An analysis of the de Broglie equation

  • 724 Replies
  • 24674 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #350 on: 17/07/2016 08:45:48 »

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.
You should, because it isn't true.

Consider the P-R experiment. Put the source at the top of the tower, and fix 22 receptors at 1 m intervals up the tower. They will measure 22 different values of blue shift. Is the source emitting 22 different frequencies? I think not, because it doesn't "know" where the detectors are. The logical explanation is that the difference between emitted and observed frequency depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer.

Quote
Can we recognise and move past this fact of 'accepted' physics now please?
It's important to accept the facts, whatever you think of the explanation.
« Last Edit: 17/07/2016 09:29:59 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #351 on: 17/07/2016 14:15:28 »

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.
You should, because it isn't true.

Consider the P-R experiment. Put the source at the top of the tower, and fix 22 receptors at 1 m intervals up the tower. They will measure 22 different values of blue shift. Is the source emitting 22 different frequencies? I think not, because it doesn't "know" where the detectors are. The logical explanation is that the difference between emitted and observed frequency depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer.

Quote
Can we recognise and move past this fact of 'accepted' physics now please?
It's important to accept the facts, whatever you think of the explanation.

If you place clocks in elevation at metre intervals for 22 metres, each clock as you go upwards will have a higher frequency than the clock below.

The mechanism of the cesium atomic clock is such, that if the microwave part of the mechanism is too finely attuned, the cesium atom experiences shift before it has completed its cycle of movement within the remit of the clocks own internal height of 3 feet.  In other words they are capable of recording shift in frequency of the cesium atoms energy transition between elevations of a lesser distance than the physical dimensions of the clock itself allow for.

The clocks working mechanism is entirely comprised of light related phenomenon.  The frequency of the microwave beam has to be of the exact correct energy for the cesium atom to emit a photon...

Yes by all means, if you attribute light with mass then you may say that...
quote: "the logical explanation is that the difference between emitted and observed frequency depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer." unqoute...
...but then please explain to me why anything with rest mass in elevation to earth experiences an increase in frequency, (ie: equivalence principle), when 'already emitted light' is always of lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field?

Or alternatively, just as an exercise in intellectual dexterity, why not consider already emitted light as having no mass, and that this already emitted light is only subject to the acceleration or deceleration of this proposed inverted time dilation of the gravitational field?  (ie: mass value has no bearing in inertia)

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #352 on: 17/07/2016 23:19:20 »
If you have one clock in orbit (or indeed on the ground) and a dozen receivers at different heights, they all see the clock as running at different speeds. Is it really? How does it know what speed to run at if it doesn't know where the receivers are?

The hyperfine transition of the cesium atom is unaffected by gravitation: it's a spin-spin interaction. But who cares about physics, eh? 

Quote
.but then please explain to me why anything with rest mass in elevation to earth experiences an increase in frequency, (ie: equivalence principle), when 'already emitted light' is always of lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field?
if this sentence means anything, it is experimentally untrue.

I see little point in your continually repeating obvious nonsense, or my responding to it.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #353 on: 18/07/2016 01:56:58 »
If you have one clock in orbit (or indeed on the ground) and a dozen receivers at different heights, they all see the clock as running at different speeds. Is it really? How does it know what speed to run at if it doesn't know where the receivers are?

The hyperfine transition of the cesium atom is unaffected by gravitation: it's a spin-spin interaction. But who cares about physics, eh? 

Quote
.but then please explain to me why anything with rest mass in elevation to earth experiences an increase in frequency, (ie: equivalence principle), when 'already emitted light' is always of lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field?
if this sentence means anything, it is experimentally untrue.

I see little point in your continually repeating obvious nonsense, or my responding to it.

I'm not sure where to start with your post.  The logic is clearly absurd.

Quote:
" If you have one clock in orbit (or indeed on the ground) and a dozen receivers at different heights, they all see the clock as running at different speeds."
Unquote:

Are you saying a receiver or an observer?  Place observers at different heights that are stationary in relation to a clock on the ground, they will all agree that the clock on the ground is running at the same rate.  If each observer compares the rate of the clock on the ground with their own clock, they will all say the clock on the ground's rate of time is running slower.  If they all check their clock against every other clock, they will soon sort out that each clock is running faster than the clock below it.

If you are talking about a receiver, as in mossbauer receiver, then each receiver placed at a different elevation is gravitationally shifted.  None of the receivers will receive the photon emitted by the Fe57 source on the ground.  Only when a Doppler shift is added to the light source emitter, will the mossbauer receiver receive the photon.  I daresay there would be differences in the magnitude of Doppler shift added to the Fe57 source on the ground in order for the emitted photon to be received by the mossbauer receivers placed at different elevations.

Quote:
Is it really? How does it know what speed to run at if it doesn't know where the receivers are?
Unquote:

This is incomprehensible as per accepted physics and to say so, thoroughly disappointing.  The clock on the ground doesn't run at different rates.  The Fe57 source on the ground doesn't emit photons of different energies.

Quote:
The hyperfine transition of the cesium atom is unaffected by gravitation: it's a spin-spin interaction.
Unquote:

The hyperfine transition of the cesium atom is gravitationally shifted! The transition is increased in frequency when subject to a higher gravity potential energy.  Therefore it is affected by gravitation.  So...I am completely lost by your reasoning there.
Spin spin interaction?  Yes indeed - quantum gravity being the goal.

The sentence you complain of means something because the energy of a cesium atom and an Fe57 are increased in the higher gravity potential and the equivalence principle states that all reference frames are equal to each other.  Therefore all atoms will experience an increase in energy in the higher gravity potential.
But already emitted light does not.  It always has a decreased energy in the higher gravity potential, relative to the energy it had (red shift) or is going to have (blue shift) as it travels through changes in the gravity field.

Quote:
"But who cares about physics, eh?"
Unquote:

Enough to do my research 'before' opening my mouth!

There is indeed little point in your responding if you can't even manage to comprehend these simple and accepted facts of "mainstream" physics that are "proven" by experiment.  It would seem you are under the impression that clocks running at faster or slower rates, and the observations of gravitationally shifted light are but an appearance and not actual physical phenomenon.

NIST have proven that clocks do run at a faster rate in the higher gravity potential.

As per the equivalence principle an observer with the clock will age in keeping with the clock.

