0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Your equation implies that the energy of a photon is always zero, which is obviously not the case.Your confusion arises from assuming that momentum is uniquely asssociated with mass. Einstein's analysis of radiation pressure shows that it isn't. The fundamental relationship is p = E/v by definition for all particles at all speeds. Now a photon clearly has energy and speed, so can exert a force since F = dp/dt by definition, so an absorbed or reflected photon can transfer momentum to the absorber or reflector.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 21/05/2016 16:29:37Starting from the relationship and the eaquation we can remove Planck's constant as a component of these equations. Since then the energy equation can be expressed as Since the speed of a wave can be expressed as then it can also be expressed as The interesting thing about the relationship is that the frequency/energy relationship and momentum are on the same side of the equation which can then be used to investigate the possible mechanisms of time dilation. Since the components can vary non uniformly.I wish you would write an index to your maths so people understand your representation, what is h etc?Anyway I have some clue of what you are trying to express, I expressE=c delta F?

Starting from the relationship and the eaquation we can remove Planck's constant as a component of these equations. Since then the energy equation can be expressed as Since the speed of a wave can be expressed as then it can also be expressed as The interesting thing about the relationship is that the frequency/energy relationship and momentum are on the same side of the equation which can then be used to investigate the possible mechanisms of time dilation. Since the components can vary non uniformly.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 22/05/2016 10:59:36OK 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.Energy = momentum c = planck constant c divided by length = planck constant divided by ?What is the last symbol and is that what you said?

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.

acquisition

Quarks are the components of protons and neutrons. Do they have mass? Yes but a very tiny amount. Where does it come from. Quarks are fermions and so should have left handed and right handed components. The left handed has charge and the right handed doesn't. They switch between both states via interaction with the Higgs field becoming one particle out of two components during this process they gain mass.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 22/05/2016 12:45:46Quarks are the components of protons and neutrons. Do they have mass? Yes but a very tiny amount. Where does it come from. Quarks are fermions and so should have left handed and right handed components. The left handed has charge and the right handed doesn't. They switch between both states via interaction with the Higgs field becoming one particle out of two components during this process they gain mass.Please explain to mewhat you think ''mass' is Jeffrey? Mass=kg=G=N, mass and Newton's ''are'' the same thing....

The difference between weight and mass is not trivial.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 24/05/2016 18:44:50The difference between weight and mass is not trivial.The link you provided is incorrect, a 100kg mass in space is not 100kg, the object has no mass. Mass is relative to the object at relative rest in an inertial reference frame, the inertia frame being the provider of how much mass the object has. If the Earth had half the gravity strength, the object would only ''weight' 50kg. Mass is a product of gravity and not in itself a ''thing''?

Quote from: Thebox on 24/05/2016 18:50:05Quote from: jeffreyH on 24/05/2016 18:44:50The difference between weight and mass is not trivial.The link you provided is incorrect, a 100kg mass in space is not 100kg, the object has no mass. Mass is relative to the object at relative rest in an inertial reference frame, the inertia frame being the provider of how much mass the object has. If the Earth had half the gravity strength, the object would only ''weight' 50kg. Mass is a product of gravity and not in itself a ''thing''?You have missed the point completely. What we call mass never changes. The number of protons, neutrons and electrons in an object will not change with a change in gravity. Hence inertial mass remains constant. The force (weight) they exert due to gravity will change with a change in the strength of a gravitational field. The link I posted was not wrong.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 24/05/2016 18:59:34Quote from: Thebox on 24/05/2016 18:50:05Quote from: jeffreyH on 24/05/2016 18:44:50The difference between weight and mass is not trivial.The link you provided is incorrect, a 100kg mass in space is not 100kg, the object has no mass. Mass is relative to the object at relative rest in an inertial reference frame, the inertia frame being the provider of how much mass the object has. If the Earth had half the gravity strength, the object would only ''weight' 50kg. Mass is a product of gravity and not in itself a ''thing''?You have missed the point completely. What we call mass never changes. The number of protons, neutrons and electrons in an object will not change with a change in gravity. Hence inertial mass remains constant. The force (weight) they exert due to gravity will change with a change in the strength of a gravitational field. The link I posted was not wrong.No Jeff. the strong nuclear force remains constant and the sum of all ''charges'', a single particle has no mass,mass=snf+q =gYou may think I am deluded Jeff, but I am certain that ''you'' have it so wrong. Let me try to explain, please try to have an open mind and hear me out. Imagine a single particle ''floating'' around in a vast space where there was no other gravitational influence on the particle, the particle on a set of scales would ''weight'' relatively 0. There is no force being applied on the particle and the particle is not attracting anything. Ok let us say I live on a planet that had twice the gravity of the Earth, let us say this single particle on your scales ''weighs'' 1oz. What would it ''weigh'' on my scales?Please answer you will see later on the relativeness of this.

