[timey (OP)]

Look - I hate to be pernickety Alan, especially in light of my own shoddy use of terminology, but please allow me to explain, again, that there is no such thing as a zero gravity field.

: Yalescientific.org
Although gravity never reaches zero, it gets close.

What you are referring to (I think) is zero point field.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

A vacuum can be viewed not as empty space but as the combination of all zero-point fields. In QFT this combination of fields is called the vacuum state, its associated zero-point energy is called the vacuum energy and the average expectation value of zero-point energy is called the vacuum expectation value (VEV) also called its condensate. The term zero-point field(ZPF) is sometimes used when referring to a specific vacuum field. The QED vacuum is a part of the vacuum state which specifically deals with quantum electrodynamics (e.g. electromagnetic interactions between photons, electrons and the vacuum) and the QCD vacuumdeals with quantum chromodynamics(e.g. color charge interactions between quarks, gluons and the vacuum). Recent experiments advocate the idea that particles themselves can be thought of as excited states of the underlying quantum vacuum, and that all properties of matter are merely vacuum fluctuations arising from interactions of the zero-point field.[2]

However:

The idea that "empty" space can have an intrinsic energy associated to it, and that there is no such thing as a "true vacuum" is seemingly unintuitive. For many practical calculations (especially in QED) zero-point energy is dismissed by fiat in the mathematical model as a constant that may be canceled or as a term that has no physical effect. Such treatment causes problems however, as in Einstein's theory of general relativity the absolute energy value of space is not arbitrary and gives rise to the cosmological constant. Furthermore, many physical effects attributed to zero-point energy have been experimentally verified, such as spontaneous emission, Casimir force, Lamb shift, magnetic moment of the electron and Delbrück scattering,[3][4]these effects are usually called "radiative corrections".[5] In more complex nonlinear theories (e.g. QCD) zero-point energy can give rise to a variety of complex phenomena such as multiple stable states, symmetry breaking, chaos and emergence.

Physics currently lacks a full theoretical model for understanding zero-point energy, in particular the discrepancy between theorized and observed vacuum energy is a source of major contention.[6][7] Physicists John Wheelerand Richard Feynman calculated the zero-point radiation of the QED vacuum to be an order of magnitude greater than nuclear energy, with one teacup containing enough to boil all the world's oceans[8] while experimental evidence from both the expansion of the universe and the Casimir effect show any such force to be exceptionally weak. This discrepancy is known as the cosmological constant problem (or vacuum catastrophe) and is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries in physics.

Many physicists believe that "the vacuum holds the key to a full understanding of nature" [9] and that studying it is critical in the search for the theory of everything. Active areas of research include the effects of virtual particles,[10] quantum entanglement,[11]the difference (if any) between inertial and gravitational mass,[12][13] variation in the speed of light,[14][15] a reason for the observed value of the cosmological constant[16] and the nature of dark energy.[17][18]

The concept of zero-point energy was developed by Max Planck in Germany in 1911 as a corrective term added to a zero-grounded formula developed in his original quantum theory in 1900.

My model's treatment of the blackbody data in relation to the ultra violet catastrophe that led to Planck's introduction of the quanta (as we have discussed previously), recalculates E=hf by holding the frequency as constant in the face of variable length seconds...  By shortening the time period of a second in order to keep the frequency constant, the quantum nature of the energy levels becomes a continuum that can be united with gravity.

This unification with gravity is possible because the wave function has been given a physical cause, (i.e. that frequency is time dilation related via energy), uniting the wave function model with the point particle model, where the length of a wave is a function of time, the frequency is the timing, and the energy is causing the rate of the time.

Now we can go back to the 'far away clock'.

: Alan

The search for a zero-field point is merely the search for the point at which the frequency of that clock, as observed from any other point, is at its maximum.

... And the rate that a person with that clock will age is also at its maximum.  But what is that maximum and why?

The mass of the source clock is irrelevant.

