[alancalverd]

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".

[alancalverd]

Whereby light having no mass has no KE.

au contraire, ma brave, it has nothing else.

[timey]

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?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

The photon only has kinetic energy. Since it has zero rest mass.

[timey]

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?

[alancalverd]

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! 

[timey]

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...

[alancalverd]

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.

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!

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! 

[timey]

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!

[alancalverd]

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.

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

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")

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?

[timey]

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?

[timey]

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

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.

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.

[timey]

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?

[impyre]

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.

[timey]

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

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.

[timey]

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?

[alancalverd]

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.

 

[timey]

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...