An analysis of the de Broglie equation

  • 724 Replies
  • 24793 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #300 on: 08/07/2016 17:39:57 »
An education in physics is an absolute prerequisite. Including the required mathematics. Smolin could have said the next Nobel prize in physics will go to a goose. That doesn't mean it will happen. It may however make him a few extra quid on his book sales from the curious minded.

A prerequisite for what Jeff?

Are you saying that until I go to university and get a degree in physics and advanced mathematics that I cannot have a physics idea that leads to a cyclic universe?

If so then you are wrong....

The proof is in the fact that I already had the idea!

You know Jeff - can I ask you something? (other than for help with maths that you don't provide)

When the workings of the physical world are explained to you in words, or mathematics, can you make a moving visual picture of these mechanics and continue this picture over a period of time into the future or back into the past in your mind?

Because I can.  And I am also capable of changing the rules of the physics and visualising the physical geometrical results of these rule changes, and I'm starting to think that this is something that neither you or Alan are capable of.

I was 'taken' out of school at age 11 much to the disgust of my small Scottish town teachers, who'd had me pegged, even at that young age, as scholarship material.  I am completely untested and untried, so logically there is no reason what-so-ever that I should not be capable of inspired thought.  If I had continued my 'formal' education, I may well have gained possession of qualifications that might of far outclassed both yours and Alan's qualifications...  Who knows aye?

In the mean time I have clearly stated 'where' it is that I need help.

Is there actually any chance of getting the help I require here at this forum?  Or am I wasting my time?

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #301 on: 08/07/2016 17:52:22 »
A clock's atomic electron cloud energy transition is subject to gravity potential.  It's frequency is 'increased' when placed 'in the weaker' gravity field.  Light has a reduced frequency 'in the weaker' gravity field, no matter if it is redshifted away from a body of mass or blue-shifted towards a body of mass.

 You really need to sort this out in your head.

An observer stationed at the clock or travelling with the photon sees no change.

The frequency of a clock is increased as seen by an observer at a lower gravitational potential. Fact.

The frequency of a photon is increased as seen by an observer at a lower gravitational potential. Fact.

Same phenomenon, same explanation.

Please don't waste your life trying to model or explain something that manifestly doesn't happen. Enjoy the sunshine!

Yes Alan - I thought that I had made it quite clear in my previous posts that I am in full understanding of the equivalence principle!

If you look at a diagram depiction of light redshifted away from earth, and a diagram of light blue shifted towards earth, the light will always have a lower frequency in the weaker gravity field.  Fact?

If you look at a diagram depiction of the difference in time between clocks in the gravitational field, the clocks frequency of electron cloud energy transition will always be greater in the weaker gravity field.  Fact?

Stating that an idea is manifestly non-existent is not the scientific method.

An idea can be conceived, mathematically proved to be not viable, or viable.  If viable mathematically, it then needs to be proven experimentally for it to be manifestly existent.

To state my idea as manifestly non-existent one would have to prove that it is so by mathematically calculating it to be non-viable...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #302 on: 08/07/2016 23:47:20 »
lLet's cut out the extraneous and confusing words



If you look at a diagram depiction of light redshifted away from earth, and a diagram of light blue shifted towards earth, the light will always have a lower frequency in the weaker gravity field.  Fact?
As seen by an observer in the weaker field, yes.

Quote
If you look at a diagram depiction of the difference in time between clocks in the gravitational field, the clocks frequency of electron cloud energy transition will always be greater in the weaker gravity field.  Fact?
As seen by an observer in the stronger field, yes.

Same phenomenon, same result. 

Source (ANY source) in weaker field than the observer, observer sees a blue shift/higher frequency than his local source.

Source (ANY source) in stronger field than the observer, observer sees a red shift/lower frequency than his local source.

Whether the source is a clock, a Mossbauer photon, or the rate of reproduction of rabbits, since the experimental results are absolutely consistent with each other and with conventional GR theory, what are you trying to demonstrate?

And since the red shift equations are solvable on a pocket calculator, what mathematical problem do you have? You don't even need to understand the meaning of "square root" - just press the √ key!
« Last Edit: 08/07/2016 23:53:58 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #303 on: 09/07/2016 08:30:09 »
lLet's cut out the extraneous and confusing words



If you look at a diagram depiction of light redshifted away from earth, and a diagram of light blue shifted towards earth, the light will always have a lower frequency in the weaker gravity field.  Fact?
As seen by an observer in the weaker field, yes.

Quote
If you look at a diagram depiction of the difference in time between clocks in the gravitational field, the clocks frequency of electron cloud energy transition will always be greater in the weaker gravity field.  Fact?
As seen by an observer in the stronger field, yes.

Same phenomenon, same result. 

Source (ANY source) in weaker field than the observer, observer sees a blue shift/higher frequency than his local source.

Source (ANY source) in stronger field than the observer, observer sees a red shift/lower frequency than his local source.

Whether the source is a clock, a Mossbauer photon, or the rate of reproduction of rabbits, since the experimental results are absolutely consistent with each other and with conventional GR theory, what are you trying to demonstrate?

And since the red shift equations are solvable on a pocket calculator, what mathematical problem do you have? You don't even need to understand the meaning of "square root" - just press the √ key!

Now take the observer out of the picture Alan for even greater simplicity...  Both the light and the clock remain gravitationally shifted by the gravity field.

In a gravity field light has a lower frequency in the weaker field.

In a gravity field, a clock has a higher frequency in the weaker field.

What I am trying to demonstrate is that the possibility exists that the clock is not measuring what the phenomenon of time is doing in the elevated location of the weaker gravity field it is placed in, but is measuring what the phenomenon of time is doing for its own self when elevated at that location in the gravity field.  This notion is supported by the remit of the equivalence principle.  A person ages in keeping with the clock at their location.  Therefore all the atoms that make up the person are similarly affected, as the atom of the clock is, in the usual proportion to, and in keeping with the clock, by changes in the gravity field.

Now look at light as being unaffected by gravity potential, ie: no relativistic mass.  As it's frequency is gravitationally shifted by the gravity field, wave'length' is seen to be inversely proportional to frequency.  Consider that the length of wavelength remains constant, and that it is this proposed inverted time dilation that causes the extra length in wavelength.  Divide the extra or lesser length of wavelength that occurs due to the shifted frequency of light in a gravity field by the speed of light and you have a time value.

The lights frequency at ground level Earth being equal to 299 792 458 meters per 'standard second'.  The lights decreased frequency at 1 meter elevation from Earth then being the extra length of wavelength divided by the speed of light = fraction of nano second.  Add that fraction of a nano second to the nano seconds of a standard second for a longer length of second.

This 'being' an observation of the proposed inverted time dilation...  Inverted time dilation being a time phenomenon of mass in relation to open space.  Light, having no mass is not subject to gravity potential and therefore not subject to GR gravitational time dilation. (GR gravitational time dilation being a mass in relation to mass time phenomenon). 

This alternate means of retaining the speed of light in the gravity field is (I believe) mathematically proportional to both current theory and observation and gives causation for the acceleration of gravity.