No - the mass 'value' of the clock is irrelevant, but the fact of the mass itself is highly relevant because if there were no mass present at that location in space, then the pe=mgh would just be pe=gh, or more conventionally, the gravitational field strength (vacuum energy) would be g(r)=GM/r^2, (or whatever the equivalent equation for multiple fields is)

Now we go back to my model's treatment of the ultra violet catastrophe where +energy=shorter seconds, and we attribute the gravitational field strength, or vacuum energy, as the causation of a 3rd aspect of the time dilation phenomenon where the difference between the rate of time for a clock at h from M and the rate of time that is occurring for the location of h from M is simply the difference between pe=mgh*, and vacuum energy=g(r).

*(where a pe/mvalue equation distributes the pe equally over all particle constituents of m)

As the clock is placed further away from M it's rate of time will increase...  But at each further radius from M the rate of the field time will decrease.  This gives the accelerative and decelerative force of the g-field a physical causation.  Any body of m moving into the gravity field of >>>M will be observed as accelerated by the shorter seconds, and visa versus <<<M.

So let's look at what you were saying about the 'far away clock' running at maximum...  Where the clock is in the zero point field, it's own gravitational mass energy will outweigh the surrounding field energy.  When this happens the clock is no longer an m, it's an M...

As a thought experiment - If one were to then take a test particle m from the clock and position it at h from M(clock) in the gravitational field of the clock then the tiny little clock of the test particle will run faster than the rate of time running for M(clock).  And one may then repeat the procedure for test particle m when test particle m's own gravitational mass outweighs g(r)=GMclock/r^2 value and test particle m becomes M(test particle) where a tinsy tiny test particle m from M(test particle) will have a faster rate of time at h from M(test particle), etc, etc...

This means that bigger M's, i.e. of greater mass value, are running at faster rates of time than smaller M's.

(There are a multitude of posts over the last 2 years where I have given description of my model's suggested experiment, but it is easier just to write it out again than searching for these posts)

My model's suggested experiment to prove or disprove itself incorporates placing 2 identical atomic clocks at differing locations of the same gravity potential, i.e. altitude and longitude, but of know significant difference in geological density.

My model predicts that the clock in the denser location will run faster.

[nilak]

My model predicts that the clock in the denser location will run faster.

The clock rate vary between different gravitational potential. If there is a difference in the geological density it is hard to find points of the same gravity potential.
If you choose two points A and B, in different locations, if an object than moves between them gains velocity then there is a difference in the gravitational potential. I think this velocity gain is responsible for the clock rate increase.
For a clock in free fall from A to B it's atoms will gain and keep energy even if at B you hold the clock from falling. That energy is equivalent to electrons gaining more velocity.


I think you need to describe the complete scenario that includes the shape of the maasive object that generates gravity.

[timey (OP)]

To be clear Nilak, this experiment that I suggest is an Earthbound experiment.

At sea level Earth a stationary atomic clock will run at the same rate at all longitudes from polar to equator. 
The increased rate of time due to altitude of the equatorial bulge is exactly canceled out by the decreased rate of time due to the centripetal motion of the greater radius at equator relative to the poles.

My model's experiment suggests placing 2 identical atomic clocks at differing locations that are at the same altitude to equalise gravity potential, and at the same longitude if possible to ensure equal centripetal motion - (although sea level locations would ensure a natural equalisation of the rate of time of both) - but at locations of known inequality of geological density.

Neither of the clocks will be in motion other than the afore mentioned centripetal motion, and both should be placed upon the ground.

My model predicts that the clock in the denser location will run faster.

[nilak]

In that case if you have a hollow massive sphere in deep space, an object inside it will not experience any gravity force. Do you think a clock closer to the surface will tick faster? I don't see any reason to do that.

[timey (OP)]

Your reply illuminates the fact that you haven't quite grasped the premiss set out in post 560.  But hey, don't worry about it Nilak... go back, read it again, wait for someone else to respond perhaps.

[alancalverd]

.........
My model predicts that the clock in the denser location will run faster.

