0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

then why do we see that the energy transitions of frequency and wavelength in light 'are' dependent on the relativistic mass of the photon?

.....Can anyone explain, please?

Alan - Although you have previously told me that a cyclic universe is interesting to you, you are requiring that I prove the possibility to you mathematically for your interest to be retained, whereas I am requiring that someone recognise the possibility and apply their skills in maths to the purpose of proving, or disproving the possibility.

Quote from: timey on 27/06/2016 13:53:25 then why do we see that the energy transitions of frequency and wavelength in light 'are' dependent on the relativistic mass of the photon?I regret that, having no more than a PhD and 50 years' professional experience in photon physics, I have no idea what this means. But it's never too late to learn. Can anyone explain, please?

Quote from: timey on 27/06/2016 12:57:17Alan - Although you have previously told me that a cyclic universe is interesting to you, you are requiring that I prove the possibility to you mathematically for your interest to be retained, whereas I am requiring that someone recognise the possibility and apply their skills in maths to the purpose of proving, or disproving the possibility.No mathematical skills are required beyond the functions on your calculator (the square root is handy but a guess is often adequate to prove the point). And you don't even need those until you have sorted out the physics.

Therefore... if the energy transitions of the caesium atom are not mass related, why is it that the energy transitions of light are?

Quote from: timey on 27/06/2016 23:46:07Therefore... if the energy transitions of the caesium atom are not mass related, why is it that the energy transitions of light are?What on earth are the "energy transitions of light"? If you mean red/blue shift, please say so. The relationship between transmitted and received frequency is entirely governed by the gravitational potential difference between source and observer. Since the same gravitational shift applies to both clock rates and emitted photon frequencies, it clearly has nothing to do with the inertial mass of a photon. Hence the clever Mr Einstein deduced that it is due to gravitational warping of spacetime.

The people most likely to truly understand time dilation are the engineers at the LHC and other accelerators. Since the particle velocities far exceed the escape velocity of the solar system the effects of gravitation are different to the norm. This is more like special relativity territory. Exactly as you find in intergalactic voids. They are the perfect ones to ask.

Study inertia.

Let I be an inertial mass at rest which can be considered invariant. Then I *v is a non relativistic inertial momentum. Its equivalent kinetic energy is then 1/2*I*v^2. If W is then the wavelength of the mass we can divide this into the kinetic energy to get an internal force associated with each cycle or oscillation.

Yes - the energy transitions of the caesium atomic clock are gravitationally shifted (not due to mass of the caesium atom you say)Yes - the redshift/blue shift energy transitions of light are gravitationally shifted (due to gravitational potential you say)

If light is shifted due to gravity potential, (mass related), then how can it be said that the caesium atom is not shifted due to gravity potential which 'would' be mass related?

Simply attribute the acceleration to a shortening in the length of a second (inverted time dilation) due to the gravitational field.

Quote from: timey on 28/06/2016 11:31:27Yes - the energy transitions of the caesium atomic clock are gravitationally shifted (not due to mass of the caesium atom you say)Yes - the redshift/blue shift energy transitions of light are gravitationally shifted (due to gravitational potential you say) PLEASE, for the sake of your own sanity (mine disappeared years ago) don't add random words like "energy transitions" when talking to scientists. You could end up believing that there is some meaning in what you say. Gravitational redshift is due to a diffrence in gravitational potential between source and detector. That's it. Finished. QuoteIf light is shifted due to gravity potential, (mass related), then how can it be said that the caesium atom is not shifted due to gravity potential which 'would' be mass related? Related to the mass of what? Not the photon or the clock atom, but the distribution of lumps of other matter between source and observer. Just look at the bloody equation! And it's gravity potential difference,please. Don't subtract important words either!Quote Simply attribute the acceleration to a shortening in the length of a second (inverted time dilation) due to the gravitational field. That won't give you an acceleration vector, nor do the numbers stack up aganst the measured acceleration of particles near the earth's surface.

Alan, please excuse my terminology.

"The gravitational potential (V) is the gravitational potential energy (U) per unit mass: U=mv, where m is the mass of the object.

"It is analogous to the electric charge potential with mass playing the role of charge"

It is analogous to the electric potential with mass playing the role of charge.

It is analogous to the electric charge potential with mass playing the role of charge

the mass of the caesium atom (and the masses of its particle constituents) 'must' also be affected by gravity potential.