...and the red shift and blue shift of already emitted light in the gravity field are documented as redshifts decreasing in frequency traveling into the higher gravity potential, and blue shifts increasing in frequency traveling into the lower gravity potential.

'This' post has NOT deviated from currently held accepted mainstream physics.

Honestly Alan, either explain to me specifically exactly where and why 'this' post 'has' deviated from accepted mainstream physics and experimental evidence, or post me an apology because you are wrong.  I'm all out of patience with the non specific nature of your complaints and you are seriously losing my respect!

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #354 on: 18/07/2016 08:19:35 »
Forget clocks, forget mossbauer photons. Simply imagine one source which emits a signal with a constant frequency. Now place receivers at various gravitational potentials with respect to the source. They all receive signals of different frequencies. So the frequency shift is nothing to do with the mechanism of the source.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #355 on: 18/07/2016 08:32:07 »
Also say you had a source at elevation and a detector that was moving from the ground towards the source. If the detector stopped at set intervals and measured the frequency it would be found to be converging with the source frequency. It isn't the source frequency changing.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #356 on: 18/07/2016 12:57:38 »
Forget clocks, forget mossbauer photons. Simply imagine one source which emits a signal with a constant frequency. Now place receivers at various gravitational potentials with respect to the source. They all receive signals of different frequencies. So the frequency shift is nothing to do with the mechanism of the source.

I have not ever proposed that the mechanism of a frequency emitting source that is held static in a uniform gravitational field will be responsible for frequency changes that its signal experiences in the non uniform gravity field.

All emitted signals are gravitationally shifted by a non uniform gravity field.

The signal, as it moves into the higher gravity potential  reduces in frequency and this reduced frequency is what the elevated receiver sees.

But if you put the signal emitter into elevation and the receivers in the lower gravity potential, the signal emitter is gravitationally shifted to a higher frequency.  (as with NIST clocks, as per the equivalence principle).  This higher frequency signal, emitted by the gravitationally shifted signal emitter, is further shifted as it moves into the lower gravity potential, and the placed receivers all see respectively higher frequencies as elevation position is decreased.

I am pointing out that:

"Emitted signal is always lower in frequency in the weaker gravity field.
Anything with rest mass is always higher in frequency in the weaker gravity field."

You are telling me that this is nonsense...

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #357 on: 18/07/2016 13:02:27 »
Also say you had a source at elevation and a detector that was moving from the ground towards the source. If the detector stopped at set intervals and measured the frequency it would be found to be converging with the source frequency. It isn't the source frequency changing.

Yes - it is interesting that the frequency would be found to be converging with the source frequency...

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #358 on: 18/07/2016 14:44:00 »
Also say you had a source at elevation and a detector that was moving from the ground towards the source. If the detector stopped at set intervals and measured the frequency it would be found to be converging with the source frequency. It isn't the source frequency changing.

Yes - it is interesting that the frequency would be found to be converging with the source frequency...

Over use of ellipses makes ...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #359 on: 18/07/2016 15:10:02 »

I am pointing out that:

Quote
"Emitted signal is always lower in frequency in the weaker gravity field.
Anything with rest mass is always higher in frequency in the weaker gravity field."

You are telling me that this is nonsense...

More "meaningless" than "nonsense", I'll grant you. 

Quote
But if you put the signal emitter into elevation and the receivers in the lower gravity potential, the signal emitter is gravitationally shifted to a higher frequency.
No, the received signal is at a higher frequency.

The sign of a spin vector is arbitrary and unrelated to gravitation. The great thing about cesium clocks is that they rely only on the constancy of spin-spin interaction energy. Whilst a pendulum clock would misbehave at altitude (indeed they do) a mechanical wristwatch, or any clock with a torsion-spring or vibrating timebase, is independent of gravitation: its time constant depends only on the elastic and inertial properties of the oscillator. Unfortunately these mechanical devices are too temperature-sensitive to demonstrate the point here in practice, but you can take heart from the fact that rubidium clocks and several mossbauer-type gamma rays all behave in exactly the same way as the cesium clock or an "ideal wristwatch". 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #360 on: 18/07/2016 21:13:36 »

I am pointing out that:

Quote
"Emitted signal is always lower in frequency in the weaker gravity field.
Anything with rest mass is always higher in frequency in the weaker gravity field."

You are telling me that this is nonsense...

More "meaningless" than "nonsense", I'll grant you. 

Quote
But if you put the signal emitter into elevation and the receivers in the lower gravity potential, the signal emitter is gravitationally shifted to a higher frequency.
No, the received signal is at a higher frequency.

The sign of a spin vector is arbitrary and unrelated to gravitation. The great thing about cesium clocks is that they rely only on the constancy of spin-spin interaction energy. Whilst a pendulum clock would misbehave at altitude (indeed they do) a mechanical wristwatch, or any clock with a torsion-spring or vibrating timebase, is independent of gravitation: its time constant depends only on the elastic and inertial properties of the oscillator. Unfortunately these mechanical devices are too temperature-sensitive to demonstrate the point here in practice, but you can take heart from the fact that rubidium clocks and several mossbauer-type gamma rays all behave in exactly the same way as the cesium clock or an "ideal wristwatch".

Alan - thing is that one can hardly consider the situation as meaningless when one notes that under the remit of GR, light is calculated as having relativistic mass...

If light has mass then, as per equivalence principle, its frequency should increase in the higher gravity potential, as everything else with mass's frequency does.

Yes - of course the received signal is higher in frequency.  Its been blue shifted.  However the mass of the signal emitter 'has' also been shifted to a higher frequency due to its elevation in the higher gravity potential.   A higher frequency means a higher energy, and if the emitter has a higher energy it must emit at a higher frequency.

We can see this as proven by experiment:

An Fe57 source on ground emits photon.  A mossbauer receiver on ground receives photon.
An Fe57 source on ground emits photon.  A mossbauer receiver in elevation cannot receive photon.  The energy of the photon is not of correct level.
But if you place the Fe57 source at the same elevation as the mossbauer receiver, the mossbauer receiver receives photon.

Presumably both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin - spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation, and therefore the photons emitted at elevation 'are', by the remit of quantum, of higher energy.  The photons then further increase in energy when blue shifted towards earth.