In other words, that a clock at a lower gravitational potential will run faster than one at a higher gravitational potential. Which is exactly the opposite of what we observe, whether it is an atomic clock in a GPS satellite, the redshift of the solar spectrum, the Pound-Rebka experiment, or even the most recent work with aluminum atom clocks separated by a few meters of height.   But the important point is that you have identified the critical experiment. The question is whether it is feasible or whether we can find a feasible substitute.

Rather than look for places where the earth's radius is identical but g is significantly different, you can separate the clocks vertically at a single location and calculate the differential due to circular motion at different heights thus:

the gravitational field at a distance x from the center of gravity of a large body  is GM/x² and the centrifugal field is v²/x where v is the tangential velocity.

Now x is around 6.4 x 10⁶ meters at the surface and the tangential velocity at the equator (for simplicity) is 2 x pi x 6.4 x 10⁶ /24 x 3600 = 465 meters/second.

I'll leave it to you to calculate the gravitational field and centrifugal field at, say x = 6.400001 x 10⁶ meters (for the Al clock experiment) or 6.400023 x 10⁶ for the PR experiment. I think you will find that the centrifugal effect is negligible in comparison with the calculated and observed frequency shift, rather as the original experimenters assumed (or calculated). The reason, of course, is that the centrifugal field varies with x whilst the gravitational field varies with x², but you can apply the centrifugal correction anyway if you wish.

There's no easier experiment than one that has already been done!

[timey (OP)]

I guess you didn't read post 562 which would have informed you that considerations of altitude and centripetal motion are an intrinsic consideration of the proposed experiment.

It is also clear that you did not fully understand the ramifications of the M(clock) and test particle thought experiment of post 560.

What you have understood is that what I am suggesting is the opposite of that which conventional physics would predict, but you are understanding it for the wrong reasons.
Conventional physics would state that in an experiment where 2 clocks are placed at the same altitude, and same centripetal motion as each other, whereas both clock's will run at same rate, if the locations were of differing geological density, the clock in the denser location would run slower.  This being because conventional physics believes that because a clock runs faster at altitude from M, and a clock runs slower closer to M, that time runs slower for bigger bodies of mass.

My model, without detracting from the observed and experimentally verified fact that a clock runs faster at altitude from M, and that a clock runs slower closer to M, states that a bigger value M will have a faster rate of time than a smaller value M, where all m at h from M will run faster than M.
As per the premiss set out in post 560 my model is stating that while an m(clock) will run faster in relation to h from M, and slower at decreased h from M, that this is potential energy related as per pe=mgh, where +energy= shorter seconds, but when the value of m's own measure of g outweighs the g at h from M, (such as in zero point field) that m(clock) becomes M(clock) where any test particle in relation to h from M(clock) will run at a faster rate of time than M(clock).

If you have a real good long deep think about this Alan, (and please do that, because you have said that you think me of at least some intelligence, and I really wouldn't be interested in just dicking around trying to tell you an idea I have about physics in favour of just having a laugh dicking around on the 'on the even lighter side' thread 'which was much more fun' if I didn't think I had something of importance to relate to you), you will realise that I am not transgressing any observation or experimentally verified phenomenon in my model's prediction that the clock in the denser location will run faster.

The difference 'at this juncture' between my model and the conventional model is that my model states that where m=0 that potential energy is not added or subtracted, and that where the g-field of M is of lesser energy at h's from M, that the rate of time is -energy=longer seconds.
The reason that this possibility has been overlooked by conventional physics (apart from Hubble's contribution) is because where m=0 a clock cannot measure.
However, because light is m=0, where light shifts in the gravitational field and the wave length gets longer <<<M, or shorter >>>M, that the change in the length of the wavelength is g-field '3rd aspect time dilation' related, and where the acceleration >>>M or deceleration <<<M of m's motions in relation to M are observed, this is also g-field '3rd aspect time dilation' related, and this is the means of observing the '3rd aspect time dilation' phenomenon that I am proposing, where the 3rd aspect time dilation is a part and parcel of the time dilation phenomenon entire of which SR and GR time dilation are the other 2 aspects.

