An analysis of the de Broglie equation

  • 724 Replies
  • 24707 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #500 on: 07/08/2016 01:17:30 »
Let's consider the wavelength of a hypothetical force carrier of the gravitational field. Its wavelength is much longer than that of the photon. The effect of gravitation on the wavelength of light could result in the opposite effect on the wavelength of the graviton. This blue shift would be far less noticeable due to the much longer wavelength. Energy would increase over time but would only be noticeable over very long distances where the force carriers interact with particles in deep space during this interval. This could well have implications for the cosmological constant and both dark matter and energy. How does it sound so far?
On the basis that I have had to remind you twice already why you started this thread, and that the majority of the posts on this thread are discussing my model, considering your moderator status and responsibilities, in that the change in topic is confusing, I think you should split the thread and describe your model as a separate venture.

As a separate venture, and on the basis that your model is now split to a separate thread, how does your model describe the mechanics of the big bang?

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4058
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #501 on: 07/08/2016 01:25:12 »
So as well as hijacking the thread you now feel entitled to claim it as your own. I was actually joking when I said I had forgotten the reason for the thread. It was a subtle critique on your redirection of the threads initial purpose to your own ends. You are actually famous. There have been 10000+ views of this thread. So for you, like Smolin, mission accomplished. Maybe that is why you are eager to claim the thread. Well have it with my blessing. I am nothing if not generous.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #502 on: 07/08/2016 03:06:27 »
So as well as hijacking the thread you now feel entitled to claim it as your own. I was actually joking when I said I had forgotten the reason for the thread. It was a subtle critique on your redirection of the threads initial purpose to your own ends. You are actually famous. There have been 10000+ views of this thread. So for you, like Smolin, mission accomplished. Maybe that is why you are eager to claim the thread. Well have it with my blessing. I am nothing if not generous.
So...you're not going to split your description of your model to another thread and answer questions on how your model describes the mechanics of the big bang?

Btw, most of the threads I post on get a lot of views in case you haven't already noticed.  I'm not sure it actually means that much though, apart from benefitting the forum that is.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4058
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #503 on: 07/08/2016 10:52:01 »
You now have the floor.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #504 on: 07/08/2016 12:40:25 »
You now have the floor.

First you say you have calculated my model.  That I should trust you, that you are a professional.  I point out to you that you might be on the wrong track with a calculation of time reversal, but acquiesce that perhaps you may have some other approach that I'm missing the details of and invite you to elaborate upon, at which point you then say that you are calculating your own model, a model that you now no longer wish to discuss...

Leaving me wondering wtf all that was about!  I think I'll just chalk it up to Saturday night syndrome and leave it at that aye ;) ...

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4058
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #505 on: 07/08/2016 16:20:10 »
You now have the floor.
OK

First you say you have calculated my model.  That I should trust you, that you are a professional.  I point out to you that you might be on the wrong track with a calculation of time reversal, but acquiesce that perhaps you may have some other approach that I'm missing the details of and invite you to elaborate upon, at which point you then say that you are calculating your own model, a model that you now no longer wish to discuss...

Leaving me wondering wtf all that was about!  I think I'll just chalk it up to Saturday night syndrome and leave it at that aye ;) ...


Aye aye cap'n. Over and out.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #506 on: 07/08/2016 16:51:06 »
You now have the floor.
OK

First you say you have calculated my model.  That I should trust you, that you are a professional.  I point out to you that you might be on the wrong track with a calculation of time reversal, but acquiesce that perhaps you may have some other approach that I'm missing the details of and invite you to elaborate upon, at which point you then say that you are calculating your own model, a model that you now no longer wish to discuss...

Leaving me wondering wtf all that was about!  I think I'll just chalk it up to Saturday night syndrome and leave it at that aye ;) ...


Aye aye cap'n. Over and out.
And... I think, from the state of play so far, we can both be in agreement that you have not calculated my model as proven to be mathematically unviable.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #507 on: 07/08/2016 17:05:59 »


What we observe is the phenomenon of red shift.

Yes, this is the current explanation for accelerated expansion. And, BTW, thanks for the link. It was interesting although several of the comments related to it were less than agreeable. That is nevertheless an expected reaction when unconventional ideas are submitted.

Concerning the issue of red shift. Several ideas have been offered for this phenomenon other than expansion. One being what is called "tired light". Not sure if you are familiar with the term but in essence, it blames the red shift on a theory that light looses some of it's energy over vast distances of travel. I'm not particularly a fan of this explanation myself.

There is also another question for us to consider timey. We know that if expansion is the culprit, red shift would indeed be one of the observed results.  But for the sake of argument, I'll grant you that expansion "might not" be the true cause. So now, here is my next question:

If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?
Ethos - I understand that you have shown interest in this theory, and for that I than you, but when you ask me, wouldn't a contracting universe mean that light would be blue shifting, and then say you have calculated my model as unviable, I know for a fact from the question you pose that you haven't grasped the dimension of the proposed addition of this inverted gravitational time dilation in relation to gravity and observation.

I don't hold this against you in any way.  The concept is hard to grasp in the face of currently held physics.  However, I can assure you that as a geometrical concept, the maths 'should' be proportional to GR maths, without requiring the additions of dark matter and dark energy, as a means of dimensionally balancing the maths, because this is what the added dimension of the proposed inverted time dilation 'should' do.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #508 on: 07/08/2016 19:04:28 »
Assuming that we want to talk about timey's thingy, can we please begin with a definition of inverted time? There seems to be some confusion between negative time and reciprocal time, to say nothing of inverse time dilation.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #509 on: 07/08/2016 23:35:36 »

Ethos - I understand that you have shown interest in this theory,
In all fairness to Jeff, who BTW, is the originator of this thread, I think it would be admirable for you to start a new thread and allow this thread to focus upon the originators theme. It's very easy to start new threads here and it might settle a few disputes in the process.

I appreciate your acknowledgement regarding my interest in this subject timey but Jeff has a  perfect right to ask everyone involved in this thread to stay on topic and if I may say so, the course this thread has taken has wandered significantly.

I'm sure you'll acquire as much or more interest in your ideas if you choose to start a new thread. Title it what ever you like timey but make sure the title reflects the theme of your ideas about inverted time dilation.

Good luck with your thought experiment.......................Ethos
« Last Edit: 07/08/2016 23:59:54 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #510 on: 07/08/2016 23:57:54 »
Assuming that we want to talk about timey's thingy, can we please begin with a definition of inverted time? There seems to be some confusion between negative time and reciprocal time, to say nothing of inverse time dilation.
Ok.  Well when physics talks about GR gravitational time dilation, it is referring not 'to' the passing of time, but to 'how' time is passing.

