The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An analysis of the de Broglie equation  (Read 23299 times)

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #400 on: 23/07/2016 12:15:57 »
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.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/sep/24/relativity-with-a-human-touch

Read the link.  The experiment was conducted with elevations that are given in inches.

How can the observer not be at both elevations?  An observer takes up more physical space than the clock.

The only reason that it would be relevant that an observer can only observe the difference in another clock from the reference frame of their own clock, would be if the effect was not real.

It is real, Einstein predicted it as a real effect and NIST proved it at ground level to precise precision as a real and tangible effect that will affect the age of an observer with the clock.

Hence the national headlines:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/einsteins-theory-is-proved-and-it-is-bad-news-if-you-own-a-penthouse-2088195.html

Edit:  quote:
"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."
unquote:

If the gravity field is shifting energy for all these different scenarios equally, then the observation of energy change will be the same for all, no matter which type of measuring device is being used.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #401 on: 23/07/2016 14:10:58 »
Quote
How can the observer not be at both elevations?
For the same reason that you cannot be in two places at the same time.

If there is a gravitational potential difference between two clocks, any observer will see that the clock at the higher potential is running faster than the one at the lower potential. But if he tries to measure the frequency of either clock by standing next to it and comparing it with his own clock, he will not observe any difference.

Of course it is a real effect. It has been measured many times and is exactly as Einstein predicted without reference to the nature of the clock.

Quote
If the gravity field is shifting energy for all these different scenarios equally, then the observation of energy change will be the same for all, no matter which type of measuring device is being used.

How can it? In the case of a rubidium clock, we are looking at the hyperfine splitting of an electron (same mass as the electrons in the cesium atom) in the field of the rubidium nucleus (half the mass of the cesium nucleus). In the case of the Essen ring, you are looking at the elastic constant of a quartz crystal. Nothing to do with New Age energy fields or any other mumbo jumbo. None of these mechanisms is gravity-dependent. If the mass of the primary source was important, the effect would be different.   

I commend http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relati/gratim.html   to you. They show the equations for redshift and time dilatation and refer very succinctly to  experiments that prove them identical and independent of the mass of the source.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
Late postscript. Suppose we have a laser on the ground, and a cube reflector on the moon. Send pulses of light at exactly 1s intervals from the earth. They are reflected back to the source. At what intervals are they received back on earth?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
« Last Edit: 23/07/2016 18:48:31 by alancalverd »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #402 on: 23/07/2016 21:30:59 »
Quote
How can the observer not be at both elevations?
For the same reason that you cannot be in two places at the same time.

If there is a gravitational potential difference between two clocks, any observer will see that the clock at the higher potential is running faster than the one at the lower potential. But if he tries to measure the frequency of either clock by standing next to it and comparing it with his own clock, he will not observe any difference.

Of course it is a real effect. It has been measured many times and is exactly as Einstein predicted without reference to the nature of the clock.

Quote
If the gravity field is shifting energy for all these different scenarios equally, then the observation of energy change will be the same for all, no matter which type of measuring device is being used.

How can it? In the case of a rubidium clock, we are looking at the hyperfine splitting of an electron (same mass as the electrons in the cesium atom) in the field of the rubidium nucleus (half the mass of the cesium nucleus). In the case of the Essen ring, you are looking at the elastic constant of a quartz crystal. Nothing to do with New Age energy fields or any other mumbo jumbo. None of these mechanisms is gravity-dependent. If the mass of the primary source was important, the effect would be different.   

I commend http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relati/gratim.html   to you. They show the equations for redshift and time dilatation and refer very succinctly to  experiments that prove them identical and independent of the mass of the source.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
Late postscript. Suppose we have a laser on the ground, and a cube reflector on the moon. Send pulses of light at exactly 1s intervals from the earth. They are reflected back to the source. At what intervals are they received back on earth?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

An atomic clock is around 3 foot tall.  An atomic clock jacked up 17 inches is 3 foot 17 inches tall.  An observer is likely to be more than 3ft17" tall.  Observers feet are on ground.  Observers head is likely above 3ft17" elevation.  Clocks both have displays.  The displays of the clocks show that time runs faster for the elevated clock than it does for the lower clock and will do so no matter if observer lies on ground, sits up, or stands.

What is your fixation with what appears to be what from where?  Why is this relevant?  All I'm looking for is an axiom, if that is the correct terminology, that simply states that a clocks frequency is always higher when the clock is in the higher gravity potential.

If the clocks frequency is a real effect, then the axiom holds true.

