An analysis of the de Broglie equation

  • 724 Replies
  • 24654 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #50 on: 28/05/2016 10:01:32 »
I don't know why you keep referring to the phenomenon as though it were an illusion based on observer dependency.
I don't. It isn't an illusion.

We are talking about relativity here. What you see depends on your speed or gravitational potential relative to what you are looking at. There are no absolutes.

A clock cannot "register" a different time from what it is generating, by definition, but another clock can see the difference between them.
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 #51 on: 28/05/2016 11:17:45 »
Granted Alan... But when NIST place 2 atomic clocks 1 meter apart in elevation - given that the NIST clock operative is likely more than 3 feet tall, both clocks are indeed in the same reference frame as the observer, and are observed by that observer to be running at different rates.

So - I fail to see the relevance of bringing up the relativity aspect when discussing the mechanics of the clock, and questioning if the naturally resonating frequency of the caesium atoms, (being 9,192,631,770 Hz), of the ground level clock, increases or decreases for the clock held at 1 meter elevation relative to the clock on the ground...
« Last Edit: 28/05/2016 11:36:48 by timey »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #52 on: 28/05/2016 11:38:25 »
The observer, in effect, writes down the numbers appearing on the clock faces (it's actually simpler than that - you measure the phase difference accumulated over millions of cycles, between the two signals, and you find it varies in such a way that the higher clock is clearly running faster*).

We define time (and therefore frequency) as what comes out of a standard clock. Relativity says that what comes out of a standard clock will be blueshifted with respect to another if it is at a greater altitude. And it is.

Nothing to do with the mechanics of the clock, which in this case is gravity-invariant. How do we know?  Because (a) if you turn the clock upside down, you get the same answer (b) the calculated relativistic G-blueshift is exactly what is measured and (c) you get the same answer (though with less precision) with rubidium clocks and hydrogen masers, which have very different mechanisms.

Quote
both clocks are indeed in the same reference frame as the observer
They are not moving with respect to each other, but the upper clock is at a higher gravitational potential - that's what we mean by "altitude". General relativity is the business of equating a gravitational field to a moving frame of reference.

*It doesn't matter where you measure the phase difference. If you subtract the lower signal from the received upper signal, you can see that the upper clock is running faster. If you do it the other way around, you can see that the lower clock is running slower. 

« Last Edit: 28/05/2016 11:42:16 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 #53 on: 28/05/2016 12:21:43 »
Understood!

But you see how the clock at ground level is calibrated at the frequency of  9,192,631,770 Hz, because that is the natural resonating frequency of the caesium atom, what I am asking is:

Do the caesium atoms of the clock elevated 1 meter in elevation relative to the clock on the ground still resonate at 9,192,631,770 Hz, or does this frequency change?

And if the frequency does change from 9,192,631,770 Hz for the elevated clock, does it increase, or decrease?

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4054
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #54 on: 28/05/2016 14:50:50 »
The scale by which a unique frame of reference can be defined has a limit at the Planck scale. So two clocks at a separation of 1 metre elevation must be considered to be in unique and different frames of reference, since the gravitational gradient varies between the two. Simply because two objects are in the same room does not necessarily mean the frames of reference they occupy are identical.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #55 on: 28/05/2016 15:58:34 »
Ok, yes the clocks are in different frames of reference, but only 1 meter apart.

My question:

The calibrated frequency of the caesium atoms of the mechanism of the atomic clock on the ground, this being 9,192,631,770 Hz... Do the caesium atoms of the clock elevated at 1 meter operate at a frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz, or does the elevated position of the clock at 1 meter change this operating frequency?

If the elevated position of the clock does cause this frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz to change, ie: gravitationally shift, is the frequency an increased frequency, or a decreased frequency in relation to 9,192,631,770 Hz?

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4054
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #56 on: 28/05/2016 16:30:23 »
What answer are you expecting?

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #57 on: 28/05/2016 16:49:45 »

The NIST site states that the frequency of cycles increases for the elevated clock...

Unless there is some other meaning to the phrase of terminology?  Not impossible, hence the question...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #58 on: 28/05/2016 17:36:56 »
To be absolutely pedantic, the cesium clock isn't calibrated. It is the universal standard against which all other timepieces are calibrated, so it defines the second, because all cesium clocks operate at the same frequency, everywhere.

Frequency is the number of cycles per unit time. In a lower gravitational field* time speeds up. So if the frequency of the space clock is constant, the number of space clock cycles seen by an observer on the earth in one earth clock second is larger.

Now 3 ft is, in human terms, a significant change in gravitational potential. If you drop a brick on your foot, it really hurts.  But in cosmic terms it's a very small change, so you need two very precise clocks to measure it by time dilation. That said, it's fundamental to the means by which we measure GPS altitude, so if your clock is really good, you can land a plane by it.


*and here's a source of confusion - if the gravitational field is divergent, as with the earth's field, a higher altitude -> lower field strength  = higher gravitational potential. But don't worry about it, it's just a sign convention.
« Last Edit: 28/05/2016 17:40:56 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 #59 on: 28/05/2016 18:21:50 »
When the clock is set up and placed in situ, the microwave beam that the ball of cooled caesium atoms is tossed up through 'must' be calibrated, ie: tweaked.  They know that they have tweaked the microwave beam to the correct frequency that the caesium atom naturally resonates at - this being the frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz - when the caesium atoms tossed up in the chamber through this microwave beam emit light.

The NIST site states that the clock in the weaker gravity field has an increased frequency of cycles and runs at a faster rate.
« Last Edit: 28/05/2016 18:24:44 by timey »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #60 on: 28/05/2016 19:50:56 »
"Faster" compared with what? (Hint - the one on the ground!) And I don't think NIST uses the term "frequency of cycles", just "frequency". 

