# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: An analysis of the de Broglie equation  (Read 23610 times)

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #75 on: 30/05/2016 00:42:20 »
Yes it is well documented that observers in differing reference frames will observe their clock to be the correct time.  This is the premiss of the equivalence principle, whereby any reference frame is the equivalent to any other reference frame, and it is the 'other' reference frame that will appear to the observer to be running slow or fast.

But... can we please leave the observer out of the picture and consider all 'appearances' of other reference frames as being a) occurring as an observer independent phenomenon, and b) as being relative to the standard second?

The De Broglie hypothesis states wavelengths for particles with mass.  A wavelength comes inherent with a frequency, and this frequency is energy related.  More energy = higher frequency = shorter wavelength.

Whether anybody observes it or not, lights frequency decreases in a weaker gravitational field.  Whether anyone observes it or not, a particle with mass's frequency increases in a weaker gravitational field... I can say this once, or a thousand times, and it will still be an observed fact of physics...

Quote
While gravitational redshift refers to what is seen, gravitational time dilation refers to what is deduced to be "really" happening once observational effects are taken into account.

Interesting turn of phrase that... (chuckle)

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4726
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #76 on: 30/05/2016 08:55:58 »
Perhaps, when you say "a particle with mass's frequency" you mean "deBroglie frequency". In that case (and it would be so much easier if you used the same words as everyone else) your conundrum is easily explained.

deBroglie frequency f= E/h. As a particle falls from a high gravitational potential, its kinetic energy increases so f increases. I think the confusion arises from the fact that a high gravitational potential means a low gravitational field.

You can't leave the observer out of relativistic matters, by definition: "relative" means that there must be two reference points. The power of relativity is in the realisation that in the absence of a universal reference frame there must be reciprocity between observers, but a convergent gravitational field provides an asymmetric reference.

As far as the standard second is concerned, the hyperfine transition that defines it is the energy difference between the spin + and spin - states of the outer electron in the Cs133 atom with reference to the nuclear spin. The difference is independent of gravitational field because "+" and "-" are only defined with respect to the nuclear spin, which is randomly oriented in a gas. Therefore the frequency is fixed for a stationary local observer but may appear different to an observer who is moving (Doppler shift) or at a different gravitational potential (gravitational red shift). We can set the D shift to zero by not moving. Now we observe an asymmetric G shift but we know that the originating phenomenon is unaffected by gravitation, so we say that time is compressed by gravitation.

The following users thanked this post: jeffreyH

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #77 on: 30/05/2016 14:17:39 »
Ok - the difference between a De Broglie frequency and other frequency is???  The ground state of an atom has an energy, and this energy is mass associated e=mc2.  Momentum is calculated mv=p.  So the De Broglie momentum symbol p already contains the ground state frequency of the atom within its value.  Planck's constant h/p=wavelength, and then frequency can be established because frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength. The fact of the additional KE increasing the mass of the atom is a bit of a complication to these simple calculations...(adding gravity potential energy will also increase mass, but I will ignore this 'tiny' effect  for the moment)

So - the NIST ground level relativity tests placed a clock on the ground, and a clock at 1 meter elevation.  The clocks are in different reference frames, but the observer is in 1 reference frame containing both of the clocks and is observing both clocks.  There is no KE involved as the reference frames of the clocks are stationary relative to each other and the observer.

Let's take this a stage further and place a clock at each meter of elevation for a distance of 22 meters (I'd say 22.5 meters as in Pound Rebka but I'm not liking the visual of a half clock, (chuckle)...)
Each clock's rate of time is linked to a computer read out that the observer on the ground is observing on a split screen.  Each clock is in a different reference frame, but the observation of these different reference frames is remaining within 1 reference frame, this being that of the observer on the ground.

Each clock will consider that it is in its ground state transition energy and frequency, but the observer on the ground will observe that all of the clocks are registering a different frequency.  At each meter of elevation, a clock has an increased frequency than the clock below it.  In this situation it must be the added energy of gravity potential that has increased the frequency of the atom.

Now let's say that we repeat this exact scenario 'somehow', and measure the frequency of atoms that have more or less ground state energy at ground level, and then measure them at elevations of a meter apart...  Adding gravity potential will increase the energy, and therefore the frequency of those atoms ground state at elevation in the same way that the caesium atom's frequency is increased at elevation.  But this increase in frequency that atoms of different ground state energies from a caesium atom will experience is proportional to their rest mass, and not proportional to the increase in frequency that the caesium atom increases by at the same elevation.

