[alancalverd]

The caesium atom is affected by a higher gravity potential increasing its energy, and therefore the frequency of all of its particle constituents for an increase in frequency of its energy transitions.
Light is affected by the higher gravity potential decreasing its energy and therefore it's frequency.  This does not gel with the De Broglie wavelength concepts.

(a) nothing to do with deBroglie and (b) untrue, as shown by the Pound-Rebka experiment. The frequency shift of a photon emerging from a higher to a lower gravitational potential is ihe same sign (positive) as the frequency shift of a clock located at a higher gravitational potential than the observer.  We've been through this several times before.

due to the difference in the gravity field gradient

and once more, you have added a word and turned an observation into complete nonsense!

[timey]

Thank you for your nit picking. Really appreciated!  Please consider the offending word removed and the 'lie' gone.  I'll banish the word gradient from my phone's word dictionary immediately now I realise it is putting my integrity and honour at stake.  (edit: I see you have edited the word lie to being nonsense, which is better)

a) Could you please explain why an atom and its electron cloud that changes in energy and frequency has nothing to with the De Broglie, given that particle energy and frequency does affect wavelength?

b) I'm unclear as to what you are saying here.  You say that blueshift from the higher gravity potential to the lower has a positive frequency increase, and that the atomic clock in the higher gravity potential, as opposed to the lower, has a positive frequency increase.  But the physical direction of these increases in frequency in the gravity potential experienced by the photon in relation to what happens for the clock are the opposite to each other!

[alancalverd]

Clock at altitude runs faster as seen from the ground.

Mossbauer photon emitted from the top of the P-R tower has a higher frequency as measured from the ground.

No anomaly. Just keep to the facts and keep it simple.

[timey]

Sorry, but I had been under the impression that light has a lower frequency in the weaker gravity field no matter redshifted or blue shifted...

If it is indeed the changes in the gravitational field that is shifting the light, then this does, I believe, actually 'have' to be the case...

[alancalverd]

Light travelling from a weaker gravitational field (i.e. the top of the tower) towards the observer in a stronger field (the bottom of the tower) is observed to be blue shifted. 

Remember that gravitational potential decreases as you descend, and the gravitational field strength increases as you approach the earth. Higher potential => lower field. I think this was the source of much of your confusion, but it has been pointed out several times.

a lower frequency in the weaker gravity field no matter redshifted or blue shifted...

AAAGGGHHH! red shift = lower frequency. Blue shift = higher frequency. That's why they are called red and blue! Scientific words have meaning. Different words have different meanings. Respect the language - it's very important.

[timey]

For goodness sake, I am most certainly NOT confused!

Last attempt:

Clock is on ground - it has a frequency. (electron cloud energy transition)
Light is travelling away from Earth from ground - it has a frequency.

Clock is raised to 1 meter away from Earth - it's frequency changes from what it was at ground level.  This change is an 'increase' in frequency.

The light when at position 1 meter away from Earth - it's frequency has changed from what it was at ground level.  This change is a 'decrease' in frequency.

The light is decreasing in frequency in the opposite direction in a gravity field to how mass decreases in frequency in the gravity field.  Mass increases in frequency in the higher gravity potential.  Light decreases in frequency in the higher gravity potential.

I just do not get what about this you are not comprehending?

What I want to look at is why the 'invariant mass' of the clocks mechanism atom (and its particle constituents) are affected differently than the 'relativistic mass' of light by 'gravity potential energy'...

[alancalverd]

Clock is on ground - it has a frequency. (electron cloud energy transition)
Light is travelling away from Earth from ground - it has a frequency.

Clock is raised to 1 meter away from Earth - it's frequency changes from what it was at ground level.  This change is an 'increase' in frequency.

as seen by an observer on the ground (GPS clocks)

The light when at position 1 meter away from Earth - it's frequency has changed from what it was at ground level.  This change is a 'decrease' in frequency.

as seen by an observer above the ground (P-R experiment)

I just do not get what about this you are not comprehending?