There is the relativity factor between gravity potentials to be considered, in that any observer of his own clock will observe his own clock as being correct.  But as an observer also ages in keeping with his clock, despite the fact that we will only notice the effect of GR gravitational time dilation occurrung in a reference frame when measured from a reference frame of differing gravity potential, we can make the assumption that reference frames of differing gravity potential do experience an actual difference in how time is passing, and that GR gravitational time dilation is a real effect.

Introducing the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation:
To make a description of this proposed inverted time dilation, look to the wavelength of blue shifted light contracting as it travels into a gravity field, and imagine that the time period of a second is contracting proportionally to the wavelength.  Or, in the opposing direction, look to the wavelength of red shifted light dilating as it travels out of a gravity field, and imagine that the time period of a second is dilating proportionally to the wavelength.

Now your first thought will be to say that how can there be an inverted gravitational time dilation when we already know that time runs faster in the weaker gravity field via tried and tested GR gravitational time dilation...

K, well...  Because an observer of a clock will age in keeping with his clock in any gravity potential, whatever physically causes the clock to tick at differing rates is also causing the aging process of the observer to 'tick' at these differing rates.  The obvious explanation is that this is because time is running at differing rates.  Experiments show that a clock will tick faster in the higher gravity potential, and so physics is calculated on the basis that time is running faster out in space.

There exists a less obvious route to explain the observation though:
The equivalence principle can be derived via the gravity potential equation, in that m*g is remaining the same and h is the variable.  As h increases all mass will increase in potential energy proportionally to their usual relationships.   This gives the aging process of the observer of his clock a physical causality.

Now we are saying that GR gravitational time dilation is a mass near mass relationship, and that the open space of a gravity field, ie: the location of gravity potential that mass may be located in, is subject to the proposed inverted time dilation.

Ditch the notion of relativistic mass, and the observation of lights blue shift and red shift in a gravity field can be directly related to the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation.

This notion has now by default switched the concept of time running faster out in space to time running faster for bodies of mass, completely changed the outlook on the Lorentz transformations and their use in the GR field equations, and challenges Hubble's law and the concept of an expanding universe.

(edit: The model states time as being energy related and gives the phenomenon of time itself causality.  However the addition of the proposed inverted time dilation redefines the concept of an acceleration of gravity, changing the dimensional balance of existing equations considerably)
« Last Edit: 08/08/2016 00:48:33 by timey »

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #511 on: 08/08/2016 11:52:34 »


 So now, here is my next question:

If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?

   Although my theory "Gravity and the Dot-wave theory" is aligned to an expanding universe and dark energy which are dot-waves, there are always alternate possibilities which fit in with the basic fundamentals.
   An expanding universe would have a loss of photonic energy over time. It could also be argued that the universe itself has a fixed outer radius and is not expanding but the mass/energy is turning into dark energy.
   If the universe was contracting, the photonic energy would be increasing and we would see a blue shift in the light. So if you have an Einsteinian type model that shows blue light, that would be correct.
  For my own theory there would be nothing to see the blue photons as the physical world started at big bang and is completely erased at full expansion or for a non-expanding universe completely erased at the end of the cycle.

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #512 on: 08/08/2016 12:08:00 »
Assuming that we want to talk about timey's thingy, can we please begin with a definition of inverted time? There seems to be some confusion between negative time and reciprocal time, to say nothing of inverse time dilation.
Ok.  Well when physics talks about GR gravitational time dilation, it is referring not 'to' the passing of time, but to 'how' time is passing.

There is the relativity factor between gravity potentials to be considered, in that any observer of his own clock will observe his own clock as being correct.  But as an observer also ages in keeping with his clock, despite the fact that we will only notice the effect of GR gravitational time dilation occurrung in a reference frame when measured from a reference frame of differing gravity potential, we can make the assumption that reference frames of differing gravity potential do experience an actual difference in how time is passing, and that GR gravitational time dilation is a real effect.

Introducing the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation:
To make a description of this proposed inverted time dilation, look to the wavelength of blue shifted light contracting as it travels into a gravity field, and imagine that the time period of a second is contracting proportionally to the wavelength.  Or, in the opposing direction, look to the wavelength of red shifted light dilating as it travels out of a gravity field, and imagine that the time period of a second is dilating proportionally to the wavelength.

Now your first thought will be to say that how can there be an inverted gravitational time dilation when we already know that time runs faster in the weaker gravity field via tried and tested GR gravitational time dilation...

K, well...  Because an observer of a clock will age in keeping with his clock in any gravity potential, whatever physically causes the clock to tick at differing rates is also causing the aging process of the observer to 'tick' at these differing rates.  The obvious explanation is that this is because time is running at differing rates.  Experiments show that a clock will tick faster in the higher gravity potential, and so physics is calculated on the basis that time is running faster out in space.

There exists a less obvious route to explain the observation though:
The equivalence principle can be derived via the gravity potential equation, in that m*g is remaining the same and h is the variable.  As h increases all mass will increase in potential energy proportionally to their usual relationships.   This gives the aging process of the observer of his clock a physical causality.

Now we are saying that GR gravitational time dilation is a mass near mass relationship, and that the open space of a gravity field, ie: the location of gravity potential that mass may be located in, is subject to the proposed inverted time dilation.

Ditch the notion of relativistic mass, and the observation of lights blue shift and red shift in a gravity field can be directly related to the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation.

This notion has now by default switched the concept of time running faster out in space to time running faster for bodies of mass, completely changed the outlook on the Lorentz transformations and their use in the GR field equations, and challenges Hubble's law and the concept of an expanding universe.

(edit: The model states time as being energy related and gives the phenomenon of time itself causality.  However the addition of the proposed inverted time dilation redefines the concept of an acceleration of gravity, changing the dimensional balance of existing equations considerably)
  As I look at these words, they appear correct in that a time clock within a high density gravitational field and a low density gravitational field are different. thus a time clock varies depending upon the gravitational field. However Einstien's equations show time, mass, and length variations with gravity and velocity.
  If you look at the universe from only time, you are only looking at a partial view. So the universe you see is a different universe. It is a universe where time is the independent variable and everything else depends upon it. thus you can rewrite Einstein's equations from this perspective.
  The problem is that Einstein's equations are a best fit approximation to reality. they are not absolute reality but a root mean square approximation.
   We like to believe that we can write simple equations to define the universe but that is not possible and all we can do is write best fit type equations.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #513 on: 08/08/2016 12:52:44 »


 So now, here is my next question:

If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?

