0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What exactly are we saying here?
Quote from: Colin2B on 10/05/2017 16:15:38E=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.Where are we when we don't observe an increase in intensity? Are we in the local frame, or the remote frame?
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.
The simple answer is that the gravitational field warps the spacetime continuum. Remarkably, this result from GR seems to explain every experimantal result to date.
The "frequency of electron transitions " means the number of times electrons make quantum transitions in a second and this defines the number of photons emitted per second, i.e. the intensity (quantity) of emission.
The photon frequency associated with an individual electron transition defines the energy per photon - the quality of the emission.
Yes, I remember, but also re-call that we came to a Mexican stand off scenario over the fact of a person aging in keeping with their clock.
I have no problem with the fact that a person ages differently at a GP relative to someone at a different GP. What I have never managed to understand is why you think they wouldn't according to current physics.
As I say, I'll see how Ethos wants to take it forward. I'll help him with drafting if he needs it.
Quote from: alancalverd on 10/05/2017 21:06:19The simple answer is that the gravitational field warps the spacetime continuum. Remarkably, this result from GR seems to explain every experimantal result to date.Therefore it is remarkable that while GR can predict and describe what will occur, it cannot describe 'why' it is occurring. A fact that is widely remarked upon in the physics books I read.Quote from: alancalverd on 10/05/2017 21:06:19The "frequency of electron transitions " means the number of times electrons make quantum transitions in a second and this defines the number of photons emitted per second, i.e. the intensity (quantity) of emission.Thank you. So the question stands with a slightly altered terminology:"Where are we when we don't observe an increase/decrease in electron quantum transitions. Are we in the local frame?"Quote from: alancalverd on 10/05/2017 21:06:19The photon frequency associated with an individual electron transition defines the energy per photon - the quality of the emission.Is the number of times electrons are making quantum transitions in a second defined by energy levels?And does the number of times electrons make quantum transitions have a bearing on the energy level of the individual electron transitions that are defining the energy per photon?
Quote from: alancalverd on 10/05/2017 21:06:19The simple answer is that the gravitational field warps the spacetime continuum. Remarkably, this result from GR seems to explain every experimantal result to date.Therefore it is remarkable that while GR can predict and describe what will occur, it cannot describe 'why' it is occurring. A fact that is widely remarked upon in the physics books I read.
Quote from: alancalverd on 10/05/2017 21:06:19The "frequency of electron transitions " means the number of times electrons make quantum transitions in a second and this defines the number of photons emitted per second, i.e. the intensity (quantity) of emission.Thank you. So the question stands with a slightly altered terminology:"Where are we when we don't observe an increase/decrease in electron quantum transitions. Are we in the local frame?"
Quote from: alancalverd on 10/05/2017 21:06:19The photon frequency associated with an individual electron transition defines the energy per photon - the quality of the emission.Is the number of times electrons are making quantum transitions in a second defined by energy levels?And does the number of times electrons make quantum transitions have a bearing on the energy level of the individual electron transitions that are defining the energy per photon?
It is true that gravitation is an anomalous force. What is remarkable is its predictability and universality, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the fact that such a simple concept as GR can predict such a subtle effect as time dilatation with altitude, with such precision.
:timey"Where are we when we don't observe an increase/decrease in electron quantum transitions. Are we in the local frame?"
The question remains meaningless, or at least ambiguous
:timeyIf one measures a clock from a position of higher gravity potential, it will be running slower, and then measures the same clock from a position of lower gravity potential, it will be running faster
:timeyIt is indeed quite clear to me, under the remit of conventional physics, that the higher potential position is measuring the clock in the lower potential by it's increased tick rate, and that the lower potential position is measuring the clock in the higher potential by it's decreased tick rate, and that it is all 3 clocks that are running at differing rates.
:timeyIs the number of times electrons are making quantum transitions in a second defined by energy levels?And does the number of times electrons make quantum transitions have a bearing on the energy level of the individual electron transitions that are defining the energy per photon?
No and no. Quality and quantity are entirely separate.
Because every time I try to discuss here the fact of seconds being of differing length in differing GP's, I am consistently told that this is only the case when viewed from the remote frame, and it has then been very difficult to continue the discussion in terms of talking about differing length seconds!!!