The facts being identical, what is there to comprehend?

What I want to look at is why the 'invariant mass' of the clocks mechanism atom (and its particle constituents) are affected differently than the 'relativistic mass' of light by 'gravity potential energy'...

They aren't. See above.

Suppose we have a clock at altitude, and it emits a Mossbauer photon every second (as measured by that clock). What do we see from the ground? The clock is running faster than our reference (the photons arrive at intervals of less than 1 second)  and each photon has a higher frequency than our Mossbauer detector can absorb. Same cause, same effect => same phenomenon, so it's nothing to do with the mass of the clock.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

This is all a question of energy. If an object with rest mass fall from a position of higher gravity potential to one of lower gravity potential it gains kinetic energy via acceleration. The photon cannot accelerate (in vacuum) so its change in kinetic energy is via an increase in the energy given by the increase in frequency. Where is the problem? Alan will correct anything I have wrong here.

[timey]

Alan - as the points of difference in elevation for both light and the clock are measured at ground level in relation to 1 meter in my given example - 1 observer is observing both clocks simultaneously, and both positions of measurement for the light.  There are NO above and below considerations as you suggest.  A third clock can be added at 2 meters elevation, and even if the observer is a dwarf, given that he has a step ladder, he will observe that the middle clock is lower in frequency than the higher clock, but that it is higher in frequency than the clock on the ground.  (edit: and that the light travelling away from Earth has a lower frequency than it did on the ground at 1 meter elevation, and an even lower frequency than elevation 1 meter when at position of 2 meter elevation, this being the opposite direction of change in frequency in the gravitational field to the experience of the clock).  What you are saying regarding the observer status is rendered meaningless.  It's been proven by experiment that these are NOT observer dependent phenomenon, but happen regardless of an observer... The reason why an observer 'with' a clock thinks that 'his' clock is correct and every other reference frames rate of time is incorrect, is because his atoms are being similarly gravitationally affected in their usual proportion to, and in keeping with, the clock's atomic mechanism...

Jeff - the problem is:

If you drop the caesium atomic clock from a height above Earth, it will also have kinetic energy, which if we add to the clock, will increase its frequency (electron cloud energy transition) as it drops - ***but a clock placed in a lower gravity potential relative to a higher gravity potential will have a decreased frequency for a slower rate of time***

Accelerate the clock in a uniform gravitational field - an increase in kinetic energy will also occur, which if we add to the clock will increase its frequency (electron cloud energy transition) for a faster rate of time - ***but a clock in motion relative to a stationary clock is observed by experiment to run at a slower rate relative to the stationary clock, not a faster rate.***

Using kinetic energy as book keeping for light doesn't work when applying the process to mass, it would seem!

In any case this is my last post...
(which is, Alan, the closest you will ever see me come to numerology (chuckle))...

Here I offer an alternative means of retaining the constancy of the speed of light in a gravity field, whilst also holding the concept of 'open space distance' as constant...
This alternative model transposes the phenomenon of the 'acceleration of gravity' into a phenomenon of 'inverted time dilation':
(as an additional phenomenon to GR time dilation, 'not' instead of GR time dilation)

1 meter divided by speed of light = 3.3ish nano seconds.

Add meters per second squared of acceleration of gravity to 299 792 458 meters.
Divide by speed of light.
Subtract 3.3ish nano seconds from result.

Dimensional analysis of above calculation:

L is equal to 299 792 458 meters
M is equal to gravitational acceleration
T is equal to L+M/c minus 3.3ish nano seconds for the extra length of time of a 'longer' second relative to a standard second.
(When M is greater than 9.807m/s2, an altered calculation is required: L+M minus 9.807m/s2, divided by c, minus 3.3ish nano seconds, for a negative result and the lesser length of time for a 'shorter' second relative to standard second)

L and T, or L1 and T1 etc, will always be equal in proportion to each other no matter the circumstances of M.
(I realise that I should (under the remit of dimensional analysis) also be able to give M a numerical, but it's beyond me.)