Quote
A caesium standard or caesium atomic clock is a primary frequency standard in which electronic transitions between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium-133 atoms are used to control the output frequency. The first caesium clock was built by Louis Essen in 1955 at the National Physical Laboratory in the UK.[1]
The cesium atom determines the frequency of the microwave source.

 
Quote
By definition, radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency of exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz. That value was chosen so that the caesium second equalled, to the limit of human measuring ability in 1960 when it was adopted, the existing standard ephemeris second based on the Earth's orbit around the Sun.

The difference betwen definition and calibration is significant to professional nitpickers like standards physicists.
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 #61 on: 28/05/2016 20:47:05 »
Be that as it may Alan, the only part of the process that I am concerned with is the frequency of the elevated clock being greater than the clock that is on the on the ground in the stronger gravitational field.

Remember that the caesium atom has been chosen because it's natural resonating frequency is equal to a second as defined by the movements of the earth around the sun, not because it is the definition of the phenomenon of time itself.  It is only a measurement.

The frequency of the caesium atom increases in the weaker gravitational field due to the addition of gravity potential?

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #62 on: 29/05/2016 00:19:34 »
Remember that the caesium atom has been chosen because it's natural resonating frequency is equal to a second as defined by the movements of the earth around the sun,
Only if you believe that  9,192,631,770 = 1, and I think you may be alone in that belief.

Those who know a bit more would say that cesium is chosen because 9 GHz microwaves are easy to generate and manipulate, and the cesium ground state hyperfine transition is very stable and easy to identify within the cesium absorption spectrum. The magic number was chosen as the best estimate of the length of an astronomical ephemeris second in terms of the frequency of a cesium clock, and from that moment on, the clock defined the second and all astronomical measurements became secondary measures.   

Not a good idea to talk about the "frequency of the cesium atom" lest deBroglie fans think you  mean the deBroglie frequency of the atom, which depends on its kinetic energy. The hyperfine splitting energy doesn't.

As the energy (and hence frequency: E=hf) of the cesium clock transition is fixed, the phenomenon of one clock running fast or slow compared with another is due to the relativistic gravitational and/or motion dilation of time between observers.   
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 #63 on: 29/05/2016 01:16:11 »
I very rarely believe anything these days.  Belief is illogical.  I have read that a caesium atoms transitions at the frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz defines the length of 1 standard second, and have yet found no evidence to suggest anything otherwise.

If the frequency of the atoms of the elevated clock is greater than the frequency of the atoms of the clock at ground level, then the E=hf transitions of the caesium atom are not fixed.  E will increase or decrease as frequency increases or decreases.

In the NIST ground level relativity tests both clocks are held stationary with regards to each other, so kinetic energy cannot be responsible for the difference in frequency between the clocks... and logically speaking if the clock at 1 meter elevation were to zoom off horizontally at speed - adding the subsequent kinetic energy would further increase the frequency and the atomic clock would register a further increase in time, and not the decrease in rate of time as is observed.

The De Broglie hypothesis holds that a particles energy is proportional to frequency, and momentum is calculated via velocity and mass.  The fact that lights mass is calculated via kinetic energy is confusing, but as far as I am aware, a particles frequency is mass related, and it is a particles mass that is velocity related.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #64 on: 29/05/2016 09:58:19 »

 then the E=hf transitions of the caesium atom are not fixed.  E will increase or decrease as frequency increases or decreases.

That's the difference between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics + relativity. QM sensibly says E is fixed because the atom has no idea where it is, and the electrostatic forces inside an atom are much larger than any possible perturbation. Relativity says time is compressed or expanded by gravitation. Common sense says the observer next to the clock doesn't see any change, because he has no other reference. Calculation says an observer at a different gravitational potential will see a difference between the clocks. Experiment says that is exactly what happens. 

Quote
In the NIST ground level relativity tests both clocks are held stationary with regards to each other, so kinetic energy cannot be responsible for the difference in frequency between the clocks... and logically speaking if the clock at 1 meter elevation were to zoom off horizontally at speed - adding the subsequent kinetic energy would further increase the frequency and the atomic clock would register a further increase in time, and not the decrease in rate of time as is observed.
"Ground level" is not "1 meter above ground". Even a cheap GPS like the 200 gadget in my tatty old Cessna can tell the difference, thanks to gravitational time dilation. Relative velocity time dilation is not the same phenomenon as gravitational dilation, as you know (we've discussed this before). Other experiments have shown (indeed you have quoted them) that relative motion slows time, exactly as predicted.

It's interesting to calculate both effects for an orbiting astronaut (low earth orbit, speed dominates, received frequency decreases) and a GPS satellite (high orbit, gravitational shift dominates, frequency increases). There will be some orbital distance at which the effects cancel and a "space clock" keeps time with a "ground clock" - just like your favorite Pound-Rebka experiment!

Quote
[The De Broglie hypothesis holds that a particles energy is proportional to frequency, and momentum is calculated via velocity and mass.  The fact that lights mass is calculated via kinetic energy is confusing, but as far as I am aware, a particles frequency is mass related, and it is a particles mass that is velocity related.
Not quite true, but wholly irrelevant. Maybe next time! But you will confuse yourself less by sticking to the usual terminology: the frequency of a cesium clock (9 gigahertz microwaves, lower than optical)  is not the deBroglie frequency of a cesium atom (way up with cosmic gamma radiation) 
« Last Edit: 29/05/2016 10:10:57 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 #65 on: 29/05/2016 11:16:18 »
The difference between quantum and relativity, and the fact they cannot be reconciled with each other is exactly the region I'm interested in...

Nope ground level is not 1 meter above ground!!!  NIST used 2 clocks, one on the ground (sea level presumably) and one at 1 meter elevation...  If the clock elevated at 1 meter zoomed off horizontally at speed was the consideration...  (I could have zoomed the ground level clock off at speed, but it wouldn't have made for such a good working visualisation due to drag factor. ;)...)