GR states that all atomic clocks tick at the same rate, but look different when seen from a different viewpoint. That's why it's called relativity and not absolutivity. Then we explain and calculate the difference, and it turns out to be correct. Bingo - physics!
all atomic clocks tick at the same rate, but look different when seen from a different viewpoint
a person ages differently at a GP relative to someone at a different GP.
You still seem confused about electron transitions. I repeat: the number of quantum transitions per unit time determines the intensity (quantity) of a photon source; the energy of each transition determines the spectrum (quality) of the source.
:wikiAn atomic clock is a clock device that uses an electronic transition frequency in the microwave, optical, or ultraviolet region[2] of the electromagnetic spectrum of atoms as a frequency standard for its timekeeping element.
: wikiA caesium atomic clock is a primary frequency standard in which electronic transitions between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium-133 atoms are used to control the output frequency.
:wikiThat value was chosen so that the caesium second equalled, to the limit of human measuring ability in 1960 when it was adopted, the existing standard ephemeris second based on the Earth's orbit around the Sun
:wikigeneral relativity gives us gravitational time dilation. Briefly, a clock in a stronger gravitational field (e.g. closer to a planet) will appear to tick more slowly. People holding these clocks (i.e. those inside and outside the stronger field) would all agree on which clocks appear to be going faster.
:New ScientistAnil Ananthaswamy'OUR most accurate clocks are probing a key tenet of Einstein’s theory of relativity: the idea that time isn’t absolute. Any violation of this principle could point us to a long-sought theory that would unite Einstein’s ideas with quantum mechanics.Special relativity established that the laws of physics are the same for any two observers moving at a constant speed relative to each other, a symmetry called Lorentz invariance. One consequence is that they would observe each other’s clocks running at different rates. Each observer would regard themselves as stationary and see the other observer’s clock as ticking slowly – an effect called time dilation.Einstein’s general relativity compounds the effect. It says that the clocks would run differently if they experience different gravitational forces.For two decades, comparing atomic clocks aboard GPS satellites with those on Earth have helped test the effect – and always confirmed it. But since any deviation from relativity would be very subtle, we might need a more precise instrument to find it.Most atomic clocks rely on the frequency of the microwave radiation emitted when electrons in caesium-133 atoms change energy states.
If you use the language of physics, people will be able to understand and therefore answer your questions, but if you talk about the frequency of electron transitions you will just confuse yourself and everyone else.
Don't confuse "how" (physics) with "why" (philosophy).
:live scienceBut even the best mechanical pendulums and quartz crystal-based clocks develop discrepancies. Far better for timekeeping is the natural and exact "vibration" in an energized atom.When exposed to certain frequencies of radiation, such as radio waves, the subatomic particles called electrons that orbit an atom's nucleus will "jump" back and forth between energy states. Clocks based on this jumping within atoms can therefore provide an extremely precise way to count seconds.It is no surprise then that the international standard for the length of one second is based on atoms. Since 1967, the official definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation that gets an atom of the element called cesium to vibrate between two energy states.Inside a cesium atomic clock, cesium atoms are funneled down a tube where they pass through radio waves . If this frequency is just right 9,192,631,770 cycles per second then the cesium atoms "resonate" and change their energy state.A detector at the end of the tube keeps track of the number of cesium atoms reaching it that have changed their energy states. The more finely tuned the radio wave frequency is to 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, the more cesium atoms reach the detector.The detector feeds information back into the radio wave generator. It synchronizes the frequency of the radio waves with the peak number of cesium atoms striking it. Other electronics in the atomic clock count this frequency. As with a single swing of the pendulum, a second is ticked off when the frequency count is met.
