[alancalverd]

Happy to pass the baton, Pete, but beware - this is a muddy marathon, not a sprint on a marked track!

[timey]

Light, when looked at as having no mass, is then not affected by gravitation, and gravity potential energy is not applicable.

But light does have mass via its momentum. What it doesn't have is rest mass, aka proper mass. Since light has momentum and anything that has momentum has, by definition, relativistic mass. It's the relativistic mass that makes it respond to gravity. This is all explained by Feynman in his "Lectures."

Pete - quite clearly this would of course be the case IF I was talking about the theory of relativity.  But I am not, I am talking about my inverted time theory, whereby the logic of this theory results in the mechanics of a cyclic universe that describes an alternative Big Bang, inflation period, and method of contraction as a fully working system.

As inverted time theory fully describes the mechanics of the universe without relying on any unobserved phenomenon at-all, this physic's 'theory of everything' is indeed entirely unique.

P.S.   I do like Feynman and his lectures, that dude is a pleasure to watch.  Great sense of humour and incredibly impressive intellectual acrobatics... I might have to watch again in fact... thanks for reminding me!

[timey]

Happy to pass the baton, Pete, but beware - this is a muddy marathon, not a sprint on a marked track!

Don't pass on the baton Alan, I stocked up... we can all have one each...

So... with regards to this:

In defence of my proposition...  If you think of a clock running faster in elevation to earth at a certain distance, and then (hypothetically) transpose this scenario to the black hole, it becomes a logical conclusion that the gravity potential that the clock experiences at elevation to the black hole is greater than the gravity potential that the clock elevated from the earth is experiencing. Thus suggesting that the possibility exists that a black holes rate of time 'can' be greater than that of the rate of time on earth...

The logic holds true, doesn't it?

[alancalverd]

The clock rate difference between any two points in the universe depends on the gravitational potential difference between those points.  The gravitational potential at the centre of a black hole is a long way below any point in its vicinity, so clocks run slower in and around black holes than they do elsewhere.

[timey]

Yes, that is 'relativity' correct...

But... is relativity saying that the gravity potential at the centre of a black hole is lesser than that of the gravity potential at the centre of earth?

The gravity potential at the centre of the earth and at the centre of a black hole should both be equal and set at 0, shouldn't they?  It is only the mass between the object affected and the centre of the sphere that exerts force...

Therefore, logically speaking, the gravity potential escalating from the centre of a black hole from 0 is going to be greater than the gravity potential escalating from the centre of the earth from 0.

... As we can see from observation of our earth clock's rate of time being escalated in the higher gravity potential at elevation, we can now relate this back to the black holes greater escalation of gravity potential and see that the black holes clock is running at an escalated rate in accordance with that greater gravity potential... and that logically, the black holes clock must indeed be running at a faster rate than the clock on earth...

[alancalverd]

The gravity potential at the centre of the earth and at the centre of a black hole should both be equal and set at 0, shouldn't they?  It is only the mass between the object affected and the centre of the sphere that exerts force...

No. It's more logical to set the gravitational potential of "distant space" at zero, so that the potential  V at distance x from a point mass M is increasingly negative. V_x= -GM/x

In the case of a small black hole, the central density is so large that the GP tends towards -∞ as you approach it. Inside a uniform sphere, however,  there is no net gravitational force, so what goes on in the centre of a large black hole is anyone's guess.

But the important thing about gravitational blue shift and time dilatation is that they don't depend on the mass of the clock or light source, only the local gravitational field.

[timey]

Well Alan - again you are 'relativity' correct... However, the logic involved in setting zero at some unknown point in distant space is only found in remaining within the remit of the theory, and nowhere else...

And... isn't this exactly the point that introduces infinities to the mathematics?

Because if you introduce an infinity as a 'working' component of a calculation, then further down the road as you progress the results of this calculation as a component for other related calculations, it should be of no surprise what-so-ever that some of these 'other' calculations will result in infinities.

And isn't it the fact of relativity resulting in infinities that renders the theory, despite its successes, unable to fully describe the universe that we observe?