Therefore the possibility that the caesium atomic clock is only measuring an increase in the rate of time for its own self is a valid and logical train of thought, and investigation.

If the rate of time for a caesium atom increases with additional energy, and we can say that all atoms rates of time increase with additional energy, then the concept of a gravity well slowing the rate of time is illogical.

Looking at how light of 'any' frequency decreases in the weaker gravitational field, and by ignoring KE, one can then go on to consider that the photon has 0 energy ground state, and that the energy that the light has has been given to it by the energy of the interaction that caused it to be emitted.  This energy then becomes gravitationally shifted as light moves through a gravitational gradient, but take note - light's energy is shifted in the opposite direction within a gravitational gradient than an atom's is.

Logically speaking, and in keeping with the logic of current time dilation considerations, there exists the possibility that there is an inverted time dilation phenomenon that has been overlooked.

Returning to the question of KE, if KE is added a frequency must increase and this is not in keeping with the behaviour exhibited by the caesium atom clock when it experiences a increase in its rate of time due to an energy increase, and observation of a caesium atomic clock's rate of time when in motion is that it's frequency is reduced relative to the stationary clock.

Logically speaking there may be another way to add up the energies that account for frequency.  Obviously we have e=mc2 + gravity potential.  If we add KE the rate of time increases, if we subtract it, hmmm, well I'm no mathematician, but KE amounts to quite a lot of energy...  Can we consider that the gravitational field itself has a non zero energy that must be added (looking at light) and that we can then subtract KE from the sum total of e=mc2 + gravity potential + non zero energy of g-field, for a slowing of time?  Whereby light having no mass has no KE... It's energy is shifted by the gravity field and it's subsequent wavelength is time related.  Take the energy and frequency of a light wave at ground level, earth...run that light wave through a gravitational gradient, and remembering that the caesium atom frequency at ground level is the definition of the second that frequency is measured by, any difference in frequency observed of a different reference frame, can indicate a change in that reference frames rate of time.

This system places the rate of time running faster for gravity wells and slower out in space, which is reflected in the reduction of the frequency of light in space, and the increase in frequency of the caesium atom, or any other atom at elevation, with the addition of gravity potential as we observe...

Ultimately suggesting that the phenomenon of time itself is energy related, and leading me back to Jeff's equation:

OK so as was pointed out . Therefore in the case of the photon the energy equation becomes .

If we take our wavelength as L (1 light second) then we can show that . This 1 hertz wave then shows the direct relationship to the Planck constant.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3929
• Thanked: 55 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #78 on: 30/05/2016 15:23:27 »
Don't blame me.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #79 on: 30/05/2016 16:15:11 »
Of course not Jeff,  I am completely to blame for my own ideas, it is your equation, as I stated in my first post here, that has interested me...

...and it is your equation that is to blame for my participation in your thread with my alternative take on observation in relation to the relationship you potentially outline between Planck's h constant and hertz.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4726
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #80 on: 30/05/2016 17:05:12 »
So here are the numbers. deBroglie frequency f = γmc2/h.

If the atom isn't moving, γ=1

For cesium133 we have m ≈ 133 x 1.7 x 10-27 kg (I've rounded up the mass of a proton to account for the neutrons and electrons)

c2 = 9 x 1016m2/s2

h = 6.6 x 10-34 m2kg/s

so f = 3.08 x 1025 Hz

which is a lot more than the 9 GHz of our atomic clock.

Timey, it's time, I think, to review your concept of "ground state frequency".
« Last Edit: 30/05/2016 17:08:19 by alancalverd »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4726
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #81 on: 30/05/2016 17:17:44 »
Whereby light having no mass has no KE.
au contraire, ma brave, it has nothing else.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #82 on: 30/05/2016 18:30:05 »
Well, I have indeed been having a good look at ground state...and also the link Jeff posted a few posts back was interesting...
Which led me to my post saying that it would be more terminologically correct to say that the energy of the hyperfine structure transition of the caesium atoms has gravitationally shifted in the weaker gravitational field for an increase in frequency.

This would require, instead of lumping all the particle constituents of the caesium atom into 1, that you break them down into their individual mass's.  However, as per the equivalence principle, whatever proportionality that these particle constituents of the caesium atom have in relation to each other will be the equivalent in any reference frame.