You may not have a problem with maths.  I find them difficult, but only because I am not familiar with the rules.  I have made attempt to portray  the maths.  I appreciate that my method is unconventional (of course it's going to be, I've only been taught maths up to primary school level and the extent of long division, and have never previously had any use for the subject.  Algebra, what alien language is that?) ...but the given equation does (I believe) describe what I've set out to describe.

Now I say believe because the reality is that I, by myself, cannot confirm if I've managed to be mathematically precise or not.  Therefore I require someone who 'is' familiar with mathematics to complete and confirm.  This being my reason for posting on this forum asking for help.
 (If these maths are viable then it would be worthwhile to move on to stage 2 of the calculations for the proposed cyclic universe, this being a reassessment of Hubble's law and the Lorentz transformations.)

It is actually a sign of intelligence to understand where ones own self is lacking. 

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #304 on: 09/07/2016 09:48:32 »
Now take the observer out of the picture Alan for even greater simplicity
You can't. No observer = no observation.
Quote
...  Both the light and the clock remain gravitationally shifted by the gravity field.
shifted relative to what? As soon as you introduce a comparative, you are implying an observer. Indeed two observers. The answer is in the question: relativity.

Quote
In a gravity field light has a lower frequency in the weaker field.
This statement is meaningless, but if you add an observer in the weaker field, you will also see that it is exactly the same as

Quote
In a gravity field, a clock has a higher frequency in the weaker field.
as seen by an observer in the stronger field.

Here's what we see in the Pound-Rebka experiment and GPS satellite clocks


weak field                                    strong field           observation
(above ground)                             (ground level)

photon source   ---------------->   observer              blue shift compared with ground level detector   

clock           ------------------->   observer              faster compared with ground level clock


No difference. Same equations apply, and give the same answer. Therefore same phenomenon, hence not associated with the mass of the clock or the quantum phenomena that generate the photon or the clock pulse.




« Last Edit: 09/07/2016 10:21:51 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #305 on: 09/07/2016 10:21:48 »
Now take the observer out of the picture Alan for even greater simplicity
You can't. No observer = no observation.
Quote
...  Both the light and the clock remain gravitationally shifted by the gravity field.
shifted relative to what? As soon as you introduce a comparative, you are implying an observer. Indeed two observers. The answer is in the question: relativity.

Quote
In a gravity field light has a lower frequency in the weaker field.
This statement is meaningless, but if you add an observer in the weaker field, you will also see that it is exactly the same as

Quote
In a gravity field, a clock has a higher frequency in the weaker field.
as seen by an observer in the stronger field.

Here's what we see in the Pound-Rebka experiment and GPS satellite clocks


weak field                                    strong field           report
(above ground)                             (ground level)

photon source   ---------------->   observer              blue shift compared with ground level detector   

clock           ------------------->   observer              faster compared with ground level clock


No difference. Same equations apply, and give the same answer. Therefore same phenomenon, hence not associated with the mass of the clock or the quantum phenomena that generate the photon or the clock pulse.

K, I too understand how relativity is explaining the situation.

This is an alternative to relativity that leads to the mechanics of a cyclic universe.  It's a different model Alan.  Based on GR, and mathematically proportional to GR, but not the same as GR.

The NIST observer observed 2 clocks running at different rates simultaneously.  1 on the ground and 1 elevated at 1 meter.  If he had added a 3rd clock at 2 meters elevation, conceivably he could have observed 3 clocks running at different rates simultaneously.  Gravitational shift of both the clock and of light are NOT observer dependent...  When Einstein predicted that clocks would run faster at elevation he did so without the benefit of observation, just logic and proportional mathematics.

It is indeed entirely possible to state that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the clock, and that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the light are occurring as a direct result of the changes in the gravitational field, and are calculable as such.

GR does not give a full explanation of the Big Bang, Inflation period, or the future of the universe.  The theory collapses at the event horizon of a black hole, and relies on dark matter and dark energy to make the maths work.

My theory of inverted time, and the resulting consequence being a cyclic universe, does give a full explanation of the Big Bang, Inflation period, Big Crunch, black holes, and does so without introducing any unobserved phenomenon.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #306 on: 09/07/2016 10:32:25 »
When Einstein predicted that clocks would run faster at elevation
faster than what? The use of a comparative adjective always implies an observer.

But I'm pleased to see that you seem to be accepting that there is no phenomenological difference between clocks and photons.

Quote
It is indeed entirely possible to state that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the clock, and that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the light are occurring as a direct result of the changes in the gravitational field, and are calculable as such.
I think most of us have believed this since about 1920.

Quote
My theory of inverted time, and the resulting consequence being a cyclic universe, does give a full explanation of the Big Bang, Inflation period, Big Crunch, black holes, and does so without introducing any unobserved phenomenon.
So please let us have the theory in simple words. Never mind the maths or even physics. GR says "clocks at a higher gravitational potential appear (to an observer on the ground) to run faster than those on the ground, so gravity alters time". Can you put your theory into a similar sentence? 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #307 on: 09/07/2016 10:55:29 »
One point about energy. If we are elevated in a gravitational field we see redshift of light. This is a reduction of kinetic energy. If we see projectile launched and allowed to travel upwards unaided we see it gradually slow to a stop before falling back down. This too is a reduction in kinetic energy.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #308 on: 09/07/2016 11:34:49 »
When Einstein predicted that clocks would run faster at elevation
faster than what? The use of a comparative adjective always implies an observer.

But I'm pleased to see that you seem to be accepting that there is no phenomenological difference between clocks and photons.

Quote
It is indeed entirely possible to state that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the clock, and that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the light are occurring as a direct result of the changes in the gravitational field, and are calculable as such.
I think most of us have believed this since about 1920.

Quote
My theory of inverted time, and the resulting consequence being a cyclic universe, does give a full explanation of the Big Bang, Inflation period, Big Crunch, black holes, and does so without introducing any unobserved phenomenon.
So please let us have the theory in simple words. Never mind the maths or even physics. GR says "clocks at a higher gravitational potential appear (to an observer on the ground) to run faster than those on the ground, so gravity alters time". Can you put your theory into a similar sentence?

Faster or slower relative to a clock in a weaker or greater gravity field.

No there is no difference between the gravitational shift of the clock and the gravitational shift of light other than the observed changes in frequency occurring in opposing directions within the gravity field, and that light viewed as having no mass means that the possibility exists to exempt light from being subject to gravity potential.

If we have viewed gravitational shift as being a direct result of changes in the gravitational field since 1920, then all phenomenon of frequency changes can be considered not just as an 'appearance' from above or below, but as verbatim.  The fact that an observer considers his clock to be correct is clearly set out in the equivalence principle where all reference frames are equal in proportion to each other.