Yes, I am aware that my description of frequency being mass related and mass being velocity related is "not quite true"... this being because e=mc2...

Edit:  The lower microwave region kicks the energy and therefore the frequency of the caesium atom up an energy level.  (Quantum). At elevation the frequency of the atom increases (gravity potential, Relativity).   The energy level of the atom increases the frequency and the wavelength gets shorter (De Broglie hypothesis)

I can see the possibility that an increase in frequency can be associated with an increase in the rate of time (caesium atom behaviour at increased frequency in a weaker gravitational field) and that a lower frequency such as experienced by light in a weaker gravitational field can be indicative of a decrease in the rate of time.

Ditch the notion of energy mass equivalence... and under this remit calculation of wavelength is time related and quantum can then be calculated as to a particles position and momentum simultaneously and without recourse to probability...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #66 on: 29/05/2016 12:23:39 »
Difficut to know where to begin to lead you out of this snowdrift of pseudoscience, so let's ignore the stuff about cesium atoms (why not? you have ignored what I told you!) and start with 
Ditch the notion of energy mass equivalence... and under this remit calculation of wavelength is time related and quantum can then be calculated as to a particles position and momentum simultaneously and without recourse to probability...

You will know from your wide and deep reading on the subject, or even Wikipedia, that mass-energy equivalence does not enter into derivation of, or the equation for, gravitational redshift, nor relative velocity shift. Nor does probablity or quantum mechanics. Relativistic shifts and time dilation are purely classical, continuum, deterministic phenomena.

Keep it simple. In general, truth is found through simplicity.
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 #67 on: 29/05/2016 13:34:04 »
I'm not ignoring what you have told me...  What I am doing is employing a technique that solicitors use when cross examining witnesses.  I read a book on it.  One leads the discussion to the area one wishes to illuminate.  I forget what the technique is called, I'm out at mo, but will look at the book when I get back later and tell you.

I have read extensively on all of the things that you have 'told me'.  I might not know how to manipulate mathematics but I do have a good understanding of current physics and  therefore please understand that when I make deviations from current physics I do so purposefully.

You seem to be unconcerned that physics is divided into 2 working hypothesis that cannot be reconciled with each other.  I observe a universe that is working as a whole.  The reason I observe this is because the universe does work as a whole, therefore there must be a 'bridge' between quantum and the observed effects of gravitational shift and energy change that are currently Relativity.  It is the goal of theoretical physicists worldwide to reconcile these theories with each other, and it is widely accepted among these physicists that in order to do so, alternatives must be considered.

Perhaps you are confusing the consideration of alternatives to be a 'snowdrift of pseudoscience'?  Or perhaps there is no confusion and you could then rename your board of New Theories as such, instead of 'New Theories'?

Keep it simple:  In a universe where we know that gravity has an effect on particles, and quantum is the world of particles, why is it that these equations you mention do not relate to each other?

Going back to the caesium atom, it's energy level and frequency increase in the weaker gravitational field.  Are you measuring what the rate of time is for that location of weaker gravity field, or are you merely measuring what the rate of time is for the caesium atom via the gravitational shift of an increase in energy, and therefore an increase in frequency, it has suffered in the weaker gravitational field?

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #68 on: 29/05/2016 15:54:00 »
In a universe where we know that gravity has an effect on particles, and quantum is the world of particles, why is it that these equations you mention do not relate to each other?

The only equations I have mentioned, of gravitational and velocity shift, are very closely related to each other. Neither has any implied or observed quantum implications as they are both continuum phenomena. Hence no need for a bridge of any sort. 

"Quantum is the world of particles" is journalism or philosophy, not physics.

There is a legitimate question as to why gravitation is not quantised, and the answer is that we don't know, or the quanta are very small, but the question is irrelevant to the present discussion.

Quote
Going back to the caesium atom, it's energy level and frequency increase in the weaker gravitational field.
beware of snow. The potential energy of an atom increases as it moves up the gravitational well. The deBroglie frequency of an atom depends on its momentum, which can be any value you like, or zero if it isn't moving. Neither has anything to do with the clock frequency, which is a function of the electronic structure of the atom, not its environment or relative speed. That's why we use cesium clocks, hydrogen spectra, mossbauer photons and the like, to investigate relativistic frequency shifts. 
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 #69 on: 29/05/2016 17:54:58 »
All particles are in motion!  When a particle is described as having a rest mass, all this means is that the particle is at rest relative to the earth's motion. ie: it is moving with the earth.

You say that the De Broglie frequency* of an atom is dependent on momentum.  Momentum is calculated via mass and velocity.  Frequency is calculated via energy... and e=mc2.

Are you saying that there is a distinction between how the energies that supposedly contribute to the mass of a particle, or atom, interact with gravity?

You are saying that the clock frequency is a function of the electrons making up the structure of the atom.  Breaking the atom down to its particle structure, the electron has energy, frequency, wavelength...and mass.

Why is the 'we don't know' aspect of physics irrelevant to a discussion that attempts to offer an answer to unknowns, or at least gives a 'reason for cause' for observables that may then be discussed?

If a photon gravitationally shifts in energy, any particle is gravitationally shifting in energy!

*(What is the difference between a De Broglie frequency of an atom, and the frequency of light?  And if a De Broglie frequency differs from another type of frequency, what is this other type of frequency?)

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #70 on: 29/05/2016 18:47:10 »
All particles are in motion!  When a particle is described as having a rest mass, all this means is that the particle is at rest relative to the earth's motion. ie: it is moving with the earth.
Alas, this planet is of no cosmic significance. Pmb prefers the term "proper mass", but I think the term "invariant mass" is more descriptive. It's the bit that doesn't depend on speed.   