But the important thing about gravitational blue shift and time dilatation is that they don't depend on the mass of the clock or light source, only the local gravitational field.

My logic of inverted time dilation begs to differ.  In the case of mass, all mass is subject to gravity potential, and all atoms that are elevated experience an increase in their frequency, and rate of time, via the gravitational shift. (equivalence principle).  And all spectra of emitted light will experience frequency shift in the gravitational field, and this phenomenon of the shift of frequency in light has got nothing to do with the circumstance of the lights source...

[alancalverd]

And... isn't this exactly the point that introduces infinities to the mathematics?

We know that V = -GM/x by experiment. So how can you approach a point where V = 0, and what happens to V when x → 0? Don't be scared of infinities - they are very useful if handled with care.

And isn't it the fact of relativity resulting in infinities that renders the theory, despite its successes, unable to fully describe the universe that we observe?

no. The answer is in the question. Quantum mechanics describes what the local observer sees - crudely, "what happens".  Relativity describes what the distant observer sees - "what appears to happen, due to the distortions introduced by speed and gravitation in a universe with a speed limit".

In the case of mass, all mass is subject to gravity potential,

but there is no m in the definition of potential, which is why photons are subject to blue shift.

and all atoms that are elevated experience an increase in their frequency,

I've warned you before about "experience". The clock has no idea of its gravitational potential and all clocks tell their local observers the same thing. 

And all spectra of emitted light will experience frequency shift in the gravitational field, and this phenomenon of the shift of frequency in light has got nothing to do with the circumstance of the lights source...

The perceived frequency of a clock or a photon depends only on the gravitational potential difference and relative speed between the source and the observer. That has everything to do with the circumstance of the source. 

[timey]

Alan, again, just a gentle reminder that when making deviations from 'relativity' I do so purposefully, and you are giving the impression of stating 'relativity' as being the 'absolute' theory in response to my questioning of it...

I'm sorry, but those maths are not obvious to me.   I don't understand where in space you are saying that zero gravity potential exists, and therefore cannot 'get with' the concept and merit of this 'far away' clock.

To try another way to explain...

You said:
""But the important thing about gravitational blue shift and time dilatation is that they don't depend on the mass of the clock or the source just the gravitational field""

Ok - concentrating on the mass of the clock and time dilation.  It is my understanding, (subject to being wrong, in which case I apologise in advance), that you are saying that the mass of the working mechanism of the clock, (this being the caesium  atom), has no bearing on the time dilation effects the clock experiences due to the gravity field.  You are saying:""The click has no idea of its gravitational potential and all clocks tell their local observers the same thing.""

I am saying that the caesium atom has mass and therefore it 'knows' nothing at-all, and 'is' simply affected by the gravitational field and its own mass in relation to gravity potential. (...and also that it's frequency will be affected negatively by velocity related KE)

I am suggesting that in accordance with the equivalence principle, when the caesium atoms frequency increases placed at elevation to earth, that all atoms will experience increase in their frequency at elevation to earth.  And if you take the view that an increase in frequency increases the rate of time for the atomic clock, the increase in frequency that all other types of atomic structures experience at elevation can be viewed as their rate of time increasing.  But...when you measure these increase in frequencies for these 'other' atoms, they will be increasing in frequency in direct proportion to their own mass and the gravity potential of their location, and 'not' directly proportionally to the increase in frequency that the caesium atom experiences.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift
Quote:
"At the bottom of a gravity well, all matter waves have higher frequencies than control matter waves outside the gravity well. When such a blueshifted matter wave climbs out of the gravity well, its frequency decreases to a "normal" level, so that comparing its frequency with the frequency of a control matter wave will not show any reddening."

In direct opposition to the quote above:  A caesium atom (and presumably all of it's particle constituents) frequency appears to increase in a higher gravity potential.  An observer and his belongings with the clock will experience the same time dilation effects that the clock experiences.  Therefore it is logical that the atomic structures (and all of their particle constituents) of the observer and his belongings frequency is also increased via the higher gravity potential, this being 'why' they actually 'do' experience time differences in keeping with the caesium atom mechanism of the clock.