I have explained the mechanics of this proposed inverted time dilation and how it leads to a cyclic universe in many of my previous posts, but in short as to what applies in this threads context:

The premiss for this theory is based solely on the concept that a clock mechanism that has been chosen because it can operate at a frequency that keeps time perfectly as to the requirements of how we measure it, (ie: as per the rotations of our planet in relation to the sun), when placed at an elevated position in a gravity field is not measuring what the phenomenon of time is doing at the elevated location, but is measuring what the phenomenon of time is doing for its own self when elevated at that location.  This notion is supported by the remit of the equivalence principle and the fact that an observer with a clock ages in keeping with the clocks rate of time.

My theory states that the phenomenon of time is doing something different at the location of elevation, and that this phenomenon can be observed in the extra or lesser wave'length' of gravitationally shifted light, if viewing light without the concept of relativistic mass, and that this inverted time dilation is indeed the causation of the acceleration of gravity.  Meters per 'standard' second squared, being meters per 'variable' second squared.  This gives causation for all bodies of differing mass in free fall experiencing inertia and the fact of gravitational 'attraction' being a weak force.

In a simple sentence:

"The acceleration of gravity 'is' inverted time dilation, and this highly variable inverted time dilation causes 'stuff' to accelerate or decelerate in a gravity field."

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #309 on: 09/07/2016 11:49:48 »
No there is no difference between the gravitational shift of the clock and the gravitational shift of light other than the observed changes in frequency occurring in opposing directions within the gravity field,

NO NO NO NO for the umpteenth time! The changes are EXACTLY THE SAME,  as all your references have stated.

Whatever the source, its frequency appears to increase when observed from a lower gravitational potential.

If you start with an incorrect premise, you will end up in all sorts of trouble. Repeating an obvious and illogical  untruth is politics or religion, not physics, and I woldn't want to accuse you of being a politican or a priest.

Your confusion may arise from the fact that stronger local field = lower potential, but I explained that several months ago and it is in all your beloved textbooks.
« Last Edit: 09/07/2016 11:51:58 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #310 on: 09/07/2016 12:09:34 »
No there is no difference between the gravitational shift of the clock and the gravitational shift of light other than the observed changes in frequency occurring in opposing directions within the gravity field,

NO NO NO NO for the umpteenth time! The changes are EXACTLY THE SAME,  as all your references have stated.

Whatever the source, its frequency appears to increase when observed from a lower gravitational potential.

If you start with an incorrect premise, you will end up in all sorts of trouble. Repeating an obvious and illogical  untruth is politics or religion, not physics, and I woldn't want to accuse you of being a politican or a priest.

Your confusion may arise from the fact that stronger local field = lower potential, but I explained that several months ago and it is in all your beloved textbooks.

A clocks frequency as seen from the 'lower' gravity potential is ***increased***.

Lights frequency as seen from the 'lower' gravity potential is ***decreased***.

???

I'm not confused!

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #311 on: 09/07/2016 12:11:31 »
One point about energy. If we are elevated in a gravitational field we see redshift of light. This is a reduction of kinetic energy. If we see projectile launched and allowed to travel upwards unaided we see it gradually slow to a stop before falling back down. This too is a reduction in kinetic energy.

Ok - but if you put a previously stationary clock on that rocket and add the resulting kinetic energy to the clock, the clock will have a higher frequency than it would at same position of elevation if it were held stationary there.

This is in direct contradiction to observation.  A clock in motion relative to a stationary clock will experience a reduced frequency and a slowing of its time.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #312 on: 09/07/2016 12:24:27 »
Quote
A clocks frequency as seen from the 'lower' gravity potential is ***increased***.

Lights frequency as seen from the 'lower' gravity potential is ***decreased***.

NO  They are both increased, as everyone knows and observes.

Here's what we see in the Pound-Rebka experiment and GPS satellite clocks


weak field                                    strong field           observation
(above ground)                             (ground level)

photon source   ---------------->   observer              blue shift compared with ground level detector   

clock           ------------------->   observer              faster compared with ground level clock


No difference. Same equations apply, and give the same answer. Therefore same phenomenon, hence not associated with the mass of the clock or the quantum phenomena that generate the photon or the clock pulse.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #313 on: 09/07/2016 12:31:58 »
One point about energy. If we are elevated in a gravitational field we see redshift of light. This is a reduction of kinetic energy. If we see projectile launched and allowed to travel upwards unaided we see it gradually slow to a stop before falling back down. This too is a reduction in kinetic energy.

Ok - but if you put a previously stationary clock on that rocket and add the resulting kinetic energy to the clock, the clock will have a higher frequency than it would at same position of elevation if it were held stationary there.

This is in direct contradiction to observation.  A clock in motion relative to a stationary clock will experience a reduced frequency and a slowing of its time.

The object is a projectile allowed to travel without an external input of force. It is not a rocket. The only consideration necessary is the count of the clock when compared to the count of another clock at a different position in the gravitational well. The clocks at exactly the same potential will have the same count. Starting from this premise you then need to appreciate what happens at higher and lower potential when viewed from this clocks position. What is the difference in the 'tick rate' of other clocks. Forget considerations of frequency while podering this.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #314 on: 09/07/2016 12:34:23 »
Ok - but if you put a previously stationary clock on that rocket and add the resulting kinetic energy to the clock, the clock will have a higher frequency than it would at same position of elevation if it were held stationary there.

This is in direct contradiction to observation.  A clock in motion relative to a stationary clock will experience a reduced frequency and a slowing of its time.

Not sure how you can state "This is in direct contradiction to observation." when you are describing an observation!

Do not confuse relative velocity shift with relative gravitational potential shift. Everyone else knows the difference betwen stationary, moving and accelerating, and the meaning of gravitational field gradient. And the moving clock does not "experience" anything because the observer is moving with it. It's all about "relativity"!
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #315 on: 09/07/2016 21:29:10 »
Ok - but if you put a previously stationary clock on that rocket and add the resulting kinetic energy to the clock, the clock will have a higher frequency than it would at same position of elevation if it were held stationary there.

This is in direct contradiction to observation.  A clock in motion relative to a stationary clock will experience a reduced frequency and a slowing of its time.

Not sure how you can state "This is in direct contradiction to observation." when you are describing an observation!

Do not confuse relative velocity shift with relative gravitational potential shift. Everyone else knows the difference betwen stationary, moving and accelerating, and the meaning of gravitational field gradient. And the moving clock does not "experience" anything because the observer is moving with it. It's all about "relativity"!

Gosh Alan - please allow me to rephrase:

'In direct contradiction with experimental evidence.'

Not confused about clocks in relative motion...

My model makes an addition to the equivalence principle.  Yes - relativity... my model is based on it, your point being?
« Last Edit: 09/07/2016 21:41:09 by timey »

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #316 on: 09/07/2016 21:36:09 »
One point about energy. If we are elevated in a gravitational field we see redshift of light. This is a reduction of kinetic energy. If we see projectile launched and allowed to travel upwards unaided we see it gradually slow to a stop before falling back down. This too is a reduction in kinetic energy.

Ok - but if you put a previously stationary clock on that rocket and add the resulting kinetic energy to the clock, the clock will have a higher frequency than it would at same position of elevation if it were held stationary there.

