0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I am pointing out that:Quote"Emitted signal is always lower in frequency in the weaker gravity field.Anything with rest mass is always higher in frequency in the weaker gravity field."You are telling me that this is nonsense...More "meaningless" than "nonsense", I'll grant you. Quote But if you put the signal emitter into elevation and the receivers in the lower gravity potential, the signal emitter is gravitationally shifted to a higher frequency. No, the received signal is at a higher frequency. The sign of a spin vector is arbitrary and unrelated to gravitation. The great thing about cesium clocks is that they rely only on the constancy of spin-spin interaction energy. Whilst a pendulum clock would misbehave at altitude (indeed they do) a mechanical wristwatch, or any clock with a torsion-spring or vibrating timebase, is independent of gravitation: its time constant depends only on the elastic and inertial properties of the oscillator. Unfortunately these mechanical devices are too temperature-sensitive to demonstrate the point here in practice, but you can take heart from the fact that rubidium clocks and several mossbauer-type gamma rays all behave in exactly the same way as the cesium clock or an "ideal wristwatch".
"Emitted signal is always lower in frequency in the weaker gravity field.Anything with rest mass is always higher in frequency in the weaker gravity field."You are telling me that this is nonsense...
But if you put the signal emitter into elevation and the receivers in the lower gravity potential, the signal emitter is gravitationally shifted to a higher frequency.
Presumably both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin - spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation, and therefore the photons emitted at elevation 'are', by the remit of quantum, of higher energy.
QuotePresumably both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin - spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation, and therefore the photons emitted at elevation 'are', by the remit of quantum, of higher energy. Garbage. Nothing to do with hyperfine anythings. Nor the mass of anything, let alone its weight. Hence independent of gravitation.When you invent "presumably"s you run the risk of appearing arrogant, and arrogance often signals ignorance. A toxic combination for your own thoughts, and it lowers you in my estimation to the level of the unemployables who form government inspectorates, for whom Kruger-Dunning is an entry qualification.Just stick to the experimental facts, and keep them simple. Whatever the source, the received signal is frequency-shifted in the same direction (and indeed by the same fraction) by a given gravitational potential difference between source and receiver.
So you say that quantum has nothing to do with the energy transition of an Fe57 source emitting a photon, or a mossbauer receiver receiving one... Really?
both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin - spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation,
QuoteSo you say that quantum has nothing to do with the energy transition of an Fe57 source emitting a photon, or a mossbauer receiver receiving one... Really? Had I meant that, I would have said it. I am a scientist, not a politician or an idiot.Quoteboth the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin - spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation, none of this is true.
Spin-spin interactions are indeed quantum processes, but not connected with the ejection of a "mossbauer" nuclear photon following the electron capture process of Co58 -> Fe57*. So, starting from known facts, and only known facts, what have you got in mind?
Blue shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity fieldRed shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field.
The Fe57 source on the ground emits a photon of a certain energy. In the horizontal experiment the mossbauer is of the correct energy to receive this photon.Place the mossbauer in elevation and the photon the Fe57 emits cannot be received by the mossbauer. The photons energy has been gravitationally shifted...Clearly if this was all there was to the story then quantum and gravity would have been unified yonks ago.
Therefore it 'could' be viewed that as clocks are placed at intervals of increasing elevation, the energy levels of each clocks energy transitions are increased...
As per the equivalence principle, and the concept that observers with a clock age in keeping with the clock, we 'could' say that all configurations of mass in elevation increase in energy proportional relative to same mass configurations in a lower gravity potential.