   Although my theory "Gravity and the Dot-wave theory" is aligned to an expanding universe and dark energy which are dot-waves, there are always alternate possibilities which fit in with the basic fundamentals.
   An expanding universe would have a loss of photonic energy over time. It could also be argued that the universe itself has a fixed outer radius and is not expanding but the mass/energy is turning into dark energy.
   If the universe was contracting, the photonic energy would be increasing and we would see a blue shift in the light. So if you have an Einsteinian type model that shows blue light, that would be correct.
  For my own theory there would be nothing to see the blue photons as the physical world started at big bang and is completely erased at full expansion or for a non-expanding universe completely erased at the end of the cycle.

Firstly, to clear up confusion, you have mistakenly quoted me as asking a question that Ethos was responsible for posting whereas the question was being asked of me...

And - again there is a failure to understand the nature of a slowly contracting universe.

My models contraction of the universe has been facilitated by a sea of individual particles being pulled together by gravitational attraction.  A universe comprised only of a sea of particles will have a more or less uniform gravity field throughout.  But as these particles draw together into mass structures, the gravity field is becoming less uniform, with points of greater gravity, and spaces of lesser gravity...

Although this type of contraction of the universe is a very slow process, it is by nature an accelerating process.  The spaces of lesser gravity will be becoming spaces of even lesser gravity at an accelerated rate.
This will give an observation of redshifts.

And a blue shift will be indicative of an open space of gravity field between us and another body of mass increasing in strength.  This will mean that a body of mass and ourselves are moving closer to each other, as current physics understanding of a blue shift suggests, but not for the same physical reason.

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #514 on: 08/08/2016 21:46:15 »


 So now, here is my next question:

If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?

   Although my theory "Gravity and the Dot-wave theory" is aligned to an expanding universe and dark energy which are dot-waves, there are always alternate possibilities which fit in with the basic fundamentals.
   An expanding universe would have a loss of photonic energy over time. It could also be argued that the universe itself has a fixed outer radius and is not expanding but the mass/energy is turning into dark energy.
   If the universe was contracting, the photonic energy would be increasing and we would see a blue shift in the light. So if you have an Einsteinian type model that shows blue light, that would be correct.
  For my own theory there would be nothing to see the blue photons as the physical world started at big bang and is completely erased at full expansion or for a non-expanding universe completely erased at the end of the cycle.

Firstly, to clear up confusion, you have mistakenly quoted me as asking a question that Ethos was responsible for posting whereas the question was being asked of me...

And - again there is a failure to understand the nature of a slowly contracting universe.

My models contraction of the universe has been facilitated by a sea of individual particles being pulled together by gravitational attraction.  A universe comprised only of a sea of particles will have a more or less uniform gravity field throughout.  But as these particles draw together into mass structures, the gravity field is becoming less uniform, with points of greater gravity, and spaces of lesser gravity...

Although this type of contraction of the universe is a very slow process, it is by nature an accelerating process.  The spaces of lesser gravity will be becoming spaces of even lesser gravity at an accelerated rate.
This will give an observation of redshifts.

And a blue shift will be indicative of an open space of gravity field between us and another body of mass increasing in strength.  This will mean that a body of mass and ourselves are moving closer to each other, as current physics understanding of a blue shift suggests, but not for the same physical reason.
  Ok I understand what you are saying. In some respects we could look at the universe as a general gas law problem.The expanding universe cools and reaches a maximum and then shrinks toward a pinpoint. With this analogy an expanding universe would be red shifted and a contracting universe would be blue shifted.
  I like you explanation of a homogeneous gravitational field that changes into a concentrated field and a lesser field.
  For myself it appears to me that gravity is positive between masses for an expanding universe and gravity is negative between masses for a contracting universe. thus a contracting universe destroys all structures and produces uniformity. Thus the period of blue shifting is a destructive period. then we return to the red shift universe.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #515 on: 08/08/2016 22:05:26 »


 So now, here is my next question:

If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?

   Although my theory "Gravity and the Dot-wave theory" is aligned to an expanding universe and dark energy which are dot-waves, there are always alternate possibilities which fit in with the basic fundamentals.
   An expanding universe would have a loss of photonic energy over time. It could also be argued that the universe itself has a fixed outer radius and is not expanding but the mass/energy is turning into dark energy.
   If the universe was contracting, the photonic energy would be increasing and we would see a blue shift in the light. So if you have an Einsteinian type model that shows blue light, that would be correct.
  For my own theory there would be nothing to see the blue photons as the physical world started at big bang and is completely erased at full expansion or for a non-expanding universe completely erased at the end of the cycle.

Firstly, to clear up confusion, you have mistakenly quoted me as asking a question that Ethos was responsible for posting whereas the question was being asked of me...

And - again there is a failure to understand the nature of a slowly contracting universe.

My models contraction of the universe has been facilitated by a sea of individual particles being pulled together by gravitational attraction.  A universe comprised only of a sea of particles will have a more or less uniform gravity field throughout.  But as these particles draw together into mass structures, the gravity field is becoming less uniform, with points of greater gravity, and spaces of lesser gravity...

Although this type of contraction of the universe is a very slow process, it is by nature an accelerating process.  The spaces of lesser gravity will be becoming spaces of even lesser gravity at an accelerated rate.
This will give an observation of redshifts.

And a blue shift will be indicative of an open space of gravity field between us and another body of mass increasing in strength.  This will mean that a body of mass and ourselves are moving closer to each other, as current physics understanding of a blue shift suggests, but not for the same physical reason.
  Ok I understand what you are saying. In some respects we could look at the universe as a general gas law problem.The expanding universe cools and reaches a maximum and then shrinks toward a pinpoint. With this analogy an expanding universe would be red shifted and a contracting universe would be blue shifted.
  I like you explanation of a homogeneous gravitational field that changes into a concentrated field and a lesser field.
  For myself it appears to me that gravity is positive between masses for an expanding universe and gravity is negative between masses for a contracting universe. thus a contracting universe destroys all structures and produces uniformity. Thus the period of blue shifting is a destructive period. then we return to the red shift universe.

Erm, nope!

Jerry it becomes really hard to upkeep the content of a discussion when a reader does not keep up with the content.

