# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: An analysis of the de Broglie equation  (Read 23305 times)

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #525 on: 12/08/2016 01:27:15 »
Quote
I am not working on the basis that an increase in potential energy will increase mass size, only that it will increase frequency.
which is exactly what GR predicts, and we find in practice.

The "lattice thingy" is all about momentum. This doesn't change with gravitational potential.

gluons are not gravitons

Quote
But to answer your question, the standard GR equation for GR time dilation already takes into account the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation in that it is using g.
Hmm. The frequency shift equation is

fr/fe = sqrt{(1-2GM/(R+h)c^2)/(1-2GM/Rc^2)}

where fr and fe are the received and emitted frequencies.  No mention of g or the mass of the source that I can see.

OK - leaving the gluon's, magnetic moments of electrons and all particle physics and lattice thingy aside for time being - I think you are being a little unfair in your assessment of the frequency shift equations in relation to what I am saying... I can clearly see use of G, and M.

G being the gravitational constant will not be descriptive of a clear separation between gravitational attraction, and the acceleration of gravity either.

...and, GR states that time will slow for a bigger mass size.  More energy resulting in a greater mass will result in a slower rate of time, yet we also know that an increase in energy increases frequency.  But.. as per the cesium atomic clock, an increase in frequency increases the rate of time.

We can see that if mass sizes increase with the addition of gravity potential energy, a perfectly linear equation for mass where m*g is constant, and h is the only variable, becomes, what was the word you used before?, anyway, it becomes non linear.  Of course perhaps it is the mass increases|decreases offset by the gravity field decreases|increases that are the reason that these maths work.  I do however recall Pete saying that gravity potential energy does not increase relativistic mass, so if that is indeed correct, then it would seem that things with mass are being calculated differently to light.

In any case, in that mass size is increasing in the higher gravity potential, here we can see that GR is already making a natural separation of gravitational phenomenon.  Simply ditch the mass increase, and re-attribute the notion of that dimension increasing in that manner, and under those circumstances, as the rste of time increasing for the mass, instead of the mass size increasing.  (I think you will find this can give alternate explanation of same observations of acceleration of gravity-particle physics)

So the mass size remains the same, m*g, where g is an energy decrease in the gravity field that decreases the energy of the mass, and is also giving an opposing increase in gravity potential energy that mass experiences at that location increasing energy, and therefore frequency at elevation when multipied by h... Any nonlinearity left over by this alteration could possibly be attributed to the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation.
(remembering that we haven't yet touched on SR effects)

Now that this has attributed the increase in time as being 'for' the mass, and not 'for' the location, we can explore the notion of an inverted gravitational time dilation that is dilating in the reducing energy of a reducing gravity field... and look to the observation of massless light.
« Last Edit: 12/08/2016 02:14:19 by timey »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4699
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #526 on: 12/08/2016 08:05:24 »
What on earth is mass size?

M is the mass of the large attractor (the earth). m does not feature in the equation, which applies to all sources regardless of their mass (as long as it does not significantly distort the gravitational field of M) and thus includes sources where m = 0.

The following users thanked this post: jeffreyH

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #527 on: 12/08/2016 13:41:21 »
What on earth is mass size?

M is the mass of the large attractor (the earth). m does not feature in the equation, which applies to all sources regardless of their mass (as long as it does not significantly distort the gravitational field of M) and thus includes sources where m = 0.

Yes there is use of G and M in the frequency shift equation...
Can you tell me how the corresponding energy change of a frequency shift is calculated?

Yes there is use of g and m in the gravity potential equation...
Can you tell me how the corresponding frequency shift of the gravity potential energy changes are calculated?

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4699
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #528 on: 12/08/2016 23:33:37 »
Potential energy is mgh.

I stated the gravitational blue shift equation earlier as the frequency ratio. Obviously the energy ratio is the same since  E = hf.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #529 on: 13/08/2016 00:25:33 »
Potential energy is mgh.

I stated the gravitational blue shift equation earlier as the frequency ratio. Obviously the energy ratio is the same since  E = hf.
Is that E=hf, where h is Planck's h constant?

...and m*g*h, for gravity potential energy, where h is height?