Therefore, is it the electrons that have the hyperfine energy transition value of 9GHz (at ground level, earth) when in a relationship with the other particle constituents that add up to the mass of a caesium atom?

And the difference in these frequencies observed of clocks in the elevated reference frames would be due to an increase in energy of the electrons with respect to the hyperfine structure of the caesium atom, and the gravitational shift of all of the atom's particles proportionally within the structure.

Only if mass and energy are equivalent and interchangeable as in current physics... and I was really quite clear that I was making a deviation from current physics and proposing an alternative means of viewing observation...  But to be pernickety, light is emitted with an energy, and different frequencies of light can be emitted under different energy related circumstances.  Do you then add the KE?

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3929
• Thanked: 55 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #83 on: 30/05/2016 18:56:32 »
The photon only has kinetic energy. Since it has zero rest mass.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #84 on: 30/05/2016 19:24:04 »
But the phenomenon of light comes in a spectra of different energies, frequencies and wavelengths, and all of this spectrum of light travel at c...

How does the photon end up with different energies if its only energy is KE?

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4726
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #85 on: 30/05/2016 19:44:58 »
How do people end up with different amounts of money if they're all paid in sterling?

The energy of an electromagnetic wave is E = hf where f is its frequency.

Which led me to my post saying that it would be more terminologically correct to say that the energy of the hyperfine structure transition of the caesium atoms has gravitationally shifted in the weaker gravitational field for an increase in frequency.
except that it wouldn't. The transition energy is invariant however you measure it, provided that you are at the same gravitational potential. If you aren't, you observe a gravitational frequency shift. Keep it simple - that's how we do astrochemistry!

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #86 on: 30/05/2016 20:07:07 »
I wonder what it is that is 'energy' related about frequency, that a rise or fall of frequency would cause light to have more or less energy?

Yes - we are on the same wavelength here!  So our observer observing the reference frames of 22 clocks, placed at elevations from ground level, 1 meter in difference over 22 meters, will observe that all of the clocks are running at different frequencies relative to each other.  The frequency of each clock will have increased relative to the clock below it.

No kinetic energy involved here, just gravitational shifts to higher energy and frequency that any particle of mass will be subject to if placed in a weaker gravitational field.  Edit: relative to a greater gravitational field.

Light travelling into a weaker gravitational field reduces in frequency...
« Last Edit: 30/05/2016 20:15:31 by timey »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4726
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #87 on: 30/05/2016 22:52:47 »
I wonder what it is that is 'energy' related about frequency, that a rise or fall of frequency would cause light to have more or less energy?
E = hf defines h. That's all there is to it. Planck, black bodies, etc.

Quote
Yes - we are on the same wavelength here!  So our observer observing the reference frames of 22 clocks, placed at elevations from ground level, 1 meter in difference over 22 meters, will observe that all of the clocks are running at different frequencies relative to each other.  The frequency of each clock will have increased relative to the clock below it.

No kinetic energy involved here, just gravitational shifts to higher energy and frequency that any particle of mass will be subject to if placed in a weaker gravitational field.  Edit: relative to a greater gravitational field.
Just cut out the new-age crap, and you have the answer!
Quote
Light travelling into a weaker gravitational field reduces in frequency...
Yep, that's gravitational redshift, but an ugly statement. Better to say "the observer in a lower gravitational field  (higher gravitational potential) sees the photon redshifted compared with one generated by the same process in his local field."

Imagine you are standing at the top of the tower. You see that the clock at the bottom, in the stronger gravitational field, is running slower than yours.

Imagine you are at the top of the tower, trying to find the mossbauer photon from the source at the bottom, in the stronger grav field. You note that it is redshifted compared with one generated at your level, so you drive your detector forward to Doppler shift it back to the critical frequency.

Same phenomenon, same result. And you knew it all the way along!
« Last Edit: 30/05/2016 23:07:45 by alancalverd »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #88 on: 30/05/2016 23:23:09 »
h is a constant Alan.  How can f define h, when h is defined via e, and f is defined via e, and then e is defined via e=hf?  This is a circular route...  h has been defined via thermal equilibrium and the emissions of electromagnetic radiation (black body radiation), and Planck noticing that there were bandwidths of increase in thermal energy that caused no change to the frequency of light, and that it took quantised leaps of an increase in energy to cause the frequency of light to change.

Therefore h defines f.  Planck's h was thermal energy related.  Using e=hf to calculate a gravitational shift in light, what is causing the e of this h?

