0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
We also need to make the maths believable.
: timeyUnder the remit of this system Planck's h constant becomes a function of time dilation, where it is changes in energy level that are causing changes in the rate of time. It takes h value of joules to initiate a change in the rate of time, and the change in the rate of time can be observed by the change in frequency.
I think this is what Timey is trying to do - if seconds pass at, say, twice the rate relative to our gravitational potential i.e. each is = half of our seconds, then the calculation becomes 20J (10/0.5), but, to use wavelength as the modifying factor.
I suspect the only help I can provide for timey is assistance in understanding and navigating through the math with her.
To be more clear - it takes h value of joules times the frequency that is indicating a change in the rate of time to know the value of the Energy that is changing the rate of time."...............First thing here Colin is that I am worried that you are basing this analysis on the fact that clocks run faster at a higher gravity potential,
That is the best that I could hope for and I very much appreciate your input.
but it works whether clocks run faster or slower at any potential, or a position in space that has a time dilation relative to another position. So it should work for your various scenarios. The simplest way is to express the time dilation as a ratio against the std second then you use that ratio to work out f. For E=hf you are on safe ground as this is what current physics says.
Photon energy of one photon at 1 meter wave length ........... (1.9864 E^-25) Joules
I am in admiration (or perhaps it's jealousy) of your capacity for the juggling of numbers. Adding numbers to the proportions confuses me. How I think about proportions is a matter of shapes and moving lines doing slippy slidey stuff, where I complete all my considerations inside my head.
Ethos - just saw your latest post. Yes, my hypothesis does not use the Lorentz Transformations to describe light moving across space. When I get to the stage where we are discussing the above in terms of acceleration/deceleration of gravity it will become clear why, but to say so the values of the Lorentz transformations will be needed to cross reference the alternative, and the remit of the Lorentz Transformation will be used in my model to describe the perception of time and space for m moving across space, but in a slightly altered format.
Quote from: timey on 07/05/2017 21:02:02That is the best that I could hope for and I very much appreciate your input.Regarding the formula associated with photon energy:Qp = hc/wavelengthPlease excuse my notation, I don't have latex.Let's use the figure (w) to represent wavelength.Qp=hc/w Photon energy = Planck's constant times the speed of light divided by selected wavelength.Joules = h * c * w^-1 = (J*s) * c * w^-1 = (kg * m^2 /sec) * (m/sec) / (m) = (kg * m^2/sec^2)For a VHF wavelength of 1 meter, just to simplify, we plug in the following values:Qp = (6.626 E^-34 * 2.9979E^8) / 1Photon energy of one photon at 1 meter wave length ........... (1.9864 E^-25) JoulesBTW, the (E^-25) is a simpler way of notation representing: (times 10 raised to the -25)
This is a very good page to use when playing around with the numbers.https://rechneronline.de/spectrum/
For a 1 hertz frequency we have Qp = (6.626 E^-34 * 2.9979E^8) / 2.9979E^8 so that the energy is simply 6.626 E^-34 joules which is a value equivalent to h but with different units. This is a wavelength of 1 light second. This is important for your proposition.
I'll return when I've regained some strength.
conventional physics 'is' using the static length of a standard second as it's basis for the mathematical structure of h, f, c and wavelength, so it is logical to follow suit, where, because a clock will run at the same rate at the sea level of all longitudes of Earth, we can state sea level Earth as being the reference frame of the standard second,
:timeyconventional physics 'is' using the static length of a standard second as it's basis for the mathematical structure of h, f, c and wavelength, so it is logical to follow suit
:wikiThe fact that the Earth's gravitational field slightly deviates from being spherically symmetrical also affects the orbits of satellites through secular orbital precessions. They depend on the orientation of the Earth's symmetry axis in the inertial space, and, in the general case, affect all the Keplerian orbital elements with the exception of the semimajor axis. If the reference z axis of the coordinate system adopted is aligned along the Earth's symmaetry axis, then only the longitude of the ascending node Ω, the argument of pericenter ω and the mean anomaly M undergo secular precessions.Such perturbations, which were earlier used to map the Earth's gravitational field from space, may play a relevant disturbing role when satellites are used to make tests of general relativity because the much smaller relativistic effects are qualitatively indistinguisgable from the oblateness-driven disturbances.
We don't make a measurement of c using a local second*, (unless we are considering the standard second to be local, which we can, and can most conveniently do this by stating the standard second as the reference frame of sea level Earth due to all clocks running at the same rate at sea level).If one tries to use a speed of light that is held relative to the local rate of time of a clock that is not ticking at the rate of a standard second, i.e GR in SR, then one runs into problems with distance/length contraction. (Mike Gale explored this scenario on his thread relativistic correction to the SC).
*Perhaps you may further solidify my understanding though... The observer observes his time dilated clock to be ticking normally. Does the observer measure the speed of light via his time dilated clock?
Added: I mean the frequency that electron transitions occur, but does the frequency that electron transitions occur at have a bearing on the frequency of the photon emissions? I seem to remember you commenting in another thread...
As we have agreed elsewhere (way back) the local observer sees exactly the same (local) seconds as an observer at any other GP and, in the close vicinity, uses those seconds to measure speed. It is only the remote observer who sees the seconds as dilated and makes different calculations of frequency, speed, distance, energy etc.
E=mgh for an electron would tell you how much KE it could acquire if it fell through h, placing an atom at a greater h doesn't cause the number or rate of electron transitions to increase - we don't observe an increase in intensity.
placing an atom at a greater h doesn't cause the number or rate of electron transitions to increase
"frequency that electron transitions occur" affects the number of photons emitted/s which affects intensity.
"frequency of the photon emitted" defines the colour/wavelength of the photon.
E=mgh for an electron would tell you how much KE it could acquire if it fell through h
Quote from: phyti on 05/05/2017 18:10:55Quote from: jeffreyH on 28/04/2017 09:57:07If it has been detected I would be very interested in the reference.The electric field strength increases for fast electrons as they contract, and is detectable.check this link..https://conf-slac.stanford.edu/sssepb-2013/lecturesselect this:Lecture 1. Lecturer Zhirong Huang That link doesn't work.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 28/04/2017 09:57:07If it has been detected I would be very interested in the reference.The electric field strength increases for fast electrons as they contract, and is detectable.check this link..https://conf-slac.stanford.edu/sssepb-2013/lecturesselect this:Lecture 1. Lecturer Zhirong Huang
If it has been detected I would be very interested in the reference.