Quote
You say that the De Broglie frequency* of an atom is dependent on momentum.  Momentum is calculated via mass and velocity.  Frequency is calculated via energy... and e=mc2.{/quote]. As you wish. But if you put in the numbers, you will see that the deBroglie frequency of Cs133 is several orders of magnitude higher than the hyperfine transition frequency that drives the clocks.

Quote
Are you saying that there is a distinction between how the energies that supposedly contribute to the mass of a particle, or atom, interact with gravity?
no

[quoote]You are saying that the clock frequency is a function of the electrons making up the structure of the atom.  Breaking the atom down to its particle structure, the electron has energy, frequency, wavelength...and mass.
Yep. And it's only the quantised energy that matters here.

Quote
Why is the 'we don't know' aspect of physics irrelevant to a discussion that attempts to offer an answer to unknowns, or at least gives a 'reason for cause' for observables that may then be discussed?
because in this instance, the cause is known.

Quote
If a photon gravitationally shifts in energy, any particle is gravitationally shifting in energy!
True, but irrelevant.

Quote
*(What is the difference between a De Broglie frequency of an atom, and the frequency of light?  And if a De Broglie frequency differs from another type of frequency, what is this other type of frequency?)
I'll leave you to calculate or look up the numbers. Hint: the answer is "enormous"!
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 #71 on: 29/05/2016 19:09:20 »
Why is the fact of an electron gravitationally shifting irrelevant, if the electron's quantised energy transition is shifting the frequency of the clock in the weaker gravitational field?

I did not mean the 'value' of the supposed difference between a De-Broglie frequency of a particle with mass and the frequency of light, just the fact that lights frequency reduces in a weaker gravitational field and a particle with mass, it's frequency increases in a weaker gravitational field.

You also implied that a De Broglie frequency differs from frequency of another kind.  I wanted to know what this other frequency related to, if it is not associated with the energy of the particle, as the De Broglie frequency is...

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4054
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #73 on: 29/05/2016 20:41:27 »
So instead of saying that it is the caesium atom's energy, or the electron's energy that has been gravitationally shifted in the weaker gravitational field for an increase in frequency, it would be more terminologically correct to say that the energy of the hyperfine structure transition of the caesium atoms has gravitationally shifted in the weaker gravitational field for an increase in frequency?

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #74 on: 29/05/2016 22:35:04 »
No. As far as the observer in the weaker field is concerned. there has been no change in anything.

Quote
just the fact that lights frequency reduces in a weaker gravitational field and a particle with mass, it's frequency increases in a weaker gravitational field.
If you keep repeating this you may convince yourself, but nobody else. One more time: the frequency of electromagnetic radiation as seen by an observer in a weaker gravitational field is lower than that seen by an observer at the source.

Quote
While gravitational redshift refers to what is seen, gravitational time dilation refers to what is deduced to be "really" happening once observational effects are taken into account.

Now what do you mean by the frequency of a particle?
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 #75 on: 30/05/2016 00:42:20 »
Yes it is well documented that observers in differing reference frames will observe their clock to be the correct time.  This is the premiss of the equivalence principle, whereby any reference frame is the equivalent to any other reference frame, and it is the 'other' reference frame that will appear to the observer to be running slow or fast.

But... can we please leave the observer out of the picture and consider all 'appearances' of other reference frames as being a) occurring as an observer independent phenomenon, and b) as being relative to the standard second?

The De Broglie hypothesis states wavelengths for particles with mass.  A wavelength comes inherent with a frequency, and this frequency is energy related.  More energy = higher frequency = shorter wavelength.

Whether anybody observes it or not, lights frequency decreases in a weaker gravitational field.  Whether anyone observes it or not, a particle with mass's frequency increases in a weaker gravitational field... I can say this once, or a thousand times, and it will still be an observed fact of physics...

Quote
While gravitational redshift refers to what is seen, gravitational time dilation refers to what is deduced to be "really" happening once observational effects are taken into account.

Interesting turn of phrase that... (chuckle)

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #76 on: 30/05/2016 08:55:58 »
Perhaps, when you say "a particle with mass's frequency" you mean "deBroglie frequency". In that case (and it would be so much easier if you used the same words as everyone else) your conundrum is easily explained.

deBroglie frequency f= E/h. As a particle falls from a high gravitational potential, its kinetic energy increases so f increases. I think the confusion arises from the fact that a high gravitational potential means a low gravitational field.

You can't leave the observer out of relativistic matters, by definition: "relative" means that there must be two reference points. The power of relativity is in the realisation that in the absence of a universal reference frame there must be reciprocity between observers, but a convergent gravitational field provides an asymmetric reference.

As far as the standard second is concerned, the hyperfine transition that defines it is the energy difference between the spin + and spin - states of the outer electron in the Cs133 atom with reference to the nuclear spin. The difference is independent of gravitational field because "+" and "-" are only defined with respect to the nuclear spin, which is randomly oriented in a gas. Therefore the frequency is fixed for a stationary local observer but may appear different to an observer who is moving (Doppler shift) or at a different gravitational potential (gravitational red shift). We can set the D shift to zero by not moving. Now we observe an asymmetric G shift but we know that the originating phenomenon is unaffected by gravitation, so we say that time is compressed by gravitation. 
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 #77 on: 30/05/2016 14:17:39 »
Ok - the difference between a De Broglie frequency and other frequency is???  The ground state of an atom has an energy, and this energy is mass associated e=mc2.  Momentum is calculated mv=p.  So the De Broglie momentum symbol p already contains the ground state frequency of the atom within its value.  Planck's constant h/p=wavelength, and then frequency can be established because frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength. The fact of the additional KE increasing the mass of the atom is a bit of a complication to these simple calculations...(adding gravity potential energy will also increase mass, but I will ignore this 'tiny' effect  for the moment)

So - the NIST ground level relativity tests placed a clock on the ground, and a clock at 1 meter elevation.  The clocks are in different reference frames, but the observer is in 1 reference frame containing both of the clocks and is observing both clocks.  There is no KE involved as the reference frames of the clocks are stationary relative to each other and the observer.

