# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: An analysis of the de Broglie equation  (Read 22069 times)

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3774
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #550 on: 15/08/2016 18:17:04 »
Au contraire. I understand exactly the nature of your misconception.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #551 on: 15/08/2016 19:28:05 »
Au contraire. I understand exactly the nature of your misconception.

In that you still seem to view my idea as a misconception,  I seriously doubt that you have understood it.  You have also professed several times previously to understanding the idea, whereas it has turned out that you clearly have not.

If you are using GR as a bible then any concept that is not GR is misconceived.

...and in order to state my idea as a misconception, rather than as an alternative idea, you really would need to produce some mathematics that prove it unviable, which you haven't.

You are therefore out of line to describe my alternate idea as a misconception.  Whether you have understood it or not, you may indeed state yourself as being uninterested by the alternate idea quite legitimately, but this would be contradictory to the actions of you're posting...

So basically Jeff - I conclude that without justifying your claim that the alternate idea is misconceived, you are indeed being out of line.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4512
• Thanked: 139 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #552 on: 15/08/2016 22:55:47 »
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!

The only problem being that nobody has ever observed it.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #553 on: 16/08/2016 00:50:14 »
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, yes!!!

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

Good on ya!

The only problem being that nobody has ever observed it.
The observation is apparent within the remit of the concepts...

Lights wavelength contracts when travelling into a gravity field, ie: in the stronger gravity field.

A clocks hypothetical wavelength dilates for clocks placed closer to the gravity field. ie: in the stronger gravity field.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3774
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #554 on: 16/08/2016 08:44:06 »
You can have a situation where a photon with a long wavelength is moving into a lower gravitational potential and a short wavelength photon is moving into a higher gravitational potential. We can find two points in the potential where each wavelength will have the value that the other started with. This shows just how silly your hypothesis is. Wavelength is simply a function of position and potential. The photons wavelength can start with just about any value at any magnitude of the potential. We can have a gamma ray and a radio wave generated at exactly the same position in the potential.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #555 on: 16/08/2016 12:40:03 »
You can have a situation where a photon with a long wavelength is moving into a lower gravitational potential and a short wavelength photon is moving into a higher gravitational potential. We can find two points in the potential where each wavelength will have the value that the other started with. This shows just how silly your hypothesis is. Wavelength is simply a function of position and potential. The photons wavelength can start with just about any value at any magnitude of the potential. We can have a gamma ray and a radio wave generated at exactly the same position in the potential.

And why do you say that this shows how silly my idea is?

Light waves can be emitted at a spectrum of energies and associated frequencies, but these energies and frequencies can only be shifted in energy and frequency in the gravity potential by degrees, and these degrees of shifting energy and frequency occur in a ladder format, where E=fh.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that the energy and frequency of a light waves wavelength is indicative of the value of the proposed inverted time dilation...

I am suggesting that it is the degrees of change that are indicative of this value.

...and, please be aware that your observation and complaint of silliness also applies in practice to Hubble's red shift velocities.  Hubble has used the means of a standard candle to standardise wavelength for these velocity measurements.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3774
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #556 on: 16/08/2016 12:56:21 »
E
You can have a situation where a photon with a long wavelength is moving into a lower gravitational potential and a short wavelength photon is moving into a higher gravitational potential. We can find two points in the potential where each wavelength will have the value that the other started with. This shows just how silly your hypothesis is. Wavelength is simply a function of position and potential. The photons wavelength can start with just about any value at any magnitude of the potential. We can have a gamma ray and a radio wave generated at exactly the same position in the potential.

And why do you say that this shows how silly my idea is?

Light waves can be emitted at a spectrum of energies and associated frequencies, but these energies and frequencies can only be shifted in energy and frequency in the gravity potential by degrees, and these degrees of shifting energy and frequency occur in a ladder format, where E=fh.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that the energy and frequency of a light waves wavelength is indicative of the value of the proposed inverted time dilation...

I am suggesting that it is the degrees of change that are indicative of this value.

So then we agree that it is only the gravitational potential gradient that matters. Which obeys postulates of the general theory of relativity. You have discredited your own hypothesis. Although you will likely fail entirely to understand how.