...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location?  Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4699
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #530 on: 13/08/2016 09:48:16 »
Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant - as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations.

Quote
...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location?  Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?

Neither.  The deBroglie frequency is an unobservable mathematical construct that approximates to quantum behavior. Variation in gravitational potential will vary both the potential energy of a massive object relative to the observer, and the  observed frequency of a photon or a clock.
« Last Edit: 13/08/2016 09:51:46 by alancalverd »

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #531 on: 13/08/2016 12:24:59 »
Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant - as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations.

Quote
...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location?  Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?

Neither.  The deBroglie frequency is an unobservable mathematical construct that approximates to quantum behavior. Variation in gravitational potential will vary both the potential energy of a massive object relative to the observer, and the  observed frequency of a photon or a clock.
Just to clarify your last words. For a clock above the Earth spinning around with velocity V, the clock will slower relative to the Earth. As the clock moves faster it will slow even more. If put a clock on a tower atop a high mountain, is it correct that the clock will move slower than a clock at the base of the mountain. If we build a tower atop the mountain is it correct that the higher up the clock moves, the clock will move even slower.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #532 on: 13/08/2016 12:53:12 »
Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant - as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations.

Quote
...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location?  Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?

Neither.  The deBroglie frequency is an unobservable mathematical construct that approximates to quantum behavior. Variation in gravitational potential will vary both the potential energy of a massive object relative to the observer, and the  observed frequency of a photon or a clock.
Just to clarify your last words. For a clock above the Earth spinning around with velocity V, the clock will slower relative to the Earth. As the clock moves faster it will slow even more. If put a clock on a tower atop a high mountain, is it correct that the clock will move slower than a clock at the base of the mountain. If we build a tower atop the mountain is it correct that the higher up the clock moves, the clock will move even slower.

Jerry - I think you need to read this:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4699
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #533 on: 13/08/2016 13:23:09 »
Clocks at higher gravitational potential run faster. Clocks moving with respect to the observer run slower. The problem with GPS satellite clocks is that they are doing both, significantly. The gravitational correction for an aeroplane is, I think, a lot less than the relative velocity correction.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #534 on: 13/08/2016 14:52:39 »
Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant - as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations.

Quote
...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location?  Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?

Neither.  The deBroglie frequency is an unobservable mathematical construct that approximates to quantum behavior. Variation in gravitational potential will vary both the potential energy of a massive object relative to the observer, and the  observed frequency of a photon or a clock.

OK - Alan... I am looking at the fact that a person ages faster at elevation in keeping with their clock. (see NIST link in post above)

Under the remit of the equivalence principle, what physically happens to the clock must physically happen to the person.  We observe that the clock has an increase in frequency of its energy transitions.  An increase in frequency must be accompanied by an increase in energy.

The hypothetical De Broglie matter wave for all mass will be escalating in frequency with the additional gravity potential energy at elevation, and all matter wave frequencies will escalate, and atoms of higher energy will do whatever process they are doing internally at a higher energy and frequency. (ie: quicker)

Now we can no longer state that it is the time dilation of the location of the gravity field that is changing the frequency of the clocks energy transitions.  Clearly it is the change in potential energy that is causing a change in frequency, and it is causing all particles of mass within atomic structures to increase, or decrease, in energy proportionally to their relationships with each other in any reference frame of gravity potential.

A physical cause has now been given for an observer physically aging in keeping with his clock.  The remit of the equivalence principle has been upheld...

But... GR time dilation has now been derived as an m near M relationship - and the open space gravity field can now be observed with respect to the inverted gravitational time dilation in relation to observation of light... minus the relativistic mass notion - and take a closer look at Planck's h constant.

(P.S. Yes, since the site got bug I seem to have lost the ability to quick reply, or select quote, hence my copious and unnecessary quoting of late)
« Last Edit: 13/08/2016 14:56:04 by timey »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4699
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #535 on: 13/08/2016 23:32:01 »
You correctly use the term "hypothetical" deBroglie frequency. It has no bearing on any observed energy.

"What happens to the clock" is "nothing at all". Imagine you are sitting looking at a clock on planet Earth, whilst two of your colleagues are based on the Moon and on Jupiter. M will see your clock running slower than his, and J will see it running faster, but obviously nothing has happened to your clock. The difference is in the relative gravitational potential of the observer and source, not the structure of the clocks.