So long as we are clear on all of this, we can progress to discussing these accepted and mainstream physics in the context of a new theory - this being the proposed inverted time dilation and the  consequence of its addition being a cyclic universe.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #361 on: 18/07/2016 23:22:16 »
Quote
Presumably both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin - spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation, and therefore the photons emitted at elevation 'are', by the remit of quantum, of higher energy.
Garbage. Nothing to do with hyperfine anythings. Nor the mass of anything, let alone its weight. Hence independent of gravitation.

When you invent "presumably"s you run the risk of appearing arrogant, and arrogance often signals ignorance. A toxic combination for your own thoughts, and it lowers you in my estimation to the level of the unemployables who form government inspectorates, for whom Kruger-Dunning is an entry qualification.

Just stick to the experimental facts, and keep them simple. Whatever the source, the received signal is frequency-shifted in the same direction (and indeed by the same fraction) by a given gravitational potential difference between source and receiver.
« Last Edit: 18/07/2016 23:31:08 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #362 on: 19/07/2016 00:38:34 »
Quote
Presumably both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin - spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation, and therefore the photons emitted at elevation 'are', by the remit of quantum, of higher energy.
Garbage. Nothing to do with hyperfine anythings. Nor the mass of anything, let alone its weight. Hence independent of gravitation.

When you invent "presumably"s you run the risk of appearing arrogant, and arrogance often signals ignorance. A toxic combination for your own thoughts, and it lowers you in my estimation to the level of the unemployables who form government inspectorates, for whom Kruger-Dunning is an entry qualification.

Just stick to the experimental facts, and keep them simple. Whatever the source, the received signal is frequency-shifted in the same direction (and indeed by the same fraction) by a given gravitational potential difference between source and receiver.

So you say that quantum has nothing to do with the energy transition of an Fe57 source emitting a photon, or a mossbauer receiver receiving one... Really?

I wasn't inventing a presumably Alan, I was being polite in that you might take opportunity to add something that is actually  correct to the discussion.

I did run through exactly why it is that experiment shows why what I'm saying is correct.

If you are saying that what I'm saying is incorrect, then state what is incorrect in relation to experimental evidence.  Do not tell me to stick to facts without saying exactly and precisely where I have deviated from them, and may I suggest that doing so 'before' adding insults is the norm in good manners.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #363 on: 19/07/2016 13:02:03 »
Quote
So you say that quantum has nothing to do with the energy transition of an Fe57 source emitting a photon, or a mossbauer receiver receiving one... Really?
Had I meant that, I would have said it. I am a scientist, not a politician or an idiot.

Quote
both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin - spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation,
none of this is true.
« Last Edit: 19/07/2016 14:25:21 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #364 on: 19/07/2016 15:44:31 »
Quote
So you say that quantum has nothing to do with the energy transition of an Fe57 source emitting a photon, or a mossbauer receiver receiving one... Really?
Had I meant that, I would have said it. I am a scientist, not a politician or an idiot.

Quote
both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin - spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation,
none of this is true.
Using words like garbage and nonsense is hardly scientific, and responding with "this isn't true" is not in the interests of a discussion.

I could quote some of the physics gaffs you have made in this thread but that would be bitchy.  Why would anyone want to be bitchy?

When I sent you my diagram November last year, you told me that you were a bit rusty on GR.  This being the most refreshingly honest response I've ever had from a physicist, setting you in a class of your own in my opinion.  But to say so, this was of no surprise to me as I had made a full study of your posts that spelt out the same story.

The more apt response for a physicist to make would be:

On the basis, Vikki, that I think you are equating spin-spin hyperfine energy transitions to quantum process, although the PR used this quantum process to measure gravitational shift, physics is no closer to linking quantum with gravity.

Then you might say:

So - what you got in mind?

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #365 on: 19/07/2016 16:42:26 »
Spin-spin interactions are indeed quantum processes, but not connected with the ejection of a "mossbauer" nuclear photon following the electron capture process of Co58 -> Fe57*. 

So, starting from known facts, and only known facts, what have you got in mind?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #366 on: 19/07/2016 20:30:52 »
Spin-spin interactions are indeed quantum processes, but not connected with the ejection of a "mossbauer" nuclear photon following the electron capture process of Co58 -> Fe57*. 

So, starting from known facts, and only known facts, what have you got in mind?

I cannot claim to be knowledgeable enough in the area of particle physics in relation quantum process to conduct a truly in-depth technological conversation... The only part of the quantum process that I'm looking at is the energy levels required for transitions to occur, and how a photon must be of the correct energy for the mossbauer to receive it.

For me to tell you what I've got in mind, I need for you to confirm that you have understood that:
Blue shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field
Red shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field.

...and that when we view light that is arriving from somewhere, we only see it at the energy level that it is when it arrives, not at the energy level that it was emitted at.

The Fe57 source on the ground emits a photon of a certain energy.  In the horizontal experiment the mossbauer is of the correct energy to receive this photon.
Place the mossbauer in elevation and the photon the Fe57 emits cannot be received by the mossbauer.  The photons energy has been gravitationally shifted...
Clearly if this was all there was to the story then quantum and gravity would have been unified yonks ago.

Looking at the cesium atomic clock and how the frequency of its energy transitions increase in the weaker gravity field, as a quantum process.  A higher frequency means a higher energy level.  Therefore it 'could' be viewed that as clocks are placed at intervals of increasing elevation, the energy levels of each clocks energy transitions are increased...

Taking this logic back to the mossbauer we 'could' now view the mossbauer as having increased energy at elevation.  And when considering that if we move the Fe57 source to the same elevation as we previously moved the mossbauer to, the mossbauer will receive the photon the Fe57 source emits at this elevation because the photon it emits is of the correct energy level - and so... we 'could' view the Fe57 source as having increased in energy.  As per the equivalence principle, and the concept that observers with a clock age in keeping with the clock, we 'could' say that all configurations of mass in elevation increase in energy proportional relative to same mass configurations in a lower gravity potential.

If you follow the logic so far, I'll continue.  If you don't, then please say exactly where you have the problem.

« Last Edit: 19/07/2016 20:36:25 by timey »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #367 on: 19/07/2016 21:22:21 »

Blue shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field
Red shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field.



These statements are garbled. What we observe is that photons arriving from a higher gravitational potential appear blue shifted, and those arriving from a lower gravitaitonal potential appear red shifted, compared with those generated by the same mechanism at the point of observation.

