[Mike Gale]

I stand corrected on atomic clocks.

[Mike Gale]

Fundamentally, a clock is nothing more than an oscillator. A caesium clock is no different than a pendulum clock in that regard. It's just more accurate and more reliable. Einstein's light clock is the simplest possible time keeper. You would be well advised to adopt that concept in your deliberations so you don't have to invoke QM concepts like electron state transitions, which are distractions.
As for the relationship between time and the observer, I recommend Sean Carroll's "From Eternity to Here". It's a thorough and entertaining treatment of the nature of time. He's got some pretty good YouTube videos if you can't be bothered with the book.

[timey (OP)]

I've read it.

Quantum is exactly where I want to be because yes you are right, the clock is oscillating faster at h from M, where it's increased frequency can be held relative to the increased potential energy that it gains at h from M.

...And I shall repeat, again and again and again, that if one takes the view that an increase in energy is causing a higher frequency of electron transitions, and that a higher frequency of electron transitions signifies an increase in the rate of time - when one takes this remit back to Planck's black body experiment and considers that temperature energy is increasing the energy level of the blackbody resulting in a higher frequency of electron transitions, resulting in the emission of higher frequency photons, where one includes that an increase in the frequency of electron transitions signifies an increase in the rate of time - when measuring the temperature energy input joules/second held relative to the shorter seconds caused by the increases in energy, the quantum nature of the data will be negated.

[Mike Gale]

You are correct to say that higher frequency equates to faster time (i.e. shorter seconds), but quantum state transitions and black body radiators are red herrings. You can make the same point with a classical oscillator like a pendulum clock. The only difference is the manner in which the oscillation is observed, be it the position of the pendulum or the frequency of emitted photons. In the case of a black body radiator, which emits photons at all frequencies, it is the most popular frequency (i.e. highest intensity) that is of interest for a time keeper.

[timey (OP)]

Again - this is entirely dependent on how one is viewing the phenomenon of time.
You are saying 'time keeping'.
I am saying 'energy reactive'.

The blackbody emits higher frequency photons as an energy reactive.
+energy=higher frequency of emitted photon
A higher frequency of photon emission requires that the emitting body be possessed of a higher frequency of electron transitions, and a higher frequency of electron transitions requires additional energy.

Therefore that which we observe of the electron transitions that control the output of the atomic clock in the higher gravity potential 'could' be viewed as the electron transitions increasing in frequency due to additional energy, this being potential energy, whereas the black body's observed increase in frequency of electron transitions is due to temperature energy.

If one were to apply DeBroglie wave functions to either scenario:
Wavelength =h/p
...via the Einstein Planck relation which should hold for both the function of the light emitter, and the emitted light.

However - if one views the increase in frequency of light emitted from the blackbody as being due to an increase in the electron transitions of the constituent atoms of the blackbody, and calculates this as an increase in the rate of time for the constituent atoms of the blackbody - if one then considers the addition of joules/second as +energy=joules per/shorter second, and then recalculates Planck's blackbody data curve under the remit of 'variable' seconds, then the quantum nature of the Planck ultra violet catastrophe is negated, and Planck's h constant is a function of variable time.

If one then takes this view back to the g-field, one must conclude:
a) that the atom at h from M is emitting a higher frequency photon
and...
b) that the already emitted photon is shifting frequency in the g-field due to the energy of the g-field
...where the g-field at a higher potential has lower energy, in the face of a particle mass at higher potential having a higher energy, where:
pe=mgh
and where m=0, no potential energy is added.

[timey (OP)]

I really wouldn't mind at all if one were to tell me that they had applied the remit of adding joules as per variable second to the ultraviolet catastrophe, and that I am mistaken in thinking that the remit that I suggest results in a continuum that negates the quantum nature of Planck's interpretation of the  blackbody data...