Matching these extra or lesser nano seconds to the extra or lesser length in wavelength of light undergoing frequency change in the gravitational field via a division of the extra or lesser length of wavelength by the speed of light - would, of course, be peachy!

""Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything!!!"

Bye everyone, all the best to you all!  If anyone wishes to contact me, I'm on private message...

P.S.  Oh, and I almost forgot... congratulations Jeff on becoming a moderator.  You must be pleased as punch.  Not so wasted in application now, aye .  Good for you!

[timey]

I realise that I have not completed properly, (nor even managed to describe correctly, she admits) in the above maths, so I've had to come back and correct...

On the basis of these axioms that both the speed of light and the speed of gravity are constant and equal to each other, and that open space distances are held constant with the addition of this proposed variable 'inverted time dilation', this being described below as relative to the measurement of a standard second... additional to GR time dilation, not instead of.
(Please note that the standard second is measured via GR time dilation being viewed as a mass in relation to mass phenomenon.  The proposed inverted time dilation being described below is a mass in relation to open space phenomenon)

299 792 458 meters divided by speed of light = 1 second

1 meter divided by speed of light = 3.3ish nano seconds

L = 1 meter in elevation from mass

Divide meters per second squared of acceleration of gravity by speed of light = time it takes for speed of light to cover the distance. (9.807m/s^2 for earth: 9.807m/c=fraction of nano second).
Then: because speed of light divided by 1 second = 299 792 458 meters... and I am looking for a nano seconds per meter value for the time it takes for speed of light to cover m/s^2 of acceleration of gravity for 1 second:
9.807 meters/3.3ish nano seconds = c
9.807 meters/c= fraction of a nano second.
c•fraction of a nano second = fraction of a meter = M

M (based on conversion of Newtons/kg to m/s^2 and above calculations) is equal to said fraction of a meter.
(edit: please note that an altered calculation is required for M greater than 9.807m/s^2, this being due to 'how' we measure the standard second)

T is equal to M/c = fraction of nano second

L1+M1-T1 = standard second
L2+M2-T2= standard second
...and 'if' I am correct in my calculations, based on given axioms, then it should be that:
M1xT1=L1
L1/M1=T1
L1/T1=M1
(If not then I need a bit of help)
Admittedly it looks strange to be using M as a substitute for speed in the speed distance time formula, but due to the given axioms and M being calculated via acceleration of gravity, the proportions should hold true.

This is just a generalisation.  T will be lesser at 0.1 meters than it is at 0.99 meters.  h/g being a more precise method I suspect and calculable down to Planck units. ie: 1 Planck length divided by 1 Planck time = c ...
(This being my next project I guess, based on what I've already done being correct???  (When I say correct I mean correctly describing the idea that I have set out to describe))

Matching these extra fractions of a meter of M to the extra length in wavelength of light red shifting away from Earth would, of course, be peachy.

Any help with 'the maths to describe the proposed idea' would also be peachy!

[alancalverd]

M L and T are like apples, chickens and gravestones. You can't add, subtract, multiply or divide them by each other. They are orthogonal and conserved.

now speed = distance/time so [speed] = L/T = LT^-1 where [....] denotes "dimensions of..."

and acceleration = speed /time so [acceleration] = LT^-2

force = mass x acceleration, hence [force] = ML/T²

energy =  force x distance so [energy] = ML²T^-2

Einstein's conjecture E = mc². First question - is this dimensionally correct? well, c is a speed, so [c] = LT^-1, hence [mc²] = ML²T^-2 which is indeed the dimensions of energy. Therefore the conjecture makes physical sense and is worth investigating experimentally to see if there are any dimensionless constants involved (could it be that E = 0.739mc², perhaps?) and it turns out that the constant is 1, as we hoped.




