[alancalverd]

So we now have the suggestion that increasing the temperature of the groundlevel clock will remove the observed discrepancy between it and the clock at altitude. But it doesn't, because electron state transitions within an atom are not temperature-dependent for a given state - remember what I said about spectral lines in # 513 above.That's quantum mechanics.  Time is measured by quantum transitions of bound electrons.

Black body photons are a continuum produced by oscillation of free electrons. Each photon has a discrete energy but there are no forbidden or preferred energies - the definition of blackbody radiation! 

The reason for cooling cesium clocks is to reduce thermal (black body!) noise, Doppler jitter, and interference from nearby unwanted near-ground-state transitions that might be excited thermally: the hyperfine splitting is a very weak signal to be detected against a background of all sorts of irrelevant stuff.

[jeffreyH]

In special relativity in a universe containing mass there is never a position within it where there is zero probability of a gravitational force operating on a test mass. Not even in deep space. Therefore special relativity is by necessity artificially contrived. The effect of the force may be infinitesimally small but its probability is never zero is the point.

[alancalverd]

If there is more than one mass other than the test mass, there is at least one point where the net gravitational field is zero. Just sum the vectors and look carefully!

[jeffreyH]

If there is more than one mass other than the test mass, there is at least one point where the net gravitational field is zero. Just sum the vectors and look carefully!

You got me gov. It's a fair cop.

[guest4091]

Will there be a conclusion/resolution concerning the question, in our lifetime?

[jeffreyH]

Will there be a conclusion/resolution concerning the question, in our lifetime?

Quite probably not.

[timey (OP)]

So we now have the suggestion that increasing the temperature of the groundlevel clock will remove the observed discrepancy between it and the clock at altitude. But it doesn't, because electron state transitions within an atom are not temperature-dependent for a given state - remember what I said about spectral lines in # 513 above.That's quantum mechanics.  Time is measured by quantum transitions of bound electrons.

Black body photons are a continuum produced by oscillation of free electrons. Each photon has a discrete energy but there are no forbidden or preferred energies - the definition of blackbody radiation! 

The reason for cooling cesium clocks is to reduce thermal (black body!) noise, Doppler jitter, and interference from nearby unwanted near-ground-state transitions that might be excited thermally: the hyperfine splitting is a very weak signal to be detected against a background of all sorts of irrelevant stuff.

The electrons of the blackbody emitted frequencies are free electrons.
The electron transitions occurring in the atoms of the blackbody that are associated with a photon being emitted are bound electrons.

In the case of the blackbody, all that 'jitter' caused by inputting energy causes the bound electrons to increase in the frequency of their transitions.
As the energy input is increased the fact that electron transition frequency is increasing is clearly illustrated in the fact the radiation emissions are increased in frequency.
Because of the 'jitter' it would be impossible to observe the electron transitions occurring within the atoms of the blackbody where the energy input is causing a transference of energy to frequency output, but the fact that they are occurring and the value of the frequency can be determined directly from the frequency of the emitted radiation.

The atomic clock on the other hand is being subject to a differing but otherwise incredibly similar energy input.  The caesium atoms are being excited by a microwave beam.
Needless to say a microwave beam causes an energy transfer in much the same way as any energy input where more energy will result in a higher temperature.

Therefore the fact is that yes, if one were to calibrate the microwave beam of the lower potential atomic clock differently, that one could cause the lower clock to be calibrated to run, 'in' the lower potential, at the same rate that the clock in a higher potential is running at.
This is an actual scientifically recognised fact, is used to calibrate satellite clocks for certain purposes, and is known as slanting a clock, where I remember Evan making a post about slanting clocks in this way last year.

[timey (OP)]

Do you believe that by rambling incoherently you can mesmerise your victims, sorry audience, into submission?

You are really upsetting me now.  All you do is ridicule me because I am saying things that you haven't read in a physics book.
This is New Theories board Jeff.
If you cannot engage in the topic matter do not participate.
There are forum rules you know.

[timey (OP)]

Chris - I watched a Horizon program on Dark Energy last year where physicists were saying in light of Dark Energy remaining a complete mystery, that perhaps a new approach is required...
Among those physicists was George Efstathiou from Cambridge University.
Do you know him?

[alancalverd]

The electrons of the blackbody emitted frequencies are free electrons.
The electron transitions occurring in the atoms of the blackbody that are associated with a photon being emitted are bound electrons.

The first sentence is almost true (what we actually say is that blackbody radiation is emitted by free electrons - it makes more sense). The second sentence therefore cannot be true.

In the case of the blackbody, all that 'jitter' caused by inputting energy causes the bound electrons to increase in the frequency of their transitions.

There is no jitter in blackbody radiation. It is a continuum, not a line spectrum.