Quote
But... GR time dilation has now been derived as an m near M relationship
No, m does not appear in the equation, provided m<<M (i.e. your clock is not so massive as to produce a significant local gravitational potential well).

What on earth do you mean by " a closer look at h"? It's an experimental number, simply defined and easily measured by sixth-formers all over the world - and quite possibly on Planet 5 of Alpha Centauri.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #536 on: 14/08/2016 00:00:10 »
You correctly use the term "hypothetical" deBroglie frequency. It has no bearing on any observed energy.

"What happens to the clock" is "nothing at all". Imagine you are sitting looking at a clock on planet Earth, whilst two of your colleagues are based on the Moon and on Jupiter. M will see your clock running slower than his, and J will see it running faster, but obviously nothing has happened to your clock. The difference is in the relative gravitational potential of the observer and source, not the structure of the clocks.

Quote
But... GR time dilation has now been derived as an m near M relationship
No, m does not appear in the equation, provided m<<M (i.e. your clock is not so massive as to produce a significant local gravitational potential well).

What on earth do you mean by " a closer look at h"? It's an experimental number, simply defined and easily measured by sixth-formers all over the world - and quite possibly on Planet 5 of Alpha Centauri.
Alan - you are describing how current physics regards the situation, and this does not explain physical differences in the observers aging process, as described by link.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm

I am describing an alternate means of mathematically deriving the same observations.  The reason for doing so, because it leads to my model of a cyclic universe that I am requiring the input of a qualified and confident mathematician to calculate...
...and yes, it is understood that these effects are due to the difference in gravity potential.  My model is making a more detailed physical description of this.

With regards to Planck's h constant:
As I keep on saying, repetitively, my model states the phenomenon of time as energy related.  Planck's h constant is a joules times standard second measurement, and in adding energy, time for the phenomenon being measured will be contracting.  If you measure joules times the relevantly contracted second, the results will be linear.

And...the De Broglie matter wave is used to calculate quantum via perturbation theory - which is a time based function.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4699
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #537 on: 14/08/2016 09:22:39 »
Observers age at the rate of local time. To quote from the first sentence of your reference

Quote
Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations

An atom or a DNA molecule has no idea of its gravitational potential since the quantity is only defined with respect to an external reference, so your atomic clock and your body clock stay in synchrony with each other but not with clocks and bodies in deep space or on another planet. The experimental problem is that the biological effect is too small (in comparison with random errrors) to be measured at any point in the solar system.

The article is interesting only in that it shows how "conventional" relativity correctly predicts all the experimental results.

Matters might become clearer if we start with your definition of time. For the rest of us, it is "the dimension that separates sequential events", or as Einstein put it, "time is what prevents everything from happening at once".

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #538 on: 14/08/2016 15:57:55 »
Observers age at the rate of local time. To quote from the first sentence of your reference

Quote
Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations

An atom or a DNA molecule has no idea of its gravitational potential since the quantity is only defined with respect to an external reference, so your atomic clock and your body clock stay in synchrony with each other but not with clocks and bodies in deep space or on another planet. The experimental problem is that the biological effect is too small (in comparison with random errrors) to be measured at any point in the solar system.

The article is interesting only in that it shows how "conventional" relativity correctly predicts all the experimental results.

Matters might become clearer if we start with your definition of time. For the rest of us, it is "the dimension that separates sequential events", or as Einstein put it, "time is what prevents everything from happening at once".

My model also describes time as the passing of sequential events, but it describes frequency as being the timing of these events, and energy as being the cause of frequency. (no need for an atom to 'know' anything.  The energy it gains or loses is a physical result of both its location and momentum)

My model is viewing time as being caused by the physical mechanics of the universe, rather than the universe passing through a phenomenon of time that is unconnected to, and outside of itself...

My model views the observations of time dilation and contraction - as observed in the other reference frame of gravity potential, or relative motion, or both - as a real and tangible phenomenon...
My model states that the observer, (as NIST, NASA, and other official government links suggest, for whatever that may be worth), 'will' physically age in keeping with his clock.

Is that start enough?