I can appreciate that these may be your ideas of a contracting universe, but I am describing a cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle within the black hole phenomenon, and the additional dimension of inverted gravitational time dilation challenges Hubble's law by simply attributing the Doppler shift velocities associated with redshifts and blue shifts to this proposed inverted time dilation.  Red shifted light travelling through slower time, not extra distance and therefore not being indicative of any expansion at all.  And therefore, under this remit, a universal contraction would not be indicated by a blue shift.

Sorry...

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #516 on: 09/08/2016 20:22:24 »
Assuming that we want to talk about timey's thingy, can we please begin with a definition of inverted time? There seems to be some confusion between negative time and reciprocal time, to say nothing of inverse time dilation.
Ok.  Well when physics talks about GR gravitational time dilation, it is referring not 'to' the passing of time, but to 'how' time is passing.

There is the relativity factor between gravity potentials to be considered, in that any observer of his own clock will observe his own clock as being correct.  But as an observer also ages in keeping with his clock, despite the fact that we will only notice the effect of GR gravitational time dilation occurrung in a reference frame when measured from a reference frame of differing gravity potential, we can make the assumption that reference frames of differing gravity potential do experience an actual difference in how time is passing, and that GR gravitational time dilation is a real effect.

Introducing the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation:
To make a description of this proposed inverted time dilation, look to the wavelength of blue shifted light contracting as it travels into a gravity field, and imagine that the time period of a second is contracting proportionally to the wavelength.  Or, in the opposing direction, look to the wavelength of red shifted light dilating as it travels out of a gravity field, and imagine that the time period of a second is dilating proportionally to the wavelength.

Now your first thought will be to say that how can there be an inverted gravitational time dilation when we already know that time runs faster in the weaker gravity field via tried and tested GR gravitational time dilation...

K, well...  Because an observer of a clock will age in keeping with his clock in any gravity potential, whatever physically causes the clock to tick at differing rates is also causing the aging process of the observer to 'tick' at these differing rates.  The obvious explanation is that this is because time is running at differing rates.  Experiments show that a clock will tick faster in the higher gravity potential, and so physics is calculated on the basis that time is running faster out in space.

There exists a less obvious route to explain the observation though:
The equivalence principle can be derived via the gravity potential equation, in that m*g is remaining the same and h is the variable.  As h increases all mass will increase in potential energy proportionally to their usual relationships.   This gives the aging process of the observer of his clock a physical causality.

Now we are saying that GR gravitational time dilation is a mass near mass relationship, and that the open space of a gravity field, ie: the location of gravity potential that mass may be located in, is subject to the proposed inverted time dilation.

Ditch the notion of relativistic mass, and the observation of lights blue shift and red shift in a gravity field can be directly related to the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation.

This notion has now by default switched the concept of time running faster out in space to time running faster for bodies of mass, completely changed the outlook on the Lorentz transformations and their use in the GR field equations, and challenges Hubble's law and the concept of an expanding universe.

(edit: The model states time as being energy related and gives the phenomenon of time itself causality.  However the addition of the proposed inverted time dilation redefines the concept of an acceleration of gravity, changing the dimensional balance of existing equations considerably)

So...  If anyone is indeed keeping up with content:

In deriving the equivalence principle via the gravity potential equation, (redefining acceleration of gravity aside for time being), as well as switching the concept of time running faster in space to time running faster for bodies of mass, we also observe another switching of concepts, in that the equivalence principle, in stating that all reference frames are equal to each other, usually derives this statement by stating that there is no physical change between reference frames of differing gravity potential - and that it is due to the difference in the rate of time of the location that we will see a difference in that locations 'timing'.  This being observed by experiment in the increased frequency of energy transitions of the cesium atomic clock in the higher gravity potential.

My model is stating that mass in locations of gravity potential will physically change.  That the energy, and therefore frequency of mass, (and physical process of mass relationships), will increase in the higher gravity potential, and because m*g is always the same and only h is variable, all will remain proportional in any reference frame of gravity potential.
But...  My model then takes the concept of nothing physically changing for mass in the differing gravity potentials and applies it to the observation, (under the remit of the proposed inverted time dilation), of light.
Red shifted light's energy is being stretched over dilated time.  Frequency is denoting how much energy is a 'observed' to be occurring over the time period of a standard second, (ie: less energy because time is running slower than a standard second), and the actual observation of light becoming redder becomes a matter of the (inverted gravitational time dilation) time difference between reference frames of differing gravity potential being time frame dependent...

(edit: Actually, to correct myself - observational time frame dependency is more related to luminosity observations than light becoming redder, which is more related to energy being stretched over longer time periods)

My model stating the observation of differing rates of time as being time frame dependant, and proportional to the difference in rate of time...

If this can be understood, we can now take this concept to the regions of the black hole phenomenon, and the uncertainty principle.
« Last Edit: 10/08/2016 00:08:38 by timey »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #517 on: 10/08/2016 19:31:04 »
So I have three atomic clocks, using different transitions of different atoms, say cesium, rubidium and aluminum, and a carbon dioxide laser. And let's have a Fe57 atom for good measure. All produce different frequencies. I raise them from the surface of the earth to a height h. Describe the frequency shift of each.
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 #518 on: 11/08/2016 00:21:18 »
So I have three atomic clocks, using different transitions of different atoms, say cesium, rubidium and aluminum, and a carbon dioxide laser. And let's have a Fe57 atom for good measure. All produce different frequencies. I raise them from the surface of the earth to a height h. Describe the frequency shift of each.

The proportionality of how these atoms process differ from each other in frequency in a reference frame of one gravity potential will be retained in all reference frames of any gravity potential.  By calculating the mass of the process being measured (this being only a fractional part of the mass of the atom), times g, (albeit acceleration of g must be redefined with addition of the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation), m*g remains constant at any h.  So then multiplying by the variable h is adding potential energy and increasing frequency as h increases - and the remit of the equivalence principle has been maintained.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #519 on: 11/08/2016 08:08:37 »
There is no mass involved in any of the processes mentioned, except the CO2 laser.
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 #520 on: 11/08/2016 13:24:47 »
There is no mass involved in any of the processes mentioned, except the CO2 laser.

You have said this before and I couldn't understand it then either.  The only thing I can think of as to why you say this, is because the process in which frequency becomes relevant is involving light, and light has no mass.

But... An Fe57 doesn't just spontaneously emit a gamma ray. (does it?).  To cause an Fe57 to emit a gamma ray, the Fe57 is subject to an increase of energy applied by an external mechanism.  Both the external mechanism applying the energy, and the internal process involving component particles of the Fe57 have mass.