Not a good idea to confuse "energy levels" with "energy". Different words mean different things in physics.

Quote
The Fe57 source on the ground emits a photon of a certain energy.  In the horizontal experiment the mossbauer is of the correct energy to receive this photon.
Place the mossbauer in elevation and the photon the Fe57 emits cannot be received by the mossbauer.  The photons energy has been gravitationally shifted...
Clearly if this was all there was to the story then quantum and gravity would have been unified yonks ago.
That is what we observe, though quaintly expressed, and as you say, that's all there is to it. It has nothing to do with any relationship between quantum mechanics and gravitation. See next paragaph.

Quote
Therefore it 'could' be viewed that as clocks are placed at intervals of increasing elevation, the energy levels of each clocks energy transitions are increased...
Indeed it could, but even if it were more correctly expressed, it wouldn't be true, because the spin/spin interaction is not gravity-dependent, any more than the timebase of a wristwatch or the energy of a mossbauer photon.

Quote
As per the equivalence principle, and the concept that observers with a clock age in keeping with the clock, we 'could' say that all configurations of mass in elevation increase in energy proportional relative to same mass configurations in a lower gravity potential.
You could indeed say that, though a scientist probably wouldn't. You could neatly express what I think you mean,  as "potential energy = mgh", just like in the textbooks of classical physics. But that doesn't explain why the clock with more potential energy appears to run faster, nor does it have anything to do with quantum mechanics. 
« Last Edit: 19/07/2016 22:57:56 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #368 on: 20/07/2016 00:47:29 »

Blue shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field
Red shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field.



These statements are garbled. What we observe is that photons arriving from a higher gravitational potential appear blue shifted, and those arriving from a lower gravitaitonal potential appear red shifted, compared with those generated by the same mechanism at the point of observation.

Not a good idea to confuse "energy levels" with "energy". Different words mean different things in physics.

Quote
The Fe57 source on the ground emits a photon of a certain energy.  In the horizontal experiment the mossbauer is of the correct energy to receive this photon.
Place the mossbauer in elevation and the photon the Fe57 emits cannot be received by the mossbauer.  The photons energy has been gravitationally shifted...
Clearly if this was all there was to the story then quantum and gravity would have been unified yonks ago.
That is what we observe, though quaintly expressed, and as you say, that's all there is to it. It has nothing to do with any relationship between quantum mechanics and gravitation. See next paragaph.

Quote
Therefore it 'could' be viewed that as clocks are placed at intervals of increasing elevation, the energy levels of each clocks energy transitions are increased...
Indeed it could, but even if it were more correctly expressed, it wouldn't be true, because the spin/spin interaction is not gravity-dependent, any more than the timebase of a wristwatch or the energy of a mossbauer photon.

Quote
As per the equivalence principle, and the concept that observers with a clock age in keeping with the clock, we 'could' say that all configurations of mass in elevation increase in energy proportional relative to same mass configurations in a lower gravity potential.
You could indeed say that, though a scientist probably wouldn't. You could neatly express what I think you mean,  as "potential energy = mgh", just like in the textbooks of classical physics. But that doesn't explain why the clock with more potential energy appears to run faster, nor does it have anything to do with quantum mechanics.

OK - to clear up any terminology problems, when I refer to energy, frequency and wavelength, I am referring to lights energy, frequency and wavelength, and I am also referring to the energy, frequency and wavelength of De Broglie matter wave.

Garbled or not, red shifted light is of lesser frequency when it is in the weaker gravity field, and blue shifted light is of lesser frequency when it is in the weaker gravity field.
If I say that light when travelling through changes in a gravity field always has a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field - may I then have your agreement?

All mass is gravitationally affected by the proximity of other mass, including the interactions of particles within atoms. The spin-spin interactions within the cesium atom are increased in frequency in the weaker gravity field.   This has been proven by NIST atomic clock experiments. An increase in frequency is inclusive of an increase in energy.

Just saw the editted additions.  Yes - calculating gravity potential for the clock would increase frequency with the added energy... Calculating light without the additional gravity potential (ie: no relativistic mass) would leave lights observed behaviour open to the introduction of my idea of this proposed inverted time dilation of the open space gravity field.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #369 on: 20/07/2016 06:51:29 »
Quote
If I say that light when travelling through changes in a gravity field always has a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field - may I then have your agreement?
Why misuse a perfectly good language to confuse yourself? The frequency of any received signal depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and receiver. That is the observed fact.

Quote
The spin-spin interactions within the cesium atom are increased in frequency in the weaker gravity field.   This has been proven by NIST atomic clock experiments. An increase in frequency is inclusive of an increase in energy.
Wrong. The frequency of any clock appears higher when the observer is at a lower gravitaional potential. Don't attempt to intepret or embellish the facts: this is physics, not politics.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 173
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #370 on: 20/07/2016 07:53:19 »

Yes by all means, if you attribute light with mass then you may say that...
quote: "the logical explanation is that the difference between emitted and observed frequency depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer." unqoute...
...but then please explain to me why anything with rest mass in elevation to earth experiences an increase in frequency, (ie: equivalence principle), when 'already emitted light' is always of lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field?


I think you are confusing between "gravitational potential" and "gravitational field strength".
Higher gravitational potential doesn't necessarily means higher gravitational field strength.
A building's floor has lower gravitational potential than its roof, but generally it has higher gravitational strength (unless it is significantly below average level of earth surface).

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #371 on: 20/07/2016 13:26:24 »
Quote
If I say that light when travelling through changes in a gravity field always has a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field - may I then have your agreement?
Why misuse a perfectly good language to confuse yourself? The frequency of any received signal depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and receiver. That is the observed fact.

Quote
The spin-spin interactions within the cesium atom are increased in frequency in the weaker gravity field.   This has been proven by NIST atomic clock experiments. An increase in frequency is inclusive of an increase in energy.
Wrong. The frequency of any clock appears higher when the observer is at a lower gravitaional potential. Don't attempt to intepret or embellish the facts: this is physics, not politics.

Alan - the frequency of a third clock that is higher in elevation than the first clock we put in elevation, will see that the clock below it is running slower than itself.  But it will also see that the clock on the ground is running slower than the clock in the middle.