This is in direct contradiction to observation.  A clock in motion relative to a stationary clock will experience a reduced frequency and a slowing of its time.

The object is a projectile allowed to travel without an external input of force. It is not a rocket. The only consideration necessary is the count of the clock when compared to the count of another clock at a different position in the gravitational well. The clocks at exactly the same potential will have the same count. Starting from this premise you then need to appreciate what happens at higher and lower potential when viewed from this clocks position. What is the difference in the 'tick rate' of other clocks. Forget considerations of frequency while podering this.
Jeff - I am in full understanding of what GR time dilation does in a gravitational field.  I have spent over 8 years pondering!

I am not disputing that clocks are subject to GR gravitational time dilation and GR gravitational time dilation, exactly as calculated as per GR, is part of the physics of my model of a cyclic universe.

It is light that I'm saying is subject to inverted time dilation and that lights reduction in frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential, or increase in frequency ss seen from the higher gravity. potential is inverted time dilation related.

This on the basis that light having no mass is not subject to the additional energy of gravity potential, and is only subject to this proposed inverted time dilation of the open space gravity field, and a reduction in frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential.

GR gravitational time dilation being on the basis that mass is subject to gravity potential, and the addition of gravity potential energy causes an increase in  the clocks frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential.

Frequency 'being' the ticking of the phenomenon of time, for both the proposed inverted time dilation and GR gravitational time dilation, and also the phenomenon of the motion related slowing of a clock relative to a stationary clock. (Subtract the KE for a reduction in frequency)
« Last Edit: 09/07/2016 21:48:28 by timey »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #317 on: 09/07/2016 22:56:52 »
  Yes - relativity... my model is based on it, your point being?

...that you keep inisisting that gravitational blue shift works in different senses for photons and clocks.

There is little point in trying to construct a physical model for something that is not true.   
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #318 on: 10/07/2016 00:50:16 »
  Yes - relativity... my model is based on it, your point being?

...that you keep inisisting that gravitational blue shift works in different senses for photons and clocks.

There is little point in trying to construct a physical model for something that is not true.   

Blue shifted light is light travelling towards a gravity field.  The frequency of the light increases the closer it gets to the body of mass.
Red shifted light is light travelling away from a gravity field.  The frequency of the light decreases the further away it gets from the body of mass.

Overlay these phenomenon against each other in a gravity field, at each point of coordinate in the gravity field, light of either type of shift 'should' have the same frequency at the same coordinate. (Relativity stretches space.  Inverted time dilation stretches time.)

The frequency of light is always lesser in the higher gravity potential no matter where the observer observes from, or which way the light is shifting.

A clock mapped to a gravity field shows that a clock runs at a faster rate as seen from the lower gravity potential.  Someone in the higher gravity potential would see this clock in the middle as running slower, but given that all 3 clocks were stationary relative to each other, the observer with the clock above, and the observer with the clock below, 'should' be able to agree in their observation of the middle clocks time.

The frequency of a clock is always higher in the higher gravity potential.

Note:
light = lower frequency in a higher gravity potential (as seen from lower gravity potential)
Note:
Clock = higher frequency in a higher gravity potential (as seen from the lower gravity potential)
Spot the difference?

I am insisting nothing!

Well nothing other than you, (or anyone else reading), consider the idea that I'm proposing and help me ascertain if the notion is mathematically proportional to GR and therefore viable, or (more likely) not.
« Last Edit: 10/07/2016 00:54:42 by timey »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #319 on: 10/07/2016 09:41:51 »
Quote
Note:
light = lower frequency ..........  as seen from lower gravity potential
Note:
Clock = higher frequency.............as seen from the lower gravity potential)
Spot the difference?

Here's the diference: the first statement is untrue. As you stated, correctly at the outset:

Quote
Blue shifted light is light travelling towards a gravity field.  The frequency of the light increases the closer it gets to the body of mass.
...so if you are standing on the surface of the earth (i.e. "as seen from lower gravity potential")  you see the blue shift of a photon originating at the top of the tower. And the clock at the top of the tower appears to be faster - for the same reason.


Always happy to consider a new idea, but not if it is derived from an obvious untruth.
« Last Edit: 10/07/2016 09:48:31 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #320 on: 10/07/2016 11:37:18 »
Quote
Note:
light = lower frequency ..........  as seen from lower gravity potential
Note:
Clock = higher frequency.............as seen from the lower gravity potential)
Spot the difference?

Here's the diference: the first statement is untrue. As you stated, correctly at the outset:

Quote
Blue shifted light is light travelling towards a gravity field.  The frequency of the light increases the closer it gets to the body of mass.
...so if you are standing on the surface of the earth (i.e. "as seen from lower gravity potential")  you see the blue shift of a photon originating at the top of the tower. And the clock at the top of the tower appears to be faster - for the same reason.


Always happy to consider a new idea, but not if it is derived from an obvious untruth.

I understand that as per GR there is a mathematical proportionality between the red shift blue shift phenomenon and the gravitational time shift of a clock.  Otherwise GR would not be mathematically viable.

However, as to the directional frequency changes observed of the red shift, blue shift phenomenon in relation to what happens for a clock,  the changes are occurring in the opposing directions in the gravity field.

I have said that: light = lower frequency as seen from a lower gravity potential.

I can't for the life of me see why you state this as incorrect...  Light in a weaker gravitational field will 'always' have a lower frequency than light in a stronger gravity field.

Take the PR for an example:
The PR is emitting light of the same energy and frequency from both top of tower and bottom of tower scenario's.
The photon emitted at top of tower blues shifts towards bottom of tower.  Its frequency is increased as it travels towards bottom of tower.
The photon emitted at bottom of tower redshifts towards top of tower.  Its frequency is decreased as it travels towards top of tower.

There is a mathematical proportionality between the magnitude of shift that the photon experiences whether red shifted or blue shifted.  One is the opposite of the other. (?)

Therefore I am certain that I am 100% correct when I state that light will always have a lower frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential.  (I can add) - relative to the frequency that same light would have if it were to travel further into the lower gravity potential. (for greater clarity)

A clocks frequency is always higher as seen from the lower gravity potential.  (I'll add) - in the case of both clocks being stationary relative to each other. (for greater clarity)

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #321 on: 10/07/2016 12:41:17 »


The photon emitted at top of tower blues shifts towards bottom of tower.  Its frequency is increased as it travels towards bottom of tower.......

..........Therefore I am certain that I am 100% correct when I state that light will always have a lower frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential. 

Come on, lass, these statements are exactly contradictory! The first one is correct.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #322 on: 10/07/2016 13:34:57 »


The photon emitted at top of tower blues shifts towards bottom of tower.  Its frequency is increased as it travels towards bottom of tower.......

..........Therefore I am certain that I am 100% correct when I state that light will always have a lower frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential. 

Come on, lass, these statements are exactly contradictory! The first one is correct.

Alan - I despair of you, really.

As light travels towards a gravitational field, (earth), it increases in frequency.  When the light reaches earth its frequency is higher than it was before it got there.