However, it's pretty clear to me that I am not mistaken...
If one takes the increase in frequency of the blackbody's emission of photons as an indication of the emitting atoms increased rate of time, and then calculates the additional energy that caused the increase in frequency via the shorter second, the data will be a continuum.

This is exactly the same as the difference between measuring clock's that are in the higher gravity potential 'from' the lower potential via the lower gravity potentials rate of time, as opposed to measuring each clock that is raised into the higher potential 'at' the higher potential location of that clock.

In the 1st instance the rate of time is held as an invariant as per the lower potential clock's rate of time...
This being the same as measuring additions of joules as per invariant second to the blackbody.

In the 2nd instance the rate of time is held as a variable at each gravity potential, where the clock when measured via the rate of time 'at' that gravity potential is always measured as 9,192,631,770 Hz...
This being the same as measuring additions of joules as per variable seconds to the blackbody.

Planck himself would have welcomed this notion with unmitigated joy, as he tried everything to iron out his data, resulting in his h constant that he first described as being a fudge factor.

[timey (OP)]

Can someone please tell me if my suggested treatment of the Planck blackbody data is misconceived or not...

[Mike Gale]

By 'energy reactive', I presume you mean that the characteristic frequency of the atomic clock or black body radiator is affected by time dilation. That is true, but in either case, the radiator is an oscillator (i.e. a clock) and you need a time keeper (i.e. another clock) to measure the frequency of the light. If you need a mental picture of the mechanism by which an electron state transition produces a photon, think of a disk with an off-center hole rotating on edge in a gravitational field. There are two stable states, one with the hole on the top and another with the hole on the bottom. The transition from one state to the other involves a lot of wobbling. The wobble frequency corresponds to the photon frequency.

[timey (OP)]

Well Mike - I am appreciating your description of oscillations, and point you towards the electron transitions (oscillations) in relation to energy...
But let me now return to the question of time itself.

If you have read Sean Carol's book 'from here to eternity', and you have also read Lee Smolin's book the trouble with physics', then you are aware that physics does not have a fully formed theory on time.
And you yourself must be aware from your own mathematical ventures that while GR is stating variable times, SR by default must hold the speed of light relative to 'a' clock somewhere.

It is a fully accepted notion via GR and SR that time flows at differing rates in the universe and that observers clock's under specified circumstances will not agree.

Now consider that there is actually an experimental app created that can tell a person how fast or slow they are ageing due to their longitude, height above sea level, and speed of travel.  This undoubtably being held relative to how a stationary (relative to Earth) person is ageing at a particular longitude and height above sea level...
Thousands of people in the UK were all moving around their daily business experiencing very slightly differing rates of time.
The interesting thing about this is that any of these people using this app will still agree that the day has passed by at the same rate.  They can meet up with each other having each spent their day at differing locations of differing height above sea level, differing longitudes, and differing relative motion, but meet to sit down at a specified 'dinner time', where everyone agrees that it is the specified time.
If we, for the purposes of illustration, wildly exaggerated the time differences between differing heights above sea level, longitude, and speed of motion, under the remit of the phone app it is possible to understand that these wildly differing rates of time that the app is registering due to people's differing ageing rates as they go about their daily business would not affect their ability to meet anyone at a specified time for dinner.  A person at the station may be ageing say 100 times faster than the person on the high speed train that is passing the station but both will still observe the sun to set when the sun sets.
Now in this case we can clearly work out that the phone app that is using the GPS on one's phone to register one's height above sea level, longitude, and speed of travel in order to apply the GR and SR calculations of time dilations is also providing everyone with a synchronised clock reading, and this clock reading is based on Greenwich Mean Time where all mobile phones, in UK, no matter their circumstances of location or speed, are all keeping the same time.
Therefore the rate a person ages at, even in this wildly exaggerated scenario, would not affect their ability to meet up for dinner at a specified time, or for the person at the station and the person on the high speed train passing through the station to view the sun setting at the same moment that the sun sets.

Let's look at this another way.  Continuing our wildly exaggerated differences in ageing scenario, lets say that the mobile phones of all the people using the app were to adjust each mobile phone's clock as per the apps time calculations as to height above sea level, longitude, and speed of travel.
The sun isn't going move at differing rates throughout the day for each differing clock rate.  The person at the station ageing 100 times faster than the person on the high speed train passing through the station, their mobile phone's variable clock readings do not agree, but if they both took a picture with their mobile phone of the sunset at the moment the train passed through the station, and then texted each other the picture, it would be clear that the sun would be in the same position in the sky for both people.

From this we can deduce that the rate that a clock runs at does not affect the passing of time as we know it...
People who's personal biological clock's, as per the relativity app, are running faster or slower, than the clock that is calibrated to serve to synchronise the nations mobile phone clock's, are ageing faster or slower, but this ageing faster or slower on a personal scale does not affect the observation of how fast the sun moves across the sky, and 'when' the sun will set.
If the mobile phones were set to display both the variable time, and the synchronised time, then the person on the station who's time was running 100 times faster than the person on the high speed train, and 10% faster than the synchronised mobile phone time, could calculate (in the Spring), that the sun sets 2.46 hours earlier each day that passes, relative to the synchronised time, where the person on the train who's time is running 90% slower than synchronised mobile phone time, could calculate that the sun sets 90 times in one day, relative to the synchronised clock.
The person on the train can see that his 1 and a half hour journey held relative to the synchronised mobile phone time will only take a minute held relative to his variable time clock.  Clearly he will not be observing the cows or rabbits in the fields, moving around any faster than cows and rabbits usually move.  If he times their movements via his variable clock, they will move at a faster speed when held relative to the variable clock, and if he times their movements via his synchronised mobile phone clock, they will move at slower speeds when held relative to the synchronised clock,
Therefore it is clearly obvious that despite the rate of time the clock's, and the people's biological body clock's are running at, that in each case the 'amount' of time is 'the same', and that each clock is making a differing measure of the 'same amount' of time.

We could now deduce that the clock's and biological body clock's running at differing rates at differing heights from sea level, longitudes, and relative speeds are doing so as a physical reaction to their locational conditions, and that these physical reactions to local conditions do not affect the actual sequential events of the local itself.

This is a description of relativity conventional.
Is there any point here that you disagree with?

[alancalverd]

Can someone please tell me if my suggested treatment of the Planck blackbody data is misconceived or not...

Yes. The blackbody spectrum is a continuum, not a line spectrum, by definition.

h was never a "fudge factor" but a necessary dimensioned constant required to relate frequency to energy. The value of h depends on your units of measurement (imperial, metric, avoirdupois...) but its dimensions do not.

[timey (OP)]

The point is that a higher frequency be associated with a faster rate of time for the emitting body.
If Planck, instead of using an invariant second, had used a variable second to measure his energy per second additions - where the increased energy causes a faster rate of time for the emitter, which then causes a higher frequency photon to be emitted - calculating the energy increases under the remit of +energy=shorter seconds, the ultra violet catastrophe would remain within the classical prediction under this remit.

It doesn't matter which units are used.  It only matters that the energy additions are observed to cause frequency increases, and that one consider the increase in frequency to be indicative of a shorter second.
When using the shorter length of second indicated by the increased frequency to measure the energy input that caused the frequency increase, the quantum nature of the energy additions will be negated.

I'm pretty certain that I am not mistaken in the mechanics of this notion.

As an aside, it was Planck himself who was quoted as having referred to his h constant as a fudge factor.
Yes - it was necessary for Planck to add the h constant to make sense of his data and relate energy to frequency, but only because he couldn't figure out any other means by which to form the relationship...
If I am not mistaken the remit I suggest affords another means by which to form the relationship.

[Mike Gale]

Can someone please tell me if my suggested treatment of the Planck blackbody data is misconceived or not...

Yes. The blackbody spectrum is a continuum, not a line spectrum, by definition.

h was never a "fudge factor" but a necessary dimensioned constant required to relate frequency to energy. The value of h depends on your units of measurement (imperial, metric, avoirdupois...) but its dimensions do not.

It's not entirely inaccurate to call it a fudge factor. It was a shot in the dark that paid off. He called it an act of despair. It is admittedly nothing more than a unit conversion factor, but the point is that photon energy depends on frequency and nothing else. That means all light waves have the same amplitude. As such, photon energy is affected by time dilation, but not space dilation (except insofar as the two are related.) It's really just another way of saying that the speed of light is invariant.

[timey (OP)]

Mike - Do you disagree at any point with post 488?

[Mike Gale]

Some, but not all:

1) Time dilation between Earth dwellers does not depend on longitude, only altitude and ground speed.
2) If all of the busybodies meet at the pub at sunset, each will have aged by a different amount. Everyone will agree that the sun has indeed set; they just won't agree about the elapsed time since sunrise.
3) The app would have to involve futuristic physics because we don't currently know how to calculate time dilation as the observers speed up, slow down and change directions. Problems like that have to be solved in a piecemeal fashion using numerical approximation techniques.

[timey (OP)]

At a more southern longitude (in UK) gravity is weaker than it is at a more northern longitude of same altitude.  This being because of the equatorial bulge.
However, the time dilation difference at the more southern longitude is exactly cancelled out by the SR effects of the more southern longitude's greater speed of rotation, so you are correct that longitude does not cause a difference in time dilation and that it is only speed and altitude causing a difference.

As to the mobile phone app I refer to, it exists in reality.  It was developed by Professor of physics Jim Al-Khalilli, and you can watch a program called "Gravity and Me: The force that shapes us"... that refers to this app and is well worth a watch.

Number 2:  Yes - precisely, which suggests that time dilation for mass is a physical reaction caused by the conditions of the local, and that this time dilation that is affecting mass is not related to the sequential events of the local.
Correct?

[Mike Gale]

The bulge is a red herring because it doesn't affect PE. The physics of rotating reference frames are a quagmire. You should simplify your scenario by assuming a spherical, non-rotating Earth.
Jim's app will employ numerical approximations. It will also suffer from lack of precision in altitude and ground speed.
Your experience of time has nothing to do with your mass, only your altitude and ground speed.

[timey (OP)]

It does affect PE because at the equator the bulge renders one further from the centre of mass.  However, as said, and I am quoting Professor Jim Al-Khalilli directly, the rotational speed as one gets closer to the equator increases and SR time dilation exactly cancels out the GR time dilation caused by the bulge.
...and Jims app will actually be as precise at determining position, altitude and speed as GPS is.

However this is not the point I am making here.

2) If all of the busybodies meet at the pub at sunset, each will have aged by a different amount. Everyone will agree that the sun has indeed set; they just won't agree about the elapsed time since sunrise.

Number 2:  Yes - precisely, which suggests that time dilation for mass is a physical reaction caused by the conditions of the local, and that this time dilation that is affecting mass is not related to the sequential events of the local.
Correct?

[Mike Gale]

Jim is wrong on that point. Polar time at sea level is the same as equatorial time at sea level. It's a case of two wrongs making a right. (The change in gravity due to the bulge is canceled by centripetal acceleration. SR doesn't come into play because these observers are stationary with respect to one another and with respect to the center of mass. A spherically symmetric, non-rotating Earth is the correct model for calculating GR time dilation on the ground.) The GPS literature paints a more accurate picture. See for example: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/126919/does-time-move-slower-at-the-equator

[Mike Gale]

With regards to point #2, mass has nothing to do with it. It's all about ground speed (i.e. SR) and altitude (i.e. GR.)

[Mike Gale]

Note that the Kerr metric describes how to calculate dilation from the perspective of an observer who is not rotating with the Earth. It's not recommended for the faint of heart though.