Therefore a clock always has a higher frequency when it is in the higher gravity potential.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #372 on: 20/07/2016 13:30:43 »

Yes by all means, if you attribute light with mass then you may say that...
quote: "the logical explanation is that the difference between emitted and observed frequency depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer." unqoute...
...but then please explain to me why anything with rest mass in elevation to earth experiences an increase in frequency, (ie: equivalence principle), when 'already emitted light' is always of lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field?


I think you are confusing between "gravitational potential" and "gravitational field strength".
Higher gravitational potential doesn't necessarily means higher gravitational field strength.
A building's floor has lower gravitational potential than its roof, but generally it has higher gravitational strength (unless it is significantly below average level of earth surface).

Hi Hamdani - thanks for joining the discussion.  I've been following your posts and welcome your commentary.

However, to say so, I am not confused about gravity potential.  I understand that the higher gravity potential is in the weaker gravity field.

To give you background, I have a theory of time that attributes the phenomenon of time to being a byproduct of energy.
In brief: More energy = faster rate of time, and frequency 'is' timing.  The consequences of the addition of an inverted time dilation for open space result in a cyclic universe. (If you are further interested I can send you a more in depth synopsis via private message)

Alan has said (I think) that gravity potential energy can be calculated via mgh.  If the mass was on the ground that would just be mg.  I'm suggesting that  light without the relativistic mass concept can be calculated as gh, and that the acceleration of g 'is' the inverted time dilation that I am proposing should be added to GR.  (Holding speed of gravity as constant and equal to speed of light - via speed, distance, time formula, transpose acceleration into time value... I attempted maths at this earlier this thread, and can repost if you are interested.)

This concept, and this being just one of many relevant consequences, gives the acceleration of gravity a cause.

When I can manage to bring anyone's attention to the fact that light, as it travels through space, is always of a lesser frequency when in the weaker gravity field.  And that anything with rest mass is always of a higher frequency in the weaker gravity field, I can move on to putting this theory into context with regards to shifts in frequency that are temperature related.

Planck's h constant being the linking factor between changes in lights energy with regards to frequency and wavelength, and being the significant phenomenon of quantum.

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
hi Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #373 on: 20/07/2016 13:40:47 »
More kinetic energy = increased time dilation.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: hi Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #374 on: 20/07/2016 13:57:34 »
More kinetic energy = increased time dilation.

A clock increases in frequency in elevation, relative to clock below.
A clock decreases in frequency in motion, relative to a stationary clock.

Put a stationary clock into motion in a uniform gravity field - adding kinetic energy will increase the frequency of the clock, not decrease it.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #375 on: 20/07/2016 16:49:40 »

When I can manage to bring anyone's attention to the fact that light, as it travels through space, is always of a lesser frequency when in the weaker gravity field.  And that anything with rest mass is always of a higher frequency in the weaker gravity field, I can move on to putting this theory into context with regards to shifts in frequency that are temperature related.



You will have to wait a long time because it isn't true. The frequency of every source is higher when viewed from a lower gravitational potential than the source. You know that and everyone else knows that, and you have quoted classic experiments that showed it.  It's nothing to do with the mass of the source.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #376 on: 20/07/2016 18:18:31 »

When I can manage to bring anyone's attention to the fact that light, as it travels through space, is always of a lesser frequency when in the weaker gravity field.  And that anything with rest mass is always of a higher frequency in the weaker gravity field, I can move on to putting this theory into context with regards to shifts in frequency that are temperature related.



You will have to wait a long time because it isn't true. The frequency of every source is higher when viewed from a lower gravitational potential than the source. You know that and everyone else knows that, and you have quoted classic experiments that showed it.  It's nothing to do with the mass of the source.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift

Remember that for an observer to observe light, the light has to have entered the eye, or reached the detector.

Therefore the observation of blue shifted light is the frequency it has shifted to when it has arrived in the observers gravity potential.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #377 on: 20/07/2016 18:36:33 »
..and the observed frequency of the clock signal is the frequency it has shifted to when it has arrived in the observers gravity potential.

It's easy when you stick to a consistent nomenclature,
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #378 on: 20/07/2016 18:45:20 »
..and the observed frequency of the clock signal is the frequency it has shifted to when it has arrived in the observers gravity potential.

It's easy when you stick to a consistent nomenclature,
No Alan - that is not true.

NIST atomic clock experiments can observe 2 clocks 1 metre apart in elevation running at different rates with 1 observer.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #379 on: 20/07/2016 18:47:19 »
And the higher one runs faster, no? The observer has to be somewhere!
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #380 on: 20/07/2016 19:10:38 »
And the higher one runs faster, no? The observer has to be somewhere!
Yes the higher one runs faster and the observer is observing both the higher frequency clock and the lower frequency clock at same time. 

The point being that there is no dependence on where the observer himself is viewing the clocks from.  He can bend down and look at the lower clock, and see from that position that the higher clock is running faster than the lower, and he can stand up and see that the higher clock is still running faster than the lower clock.  Place a third clock at 2 metres elevation and he will see that the 2 metre clock has a higher frequency than the 1 metre clock, and the 1 metre clock has a higher frequency than the clock on the ground, and that this will be the case no matter which elevation he places his eyes at.

Place detectors at ground, and 1 and 2 and metre elevations.  Blue shifted light will be lower in frequency at 2 metres than it will be at 1 metre, and lower in frequency at 1 metre than it will be at ground detector.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #381 on: 20/07/2016 20:28:35 »
No. He looks down and sees that the lower clock appears to be running slower than his, and looks up to see the higher clock apparently running faster than his. If he was below the lower clock, both would appear to be running faster.

Here's an old story that explains a lot. A politician, a statistician and a physicist were travelling through Peru in a train. They saw two cows in a field, one black, one white. The politician said "the overwhelming majority of Peruvian cows are black". The statistician said "on a possibly nonrepresentative sample of two frrom an unknown population, my best estimate is that half the cows in Peru are black". The physicist said "At 1800GMT on 23 June 2014 I saw two bovine quadrupeds in a field in Peru. At least one side of one of them was black."

Stick to physics and you won't go far wrong!

helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #382 on: 20/07/2016 21:19:03 »
No. He looks down and sees that the lower clock appears to be running slower than his, and looks up to see the higher clock apparently running faster than his. If he was below the lower clock, both would appear to be running faster.