Lights frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential is always lower than it will be than when that same light reaches the lower gravity potential.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #323 on: 10/07/2016 14:35:52 »


As light travels towards a gravitational field, (earth), it increases in frequency.  When the light reaches earth its frequency is higher than it was before it got there.

Lights frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential is always lower than it will be than when that same light reaches the lower gravity potential.

How can you see it if it hasn't arrived?
« Last Edit: 10/07/2016 14:46:02 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #324 on: 10/07/2016 17:25:32 »


As light travels towards a gravitational field, (earth), it increases in frequency.  When the light reaches earth its frequency is higher than it was before it got there.

Lights frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential is always lower than it will be than when that same light reaches the lower gravity potential.

How can you see it if it hasn't arrived?

You point has logic, but only from the philosophical point of view.

And... a tree falling unobserved in a forest still falls.

A photon arriving at 1 metre elevation from a gravity field has a lower frequency than it did when it was emitted at ground level. (red shift)

A photon arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at 1 metre.
(blue shift)

Why is it of consequence that we view a photon emitted at 1 metre as being 1 frequency, if we know that it will be a higher frequency when it reaches the ground?  Surely we are able to run sequential events forward, or indeed backward in time and then say that light of both red shifted and blue shifted variety always has a lower frequency in the higher gravity potential.
(ie: light is always seen from the lower gravity potential to have a lower frequency than it would have when travelling further into the lower gravity potential.)
« Last Edit: 10/07/2016 17:28:21 by timey »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #325 on: 10/07/2016 17:33:51 »

A photon arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at 1 metre.
(blue shift)


and a GPS clock signal arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at orbital height.

Same phenomenon, same equation, no anomaly.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #326 on: 10/07/2016 18:11:36 »

A photon arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at 1 metre.
(blue shift)


and a GPS clock signal arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at orbital height.

Same phenomenon, same equation, no anomaly.
So - by the very logic you have just described - how can it be said that time runs at a faster rate in space, and a slower rate closer to a body of mass?

Are you saying it is because the frequency of the signal that is transporting the time reading of the clock in space to earth increases as it moves into the stronger gravity field, that we observe the time of the clock to be faster relative to a clock on the ground?

Or does the clock in space actually run at a faster rate? 

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #327 on: 10/07/2016 19:41:23 »
Quote
how can it be said that time runs at a faster rate in space, and a slower rate closer to a body of mass?

Everything depends on where you measure it, relative to where it originated.

Your clock is in space, mine is on the ground, so according to my clock, yours is running faster.

Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so according to my mossbauer receiver on the ground, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground. 

These are undeniable observations. Since neither depends on the mass of the source, we must conclude that gravitation is warping spacetime.

Quote
Are you saying it is because the frequency of the signal that is transporting the time reading of the clock in space to earth increases as it moves into the stronger gravity field, that we observe the time of the clock to be faster relative to a clock on the ground?
No, though it is true that the carrier signal also undergoes blue shift. If you set the space clock to emit a pulse - say a single photon - every second, the pulses will arrive at slightly less than 1 second intervals as measured by my clock. This is what is observed.   
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #328 on: 11/07/2016 00:06:16 »
Quote
how can it be said that time runs at a faster rate in space, and a slower rate closer to a body of mass?

Everything depends on where you measure it, relative to where it originated.

I realize that I haven't contributed to this thread much in the past but I've been watching the development of it from it's inception. Allow me to say just a couple things and then I will butt out.

1. Alan has defined the crux of this argument in my opinion.

The facts are that in my frame of reference, the second passes at a predictable rate and no matter what frame one finds themselves in, their seconds also pass at a predictable and consistent rate. Forget how someone from another frame, whether in a different gravitational environment or in a different state of acceleration might view the passage of time in ours. Their personal experience is also a predictable and consistent second and is measured the same as anyone within a different frame. The only variations in the perceived passage of time occur when viewing another frame from the standpoint of your own.

If there were another variable involved, as timey suggests, it would be reasonable to assume that it should be detectable within someone's personal frame of reference and because none has been observed, we can assume that this variable doesn't therefore exist.

We establish the second by using the speed of light in a vacuum and the permittivity of free space. And the character of free space determines the speed of light which is everywhere the same when measured in a true vacuum. So I fail to understand how a reckoning for a variable second is possible when every local frame observes the speed of light to be exactly the same. The only variation we observe occurs when viewing frames other than our own. And to add another variable to the equation would certainly show up somewhere sometime. And because we can accurately predict those differences between ours and the others, it would suggest no additional variable is at work or necessary.

So forgive me for disagreeing timey, while your idea is provocative, I'm afraid it is without merit.

I will butt out for now but I will continue to follow this thread..........Hopefully, we shall all learn something worthwhile as it develops.
 

 
« Last Edit: 11/07/2016 22:57:43 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #329 on: 11/07/2016 15:00:52 »
Quote
how can it be said that time runs at a faster rate in space, and a slower rate closer to a body of mass?

Everything depends on where you measure it, relative to where it originated.

Your clock is in space, mine is on the ground, so according to my clock, yours is running faster.

Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so according to my mossbauer receiver on the ground, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground. 

These are undeniable observations. Since neither depends on the mass of the source, we must conclude that gravitation is warping spacetime.

Quote
Are you saying it is because the frequency of the signal that is transporting the time reading of the clock in space to earth increases as it moves into the stronger gravity field, that we observe the time of the clock to be faster relative to a clock on the ground?
No, though it is true that the carrier signal also undergoes blue shift. If you set the space clock to emit a pulse - say a single photon - every second, the pulses will arrive at slightly less than 1 second intervals as measured by my clock. This is what is observed.
You said:
"Your clock is in space, mine is on the ground, so according to my clock, yours is running faster.
Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so according to my mossbauer receiver on the ground, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."
Unquote:

I agree, but continue the scenario:
...and these higher energy photons gain even higher energy as they shift towards the bottom of tower ...
...and a clocks frequency (energy is proportional to frequency) will be observed as decreased if placed at bottom of tower relative to clocks frequency at top of tower.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #330 on: 11/07/2016 22:51:21 »
Exactly. Blue shift depends on the difference in gravitational potential between the source and the observer. 

If you move the source closer to the detector, the blue shift is less.

Please note and understand every word.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #331 on: 11/07/2016 23:52:41 »
Exactly. Blue shift depends on the difference in gravitational potential between the source and the observer. 

If you move the source closer to the detector, the blue shift is less.

Please note and understand every word.

Yes - and if you move the source to ground level there will be no blue shift at all.

I'll try again.

You said:
"Your clock is in space, mine is on the ground, so according to my clock, yours is running faster.
Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so according to my mossbauer receiver on the ground, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."
Unquote:

...and those higher energy photons gain energy as they travel to bottom of tower.