The cesium atomic clock also does not spontaneously emit a photon.  The energy kick in this case is being provided by microwave.  Both the producing factor of a microwave and the internal process involving component particles of the cesium atom have mass.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #521 on: 11/08/2016 18:38:12 »

But... An Fe57 doesn't just spontaneously emit a gamma ray. (does it?).
yes it does 
Quote
To cause an Fe57 to emit a gamma ray, the Fe57 is subject to an increase of energy applied by an external mechanism.
No. It is naturally radioactive. The "mossbauer" decay process is a two-stage gamma emission with no mass change.

Quote
The cesium atomic clock also does not spontaneously emit a photon.  The energy kick in this case is being provided by microwave.  Both the producing factor of a microwave and the internal process involving component particles of the cesium atom have mass.
The resonance is a spin-spin interaction whose energy is not mass-dependent

But the point is, if clocks with different masses or none at all are raised to a new gravitational potential, what does your proposed mechanism do to the observed frequency?  The standard GR equation, whcih does not involve the mass of the clock, gives the correct answer. Can  yours do better?
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 #522 on: 11/08/2016 22:45:24 »

But... An Fe57 doesn't just spontaneously emit a gamma ray. (does it?).
yes it does 
Quote
To cause an Fe57 to emit a gamma ray, the Fe57 is subject to an increase of energy applied by an external mechanism.
No. It is naturally radioactive. The "mossbauer" decay process is a two-stage gamma emission with no mass change.

Quote
The cesium atomic clock also does not spontaneously emit a photon.  The energy kick in this case is being provided by microwave.  Both the producing factor of a microwave and the internal process involving component particles of the cesium atom have mass.
The resonance is a spin-spin interaction whose energy is not mass-dependent

But the point is, if clocks with different masses or none at all are raised to a new gravitational potential, what does your proposed mechanism do to the observed frequency?  The standard GR equation, whcih does not involve the mass of the clock, gives the correct answer. Can  yours do better?

OK - to clear up any possible confusion;  I'm thinking that perhaps you are looking at the process of a proposed increase in energy, and working from the basis that an increase in energy will increase mass size
I am not working on the basis that an increase in potential energy will increase mass size, only that it will increase frequency.

The process of the Fe57 'naturally decaying' (thanks for correction) a gamma ray, can include a recoil that reduces the energy of the gamma ray, or it can be processed through some lattice thingy and the emitted gamma ray then does not reduce in energy as much, its energy remains within the border of the line width and can therefore be received by the receiving atom.  At every point, apart from the period of time that the gamma ray is emitted for, there is the mass of the emitting process and receiving process within the structure of the atom, and the lattice thingy (which I'm sure you can tell I'm not that knowledgeable about ;)...), to be considered.

But to answer your question, the standard GR equation for GR time dilation already takes into account the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation in that it is using g.
The model is proposing that there is a force of gravitational attraction that compels mass to be attracted to mass, (the gluon's responsibility perhaps, although particle physics is really not my strong point), but that all 'accelerations' of gravity are inverted time dilation related.
(ie: as mass moves closer together, the gravitational field increases in energy and the resulting proposed inverted time dilation is contracting in time periods. Take a smaller piece of mass from the bigger, and create distance in relation to the bigger mass, its energy 'can' be said to be increasing as a result of the gravitational force of the bigger mass exerted upon it, and time periods are increasing for that mass)

All GR equations, (that remain necessary that is), should work for my model because what I am proposing is directly proportional - but the attraction of gravity, and the acceleration of gravity should, as per my model, be calculated as separate phenomenon instead of lumped togetheof

The only reason why calculating observation by these means would (if viable) be better, is because the consequences lead to the mechanism of the cyclic universe that I have described.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #523 on: 11/08/2016 23:41:19 »
Quote
I am not working on the basis that an increase in potential energy will increase mass size, only that it will increase frequency.
which is exactly what GR predicts, and we find in practice.

The "lattice thingy" is all about momentum. This doesn't change with gravitational potential.

gluons are not gravitons


Quote
But to answer your question, the standard GR equation for GR time dilation already takes into account the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation in that it is using g.
Hmm. The frequency shift equation is

fr/fe = sqrt{(1-2GM/(R+h)c^2)/(1-2GM/Rc^2)}

where fr and fe are the received and emitted frequencies.  No mention of g or the mass of the source that I can see.

helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4058
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #524 on: 12/08/2016 00:31:36 »
III
Quote
I am not working on the basis that an increase in potential energy will increase mass size, only that it will increase frequency.
which is exactly what GR predicts, and we find in practice.

The "lattice thingy" is all about momentum. This doesn't change with gravitational potential.

gluons are not gravitons


Quote
But to answer your question, the standard GR equation for GR time dilation already takes into account the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation in that it is using g.
Hmm. The frequency shift equation is

fr/fe = sqrt{(1-2GM/(R+h)c^2)/(1-2GM/Rc^2)}

where fr and fe are the received and emitted frequencies.  No mention of g or the mass of the source that I can see.

This can be reduced to fr/fe = sqrt{R/(R+h)} showing that radial distance and not mass is the determining factor. Thus a distance across the potential. Just my two penneth.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #525 on: 12/08/2016 01:27:15 »
Quote
I am not working on the basis that an increase in potential energy will increase mass size, only that it will increase frequency.
which is exactly what GR predicts, and we find in practice.

The "lattice thingy" is all about momentum. This doesn't change with gravitational potential.

gluons are not gravitons


Quote
But to answer your question, the standard GR equation for GR time dilation already takes into account the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation in that it is using g.
Hmm. The frequency shift equation is

fr/fe = sqrt{(1-2GM/(R+h)c^2)/(1-2GM/Rc^2)}

where fr and fe are the received and emitted frequencies.  No mention of g or the mass of the source that I can see.

OK - leaving the gluon's, magnetic moments of electrons and all particle physics and lattice thingy aside for time being - I think you are being a little unfair in your assessment of the frequency shift equations in relation to what I am saying... I can clearly see use of G, and M.

G being the gravitational constant will not be descriptive of a clear separation between gravitational attraction, and the acceleration of gravity either.

...and, GR states that time will slow for a bigger mass size.  More energy resulting in a greater mass will result in a slower rate of time, yet we also know that an increase in energy increases frequency.  But.. as per the cesium atomic clock, an increase in frequency increases the rate of time.