Let's take this a stage further and place a clock at each meter of elevation for a distance of 22 meters (I'd say 22.5 meters as in Pound Rebka but I'm not liking the visual of a half clock, (chuckle)...)
Each clock's rate of time is linked to a computer read out that the observer on the ground is observing on a split screen.  Each clock is in a different reference frame, but the observation of these different reference frames is remaining within 1 reference frame, this being that of the observer on the ground.

Each clock will consider that it is in its ground state transition energy and frequency, but the observer on the ground will observe that all of the clocks are registering a different frequency.  At each meter of elevation, a clock has an increased frequency than the clock below it.  In this situation it must be the added energy of gravity potential that has increased the frequency of the atom.

Now let's say that we repeat this exact scenario 'somehow', and measure the frequency of atoms that have more or less ground state energy at ground level, and then measure them at elevations of a meter apart...  Adding gravity potential will increase the energy, and therefore the frequency of those atoms ground state at elevation in the same way that the caesium atom's frequency is increased at elevation.  But this increase in frequency that atoms of different ground state energies from a caesium atom will experience is proportional to their rest mass, and not proportional to the increase in frequency that the caesium atom increases by at the same elevation.

Therefore the possibility that the caesium atomic clock is only measuring an increase in the rate of time for its own self is a valid and logical train of thought, and investigation.

If the rate of time for a caesium atom increases with additional energy, and we can say that all atoms rates of time increase with additional energy, then the concept of a gravity well slowing the rate of time is illogical.

Looking at how light of 'any' frequency decreases in the weaker gravitational field, and by ignoring KE, one can then go on to consider that the photon has 0 energy ground state, and that the energy that the light has has been given to it by the energy of the interaction that caused it to be emitted.  This energy then becomes gravitationally shifted as light moves through a gravitational gradient, but take note - light's energy is shifted in the opposite direction within a gravitational gradient than an atom's is.

Logically speaking, and in keeping with the logic of current time dilation considerations, there exists the possibility that there is an inverted time dilation phenomenon that has been overlooked.

Returning to the question of KE, if KE is added a frequency must increase and this is not in keeping with the behaviour exhibited by the caesium atom clock when it experiences a increase in its rate of time due to an energy increase, and observation of a caesium atomic clock's rate of time when in motion is that it's frequency is reduced relative to the stationary clock.

Logically speaking there may be another way to add up the energies that account for frequency.  Obviously we have e=mc2 + gravity potential.  If we add KE the rate of time increases, if we subtract it, hmmm, well I'm no mathematician, but KE amounts to quite a lot of energy...  Can we consider that the gravitational field itself has a non zero energy that must be added (looking at light) and that we can then subtract KE from the sum total of e=mc2 + gravity potential + non zero energy of g-field, for a slowing of time?  Whereby light having no mass has no KE... It's energy is shifted by the gravity field and it's subsequent wavelength is time related.  Take the energy and frequency of a light wave at ground level, earth...run that light wave through a gravitational gradient, and remembering that the caesium atom frequency at ground level is the definition of the second that frequency is measured by, any difference in frequency observed of a different reference frame, can indicate a change in that reference frames rate of time.

This system places the rate of time running faster for gravity wells and slower out in space, which is reflected in the reduction of the frequency of light in space, and the increase in frequency of the caesium atom, or any other atom at elevation, with the addition of gravity potential as we observe...

Ultimately suggesting that the phenomenon of time itself is energy related, and leading me back to Jeff's equation:

OK so as was pointed out [tex]\rho\,=\,\frac{h}{\lambda}[/tex]. Therefore in the case of the photon the energy equation becomes [tex]E\,=\,\frac{\rho{c^2}}{\lambda\nu}[/tex].

If we take our wavelength as L (1 light second) then we can show that [tex]E\,=\,\rho{c}\,=\,\frac{hc}{L}\,=\,\frac{h}{t}[/tex]. This 1 hertz wave then shows the direct relationship to the Planck constant.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4054
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #78 on: 30/05/2016 15:23:27 »
 [>:(] Don't blame me.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #79 on: 30/05/2016 16:15:11 »
Of course not Jeff,  I am completely to blame for my own ideas, it is your equation, as I stated in my first post here, that has interested me...

...and it is your equation that is to blame for my participation in your thread with my alternative take on observation in relation to the relationship you potentially outline between Planck's h constant and hertz.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #80 on: 30/05/2016 17:05:12 »
So here are the numbers. deBroglie frequency f = γmc2/h.

If the atom isn't moving, γ=1

For cesium133 we have m ≈ 133 x 1.7 x 10-27 kg (I've rounded up the mass of a proton to account for the neutrons and electrons)

c2 = 9 x 1016m2/s2

h = 6.6 x 10-34 m2kg/s

so f = 3.08 x 1025 Hz

which is a lot more than the 9 GHz of our atomic clock.

 Timey, it's time, I think, to review your concept of "ground state frequency".
« Last Edit: 30/05/2016 17:08:19 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #81 on: 30/05/2016 17:17:44 »
Whereby light having no mass has no KE.
au contraire, ma brave, it has nothing else.
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 #82 on: 30/05/2016 18:30:05 »
Well, I have indeed been having a good look at ground state...and also the link Jeff posted a few posts back was interesting...
Which led me to my post saying that it would be more terminologically correct to say that the energy of the hyperfine structure transition of the caesium atoms has gravitationally shifted in the weaker gravitational field for an increase in frequency.

This would require, instead of lumping all the particle constituents of the caesium atom into 1, that you break them down into their individual mass's.  However, as per the equivalence principle, whatever proportionality that these particle constituents of the caesium atom have in relation to each other will be the equivalent in any reference frame.