I have two Fe57 sources at top of tower.  Leaving one at top of tower with my assistant, I bring the other down to the bottom of tower and you and I observe that the Fe57 source that we are observing is emitting photons of a lower energy and frequency than the Fe57 source at top of tower.  We are also recording the time of both locations with cesium atomic clocks.  I also have two atomic clocks.

The Fe57 source has emitted a higher energy photon at top of tower than it would at bottom of tower.
The photon has increased in energy and frequency between top of tower and bottom of tower.
The Fe57 source that I moved from top of tower to bottom of tower has decreased in energy and frequency and now emits photons of a lower energy than it did at top of tower.
The atomic clocks at top of tower had an increased frequency relative to your clock at bottom of tower.  You observed that my clocks were running faster than yours.  I observed your clock was running slower than mine.
I also brought one of my clocks with me down to bottom of tower, and my assistant observes that both clocks at bottom of tower are running at a slower rate relative to the top of tower clock.
The cesium atoms energy transitions are lower in frequency and energy at the bottom of the tower than they are at the top of the tower.
The Fe57 photon emissions occur at a lower frequency and energy at bottom of tower than they do at top of tower.
Photons emitted by a Fe57 source at top of tower 'increase' in energy and frequency as they travel from top of tower to bottom of tower.

The changes in energy and frequency for a photon occur in the opposing direction in a gravity field than occurs for a Fe57, or a cesium atom.
« Last Edit: 11/07/2016 23:59:26 by timey »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #332 on: 12/07/2016 08:40:14 »


The Fe57 source has emitted a higher energy photon at top of tower than it would at bottom of tower.


No. The photon emission process and energy is exactly the same. The perceived blue shift is due to the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer.   

Quote
The cesium atoms energy transitions are lower in frequency and energy at the bottom of the tower than they are at the top of the tower.

No. The hyperfine transition process is exactly the same . The change in perceived clock rate is due to the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer.   

Both the photon blue shift and the perceived clock rate anomaly are, as you say, in the same direction. The received photon is at a higher frequency than one generated locally, and the recevied clock rate is at a higher frequency than one generated locally.

As you keep quoting the same experimental results, why do you keep insisting that they are different? Goebbels was not a physicist!
« Last Edit: 12/07/2016 08:46:27 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #333 on: 12/07/2016 09:22:00 »


The Fe57 source has emitted a higher energy photon at top of tower than it would at bottom of tower.


No. The photon emission process and energy is exactly the same. The perceived blue shift is due to the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer.   

Quote
The cesium atoms energy transitions are lower in frequency and energy at the bottom of the tower than they are at the top of the tower.

No. The hyperfine transition process is exactly the same . The change in perceived clock rate is due to the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer.   

Both the photon blue shift and the perceived clock rate anomaly are, as you say, in the same direction. The received photon is at a higher frequency than one generated locally, and the recevied clock rate is at a higher frequency than one generated locally.

As you keep quoting the same experimental results, why do you keep insisting that they are different? Goebbels was not a physicist!

You said:

Quote:
"Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so according to my mossbauer receiver on the ground, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."
Unquote:

If the Fe57 source was not experiencing a higher energy itself at top of tower, it could not produce a higher energy photon.

Yes that photon is perceived at top of tower from bottom of tower to have an increased frequency and energy.  When that photon arrives at bottom of tower it has an even greater frequency and energy.

But if you take the Fe57 source that emitted that photon down to the bottom of tower, it produces photons of lesser energy and frequency, and therefore has to have less energy and frequency itself at the bottom of the tower.

The photons have increased in energy and frequency from top of tower position to bottom of tower position.

The Fe57 source has decreased in energy and frequency from top of tower position to bottom of tower position.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #334 on: 12/07/2016 10:06:16 »
Quote
"Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so ACCORDING TO MY MOSSBAUER RECEIVER ON THE GROUND, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."

Every word matters!

If my receiver was at the top of the tower, it wouldn't see a blue shift. The emitted energy is exactly the same everywhere - because there's no reason for it to change. The received energy depends on the gravitational potential difference between emitter and receiver.

Whjat is the difference between a coconut on the ground (harmless) and one falling from a tree (lethal)? Kinetic energy due to the change in gravitational potential.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #335 on: 12/07/2016 10:58:30 »
Quote
"Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so ACCORDING TO MY MOSSBAUER RECEIVER ON THE GROUND, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."

Every word matters!

If my receiver was at the top of the tower, it wouldn't see a blue shift. The emitted energy is exactly the same everywhere - because there's no reason for it to change. The received energy depends on the gravitational potential difference between emitter and receiver.

Whjat is the difference between a coconut on the ground (harmless) and one falling from a tree (lethal)? Kinetic energy due to the change in gravitational potential.
Yes - of course.

Place the mossbauer receiver and the Fe57 source in a uniform gravity field at bottom of tower.  (horizontal experiment) The receiver receives the emitted photon.

Place the Fe57 source at top of tower, (vertical experiment), the mossbauer receiver cannot receive the photon.
The energy of the photon is too great.

Place the mossbauer receiver at top of tower with the Fe57 source in the uniform gravity field, (horizontal experiment), the mossbauer receiver receives the photon.
The energy of the mausbuar receiver has to have also increased at the top of tower position.

Both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver have increased in energy and frequency at top of tower relative to being placed at bottom of tower.

The photon emitted at top of tower has increased in energy and frequency at bottom of tower relative to when it was emitted at top of tower.

The difference between a photon, and a mossbauer receiver and Fe57 source, is that both the mossbauer receiver and the Fe57 sour e have rest mass and the photon doesn't.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #336 on: 12/07/2016 11:13:19 »
As you insist on making everything more complicated that it needs to be, have it your own way, and don't blame me if the world doesn't make sense.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #337 on: 12/07/2016 11:25:08 »
As you insist on making everything more complicated that it needs to be, have it your own way, and don't blame me if the world doesn't make sense.

Actually Alan - my model is simplicity itself in comparison to GR.

What I'm explaining is not difficult.  I understand that it is unfamiliar to you, but what I am saying has to be true because of quantum physics...

An energy transition must be of the correct value for a photon to be received.

(edit: ...and my model makes a lot more sense than GR because it gives cause for Big Bang, inflation period, Big crunch and describes a cyclic universe without any unobserved additions.  GR cannot do this.  GR can only partially explain our universe and relies heavily on unobserved additions to make the maths work.)
« Last Edit: 12/07/2016 12:04:36 by timey »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #338 on: 12/07/2016 12:43:59 »
Quote
what I am saying has to be true because of quantum physics...
I think you will find that quantum physics actually derives from the fact that what you are saying is not true. But life is too short to go through all this again.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #339 on: 12/07/2016 15:49:06 »
Quote
"Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so ACCORDING TO MY MOSSBAUER RECEIVER ON THE GROUND, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."



Place the mossbauer receiver at top of tower with the Fe57 source in the uniform gravity field, (horizontal experiment), the mossbauer receiver receives the photon.
The energy of the mausbuar receiver has to have also increased at the top of tower position.

Both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver have increased in energy and frequency at top of tower relative to being placed at bottom of tower.