Quote
...and, please be aware that your observation and complaint of silliness also applies in practice to Hubble's red shift velocities.  Hubble has used the means of a standard candle to standardise wavelength for these velocity measurements.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #557 on: 16/08/2016 13:32:52 »
E
You can have a situation where a photon with a long wavelength is moving into a lower gravitational potential and a short wavelength photon is moving into a higher gravitational potential. We can find two points in the potential where each wavelength will have the value that the other started with. This shows just how silly your hypothesis is. Wavelength is simply a function of position and potential. The photons wavelength can start with just about any value at any magnitude of the potential. We can have a gamma ray and a radio wave generated at exactly the same position in the potential.

And why do you say that this shows how silly my idea is?

Light waves can be emitted at a spectrum of energies and associated frequencies, but these energies and frequencies can only be shifted in energy and frequency in the gravity potential by degrees, and these degrees of shifting energy and frequency occur in a ladder format, where E=fh.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that the energy and frequency of a light waves wavelength is indicative of the value of the proposed inverted time dilation...

I am suggesting that it is the degrees of change that are indicative of this value.

So then we agree that it is only the gravitational potential gradient that matters. Which obeys postulates of the general theory of relativity. You have discredited your own hypothesis. Although you will likely fail entirely to understand how.

Quote
...and, please be aware that your observation and complaint of silliness also applies in practice to Hubble's red shift velocities.  Hubble has used the means of a standard candle to standardise wavelength for these velocity measurements.

That is a totally pointless post that only gives indication of your own pomposity and nothing else.

In that you are a moderator on
this site, I insist that you now explain yourself... (you wouldn't see Evan making a post like that!)

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3774
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #558 on: 16/08/2016 18:16:10 »
The explanation is that your hypothesis runs counter to both theory and observation. Which you yourself have just made clear.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #559 on: 16/08/2016 18:51:11 »
The explanation is that your hypothesis runs counter to both theory and observation. Which you yourself have just made clear.

Clearly you have completely misunderstood what I'm saying then, as per usual.

Unless you tell me why you think my idea runs counter to both current theory and observation, as would be polite, I will not be able to correct you in where it is that you have misunderstood...

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3774
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #560 on: 16/08/2016 22:08:05 »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #561 on: 16/08/2016 23:40:04 »

None of the words I have said have refuted my idea, therefore you must have misunderstood the implications of what I have said.

You have clearly and very drastically misunderstood the mechanics of this ides before.  It is highly logical that you have done so again.

What's the problem in having a grown up conversation where you just state what is on your mind, instead of all this enigmatic crap?

If you think its making you seem clever, think again.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4512
• Thanked: 139 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #562 on: 17/08/2016 00:21:07 »

The observation is apparent within the remit of the concepts...

Lights wavelength contracts when travelling into a gravity field, ie: in the stronger gravity field.

A clocks hypothetical wavelength dilates for clocks placed closer to the gravity field. ie: in the stronger gravity field.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, as it has been from the start.

Photons emitted from a higher gravitational potential appear blue-shifted when observed from a lower gravitational potential. Witness the Pound-Rebka experiment.

Clocks at a higher gravitational potential appear to run fast when observed from a lower gravitational potential. Witness GPS clocks.

If you can't accept these common observations, there's no point discussing the hypothesis that explains them.

Quote
Hubble has used the means of a standard candle to standardise wavelength for these velocity measurements.
The astronomical standard candle is a presumed standard of luminosity, not wavelength.
« Last Edit: 17/08/2016 00:30:12 by alancalverd »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #563 on: 17/08/2016 02:32:04 »

The observation is apparent within the remit of the concepts...

Lights wavelength contracts when travelling into a gravity field, ie: in the stronger gravity field.

A clocks hypothetical wavelength dilates for clocks placed closer to the gravity field. ie: in the stronger gravity field.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, as it has been from the start.

Photons emitted from a higher gravitational potential appear blue-shifted when observed from a lower gravitational potential. Witness the Pound-Rebka experiment.

Clocks at a higher gravitational potential appear to run fast when observed from a lower gravitational potential. Witness GPS clocks.

If you can't accept these common observations, there's no point discussing the hypothesis that explains them.

Quote
Hubble has used the means of a standard candle to standardise wavelength for these velocity measurements.
The astronomical standard candle is a presumed standard of luminosity, not wavelength.

Yes, that is pretty much what I said.

Lights wavelength is observed to contract when it travels towards a gravity field.  Given that we could reflect the light in the opposite direction without losing energy - turn that light arriving, at its blue shifted frequency, at ground level, around and point it out of the gravity field, its wavelength will dilate exactly oppositely to how it contracted inbound, red shift being the opposite of blue shift.