You asked how can it:
It can because whatever atom, or atom's constituent particle interaction one is measuring, we can say that on the ground gravity potential energy=mg, and that mgh is adding h, h being height, as a constant for all atoms across the board at that elevation.
Therefore in that both g and h are constant for both functions of the equation for any mass size, all relationships between particle constituents within atoms, and atoms within molecules, etc, remain proportional to each other at any elevation...

...the equivalence principle is upheld, and a physical causality is given for the physical process of an observer with the clock aging in keeping with the clock.

Please note that the only reason that gravity has nothing to do with the hyperfine energy transition of anything at all, is because gravity has not yet been linked to quantum.

I've seen a wonderful scaled representation of the geocentric model.  Mars going round in little circles, the lot!  Its amazing when we consider that the geocentric model was a perfectly viable mathematical model before proven to be misconceived. 
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #403 on: 23/07/2016 22:00:51 »
So snakes must be the youngest things on the surface of the earth. Birds are on a bit of a loser. Lives just flying by. Whoops pun alert. Dinosaurs must have been really messed up. Young feet aging head.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #404 on: 23/07/2016 23:02:38 »
I admire the patience and perspicacity of your observer...
Quote
....the effects are minuscule: It would take the elevated clock hundreds of millions of years to log one more second than its counterpart
....staring at the displays.

Quote
What is your fixation with what appears to be what from where?  Why is this relevant?
It is called "relativity" and is quite important in physics.
 
Quote
It can because whatever atom, or atom's constituent particle interaction one is measuring, we can say that on the ground gravity potential energy=mg, and that mgh is adding h, h being height, as a constant for all atoms across the board at that elevation.
Therefore in that both g and h are constant for both functions of the equation for any mass size, all relationships between particle constituents within atoms, and atoms within molecules, etc, remain proportional to each other at any elevation...
none of which has anything to do with the electron-nucleus spin-spin interaction, nor the expulsion of a photon from an excited nucleus.

Quote
Please note that the only reason that gravity has nothing to do with the hyperfine energy transition of anything at all, is because gravity has not yet been linked to quantum.
Both gravitation and quantum mechanics are human attempts to explain and predict what happens in the universe. I really don't think nature is waiting for us to invent a link: how ever did the Big Bang happen before Fred Hoyle found a name for it? If there was any connection between gravitation and spin-spin interactions, we would find a gravitational asymmetry in the bandwidth of the radiation. We don't.   
« Last Edit: 23/07/2016 23:09:43 by alancalverd »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #405 on: 24/07/2016 16:32:55 »
I admire the patience and perspicacity of your observer...
Quote
....the effects are minuscule: It would take the elevated clock hundreds of millions of years to log one more second than its counterpart
....staring at the displays.

Quote
What is your fixation with what appears to be what from where?  Why is this relevant?
It is called "relativity" and is quite important in physics.
 
Quote
It can because whatever atom, or atom's constituent particle interaction one is measuring, we can say that on the ground gravity potential energy=mg, and that mgh is adding h, h being height, as a constant for all atoms across the board at that elevation.
Therefore in that both g and h are constant for both functions of the equation for any mass size, all relationships between particle constituents within atoms, and atoms within molecules, etc, remain proportional to each other at any elevation...
none of which has anything to do with the electron-nucleus spin-spin interaction, nor the expulsion of a photon from an excited nucleus.

Quote
Please note that the only reason that gravity has nothing to do with the hyperfine energy transition of anything at all, is because gravity has not yet been linked to quantum.
Both gravitation and quantum mechanics are human attempts to explain and predict what happens in the universe. I really don't think nature is waiting for us to invent a link: how ever did the Big Bang happen before Fred Hoyle found a name for it? If there was any connection between gravitation and spin-spin interactions, we would find a gravitational asymmetry in the bandwidth of the radiation. We don't.

Actually Alan, in depth reading of the links I've posted tells me the effects can be seen after 10 days.  But yes - your point is noted.  The clocks are linked up to a computer that is probably nowhere near the clocks.  More clocks at greater elevations can be linked to the computer and the computer will record that each clock placed higher in elevation will be of greater frequency in the higher gravity potential.

There is nothing that is non relativity about this... so again  I ask what's your problem?

If there is an increase in 'energy' (or decrease) this is a quantum process.

I'm not 'inventing' a link.

