0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Whereby light having no mass has no KE.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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!
E and f are experimental variables measured independently, and their ratio turns out to be a constant known as h.
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.
This difference is what I'm trying to talk to you about.
If the light's frequency were to speed up, and the observer were experiencing time dilation, it seems like the effect would be exaggerated.
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)...
Why does lights frequency increase in the slower rate of time, when the clock's frequency reduces in the slower rate of time?
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.
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.