As the energy input is increased the fact that electron transition frequency is increasing is clearly illustrated in the fact the radiation emissions are increased in frequency.

Nothing to do with transitions, which are a feature of quantised energy levels. Free electrons can have any energy, and lose it in any quantity, thus radiating a continuum.

And be careful with phrases like "transition frequency" - it's ambiguous and can make you look foolish, which you aren't. "Creative writing" has no place in physics; the poetry is in the observation, not the description..   

We'll talk about the meaning of temperature another time.

[timey (OP)]

(what we actually say is that blackbody radiation is emitted by free electrons - it makes more sense).

Why does it make more sense?
The energy has been added to the blackbody in order for radiation to occur.  What you suggest makes it sound as though the blackbody itself is superfluous to the experiment.  The blackbody is a conductor and photons are being emitted as a result of energy being conducted via the blackbody.

Energy is converted into heat.  I rub my hands together=adding energy, and the atoms of my hand get warmer.  If I rubbed them together super-fast the atoms in my hand would become heat damaged and could under some very extreme rubbing indeed potentially (although not very likely) cause my hands to burst into flames.

A blackbody is a much better energy conductor than my hands are.  One can add energy, where this energy will not cause the atoms of the blackbody to break down, and yes Alan, the blackbody emits a spectrum of frequency that is a continuum.
But the additions of energy it takes to cause this spectrum of frequency that is a continuum is not a continuum.  It's quantised, or it is under the remit that Planck measured by. (Light wavelength is h/p, where the wavelength and frequency of a wave are inversely proportional to each other.)
Therefore the radiation itself may not be a line spectrum, but the energy additions causing the radiation are synonymous to a line spectrum.

What I suggest is an alternative remit by which to measure the energy additions resulting in the energy increases also being a continuum to match the radiation continuum.

Nothing to do with transitions, which are a feature of quantised energy levels. Free electrons can have any energy, and lose it in any quantity, thus radiating a continuum.

The point is that the blackbody experiment results in the energy additions being quantised in order to make the data fit the observation of a continuum of radiation.
On the basis that the energy additions are quantised, then the frequency of electron transitions causing photons to be emitted are also relevant.

There is no jitter in blackbody radiation. It is a continuum, not a line spectrum.

The reason for cooling cesium clocks is to reduce thermal (black body!) noise,  Doppler jitter, and interference from nearby unwanted near-ground-state transitions that might be excited thermally:

Yes - and this is to enable an element of control as to the output frequency of the clock.

:Sci-tech
Microwave ovens use radio waves at a specifically set frequency to agitate water molecules in food. As these water molecules get increasingly agitated they begin to vibrate at the atomic level and generate heat.

This is a far cry from what the microwave beam is doing when it excites the cesium atoms of the atomic clock to produce a set frequency of photon but the principle is the same.
The microwave beam exciting the cesium atom causes the atom to vibrate (electron transitions?) at a set frequency by adding energy, and a frequency of photon is emitted by the atom.

The clock when placed in a higher potential has a higher frequency of electron transitions than the lower clock does when observed by the lower clock, and the higher clock observes that the clock in the lower potential is running slow.
In keeping with the GR prediction that time runs faster in the higher potential, and in keeping with the GR prediction that one's own clock will appear to be ticking normally.

However, a higher frequency of electron transitions requires an increase in energy level, unless one is just saying that time runs faster out in space, (why and how one just cannot explain), but I am suggesting, as an alternative, that an energy increase can be realised by considering potential energy.

One of the reasons for doing so (there are a few) stems back to the quantised nature of the blackbody data, where I suggest that one view the frequency increases observed in the radiation of the blackbody as energy input is increased to be indicative of a shorter second, and then recalculate the additions of the energy via the remit of this variable time which 'should' negate the quantum nature of the energy additions to frequency output relationship of the blackbody data.

[timey (OP)]

Or alternatively (lol) the much shorter version:

But Alan - the radiation emitted from the blackbody may be a continuum, but the energy additions are not...
Planck had to quantise the energy additions to fit the data.

[Colin2B]

please correct me if I am wrong,

No, I'm not going to do that. As you have pointed out before this is new theories and you are at liberty to put forward any ideas you have.
My only purpose in posting was to point out that there had been a misunderstanding.

There is another one here:

 (what we actually say is that blackbody radiation is emitted by free electrons - it makes more sense).

Why does it make more sense?

Compare what you said "emitted frequencies are electrons" with what Alan said "radiation is emitted by free electrons". I think you will agree there is a huge difference.

[timey (OP)]

However, please correct me if I am wrong, but...

The birds eye overview of the physics situation is that there are a multitude of differing means to accurately calculate a multitude of differing circumstances, but there isn't a means by which one method of calculation can describe all circumstance.