 

[timey]

Ok, perhaps the question I should be asking Alan is:

How, via dimensional analysis, do I transpose the acceleration of gravity m/s^2 into the proposed variable inverted time dilation that I'm proposing is the cause of the acceleration?

Where the T I'm looking for is variable in relation to both L and M, I'm finding this is presenting problems... Hence the unconventional terms for L, M, and T.

[alancalverd]

Just read any basic book on general relativity. Einstein explained what actually happens. Nobody can produce a mechanism for what you repeatedly state as fact, because it doesn't happen.

[timey]

No it doesn't happen in general relativity or any book on physics that I've ever read or am currently likely to read.  Why?  Because what I am proposing is a totally new concept that I have thought up completely on my own, based on Lee Smolin's 'the trouble with physics' description of where everything in physics does not fit together, and his conclusion that the problem lies in our interpretation of the phenomenon of time.

This notion of an inverted time dilation challenges Hubble's law and the notion of an expanding universe.  It does not actually challenge any of Einstein's ideas of general relativity, only some of the consequences of the related mathematics by introducing an additional concept that actually gives cause, where none has been previously been given, and does same job.

Einstien and Hubble were prepared to challenge their own ideas.  Why do you have such a problem with it Alan?  This is the New Theories board, and what authority do you have to state GR as being the absolute theory?

Einstein explained what GR does, but GR does not explain our universe.  It is the general consensus amongst physicists, as I have read, that a further explanation is required in order to do so.

This is me Alan, and I'm having a go at it...   Is that alright?  Fact is if what I'm suggesting is mathematically viable it describes the universe far more concisely than GR does.

So... given that I'm requiring mathematics that describe the acceleration of gravity as inverted time dilation, how do I employ dimensional analysis when the T I'm describing is variable in relation to both L and M?

[alancalverd]

Simply messing with time dilation won't give you an acceleration. If time is distorted by a gravitational field (and we know it is - we can measure it) then the effect will be the same at a given point for all small objects. But we observe a difference between an apple fixed to a tree (it doesn't move) and one in free fall (it accelerates). So you need to invoke length (to describe movement) and mass (because by observation, gravitational mass is exactly equal to inertial mass).

I haven't stated that GR is the absolute theory of anything. It just happens to describe and predict the phenomena of time dilation, red shift, gravitational lensing and nuclear energy rather well.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

If we take a freeze frame of a path between the earth and the sun we can mark out positions along that path to produce what is called a configuration space. Each point can be labeled as an event in some field. If we then start running forward in time each point will evolve according to its position within the gravitational field. How will they evolve? It is only by thinking this problem through that things will become clear. Smolin spent years at a university. He is entitled to speculate.

[timey]

If we take a freeze frame of a path between the earth and the sun we can mark out positions along that path to produce what is called a configuration space. Each point can be labeled as an event in some field. If we then start running forward in time each point will evolve according to its position within the gravitational field. How will they evolve? It is only by thinking this problem through that things will become clear. Smolin spent years at a university. He is entitled to speculate.

Jeff - you are viewing the phenomenon of time in the 'passage of time' format.  When I am talking about inverted time dilation, this is a phenomenon that states locations in space as running at different rates of time in the present moment.

These locations of gravity field inherent with rates of time that are running faster or slower than neighbouring reference frames of weaker or stronger gravity fields, when travelling through them over a period of time presents an entirely different story, with some potentially interesting mathematical and therefore possibly physical consequences, if we could just get past stage 1 of experimentally transposing the acceleration of gravity into inverted time dilation.

Lee Smolin is indeed entitled to speculate... Interestingly, one of the things he has speculated, and If I'm remembering correctly, it was Roger Penrose whom he mentioned as a co-speculator in this case, is that it will be someone from outside of physics with an unusual background who will precipitate the next big break through in physics!

A university education does not afford one the ability to think, and the lack of one does not afford someone the inability to think...

Anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly stupid!

