0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: timey on 22/07/2016 05:29:15Look Alan - NIST conducted tests on clocks that were 1metre apart in elevation. Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...Where was the observer? How did he measure the two frequencies? [Hint (a) at some gravitational potential with reference to the clocks; (b) with a clock]QuoteThe observer is at both elevations. This beats Normanton Laertes II (winner of the Royal Highland Show 2016) for obvious bollocks and pedigree bullshit. QuoteI like your slick gravity measurement idea, but wonder if we possess electronics that could measure the ever so slight frequency change such a small amount of gravitational change provided by just bricks alone would effect on the cesium atoms energy transitions.Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment. Henry Cavendish measured G this way in 1797, with no electronics at all. Your job is ever easier! All you need to do is synchronise the NIST and NPL clocks, and wait. Since they are about 1600m apart in altitude, you will find the NIST signal runs ahead of the NPL signal, and after a day or two you will find it has slipped by a few nanoseconds. Now resynchronise and bring up your lead blocks. How long does it take to slip the same amount? Now do the same experiment with a rubidium clock, or an Essen ring clock (I think there is one in the NPL museum). If you get the same answer, it is obviously nothing to do with the hyperfine spin-spin splitting of the cesium spectrum.
Look Alan - NIST conducted tests on clocks that were 1metre apart in elevation. Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...
The observer is at both elevations.
I like your slick gravity measurement idea, but wonder if we possess electronics that could measure the ever so slight frequency change such a small amount of gravitational change provided by just bricks alone would effect on the cesium atoms energy transitions.
How can the observer not be at both elevations?
If the gravity field is shifting energy for all these different scenarios equally, then the observation of energy change will be the same for all, no matter which type of measuring device is being used.
QuoteHow can the observer not be at both elevations? For the same reason that you cannot be in two places at the same time.If there is a gravitational potential difference between two clocks, any observer will see that the clock at the higher potential is running faster than the one at the lower potential. But if he tries to measure the frequency of either clock by standing next to it and comparing it with his own clock, he will not observe any difference. Of course it is a real effect. It has been measured many times and is exactly as Einstein predicted without reference to the nature of the clock.QuoteIf the gravity field is shifting energy for all these different scenarios equally, then the observation of energy change will be the same for all, no matter which type of measuring device is being used.How can it? In the case of a rubidium clock, we are looking at the hyperfine splitting of an electron (same mass as the electrons in the cesium atom) in the field of the rubidium nucleus (half the mass of the cesium nucleus). In the case of the Essen ring, you are looking at the elastic constant of a quartz crystal. Nothing to do with New Age energy fields or any other mumbo jumbo. None of these mechanisms is gravity-dependent. If the mass of the primary source was important, the effect would be different. I commend http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relati/gratim.html to you. They show the equations for redshift and time dilatation and refer very succinctly to experiments that prove them identical and independent of the mass of the source. Late postscript. Suppose we have a laser on the ground, and a cube reflector on the moon. Send pulses of light at exactly 1s intervals from the earth. They are reflected back to the source. At what intervals are they received back on earth?
....the effects are minuscule: It would take the elevated clock hundreds of millions of years to log one more second than its counterpart
What is your fixation with what appears to be what from where? Why is this relevant?
It can because whatever atom, or atom's constituent particle interaction one is measuring, we can say that on the ground gravity potential energy=mg, and that mgh is adding h, h being height, as a constant for all atoms across the board at that elevation.Therefore in that both g and h are constant for both functions of the equation for any mass size, all relationships between particle constituents within atoms, and atoms within molecules, etc, remain proportional to each other at any elevation...
Please note that the only reason that gravity has nothing to do with the hyperfine energy transition of anything at all, is because gravity has not yet been linked to quantum.
