0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Quote from: timey on 22/07/2016 05:29:15Look 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]QuoteThe observer is at both elevations. This beats Normanton Laertes II (winner of the Royal Highland Show 2016) for obvious bollocks and pedigree bullshit. QuoteI 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 ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN. 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.

Look Alan - NIST conducted tests on clocks that were 1metre apart in elevation. Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...

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.

How can the observer not be at both elevations?

If the gravity field is shifting energy for all these different scenarios equally, then the observation of energy change will be the same for all, no matter which type of measuring device is being used.

QuoteHow can the observer not be at both elevations? For the same reason that you cannot be in two places at the same time.If there is a gravitational potential difference between two clocks, any observer will see that the clock at the higher potential is running faster than the one at the lower potential. But if he tries to measure the frequency of either clock by standing next to it and comparing it with his own clock, he will not observe any difference. Of course it is a real effect. It has been measured many times and is exactly as Einstein predicted without reference to the nature of the clock.QuoteIf the gravity field is shifting energy for all these different scenarios equally, then the observation of energy change will be the same for all, no matter which type of measuring device is being used.How can it? In the case of a rubidium clock, we are looking at the hyperfine splitting of an electron (same mass as the electrons in the cesium atom) in the field of the rubidium nucleus (half the mass of the cesium nucleus). In the case of the Essen ring, you are looking at the elastic constant of a quartz crystal. Nothing to do with New Age energy fields or any other mumbo jumbo. None of these mechanisms is gravity-dependent. If the mass of the primary source was important, the effect would be different. I commend ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN to you. They show the equations for redshift and time dilatation and refer very succinctly to experiments that prove them identical and independent of the mass of the source. Late postscript. Suppose we have a laser on the ground, and a cube reflector on the moon. Send pulses of light at exactly 1s intervals from the earth. They are reflected back to the source. At what intervals are they received back on earth?

....the effects are minuscule: It would take the elevated clock hundreds of millions of years to log one more second than its counterpart

What is your fixation with what appears to be what from where? Why is this relevant?

It can because whatever atom, or atom's constituent particle interaction one is measuring, we can say that on the ground gravity potential energy=mg, and that mgh is adding h, h being height, as a constant for all atoms across the board at that elevation.Therefore in that both g and h are constant for both functions of the equation for any mass size, all relationships between particle constituents within atoms, and atoms within molecules, etc, remain proportional to each other at any elevation...

Please note that the only reason that gravity has nothing to do with the hyperfine energy transition of anything at all, is because gravity has not yet been linked to quantum.

I admire the patience and perspicacity of your observer... Quote....the effects are minuscule: It would take the elevated clock hundreds of millions of years to log one more second than its counterpart ....staring at the displays. QuoteWhat is your fixation with what appears to be what from where? Why is this relevant? It is called "relativity" and is quite important in physics. QuoteIt can because whatever atom, or atom's constituent particle interaction one is measuring, we can say that on the ground gravity potential energy=mg, and that mgh is adding h, h being height, as a constant for all atoms across the board at that elevation.Therefore in that both g and h are constant for both functions of the equation for any mass size, all relationships between particle constituents within atoms, and atoms within molecules, etc, remain proportional to each other at any elevation... none of which has anything to do with the electron-nucleus spin-spin interaction, nor the expulsion of a photon from an excited nucleus.QuotePlease note that the only reason that gravity has nothing to do with the hyperfine energy transition of anything at all, is because gravity has not yet been linked to quantum. Both gravitation and quantum mechanics are human attempts to explain and predict what happens in the universe. I really don't think nature is waiting for us to invent a link: how ever did the Big Bang happen before Fred Hoyle found a name for it? If there was any connection between gravitation and spin-spin interactions, we would find a gravitational asymmetry in the bandwidth of the radiation. We don't.

"Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht. •Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.•Remark made during Einstein's first visit to Princeton University. (April 1921) as quoted in Einstein (1973) by R.W. Clark, Ch. 14. "God is slick, but he ain’t mean" is a variant translation of this (1946) Unsourced variant: "God is subtle but he is not malicious."•When asked what he meant by this he replied. "Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness,but not by means of ruse." (Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch List.) As quoted in Subtle is the Lord — The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (1982) by Abraham Pais"The bold text is mine.

Make sure you know the difference between a parachute and a rucksack (my own words).

If there is an increase in 'energy' (or decrease) this is a quantum process.

QuoteIf there is an increase in 'energy' (or decrease) this is a quantum process. Only if the gravitational field is quantised, and there is no evidence of this to date.Anyway let's do some calculations. The mass of a Fe57 atom is about 57 x 1.7 x 10^-27 kg : about 10^-25 kg.Raise the atom through 27 m. The additional potential energy is mgh = 9.81 x 27 x 10^-25 = 2.6 x 10^-22 J = 1.6 x 10^-5 eV. The actual energy shift in the Pound-Rebka experiment was 3.5 x 10^-11 eV, a factor of 500,000 too small. Given the very rough figures I have used, a factor of 1.5 would make me suspect I'd bodged the arithmetic, but a factor of 500,000 suggests there is something wrong with your physics.You might like to do the calculation for the NIST clock experiment.

Alan has tried to point out where you are incorrect and so have I. You either ignore it or reject it out of hand. Do you remember who started this thread? It has wandered so far from the original intent I have just given up trying to remember the point I was actually making. If you can't accept positive criticism what is left?

My model is suggestive that quantum is not quantised.As per the cesium atom, it is the mass of the Fe57 atoms internal electrons energy transitions increase in frequency and 'energy' at elevation that would be relevant,

QuoteMy model is suggestive that quantum is not quantised.As per the cesium atom, it is the mass of the Fe57 atoms internal electrons energy transitions increase in frequency and 'energy' at elevation that would be relevant, I refer the honorable lady to the remarks I made earlier concerning bollocks and bullshit. You really should enter some of these posts at an agricultural show.

Firstly, thank you very much for engaging!My model is suggestive that quantum is not quantised.

There is no electron involved in the Fe57 gamma emission (the word "gamma" is the giveaway). The fact that it occurs always and only at a single energy means that it is a quantum effect.You can calculate the interparticle gravitation if you like but that has no bearing on the external grav field and is unaffected by it.You can calculate the gravitational potential energy of a single nucleon if you like, but it's just 1/57 of the number I gave previously - still a factor of 100,000 too big. And let's put your quote back into contextQuoteFirstly, thank you very much for engaging!My model is suggestive that quantum is not quantised.....sorry, but it still stinks!

.however, the process of the Fe57 would be capable of occurring at higher and lower energies if the entire process is shifted in energy proportionally.

If there is more energy then the rate of time runs faster.

Quote.however, the process of the Fe57 would be capable of occurring at higher and lower energies if the entire process is shifted in energy proportionally. I await your calculation with bated breath. It's dead easy as I showed above, just add mgh to the ground-level energy to get the new photon energy. We know g and h, but what value are you going to use for m? And what value of m will you use for the cesium, rubidium and aluminum clocks? You can't just work backwards to get an arbitrary value: you have to explain the physics first.QuoteIf there is more energy then the rate of time runs faster. Or, to put it more scientifically, conventional GR gravitational time dilation applies, and clocks run faster when seen from a lower gravitational potential. No argument there, but equally, no progress towards integration of relativity and quantum mechanics.

I think that I previously suggested that ground level potential energy for any mass would be mg.

So you are now suggesting that time is temperature-dependent? Quote I think that I previously suggested that ground level potential energy for any mass would be mg. Dimensions?

Then there is no point in continuing the discusson.

Quote from: alancalverd on 26/07/2016 16:53:15Then there is no point in continuing the discusson.Let me rephrase:The dimensions are m and g and h.It really doesn't matter what m is unless you are going to actually make a calculation of a process, in which case this would require figuring out what the relevant m of that process is. It is that the proportionality of any and all m at h upholds the equivalence principle that is of relevance. Unless you are referring to any other dimensions, in which case I don't know what you mean.