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4699
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #539 on: 14/08/2016 16:29:15 »
Apart from a bizarre and unrealistic view of how atomic clocks work, this seems to be entirely consistent with everyone else's observations.

Now the rest of us describe gravitational frequency shift and relative motion shift as "time dilation" phenomena, and mysteriously we get the right answer by solving conventional relativistic equations for them.

So the question is what do you mean by inverse time dilation?

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3913
• Thanked: 52 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #540 on: 14/08/2016 17:39:09 »
Just to add to Alan's post. To have an inverse of something you first have to have that something. The inverse will undo the effect of that something. So in the case of time dilation the inverse gets us back to Galilean/Newtonian relativity. It may have been better called anti-time dilation. Just my two penneth.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #541 on: 14/08/2016 20:04:00 »
Apart from a bizarre and unrealistic view of how atomic clocks work, this seems to be entirely consistent with everyone else's observations.

Now the rest of us describe gravitational frequency shift and relative motion shift as "time dilation" phenomena, and mysteriously we get the right answer by solving conventional relativistic equations for them.

So the question is what do you mean by inverse time dilation?

My model has derived GR time dilation as being an m near M relationship, where we are measuring the standard second, (a measurement of a time period long since defined by our ancestors, whose era came well before the discovery of the atom), via means of the frequency of energy transitions, and these energy transitions are shifted in the gravitational field. (or by thermal energy changes btw).
My model states that all atoms and their particle constituents will increase in energy in the higher gravity potential.

The proposed inverted gravitational time dilation is an M in relation to open space relationship (cosmological), and also an m in relation to open space relationship. (microscopic).

The model attributes the gravity field as having energy.  The energy of the gravity field gets lesser with distance from M, and the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation of the gravity field itself will be observed as the time period of a standard second, (as measured via GR time dilation, this being our measurement of the phenomenon of time), dilating, ie: time running slower, in the weaker gravity field.

Because light, (emitted light) has no mass, and without mass (relativistic mass) therefore will not be subject to additional gravity potential energy, my model looks to the observation of lights frequency reducing in the weaker gravity field and attributes this observation to the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation of the open space gravity field.
Light is travelling at light speed, 299 ,792 458 metres per second, but the second is variable and gets longer as the gravity field gets weaker.

Jeff - I have called it inverted gravitational time dilation because it does the opposite to GR gravitational time dilation.
I have always stated clearly that the proposed inverted time dilation is an additional dimension, not the inverse of an existing dimension...

Having said that, where relativistic mass, or additional energy being calculated into mass is concerned, the proportions of how these additions work in the current maths will be replaced by the concept and maths of the proposed addition of this inverted gravitational time dilation, and the concept of an acceleration of gravity will of course be dimensionally altered.
Both of which combined, negate the need for dark matter and dark energy to dimensionally balance the books on these altered maths.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3913
• Thanked: 52 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #542 on: 14/08/2016 20:34:11 »
So just to be absolutely clear you are saying that as gravitational potential increases time slows down. So that's why my GPS never gets me to the right place! And why all satellite phones run slow mo.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #543 on: 14/08/2016 20:57:21 »
So just to be absolutely clear you are saying that as gravitational potential increases time slows down. So that's why my GPS never gets me to the right place! And why all satellite phones run slow mo.

Are you having a bit of a problem reading Jeff?

No, my model states that GR gravitational time dilation is as is.  Your GPS is safe.

It proposes an additional inverted time dilation for the ***open space*** gravity field.  Your clock will be subject to GR time dilation as it is comprised of mass.

Use of g or G is already calculating inverted time dilation as an acceleration of gravity.

It is the observation of what light is doing in the gravity field that is indicative of the presence of the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation.

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #544 on: 15/08/2016 11:21:27 »
Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant - as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations.

Quote
...
Just to clarify your last words. For a clock above the Earth spinning around with velocity V, the clock will slower relative to the Earth. As the clock moves faster it will slow even more. If put a clock on a tower atop a high mountain, is it correct that the clock will move slower than a clock at the base of the mountain. If we build a tower atop the mountain is it correct that the higher up the clock moves, the clock will move even slower.