Here's an old story that explains a lot. A politician, a statistician and a physicist were travelling through Peru in a train. They saw two cows in a field, one black, one white. The politician said "the overwhelming majority of Peruvian cows are black". The statistician said "on a possibly nonrepresentative sample of two frrom an unknown population, my best estimate is that half the cows in Peru are black". The physicist said "At 1800GMT on 23 June 2014 I saw two bovine quadrupeds in a field in Peru. At least one side of one of them was black."

Stick to physics and you won't go far wrong!

Alan - I just said exactly what you said.  Only difference is that you are saying that the clock only appears to be running slower if viewed from above, and only appears to be running faster if viewed from below.

NIST proved that clocks actually do run faster in the higher gravity potential.  Its not an appearance, its a physical fact.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #383 on: 20/07/2016 23:33:25 »
Faster than what?

As far as an observer next to the clock is concerned, it is running at exactly the same speed, wherever it happens to be in the universe, because whatever he is using to measure it, is also at the same gravitational potential.

The surface of the earth is not a special point in the universe. Indeed, identical "surface" primary standard clocks at NIST Boulder (altitude 1655m) and NPL Teddington (altitude 3m) run at different rates as seen by each other. Which one is correct? The answer is, of course, "both", because they both use the same fundamental property that is unaffected by any extermal influence. And the same is true of the clock on a space probe, whether in a zero gravity field or approaching Jupiter or a black hole.  The explanation is that time is warped by a gravitational field, and calculations based on known gravitational fields fortunately yield correct clock variation factors, so GR is at least selfconsistent, explanatory and predictive, even if it doesn't explain everything.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #384 on: 21/07/2016 00:01:37 »
Faster than what?

As far as an observer next to the clock is concerned, it is running at exactly the same speed, wherever it happens to be in the universe, because whatever he is using to measure it, is also at the same gravitational potential.

The surface of the earth is not a special point in the universe. Indeed, identical "surface" primary standard clocks at NIST Boulder (altitude 1655m) and NPL Teddington (altitude 3m) run at different rates as seen by each other. Which one is correct? The answer is, of course, "both", because they both use the same fundamental property that is unaffected by any extermal influence. And the same is true of the clock on a space probe, whether in a zero gravity field or approaching Jupiter or a black hole.  The explanation is that time is warped by a gravitational field, and calculations based on known gravitational fields fortunately yield correct clock variation factors, so GR is at least selfconsistent, explanatory and predictive, even if it doesn't explain everything.

I'm not concerned with what clock is correct.  They all are as far as I'm concerned, but we measure physics via the standard second and any variations can be held relative to a standard second.

The explanation that GR gives in that time is warped by the gravitational field holds just as true in my model.  And anywhere that GR uses the symbol g, as in acceleration of gravity, is already calculating inverted time dilation without realising it.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #385 on: 21/07/2016 08:09:09 »
Quote
They all are as far as I'm concerned, but we measure physics via the standard second and any variations can be held relative to a standard second.

Quote
One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10 9 ) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.
No suggestion of where in the universe, because it is exactly the same everywhere. The underlying principle of relativity is that physics doesn't change, because there are no special places in the universe, but our perception at point A of what is happening at point B depends on the relative speed and gravitational potential of A and B.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #386 on: 21/07/2016 12:47:38 »
Quote
They all are as far as I'm concerned, but we measure physics via the standard second and any variations can be held relative to a standard second.

Quote
One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10 9 ) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.
No suggestion of where in the universe, because it is exactly the same everywhere. The underlying principle of relativity is that physics doesn't change, because there are no special places in the universe, but our perception at point A of what is happening at point B depends on the relative speed and gravitational potential of A and B.

NIST proved that the cycles of radiation are increased in frequency when placed in the higher gravity potential.

You are describing the equivalence principle, but when you consider that an observer with the elevated clock ages in keeping with the clock, this suggests that the difference in time is real.  All atoms in the clocks reference frame will experience an increase in frequency proportionally with the clock.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #387 on: 21/07/2016 17:51:47 »
Quote
NIST proved that the cycles of radiation are increased in frequency when placed in the higher gravity potential.

That is impossible, thanks to the equivalence principle. You can only measure the frequency of a clock with another clock. What they measured was the increase in frequency of the elevated clock as seen from the lower clock. Or the decerease in frequency of the lower clock as seen from the upper one.

Note the Scientific American headline

Quote
Newly developed optical clocks are so precise that they register the passage of time differently at elevations of just a few dozen centimeters or velocities of a few meters per second

i.e. it isn't the clock that changes, but time.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #388 on: 21/07/2016 18:27:27 »
Quote
NIST proved that the cycles of radiation are increased in frequency when placed in the higher gravity potential.

That is impossible, thanks to the equivalence principle. You can only measure the frequency of a clock with another clock. What they measured was the increase in frequency of the elevated clock as seen from the lower clock. Or the decerease in frequency of the lower clock as seen from the upper one.

Note the Scientific American headline

Quote
Newly developed optical clocks are so precise that they register the passage of time differently at elevations of just a few dozen centimeters or velocities of a few meters per second

i.e. it isn't the clock that changes, but time.
Good.  Maybe we might be getting somewhere.

Placing clocks in elevation every metre and using the clock on the ground as a standard, we can then say by how much faster each clock is running faster than the clock on the ground.

You say the clock does not physically change, but it is observed that the frequency of its cycles is increased.
You are saying this is because time is running faster at that elevated location.  Time runs faster there because the gravity field shifts in time.

I am suggesting that it is the atom that is shifted by the gravity field, and that its frequency increases because of the addition of gravity potential energy at elevation.  All atoms will be shifted in frequency and energy in elevation proportionally, and the equivalence principle is upheld.

Now it is possible to view the gravity field itself (open space) as being subject to inverted time dilation, where time runs slower in the weaker gravity field.
Looking at the red shift blue shift phenomenon, light when travelling through space, is always of a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field.  Light viewed without relativistic mass is not subject to gravity potential energy.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #389 on: 21/07/2016 20:39:35 »
Quote
but it is observed that the frequency of its cycles is increased.
note the word OBSERVED, and it is only as observed FROM BELOW. You cannot measure any change in frequency of you are at the same level as the clock, because the clock has not changed. If it had, you would get different results with different clocks or different mossbauer photons, but you don't. The fractional frequency shift is exactly the same for all sources, regardless of mechanism, so it's nothing to do with the source. So all the stuff about the atom's frequency changing is nonsense.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #390 on: 21/07/2016 20:53:06 »
Quote
NIST proved that the cycles of radiation are increased in frequency when placed in the higher gravity potential.

