Pound Rebka
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Magnetron Experiments
Next: [DUMBS]: My Personal Observations and Viewpoints About a Variety of Subjects !
From: Dono on 6 Jan 2008 10:49 On Jan 6, 2:00 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > On Jan 6, 12:01 am, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > On Jan 5, 1:26 pm, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > > Let Nu0 the observed frequency at the bottom. > > > Assuming that m = hNu / c^2 represents the > > > photon's mass corresponding to the frequency Nu, > > > Bad assumption, Marcel. Doesn't apply to the photon. > > It is nice seeing trying mainstream physics instead of your standard > > fare of pure crackpottery. > > The proof of the pudding is in the eating: > With that assumption, one straightforwardly gets > > E0 = E + mgd > = hNu + (hNu / c^2) * gd > = hNu (1 + gd/c^2) > = E (1 + gd/c^2) > > This cannot be a mere coincidence. > > Marcel Luttgens It is a coincidence, Marcel. Photons have no mass and you cannot apply to them the naive Newtonian formula E0=E+mgh. It is still good to see you doing something different than your brain dead attempts at refuting relativity through ....improper applications of ....relativity!
From: Ken S. Tucker on 6 Jan 2008 16:50 On Jan 6, 2:00 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > On Jan 6, 12:01 am, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > On Jan 5, 1:26 pm, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > > Let Nu0 the observed frequency at the bottom. > > > Assuming that m = hNu / c^2 represents the > > > photon's mass corresponding to the frequency Nu, > > > Bad assumption, Marcel. Doesn't apply to the photon. > > It is nice seeing trying mainstream physics instead of your standard > > fare of pure crackpottery. > > The proof of the pudding is in the eating: > With that assumption, one straightforwardly gets > > E0 = E + mgd > = hNu + (hNu / c^2) * gd > = hNu (1 + gd/c^2) > = E (1 + gd/c^2) > > This cannot be a mere coincidence. It's not coincidence, light energy, like all energy is subject to the Conservation of Energy, and is a cornerstone of General Relativity. > Marcel Luttgens Good work, regards Ken S. Tucker
From: Max Keon on 6 Jan 2008 18:39 "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:30d40ddf-3af0-4765-9287-ca83ba2b25a5(a)i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 4, 2:36 am, "Max Keon" <maxk...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> Pentcho Valev wrote: --- >>> Pound and Rebka found experimentally that the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT >>> obeys the equation f'= f(1+V/c^2), which is consistent with Einstein's >>> 1911 equation c'= c(1+V/c^2) and the textbook formula >>> >>> frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength) >> >> This is the blurb given in "Basic Physics 2 by S.L.Martin and >> A.K.Connor", (1960+ vintage), briefly describing the purpose of >> the Pound and Rebka experiment. >> "In 1958 an effect was discovered by Mossbauer, working in U.S.A >> and known as the Mossbauer effect, which enabled very tiny >> frequency differences to be detected and measured. In 1960, using >> the Mossbauer effect, Pound and Rebka succeeded in measuring the >> extremely small change (only about 1 part in 4e+14) of frequency >> of the y-rays emitted by a sample of radioactive iron when it >> was moved from the bottom of the tower to the top of a tower 74 >> feet high. The observed frequency change agreed with the >> relativity prediction within 5%." >> >> According to your equation f'= f(1+V/c^2) >> V(a) and V(b) for the tower base and tower top is: >> G = 6.67E-11 >> M = 5.97E+24 >> ra = 6378000 Tower base radii >> rb = 6378023 Tower top radii (+23 meters (74 feet) high) >> Va = G * M / ra ^ 2 = 9.7888378648735791276869837432118 >> Vb = G * M / rb ^ 2 = 9.7887672652959533370556770582427 > Potential energy is GM/r, idiot. You wrote down force. I was under the impression that potential energy _increases_ with altitude? GM/r does the opposite. Anything at rest at the Earth's center of mass can't have potential energy, surely? Perhaps you were referring to something other than gravitational potential, although it wouldn't seem to be relevant for this case. Anyway, here are the updated figures according to your correction. According to f'= f(1+V/c^2) V(a) and V(b) for the tower base and tower top is: G = 6.67E-11 M = 5.97E+24 ra = 6378000 Tower base radii rb = 6378023 Tower top radii (+23 meters (74 feet) high) Va = G * M / ra = 62433207.902163687676387582314205 Vb = G * M / rb = 62432982.759704692190667860558044 f = 1.4e+21 f'= f(1+Va/c^2) = 1400000000971183234033.6573638549 f'= f(1+Vb/c^2) = 1400000000971179731817.6285451882 The difference is now 3502216 added cycles in 1.4e+21 cycles, which is near enough to what is observed. Previously: >> A 1.4e+21 hz gamma ray generates a frequency change of only 1 >> part per 1.4e+21 cycles, when the observed change was 1 part in >> 4e+14 cycles. That's 3.5 million times less than observed. That's >> a long way short of the 5% accuracy claim, isn't it? I knew my reasoning was in error somewhere, that's why I posted it. Your help is appreciated. But getting back to the other point of the post. What did the experiment prove? All E/M radiation was necessarily created by a charge interaction somewhere, and that's a mandatory requirement for gamma rays (and neutrinos) as well. So why do gamma ray frequencies decrease with altitude while the frequencies of most other natural oscillators increase? e.g. Atomic clocks, spectral line absorption and emission. And even Big Ben. Now don't nod off here because you really need to pay attention. This formula G*M/(r*c^2) gives the clock slowing rate per second according to radius, while f'= f*(1+V/c^2) , which becomes f' = f*(1+(G*M/r)/c^2) , gives the frequency change rate per radius from a gravity source. But there is a catch22 in that the two formulae contradict each other. These are the results from the two formulae, for the Earth surface radius and for a (e.g.) GPS satellite radius. f = 1.4e21 r = 6378000 6.937e-10 sec/sec clock speed slowing rate. 1.400000000971183e21 cycles per second. r = 26570000 1.665e-10 sec/sec clock speed slowing rate. 1.400000000233128e21 cycles per second. Notice that the clock speed slowing rate has decreased in the second set of figures, meaning that time is running faster. Then notice that frequency has also decreased, meaning that time is running slower. That's a very obvious contradiction, and it comes about because gamma rays are created in an entirely different environment to the natural oscillators listed above, an environment which is in complete isolation, as it would be if it took place in a black hole. The inner workings of a proton-neutron only appear in the conversion between proton and neutron states. That's a fair indication that the proton-neutron is a black hole. The divergence angle of a ray emerging through what would be the smallest possible opening in a black hole event horizon will also be close to zero, giving rise to the illusion of a particle transmission of light. But whatever the case, what has been proven is that, in the realm where a gamma ray is created, the natural interaction rate alters according to f'= f(1+V/c^2). I really can't grumble about that because it's what I would expect anyway. ----- Max Keon
From: Max Keon on 6 Jan 2008 18:40 "Dono" <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:950ad623-f1d2-4208-90be-d8287c1f2509(a)e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 4, 10:45=A0am, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Potential energy is GM/r, idiot. You wrote down force. > Do you think this will stop him? :-) You try to preserve your "truth" by applying the "stop him" principle? That's not how it works you know.
From: Eric Gisse on 6 Jan 2008 19:34
On Jan 6, 2:39 pm, "Max Keon" <maxk...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: [...] I'm not going to teach you what you should already know. > > The difference is now 3502216 added cycles in 1.4e+21 cycles, > which is near enough to what is observed. Imagine that. [...] |