Jerry - I think you need to read this:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm
Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer.  It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster.
Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons.
These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #545 on: 15/08/2016 11:41:00 »
Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer.  It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster.
Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons.
These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?
Aha, Jerry... Yes, yes, yes!!!

You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.

Good on ya!
« Last Edit: 15/08/2016 11:49:33 by timey »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3913
• Thanked: 52 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #546 on: 15/08/2016 14:09:53 »
Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer.  It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster.
Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons.
These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?
Aha, Jerry... Yes, yes, yesy!!!

You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.

Good on ya!

If you carry an object in your hand to the top of a tower and let it go gravity will accelerate it toward the ground. This increases the kinetic energy of the object via the acceleration. A photon heading from space toward the ground cannot be accelerated since that would increase its speed above c. That is prohibited. So the only way a photon can gain kinetic energy is via a blue shift in its wavelength. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #547 on: 15/08/2016 14:39:25 »
Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer.  It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster.
Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons.
These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?
Aha, Jerry... Yes, yes, yesy!!!

You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.

Good on ya!

If you carry an object in your hand to the top of a tower and let it go gravity will accelerate it toward the ground. This increases the kinetic energy of the object via the acceleration. A photon heading from space toward the ground cannot be accelerated since that would increase its speed above c. That is prohibited. So the only way a photon can gain kinetic energy is via a blue shift in its wavelength. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

Actually it's really easy to grasp, and was indeed grasped by myself yonks ago!

I am making an alteration to current theory...

Light blue shifting towards a gravity field cannot exceed the speed of light, we observe that its wavelength contracts...
I am simply altering the concept and saying: forget about relativistic mass concept, and that it is the time periods that the light is travelling through that are contracting, not the wavelength itself.  ie: 299 792 458 metres per ***variable seconds***.

Can 'you' grasp that?

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3913
• Thanked: 52 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #548 on: 15/08/2016 15:30:14 »
Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer.  It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster.
Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons.
These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?
Aha, Jerry... Yes, yes, yesy!!!

You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.

Good on ya!

If you carry an object in your hand to the top of a tower and let it go gravity will accelerate it toward the ground. This increases the kinetic energy of the object via the acceleration. A photon heading from space toward the ground cannot be accelerated since that would increase its speed above c. That is prohibited. So the only way a photon can gain kinetic energy is via a blue shift in its wavelength. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

Actually it's really easy to grasp, and was indeed grasped by myself yonks ago!

I am making an alteration to current theory...

Light blue shifting towards a gravity field cannot exceed the speed of light, we observe that its wavelength contracts...
I am simply altering the concept and saying: forget about relativistic mass concept, and that it is the time periods that the light is travelling through that are contracting, not the wavelength itself.  ie: 299 792 458 metres per ***variable seconds***.

Can 'you' grasp that?

Therefore you are accelerating the photon but YOU don't grasp THAT!

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #549 on: 15/08/2016 15:50:57 »
Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer.  It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster.
Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons.
These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?
Aha, Jerry... Yes, yes, yesy!!!

You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.

Good on ya!

If you carry an object in your hand to the top of a tower and let it go gravity will accelerate it toward the ground. This increases the kinetic energy of the object via the acceleration. A photon heading from space toward the ground cannot be accelerated since that would increase its speed above c. That is prohibited. So the only way a photon can gain kinetic energy is via a blue shift in its wavelength. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

Actually it's really easy to grasp, and was indeed grasped by myself yonks ago!

I am making an alteration to current theory...

Light blue shifting towards a gravity field cannot exceed the speed of light, we observe that its wavelength contracts...
I am simply altering the concept and saying: forget about relativistic mass concept, and that it is the time periods that the light is travelling through that are contracting, not the wavelength itself.  ie: 299 792 458 metres per ***variable seconds***.

Can 'you' grasp that?

Therefore you are accelerating the photon but YOU don't grasp THAT!
Yes - the inverted time dilation accelerates the light, but the light is still travelling the same amount of metres per second as per the reference frame it is travelling through, so as per the equivalence principle, all is equal in every reference frame.

I have just interchanged the changes in the distance of the wavelength into a time values of variable seconds instead of variable lengths.

But you haven't grasped that, have you?

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #549 on: 15/08/2016 15:50:57 »