: educate/exploreAtoms as clocksEvery atom is composed of a nucleus, which contains the atom’s protons and neutrons (collectively known as nucleons). Orbiting that nucleus are the atom’s electrons, which occupy different orbits, or energy levels.By absorbing or releasing exactly the right amount of energy, the electrons can ‘jump’ from one energy level to another. This is called a transition. The electrons absorb energy to move to a higher energy level (away from the nucleus), and release energy to move down an energy level (towards the nucleus).The energy released or absorbed in these transitions takes the form of electromagnetic radiation (e.g. visible light or microwaves). The same amount of energy is released every time the same transition occurs, no matter where or how many times it is measured.As with all waves, the radiation has a certain frequency (i.e., it completes a certain number of full waves in a second, similar to the way a pendulum completes a certain number of swings in a minute) and this frequency can be measured. This means that a clock can be based on the wave frequency of an electron’s transition energy in an atom, in a similar way to a clock based on the swinging of a pendulum.Why do we use caesium?The caesium atom defines the SI second. The second is 9 192 631 770 periods of the electromagnetic radiation emitted or absorbed by the ground state hyperfine transition of the caesium atom. This means that a second is the amount of time it takes for the radiation from this transition to complete 9 192 631 770 full waves.As with all atoms, no matter where or how it is measured this number will never change, meaning that it’s a far more reliable method of timekeeping than the Sun’s movement in the sky.Measuring the second in a caesium fountain atomic clockAn atomic fountain clock has three stages:Six lasers placed at right angles to each other (aimed above, below, left of, right of, in front of and behind the target) are fired at a group of caesium atoms. This is known as an optical trap: the light from the six lasers pushes the caesium atoms closer together, stopping them moving to the point where they almost stop vibrating at all. As both a particle and a wave, light has momentum (just like any other object that is moving), and is able to push very small objects such as atoms. Since atomic vibrations are what we feel as heat, the caesium atoms become ultra-cold, reaching temperatures of around one microKelvin - a tiny fraction of a degree above absolute zero (-273.15 °C).Once the atoms have been cooled down, the lasers above and below them are used to launch them upwards inside the fountain’s microwave chamber, and the atoms then fall back down under gravity. This launch-and-fall movement is why the clock is referred to as a ‘fountain’. The chamber uses microwave radiation to cause the caesium atoms’ electrons to move between two specific energy levels as they fly up and fall down through it.Finally, once the atoms have completed their flight, the energy levels of the electrons can be measured through fluorescence – atoms with electrons in different energy levels will emit different radiation patterns when probed with a laser.This whole process takes about a second, and is repeated over and over with different microwave frequencies until the frequency that causes the maximum number of caesium electrons to change energy levels is found. This frequency is the resonant frequency, and this is the frequency that is used to define the SI second. As caesium fountain clocks are improved, the microwave frequency can be more finely tuned and the SI second can be even more accurately defined.
:nist.govAll clocks must have a regular, constant or repetitive process or action to mark off equal increments of time. Examples include the daily movement of the sun across the sky, a swinging pendulum or vibrating crystal. In the case of atomic clocks, the beat is kept by a transition between two energy levels in an atom.
In practice the critical microwave frequency is absorbed, not emitted, by the hyperfine shift.
GR explains the equivalence between a gravitational field and an accelerating reference frame, but doesn't attempt to elicit the mechanism of gravitation, which remains to be discovered
On the basis that you seem to understand that it is the number of electron transitions that is responsible for the tick rate of the clock, I really don't understand why I even have to discuss the matter at-all, let alone argue over which language that I use to describe the tick rate of the clock.
A person in the higher potential will age quicker in the higher potential compared to a person in the lower potential.
Do you have anything to say in answer to this post:https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69800.msg514132#msg514132
. Because that is a contradiction.
On the basis that you seem to understand that it is the number of electron transitions that is responsible for the tick rate of the clock, I really don't understand why I even have to discuss the matter at-all, let alone argue over which language that I use to describe the tick rate of the clock. Just seems like a trite waste of time to me!
Conventional physics states that these physical occurances occur because time runs faster at elevation...It is my intention to describe physical cause and effect mechanics for 'why' time runs faster at elevation,
It isn't.