Therefore, is it the electrons that have the hyperfine energy transition value of 9GHz (at ground level, earth) when in a relationship with the other particle constituents that add up to the mass of a caesium atom?

And the difference in these frequencies observed of clocks in the elevated reference frames would be due to an increase in energy of the electrons with respect to the hyperfine structure of the caesium atom, and the gravitational shift of all of the atom's particles proportionally within the structure.

Edit: And in reply to your second post:
Only if mass and energy are equivalent and interchangeable as in current physics... and I was really quite clear that I was making a deviation from current physics and proposing an alternative means of viewing observation...  But to be pernickety, light is emitted with an energy, and different frequencies of light can be emitted under different energy related circumstances.  Do you then add the KE?

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4054
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #83 on: 30/05/2016 18:56:32 »
The photon only has kinetic energy. Since it has zero rest mass.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #84 on: 30/05/2016 19:24:04 »
But the phenomenon of light comes in a spectra of different energies, frequencies and wavelengths, and all of this spectrum of light travel at c...

How does the photon end up with different energies if its only energy is KE?

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #85 on: 30/05/2016 19:44:58 »
How do people end up with different amounts of money if they're all paid in sterling?

The energy of an electromagnetic wave is E = hf where f is its frequency.

Which led me to my post saying that it would be more terminologically correct to say that the energy of the hyperfine structure transition of the caesium atoms has gravitationally shifted in the weaker gravitational field for an increase in frequency.
except that it wouldn't. The transition energy is invariant however you measure it, provided that you are at the same gravitational potential. If you aren't, you observe a gravitational frequency shift. Keep it simple - that's how we do astrochemistry! 
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 #86 on: 30/05/2016 20:07:07 »
I wonder what it is that is 'energy' related about frequency, that a rise or fall of frequency would cause light to have more or less energy?

Yes - we are on the same wavelength here!  So our observer observing the reference frames of 22 clocks, placed at elevations from ground level, 1 meter in difference over 22 meters, will observe that all of the clocks are running at different frequencies relative to each other.  The frequency of each clock will have increased relative to the clock below it.

No kinetic energy involved here, just gravitational shifts to higher energy and frequency that any particle of mass will be subject to if placed in a weaker gravitational field.  Edit: relative to a greater gravitational field.

Light travelling into a weaker gravitational field reduces in frequency...
« Last Edit: 30/05/2016 20:15:31 by timey »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #87 on: 30/05/2016 22:52:47 »
I wonder what it is that is 'energy' related about frequency, that a rise or fall of frequency would cause light to have more or less energy?
E = hf defines h. That's all there is to it. Planck, black bodies, etc.

Quote
Yes - we are on the same wavelength here!  So our observer observing the reference frames of 22 clocks, placed at elevations from ground level, 1 meter in difference over 22 meters, will observe that all of the clocks are running at different frequencies relative to each other.  The frequency of each clock will have increased relative to the clock below it.

No kinetic energy involved here, just gravitational shifts to higher energy and frequency that any particle of mass will be subject to if placed in a weaker gravitational field.  Edit: relative to a greater gravitational field.
Just cut out the new-age crap, and you have the answer!
Quote
Light travelling into a weaker gravitational field reduces in frequency...
Yep, that's gravitational redshift, but an ugly statement. Better to say "the observer in a lower gravitational field  (higher gravitational potential) sees the photon redshifted compared with one generated by the same process in his local field."

Imagine you are standing at the top of the tower. You see that the clock at the bottom, in the stronger gravitational field, is running slower than yours.

Imagine you are at the top of the tower, trying to find the mossbauer photon from the source at the bottom, in the stronger grav field. You note that it is redshifted compared with one generated at your level, so you drive your detector forward to Doppler shift it back to the critical frequency.

Same phenomenon, same result. And you knew it all the way along! 
« Last Edit: 30/05/2016 23:07:45 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 #88 on: 30/05/2016 23:23:09 »
h is a constant Alan.  How can f define h, when h is defined via e, and f is defined via e, and then e is defined via e=hf?  This is a circular route...  h has been defined via thermal equilibrium and the emissions of electromagnetic radiation (black body radiation), and Planck noticing that there were bandwidths of increase in thermal energy that caused no change to the frequency of light, and that it took quantised leaps of an increase in energy to cause the frequency of light to change.

Therefore h defines f.  Planck's h was thermal energy related.  Using e=hf to calculate a gravitational shift in light, what is causing the e of this h?

Yes, gravitational redshift, blueshift of light...got it.  Simple.  Particles with mass gravitationally shift in the 'opposite' direction in the gravitational gradient, 'this' being my point!

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #89 on: 31/05/2016 00:02:13 »
h is a constant Alan.  How can f define h, when h is defined via e, and f is defined via e, and then e is defined via e=hf?  This is a circular route...
The classroom experiment http://www.scienceinschool.org/2014/issue28/planck measures the energy required to produce a photon of a given frequency. E and f are experimental variables measured independently, and their ratio turns out to be a constant known as h.
Quote
Planck noticing that there were bandwidths of increase in thermal energy that caused no change to the frequency of light, and that it took quantised leaps of an increase in energy to cause the frequency of light to change.
drivel

Quote
Using e=hf to calculate a gravitational shift in light, what is causing the e of this h?
In the case of the classic mossbauer photon, it's the quantum transition from a metastable state of the Fe57 nucleus to the ground state. The other well-known astronomical measurement is the spin-flip of the hydrogen electron in its ground state, emitting a 1420.405751786 MHz photon (the "21 cm line")

Quote
Yes, gravitational redshift, blueshift of light...got it.  Simple.  Particles with mass gravitationally shift in the 'opposite' direction in the gravitational gradient, 'this' being my point!
Free particles gain kinetic energy as they accelerate towards a mass (everyday gravitation!). Photons gain kinetic energy (blueshift) as they travel towards a mass. What on earth are you talking about?
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 #90 on: 31/05/2016 00:30:59 »
I'm quite simply talking about the fact that particles with mass, in their various atomic structures gravitationally shift if held in static elevation from mass in a weaker gravitational field!  As with NIST's atomic clocks.  Mass is involved but note - no damn velocity is involved.  Light's frequency gravitationally shifts in a gravitational field.  No mass involved, just velocity.