We can see that if mass sizes increase with the addition of gravity potential energy, a perfectly linear equation for mass where m*g is constant, and h is the only variable, becomes, what was the word you used before?, anyway, it becomes non linear.  Of course perhaps it is the mass increases|decreases offset by the gravity field decreases|increases that are the reason that these maths work.  I do however recall Pete saying that gravity potential energy does not increase relativistic mass, so if that is indeed correct, then it would seem that things with mass are being calculated differently to light.

In any case, in that mass size is increasing in the higher gravity potential, here we can see that GR is already making a natural separation of gravitational phenomenon.  Simply ditch the mass increase, and re-attribute the notion of that dimension increasing in that manner, and under those circumstances, as the rste of time increasing for the mass, instead of the mass size increasing.  (I think you will find this can give alternate explanation of same observations of acceleration of gravity-particle physics)

So the mass size remains the same, m*g, where g is an energy decrease in the gravity field that decreases the energy of the mass, and is also giving an opposing increase in gravity potential energy that mass experiences at that location increasing energy, and therefore frequency at elevation when multipied by h... Any nonlinearity left over by this alteration could possibly be attributed to the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation.
(remembering that we haven't yet touched on SR effects)

Now that this has attributed the increase in time as being 'for' the mass, and not 'for' the location, we can explore the notion of an inverted gravitational time dilation that is dilating in the reducing energy of a reducing gravity field... and look to the observation of massless light.
« Last Edit: 12/08/2016 02:14:19 by timey »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #526 on: 12/08/2016 08:05:24 »
What on earth is mass size?

M is the mass of the large attractor (the earth). m does not feature in the equation, which applies to all sources regardless of their mass (as long as it does not significantly distort the gravitational field of M) and thus includes sources where m = 0. 
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 #527 on: 12/08/2016 13:41:21 »
What on earth is mass size?

M is the mass of the large attractor (the earth). m does not feature in the equation, which applies to all sources regardless of their mass (as long as it does not significantly distort the gravitational field of M) and thus includes sources where m = 0.

Yes there is use of G and M in the frequency shift equation...
Can you tell me how the corresponding energy change of a frequency shift is calculated?

Yes there is use of g and m in the gravity potential equation...
Can you tell me how the corresponding frequency shift of the gravity potential energy changes are calculated?

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #528 on: 12/08/2016 23:33:37 »
Potential energy is mgh.

I stated the gravitational blue shift equation earlier as the frequency ratio. Obviously the energy ratio is the same since  E = hf.
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 #529 on: 13/08/2016 00:25:33 »
Potential energy is mgh.

I stated the gravitational blue shift equation earlier as the frequency ratio. Obviously the energy ratio is the same since  E = hf.
Is that E=hf, where h is Planck's h constant?

...and m*g*h, for gravity potential energy, where h is height?

...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location?  Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #530 on: 13/08/2016 09:48:16 »
Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant - as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations.   

Quote
...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location?  Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?

Neither.  The deBroglie frequency is an unobservable mathematical construct that approximates to quantum behavior. Variation in gravitational potential will vary both the potential energy of a massive object relative to the observer, and the  observed frequency of a photon or a clock. 
« Last Edit: 13/08/2016 09:51:46 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #531 on: 13/08/2016 12:24:59 »
Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant - as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations.   

Quote
...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location?  Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?

Neither.  The deBroglie frequency is an unobservable mathematical construct that approximates to quantum behavior. Variation in gravitational potential will vary both the potential energy of a massive object relative to the observer, and the  observed frequency of a photon or a clock.
   Just to clarify your last words. For a clock above the Earth spinning around with velocity V, the clock will slower relative to the Earth. As the clock moves faster it will slow even more. If put a clock on a tower atop a high mountain, is it correct that the clock will move slower than a clock at the base of the mountain. If we build a tower atop the mountain is it correct that the higher up the clock moves, the clock will move even slower.
 
   

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #532 on: 13/08/2016 12:53:12 »
Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant - as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations.   

Quote
...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location?  Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?

Neither.  The deBroglie frequency is an unobservable mathematical construct that approximates to quantum behavior. Variation in gravitational potential will vary both the potential energy of a massive object relative to the observer, and the  observed frequency of a photon or a clock.
   Just to clarify your last words. For a clock above the Earth spinning around with velocity V, the clock will slower relative to the Earth. As the clock moves faster it will slow even more. If put a clock on a tower atop a high mountain, is it correct that the clock will move slower than a clock at the base of the mountain. If we build a tower atop the mountain is it correct that the higher up the clock moves, the clock will move even slower.
 
 

Jerry - I think you need to read this:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #533 on: 13/08/2016 13:23:09 »
Clocks at higher gravitational potential run faster. Clocks moving with respect to the observer run slower. The problem with GPS satellite clocks is that they are doing both, significantly. The gravitational correction for an aeroplane is, I think, a lot less than the relative velocity correction.
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 #534 on: 13/08/2016 14:52:39 »
Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant - as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations.   

Quote
...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location?  Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?

Neither.  The deBroglie frequency is an unobservable mathematical construct that approximates to quantum behavior. Variation in gravitational potential will vary both the potential energy of a massive object relative to the observer, and the  observed frequency of a photon or a clock.

OK - Alan... I am looking at the fact that a person ages faster at elevation in keeping with their clock. (see NIST link in post above)

Under the remit of the equivalence principle, what physically happens to the clock must physically happen to the person.  We observe that the clock has an increase in frequency of its energy transitions.  An increase in frequency must be accompanied by an increase in energy.

The hypothetical De Broglie matter wave for all mass will be escalating in frequency with the additional gravity potential energy at elevation, and all matter wave frequencies will escalate, and atoms of higher energy will do whatever process they are doing internally at a higher energy and frequency. (ie: quicker)

Now we can no longer state that it is the time dilation of the location of the gravity field that is changing the frequency of the clocks energy transitions.  Clearly it is the change in potential energy that is causing a change in frequency, and it is causing all particles of mass within atomic structures to increase, or decrease, in energy proportionally to their relationships with each other in any reference frame of gravity potential.

A physical cause has now been given for an observer physically aging in keeping with his clock.  The remit of the equivalence principle has been upheld...

But... GR time dilation has now been derived as an m near M relationship - and the open space gravity field can now be observed with respect to the inverted gravitational time dilation in relation to observation of light... minus the relativistic mass notion - and take a closer look at Planck's h constant.