Yes, gravitational redshift, blueshift of light...got it.  Simple.  Particles with mass gravitationally shift in the 'opposite' direction in the gravitational gradient, 'this' being my point!

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4726
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #89 on: 31/05/2016 00:02:13 »
h is a constant Alan.  How can f define h, when h is defined via e, and f is defined via e, and then e is defined via e=hf?  This is a circular route...
The classroom experiment http://www.scienceinschool.org/2014/issue28/planck measures the energy required to produce a photon of a given frequency. E and f are experimental variables measured independently, and their ratio turns out to be a constant known as h.
Quote
Planck noticing that there were bandwidths of increase in thermal energy that caused no change to the frequency of light, and that it took quantised leaps of an increase in energy to cause the frequency of light to change.
drivel

Quote
Using e=hf to calculate a gravitational shift in light, what is causing the e of this h?
In the case of the classic mossbauer photon, it's the quantum transition from a metastable state of the Fe57 nucleus to the ground state. The other well-known astronomical measurement is the spin-flip of the hydrogen electron in its ground state, emitting a 1420.405751786 MHz photon (the "21 cm line")

Quote
Yes, gravitational redshift, blueshift of light...got it.  Simple.  Particles with mass gravitationally shift in the 'opposite' direction in the gravitational gradient, 'this' being my point!
Free particles gain kinetic energy as they accelerate towards a mass (everyday gravitation!). Photons gain kinetic energy (blueshift) as they travel towards a mass. What on earth are you talking about?

The following users thanked this post: hamdani yusuf

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #90 on: 31/05/2016 00:30:59 »
I'm quite simply talking about the fact that particles with mass, in their various atomic structures gravitationally shift if held in static elevation from mass in a weaker gravitational field!  As with NIST's atomic clocks.  Mass is involved but note - no damn velocity is involved.  Light's frequency gravitationally shifts in a gravitational field.  No mass involved, just velocity.

A particle with mass, it's frequency increases in a weaker gravity field.
Light's frequency reduces in the weaker gravity field.

Can we get past this simple fact of physics Alan and move on to looking at this particular phenomenon in context?

In the mean time, I asked you: what the cause of h was when calculating gravitational shift...

You said:
""In the case of the classic mossbauer photon, it's the quantum transition from a metastable state of the Fe57 nucleus to the ground state. The other well-known astronomical measurement is the spin-flip of the hydrogen electron in its ground state, emitting a 1420.405751786 MHz photon (the "21 cm line") ""

You are describing effect, not cause.

E and f are experimental variables measured independently, and their ratio turns out to be a constant known as h.

Which is just what I drivelling well said!  h is a measurement of joules per second.  Any less joules than h, the frequency per second of the wavelength won't change.

Edit: ...and, in the case of the black body experiment, the energy used to define h was thermal energy.  What energy is the cause of h in a gravitational shift?
« Last Edit: 31/05/2016 01:07:56 by timey »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #91 on: 31/05/2016 03:52:22 »
Ok - admittedly, I missed out the part about Planck working with molecules and thermal energy with relation to h and it being Einstein who related the concept to the photon, but I'm only writing posts, not a book, and you have a degree Alan, and don't need a history lesson...

No-one knows the cause of the energy shift that occurs in a gravitational shift.  Only the effect of the shift and the proportionality of the energy required to cause a shift are known.  Furthermore no-one knows what the deal is with particle wave duality either.

Frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength and:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
Quote:
"as one moves away from a source of gravitational field, the rate at which time passes is increased relative to the case when one is near the source. As frequency is inverse of time (specifically, time required for completing one wave oscillation), frequency of the electromagnetic radiation is reduced in an area of a lower gravitational field (i.e., a higher gravitational potential)."
Unquote:

I repeat, "as frequency is the inverse of time"... ie: frequency reduces, rate of time increases...

In the case of the caesium atoms increase in frequency of its hyperfine transition in the area of lower gravitational field, (ie: a higher gravitational potential) we are seeing an increase in frequency increase the rate of time.

This difference is what I'm trying to talk to you about.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4726
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #92 on: 31/05/2016 08:35:07 »

In the mean time, I asked you: what the cause of h was when calculating gravitational shift...
Apologies, m'lud, but counsel was leading the witness. h does not appear in the equation for G shift, as she well knows.

Quote
You said:
""In the case of the classic mossbauer photon, it's the quantum transition from a metastable state of the Fe57 nucleus to the ground state. The other well-known astronomical measurement is the spin-flip of the hydrogen electron in its ground state, emitting a 1420.405751786 MHz photon (the "21 cm line") ""

You are describing effect, not cause.

