[alancalverd]

What exactly are we saying here?

The simple answer is that the gravitational field warps the spacetime continuum. Remarkably, this result from GR seems to explain every experimantal result to date.

E=mgh for an electron would tell you how much KE it could acquire if it fell through h, placing an atom at a greater h doesn't cause the number or rate of electron transitions to increase - we don't observe an increase in intensity.

Where are we when we don't observe an increase in intensity?  Are we in the local frame, or the remote frame?

This is a prime example of why you need to use physicists' language, not your own. The "frequency of electron transitions " means the number of times electrons make quantum transitions in a second, and this defines the number of photons emitted per second, i.e. the intensity (quantity) of emission. The photon frequency associated with an individual electron transition defines the energy per photon - the quality of the emission.

Confusion arises when you talk about black body radiation. If you increase the temperature of a blackbody, you increase the quantity of emission and also the maximum photon energy that can be emitted, so the spectrum quality shifts also. But it is important to remember that blackbody radiation is a continuum. If you increase the temperature of a real body you may generate new spectral lines as sufficient energy becomes available to permit quantised electron transitions within individual atoms and molecules, but that has nothing to do with the idealised blackbody spectrum. A fine example is the spectrum of a molybdenum-anode x-ray tube. Most of the radiation is a blackbody spectral continuum with a maximum determined by the applied anode voltage (usually 30 kV, giving up to 30 keV photons), but there are a couple of large "characteristic" spikes around 10 - 15 keV that we use for breast imaging.

[timey (OP)]

The simple answer is that the gravitational field warps the spacetime continuum. Remarkably, this result from GR seems to explain every experimantal result to date.

Therefore it is remarkable that while GR can predict and describe what will occur, it cannot describe 'why' it is occurring.  A fact that is widely remarked upon in the physics books I read.

The "frequency of electron transitions " means the number of times electrons make quantum transitions in a second and this defines the number of photons emitted per second, i.e. the intensity (quantity) of emission.

Thank you.  So the question stands with a slightly altered terminology:

"Where are we when we don't observe an increase/decrease in electron quantum transitions.  Are we in the local frame?"

The photon frequency associated with an individual electron transition defines the energy per photon - the quality of the emission.

Is the number of times electrons are making quantum transitions in a second defined by energy levels?
And does the number of times electrons make quantum transitions have a bearing on the energy level of the individual electron transitions that are defining the energy per photon?

[Colin2B]

Yes, I remember, but also re-call that we came to a Mexican stand off scenario over the fact of a person aging in keeping with their clock.

Not me. I have no problem with the fact that a person ages differently at a GP relative to someone at a different GP. What I have never managed to understand is why you think they wouldn't according to current physics.


I think one problem is that highlighted by Alan, that we end up talking at cross purposes due to misunderstandings of terminology. It's one reason I tend to keep out of these threads. I thought by trying to clarify some terminology we might be able to make some progress.


As I say, I'll see how Ethos wants to take it forward. I'll help him with drafting if he needs it.

[timey (OP)]

I have no problem with the fact that a person ages differently at a GP relative to someone at a different GP. What I have never managed to understand is why you think they wouldn't according to current physics.

Because every time I try to discuss here the fact of seconds being of differing length in differing GP's, I am consistently told that this is only the case when viewed from the remote frame, and it has then been very difficult to continue the discussion in terms of talking about differing length seconds!!!

When I have raised the notion of the change in frequency of electron transitions being caused by a change in energy level, I have been told that this cannot be the case because the frequency of electron transitions is measured as the same in each GP and therefore the energy level in each GP must be the same...
I have also been told that the frequency of a clock must be the same at each GP because if one measures a clock from a position of higher gravity potential, it will be running slower, and then measures the same clock from a position of lower gravity potential, it will be running faster, and that the clock cannot be running both slower and faster at the same time.
It is indeed quite clear to me, under the remit of conventional physics, that the higher potential position is measuring the clock in the lower potential by it's increased tick rate, and that the lower potential position is measuring the clock by it's decreased tick rate, and that it is all 3 clocks that are running at differing rates.
What I'd like to talk about is 'why'...