If you stand at top of tower and light is traveling inbound towards earth from a position higher than you, and past you, it will be blue shifting towards you, past your position and will be further blue shifted away from your position at top of tower to bottom of tower.  The difference in gravity potential between higher than top of tower, top of tower, and bottom of tower is distinguished by a change in frequency in the light.  As the light gets closer to the ground its frequency increases.

Yes, I concur that the frequency that is observed is due to the difference in gravity potential.  If the top of tower records the frequency of the light as it passes, and bottom of tower records the frequency when the light arrives at bottom of tower, the top of tower frequency will be lesser than the bottom of tower frequency.

*

A clocks frequency of energy transitions at the top of the tower will be greater than the frequency of an identical clocks energy transitions at bottom of tower.  If we place clocks at metre intervals from top of the tower to bottom of tower and connect these clocks to a computer screen read out, we will see that each clock is running at a lesser frequency of energy transitions than the clock above.

Blue shifted light is ***increasing in the frequency*** of its energy transitions as it travels from top of tower to bottom of tower.

The clocks placed at metre intervals from top of tower to bottom of tower are seen to be ***decreasing in the frequency*** of their energy transitions from top of tower to bottom of tower.

Edit:  Hubble calculated velocities that light sources are receding away from us at via Doppler shifts associated with the magnitude of red shifts in relation to standard candle distance measurements.  Stephan's quintet is a major problem for Hubble's law.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html

The luminosity is supposed to be proportional to distance and recessional velocity, but as telescopes have afforded us to observe galaxies that are that much further away, the luminosities of these further observations don't tally with the distances.

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3774
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #564 on: 17/08/2016 13:19:40 »
You said "Lights wavelength is observed to contract when it travels towards a gravity field." The gravitational field extends to infinity so objects are never travelling towards it. They are always inside an undetermined number of gravitational fields. In order to explain to you your errors I would have to spend time correcting your misuse of language. I have better things to do with my time.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #565 on: 17/08/2016 14:14:59 »
You said "Lights wavelength is observed to contract when it travels towards a gravity field." The gravitational field extends to infinity so objects are never travelling towards it. They are always inside an undetermined number of gravitational fields. In order to explain to you your errors I would have to spend time correcting your misuse of language. I have better things to do with my time.
Actually I have been using slightly wonky terminology on purpose, because when I use the correct terminology I cannot seem to break through the pre-conditioned GR mentality of the reader.

Yes a gravity field will extend to a lesser gravity field, and to a greater gravity field.  What of it?

Light's wavelength gets shorter in the greater gravity field. 'contracting'...
Light's wavelength gets longer in the lesser gravity field.  'dilating'...  What's the problem?

As to you wasting your time, that would depend on what you are trying to accomplish...  It would seem to me that you are grasping for justification as to your own prejudice against the notion of someone from my lacking in formal education having the temerity to challenge the status quo, rather than actually trying to understand the idea that I'm proposing.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4512
• Thanked: 139 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #566 on: 17/08/2016 14:21:42 »
Blue shifted light is ***increasing in the frequency*** of its energy transitions as it travels from top of tower to bottom of tower.

The clocks placed at metre intervals from top of tower to bottom of tower are seen to be ***decreasing in the frequency*** of their energy transitions from top of tower to bottom of tower.

Replace "clocks" with "mossbauer sources" and ask "seen to be" by whom? You may just see the linguistic fallacy (and observational untruth) in your argument.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3774
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #567 on: 17/08/2016 14:32:13 »
Blue shifted light is ***increasing in the frequency*** of its energy transitions as it travels from top of tower to bottom of tower.

The clocks placed at metre intervals from top of tower to bottom of tower are seen to be ***decreasing in the frequency*** of their energy transitions from top of tower to bottom of tower.

Replace "clocks" with "mossbauer sources" and ask "seen to be" by whom? You may just see the linguistic fallacy (and observational untruth) in your argument.

So you are confusing the issue on purpose.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #568 on: 17/08/2016 16:35:02 »
Blue shifted light is ***increasing in the frequency*** of its energy transitions as it travels from top of tower to bottom of tower.

The clocks placed at metre intervals from top of tower to bottom of tower are seen to be ***decreasing in the frequency*** of their energy transitions from top of tower to bottom of tower.

Replace "clocks" with "mossbauer sources" and ask "seen to be" by whom? You may just see the linguistic fallacy (and observational untruth) in your argument.