If, as the wiki page suggests, a matter waves frequency decreases in the higher gravity potential, how can the frequency of the ground state transition of the caesium atom be observed to increase in the higher gravity potential?

[alancalverd]

The frequency of a cesium clock has nothing to do with "matter waves", as we explained several pages ago.

[timey]

Yes it is true that this was explained several pages ago, whereby the change in the frequency of the clock is not attributed to the matter wave of the atom itself, but is related to the electron cloud that is inherent to the structure of the caesium atom. (again...I apologise if I have misrepresented here)

I suggested that the change in the frequency of the caesium atoms electrons is a change in the matter wave of the electrons... And that the frequency of these electrons that are in a relationship with the other particle constituents that are the structure of the caesium atom, is directly proportional to the matter wave frequency of the other particle constituents.  And that this relationship of frequency within the atom is 'energy' related.   Or more precisely, potential energy related.

I saw an interesting picture on the forum last week concerning the spectrum bandwidth differences between molecular and atomic.  Lightarrow had said the atomic bandwidth had more and Humandi Yusof posted that it was the other way round.  I'll try and find the pic and repost it here...

Meantime... we observe, of an atomic clock, a change in frequency in a higher gravity potential.  Just to double check, are you in agreement that the electrons of the electron cloud of the atom suffer a change in frequency?  Or is the terminology of a change in frequency with regards to the atomic clock referring to a change in frequency that is not energy and therefore not wavelength associated?

[alancalverd]

Meantime... we observe, of an atomic clock, a change in frequency in a higher gravity potential.  Just to double check, are you in agreement that the electrons of the electron cloud of the atom suffer a change in frequency?

No. It is nothing to do with matter waves of any sort. As explained previously, the frequency of an atomic clock is fixed by the energy difference between parallel and antiparallel spin vectors of the outermost electron and the nucleus.

[timey]

...and according to 'theory of relativity' the energy difference between parallel and antiparallel spin vectors of the outermost electron and the nucleus do not experience a (observed from a higher or lower gravity potential) shift in energy and therefore frequency in the gravitational field?

The NIST ground level clock experiments state that the clock elevated 1 meter above sea level has a higher frequency than the clock placed at sea level.

Surely this description of a change in frequency is related to the energy difference between the electrons and the nucleus?

[alancalverd]

No. It is a consequence of the distortion of spacetime by a gravitational field.

The energy gap E is fixed by the spin-spin interaction and is the same everywhere in the universe.

The frequency of the emitted photon is determined by the relationship f_e= E/h.

The frequency shift between source and receiver is given by the relativistic gravitational shift equation 

f_r= f_e√{(1-2GM/(R+h)c²)/(1 - 2GM/Rc²)}

which you already knew.

[timey]

Yes - and I am suggesting that the cause for this distortion of space time is time dilation related, and that the phenomenon of time is energy related.  If there is more energy then time will run faster.  And that if you view space time from the basis of this remit, you end up with a fully described working system that answers previously unanswered considerations, and results in a cyclic universe.

But you knew this already, didn't you?

If I could manipulate those maths in that way Alan, I would be seeking evaluation via the peer-review system of archival research journals for my 'already' calculated and properly presented theory, and I wouldn't be here on this internet forum saying:

"Hey, if you consider this proposed additional phenomenon of an inverted time dilation, which requires that you view observed phenomenon from an alternate perspective, and you turn the velocity of the Doppler shift of light into a time aspect, via the distance, speed, time, formula, the universe would then not be expanding, and we can consider this alternative model of a cyclic universe.  Can anyone help me with the math...?"

The energy gap E is fixed by the spin-spin interaction and is the same everywhere in the universe.

How do you know this?  And what if it were not?

[alancalverd]

If there is more energy then time will run faster.

I have no idea what this means, but perhaps you can explain with a thought experiment and its predicted result?

The energy gap E is fixed by the spin-spin interaction and is the same everywhere in the universe.