You really need to distinguish between cause (stuff happening inside an atom or nucleus) and effect (electromagnetic radiation). It's kinda fundamental to life, and h is what connects them.

Quote
This difference is what I'm trying to talk to you about.
You would do better to think about it.

The frequency of a clock or a photon does not change from the point of view of an observer standing next to it. Now stand on the surface of the earth. A photon coming from a weaker field towards the earth is seen as blueshifted, a clock at altitude is seen as running faster. Same phenomenon, same result.

Or send the signals from earth into space. Both are redshifted as seen by an astronaut.

You keep quoting sources that say the same thing, yet you insist they are different. If you continue badgering this witness, I shall seek the protection of the Court.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #93 on: 31/05/2016 11:58:19 »
Lol!  Very good Alan...

The book I read was called 'The Devil's Advocate' and the technique is called advocacy... Needless to say, I've still got a lot to learn (chuckle)...

Can I please bring your attention to the focus of just 2 points here.

The photon observed coming towards Earth from a weaker field, when seen as blue shifted will be further blue shifted as it gets closer.  The blue shifted lights frequency 'increases' as the rate of time becomes slower.

The clock's observed from Earth that are placed at stages of elevation getting closer to earth from a weaker gravitational field are all observed as running at increasingly slower rates of time the closer to earth they are placed.  The clock's frequency 'reduces' as it's rate of time becomes slower.

It is the fact of lights frequency 'increasing' in the slower rates of time, and the clock's frequency 'decreasing' in the slower rates of time that I am trying to bring your attention to...

Why does lights frequency increase in the slower rate of time, when the clock's frequency reduces in the slower rate of time?

#### impyre

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #94 on: 31/05/2016 12:27:02 »
I could be wrong here, but I think the hang up is really semantic.
The frequency of light is determined at its source. What is being observed isn't the light's frequency "changing", it's that the frequency is observed to be faster than what it truly is simply because the observer is experiencing time dilation. That is to say, the light isn't becoming a higher frequency, you're just seeing it from a slower reference point so it appears faster. It might be wise to refer to the light's frequency and apparent frequency as two separate things. If light is unaffected by gravitational time dilation, then the shift in apparent frequency is due to a doppler-like effect; although instead of being caused by physical movement it's caused by the change in time between the observer and the point of emission. As for the clock, it's simply experiencing the same type of time dilation any other physical object would.

If the light's frequency were to speed up, and the observer were experiencing time dilation, it seems like the effect would be exaggerated.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #95 on: 31/05/2016 13:28:47 »
If the light's frequency were to speed up, and the observer were experiencing time dilation, it seems like the effect would be exaggerated.

Even if you say that the observation of differing rates of time, from differing rates of time are time frame dependent and proportional to the difference in rate, this would still not explain the anomaly.

The clock's (and any atomic structure of mass's) frequency, and therefore energy, 'decreases' when placed in the stronger gravity field.
Lights frequency, and therefore energy, 'increases' in the stronger gravity field.
« Last Edit: 31/05/2016 13:33:21 by timey »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4726
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #96 on: 31/05/2016 16:40:20 »
The book I read was called 'The Devil's Advocate' and the technique is called advocacy... Needless to say, I've still got a lot to learn (chuckle)...
Advocacy is about winning an argument. Physics is about finding out what happens in the universe. Aristotelians thought physics could proceed by disputation, but they were wrong every time. So nowadays we start with maximal observations and minimal assumptions, and we get stuff like flight, nuclear power, interesting astronomy, radar speed guns, and GPS.

Why does lights frequency increase in the slower rate of time, when the clock's frequency reduces in the slower rate of time?
I repeat, for the last time ever, that the frequency seen by an observer at a lower gravitational potential is always higher than that seen by an observer at the source. Which is, in simpler and more exact language, just what you summarised in your "2 points".

Don't confuse yourself with "slower rates of time" and other nonscientific language of your own invention. Stick to what is observed and what is calculated, and if the observation matches the calculation (which it does) then it's a good idea to assume that both are correct.

Quote
The photon observed coming towards Earth from a weaker field, when seen as blue shifted will be further blue shifted as it gets closer.  The blue shifted lights frequency 'increases' as the rate of time becomes slower.