The photon emitted at top of tower has increased in energy and frequency at bottom of tower relative to when it was emitted at top of tower.

The difference between a photon, and a mossbauer receiver and Fe57 source, is that both the mossbauer receiver and the Fe57 sour e have rest mass and the photon doesn't.
The discussion of relative position is always a struggle to grasp. The transmitter is composed of physical things such as crystals. The crystal oscillates at different frequencies depending upon the gravitational field.  If you put it in water, as the pressure increases the crystal will oscillate slower. The transmitter higher up from the bottom of the water will have a higher frequency. thus for the transmitter in the tower it will have a higher frequency due to a lower gravitational pressure. It is also moving faster as the Earth orbits as compared to the ground. This will tend to slow the clock.
   So we get a faster speed due to less gravitational pressure and a slower speed due to the faster motion of the clock. You guys agree that measurements have shown the net result is the tower clock is faster with a higher energy level. You can attribute this to variations in space and time or just simple variations in the gravitational field.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #340 on: 12/07/2016 15:53:09 »
The crystal oscillates at different frequencies depending upon the gravitational field.

Fortunately, this is not true. But I no longer care.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #341 on: 12/07/2016 16:43:41 »
Quote
what I am saying has to be true because of quantum physics...
I think you will find that quantum physics actually derives from the fact that what you are saying is not true. But life is too short to go through all this again.

Well Alan - I suppose I shall console myself in being happy that you do at least recognise that I have arrived at the point where quantum and gravity do not unify!

Gravity is linear and quantum is not.  Its the reason they cannot be unified.

But my theory of inverted time is based on the phenomenon of time being energy related.

Gravity sucks because the inverted time dilation phenomenon, that I am proposing is inherent to 'space' in relation to mass, (on a cosmic, macroscopic, and microscopic level), gets increased in its rate with the increasing energy of an increasing gravity field.

And quantum can be linearised because as with the acceleration of gravity being measured in metres per standard second, Planks h constant is a joules per standard second measurement.  (Joules per standard second, being the constant, applied over longer or shorter length second)

The frequency shift of light is the common ground between these 2 phenomenon.

Under the circumstance of quantum remaining so far, and after all this time, unreconciled with gravity, I hardly think it a waste of time to consider an alternative to the current physics if the idea is logically sound, even if the idea turns out under inspection to be mathematically unviable.

My idea is logically sound, and 'is' mathematically proportional to GR as far as I can see.

It surprises me Alan that you are not more pleased to be engaged in an intellectual challenge as such.  Calculating an idea that has never been thought of before has got to be more interesting than the same old run of mill all the time, surely?
« Last Edit: 12/07/2016 16:50:35 by timey »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #342 on: 12/07/2016 23:52:10 »
Always delighted to join in an intellectual pursuit of something worthwhile, but not if it starts from several obviously incorrect premises.

Red/blue shift is a continuum phenomenon. It has nothing in common with quantum mechanics. Nor the mass of the source.

The fact that gravitation does not appear to be mediated by a quantised carrier is interesting, but has nothing to do with units of measurement. What is more interesting is the unipolar nature of gravitation, and the experimental determination of the speed of gravity.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #343 on: 13/07/2016 14:50:04 »
Always delighted to join in an intellectual pursuit of something worthwhile, but not if it starts from several obviously incorrect premises.

Red/blue shift is a continuum phenomenon. It has nothing in common with quantum mechanics. Nor the mass of the source.

The fact that gravitation does not appear to be mediated by a quantised carrier is interesting, but has nothing to do with units of measurement. What is more interesting is the unipolar nature of gravitation, and the experimental determination of the speed of gravity.
You said:
'Red/blue shift is a continuum phenomenon. It has nothing in common with quantum mechanics. Nor the mass of the source."
Unquote:

These phenomenon exist in our 1 universe and cannot logically be isolated from each other.  The energy transition of an Fe57 source emitting a photon and the mossbauer receiving a photon are quantum process.  The vertical experiment (PR) is inclusive of red shift, blue shift phenomenon, and the shift of frequency in light is a quantum process.

I am only setting out on incorrect premise if you state the premise being replaced as absolute.  No physicist anywhere should state GR as the absolute theory.  It clearly isn't!  However any theory that supersedes GR does need to be mathematically proportional to GR or it will not be viable.  To deem something as unworthy one first has to understand it.

So far I cannot seem to persuade you to consider that I am proposing that it is GR gravitational time dilation that is the time phenomenon measuring the length of a standard second - as we humans have defined the measurement of such via the rotations our planet in relation to the sun - in that the frequency of a cesium atom's frequency of energy transition at ground level, earth, exactly matches 1 full rotation of the planet divided into the units of the second that we measure the 'passage' of time by.

...And that it is light that will display behaviour during the 'passage' of time, due to the inverted time dilation phenomenon if viewed without relativistic mass.

Note - the 'passage' of time is sequential events of past, present, future, and the phenomenon of time is gravitational time dilation of both types, (and motion related time dilation).
All sequential events occur 'in' inverted time.

 To understand this, it is required that you recognise that mass will experience time in relation to the main body of mass (earth), and that mass in elevation to mass, its energy and frequency increases.  This being GR gravitational time dilation.

And that emitted lights frequency is always reduced in elevation from earth, no matter its direction of travel into or away from a gravity field.  You don't need to bring relativity into it, just 2 graphs.  One showing the decreased energy changes of blue shifted, or red shifted light in the gravity field of 'space' receding away from earth, and the other showing the increase in energy experienced by the cesium atomic clock in the gravity field of 'space' receding away from earth.

The increase in energy and frequency for light increases the closer it gets to the body of mass.
The increase in energy and frequency for anything with rest mass increases the further away it is placed from the body of mass.

I think I am correct in stating these 2 phenomenon as proven by experiment, although I appreciate that nobody has been viewing the results in the way that I am proposing.

Yes the speed of gravitational acceleration is well documented, and is a measurement recorded via a GR time dilated clock in free fall
as per metres per standard second.  The clock is not travelling at relativistic speeds, so motion related time dilation is not relevant, and the changes it experiences due to the slowing of its time as it moves into the lower gravity potential, within the remit of the experiment, are negligible.  The clock has measured metres per standard second.

To calculate inverted time dilation... via the speed, distance, time formula, turn the acceleration of gravity, this being a speed, into a time value, (time value (a)), and add, (or subtract if calculating a value of g that is above 9.807m|s2), this value of time to, (or from), the length of a standard second. (as per maths earlier this thread)

Turn the extra or lesser length of wavelength of gravitationally  shifted light into a time value (time value (b)), by dividing the extra or lesser length by speed of light.

The relevant time values of (a) 'should' match the gravitationally shifted time values of (b).

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #344 on: 14/07/2016 23:16:58 »
Quote
To deem something as unworthy one first has to understand it.
  It certainly helps.

Quote
the shift of frequency in light is a quantum process.
it is not.


Quote
in that the frequency of a cesium atom's frequency of energy transition at ground level, earth, exactly matches 1 full rotation of the planet divided into the units of the second that we measure the 'passage' of time by.
It doesn't. Never a good idea to base physics on an untruth.