How do you know this?  And what if it were not?

because the atom is too stupid to know where it is in relation to an observer. And all the experiments we do, seem to confirm the relativistic model whenever we do know the relative positions of the atom and the observer in a gravitational field. If it were not so, we'd get a different answer.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Well since 2GM/c² equals the radius of an event horizon Alan's equation can be reformulated as,

f_r= f_e√{(1-r_s/(R+h))/(1 - r_s/R)}

Note to be valid R > r_s.

[timey]

If there is more energy then time will run faster.

I have no idea what this means, but perhaps you can explain with a thought experiment and its predicted result?

The energy gap E is fixed by the spin-spin interaction and is the same everywhere in the universe.

How do you know this?  And what if it were not?

because the atom is too stupid to know where it is in relation to an observer. And all the experiments we do, seem to confirm the relativistic model whenever we do know the relative positions of the atom and the observer in a gravitational field. If it were not so, we'd get a different answer.

(Given that you can accept that the atomic clock has an increased frequency at an elevated position, relative to a clock below it, and that this frequency had a related energy and wavelength)...
An atom, and all its constituent particles, when observed in a higher gravity potential have a higher frequency, and energy is proportional to frequency.  Wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency.  Simply take the 'frequency' of the wave as being indicative of the rate of time, the wavelength remains constant, and when the energy and therefore frequency change, via gravitational shift or thermal energy, it is the duration of time it takes to complete a wave that is taking a longer or shorter time...  which, if you didn't know that it was taking a longer or shorter amount of time to complete a wave, you would then believe, in the face of a velocity being constant, (as is the case with light) that a wavelength is longer or shorter in distance.  Relate this to Hubble's law, and we can look at a non expanding universe.

I think it is the observer who is too stupid to realise that it matters not whether he observes the phenomenon.  The gravity field will shift energy if he is watching or not, and the observer is just a tad confused because he does not realise that the equivalence principle means that if he is with the clock, he will experience what the clock experiences, and if he is not with the clock, but in a lower or higher gravity potential relative to the clock, that it is only then, when he is being affected by a reference frame of differing gravity potential to the other clock, that he will observe the other clock to be different to the clock in his reference frame.

The NIST ground level relativity tests place 2 clocks in 2 separate reference frames, both of which were in the 1 reference frame of the observer.  A singular observer observed 2 clocks simultaneously operating at differing frequencies in reference frames of differing gravity potentials, constituting 1 meter difference in height.

So... now the observer knows for a 'fact' that this difference in frequency, and therefore energy experienced by the elevated clock, relative to the clock below it, is a 'real' occurrence, and not observer dependent...

Ok - well, if you are calculating a phenomenon positively, (and inappropriately) when it should be calculated negatively, (KE)... and then calculating a phenomenon negatively (and inappropriately) when it should be calculated positively (time dilation)... The maths 'will' work up to a point, but you won't have a clue about how it all fits together as a whole, or how the maths relate to the unanswered questions about our universe.  Which just about sums relativity and quantum up, far as I can see...

[timey]

Well since 2GM/c² equals the radius of an event horizon Alan's equation can be reformulated as,

f_r= f_e√{(1-r_s/(R+h))/(1 - r_s/R)}

Note to be valid R > r_s.

Could you please give a run through in word format what you are doing here with these maths, and the relevance of it Jeff, I hate to be excluded.

[alancalverd]

Relate this to Hubble's law, and we can look at a non expanding universe.

But the primary evidence for an expanding universe is the Doppler shift of light from distant galaxies, not a gravitational shift. A significant grav red shift would imply that there is more stuff outside the universe than inside it, which contradicts the definition of "universe"!

So... now the observer knows for a 'fact' that this difference in frequency, and therefore energy experienced by the elevated clock, relative to the clock below it, is a 'real' occurrence, and not observer dependent...

Yes, it is a real effect. A clock in a higher gravitational potential will run faster. It isn't "observer dependent" (all observers at the same gravitational potential will see the same thing)  but you have to ask "faster than what?" and at that point you have introduced a hypothetical observer - i.e. the other clock. Not "experienced by" but "emitted by". And the observer knows nothing about the energy of the primary transition, only the frequency he sees.