[nilak]

"No - the mass 'value' of the clock is irrelevant, but the fact of the mass itself is highly relevant because if there were no mass present at that location in space, then the pe=mgh would just be pe=gh, or more conventionally, the gravitational field strength (vacuum energy) would be g(r)=GM/r^2, (or whatever the equivalent equation for multiple fields is)"

I didn't understand this part.
Why if no mass present the pe=gh ? It looks as if m=1kg.

[alancalverd]

But the clock doesn't sense M, only the gravitational field associated with it, so it makes no difference whether you increase M or reduce x. Unless you are proposing an entirely new force that looks like gravity, works backwards, only affects clocks, and has never been detected previously.That's pretty radical, especially as the red shift of the solar spectrum (large M compared with M_earth) is exactly what you would calculate without it.

As for the addition and subtraction of potential energy in the absence of rest mass, I think you will find this well covered by the explanation of gravitational lensing. It's also interesting that the PR result is exactly what you expect from a calculation of exchange between potential and kinetic energy for a photon.     

On a matter of linguistics, "conventional physics" doesn't "believe" anything. We make hypotheses and test them. Fact is that clocks run slower at a lower gravitational potential. The job of theoretical physics is to explain and extrapolate observation, not to dismiss it as belief. Now we have an observation and a theory which so far has predicted the next result, and you want to replace it with a theory that predicts exactly the opposite.  Difficult starting point, my friend! As Patrick said to Murphy: "if I was going to Cork I wouldn't start from Dublin" but if you really have to, it's not advisable to begin by assuming Cork to be east of Dublin.

[nilak]

What do you mean by centripetal motion? I think that would mean a motion from a height h to a lower height on a straight line towards the center of rotation ( as viewed from outside the earth).
 I suppose you meant the circular motion around the earth center of mass.

[yor_on]

That's an interesting definition Alan. Places where gravity is non existent. Would that mean that gravity negates itself? When I think of 'Black Holes' I see that definition of a 'singularity' as being of a 'infinite magnitude', actually I think that is what defines it. Mathematics use this idea of larger and smaller infinities, and using a argument of nothing being 'infinite', assuming one can continue to add to it, may become questionable from that point of view. I don't really like 'different magnitudes' of infinity's myself, have a problem imagining what it should mean, but I think you might agree to that 'filling up' a infinity shouldn't 'change it', presuming it already is infinite?
=

What I'm thinking is not about what one measure outside some event horizon, just that if a infinity ever got 'filled up' it couldn't have been a 'infinity' to start with.

[nilak]

Inside a hollow sphere (perfect and alone in the universe) I think we can say gravity is nonexistent. The spacetime inside it is just flat Minkowski spacetime.

[yor_on]

Well, yes, and that Is how I get Alan's argument. I think him to be correct. Although I will differ presumably on the definition of what can be called 'infinite'. That is if you're thinking of a perfect 'sphere' of a even density and referring to it's 'center'
==

Another interesting question might be, should you be able to measure a rotation in your universe?

[nilak]

Another interesting question might be, should you be able to measure a rotation in your universe?

I think we are getting off topic with this question. You should be able to measure a centrifugal force. I remember asking this question but I don't remember the answer. You can view the sphere as made of individual atoms that move an a circular path so the relative motion still exists. The case simplifies to two balls rotating connected by a rod.

[jeffreyH]

The gravity inside a hollow sphere only cancels completely  at the centre of mass. If the thickness of your shell equalled the diameter of Jupiter then the closer to an interior surface the greater the force.

[timey (OP)]

But the clock doesn't sense M, only the gravitational field associated with it, so it makes no difference whether you increase M or reduce x.

What on earth are you on about?
A clock is observed to undergo a change in frequency of electron transitions due to changes in the gravitational field.  The gravitational field is due to M.
Change the value of M and the clock will be experiencing a changed gravitational field.

Unless you are proposing an entirely new force that looks like gravity, works backwards, only affects clocks, and has never been detected previously.

