There is no suggestion that anything has happened to the clocks, because nothing can happen to them. If it did, the effect would be different for different clocks, but it is exactly the same for all mechanisms (apart from pendulums, obviously) .
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #393 on: 22/07/2016 05:29:15 »
Quote
All of the wiki, text books, clock data, etc, all state that the cesium atom's cycles increase in frequency in the higher gravity potential.

No they don't, because that would be wrong. Here, for example , is a standard (Ohio State University) text on GPS time correction

Quote
A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will SEEM to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites APPEAR to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground.
My capitals. Note the non-magic words of physics. There is no suggestion that anything has happened to the clocks, because nothing can happen to them. If it did, the effect would be different for different clocks, but it is exactly the same for all mechanisms (apart from pendulums, obviously) .
Look Alan - NIST conducted tests on clocks that were 1metre apart in elevation.  Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...

It is not a case of the higher clock seeing the the lower clock as running slower than itself, or the lower clock seeing the higher clock as running faster than itself.  As I've said before, the clocks are in their own reference frames, but even if the observer is a dwarf, he is in a reference frame that includes himself and both of the clocks.  All that is happening is that he is 'comparing' the frequency of the clocks cesium atoms cycles of radiation.  ie: the elevated clock running faster and having a higher frequency of cycles of radiation, than the lower clock is not just an appearance from the reference frame of the lower clock.  The elevated clock really is experiencing an increase in the frequency of its cesium atoms cycles of radiation.  And therefore we know that we can compare the frequencies of clocks at higher elevations with the frequency of a clock on the ground, or at any other location in the gravity field.  (I understand that there are maths in existence that calculate these increases in the frequency of cycles of radiation of a cesium atomic clock placed at increased elevations)

Logically speaking, we are now 'forced' to view the frequency changes in the clock as actual physical changes, and that this physical property of an increase in frequency requires causality.  An increase in frequency physically requires an increase in energy...

The equivalence principle requires that a physical process that occurs for an atom, and therefore for the internal processes of a cesium atom, occurs for all atoms.  As the energy increase is equal for all atoms, the status quo of proportionality that exists between different atoms and their internal processes at ground level are fully maintained at 1 metre elevation...
The equivalence principle is upheld.

In looking for the energy that increases the frequency of any atoms frequency of cycles, if we say that gravity potential energy can be calculated as mgh, the mass on the ground can be calculated as mg.  Different atoms will have different masses but g and h for all atoms as per reference frame are constant.  Therefore the proportionality that exists within an atoms internal structure, and the proportionality between the atoms themselves are maintained, the equivalence principle is upheld, and a physical causality is given for the physical process of an observer aging in keeping with the clock.
(I suspect that it is specifically  the internal structure concerning the electron cloud of the cesium atom and other atoms that would be subject to this calculation for the proportionality of frequency of radiation or any decaying type activity between atoms of differing masses.  As said before, I'm not much up on particle physics but do know that neither the standard model nor quantum has been linked to gravity as of yet)
 

Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #394 on: 22/07/2016 08:01:47 »
Look Alan - NIST conducted tests on clocks that were 1metre apart in elevation.  Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...

I googled up and found this article
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm

Quote
The NIST experiments focused on two scenarios predicted by Einstein's theories of relativity. First, when two clocks are subjected to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller gravitational force—runs faster. Second, when an observer is moving, a stationary clock's tick appears to last longer, so the clock appears to run slow.

I'm curious about the first experiment, whether the higher clock really runs faster due to smaller gravitational force, or it was actually due to higher gravitational potential. To resolve this, they can repeat this experiment underground.
If the difference is really due to gravitational force, then the result of the underground experiment should be flipped (higher clock would run slower than lower clock due to bigger gravitational force).
If the result still the same, then the difference would be caused by gravitational potential.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #395 on: 22/07/2016 08:48:03 »
For two distinct points in space that are not at the same gravitational potential time will advance at different rates. This also occurs for frames of reference moving at distinct velocities. This indicates some connection between gravitational potential and a change velocity. Maybe via gravitational waves. Since the gravitational field extends to infinity this is an undisturbed continuum with no evidence of inversions.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #396 on: 22/07/2016 13:03:37 »
Look Alan - NIST conducted tests on clocks that were 1metre apart in elevation.  Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...

I googled up and found this article
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm

Quote
The NIST experiments focused on two scenarios predicted by Einstein's theories of relativity. First, when two clocks are subjected to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller gravitational force—runs faster. Second, when an observer is moving, a stationary clock's tick appears to last longer, so the clock appears to run slow.