Quote from: alancalverd on 11/05/2017 16:42:16In practice the critical microwave frequency is absorbed, not emitted, by the hyperfine shift.This frequency is the resonant frequency of 9,192,631,770 cycles per second and this is the frequency that is used to define the SI second.In the higher potential, there will be more wave cycles per second as per the length of a second in the lower potential, i.e. a resonant frequency that is higher than the frequency of 9,192,631,770 cycles per SI second, although if one measures in one's own frame of reference, one will always measure 9,192,631,770 cycles per the second of their position in the gravity field. GR states that clocks run differently if they experience different gravitational forces. People holding these clocks (i.e. those inside and outside the stronger field) would all agree on which clocks appear to be going faster.Therefore while GR states that the local reference frame will notice nothing different about their own clock, GR also categorically states that time is physically running faster in the higher potential compared to in the lower potential.Everything in this post so far is conventional physics.What I want to talk about that is not conventional physics is attributing the higher resonant frequency in the higher gravity potential to an increase in energy, because an increase in frequency must be accompanied by an increase in energy. No energy is being artificially added to the clock in the higher potential, so I am looking at the mgh equation to add energy to cause the change in the critical microwave frequency.The atoms that this critical microwave frequency is responsible for resonating will also be changed in their energy levels, otherwise the higher frequency would not cause a jump between ground states.My reasoning is that if the atoms are changed in their energy levels, then the emitting source of the critical microwave beam will also be changed in energy level and will be emitting a higher frequency microwave beam, which is what is observed when the critical microwave frequency is higher than 9,192,631,770 cycles per SI second...Alan - I really do not know how I could be any clearer. Conventional physics states that these physical occurances occur because time runs faster at elevation...It is my intention to describe physical cause and effect mechanics for 'why' time runs faster at elevation, and this description is essential for my models description of 'why' gravitational attraction occurs.Quote from: alancalverd on 11/05/2017 07:45:24GR explains the equivalence between a gravitational field and an accelerating reference frame, but doesn't attempt to elicit the mechanism of gravitation, which remains to be discoveredPrecisely...And... I actually thought that this is what you were going to be helping me with by applying your mathematical skills to my ideas to establish if my ideas are mathematically viable or not for a description of physical cause and effect mechanics for gravitational attraction/acceleration/deceleration.This is the only 'question' that I am raising here.Quote from: Colin2B on 10/05/2017 23:00:25As I say, I'll see how Ethos wants to take it forward. I'll help him with drafting if he needs it.Thanks. I appreciate the help.
That's why we have to get the language straight, so I can work out what it is that you don't understand or have entirely misconceived, before we can make any progress.
His ageing will match his clock, so he will live for 70 years, just like his colleague on earth. But his earth brother will see him die because space years as seen from earth are shorter than earth years.
I notice Alan has posted while I was typing, but I'll post this anyway. Hope it helps.Quote from: timey on 11/05/2017 12:42:22. Because that is a contradiction.It's not a contradiction, except in the way you are interpreting it.
Quote from: timey on 11/05/2017 17:35:32On the basis that you seem to understand that it is the number of electron transitions that is responsible for the tick rate of the clock, I really don't understand why I even have to discuss the matter at-all, let alone argue over which language that I use to describe the tick rate of the clock. Just seems like a trite waste of time to me!The reason Alan is continuing this "trite waste of time" is that he does not "understand that it is the number of electron transitions that is responsible for the tick rate of the clock", neither has he said that it is. This is the point I raised earlier, we continually seem to misunderstand each other due to differences of terminology and interpretation.I do understand that you want to discuss your model, not conventional physics. However, at some stage you will need to present your theory to physicists working in this area and using incorrect terminology will cause your theory to be dismissed. Meaningful maths cannot be developed out of incorrect assumptions.
I will add one comment on the position of conventional physics:Quote from: timey on 11/05/2017 22:52:40Conventional physics states that these physical occurrences occur because time runs faster at elevation...It is my intention to describe physical cause and effect mechanics for 'why' time runs faster at elevation, GR states that the time differences we observe are due to a deformation or curving of spacetime and this curving is also the reason for what we observe as the force of gravity. You are aware that if we stress, say, a metal it will deform. Similarly stress will deform spacetime and conventional physics states that a number of of things stress spacetime including momentum, pressure and energy, in particular energy in the form of mass - bearing in mind that mass can be viewed as a substantial container of energy.Just a thought.
Conventional physics states that these physical occurrences occur because time runs faster at elevation...It is my intention to describe physical cause and effect mechanics for 'why' time runs faster at elevation,
You are aware that if we stress, say, a metal it will deform. Similarly stress will deform spacetime
:timeyAs mentioned a few posts ago - the only reason (that I can define, if anyone can add another) within conventional physics to not state potential energy as active within mass is due to the remit of only using the value of kinetic energy to calculate relativistic mass value. (comment would be appreciated)