What I am proposing is that there is a 3rd aspect to the time dilation phenomenon that does not affect mass.  It has never been detected before because it doesn't affect mass.  Yes is works 'backwards' or 'contra directional' in the g-field to GR altitude time dilation, and what this means is that time runs at a slower rate in 'open space', where 'open space' is defined as the parts of the universe where there is no mass.

.That's pretty radical, especially as the red shift of the solar spectrum (large M compared with Mearth) is exactly what you would calculate without it.

Yes - exactly!  And a time related wavelength will give exactly the same mathematical results as a distance or velocity related wavelength which is why my model 'can' be mathematically viable via the time distance speed formula.

As for the addition and subtraction of potential energy in the absence of rest mass, I think you will find this well covered by the explanation of gravitational lensing.

Where the description of the force of gravity that bends the light is lacking a physical causality.

It's also interesting that the PR result is exactly what you expect from a calculation of exchange between potential and kinetic energy for a photon.

Yes - that is most interesting indeed, because clearly there is something in the gravitational field that is causing the light to be shifted, and this 'something' in the gravitational field is lacking a description of physical causation.

On a matter of linguistics, "conventional physics" doesn't "believe" anything. We make hypotheses and test them. Fact is that clocks run slower at a lower gravitational potential.

Wholeheartedly agreed!  My model states the exact same thing...
But do clocks run slower in the greater gravitational field?
Is there a difference between gravity potential energy and gravitational field energy?
Potential energy is added or subtracted for mass at differing gravity potentials.
What occurs for open space?
Is it a 'fact' that 'time' runs faster 'in' the weaker gravity field where there is no mass?

The job of theoretical physics is to explain and extrapolate observation, not to dismiss it as belief.

So - explain and extrapolate the observation of gravitational acceleration please...

Now we have an observation and a theory which so far has predicted the next result,

What we have is an observation of gravitational acceleration and a theory that does not provide physical causation for this phenomenon.

and you want to replace it with a theory that predicts exactly the opposite.

...and this is where you are misunderstanding my theory.
My theory does not re-predict any part of GR, it holds all GR predictions as sound.
However, it is the consequence of assuming that the 'fact' of a clock running faster at altitude from M, and the 'fact' of a clock running slower nearer to M means that time is running faster in 'open space' that leads theoretical physics to the 'belief' that bigger M's are running at slower rates of time than smaller M's.

... And this is a 'belief' based on an 'assumption' because it is not physically proven to be 'fact' that a bigger M is running at a slower rate than a smaller M.
All that is proven as 'fact' is that all m in M's gravitational field will age at differing rates due to position and relative motion with respect to M's gravitational field.

The experiment that I suggest is designed to equalise position and relative motion with respect to M's gravitational field and therefore measure what rate a clock will run at in a denser location compared to a less dense location.

I've never been to Ireland but as I have friends in Cork, Cork would be a great starting point!

[timey (OP)]

why are you discussing hollow spheres on this thread?

Please stick to the topic matter.  If you wish to discuss hollow spheres open another thread.

[jeffreyH]

The gravity inside a hollow sphere only cancels completely  at the centre of mass. If the thickness of your shell equalled the diameter of Jupiter then the closer to an interior surface the greater the force.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43626/is-spacetime-flat-inside-a-spherical-shell

Well I beg to differ.

[timey (OP)]

Alan - I've reposted my reply to your post incase you missed it:

But the clock doesn't sense M, only the gravitational field associated with it, so it makes no difference whether you increase M or reduce x.

What on earth are you on about?
A clock is observed to undergo a change in frequency of electron transitions due to changes in the gravitational field.  The gravitational field is due to M.
Change the value of M and the clock will be experiencing a changed gravitational field.

Unless you are proposing an entirely new force that looks like gravity, works backwards, only affects clocks, and has never been detected previously.