I don't know what you mean by dimensions, sorry.

QuoteI don't know what you mean by dimensions, sorry.Then there is no point whatever in continuing the discussion. I might as well be writing in Martian heiroglyphics.

You have previously described dimensions as apples and oranges and pears Alan.

Quote from: timey on 27/07/2016 14:53:40You have previously described dimensions as apples and oranges and pears Alan.Alan is making the case for Dimensional balance timey. It would be good for you to investigate "Dimensional Analysis" at Wikipedia. His point is; You can't multiply, or divide apples by oranges. All equations must be dimensionally balanced.

Quote from: Ethos_ on 27/07/2016 15:04:56Quote from: timey on 27/07/2016 14:53:40You have previously described dimensions as apples and oranges and pears Alan.Alan is making the case for Dimensional balance timey. It would be good for you to investigate "Dimensional Analysis" at Wikipedia. His point is; You can't multiply, or divide apples by oranges. All equations must be dimensionally balanced.For goodness sake Ethos...mgh is a known calculation!Without h, mg can describe gravity potential for individual masses at ground level and the further multiplying by h adds gravity potential energy for those masses at elevation. h being the height of elevation.The dimensions of this suggestion are exactly proportional to the equivalence principle, in that all relationships that exist retain their existing proportionality between each other at elevation.I'm very sorry that I cannot express this in terms of dimensional analysis! Perhaps this is a job for someone who is adept at mathematics - and fact is, talking to someone who is adept at mathematics is indeed the very reason for my posting on this forum...

Quote from: timey on 27/07/2016 16:32:37Quote from: Ethos_ on 27/07/2016 15:04:56Quote from: timey on 27/07/2016 14:53:40You have previously described dimensions as apples and oranges and pears Alan.Alan is making the case for Dimensional balance timey. It would be good for you to investigate "Dimensional Analysis" at Wikipedia. His point is; You can't multiply, or divide apples by oranges. All equations must be dimensionally balanced.For goodness sake Ethos...mgh is a known calculation!Without h, mg can describe gravity potential for individual masses at ground level and the further multiplying by h adds gravity potential energy for those masses at elevation. h being the height of elevation.The dimensions of this suggestion are exactly proportional to the equivalence principle, in that all relationships that exist retain their existing proportionality between each other at elevation.I'm very sorry that I cannot express this in terms of dimensional analysis! Perhaps this is a job for someone who is adept at mathematics - and fact is, talking to someone who is adept at mathematics is indeed the very reason for my posting on this forum...Wrong! The h is required to produce an energy equation. This is why dimensional analysis cannot be ignored. Mg is kg m s^-2. Not correct.

Valid values for h fall within a set range. The gravitational field needs to be able to be considered uniform within this defined range. It would be meaningless to measure from the surface of the earth with a value for h in the hundreds of thousands of metres range. Since the value for g varies significantly over such a distance. Your value for energy would be in significant error. This is not a trivial point. All things are relative.

then the equivalence principle is upheld as all energy, relationships between particles, atoms, molecules, etc remain proportional to each other.

Quote from: timey on 27/07/2016 20:34:26then the equivalence principle is upheld as all energy, relationships between particles, atoms, molecules, etc remain proportional to each other.So there is no change in the emitted energy of the mossbauer photon or the frequency of an atomic clock. Face it, if the quantised energy levels of an atom were to change with gravitational potential, space would be occupied by plasma, not atoms and molecules, but it ain't.

There is no mass involved in the Fe57 transition. Nor are the masses of the electrons and nuclei relevant to the Cs133 hyperfine transition.Gravitational potential increases as you move away from the source of gravitation. V(x) = -GM/x by definition. So it is zero in deep space and tends to minus infinity as you approach a massive body.