That is impossible, thanks to the equivalence principle. You can only measure the frequency of a clock with another clock. What they measured was the increase in frequency of the elevated clock as seen from the lower clock. Or the decerease in frequency of the lower clock as seen from the upper one.

Note the Scientific American headline

Quote
Newly developed optical clocks are so precise that they register the passage of time differently at elevations of just a few dozen centimeters or velocities of a few meters per second

i.e. it isn't the clock that changes, but time.
Good.  Maybe we might be getting somewhere.

Watford?

Quote
Placing clocks in elevation every metre and using the clock on the ground as a standard, we can then say by how much faster each clock is running faster than the clock on the ground.

Not from the perspective of each clocks local frame. If you moved to each clock in turn the laws of physics would be the same and the clock would appear to run normally.

Quote
You say the clock does not physically change, but it is observed that the frequency of its cycles is increased.
You are saying this is because time is running faster at that elevated location.  Time runs faster there because the gravity field shifts in time.

Time only apparently runs differently when viewed from a frame in a differing gravitational potential. Remove gravity and the effect should disappear. Even in remote outer space voids.

Quote
I am suggesting that it is the atom that is shifted by the gravity field, and that its frequency increases because of the addition of gravity potential energy at elevation.  All atoms will be shifted in frequency and energy in elevation proportionally, and the equivalence principle is upheld.

You only observe the effects of gravitation upon time and distance non-locally.

Quote
Now it is possible to view the gravity field itself (open space) as being subject to inverted time dilation, where time runs slower in the weaker gravity field.
Looking at the red shift blue shift phenomenon, light when travelling through space, is always of a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field.  Light viewed without relativistic mass is not subject to gravity potential energy.

I totally disagree with the last paragraph.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #391 on: 21/07/2016 21:09:39 »
Quote
but it is observed that the frequency of its cycles is increased.
note the word OBSERVED, and it is only as observed FROM BELOW. You cannot measure any change in frequency of you are at the same level as the clock, because the clock has not changed. If it had, you would get different results with different clocks or different mossbauer photons, but you don't. The fractional frequency shift is exactly the same for all sources, regardless of mechanism, so it's nothing to do with the source. So all the stuff about the atom's frequency changing is nonsense.

Yes - that is exactly synonymous with what I said.  An observers atoms are in keeping with the clock, and the observer with the clock will observe no difference in his clocks time.  Only clocks in 'other' reference frames will appear different.

Physics has no theory of time.  All that is understood is that sequential events happen in it, and that motion and gravity have an affect on the rate it happens at.

All of the wiki, text books, clock data, etc, all state that the cesium atom's cycles increase in frequency in the higher gravity potential.

For an increase in frequency to occur, there must be an increase in energy.  These occurrences are physical process.  They cannot occur by magic!  There has to be causality...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #392 on: 21/07/2016 23:57:50 »
Quote
All of the wiki, text books, clock data, etc, all state that the cesium atom's cycles increase in frequency in the higher gravity potential.

No they don't, because that would be wrong. Here, for example , is a standard (Ohio State University) text on GPS time correction

Quote
A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will SEEM to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites APPEAR to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground.
My capitals. Note the non-magic words of physics. There is no suggestion that anything has happened to the clocks, because nothing can happen to them. If it did, the effect would be different for different clocks, but it is exactly the same for all mechanisms (apart from pendulums, obviously) .
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #393 on: 22/07/2016 05:29:15 »
Quote
All of the wiki, text books, clock data, etc, all state that the cesium atom's cycles increase in frequency in the higher gravity potential.

No they don't, because that would be wrong. Here, for example , is a standard (Ohio State University) text on GPS time correction

Quote
A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will SEEM to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites APPEAR to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground.
My capitals. Note the non-magic words of physics. There is no suggestion that anything has happened to the clocks, because nothing can happen to them. If it did, the effect would be different for different clocks, but it is exactly the same for all mechanisms (apart from pendulums, obviously) .
Look Alan - NIST conducted tests on clocks that were 1metre apart in elevation.  Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...

It is not a case of the higher clock seeing the the lower clock as running slower than itself, or the lower clock seeing the higher clock as running faster than itself.  As I've said before, the clocks are in their own reference frames, but even if the observer is a dwarf, he is in a reference frame that includes himself and both of the clocks.  All that is happening is that he is 'comparing' the frequency of the clocks cesium atoms cycles of radiation.  ie: the elevated clock running faster and having a higher frequency of cycles of radiation, than the lower clock is not just an appearance from the reference frame of the lower clock.  The elevated clock really is experiencing an increase in the frequency of its cesium atoms cycles of radiation.  And therefore we know that we can compare the frequencies of clocks at higher elevations with the frequency of a clock on the ground, or at any other location in the gravity field.  (I understand that there are maths in existence that calculate these increases in the frequency of cycles of radiation of a cesium atomic clock placed at increased elevations)

Logically speaking, we are now 'forced' to view the frequency changes in the clock as actual physical changes, and that this physical property of an increase in frequency requires causality.  An increase in frequency physically requires an increase in energy...

The equivalence principle requires that a physical process that occurs for an atom, and therefore for the internal processes of a cesium atom, occurs for all atoms.  As the energy increase is equal for all atoms, the status quo of proportionality that exists between different atoms and their internal processes at ground level are fully maintained at 1 metre elevation...
The equivalence principle is upheld.

In looking for the energy that increases the frequency of any atoms frequency of cycles, if we say that gravity potential energy can be calculated as mgh, the mass on the ground can be calculated as mg.  Different atoms will have different masses but g and h for all atoms as per reference frame are constant.  Therefore the proportionality that exists within an atoms internal structure, and the proportionality between the atoms themselves are maintained, the equivalence principle is upheld, and a physical causality is given for the physical process of an observer aging in keeping with the clock.
(I suspect that it is specifically  the internal structure concerning the electron cloud of the cesium atom and other atoms that would be subject to this calculation for the proportionality of frequency of radiation or any decaying type activity between atoms of differing masses.  As said before, I'm not much up on particle physics but do know that neither the standard model nor quantum has been linked to gravity as of yet)

*

Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 173
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #394 on: 22/07/2016 08:01:47 »
Look Alan - NIST conducted tests on clocks that were 1metre apart in elevation.  Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...