What I am proposing is that there is a 3rd aspect to the time dilation phenomenon that does not affect mass.  It has never been detected before because it doesn't affect mass.  Yes is works 'backwards' or 'contra directional' in the g-field to GR altitude time dilation, and what this means is that time runs at a slower rate in 'open space', where 'open space' is defined as the parts of the universe where there is no mass.

.That's pretty radical, especially as the red shift of the solar spectrum (large M compared with Mearth) is exactly what you would calculate without it.

Yes - exactly!  And a time related wavelength will give exactly the same mathematical results as a distance or velocity related wavelength which is why my model 'can' be mathematically viable via the time distance speed formula.

As for the addition and subtraction of potential energy in the absence of rest mass, I think you will find this well covered by the explanation of gravitational lensing.

Where the description of the force of gravity that bends the light is lacking a physical causality.

It's also interesting that the PR result is exactly what you expect from a calculation of exchange between potential and kinetic energy for a photon.

Yes - that is most interesting indeed, because clearly there is something in the gravitational field that is causing the light to be shifted, and this 'something' in the gravitational field is lacking a description of physical causation.

On a matter of linguistics, "conventional physics" doesn't "believe" anything. We make hypotheses and test them. Fact is that clocks run slower at a lower gravitational potential.

Wholeheartedly agreed!  My model states the exact same thing...
But do clocks run slower in the greater gravitational field?
Is there a difference between gravity potential energy and gravitational field energy?
Potential energy is added or subtracted for mass at differing gravity potentials.
What occurs for open space?
Is it a 'fact' that 'time' runs faster 'in' the weaker gravity field where there is no mass?

The job of theoretical physics is to explain and extrapolate observation, not to dismiss it as belief.

So - explain and extrapolate the observation of gravitational acceleration please...

Now we have an observation and a theory which so far has predicted the next result,

What we have is an observation of gravitational acceleration and a theory that does not provide physical causation for this phenomenon.

and you want to replace it with a theory that predicts exactly the opposite.

...and this is where you are misunderstanding my theory.
My theory does not re-predict any part of GR, it holds all GR predictions as sound.

However, it is the consequence of assuming that the 'fact' of a clock running faster at altitude from M, and the 'fact' of a clock running slower nearer to M means that time is running faster in 'open space' that leads theoretical physics to the 'belief' that bigger M's are running at slower rates of time than smaller M's.

... And this is a 'belief' based on an 'assumption' because it is not physically proven to be 'fact' that a bigger M is running at a slower rate than a smaller M.
All that is proven as 'fact' is that all m in M's gravitational field will age at differing rates due to position and relative motion with respect to M's gravitational field.

The experiment that I suggest is designed to equalise position and relative motion with respect to M's gravitational field and therefore measure what rate a clock will run at in a denser location compared to a less dense location.

[alancalverd]

Didn't miss it, just wondered whether it was worth the effort of going over old ground again! Glutton for punishment, o here goes......

But the clock doesn't sense M, only the gravitational field associated with it, so it makes no difference whether you increase M or reduce x.

What on earth are you on about?
A clock is observed to undergo a change in frequency of electron transitions due to changes in the gravitational field.  The gravitational field is due to M.
Change the value of M and the clock will be experiencing a changed gravitational field.

But you could also change x to get the same result, so the observed frequency isn't a function of M alone but of the gravitational potential -GM/x.

Henry Cavendish established in 1797, and practically every national laboratory and astronomical observation since then has confirmed,  that G is independent of the density of the attracting body.

So the clock result depends only on M/x, so you might as well vary x at one geographical location, which is a lot easier than looking for local variations in g (the effect of density variation) and correcting for latitude (not longitude!) . Which is exactly what P&R and practically everyone else have done. 

Now if I understand your hypothesis, moving a source closer to a massive body will gradually slow the apparent frequency of the source (which is our common observation) until it reaches a point where it speeds up again (which has not been observed). So you are postulating a very short-range force that hasn't yet been measured, that stops black holes collapsing to zero diameter (because it would take for ever to do so). Is that just the weak force? Or is it remotely possible that the collapse is prevented simply by Heisenberg's indeterminacy?