Quote:
"Nature hides her secrets"
Albert Einstein
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #406 on: 24/07/2016 17:22:11 »
"Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht. •Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.
•Remark made during Einstein's first visit to Princeton University. (April 1921) as quoted in Einstein (1973) by R.W. Clark, Ch. 14. "God is slick, but he ain’t mean" is a variant translation of this (1946) Unsourced variant: "God is subtle but he is not malicious."
•When asked what he meant by this he replied. "Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness,but not by means of ruse." (Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch List.) As quoted in Subtle is the Lord — The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (1982) by Abraham Pais"

The bold text is mine.
« Last Edit: 24/07/2016 17:26:58 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #407 on: 24/07/2016 19:09:41 »
"Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht. •Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.
•Remark made during Einstein's first visit to Princeton University. (April 1921) as quoted in Einstein (1973) by R.W. Clark, Ch. 14. "God is slick, but he ain’t mean" is a variant translation of this (1946) Unsourced variant: "God is subtle but he is not malicious."
•When asked what he meant by this he replied. "Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness,but not by means of ruse." (Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch List.) As quoted in Subtle is the Lord — The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (1982) by Abraham Pais"

The bold text is mine.

No - not by ruse.

It is only an overly inflated opinion of ones own understanding that will blindside one to that which is obvious.
(my own words)

Quote:
"The mind is like a parachute, it works best when open"
Albert Einstein
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #408 on: 24/07/2016 20:30:13 »
Make sure you know the difference between a parachute and a rucksack (my own words).
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #409 on: 24/07/2016 22:15:44 »
Make sure you know the difference between a parachute and a rucksack (my own words).
If you do not wish to participate in discussing an alternative idea that is proportional to GR, there is little point in responding Jeff...

Insulting someone for having an idea is a puerile response, and is degrading to your own demeanour.

Either make meaningful and relevant response to the idea, or make no response at all.

I am sick to the back bloody teeth of being told I'm not qualified to have this idea. Being told that I do not understand GR when I've made a full study if it.  And being held up for ridicule as though it is a personal insult to physics that I challenge the premises of the cause for observation and have consequently come up with a model of a cyclic universe.

I ***always without fail*** question my own understanding before pentertaining the idea that someone else's understanding is at fault. 

I am not asking anyone here to embrace my idea, all I'm asking is that someone help me calculate it to see if its mathematically viable.  (you might well describe this as checking a parachute to see if its a rucksack)

What reason for the hostility?
What reason for the puerile and irrelevant responses?
And are you really qualified to make the distinction between an idea that has merit, and an idea that does not, without any mathematically proving or disproving of the idea's viability?

No GR does not describe the physics in way I'm suggesting it be augmented.  In my suggesting GR be augmented, one would have to be an idiot if one were expecting the GR description of physics to remain unaltered.
The fact that my alterations should, as far as I can see, remain mathematically proportional to GR and therefore 'perhaps' relevant (note the word perhaps)  being my only reason for desiring and actually having the cheek to ask for help to calculate it.

Who are you Jeff, who was telling lightarrow on this forum only last year that you were starting to get a grip on aspects of physics you were studying at that time, conjugates and complex numbers and reading about the double slit experiment, to question my understanding of current physics in the way that you constantly do.   
I really do not appreciate anyone talking to me like I'm an idiot... Please desist from doing so again!
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #410 on: 24/07/2016 23:07:20 »
Quote
If there is an increase in 'energy' (or decrease) this is a quantum process.
Only if the gravitational field is quantised, and there is no evidence of this to date.

Anyway let's do some calculations. The mass of a Fe57 atom is about 57 x 1.7 x 10^-27 kg : about 10^-25 kg.

Raise the atom through 27 m. The additional potential energy is mgh = 9.81 x 27 x 10^-25 = 2.6 x 10^-22 J = 1.6 x 10^-5 eV.

The actual energy shift in the Pound-Rebka experiment was 3.5 x 10^-11 eV, a factor of  500,000 too small. 

Given the very rough figures I have used, a factor of 1.5 would make me suspect I'd bodged the arithmetic, but a factor of 500,000 suggests there is something wrong with your physics.

You might like to do the calculation for the NIST clock experiment.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #411 on: 24/07/2016 23:26:46 »
Quote
If there is an increase in 'energy' (or decrease) this is a quantum process.
Only if the gravitational field is quantised, and there is no evidence of this to date.

Anyway let's do some calculations. The mass of a Fe57 atom is about 57 x 1.7 x 10^-27 kg : about 10^-25 kg.

Raise the atom through 27 m. The additional potential energy is mgh = 9.81 x 27 x 10^-25 = 2.6 x 10^-22 J = 1.6 x 10^-5 eV.

The actual energy shift in the Pound-Rebka experiment was 3.5 x 10^-11 eV, a factor of  500,000 too small. 