I googled up and found this article
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm

Quote
The NIST experiments focused on two scenarios predicted by Einstein's theories of relativity. First, when two clocks are subjected to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller gravitational force—runs faster. Second, when an observer is moving, a stationary clock's tick appears to last longer, so the clock appears to run slow.

I'm curious about the first experiment, whether the higher clock really runs faster due to smaller gravitational force, or it was actually due to higher gravitational potential. To resolve this, they can repeat this experiment underground.
If the difference is really due to gravitational force, then the result of the underground experiment should be flipped (higher clock would run slower than lower clock due to bigger gravitational force).
If the result still the same, then the difference would be caused by gravitational potential.

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #395 on: 22/07/2016 08:48:03 »
For two distinct points in space that are not at the same gravitational potential time will advance at different rates. This also occurs for frames of reference moving at distinct velocities. This indicates some connection between gravitational potential and a change velocity. Maybe via gravitational waves. Since the gravitational field extends to infinity this is an undisturbed continuum with no evidence of inversions.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #396 on: 22/07/2016 13:03:37 »
Look Alan - NIST conducted tests on clocks that were 1metre apart in elevation.  Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...

I googled up and found this article
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm

Quote
The NIST experiments focused on two scenarios predicted by Einstein's theories of relativity. First, when two clocks are subjected to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller gravitational force—runs faster. Second, when an observer is moving, a stationary clock's tick appears to last longer, so the clock appears to run slow.

I'm curious about the first experiment, whether the higher clock really runs faster due to smaller gravitational force, or it was actually due to higher gravitational potential. To resolve this, they can repeat this experiment underground.
If the difference is really due to gravitational force, then the result of the underground experiment should be flipped (higher clock would run slower than lower clock due to bigger gravitational force).
If the result still the same, then the difference would be caused by gravitational potential.
I can appreciate your logic - but have found when talking to people online that there is some debate about what is going on with the gravity field and gravity potential beneath the surface of the earth.

The experiment I have devised to test my theory suggests holding 2 atomic clocks (edit: on ground) at the exact same elevation from sea level (accounting for and avoiding equatorial bulge factor) so that the clocks are experiencing equal gravity potential, but placed in locations of know significant difference of geological density.

If I am correct in my theory the clock in the denser location will run faster.
« Last Edit: 22/07/2016 13:44:41 by timey »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #397 on: 22/07/2016 17:35:35 »
Quote
Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...
And where was the observer? He can't have been at both elevations simultaneously!


Quote
The experiment I have devised to test my theory suggests holding 2 atomic clocks (edit: on ground) at the exact same elevation from sea level (accounting for and avoiding equatorial bulge factor) so that the clocks are experiencing equal gravity potential, but placed in locations of know significant difference of geological density.

You won't have much luck if you rely on geology, but you could do a much more sensitive experiment, much more easily,  by surrounding a cesium clock with lead bricks and seeing if it speeds up or slows down when compared with another one.

If it's symmetrically surrounded, then the should be no change. If you put a load of bricks on one side only, you will have decreased the local gravitational potential so it should slow down compared with the reference clock.

Talk to NPL Time Standards Division. They have accessible clocks and can reference them to the NIST transmissions. There are plenty of lead bricks on the NPL campus. It would make a fascinating TV clip - much more audience-accessible than a mossbauer test. In fact it's a pretty slick means of measuring G!
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #398 on: 22/07/2016 17:57:22 »
Quote
Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...
And where was the observer? He can't have been at both elevations simultaneously!


Quote
The experiment I have devised to test my theory suggests holding 2 atomic clocks (edit: on ground) at the exact same elevation from sea level (accounting for and avoiding equatorial bulge factor) so that the clocks are experiencing equal gravity potential, but placed in locations of know significant difference of geological density.

You won't have much luck if you rely on geology, but you could do a much more sensitive experiment, much more easily,  by surrounding a cesium clock with lead bricks and seeing if it speeds up or slows down when compared with another one.

If it's symmetrically surrounded, then the should be no change. If you put a load of bricks on one side only, you will have decreased the local gravitational potential so it should slow down compared with the reference clock.

Talk to NPL Time Standards Division. They have accessible clocks and can reference them to the NIST transmissions. There are plenty of lead bricks on the NPL campus. It would make a fascinating TV clip - much more audience-accessible than a mossbauer test. In fact it's a pretty slick means of measuring G!

Don't be silly Alan - the clocks are 1 metre apart.  The observer is at both elevations.

I like your slick gravity measurement idea, but wonder if we possess electronics that could measure the ever so slight frequency change such a small amount of gravitational change provided by just bricks alone would effect on the cesium atoms energy transitions.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/04/110406-new-map-earth-gravity-geoid-goce-esa-nasa-science/

Gravity mapping of earth shows that there are 'significant' gravitational field differences due to major geological density variations that 'could' be utilised to the experiment if elevations of the exact same height above sea level could be found.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #399 on: 23/07/2016 10:42:37 »
Look Alan - NIST conducted tests on clocks that were 1metre apart in elevation.  Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...



Where was the observer? How did he measure the two frequencies?

[Hint (a) at some gravitational potential with reference to the clocks; (b) with a clock]

Quote
The observer is at both elevations.
This beats Normanton Laertes II (winner of the Royal Highland Show 2016) for obvious bollocks and pedigree bullshit.

Quote
I like your slick gravity measurement idea, but wonder if we possess electronics that could measure the ever so slight frequency change such a small amount of gravitational change provided by just bricks alone would effect on the cesium atoms energy transitions.

Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment. Henry Cavendish measured G this way in 1797, with no electronics at all. Your job is ever easier! All you need to do is synchronise the NIST and NPL clocks, and wait. Since they are about 1600m apart in altitude, you will find the NIST signal runs ahead of the NPL signal, and after a day or two you will find it has slipped by a few nanoseconds. Now resynchronise and bring up your lead blocks. How long does it take to slip the same amount? Now do the same experiment with a rubidium clock, or an Essen ring clock (I think there is one in the NPL museum). If you get the same answer, it is obviously nothing to do with the hyperfine spin-spin splitting of the cesium spectrum.   
« Last Edit: 23/07/2016 11:23:50 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance