Weird Wavelength
Pentcho Valev
has:
Frequency = Fo
Wavelength = Lo
Speed = c
A receiver on the ground receives the light which now has:
Frequency = (1+gh/c^2)Fo (confirmed experimentally)
Wavelength = ?
Speed = ?
If Frequency=Speed/Wavelength is correct, there are two possibilities:
Wavelength = Lo
Speed = c+v (v>0 would be the speed of the receiver if the equivalence
principle were applied).
Wavelength = Lo/(1+gh/c^2)
Speed = c
Needless to say, Einstein's theory of relativity can only be true if
the latter possibility obtains. But Wavelength behaves so weirdly...
What could be the physical mechanism behind this behaviour?
Pentcho Valev
Jim Burns
Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> The light source at the top of a tower with height h emits light
> which has:
>
> Frequency = Fo
> Wavelength = Lo
> Speed = c
>
> A receiver on the ground receives the light which now has:
>
> Frequency = (1+gh/c^2)Fo (confirmed experimentally)
Wow. Someone has measured this? Do you have a reference?
I get that the new frequency is 1.0000000000001 times the
old one (for a kilometer tall tower). It looks pretty
difficult to get that kind of precision.
> Wavelength = ?
> Speed = ?
Wavelength = c/Fo
Speed = c
> If Frequency=Speed/Wavelength is correct, there are two
> possibilities:
The second one.
Why even ask? Wasn't it measured?
Jim Burns
jmor...@idirect.com
Jim Burns wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >
> > The light source at the top of a tower with height h emits light
> > which has:
> >
> > Frequency = Fo
> > Wavelength = Lo
> > Speed = c
> >
> > A receiver on the ground receives the light which now has:
> >
> > Frequency = (1+gh/c^2)Fo (confirmed experimentally)
>
> Wow. Someone has measured this? Do you have a reference?
>
> I get that the new frequency is 1.0000000000001 times the
> old one (for a kilometer tall tower). It looks pretty
> difficult to get that kind of precision.
>
Mossbauer effect, 40 years ago... See
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
Tom Roberts
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Wow. Someone has measured this? Do you have a reference?
# R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr., Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear
Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 3, 439 (1959). [1] This paper proposed the
experiment.
# R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr., Apparent weight of photons, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (1960). [2] This paper was the first measurement.
# R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 539 (1964). [3] The more accurate measurement with
Snider.
There is also an Italian measurement using atomic clocks on a mountain
and in the neighboring valley.
And there is the GPS, for which the satellite clocks would gain ~38
microseconds per day compared to an earthbound clock, if that were not
adjusted in the satellites.
> I get that the new frequency is 1.0000000000001 times the
> old one (for a kilometer tall tower). It looks pretty
> difficult to get that kind of precision.
Pound et al used the 22-meter Harvard tower, using the Moessbauer effect
to obtain the requisite resolution. The others use atomic clocks.
None of the above measured wavelength directly. But we do know that on
earth the speed of light is c, and in the GPS the speed of light is c
between satellite and ground.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:MsxZe.22$cF...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
Don't forget the accretion disk you observed near a black hole.
Androcles.
Jim Burns
Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> Jim Burns wrote:
> > Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >>Frequency = (1+gh/c^2)Fo (confirmed experimentally)
> >
> > Wow. Someone has measured this? Do you have a reference?
>
> # R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr., Gravitational Red-Shift in
> Nuclear Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 3, 439 (1959). [1] This
> paper proposed the experiment.
> # R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr., Apparent weight of photons,
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (1960). [2] This paper was the first
> measurement.
> # R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Nuclear
> Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 539 (1964). [3] The more
> accurate measurement with Snider.
Thank you. I think this may have been something that was
covered somewhere in my coursework and I just plain forgot
about it. I look forward to checking out the references.
Jim Burns
Jim Burns
Thank you. This sounds like something I may have been taught
and should have remembered.
Jim Burns
John C. Polasek
wrote:
Of course you're confused. General relativity uses constant c to
compute a double redshift if carried to conclusion.