As I say, I'll see how Ethos wants to take it forward. I'll help him with drafting if he needs it.

Great news indeed!  Alan also seems to be back, and on form, which secretly pleases me, with this being not such a secret now though aye

[alancalverd]

Here's the answer to the ageing question.

Wherever you are in the universe, you will live for threescore years and ten. But you will appear to die earlier when seen from the surface of a bigger planet, because time goes slower at lower gravitational potentials. So if you were born on the moon, whilst your clock will have delivered 2.2 billion seconds during your lifetime, mine (on planet earth) will have delivered rather fewer ticks when I receive the news of your death. 

[timey (OP)]

Arrrrgh, I'm dead...

The simple answer is that the gravitational field warps the spacetime continuum. Remarkably, this result from GR seems to explain every experimantal result to date.

Therefore it is remarkable that while GR can predict and describe what will occur, it cannot describe 'why' it is occurring.  A fact that is widely remarked upon in the physics books I read.

The "frequency of electron transitions " means the number of times electrons make quantum transitions in a second and this defines the number of photons emitted per second, i.e. the intensity (quantity) of emission.

Thank you.  So the question stands with a slightly altered terminology:

"Where are we when we don't observe an increase/decrease in electron quantum transitions.  Are we in the local frame?"

The photon frequency associated with an individual electron transition defines the energy per photon - the quality of the emission.

Is the number of times electrons are making quantum transitions in a second defined by energy levels?
And does the number of times electrons make quantum transitions have a bearing on the energy level of the individual electron transitions that are defining the energy per photon?

... Does anyone have an answer?

[alancalverd]

The simple answer is that the gravitational field warps the spacetime continuum. Remarkably, this result from GR seems to explain every experimantal result to date.

Therefore it is remarkable that while GR can predict and describe what will occur, it cannot describe 'why' it is occurring.  A fact that is widely remarked upon in the physics books I read.

It is true that gravitation is an anomalous force. What is remarkable is its predictability and universality, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the fact that such a simple concept as GR can predict such a subtle effect as time dilatation with altitude, with such precision.

The "frequency of electron transitions " means the number of times electrons make quantum transitions in a second and this defines the number of photons emitted per second, i.e. the intensity (quantity) of emission.

Thank you.  So the question stands with a slightly altered terminology:

"Where are we when we don't observe an increase/decrease in electron quantum transitions.  Are we in the local frame?"

The question remains meaningless, or at least ambiguous.

The photon frequency associated with an individual electron transition defines the energy per photon - the quality of the emission.

Is the number of times electrons are making quantum transitions in a second defined by energy levels?
And does the number of times electrons make quantum transitions have a bearing on the energy level of the individual electron transitions that are defining the energy per photon?

No and no. Quality and quantity are entirely separate.

[timey (OP)]

It is true that gravitation is an anomalous force. What is remarkable is its predictability and universality, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the fact that such a simple concept as GR can predict such a subtle effect as time dilatation with altitude, with such precision.

Therefore there is no need to ask 'why' these physical processes occur?  I thought you went to CERN last year and knew everything now... inclusive of the fact that billions of money's are spent in the search for the 'why's' of the universe...

:timey
"Where are we when we don't observe an increase/decrease in electron quantum transitions.  Are we in the local frame?"

The question remains meaningless, or at least ambiguous

The clock's tick rate is dependent on the frequency of electron transitions.  Why would the question be meaningless?
Here I have said:

:timey
If one measures a clock from a position of higher gravity potential, it will be running slower, and then measures the same clock from a position of lower gravity potential, it will be running faster

...and

:timey
It is indeed quite clear to me, under the remit of conventional physics, that the higher potential position is measuring the clock in the lower potential by it's increased tick rate, and that the lower potential position is measuring the clock in the higher potential by it's decreased tick rate, and that it is all 3 clocks that are running at differing rates.

Do you disagree?

And what I want to discuss here is my idea for a physical mechanism that causes these clocks to tick at differing rates, and I am discussing this on the basis that GR is not providing one.
Is this understood?

:timey
Is the number of times electrons are making quantum transitions in a second defined by energy levels?
And does the number of times electrons make quantum transitions have a bearing on the energy level of the individual electron transitions that are defining the energy per photon?

No and no. Quality and quantity are entirely separate.

So - we know 'why' photons increase in energy when they are blue shifted, or decrease in energy when red shifted...via a calculation that converts pe to ke, or ke to pe.
But 'why' do the number of electron transitions per second differ in the differing GP's?
Conventional physics states that this is because time runs at differing rates at differing GP's, where I am looking at 'why' time runs at differing rates at differing GP's.
So - can 'you' tell me 'why' time runs at differing rates at differing GP's?
Can GR tell me the physical cause and effect mechanics of 'why' time runs at differing rates at differing GP's?
Can SR tell me the physical cause and effect mechanics of 'why' time runs at differing rates at differing speeds, relative to each other?
Can GR or SR tell me the physical cause and effect mechanics for gravitational attraction/acceleration/deceleration?

[alancalverd]

Don't confuse "how" (physics) with "why" (philosophy).

GR states that all atomic clocks tick at the same rate, but look different when seen from a different viewpoint. That's why it's called relativity and not absolutivity. Then we explain and calculate the difference, and it turns out to be correct. Bingo - physics!

GR explains the equivalence between a gravitational field and an accelerating reference frame, but doesn't attempt to elicit the mechanism of gravitation, which remains to be discovered. No big deal: GR doesn't explain how rockets or cyclotrons work, but the predictions of an accelerating frame turn out to be correct. 

You still seem confused about electron transitions. I repeat: the number of quantum transitions per unit time determines the intensity (quantity) of a photon source; the energy of each transition determines the spectrum (quality) of the source. If you use the language of physics, people will be able to understand and therefore answer your questions, but if you talk about the frequency of electron transitions you will just confuse yourself and everyone else.

An old colleague used to explain photon spectra, Planck's photoelectrons, and all that stuff, by comparing a pint of beer (refreshing) with a pint of whisky (lethal). Same quantity, different quality.

[timey (OP)]

I have no problem with the fact that a person ages differently at a GP relative to someone at a different GP. What I have never managed to understand is why you think they wouldn't according to current physics.

Because every time I try to discuss here the fact of seconds being of differing length in differing GP's, I am consistently told that this is only the case when viewed from the remote frame, and it has then been very difficult to continue the discussion in terms of talking about differing length seconds!!!

GR states that all atomic clocks tick at the same rate, but look different when seen from a different viewpoint. That's why it's called relativity and not absolutivity. Then we explain and calculate the difference, and it turns out to be correct. Bingo - physics!

Do you see what I mean Colin?

One cannot state that:

all atomic clocks tick at the same rate, but look different when seen from a different viewpoint

...and also state that:

a person ages differently at a GP relative to someone at a different GP.

... Because that is a contradiction.

If a person ages differently at a GP relative to someone at a different GP, then atomic clocks not only look different when seen from a different viewpoint, they are actually physically ticking differently in differing GP's. 

[timey (OP)]

You still seem confused about electron transitions. I repeat: the number of quantum transitions per unit time determines the intensity (quantity) of a photon source; the energy of each transition determines the spectrum (quality) of the source.

:wiki
An atomic clock is a clock device that uses an electronic transition frequency in the microwave, optical, or ultraviolet region[2] of the electromagnetic spectrum of atoms as a frequency standard for its timekeeping element.

: wiki
A caesium atomic clock is a primary frequency standard in which electronic transitions between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium-133 atoms are used to control the output frequency.

:wiki
That value was chosen so that the caesium second equalled, to the limit of human measuring ability in 1960 when it was adopted, the existing standard ephemeris second based on the Earth's orbit around the Sun

:wiki
general relativity gives us gravitational time dilation. Briefly, a clock in a stronger gravitational field (e.g. closer to a planet) will appear to tick more slowly. People holding these clocks (i.e. those inside and outside the stronger field) would all agree on which clocks appear to be going faster.

  :New Scientist
Anil Ananthaswamy

'OUR most accurate clocks are probing a key tenet of Einstein’s theory of relativity: the idea that time isn’t absolute. Any violation of this principle could point us to a long-sought theory that would unite Einstein’s ideas with quantum mechanics.

Special relativity established that the laws of physics are the same for any two observers moving at a constant speed relative to each other, a symmetry called Lorentz invariance. One consequence is that they would observe each other’s clocks running at different rates. Each observer would regard themselves as stationary and see the other observer’s clock as ticking slowly – an effect called time dilation.

Einstein’s general relativity compounds the effect. It says that the clocks would run differently if they experience different gravitational forces.

For two decades, comparing atomic clocks aboard GPS satellites with those on Earth have helped test the effect – and always confirmed it. But since any deviation from relativity would be very subtle, we might need a more precise instrument to find it.

Most atomic clocks rely on the frequency of the microwave radiation emitted when electrons in caesium-133 atoms change energy states.

I repeat:
"An atomic clock is a clock device that uses an electronic transition frequency as a frequency standard for its timekeeping element."
"electronic transitions between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium-133 atoms are used to control the output frequency."
"Most atomic clocks rely on the frequency of the microwave radiation emitted when electrons in caesium-133 atoms change energy states."

If you use the language of physics, people will be able to understand and therefore answer your questions, but if you talk about the frequency of electron transitions you will just confuse yourself and everyone else.

My use of the language 'a change in the frequency of electron transitions' to describe the tick rate of a time dilated clock is exactly the language of physics.  It is 'you' Alan who appears to be confused.

Don't confuse "how" (physics) with "why" (philosophy).

Do not confuse the 'why' of physics as 'being' philosophy.

[nilak]

I understand Alan tries to make a distinction between the number of electrons per second that transition between energy levels and the microwave radiation frequency emmited by a single transition. You can have for example 100 electrons changing levels per second meaning a frequency of 100Hz, but the microwave radiation can be for instance 9 GHz which is the clock rate.

[alancalverd]

Your language must be precise if you are to be understood, and it is a great help to your own understanding to be absolutely unambiguous as to what you are talking about.

The frequency associated with an electron quantum transition is what Wikipedia loosely calls  an  electronic transition frequency, though it is more properly (and less ambiguously) termed electron transition energy. 

The frequency of electron transitions means how many electrons change state per second, regardless of the energy of each transition. Quite a different thing.

Wikipedia half-correctly states  a clock in a stronger gravitational field (e.g. closer to a planet) will appear to tick more slowly. but unless you state to whom it will appear, and slower than what, the statement is meaningless. Once you complete the statement, you have the prediction of general relativity.

And Wikipedia isn't quite correct about the cesium clock. In practice the critical microwave frequency is absorbed, not emitted, by the hyperfine shift. Why do I care? Because the drummer in one of my former bands was the principal physicist responsible for developing the original Essen cesium clock into a primary standard - and he is an excellent timekeeper!

[timey (OP)]

On the basis that you seem to understand that it is the number of electron transitions that is responsible for the tick rate of the clock, I really don't understand why I even have to discuss the matter at-all, let alone argue over which language that I use to describe the tick rate of the clock.  Just seems like a trite waste of time to me!
The maths that predict that a clock will run faster in the higher potential compared to the lower potential say that the number of electron transitions that occur in the higher potential will be greater, meaning that there will be more of them occurring within the time period of a length of a second as measured in the lower potential.

A person in the higher potential will age quicker in the higher potential compared to a person in the lower potential.
Do you have anything to say in answer to this post:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69800.msg514132#msg514132

[timey (OP)]

Not really correctly defined here by live science because the atoms are pushed up a chamber where they are excited by a microwave beam, however...

:live science
But even the best mechanical pendulums and quartz crystal-based clocks develop discrepancies. Far better for timekeeping is the natural and exact "vibration" in an energized atom.

When exposed to certain frequencies of radiation, such as radio waves, the subatomic particles called electrons that orbit an atom's nucleus will "jump" back and forth between energy states. Clocks based on this jumping within atoms can therefore provide an extremely precise way to count seconds.

It is no surprise then that the international standard for the length of one second is based on atoms. Since 1967, the official definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation that gets an atom of the element called cesium to vibrate between two energy states.

Inside a cesium atomic clock, cesium atoms are funneled down a tube where they pass through radio waves . If this frequency is just right 9,192,631,770 cycles per second then the cesium atoms "resonate" and change their energy state.

A detector at the end of the tube keeps track of the number of cesium atoms reaching it that have changed their energy states. The more finely tuned the radio wave frequency is to 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, the more cesium atoms reach the detector.

The detector feeds information back into the radio wave generator. It synchronizes the frequency of the radio waves with the peak number of cesium atoms striking it. Other electronics in the atomic clock count this frequency. As with a single swing of the pendulum, a second is ticked off when the frequency count is met.

Correctly defined here, but with no reference to the fact of measuring the number of electron transitions 'in' a reference frame via the tick rate of a clock in that reference frame having a bearing on the measurement...

: educate/explore
Atoms as clocks

Every atom is composed of a nucleus, which contains the atom’s protons and neutrons (collectively known as nucleons). Orbiting that nucleus are the atom’s electrons, which occupy different orbits, or energy levels.

By absorbing or releasing exactly the right amount of energy, the electrons can ‘jump’ from one energy level to another. This is called a transition. The electrons absorb energy to move to a higher energy level (away from the nucleus), and release energy to move down an energy level (towards the nucleus).

The energy released or absorbed in these transitions takes the form of electromagnetic radiation (e.g. visible light or microwaves). The same amount of energy is released every time the same transition occurs, no matter where or how many times it is measured.

As with all waves, the radiation has a certain frequency (i.e., it completes a certain number of full waves in a second, similar to the way a pendulum completes a certain number of swings in a minute) and this frequency can be measured. This means that a clock can be based on the wave frequency of an electron’s transition energy in an atom, in a similar way to a clock based on the swinging of a pendulum.

Why do we use caesium?

The caesium atom defines the SI second. The second is 9 192 631 770 periods of the electromagnetic radiation emitted or absorbed by the ground state hyperfine transition of the caesium atom. This means that a second is the amount of time it takes for the radiation from this transition to complete 9 192 631 770 full waves.

As with all atoms, no matter where or how it is measured this number will never change, meaning that it’s a far more reliable method of timekeeping than the Sun’s movement in the sky.

Measuring the second in a caesium fountain atomic clock

An atomic fountain clock has three stages:

Six lasers placed at right angles to each other (aimed above, below, left of, right of, in front of and behind the target) are fired at a group of caesium atoms. This is known as an optical trap: the light from the six lasers pushes the caesium atoms closer together, stopping them moving to the point where they almost stop vibrating at all. As both a particle and a wave, light has momentum (just like any other object that is moving), and is able to push very small objects such as atoms. Since atomic vibrations are what we feel as heat, the caesium atoms become ultra-cold, reaching temperatures of around one microKelvin - a tiny fraction of a degree above absolute zero (-273.15 °C).
Once the atoms have been cooled down, the lasers above and below them are used to launch them upwards inside the fountain’s microwave chamber, and the atoms then fall back down under gravity. This launch-and-fall movement is why the clock is referred to as a ‘fountain’. The chamber uses microwave radiation to cause the caesium atoms’ electrons to move between two specific energy levels as they fly up and fall down through it.
Finally, once the atoms have completed their flight, the energy levels of the electrons can be measured through fluorescence – atoms with electrons in different energy levels will emit different radiation patterns when probed with a laser.
This whole process takes about a second, and is repeated over and over with different microwave frequencies until the frequency that causes the maximum number of caesium electrons to change energy levels is found. This frequency is the resonant frequency, and this is the frequency that is used to define the SI second. As caesium fountain clocks are improved, the microwave frequency can be more finely tuned and the SI second can be even more accurately defined.

:nist.gov
All clocks must have a regular, constant or repetitive process or action to mark off equal increments of time. Examples include the daily movement of the sun across the sky, a swinging pendulum or vibrating crystal. In the case of atomic clocks, the beat is kept by a transition between two energy levels in an atom.

Place the clock in a higher gravity potential and that beat is increased compared to the lower potential.

A person will age faster if they are with a clock that has a faster beat.

I am exploring where in the higher potential the energy comes from to cause the clock to beat faster, and the person to age faster.
This is a perfectly reasonable exploration because Einstein's relativity is not compatible with quantum mechanics.
Alan - if you are not interested in making an exploration of this type, could I ask you, with all due respect NOT to post here anymore?

[timey (OP)]

In practice the critical microwave frequency is absorbed, not emitted, by the hyperfine shift.

This frequency is the resonant frequency of 9,192,631,770 cycles per second and this is the frequency that is used to define the SI second.

In the higher potential, there will be more wave cycles per second as per the length of a second in the lower potential, i.e. a resonant frequency that is higher than the frequency of 9,192,631,770 cycles per SI second, although if one measures in one's own frame of reference, one will always measure 9,192,631,770 cycles per the second of their position in the gravity field.

GR states that clocks run differently if they experience different gravitational forces.  People holding these clocks (i.e. those inside and outside the stronger field) would all agree on which clocks appear to be going faster.
Therefore while GR states that the local reference frame will notice nothing different about their own clock, GR also categorically states that time is physically running faster in the higher potential compared to in the lower potential.

Everything in this post so far is conventional physics.

What I want to talk about that is not conventional physics is attributing the higher resonant frequency in the higher gravity potential to an increase in energy, because an increase in frequency must be accompanied by an increase in energy.  No energy is being artificially added to the clock in the higher potential, so I am looking at the mgh equation to add energy to cause the change in the critical microwave frequency.
The atoms that this critical microwave frequency is responsible for resonating will also be changed in their energy levels, otherwise the higher frequency would not cause a jump between ground states.
My reasoning is that if the atoms are changed in their energy levels, then the emitting source of the critical microwave beam will also be changed in energy level and will be emitting a higher frequency microwave beam, which is what is observed when the critical microwave frequency is higher than 9,192,631,770 cycles per SI second...

Alan - I really do not know how I could be any clearer.  Conventional physics states that these physical occurances occur because time runs faster at elevation...
It is my intention to describe physical cause and effect mechanics for 'why' time runs faster at elevation, and this description is essential for my models description of 'why' gravitational attraction occurs.

GR explains the equivalence between a gravitational field and an accelerating reference frame, but doesn't attempt to elicit the mechanism of gravitation, which remains to be discovered

Precisely...
And... I actually thought that this is what you were going to be helping me with by applying your mathematical skills to my ideas to establish if my ideas are mathematically viable or not for a description of physical cause and effect mechanics for gravitational attraction/acceleration/deceleration.
This is the only 'question' that I am raising here.

As I say, I'll see how Ethos wants to take it forward. I'll help him with drafting if he needs it.

Thanks.  I appreciate the help.

[alancalverd]

On the basis that you seem to understand that it is the number of electron transitions that is responsible for the tick rate of the clock, I really don't understand why I even have to discuss the matter at-all, let alone argue over which language that I use to describe the tick rate of the clock. 

It isn't. That's why we have to get the language straight, so I can work out what it is that you don't understand or have entirely misconceived, before we can make any progress. 

A person in the higher potential will age quicker in the higher potential compared to a person in the lower potential.

Not true. His ageing will match his clock, so he will live for 70 years, just like his colleague on earth. But his earth brother will see him die because space years as seen from earth are shorter than earth years. 

Do you have anything to say in answer to this post:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69800.msg514132#msg514132

Only that it is too imprecise to answer. But I live in hope.

[Colin2B]

I notice Alan has posted while I was typing, but I'll post this anyway. Hope it helps.

. Because that is a contradiction.

It's not a contradiction, except in the way you are interpreting it.

On the basis that you seem to understand that it is the number of electron transitions that is responsible for the tick rate of the clock, I really don't understand why I even have to discuss the matter at-all, let alone argue over which language that I use to describe the tick rate of the clock.  Just seems like a trite waste of time to me!

The reason Alan is continuing this "trite waste of time" is that he does not "understand that it is the number of electron transitions that is responsible for the tick rate of the clock", neither has he said that it is.


This is the point I raised earlier, we continually seem to misunderstand each other due to differences of terminology and interpretation.
I do understand that you want to discuss your model, not conventional physics. However, at some stage you will need to present your theory to physicists working in this area and using incorrect terminology will cause your theory to be dismissed. Meaningful maths cannot be developed out of incorrect assumptions.


I will add one comment on the position of conventional physics:

Conventional physics states that these physical occurances occur because time runs faster at elevation...
It is my intention to describe physical cause and effect mechanics for 'why' time runs faster at elevation,

GR states that the time differences we observe are due to a deformation or curving of spacetime and this curving is also the reason for what we observe as the force of gravity.
You are aware that if we stress, say, a metal it will deform. Similarly stress will deform spacetime and conventional physics states that a number of of things stress spacetime including momentum, pressure and energy,  in particular energy in the form of mass - bearing in mind that mass can be viewed as a substantial container of energy.
Just a thought.

[timey (OP)]

It isn't.

Yes - you are right, which is why I amended my descrription below 'back' to talking about the frequency of wave cycles that define the SI second, but you just ignore that... Just as you ignore the fact that a description of E=fh is holding frequency, Planck's h constant and the measure of energy that comprises a joule relative to an SI second, which is the mathematical description of stating changes 'as compared to'...

In practice the critical microwave frequency is absorbed, not emitted, by the hyperfine shift.

This frequency is the resonant frequency of 9,192,631,770 cycles per second and this is the frequency that is used to define the SI second.

In the higher potential, there will be more wave cycles per second as per the length of a second in the lower potential, i.e. a resonant frequency that is higher than the frequency of 9,192,631,770 cycles per SI second, although if one measures in one's own frame of reference, one will always measure 9,192,631,770 cycles per the second of their position in the gravity field.

GR states that clocks run differently if they experience different gravitational forces.  People holding these clocks (i.e. those inside and outside the stronger field) would all agree on which clocks appear to be going faster.
Therefore while GR states that the local reference frame will notice nothing different about their own clock, GR also categorically states that time is physically running faster in the higher potential compared to in the lower potential.

Everything in this post so far is conventional physics.

What I want to talk about that is not conventional physics is attributing the higher resonant frequency in the higher gravity potential to an increase in energy, because an increase in frequency must be accompanied by an increase in energy.  No energy is being artificially added to the clock in the higher potential, so I am looking at the mgh equation to add energy to cause the change in the critical microwave frequency.
The atoms that this critical microwave frequency is responsible for resonating will also be changed in their energy levels, otherwise the higher frequency would not cause a jump between ground states.
My reasoning is that if the atoms are changed in their energy levels, then the emitting source of the critical microwave beam will also be changed in energy level and will be emitting a higher frequency microwave beam, which is what is observed when the critical microwave frequency is higher than 9,192,631,770 cycles per SI second...

Alan - I really do not know how I could be any clearer.  Conventional physics states that these physical occurances occur because time runs faster at elevation...
It is my intention to describe physical cause and effect mechanics for 'why' time runs faster at elevation, and this description is essential for my models description of 'why' gravitational attraction occurs.

GR explains the equivalence between a gravitational field and an accelerating reference frame, but doesn't attempt to elicit the mechanism of gravitation, which remains to be discovered

Precisely...
And... I actually thought that this is what you were going to be helping me with by applying your mathematical skills to my ideas to establish if my ideas are mathematically viable or not for a description of physical cause and effect mechanics for gravitational attraction/acceleration/deceleration.
This is the only 'question' that I am raising here.

As I say, I'll see how Ethos wants to take it forward. I'll help him with drafting if he needs it.

Thanks.  I appreciate the help.

That's why we have to get the language straight, so I can work out what it is that you don't understand or have entirely misconceived, before we can make any progress.

I haven't misunderstood any damn thing.  I have spent 2 years where you completely refuse to talk about seconds that are differing in length compared to the length of an SI second.

His ageing will match his clock, so he will live for 70 years, just like his colleague on earth. But his earth brother will see him die because space years as seen from earth are shorter than earth years.

The Earth brother will see him die because space years compared to Earth years 'are' shorter. (where m doesn't =0 in my model)
What is your problem?

[timey (OP)]

I notice Alan has posted while I was typing, but I'll post this anyway. Hope it helps.

. Because that is a contradiction.

It's not a contradiction, except in the way you are interpreting it.

It wouldn't be a contradiction if Alan was not refusing to talk in terms of seconds differing in length.

On the basis that you seem to understand that it is the number of electron transitions that is responsible for the tick rate of the clock, I really don't understand why I even have to discuss the matter at-all, let alone argue over which language that I use to describe the tick rate of the clock.  Just seems like a trite waste of time to me!

The reason Alan is continuing this "trite waste of time" is that he does not "understand that it is the number of electron transitions that is responsible for the tick rate of the clock", neither has he said that it is.
 This is the point I raised earlier, we continually seem to misunderstand each other due to differences of terminology and interpretation.
I do understand that you want to discuss your model, not conventional physics. However, at some stage you will need to present your theory to physicists working in this area and using incorrect terminology will cause your theory to be dismissed. Meaningful maths cannot be developed out of incorrect assumptions.

No - but he did refuse to talk in terms of it being to do with wave cycles earlier, which quite clearly it is.  My description was amended, please read post above.

I will add one comment on the position of conventional physics:

Conventional physics states that these physical occurrences occur because time runs faster at elevation...
It is my intention to describe physical cause and effect mechanics for 'why' time runs faster at elevation,

GR states that the time differences we observe are due to a deformation or curving of spacetime and this curving is also the reason for what we observe as the force of gravity.
You are aware that if we stress, say, a metal it will deform. Similarly stress will deform spacetime and conventional physics states that a number of of things stress spacetime including momentum, pressure and energy,  in particular energy in the form of mass - bearing in mind that mass can be viewed as a substantial container of energy.
Just a thought.

Yes - and what I am introducing as an addition to these concepts is a) that it is the other way round, where the deformation or curving of spacetime is due to the time differences, where the time differences are the 3rd aspect of time dilation that my model adds that give physical cause and effect mechanics for the acceleration/deceleration motions that are induced by this distortion of time (where we were talking about E=hf for light in the gravity field before) and b) that the attractive directional force is due to the GR time dilation that we are discussing at present, where electron 'action' within the atom is increased causing there to be more magnetic moments as compared to the lower potential. The discussion is only possible if we can talk in terms of seconds becoming longer or shorter, which Alan doesn't seem willing to do.  It would seem that he is too hung up on a notion of my having misinterpreted the remit of conventional physics to conduct an interesting discussion, or that he quite simply does not understand that GR states time as occurring at differing rates.

You are aware that if we stress, say, a metal it will deform. Similarly stress will deform spacetime

Of course I am, I was making direct reference to such as a side issue in this post that no one cares to discuss:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69800.msg514035#msg514035

With regards to a conversation that would also be of interest to me I will repost this reposted question that no-one seems to answer:

:timey
As mentioned a few posts ago - the only reason (that I can define, if anyone can add another) within conventional physics to not state potential energy as active within mass is due to the remit of only using the value of kinetic energy to calculate relativistic mass value.  (comment would be appreciated)

If one has a problem with the terminology of my descriptions, then why not provide me with a description of the scenario in the words you would use as an example, then I could repost in the terms that you are used to hearing.  Just a time saving thought...excuse the pun.