Given the very rough figures I have used, a factor of 1.5 would make me suspect I'd bodged the arithmetic, but a factor of 500,000 suggests there is something wrong with your physics.

You might like to do the calculation for the NIST clock experiment.

Firstly, thank you very much for engaging!

My model is suggestive that quantum is not quantised.

As per the cesium atom, it is the mass of the Fe57 atoms internal electrons energy transitions increase in frequency and 'energy' at elevation that would be relevant, although it is likely that your calculations of the atom itself are relevant as a preliminary.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #412 on: 24/07/2016 23:46:52 »
Alan has tried to point out where you are incorrect and so have I. You either ignore it or reject it out of hand. Do you remember who started this thread? It has wandered so far from the original intent I have just given up trying to remember the point I was actually making. If you can't accept positive criticism what is left?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #413 on: 25/07/2016 00:16:20 »
Alan has tried to point out where you are incorrect and so have I. You either ignore it or reject it out of hand. Do you remember who started this thread? It has wandered so far from the original intent I have just given up trying to remember the point I was actually making. If you can't accept positive criticism what is left?
It really does not require a great talent for lateral thinking to realise that pointing something out to be incorrect requires that the premises you are referring to as correct, is correct.

In that I am suggesting an augmentation to GR, one cannot state that it is incorrect because it is not GR.

Furthermore, in suggesting an augmentation to GR, I'm not suggesting that my alternative is correct, only that it is an interesting idea that leads to a cyclic universe without adding any unobserved entities to make the mechanics work, (as every other theory does), and therefore is worthy of consideration.

P.S.  I already reminded you once why you started this thread.  You were looking for a 1 hertz frequency in relation to energy, hence my interest.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #414 on: 25/07/2016 10:26:38 »
Quote
My model is suggestive that quantum is not quantised.

As per the cesium atom, it is the mass of the Fe57 atoms internal electrons energy transitions increase in frequency and 'energy' at elevation that would be relevant,

I refer the honorable lady to the remarks I made earlier concerning bollocks and bullshit. You really should enter some of these posts at an agricultural show. 
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #415 on: 25/07/2016 12:32:03 »
Quote
My model is suggestive that quantum is not quantised.

As per the cesium atom, it is the mass of the Fe57 atoms internal electrons energy transitions increase in frequency and 'energy' at elevation that would be relevant,

I refer the honorable lady to the remarks I made earlier concerning bollocks and bullshit. You really should enter some of these posts at an agricultural show.

So - you quote me out if context with regards to quantum not bwing quantised, and you do not tell me if the calculation for the electron cloud works out and now resort to insults rather than explanations or questions.  Really Alan?

Why did you think that the atoms whole mass would need calculating to obtain a gravity potential energy increase that would be in the region required to increase the observed increase of the frequency of its energy transition at elevation?

It is the electron cloud's energy transition that is responsible for the emission of a photon, and the atoms internal structure has a gravitational system of its own going on between its particle constituents...

Increase the gravity potential energy of the atom and the energy of each particle it contains will be increased proportionally.

Can I please ask you Alan to cease with the insults.   I'm finding it "incredibly" upsetting and there is no call for it.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #416 on: 25/07/2016 14:15:07 »
There is no electron involved in the Fe57 gamma emission (the word "gamma" is the giveaway). The fact that it occurs always and only at a single energy means that it is a quantum effect.

You can calculate the interparticle gravitation if you like but that has no bearing on the external grav field and is unaffected by it.

You can calculate the gravitational potential energy of a single nucleon if you like, but it's just 1/57 of the number I gave previously - still a factor of 100,000 too big.


And let's put your quote back into context
Quote
Firstly, thank you very much for engaging!

My model is suggestive that quantum is not quantised.
....sorry, but it still stinks!

 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #417 on: 25/07/2016 15:10:28 »
There is no electron involved in the Fe57 gamma emission (the word "gamma" is the giveaway). The fact that it occurs always and only at a single energy means that it is a quantum effect.

You can calculate the interparticle gravitation if you like but that has no bearing on the external grav field and is unaffected by it.

You can calculate the gravitational potential energy of a single nucleon if you like, but it's just 1/57 of the number I gave previously - still a factor of 100,000 too big.


And let's put your quote back into context
Quote
Firstly, thank you very much for engaging!

My model is suggestive that quantum is not quantised.
....sorry, but it still stinks!
Yes - you are correct concerning the process of the Fe57...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossfe.html

...however, the process of the Fe57 would be capable of occurring at higher and lower energies if the entire process is shifted in energy proportionally.