(P.S. Yes, since the site got bug I seem to have lost the ability to quick reply, or select quote, hence my copious and unnecessary quoting of late)
« Last Edit: 13/08/2016 14:56:04 by timey »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #535 on: 13/08/2016 23:32:01 »
You correctly use the term "hypothetical" deBroglie frequency. It has no bearing on any observed energy.

"What happens to the clock" is "nothing at all". Imagine you are sitting looking at a clock on planet Earth, whilst two of your colleagues are based on the Moon and on Jupiter. M will see your clock running slower than his, and J will see it running faster, but obviously nothing has happened to your clock. The difference is in the relative gravitational potential of the observer and source, not the structure of the clocks.

Quote
But... GR time dilation has now been derived as an m near M relationship
No, m does not appear in the equation, provided m<<M (i.e. your clock is not so massive as to produce a significant local gravitational potential well).

What on earth do you mean by " a closer look at h"? It's an experimental number, simply defined and easily measured by sixth-formers all over the world - and quite possibly on Planet 5 of Alpha Centauri.
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 #536 on: 14/08/2016 00:00:10 »
You correctly use the term "hypothetical" deBroglie frequency. It has no bearing on any observed energy.

"What happens to the clock" is "nothing at all". Imagine you are sitting looking at a clock on planet Earth, whilst two of your colleagues are based on the Moon and on Jupiter. M will see your clock running slower than his, and J will see it running faster, but obviously nothing has happened to your clock. The difference is in the relative gravitational potential of the observer and source, not the structure of the clocks.

Quote
But... GR time dilation has now been derived as an m near M relationship
No, m does not appear in the equation, provided m<<M (i.e. your clock is not so massive as to produce a significant local gravitational potential well).

What on earth do you mean by " a closer look at h"? It's an experimental number, simply defined and easily measured by sixth-formers all over the world - and quite possibly on Planet 5 of Alpha Centauri.
Alan - you are describing how current physics regards the situation, and this does not explain physical differences in the observers aging process, as described by link.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm

I am describing an alternate means of mathematically deriving the same observations.  The reason for doing so, because it leads to my model of a cyclic universe that I am requiring the input of a qualified and confident mathematician to calculate...
...and yes, it is understood that these effects are due to the difference in gravity potential.  My model is making a more detailed physical description of this.

With regards to Planck's h constant:
As I keep on saying, repetitively, my model states the phenomenon of time as energy related.  Planck's h constant is a joules times standard second measurement, and in adding energy, time for the phenomenon being measured will be contracting.  If you measure joules times the relevantly contracted second, the results will be linear.

And...the De Broglie matter wave is used to calculate quantum via perturbation theory - which is a time based function.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #537 on: 14/08/2016 09:22:39 »
Observers age at the rate of local time. To quote from the first sentence of your reference   

Quote
Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations

An atom or a DNA molecule has no idea of its gravitational potential since the quantity is only defined with respect to an external reference, so your atomic clock and your body clock stay in synchrony with each other but not with clocks and bodies in deep space or on another planet. The experimental problem is that the biological effect is too small (in comparison with random errrors) to be measured at any point in the solar system.

The article is interesting only in that it shows how "conventional" relativity correctly predicts all the experimental results.

Matters might become clearer if we start with your definition of time. For the rest of us, it is "the dimension that separates sequential events", or as Einstein put it, "time is what prevents everything from happening at once".
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 #538 on: 14/08/2016 15:57:55 »
Observers age at the rate of local time. To quote from the first sentence of your reference   

Quote
Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations

An atom or a DNA molecule has no idea of its gravitational potential since the quantity is only defined with respect to an external reference, so your atomic clock and your body clock stay in synchrony with each other but not with clocks and bodies in deep space or on another planet. The experimental problem is that the biological effect is too small (in comparison with random errrors) to be measured at any point in the solar system.

The article is interesting only in that it shows how "conventional" relativity correctly predicts all the experimental results.

Matters might become clearer if we start with your definition of time. For the rest of us, it is "the dimension that separates sequential events", or as Einstein put it, "time is what prevents everything from happening at once".

My model also describes time as the passing of sequential events, but it describes frequency as being the timing of these events, and energy as being the cause of frequency. (no need for an atom to 'know' anything.  The energy it gains or loses is a physical result of both its location and momentum)

My model is viewing time as being caused by the physical mechanics of the universe, rather than the universe passing through a phenomenon of time that is unconnected to, and outside of itself...

My model views the observations of time dilation and contraction - as observed in the other reference frame of gravity potential, or relative motion, or both - as a real and tangible phenomenon...
My model states that the observer, (as NIST, NASA, and other official government links suggest, for whatever that may be worth), 'will' physically age in keeping with his clock.

Is that start enough?

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #539 on: 14/08/2016 16:29:15 »
Apart from a bizarre and unrealistic view of how atomic clocks work, this seems to be entirely consistent with everyone else's observations.

Now the rest of us describe gravitational frequency shift and relative motion shift as "time dilation" phenomena, and mysteriously we get the right answer by solving conventional relativistic equations for them.

So the question is what do you mean by inverse time dilation?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4058
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #540 on: 14/08/2016 17:39:09 »
Just to add to Alan's post. To have an inverse of something you first have to have that something. The inverse will undo the effect of that something. So in the case of time dilation the inverse gets us back to Galilean/Newtonian relativity. It may have been better called anti-time dilation. Just my two penneth.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #541 on: 14/08/2016 20:04:00 »
Apart from a bizarre and unrealistic view of how atomic clocks work, this seems to be entirely consistent with everyone else's observations.

Now the rest of us describe gravitational frequency shift and relative motion shift as "time dilation" phenomena, and mysteriously we get the right answer by solving conventional relativistic equations for them.

So the question is what do you mean by inverse time dilation?

My model has derived GR time dilation as being an m near M relationship, where we are measuring the standard second, (a measurement of a time period long since defined by our ancestors, whose era came well before the discovery of the atom), via means of the frequency of energy transitions, and these energy transitions are shifted in the gravitational field. (or by thermal energy changes btw).
My model states that all atoms and their particle constituents will increase in energy in the higher gravity potential.

The proposed inverted gravitational time dilation is an M in relation to open space relationship (cosmological), and also an m in relation to open space relationship. (microscopic).

The model attributes the gravity field as having energy.  The energy of the gravity field gets lesser with distance from M, and the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation of the gravity field itself will be observed as the time period of a standard second, (as measured via GR time dilation, this being our measurement of the phenomenon of time), dilating, ie: time running slower, in the weaker gravity field.