The potential energy of any particle of mass m at height h in a uniform gravitational field is mgh.

If you want to include variations in g with h, by all means, but it turns a simple linear equation into an integral and doesn't shed any light on the subject at all. The variation over 100 feet or even 1000 feet from the earth's surface is not worth worrying about.

Can I ask please if the time dilation the Lorentz transformations describe is gravitational, or motion related?

mgh as a linear equation is calculating the gravity field as a positive calculation, but the gravity field is reducing by the inverse square law at h. (As an integral we would see the Riemann geometry that forms part of GR.)

Quote from: timey on 02/08/2016 13:59:12mgh as a linear equation is calculating the gravity field as a positive calculation, but the gravity field is reducing by the inverse square law at h. (As an integral we would see the Riemann geometry that forms part of GR.)Not sure what you mean by a positive calculation, but g(h) = g(0) (R/(R+h))^2 where R is the radius of the earth. So substituting R = 6,371,000 and h = 25 we get g(h)/g(0) = 0.999992 for a 25 meter height increase, 1 part in 10^6 difference. Compare this with the measured Pound-Rebka frequency shift of 2.5 x 10^-15 and I think you will see that there is a bit more to it than merely variaton of g with h.

I'm not sure why your h is in brackets, so on, but I think I get overall jist...

m*g*h then calculates mass at h inclusive of inverted time dilation, and the additional potential energy due to the mass of the object will increase the frequency of the object or process of the object being measured.

and we observe that frequency changes are related to Planck's h constant

Planck's h constant, being a per 'standard' second squared measurement, the measured phenomenon itself is subject to an increase in energy, causing an increase in time for that phenomenon. Increases of joules per second squared, can then be transposed to being a linear consideration and quantum is not quantised.

Quote from: timey on 02/08/2016 21:10:47 I'm not sure why your h is in brackets, so on, but I think I get overall jist... For some reason the forum software doesn't allow subscripts at the moment. g(h) is the alternative shorthand for "the value of g at height h" compared with g(0) which pretty obviously means "the value of g at ground level"Quote m*g*h then calculates mass at h inclusive of inverted time dilation, and the additional potential energy due to the mass of the object will increase the frequency of the object or process of the object being measured. a moment's reflection on the dimensions of mgh will show that it doesn't calculate mass, but potential energy. Quote and we observe that frequency changes are related to Planck's h constant except that they are not. Again, dimensional analysis will show that the ratio of frequencies is dimensionless whereas h has dimensions ML^2/T Quote Planck's h constant, being a per 'standard' second squared measurement, the measured phenomenon itself is subject to an increase in energy, causing an increase in time for that phenomenon. Increases of joules per second squared, can then be transposed to being a linear consideration and quantum is not quantised. except that h is joule.seconds, not joules per second squared.

*Yes - I know. Clearly it is potential energy that is being calculated, not mass. Why would you think that I think otherwise?

Wavelength = h|pFrequency = E|hWhere h is Planck's h constant.

Sorry, my mistake... The per and squared factor is not important to the overall concept, in fact its a good deal less complicated. Joules 'times' a standard second then.

Quote from: timey on 03/08/2016 00:42:35*Yes - I know. Clearly it is potential energy that is being calculated, not mass. Why would you think that I think otherwise? because you said so!*QuoteWavelength = h|pFrequency = E|hWhere h is Planck's h constant. and frequency divided by frequency is dimensionless*QuoteSorry, my mistake... The per and squared factor is not important to the overall concept, in fact its a good deal less complicated. Joules 'times' a standard second then. Fred Hoyle made such a statement once, but went down in history for saying it.

Where does frequency divided by frequency come in? I didn't introduce that notion!*

Quote from: timey on 03/08/2016 14:25:46Where does frequency divided by frequency come in? I didn't introduce that notion!*Dimensionless numbers are very important in the mathematical construction of physical realities and when one understands their importance, they are on track to seeing the importance of Dimensional Analysis. Consider the fine structure constant "a" as one example.