When considering how massless particle like the photon relate can be shown by the following relationships.Where setting mass equal to zero gives the desired result as expected. This indicates a very different relationship between the photon and time dilation.

To answer your question the object would weigh twice as much.

Technically relativistic mass is akin to the sum of all the energies.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 25/05/2016 11:02:11Technically relativistic mass is akin to the sum of all the energies. So - presumably if we take our caesium atomic clock and accelerate it up to relativistic speeds in a uniform gravitational field, the additional kinetic energy will increase the frequency of cycles? ...this cannot be correct because an increase in the frequency of cycles of a caesium atomic clock would of course register an 'increase' in the rate of the clocks time, and not the decrease in rate of time that is observed of an accelerated clock...I found this and thought it might interest you Jeff:http://web.mit.edu/lululiu/Public/pixx/not-pixx/photoelectric.pdf [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

A particle with mass's energy and frequency increases in a decreasing gravitational field.A massless photon's energy and frequency decreases in a decreasing gravitational field.

The question I asked concerning accelerating a caesium atomic clock to relativistic speeds in a uniform gravitational field, and if the resulting rise in kinetic energy would increase the frequency of cycles of the caesium atom, which of course would be incorrect, because this would register an increase in the rate of time and not the decrease in rate of time observed of an accelerated clock:

When two observers are in relative uniform motion and uninfluenced by any gravitational mass, the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the magnitude of time dilation. This case is sometimes called special relativistic time dilation.

if the resulting rise in kinetic energy would increase the frequency of cycles of the caesium atom

Quote if the resulting rise in kinetic energy would increase the frequency of cycles of the caesium atomThat's a big "if" and has no foundation. Once the clock is moving at a constant speed, it has no idea that it is moving except in relation to another clock, so there's no reason why its atoms should behave any differently from when it was "stationary".

Huh? ...If a ceasium atomic clock registers a faster or slower rate of time, then it's energy and frequency are changing...

And... why would a gravitational field affect a photon given relativistic mass in a contrary direction to how it affects any other particle?

The only difference between the 2 scenarios apart from the photon having no mass is the fact of its velocity

A caesium atomic clocks frequency increases in a decreasing gravitational field relative to a clock at ground level. No kinetic energy involved when the 2 clocks are held stationary relative to each other. ie: 1 meter apart in elevation for instance.

Any particle with mass held 1 meter higher in elevation from another identical particle will therefore have a higher frequency than the lower particle...no?

You say a particle's kinetic energy increases as it falls to earth: looking at a caesium atom, if it is falling towards earth and its kinetic energy increases, it's mass increases with the additional energy via e=mc2 and its frequency will 'increase' as a result. An increase in the frequency of cycles of a caesium atom 'is' an 'increase' in the rate of time.

That's because of time-dilation effects. First, time appears to move slower near massive objects because the object's gravitational force bends space-time....

Time is a measure of the rate of change of a system.

A good article, including QuoteThat's because of time-dilation effects. First, time appears to move slower near massive objects because the object's gravitational force bends space-time.... ....nothing about the atoms of the clock. Which is why the time dilation effect is exactly the same for all massless photons as it is for electron transitions in an atom, and for all clocks (including rubidium, which preceded cesium). Gravity affects time. And remember that the frequency of a cesium clock has nothing to do with the mass of, or gravitational pull on, its atoms. It's an entirely quantum-mechanical function of the electron orbitals. If the actual frequency was affected by gravity, the perceived frequency would presumably depend on the chemical makeup of the observer, but it doesn't.

This caesium atomic clock's transitions from ground state and back is the method by which we record time and each change in the rate of time comes complete with a specific frequency in hertz.

If the frequency of those cycles increases, the rate of time is faster, and if the frequency of those cycles decreases, the rate of time is slower.

So you are saying that the mechanism atoms of the clock are not affected by gravity, that the electron clouds are not affected by gravity, and the only thing that is affecting these mechanism of the atomic clock are the factor of what time is doing in the location of the clock?

Cesium atoms in fountain clocks actually experience time differently at the top of the 3-foot chamber than at the bottom.

If this natural frequency of the caesium atom increases for a faster rate of time in a weaker gravitational field, then again I ask you, why does the caesium atoms frequency and energy increase for a shorter wavelength in a decreasing gravitational field, when a photon's frequency and energy decreases for a longer wavelength in a weaker gravitational field?

How's about you chiralSPO? Or evan.au? Would you be willing to engage in a direct question?Does the natural resonating frequency of a caesium atom at ground level, this being 9,192,631,770 Hz, increase when the atomic clock is elevated in a weaker gravitational field, or does it decrease?

The 2010 NIST ground level relativity tests placed 2 identical caesium atomic clocks 1 meter apart in elevation. The clock at ground level is described as recording the duration of a standard second via the caesium atoms naturally resonating frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz.The clock at 1 meter elevation is described as increasing in its frequency of cycles and running at a faster rate of time relative to the clock at ground level.