[timey]

Simply messing with time dilation won't give you an acceleration. If time is distorted by a gravitational field (and we know it is - we can measure it) then the effect will be the same at a given point for all small objects. But we observe a difference between an apple fixed to a tree (it doesn't move) and one in free fall (it accelerates). So you need to invoke length (to describe movement) and mass (because by observation, gravitational mass is exactly equal to inertial mass).

I haven't stated that GR is the absolute theory of anything. It just happens to describe and predict the phenomena of time dilation, red shift, gravitational lensing and nuclear energy rather well.

Alan, you quite simply do not seem to be able to grasp that the additional time dilation that I am proposing cannot be measured by a clock because a clock (and its atomic electron cloud energy transition mechanism ) has mass that is subject to GR time dilation via gravity potential.  Light, if viewed without the concept of relativistic mass, is not affected by gravity potential.

A clock's atomic electron cloud energy transition is subject to gravity potential.  It's frequency is 'increased' when placed 'in the weaker' gravity field.  Light has a reduced frequency 'in the weaker' gravity field, no matter if it is redshifted away from a body of mass or blue-shifted towards a body of mass.

Keep the speed of light constant and the wavelength of light as constant as it shifts, and attribute the acceleration of gravity to the proposed inverted time dilation of the open space gravity field.  The extra or lesser length of a wavelength due to the frequency being gravitationally shifted can be divided by the speed of light to obtain a value of time.  The extra or lesser length in wavelength being inverted time dilation related.  In a gravity field lesser than that at ground level, Earth, the extra distance of wavelength divided by speed of light = fraction of nano second, is added to the nanoseconds of a standard second as a measurement of a longer second due to the location in the gravity field.  In a gravity field greater than Earth the lesser lengths of wavelength due to the frequency shift divided by speed of light = fraction of a nanosecond are deducted from the nanoseconds of a standard second for a measurement of shorter second due to the location in the gravity field.

Now you have a cause for the acceleration of gravity.  The mathematical consequences of this causation are a non expanding, closed system, cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle via the black hole phenomenon.  And in doing so, does this without requiring any additional phenomenon, (other than the proposed inverted time dilation which I'm saying we are already observing) that we have not already observed, which actually renders this physics theory as entirely unique.  All other theories require additional phenomenon that we do not observe.

Alan, again please take on board the fact that I have not just popped this idea off the top of my head.  I've put over 8 years of thought and research into the subject matter and how my notion fits to observation.  My idea is simply an augmentation to GR.

Time and time again it would seem to me that although you have a degree in physics, and please, I am really not faulting you on your understanding of physics in the slightest, but you do seem actually unable to experimentally engage in the concept of an alternative means to the same observations.

This is in fact completely illogical.  If you have an interest in a cyclic universe, surely you must realise that this would involve the universe contracting at some point, by some means, yet you are unwilling to explore an avenue that would logically describe such?

Sorry, but this is indeed incomprehensible to me... especially as your attitude to other subjects does not display such dogma...

[jeffreyH (OP)]

An education in physics is an absolute prerequisite. Including the required mathematics. Smolin could have said the next Nobel prize in physics will go to a goose. That doesn't mean it will happen. It may however make him a few extra quid on his book sales from the curious minded.

[alancalverd]

A clock's atomic electron cloud energy transition is subject to gravity potential.  It's frequency is 'increased' when placed 'in the weaker' gravity field.  Light has a reduced frequency 'in the weaker' gravity field, no matter if it is redshifted away from a body of mass or blue-shifted towards a body of mass.

 You really need to sort this out in your head.

An observer stationed at the clock or travelling with the photon sees no change.

The frequency of a clock is increased as seen by an observer at a lower gravitational potential. Fact.

The frequency of a photon is increased as seen by an observer at a lower gravitational potential. Fact.

Same phenomenon, same explanation.

Please don't waste your life trying to model or explain something that manifestly doesn't happen. Enjoy the sunshine!