GR:
If you have Fo at top and read (1+k)Fo at the bottom, don't forget you
have to use an oscillator or clock to determine that. So when yoou
bring the clock down to the bottom it will run slow by 1- k. So
according to GR you would get one k for the frequency change and
another k for the clock being slower by k, so the relative frequency
comparison would be 1 +2k = 1+k/1-k. But we don't actually get such a
double reading of 2k. So the theory is wrong.
First the energy hFo does not change due to dropping down by h, it
stays the same forever after emmission. Energy is not subject to
gravity. The frequency is the same at the bottom as at the top. Well,
what changed?
The speed of light decreases deeper in gravity to c(1-k) just as the
clocks slow down in gravity. At the bottom, the wavelength is
shortened by WL = c(1-k)/fo. In most cases you can't measure
wavelength. It is a blueshift in w/l not in F.
So with the same frequency fo at the bottom as top, we compare the
frequeny with a clock down there running slow by 1-k. Thus F0
*appears* to read as Fo/1-k, a single increase of k. But it's only in
w/l not F.
That's from Dual Space theory.
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
Tom Roberts
> Of course you're confused. General relativity uses constant c to
> compute a double redshift if carried to conclusion.
I have said this numerous times: you are confused. You are taking
interpretations for two different coordinate systems and claiming they
both apply and yield twice the effect. In fact, you can use EITHER of
those interpretations and obtain agreement with observation; trying to
use both is just perverse, AND WRONG.
> So the theory is wrong.
No, just your MISINTERPETATION of the theory is wrong. <shrug>
In particular, you cannot hope to understand GR via sound bites -- you
must actually STUDY it.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Androcles
[snip crap]
In particular, you cannot hope to OBSERVE the accretion disk near black
hole
without putting your eye at the sharp end of telescope, you must
actually LOOK. <shrug>
Androcles.
John C. Polasek
wrote:
What I describe has nothing to do with coordinate systems. The
experiment is simple.
We synchronize 2 clocks at the top, one radiating down. We take the
other clock to the bottom and make a frequency comparison with the
radiated value. We want to see an increase of frequency of k%.
It is commonly agreed that clock 2 will have lost speed of k% at the
bottom, due to gravity,
But if as GR claims, the frequency also gained k% on the way down, it
will look 2k% higher by comparison.
It's a result of failing to recognize that c has not remained
constant, but has also diminished k% at the bottom. So the wavelength
at bottom is shorter, but the frequency is unchanged.
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
Uncle Al
1) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
The Ghost In The Machine
<Andr...@MyPlace.org>
wrote
on Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:41:27 GMT
<rbCZe.7022$fl6....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
How does that prove an accretion disk?
>
> Androcles.
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
makc.th...@gmail.com
> you cannot hope to OBSERVE the accretion disk near black
> hole
yes you can. try here http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/0052/ and
see how it goes.
not an accretion disk near black hole, but whole lot of matter spining
around neutron star. interesting to look at, if you ask me :)
Androcles
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:e12k03-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics, Androcles
| <Andr...@MyPlace.org>
| wrote
| on Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:41:27 GMT
| <rbCZe.7022$fl6....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
| >
| > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
| > news:BLBZe.44$OH3...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
| > [snip crap]
| >
| > In particular, you cannot hope to OBSERVE the accretion
| > disk near black hole without putting your eye at the sharp
| > end of telescope, you must actually LOOK. <shrug>
|
| How does that prove an accretion disk?
Beats the hell out of me, but according to the bindlestiff Roberts,
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@lucent.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:57:18 GMT
Local: Sat, Sep 17 2005 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: Does the 'Curvature of Spacetime' cause gravity?
"Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are
some:
the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black
holes."
I was pointing out that Roberts is a fucking liar and stupid as well,
which is typical of any relativist.
He ignores me, of course.
"No creature smarts so little as a fool." -- Alexander Pope
Androcles
Androcles
<makc.th...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127718865.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Androcles wrote:
| > you cannot hope to OBSERVE the accretion disk near black
| > hole
|
| not an accretion disk near black hole,
I'm glad you agree.
Nice to be snipped off in mid-sentence, isn't it?
Androcles.
makc.th...@gmail.com
> Nice to be snipped off in mid-sentence, isn't it?
Why? Wasn't that a good summary of what you had actually said?
