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 20:50 On Jan 6, 3:40 pm, "Max Keon" <maxk...(a)optusnet.com.au> is still : http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/855/35092155.JPG
From: mluttgens on 7 Jan 2008 04:02 On Jan 6, 10:50 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > 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 Thank you. I have added to my demonstration a justification of the assumption that the mass m of a photon can be expressed by the relation m = E / c^2 = hNu / c^2: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment : "The Pound-Rebka experiment is a well known experiment to test Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. It was proposed by R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr. in 1959,[1] and was the last of the classical tests of general relativity to be verified (in the same year). It is a gravitational redshift experiment, which measures the redshift of light moving in a gravitational field, or, equivalently, a test of the general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different rates at different places in a gravitational field. It is considered to be the experiment that ushered in an era of precision tests of general relativity. The energy associated with gravitational redshift over a distance of 22.5 meters is very small. The fractional change in energy is given by dE/E, is equal to gh/c2=2.5x10-15." In fact, the result of the Pound-Rebka experiment (a fractional change in frequency of 2.5x10-15) doesn't need general relativity to be explained: Let Nu the emitted frequency at the top of the tower of height d = 22.5 m. The corresponding energy of the photon is E = hNu, where h is the Plank constant. Let Nu0 the observed frequency at the bottom. Assuming that m = hNu / c^2 represents the photon's mass corresponding to the frequency Nu (1), and mgd its potential energy at the top, where g = 9.81 m/s^2 is the Earth's gravitational potential (assumed to be constant), the observed energy E0 of the photon is given by E0 = E + mgd = hNu + (hNu / c^2) * gd = hNu (1 + gd/c^2) = E (1 + gd/c^2) , or Nu0 = Nu (1 + gd/c^2) Note that gd/c^2 = 9.81 * 22.5 / 9E16 =~ 2.5E-15 Clearly, the above interpretation of the result of the Pound & Rebka experiment doesn't vindicate the general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different rates at different places in a gravitational field. Marcel Luttgens (1) Such assumption is amply justified by the experimental fact that "The energy of a system that emits a photon is decreased by the energy E of the photon as measured in the rest frame of the emitting system, which may result in a reduction in mass in the amount E / c2. Similarly, the mass of a system that absorbs a photon is increased by a corresponding amount." (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties ) Marcel Luttgens
From: Eric Gisse on 7 Jan 2008 04:36 On Jan 7, 12:02 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > On Jan 6, 10:50 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > Thank you. > > I have added to my demonstration a justification of > the assumption that the mass m of a photon can be > expressed by the relation m = E / c^2 = hNu / c^2: Wrong by many orders of magnitude. http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/listings/s000.pdf [snip] > > Clearly, the above interpretation of the result of the > Pound & Rebka experiment doesn't vindicate > the general relativity prediction that clocks should run > at different rates at different places in a gravitational field. Idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about. [snip remaining]
From: mluttgens on 7 Jan 2008 10:18 On Jan 7, 10:36 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 7, 12:02 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 6, 10:50 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > Thank you. > > > I have added to my demonstration a justification of > > the assumption that the mass m of a photon can be > > expressed by the relation m = E / c^2 = hNu / c^2: > > Wrong by many orders of magnitude. The mass E/c^2 has nothing to do with the photon rest mass! Marcel Luttgens > > http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/listings/s000.pdf > > [snip] > > > > > Clearly, the above interpretation of the result of the > > Pound & Rebka experiment doesn't vindicate > > the general relativity prediction that clocks should run > > at different rates at different places in a gravitational field. > > Idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about. > > [snip remaining
From: Dono on 7 Jan 2008 10:58
On Jan 7, 7:18 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > The mass E/c^2 has nothing to do with the photon > rest mass! > > Marcel Luttgens Marcel The photon has NO mass. Neither rest or relativistic, ok? |