The clock's observed from Earth that are placed at stages of elevation getting closer to earth from a weaker gravitational field are all observed as running at increasingly slower rates of time the closer to earth they are placed.  The clock's frequency 'reduces' as it's rate of time becomes slower.

As before, if you cut out the new age bullshit, it all makes sense. Just remember that a stationary clock at any altitude will appear to run faster than a clock on the surface of a planet.
« Last Edit: 31/05/2016 16:46:05 by alancalverd »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #97 on: 31/05/2016 17:41:51 »
In my experience all knowledge and techniques can transpose to all fields.  The book I read places the art of advocacy as a means of persuading discussion into the area of interest in such a way that if there is a point to be illuminated, or an argument to be won, that the direction of the discourse will illuminate the fact...

Advocacy is about winning an argument. Physics is about finding out what happens in the universe. Aristotelians thought physics could proceed by disputation, but they were wrong every time. So nowadays we start with maximal observations and minimal assumptions, and we get stuff like flight, nuclear power, interesting astronomy, radar speed guns, and GPS.

...and a bunch of 'theoretical physicists' scratching there heads going, hey, how come we can do all this and we still know next to nothing about how it all fits together and works as a universe.
Yes the calculations that include relativistic mass do work, and most things add up as they are, except when they don't.  This is how things always are until someone says, hey look at this...!

Yes, you agree with my 2 points, but simply miss the fact that I am pointing out to you with my New Age crapola... This being that the direction of the change in energy and frequency, (ie: increase or decrease in frequency) for a photon in a gravitational gradient is the opposite than it is for an atomic structure.

If we can't get past this, by you saying:
(And there is no reason why you should not say this Alan, because it is true)
"Yes indeed, Miss Vikki Ramsay, aka timey, I can see that blue shifting light has a frequency increases in a stronger gravitational field, and yes, atomic structures of mass, their frequency decreases in a stronger gravitational field, (ie:the atomic clock at one meter elevation relative to the clock on the ground) ...and what is the point you wish to make if it?"

...then the discussion is not progressive, and what is the fun, and where is the purpose in that, do tell?

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4726
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #98 on: 31/05/2016 18:00:53 »
The light is dawning, and I think I see your problem.

Your typical stellar photon started its journey a very long way away. As it approaches Earth, it is losing gravitational potential and thus gaining kinetic energy which appears to the earth observer as a blue shift.

You have a clock, say, at a lunar orbit altitude and it ticks at the gravitational potential of that orbit, so we observe it to run fast according to the gravitational shift of that potential. Then you move the clock to, say, a geostationary orbit so it now appears to tick at a slightly slower rate because its  gravitational potential is lower than for a lunar orbit.

Here's the difference: you have moved the source! If you reduce the height of the photon source in the P-R experiment, you measure a smaller blue shift (remember there is no blue shift when the beam is horizontal). Same phenomenon, same result.

You have confused yourself with a neat debating trick! You might confuse a jury, but not me.

Fiat lux.

« Last Edit: 31/05/2016 18:12:27 by alancalverd »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #99 on: 31/05/2016 18:45:23 »
Ah, but there is another difference you have not mentioned, and it is the only difference that I am concerned with here...

The clock's energy and frequency 'decrease' in the stronger gravity field.

The photon's energy and frequency 'increase' in the stronger gravity field.

You say that the closer to the earth the clock is, the less gravity potential is added for a decrease in energy.
So by definition you are saying that a decrease in the energy and frequency of the clock is a decrease in the rate of time.
You say that the KE of the light is the reason that the blue-shifting light is increasing in energy... (So gravity potential isn't affecting the photon's relativistic mass?)

Returning to the clock scenario, we can see that, (dependant upon its location in a gravity field and the observer's), a stationary clock will, with an observed decrease in a clock's frequency, and therefore it's energy, run at a slower rate.   And with an observed increase in a clock's frequency, and therefore it's energy, run at a faster rate.

With relativistic mass technically being the sum total of energies, if we add motion to the previously stationary atomic clock, the KE must be 'added' and the frequency and energy of the clock must increase, (to be in keeping with how you are saying that KE increases energy and frequency for light)...and if the clocks energy and frequency increase, it will be running at a faster rate, and this is NOT what is observed of a clock in motion relative to a stationary clock!!!

So there is something a bit wrong with the logic of procedure, far as I've been able to make out...

Fiat lux.
. Didn't know they made them...poky little car at best...

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #99 on: 31/05/2016 18:45:23 »