I'm curious about the first experiment, whether the higher clock really runs faster due to smaller gravitational force, or it was actually due to higher gravitational potential. To resolve this, they can repeat this experiment underground.
If the difference is really due to gravitational force, then the result of the underground experiment should be flipped (higher clock would run slower than lower clock due to bigger gravitational force).
If the result still the same, then the difference would be caused by gravitational potential.
I can appreciate your logic - but have found when talking to people online that there is some debate about what is going on with the gravity field and gravity potential beneath the surface of the earth.

The experiment I have devised to test my theory suggests holding 2 atomic clocks (edit: on ground) at the exact same elevation from sea level (accounting for and avoiding equatorial bulge factor) so that the clocks are experiencing equal gravity potential, but placed in locations of know significant difference of geological density.

If I am correct in my theory the clock in the denser location will run faster.
« Last Edit: 22/07/2016 13:44:41 by timey »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #397 on: 22/07/2016 17:35:35 »
Quote
Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...
And where was the observer? He can't have been at both elevations simultaneously!


Quote
The experiment I have devised to test my theory suggests holding 2 atomic clocks (edit: on ground) at the exact same elevation from sea level (accounting for and avoiding equatorial bulge factor) so that the clocks are experiencing equal gravity potential, but placed in locations of know significant difference of geological density.

You won't have much luck if you rely on geology, but you could do a much more sensitive experiment, much more easily,  by surrounding a cesium clock with lead bricks and seeing if it speeds up or slows down when compared with another one.

If it's symmetrically surrounded, then the should be no change. If you put a load of bricks on one side only, you will have decreased the local gravitational potential so it should slow down compared with the reference clock.

Talk to NPL Time Standards Division. They have accessible clocks and can reference them to the NIST transmissions. There are plenty of lead bricks on the NPL campus. It would make a fascinating TV clip - much more audience-accessible than a mossbauer test. In fact it's a pretty slick means of measuring G!
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #398 on: 22/07/2016 17:57:22 »
Quote
Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...
And where was the observer? He can't have been at both elevations simultaneously!


Quote
The experiment I have devised to test my theory suggests holding 2 atomic clocks (edit: on ground) at the exact same elevation from sea level (accounting for and avoiding equatorial bulge factor) so that the clocks are experiencing equal gravity potential, but placed in locations of know significant difference of geological density.

You won't have much luck if you rely on geology, but you could do a much more sensitive experiment, much more easily,  by surrounding a cesium clock with lead bricks and seeing if it speeds up or slows down when compared with another one.

If it's symmetrically surrounded, then the should be no change. If you put a load of bricks on one side only, you will have decreased the local gravitational potential so it should slow down compared with the reference clock.

Talk to NPL Time Standards Division. They have accessible clocks and can reference them to the NIST transmissions. There are plenty of lead bricks on the NPL campus. It would make a fascinating TV clip - much more audience-accessible than a mossbauer test. In fact it's a pretty slick means of measuring G!

Don't be silly Alan - the clocks are 1 metre apart.  The observer is at both elevations.

I like your slick gravity measurement idea, but wonder if we possess electronics that could measure the ever so slight frequency change such a small amount of gravitational change provided by just bricks alone would effect on the cesium atoms energy transitions.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/04/110406-new-map-earth-gravity-geoid-goce-esa-nasa-science/

Gravity mapping of earth shows that there are 'significant' gravitational field differences due to major geological density variations that 'could' be utilised to the experiment if elevations of the exact same height above sea level could be found.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #399 on: 23/07/2016 10:42:37 »
Look Alan - NIST conducted tests on clocks that were 1metre apart in elevation.  Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...



Where was the observer? How did he measure the two frequencies?

[Hint (a) at some gravitational potential with reference to the clocks; (b) with a clock]

Quote
The observer is at both elevations.
This beats Normanton Laertes II (winner of the Royal Highland Show 2016) for obvious bollocks and pedigree bullshit.

Quote
I like your slick gravity measurement idea, but wonder if we possess electronics that could measure the ever so slight frequency change such a small amount of gravitational change provided by just bricks alone would effect on the cesium atoms energy transitions.

Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment. Henry Cavendish measured G this way in 1797, with no electronics at all. Your job is ever easier! All you need to do is synchronise the NIST and NPL clocks, and wait. Since they are about 1600m apart in altitude, you will find the NIST signal runs ahead of the NPL signal, and after a day or two you will find it has slipped by a few nanoseconds. Now resynchronise and bring up your lead blocks. How long does it take to slip the same amount? Now do the same experiment with a rubidium clock, or an Essen ring clock (I think there is one in the NPL museum). If you get the same answer, it is obviously nothing to do with the hyperfine spin-spin splitting of the cesium spectrum.   
« Last Edit: 23/07/2016 11:23:50 by alancalverd »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #399 on: 23/07/2016 10:42:37 »

 

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