A particle with mass, it's frequency increases in a weaker gravity field.
Light's frequency reduces in the weaker gravity field.

Can we get past this simple fact of physics Alan and move on to looking at this particular phenomenon in context?

In the mean time, I asked you: what the cause of h was when calculating gravitational shift...

You said:
""In the case of the classic mossbauer photon, it's the quantum transition from a metastable state of the Fe57 nucleus to the ground state. The other well-known astronomical measurement is the spin-flip of the hydrogen electron in its ground state, emitting a 1420.405751786 MHz photon (the "21 cm line") ""

You are describing effect, not cause.

E and f are experimental variables measured independently, and their ratio turns out to be a constant known as h.

Which is just what I drivelling well said!  h is a measurement of joules per second.  Any less joules than h, the frequency per second of the wavelength won't change.

Edit: ...and, in the case of the black body experiment, the energy used to define h was thermal energy.  What energy is the cause of h in a gravitational shift?
« Last Edit: 31/05/2016 01:07:56 by timey »

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #91 on: 31/05/2016 03:52:22 »
Ok - admittedly, I missed out the part about Planck working with molecules and thermal energy with relation to h and it being Einstein who related the concept to the photon, but I'm only writing posts, not a book, and you have a degree Alan, and don't need a history lesson...

No-one knows the cause of the energy shift that occurs in a gravitational shift.  Only the effect of the shift and the proportionality of the energy required to cause a shift are known.  Furthermore no-one knows what the deal is with particle wave duality either.

Frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength and:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
Quote:
"as one moves away from a source of gravitational field, the rate at which time passes is increased relative to the case when one is near the source. As frequency is inverse of time (specifically, time required for completing one wave oscillation), frequency of the electromagnetic radiation is reduced in an area of a lower gravitational field (i.e., a higher gravitational potential)."
Unquote:

I repeat, "as frequency is the inverse of time"... ie: frequency reduces, rate of time increases...

In the case of the caesium atoms increase in frequency of its hyperfine transition in the area of lower gravitational field, (ie: a higher gravitational potential) we are seeing an increase in frequency increase the rate of time.

This difference is what I'm trying to talk to you about.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #92 on: 31/05/2016 08:35:07 »

In the mean time, I asked you: what the cause of h was when calculating gravitational shift...
Apologies, m'lud, but counsel was leading the witness. h does not appear in the equation for G shift, as she well knows.

Quote
You said:
""In the case of the classic mossbauer photon, it's the quantum transition from a metastable state of the Fe57 nucleus to the ground state. The other well-known astronomical measurement is the spin-flip of the hydrogen electron in its ground state, emitting a 1420.405751786 MHz photon (the "21 cm line") ""

You are describing effect, not cause.

You really need to distinguish between cause (stuff happening inside an atom or nucleus) and effect (electromagnetic radiation). It's kinda fundamental to life, and h is what connects them.

Quote
This difference is what I'm trying to talk to you about.
You would do better to think about it.

The frequency of a clock or a photon does not change from the point of view of an observer standing next to it. Now stand on the surface of the earth. A photon coming from a weaker field towards the earth is seen as blueshifted, a clock at altitude is seen as running faster. Same phenomenon, same result.

Or send the signals from earth into space. Both are redshifted as seen by an astronaut.

You keep quoting sources that say the same thing, yet you insist they are different. If you continue badgering this witness, I shall seek the protection of the Court.
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 #93 on: 31/05/2016 11:58:19 »
Lol!  Very good Alan...

The book I read was called 'The Devil's Advocate' and the technique is called advocacy... Needless to say, I've still got a lot to learn (chuckle)...

Can I please bring your attention to the focus of just 2 points here.

The photon observed coming towards Earth from a weaker field, when seen as blue shifted will be further blue shifted as it gets closer.  The blue shifted lights frequency 'increases' as the rate of time becomes slower.

The clock's observed from Earth that are placed at stages of elevation getting closer to earth from a weaker gravitational field are all observed as running at increasingly slower rates of time the closer to earth they are placed.  The clock's frequency 'reduces' as it's rate of time becomes slower.

It is the fact of lights frequency 'increasing' in the slower rates of time, and the clock's frequency 'decreasing' in the slower rates of time that I am trying to bring your attention to...

Why does lights frequency increase in the slower rate of time, when the clock's frequency reduces in the slower rate of time?

*

Offline impyre

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 27
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #94 on: 31/05/2016 12:27:02 »
I could be wrong here, but I think the hang up is really semantic.
The frequency of light is determined at its source. What is being observed isn't the light's frequency "changing", it's that the frequency is observed to be faster than what it truly is simply because the observer is experiencing time dilation. That is to say, the light isn't becoming a higher frequency, you're just seeing it from a slower reference point so it appears faster. It might be wise to refer to the light's frequency and apparent frequency as two separate things. If light is unaffected by gravitational time dilation, then the shift in apparent frequency is due to a doppler-like effect; although instead of being caused by physical movement it's caused by the change in time between the observer and the point of emission. As for the clock, it's simply experiencing the same type of time dilation any other physical object would.

If the light's frequency were to speed up, and the observer were experiencing time dilation, it seems like the effect would be exaggerated.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #95 on: 31/05/2016 13:28:47 »
If the light's frequency were to speed up, and the observer were experiencing time dilation, it seems like the effect would be exaggerated.

Even if you say that the observation of differing rates of time, from differing rates of time are time frame dependent and proportional to the difference in rate, this would still not explain the anomaly.