OK, the mossbauer source at the top of tower is increased in energy, (potential energy), relative to the mossbauer source at bottom of tower.  Each mossbauer source at every metre location from top of tower to bottom of tower will have a decreased energy (potential energy) relative to the mossbauer source above it.

A mossbauer source that has a higher energy will emit a higher energy photon. (as is the case with the cesium atom clock...I realise you have a problem with this notion, but bear with me) That higher energy emitted photon will be increased, (blue shifted), in energy from its emitting mossbauer sources position of elevation to bottom of tower, and the observation from bottom of tower will be of this light having arrived in our eye, having been blue shifted as to the gravity field 'strength' of 'our' observing reference frame.
We do not observe the light at the frequency it 'was' in the 'other' reference frame, only as it 'is now' in our own reference frame.

So what calculation is describing which observation?
Are you saying that the calculation for the frequency shift of a clock is matching the frequency shift of blue shifted light?

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4512
• Thanked: 139 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #569 on: 17/08/2016 16:40:30 »
Who "you"?

I'm not confused or attempting to confuse anyone else. Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer.

Quote
Are you saying that the calculation for the frequency shift of a clock is matching the frequency shift of blue shifted light?
It is so.
« Last Edit: 17/08/2016 17:09:43 by alancalverd »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #570 on: 17/08/2016 17:15:49 »
Who "you"?

I'm not confused or attempting to confuse anyone else. Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer.

Quote
Are you saying that the calculation for the frequency shift of a clock is matching the frequency shift of blue shifted light?
It is so.

I'm not sure where the confused is coming into it where you are concerned.  It would seem that is Jeff's department.

Yes  - agreed!
Quote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:

...apart from light.  Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease...

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3774
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #571 on: 17/08/2016 17:32:34 »
My apologies Alan. I replied to the wrong post.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4512
• Thanked: 139 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #572 on: 17/08/2016 17:43:55 »
Quote
Quote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:

...apart from light.  Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease...
.... as observed by an observer at the higher potential. Exactly the same phenomenon, whether it is a clock or a radionuclide. Not "apart from light", but "exactly as with light".

You have read the evidence. Indeed you have led me to it. Why not accept it?

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3774
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #573 on: 17/08/2016 18:08:05 »
You said "Lights wavelength is observed to contract when it travels towards a gravity field." The gravitational field extends to infinity so objects are never travelling towards it. They are always inside an undetermined number of gravitational fields. In order to explain to you your errors I would have to spend time correcting your misuse of language. I have better things to do with my time.
Actually I have been using slightly wonky terminology on purpose, because when I use the correct terminology I cannot seem to break through the pre-conditioned GR mentality of the reader.

So you are confusing the issue on purpose.

Quote
Yes a gravity field will extend to a lesser gravity field, and to a greater gravity field.  What of it?

Light's wavelength gets shorter in the greater gravity field. 'contracting'...
Light's wavelength gets longer in the lesser gravity field.  'dilating'...  What's the problem?

As to you wasting your time, that would depend on what you are trying to accomplish...  It would seem to me that you are grasping for justification as to your own prejudice against the notion of someone from my lacking in formal education having the temerity to challenge the status quo, rather than actually trying to understand the idea that I'm proposing.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #574 on: 17/08/2016 20:42:46 »
Quote
Quote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:

...apart from light.  Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease...
.... as observed by an observer at the higher potential. Exactly the same phenomenon, whether it is a clock or a radionuclide. Not "apart from light", but "exactly as with light".

You have read the evidence. Indeed you have led me to it. Why not accept it?

I do accept it.  I'm completely pointing it out to you, and I have led you to it for a purpose.

Yes the frequency of the photon emitted at ground level will be lower as seen from the position it has arrived at in the higher gravity potential.  The light can only be seen by an observer at that position when it arrives there...same as blue shifted light.

So Alan - can we now be in agreement that an emitted photons frequency will decrease when travelling into the higher gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the lower gravity potential...
...and in the opposing direction will increase in frequency travelling into the lower gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the higher gravity potential...

...and that an atomic clock, (and anything of mass), will be increased in energy, and therefore frequency of its energy transitions in the higher gravity potential, relative to a clock placed in the lower gravity potential...
...and that in the opposing direction a clocks frequency will decrease in the lower gravity potential relative to a clock placed in the higher gravity potential...

And - that these frequency changes observed of light, and observed of the clock, are occurring in opposing directions in the gravity field?
« Last Edit: 17/08/2016 20:48:13 by timey »

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #574 on: 17/08/2016 20:42:46 »