This was what I asked you to correct me on if I was wrong.
This has nothing to do with a New Theory.  It is a fact that is widely commented upon by professional physicists who are all quite open about the fact that current physics is not adequate in that there is no uniting theory, many known unknowns, and therefore in all likely-hood a multitude of unknown unknowns.

I read books by physicists who are considering these known unknowns in relation to current physics and describing where and why different theories are not compatible, and these are the subjects that I wish to discuss, and explain where I see that the current theories can be calculated differently so that they do unite.

It's fine for Jeff to ask a question on New Theories such as "Is there a linear vector space that can be used with gravitational fields?", where clearly under the current remit of GR there isn't.  And it's fine for Jeff to chat with Mike who was experimenting with a variable speed of light...
But my wishing to discuss here on this forum the matters that I have read/watched/investigated for last 9 years is ridiculed, where I have to put up with Jeff pretending that he doesn't understand that it is an acceptable point of view that SR and GR time dilations be considered and calculated separately???
And you yourself would decline to comment on the fact that there is not a means of describing all circumstance under the remit of a unified theory???

Feels a bit like discrimination to me...

As to your edit:

This is what I said followed by what Alan said:

The electrons of the blackbody emitted frequencies are free electrons.

The first sentence is almost true (what we actually say is that blackbody radiation is emitted by free electrons -

This is what you said:

Compare what you said "emitted frequencies are electrons" with what Alan said "radiation is emitted by free electrons". I think you will agree there is a huge difference.

The mistake I made was in saying free electrons instead of free energy.
Clearly one would not get any phenomenon of radiation unless energy was being conducted by the blackbody, and the point is that although the spectrum of emitted radiation is a continuum, the measure of the energy additions to cause that continuum of spectrum of emissions is not a continuum, and the method of calculating that I suggest would render the energy additions as a continuum.

Why would you choose to point out a mistake like so, in favour of discussing how current physics doesn't have a unifying theory?

"Hey timey, I'm sure you didn't mean to say electrons there 'cos that don't make sense, but for sure there is a lacking of a unified theory, and that is an interesting take on a means to re-calculate the blackbody data.
But just to say, you are aware that if you apply that +energy=shorter seconds remit to the spectrum observed of stars, that because temperature and frequency of stars increases with mass size, this would mean that time would be running faster for the bigger stars than the smaller ones?  Which of course flies in the face of currently held theories..."

"Why yes, I am perfectly aware of this and it is good news indeed, because apart from all the other matters in physics that this notion unifies, now GR maths won't break down in black holes."

[Mike Gale]

Jeffrey is hilarious. I had to read that twice because I didn't recognize the brand names at first glance.

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.

Yes that is what Jim said, and what I wrote.

But you both got the right result for the wrong reason. The Earth-fixed, Earth-centric reference frame is rotating from the perspective of a deep space observer, but surface-dwellers are not moving with respect to one another.

You cannot say this...

(The change in gravity due to the bulge is canceled by centripetal acceleration.

...and then say this:

SR doesn't come into play because these observers are stationary with respect to one another and with respect to the center of mass.

...because you have contradicted yourself.

It seems contradictory, but it's not because the reference frame in which the bulge manifests is rotating. You have to despin the Earth (to get rid of the equatorial bulge) before you can apply the SC solution. It's a valid approach because rotation is relative.

The centripetal acceleration  (SR) at the equator exactly cancels out the change in gravity (GR) at the equator *for an observer* at the equator because *the observer* at sea level at the equator is moving in space faster than *the observer* at sea level at a polar location is.  This is 'how' the change in gravity (GR) is cancelled by the centripetal acceleration (SR).

Moving in space relative to what? There are only 3 points of reference in this scenario: 2 surface dwellers and the center of mass. Each is stationary with respect to the others.

I have *highlighted* the term *the observer* above for a reason:

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.)

Without mass being involved, what exactly are we stating as having a ground speed (SR) and altitude (GR)?
It would be impossible to measure either SR or GR effects without a mass being involved.

The observers are just clocks. They need not have mass.

Therefore:
Suggesting that time dilation for mass is a physical reaction caused by the conditions of the local, and that these SR and GR time dilation effects that are affecting mass are not related to the sequential events of the local...
Because, as you have said:

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.

Where the elapsed time between sunrise and sunset (on any particular day) is an invariant amount of time, but the busybodies have experienced that invariant amount of time (associated with that calendar day) differently to each other.

The point being that despite the busybodies experience of their own time, the *actual amount* of time that has passed from sunrise to sunset (that day) remains the same.
This is illustrated in post 488 by asking the mobile phone app to display both the Relativity app time as to the phones location and speed, and the synchronised time that all mobile phones in UK display as a norm.

To give an idea of direction, I am discussing these matters with a view to examining what the rate of time is doing where m=0, such as the spaces in the universe where mass is absent.

Solar time is invariant. Swatch time is not.

[Mike Gale]

You are not wrong to say that physics doesn't have all the answers, but you must not take offense when people try to poke holes in your theories. Remember how Feynman defined the scientific process: guess, predict and compare. Fending off naysayers is part of step #3. It can test your patience, but at least they don't string you up like Galileo anymore.

[alancalverd]

Or alternatively (lol) the much shorter version:

But Alan - the radiation emitted from the blackbody may be a continuum, but the energy additions are not...
Planck had to quantise the energy additions to fit the data.

No he didn't. Temperature is not quantised, nor is the thermal energy of a black body. 

[alancalverd]

Microwave ovens use radio waves at a specifically set frequency to agitate water molecules in food. As these water molecules get increasingly agitated they begin to vibrate at the atomic level and generate heat.

This is a far cry from what the microwave beam is doing when it excites the cesium atoms of the atomic clock to produce a set frequency of photon but the principle is the same
The microwave beam exciting the cesium atom causes the atom to vibrate (electron transitions?) at a set frequency by adding energy, and a frequency of photon is emitted by the atom.

No! The frequency we are looklng for has nothing to do with bond stretching or motion of any nucleus  at all. It is a spin-spin transition of an electron in its ground, not excited, state. There is no "vibration" involved - it's a purely quantum phenomenon for which there is no appropriate mesoscopic model.

The clock when placed in a higher potential has a higher frequency of electron transitions than the lower clock does when observed by the lower clock, and the higher clock observes that the clock in the lower potential is running slow.

You will confuse everyone by talking abour "frequency of transitions", which means the number of transitions occuring per second, not the photon frequency associated with a single transition.
 

In keeping with the GR prediction that time runs faster in the higher potential, and in keeping with the GR prediction that one's own clock will appear to be ticking normally.

Absolutely correct. Why not leave it at that, since it works? 

However, a higher frequency of electron transitions requires an increase in energy level, unless one is just saying that time runs faster out in space, (why and how one just cannot explain), but I am suggesting, as an alternative, that an energy increase can be realised by considering potential energy.

Which is exactly how blue shift is calculated, without reinventing (actually disinventing) the cesium clock. All GR does is to give you a generalised formulation that works in accelerating frames as well as stationary gravitational fields.

[timey (OP)]

Or alternatively (lol) the much shorter version:

But Alan - the radiation emitted from the blackbody may be a continuum, but the energy additions are not...
Planck had to quantise the energy additions to fit the data.

No he didn't. Temperature is not quantised, nor is the thermal energy of a black body. 

(Sigh)...

Planck's h constant emerged from his blackbody experiment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant#Black-body_radiation

Planck had imposed the quantization of the energy of the oscillators, "a purely formal assumption … actually I did not think much about it…" in his own words,[8]but one which would revolutionize physics. Applying this new approach to Wien's displacement law showed that the "energy element" must be proportional to the frequency of the oscillator, the first version of what is now sometimes termed the "Planck–Einstein relation":

E
h
f

Planck was able to calculate the value of h from experimental data on black-body radiation: his result, 6.55×10−34 J⋅s, is within 1.2% of the currently accepted value.[6] He was also able to make the first determination of the Boltzmann constant kB from the same data and theory.[9]

The h constant is a Joules per invariant second measurement.

I am saying that:

the quantization of the energy of the oscillators

can be avoided by calculating via a variable second where:

the "energy element" must be proportional to the frequency of the oscillator,

but the frequency of the oscillator is indicative of the length of second.

So - by measuring each frequency via the remit of its variable second, this will result in the mathematics of a constant frequency for all oscillations, and

the quantization of the energy of the oscillators

will be negated as a continuum.

Hopefully now that I've interjected the 'proper' terminology, what I'm saying will be more easily understood.

[alancalverd]

h has nothing to do with quantisation. It is the arbitrary constant that calculates the energy of any photon whose wavelength is known. The quantised photon model simply talks about standing waves in a box, and delivers the black body spectrum whatever the value of h.

Whilst I'm on my high horse, the experimental data was established well before Planck - he "merely" explained it!

The only oscillator whose frequency indicates a second is, by definition, a cesium clock. The idea that the length of a second is determined by the local oscillator would be fine, except that the radio time signal doesn't depend on whether I'm listening on AM (198 kHz) or FM (98 MHz) - it's determined by the clock at MSF, running at umpteen gigahertz and transmitting at 60 kHz.

You might have some fun using your variable time concept to predict atomic orbitals from the gravitational field of a proton and an electron. If it works, I'll be impressed.