The clock's (and any atomic structure of mass's) frequency, and therefore energy, 'decreases' when placed in the stronger gravity field.
Lights frequency, and therefore energy, 'increases' in the stronger gravity field.
« Last Edit: 31/05/2016 13:33:21 by timey »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #96 on: 31/05/2016 16:40:20 »
The book I read was called 'The Devil's Advocate' and the technique is called advocacy... Needless to say, I've still got a lot to learn (chuckle)...
Advocacy is about winning an argument. Physics is about finding out what happens in the universe. Aristotelians thought physics could proceed by disputation, but they were wrong every time. So nowadays we start with maximal observations and minimal assumptions, and we get stuff like flight, nuclear power, interesting astronomy, radar speed guns, and GPS.

Why does lights frequency increase in the slower rate of time, when the clock's frequency reduces in the slower rate of time?
I repeat, for the last time ever, that the frequency seen by an observer at a lower gravitational potential is always higher than that seen by an observer at the source. Which is, in simpler and more exact language, just what you summarised in your "2 points".

Don't confuse yourself with "slower rates of time" and other nonscientific language of your own invention. Stick to what is observed and what is calculated, and if the observation matches the calculation (which it does) then it's a good idea to assume that both are correct.

Quote
The photon observed coming towards Earth from a weaker field, when seen as blue shifted will be further blue shifted as it gets closer.  The blue shifted lights frequency 'increases' as the rate of time becomes slower.

The clock's observed from Earth that are placed at stages of elevation getting closer to earth from a weaker gravitational field are all observed as running at increasingly slower rates of time the closer to earth they are placed.  The clock's frequency 'reduces' as it's rate of time becomes slower.

As before, if you cut out the new age bullshit, it all makes sense. Just remember that a stationary clock at any altitude will appear to run faster than a clock on the surface of a planet.
« Last Edit: 31/05/2016 16:46:05 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 #97 on: 31/05/2016 17:41:51 »
In my experience all knowledge and techniques can transpose to all fields.  The book I read places the art of advocacy as a means of persuading discussion into the area of interest in such a way that if there is a point to be illuminated, or an argument to be won, that the direction of the discourse will illuminate the fact...

Advocacy is about winning an argument. Physics is about finding out what happens in the universe. Aristotelians thought physics could proceed by disputation, but they were wrong every time. So nowadays we start with maximal observations and minimal assumptions, and we get stuff like flight, nuclear power, interesting astronomy, radar speed guns, and GPS.


...and a bunch of 'theoretical physicists' scratching there heads going, hey, how come we can do all this and we still know next to nothing about how it all fits together and works as a universe.
Yes the calculations that include relativistic mass do work, and most things add up as they are, except when they don't.  This is how things always are until someone says, hey look at this...!

Yes, you agree with my 2 points, but simply miss the fact that I am pointing out to you with my New Age crapola... This being that the direction of the change in energy and frequency, (ie: increase or decrease in frequency) for a photon in a gravitational gradient is the opposite than it is for an atomic structure.

If we can't get past this, by you saying:
(And there is no reason why you should not say this Alan, because it is true)
"Yes indeed, Miss Vikki Ramsay, aka timey, I can see that blue shifting light has a frequency increases in a stronger gravitational field, and yes, atomic structures of mass, their frequency decreases in a stronger gravitational field, (ie:the atomic clock at one meter elevation relative to the clock on the ground) ...and what is the point you wish to make if it?"

...then the discussion is not progressive, and what is the fun, and where is the purpose in that, do tell?

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #98 on: 31/05/2016 18:00:53 »
The light is dawning, and I think I see your problem.

Your typical stellar photon started its journey a very long way away. As it approaches Earth, it is losing gravitational potential and thus gaining kinetic energy which appears to the earth observer as a blue shift.

You have a clock, say, at a lunar orbit altitude and it ticks at the gravitational potential of that orbit, so we observe it to run fast according to the gravitational shift of that potential. Then you move the clock to, say, a geostationary orbit so it now appears to tick at a slightly slower rate because its  gravitational potential is lower than for a lunar orbit.

Here's the difference: you have moved the source! If you reduce the height of the photon source in the P-R experiment, you measure a smaller blue shift (remember there is no blue shift when the beam is horizontal). Same phenomenon, same result.

You have confused yourself with a neat debating trick! You might confuse a jury, but not me.

 Fiat lux.

 
« Last Edit: 31/05/2016 18:12:27 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 #99 on: 31/05/2016 18:45:23 »
Ah, but there is another difference you have not mentioned, and it is the only difference that I am concerned with here...

The clock's energy and frequency 'decrease' in the stronger gravity field.

The photon's energy and frequency 'increase' in the stronger gravity field.

You say that the closer to the earth the clock is, the less gravity potential is added for a decrease in energy.
So by definition you are saying that a decrease in the energy and frequency of the clock is a decrease in the rate of time.
You say that the KE of the light is the reason that the blue-shifting light is increasing in energy... (So gravity potential isn't affecting the photon's relativistic mass?)

Returning to the clock scenario, we can see that, (dependant upon its location in a gravity field and the observer's), a stationary clock will, with an observed decrease in a clock's frequency, and therefore it's energy, run at a slower rate.   And with an observed increase in a clock's frequency, and therefore it's energy, run at a faster rate.

With relativistic mass technically being the sum total of energies, if we add motion to the previously stationary atomic clock, the KE must be 'added' and the frequency and energy of the clock must increase, (to be in keeping with how you are saying that KE increases energy and frequency for light)...and if the clocks energy and frequency increase, it will be running at a faster rate, and this is NOT what is observed of a clock in motion relative to a stationary clock!!!

So there is something a bit wrong with the logic of procedure, far as I've been able to make out...

Fiat lux.
. Didn't know they made them...poky little car at best...