*

Quantum may not be quantised:
My theory connects the phenomenon of time to energy.  If there is more energy then the rate of time runs faster.  If you are adding energy to anything and timing the results via a standard second, this isn't taking into account the increase in time that is occurring for the phenomenon being measured and bandwidths will emerge.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #418 on: 25/07/2016 23:49:57 »
Quote
.however, the process of the Fe57 would be capable of occurring at higher and lower energies if the entire process is shifted in energy proportionally.
I await your calculation with bated breath. It's dead easy as I showed above, just add mgh to the ground-level energy to get the new photon energy. We know g and h, but what value are you going to use for m? And what value of m will you use for the cesium, rubidium and aluminum clocks? You can't just work backwards to get an arbitrary value: you have to explain the physics first.

Quote
If there is more energy then the rate of time runs faster.
Or, to put it more scientifically, conventional GR gravitational time dilation applies, and clocks run faster when seen from a lower gravitational potential. No argument there, but equally, no progress towards integration of relativity and quantum mechanics.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #419 on: 26/07/2016 01:14:02 »
Quote
.however, the process of the Fe57 would be capable of occurring at higher and lower energies if the entire process is shifted in energy proportionally.
I await your calculation with bated breath. It's dead easy as I showed above, just add mgh to the ground-level energy to get the new photon energy. We know g and h, but what value are you going to use for m? And what value of m will you use for the cesium, rubidium and aluminum clocks? You can't just work backwards to get an arbitrary value: you have to explain the physics first.

Quote
If there is more energy then the rate of time runs faster.
Or, to put it more scientifically, conventional GR gravitational time dilation applies, and clocks run faster when seen from a lower gravitational potential. No argument there, but equally, no progress towards integration of relativity and quantum mechanics.
I think that I previously suggested that ground level potential energy for any mass would be mg.
And that it is the added value of h, (ie: mgh), that would increase the potential energy at elevation.
And that because g and h are constant for any mass at h's reference frame, that all will be equal in proportionality as it was on ground.

The physics are a rendition of the equivalence principle.

*

Planck's h constant is a joules per standard second squared measurement.
Planck added energy to black body.
If the rate of time increases for black body when energy is added, then joules per second squared is then a measure of by how much time has increased in rate per standard second.
Subtract the time values per standard seconds squared that the standard second has increased by per standard second squared from the time value of per standard seconds squared, and quantum is then a continuum.
« Last Edit: 26/07/2016 01:25:11 by timey »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #420 on: 26/07/2016 13:19:10 »
So you are now suggesting that time is temperature-dependent?

Quote
I think that I previously suggested that ground level potential energy for any mass would be mg.
Dimensions?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #421 on: 26/07/2016 14:01:22 »
So you are now suggesting that time is temperature-dependent?

Quote
I think that I previously suggested that ground level potential energy for any mass would be mg.
Dimensions?

I am suggesting that time is energy related.
Temperature is energy related.

There is an association between temperature and time in that:
We observe decomposition occurring faster at greater temperatures.
We observe that plant matter grows faster in warmer climes.
We observe that matter can be frozen to prolong its life.
We observe the concept of cryogenics.
Etc.

Shifts in frequency are observed in adding temperature.  Shifts in frequency are observed in the gravitational field.

*

I don't know what you mean by dimensions, sorry.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #422 on: 26/07/2016 16:53:15 »
Then there is no point in continuing the discusson.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #423 on: 26/07/2016 17:12:21 »
Then there is no point in continuing the discusson.
Let me rephrase:

The dimensions are m and g and h.

It really doesn't matter what m is unless you are going to actually make a calculation of a process, in which case this would require figuring out what the relevant m of that process is.  It is that the proportionality of any and all m at h upholds the equivalence principle that is of relevance.

 Unless you are referring to any other dimensions, in which case I don't know what you mean.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #424 on: 27/07/2016 12:53:58 »
Then there is no point in continuing the discusson.
Let me rephrase:

The dimensions are m and g and h.

It really doesn't matter what m is unless you are going to actually make a calculation of a process, in which case this would require figuring out what the relevant m of that process is.  It is that the proportionality of any and all m at h upholds the equivalence principle that is of relevance.

 Unless you are referring to any other dimensions, in which case I don't know what you mean.
(edit: Or is it because you think that I mean that the energy of the gravity field is thermal?  ...in which case, no of course not, I'm suggesting that the time phenomenon shifts of frequency observed in the gravity field are energy related.)
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #424 on: 27/07/2016 12:53:58 »

 

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