Quote
And that emitted lights frequency is always reduced in elevation from earth, no matter its direction of travel into or away from a gravity field.
Insofar as this sentence means anything, it is untrue.

Quote
decreased energy changes of blue shifted
oxymoron

Most of the rest is beneath contempt. Merely arranging scientific terms into a sentenmce does not constitute science, logic, or even a fun way to spend time.

I suggest you start with experimental facts and work from there.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #345 on: 15/07/2016 00:58:21 »
Quote
To deem something as unworthy one first has to understand it.
  It certainly helps.

Quote
the shift of frequency in light is a quantum process.
it is not.


Quote
in that the frequency of a cesium atom's frequency of energy transition at ground level, earth, exactly matches 1 full rotation of the planet divided into the units of the second that we measure the 'passage' of time by.
It doesn't. Never a good idea to base physics on an untruth.

Quote
And that emitted lights frequency is always reduced in elevation from earth, no matter its direction of travel into or away from a gravity field.
Insofar as this sentence means anything, it is untrue.

Quote
decreased energy changes of blue shifted
oxymoron

Most of the rest is beneath contempt. Merely arranging scientific terms into a sentenmce does not constitute science, logic, or even a fun way to spend time.

I suggest you start with experimental facts and work from there.
If you draw a graph of blue shifted light blue shifted towards earth, and then you look back at the path it has taken, the frequency the light was at each position of increased elevation from earth will be lesser.  Both red shifted and blue shifted light are lesser  in frequency in the weaker gravity field.

There are 86400 standard seconds in a full rotation of our planet and the cesium atomic clock is the most precise measurement of a standard second to date.  What's the problem?

Wavelength and energy changes involved in the frequency changes for light are related to Planck's h constant.

Exactly what is beneath contempt please?

A model of a cyclic universe that has been slowly contracting from initial point of inflation is, of course, going to have 'different' physics.  As long as these alterations are proportional to that which they replace, the model should be viable.

I don't see where your problem is and you are not being particularly specific.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #346 on: 15/07/2016 07:51:40 »
There is no cure for wilful ignorance and arrogant disregard of facts. You clearly have a glittering career ahead of you in the Health and Safety Executive, Care Quality Commission, or European Union, but not physics. I give up.

In case anyone else is reading this, h is just a number: it doesn't magically confer quantum properties on a continuum.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #347 on: 15/07/2016 13:58:40 »
There is no cure for wilful ignorance and arrogant disregard of facts. You clearly have a glittering career ahead of you in the Health and Safety Executive, Care Quality Commission, or European Union, but not physics. I give up.

In case anyone else is reading this, h is just a number: it doesn't magically confer quantum properties on a continuum.

If I asked you about dark energy, you would say, yes Vikki.  Dark energy exists because something has to be pushing the universe apart at the accelerating speed.  If I asked what dark energy is, you would have to tell me that you haven't got a clue...
 
If I asked you about dark matter, you would say yes Vikki, dark matter has to exist to account for all the gravity it would require to stop galaxies from flying apart.  If I asked where all this dark matter is, you would have to tell me that you haven't got a clue...

If I asked you about the Big Bang, you would tell me that the Big Bang occurred and that all of our universe originated from a point.  If I asked how that happened, you would have to say that you haven't got a clue.

If I asked you about the Inflation Period, you would tell me that just after the Big Bang everything became exponentially expanded before the expansion rate slowed, only to start speeding up again as per discovery of accelerated expansion.  If I asked you what caused inflation to happen, you would have to say that you don't have a clue.

These would be legitimate current physics conversations that presumably you would be quite content to discuss with me.

Yet - if I suggest that I want to attribute the velocity of Doppler shift of gravitationally shifted  light - that is currently attributed to the 'speed' that a light source is accelerating away from us at - to a proposed phenomenon of inverted time dilation.
(challenging Hubble's law, and the concept of universal expansion, negating the necessity for dark energy and leading to a cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle, and inflation period, fully accounted for by the black hole phenomenon).

...Or suggest that the acceleration of gravity can be attributed to this proposed inverted time dilation.
(giving the 'suck' of gravity a cause that negates the need for dark matter)

...Or that because for light E=hf, or E=hc|wavelength, suggest that changes in the wave'length' might be inverted time dilation related.
(giving cause for the curvature, or the stretching of space fabric into longer distances, because it is time (length of second) in 'space' that is being stretched, not the geometrical distance, and it is the changes in the length of a second in the gravity field that causes the curvature)

...Or suggest that calculating inclusive of inverted time dilation could make a continuum of quantum.
(already being calculated via perturbation theory which is a time related method)

...you are considering that 'my' notions are beneath contempt?

You said:
Quote:
" There is no cure for wilful ignorance and arrogant disregard of facts."
Unquote:

I really couldn't agree more.

(P.S.  I do not see any cause for the hostile undertones Alan.  What I'm suggesting is logically sound)

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #348 on: 15/07/2016 23:19:40 »
If you repeatedly tell me that gravitation has a different effect on photons from clocks, in spite of the experimental evidence; or introduce pseudoscientific drivel like "the velocity of Doppler shift of gravitationally shifted  light" then I really can't help you, because I only understand physics. However sound your logic, if it is based on untruth and mystic concepts, it won't lead you anywhere useful.
« Last Edit: 15/07/2016 23:21:45 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #349 on: 16/07/2016 00:42:43 »
If you repeatedly tell me that gravitation has a different effect on photons from clocks, in spite of the experimental evidence; or introduce pseudoscientific drivel like "the velocity of Doppler shift of gravitationally shifted  light" then I really can't help you, because I only understand physics. However sound your logic, if it is based on untruth and mystic concepts, it won't lead you anywhere useful.

In that there is a Doppler shift associated with gravitationally shifted light, it would be reasonable to assume I am referring to it.  I might say that your reference to pseudo science, untruths and mysticism is drivel, but Jeff did mention about civility.  In all fairness I might point out that his comment also applies to yourself despite your moderator status.

No - I am not saying that light and a clock are differently affected by gravity.  I am saying that without the relativistic mass concept, light can be viewed as being unaffected by gravity potential energy.

A clock has a higher frequency when placed in the weaker gravity field.

Light that has already been emitted of both red shifted and blue shifted variety has a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field.  I understand this is where you have the problem, so...

Light source is at 1 metre.  Point light source at ground, the light when it reaches ground is of higher frequency.
Light source is on ground.  Point light source away from earth, the light when it reaches 1 metre elevation is of lower frequency.

Perhaps your confusion arises in that the light source emitter emits a photon of a higher frequency at 1 metre elevation than it does on the ground.  I'm not disputing this fact.  I'm merely pointing out that when that already emitted higher frequency photon reaches the ground it will be of an even higher frequency.

Therefore emitted light is always of a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field.

Can we recognise and move past this fact of 'accepted' physics now please?
« Last Edit: 16/07/2016 00:49:55 by timey »