Quote from: timey on 19/07/2016 20:30:52Blue shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity fieldRed shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field.These statements are garbled. What we observe is that photons arriving from a higher gravitational potential appear blue shifted, and those arriving from a lower gravitaitonal potential appear red shifted, compared with those generated by the same mechanism at the point of observation.Not a good idea to confuse "energy levels" with "energy". Different words mean different things in physics.QuoteThe Fe57 source on the ground emits a photon of a certain energy. In the horizontal experiment the mossbauer is of the correct energy to receive this photon.Place the mossbauer in elevation and the photon the Fe57 emits cannot be received by the mossbauer. The photons energy has been gravitationally shifted...Clearly if this was all there was to the story then quantum and gravity would have been unified yonks ago.That is what we observe, though quaintly expressed, and as you say, that's all there is to it. It has nothing to do with any relationship between quantum mechanics and gravitation. See next paragaph.Quote Therefore it 'could' be viewed that as clocks are placed at intervals of increasing elevation, the energy levels of each clocks energy transitions are increased... Indeed it could, but even if it were more correctly expressed, it wouldn't be true, because the spin/spin interaction is not gravity-dependent, any more than the timebase of a wristwatch or the energy of a mossbauer photon.QuoteAs per the equivalence principle, and the concept that observers with a clock age in keeping with the clock, we 'could' say that all configurations of mass in elevation increase in energy proportional relative to same mass configurations in a lower gravity potential. You could indeed say that, though a scientist probably wouldn't. You could neatly express what I think you mean, as "potential energy = mgh", just like in the textbooks of classical physics. But that doesn't explain why the clock with more potential energy appears to run faster, nor does it have anything to do with quantum mechanics.
If I say that light when travelling through changes in a gravity field always has a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field - may I then have your agreement?
The spin-spin interactions within the cesium atom are increased in frequency in the weaker gravity field. This has been proven by NIST atomic clock experiments. An increase in frequency is inclusive of an increase in energy.
Yes by all means, if you attribute light with mass then you may say that...quote: "the logical explanation is that the difference between emitted and observed frequency depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer." unqoute......but then please explain to me why anything with rest mass in elevation to earth experiences an increase in frequency, (ie: equivalence principle), when 'already emitted light' is always of lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field?
QuoteIf I say that light when travelling through changes in a gravity field always has a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field - may I then have your agreement? Why misuse a perfectly good language to confuse yourself? The frequency of any received signal depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and receiver. That is the observed fact.QuoteThe spin-spin interactions within the cesium atom are increased in frequency in the weaker gravity field. This has been proven by NIST atomic clock experiments. An increase in frequency is inclusive of an increase in energy. Wrong. The frequency of any clock appears higher when the observer is at a lower gravitaional potential. Don't attempt to intepret or embellish the facts: this is physics, not politics.
Quote from: timey on 17/07/2016 14:15:28Yes by all means, if you attribute light with mass then you may say that...quote: "the logical explanation is that the difference between emitted and observed frequency depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer." unqoute......but then please explain to me why anything with rest mass in elevation to earth experiences an increase in frequency, (ie: equivalence principle), when 'already emitted light' is always of lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field?I think you are confusing between "gravitational potential" and "gravitational field strength".Higher gravitational potential doesn't necessarily means higher gravitational field strength.A building's floor has lower gravitational potential than its roof, but generally it has higher gravitational strength (unless it is significantly below average level of earth surface).
More kinetic energy = increased time dilation.
When I can manage to bring anyone's attention to the fact that light, as it travels through space, is always of a lesser frequency when in the weaker gravity field. And that anything with rest mass is always of a higher frequency in the weaker gravity field, I can move on to putting this theory into context with regards to shifts in frequency that are temperature related.
Quote from: timey on 20/07/2016 13:30:43When I can manage to bring anyone's attention to the fact that light, as it travels through space, is always of a lesser frequency when in the weaker gravity field. And that anything with rest mass is always of a higher frequency in the weaker gravity field, I can move on to putting this theory into context with regards to shifts in frequency that are temperature related.You will have to wait a long time because it isn't true. The frequency of every source is higher when viewed from a lower gravitational potential than the source. You know that and everyone else knows that, and you have quoted classic experiments that showed it. It's nothing to do with the mass of the source.
..and the observed frequency of the clock signal is the frequency it has shifted to when it has arrived in the observers gravity potential.It's easy when you stick to a consistent nomenclature,