I admire the patience and perspicacity of your observer... Quote....the effects are minuscule: It would take the elevated clock hundreds of millions of years to log one more second than its counterpart ....staring at the displays. QuoteWhat is your fixation with what appears to be what from where? Why is this relevant? It is called "relativity" and is quite important in physics. QuoteIt can because whatever atom, or atom's constituent particle interaction one is measuring, we can say that on the ground gravity potential energy=mg, and that mgh is adding h, h being height, as a constant for all atoms across the board at that elevation.Therefore in that both g and h are constant for both functions of the equation for any mass size, all relationships between particle constituents within atoms, and atoms within molecules, etc, remain proportional to each other at any elevation... none of which has anything to do with the electron-nucleus spin-spin interaction, nor the expulsion of a photon from an excited nucleus.QuotePlease note that the only reason that gravity has nothing to do with the hyperfine energy transition of anything at all, is because gravity has not yet been linked to quantum. Both gravitation and quantum mechanics are human attempts to explain and predict what happens in the universe. I really don't think nature is waiting for us to invent a link: how ever did the Big Bang happen before Fred Hoyle found a name for it? If there was any connection between gravitation and spin-spin interactions, we would find a gravitational asymmetry in the bandwidth of the radiation. We don't.
"Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht. •Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.•Remark made during Einstein's first visit to Princeton University. (April 1921) as quoted in Einstein (1973) by R.W. Clark, Ch. 14. "God is slick, but he ain’t mean" is a variant translation of this (1946) Unsourced variant: "God is subtle but he is not malicious."•When asked what he meant by this he replied. "Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness,but not by means of ruse." (Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch List.) As quoted in Subtle is the Lord — The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (1982) by Abraham Pais"The bold text is mine.
Make sure you know the difference between a parachute and a rucksack (my own words).
If there is an increase in 'energy' (or decrease) this is a quantum process.
QuoteIf there is an increase in 'energy' (or decrease) this is a quantum process. Only if the gravitational field is quantised, and there is no evidence of this to date.Anyway let's do some calculations. The mass of a Fe57 atom is about 57 x 1.7 x 10^-27 kg : about 10^-25 kg.Raise the atom through 27 m. The additional potential energy is mgh = 9.81 x 27 x 10^-25 = 2.6 x 10^-22 J = 1.6 x 10^-5 eV. The actual energy shift in the Pound-Rebka experiment was 3.5 x 10^-11 eV, a factor of 500,000 too small. Given the very rough figures I have used, a factor of 1.5 would make me suspect I'd bodged the arithmetic, but a factor of 500,000 suggests there is something wrong with your physics.You might like to do the calculation for the NIST clock experiment.
Alan has tried to point out where you are incorrect and so have I. You either ignore it or reject it out of hand. Do you remember who started this thread? It has wandered so far from the original intent I have just given up trying to remember the point I was actually making. If you can't accept positive criticism what is left?
My model is suggestive that quantum is not quantised.As per the cesium atom, it is the mass of the Fe57 atoms internal electrons energy transitions increase in frequency and 'energy' at elevation that would be relevant,
QuoteMy model is suggestive that quantum is not quantised.As per the cesium atom, it is the mass of the Fe57 atoms internal electrons energy transitions increase in frequency and 'energy' at elevation that would be relevant, I refer the honorable lady to the remarks I made earlier concerning bollocks and bullshit. You really should enter some of these posts at an agricultural show.
Firstly, thank you very much for engaging!My model is suggestive that quantum is not quantised.
There is no electron involved in the Fe57 gamma emission (the word "gamma" is the giveaway). The fact that it occurs always and only at a single energy means that it is a quantum effect.You can calculate the interparticle gravitation if you like but that has no bearing on the external grav field and is unaffected by it.You can calculate the gravitational potential energy of a single nucleon if you like, but it's just 1/57 of the number I gave previously - still a factor of 100,000 too big. And let's put your quote back into contextQuoteFirstly, thank you very much for engaging!My model is suggestive that quantum is not quantised.....sorry, but it still stinks!
.however, the process of the Fe57 would be capable of occurring at higher and lower energies if the entire process is shifted in energy proportionally.
If there is more energy then the rate of time runs faster.
Quote.however, the process of the Fe57 would be capable of occurring at higher and lower energies if the entire process is shifted in energy proportionally. I await your calculation with bated breath. It's dead easy as I showed above, just add mgh to the ground-level energy to get the new photon energy. We know g and h, but what value are you going to use for m? And what value of m will you use for the cesium, rubidium and aluminum clocks? You can't just work backwards to get an arbitrary value: you have to explain the physics first.QuoteIf there is more energy then the rate of time runs faster. Or, to put it more scientifically, conventional GR gravitational time dilation applies, and clocks run faster when seen from a lower gravitational potential. No argument there, but equally, no progress towards integration of relativity and quantum mechanics.