Because light, (emitted light) has no mass, and without mass (relativistic mass) therefore will not be subject to additional gravity potential energy, my model looks to the observation of lights frequency reducing in the weaker gravity field and attributes this observation to the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation of the open space gravity field.
Light is travelling at light speed, 299 ,792 458 metres per second, but the second is variable and gets longer as the gravity field gets weaker.

Jeff - I have called it inverted gravitational time dilation because it does the opposite to GR gravitational time dilation.
I have always stated clearly that the proposed inverted time dilation is an additional dimension, not the inverse of an existing dimension...

Having said that, where relativistic mass, or additional energy being calculated into mass is concerned, the proportions of how these additions work in the current maths will be replaced by the concept and maths of the proposed addition of this inverted gravitational time dilation, and the concept of an acceleration of gravity will of course be dimensionally altered.
Both of which combined, negate the need for dark matter and dark energy to dimensionally balance the books on these altered maths.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4058
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #542 on: 14/08/2016 20:34:11 »
So just to be absolutely clear you are saying that as gravitational potential increases time slows down. So that's why my GPS never gets me to the right place! And why all satellite phones run slow mo.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #543 on: 14/08/2016 20:57:21 »
So just to be absolutely clear you are saying that as gravitational potential increases time slows down. So that's why my GPS never gets me to the right place! And why all satellite phones run slow mo.

Are you having a bit of a problem reading Jeff?

No, my model states that GR gravitational time dilation is as is.  Your GPS is safe.

It proposes an additional inverted time dilation for the ***open space*** gravity field.  Your clock will be subject to GR time dilation as it is comprised of mass.

Use of g or G is already calculating inverted time dilation as an acceleration of gravity.

It is the observation of what light is doing in the gravity field that is indicative of the presence of the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation.

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #544 on: 15/08/2016 11:21:27 »
Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant - as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations.   

Quote
...
   Just to clarify your last words. For a clock above the Earth spinning around with velocity V, the clock will slower relative to the Earth. As the clock moves faster it will slow even more. If put a clock on a tower atop a high mountain, is it correct that the clock will move slower than a clock at the base of the mountain. If we build a tower atop the mountain is it correct that the higher up the clock moves, the clock will move even slower.
 
 

Jerry - I think you need to read this:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm
  Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer.  It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster.
  Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons.
  These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #545 on: 15/08/2016 11:41:00 »
  Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer.  It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster.
  Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons.
  These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?
Aha, Jerry... Yes, yes, yes!!!

You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.

Good on ya!
« Last Edit: 15/08/2016 11:49:33 by timey »

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4058
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #546 on: 15/08/2016 14:09:53 »
  Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer.  It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster.
  Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons.
  These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?
Aha, Jerry... Yes, yes, yesy!!!

You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.

Good on ya!

If you carry an object in your hand to the top of a tower and let it go gravity will accelerate it toward the ground. This increases the kinetic energy of the object via the acceleration. A photon heading from space toward the ground cannot be accelerated since that would increase its speed above c. That is prohibited. So the only way a photon can gain kinetic energy is via a blue shift in its wavelength. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #547 on: 15/08/2016 14:39:25 »
  Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer.  It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster.
  Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons.
  These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?
Aha, Jerry... Yes, yes, yesy!!!

You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.

Good on ya!

If you carry an object in your hand to the top of a tower and let it go gravity will accelerate it toward the ground. This increases the kinetic energy of the object via the acceleration. A photon heading from space toward the ground cannot be accelerated since that would increase its speed above c. That is prohibited. So the only way a photon can gain kinetic energy is via a blue shift in its wavelength. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

Actually it's really easy to grasp, and was indeed grasped by myself yonks ago!

I am making an alteration to current theory...

Light blue shifting towards a gravity field cannot exceed the speed of light, we observe that its wavelength contracts...
I am simply altering the concept and saying: forget about relativistic mass concept, and that it is the time periods that the light is travelling through that are contracting, not the wavelength itself.  ie: 299 792 458 metres per ***variable seconds***.

Can 'you' grasp that?

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4058
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #548 on: 15/08/2016 15:30:14 »
  Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer.  It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster.
  Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons.
  These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?
Aha, Jerry... Yes, yes, yesy!!!

You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.

Good on ya!

If you carry an object in your hand to the top of a tower and let it go gravity will accelerate it toward the ground. This increases the kinetic energy of the object via the acceleration. A photon heading from space toward the ground cannot be accelerated since that would increase its speed above c. That is prohibited. So the only way a photon can gain kinetic energy is via a blue shift in its wavelength. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

Actually it's really easy to grasp, and was indeed grasped by myself yonks ago!

I am making an alteration to current theory...

Light blue shifting towards a gravity field cannot exceed the speed of light, we observe that its wavelength contracts...
I am simply altering the concept and saying: forget about relativistic mass concept, and that it is the time periods that the light is travelling through that are contracting, not the wavelength itself.  ie: 299 792 458 metres per ***variable seconds***.

Can 'you' grasp that?

Therefore you are accelerating the photon but YOU don't grasp THAT!

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #549 on: 15/08/2016 15:50:57 »
  Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer.  It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster.
  Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons.
  These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?
Aha, Jerry... Yes, yes, yesy!!!

You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.

Good on ya!

If you carry an object in your hand to the top of a tower and let it go gravity will accelerate it toward the ground. This increases the kinetic energy of the object via the acceleration. A photon heading from space toward the ground cannot be accelerated since that would increase its speed above c. That is prohibited. So the only way a photon can gain kinetic energy is via a blue shift in its wavelength. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

Actually it's really easy to grasp, and was indeed grasped by myself yonks ago!

I am making an alteration to current theory...

Light blue shifting towards a gravity field cannot exceed the speed of light, we observe that its wavelength contracts...
I am simply altering the concept and saying: forget about relativistic mass concept, and that it is the time periods that the light is travelling through that are contracting, not the wavelength itself.  ie: 299 792 458 metres per ***variable seconds***.

Can 'you' grasp that?

Therefore you are accelerating the photon but YOU don't grasp THAT!
Yes - the inverted time dilation accelerates the light, but the light is still travelling the same amount of metres per second as per the reference frame it is travelling through, so as per the equivalence principle, all is equal in every reference frame.

I have just interchanged the changes in the distance of the wavelength into a time values of variable seconds instead of variable lengths.

But you haven't grasped that, have you?