Tom Roberts
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:11:45 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>
> wrote:
>>I have said this numerous times: you are confused. You are taking
>>interpretations for two different coordinate systems and claiming they
>>both apply and yield twice the effect. In fact, you can use EITHER of
>>those interpretations and obtain agreement with observation; trying to
>>use both is just perverse, AND WRONG.
>
Yes it does, you just don't realize it. <shrug>
> We synchronize 2 clocks at the top, one radiating down. We take the
> other clock to the bottom and make a frequency comparison with the
> radiated value.
Your initial synchronization is irrelevant. Synchronization gets lost
while moving the clock anyway (even in the limit as its speed->0,
because it is moving to a lower gravitational potential and
synchronization is impossible to maintain).
> We want to see an increase of frequency of k%.
You may want to, but the rest of us want to understand what actually
happens in the real world, not any particular preconceived answer.
Note, however, that I will discuss how this is modeled in GR, as we
inherently must discuss physics in the context of some theory. This GR
desription is fully consistent with actual measurements.
> It is commonly agreed that clock 2 will have lost speed of k% at the
> bottom, due to gravity,
There is no such "common agreement". Yes, one COULD describe it this
way, but there is no necessity to do so. The simplest description is
that clock 2 retains its proper tick rate unchanged (after all, the
clock itself remains unchanged). But there is no necessity to use that
description, either. Ultimately how one describes this depends on what
one is interested in, and what definitions one uses for the words involved.
[I assume good clocks.]
> But if as GR claims, the frequency also gained k% on the way down, it
> will look 2k% higher by comparison.
Your descriptions are FAR too loose, and lead you to an erroneous
conclusion.
This can be described as EITHER:
a. the lower clock ticks slower than the upper clock.
OR
b. the signal gets blueshifted as it travels downward.
This difference in those descriptions reflects two different coordinate
systems:
a. the time coordinate is determined by a SINGLE standard
clock located at some specified place (often spatial
infinity, but your clock 1 will do), and coordinate
clocks are slaved from it via EM signals.
b. the time coordinate is everywhere determined by a
standard clock at rest in these coordinates at the
location of interest, all synchronized at some time
in the past.
But ultimately both of those descriptions are simplifications.
In GR, the correct way to compute the frequency of the light signal at
the detector is as follows:
1. Call the 4-velocity of the source V_s and the 4-velocity of the
detector V_d. Call the frequency at the source F_s. The goal
is to determine the frequency at the detector, F_d.
2. Determine the null geodesic path from source to detector, and
call its 4-vector tangent at the source T_s.
3. Determine W_s, the wave 4-vector at the source, to be parallel to
T_s and such that W_s . V_s = 1/F_s (that "." is the 4-vector
dot product). Physically, W_s represents the (timelike) interval
between two successive wavecrests of the source.
4. parallel propagate W_s along the null geodesic to the detector;
call the result W_d. Physically, W_d represents the (timelike)
interval between two successive wavecrests of the signal at the
detector.
5. Determine the frequency at the detector from 1/F_d = W_d . V_d.
This algorithm is completely independent of coordinates, and displays
none of the artifacts you discuss. It applies to any physical situation,
with gravity present ot not, with source or detector moving or not, etc.
When applied in the two coordinate systems (a) and (b) above, with both
source and detector at rest in those coordinates and source directly
above the detector in a gravitational field, it yields descriptions (a)
and (b) above.
> It's a result of failing to recognize that c has not remained
> constant, but has also diminished k% at the bottom.
To claim that you need to use nonstandard clocks and rulers. Nobody else
does that, which is probably why you are confused.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Androcles
<makc.th...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127746795.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Why?
How?
Androcles.
John C. Polasek
wrote:
>John C. Polasek wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:11:45 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>
>> wrote:
>>>I have said this numerous times: you are confused. You are taking
>>>interpretations for two different coordinate systems and claiming they
>>>both apply and yield twice the effect. In fact, you can use EITHER of
>>>those interpretations and obtain agreement with observation; trying to
>>>use both is just perverse, AND WRONG.
>>
>> What I describe has nothing to do with coordinate systems.
>
>Yes it does, you just don't realize it. <shrug>
>
>
>> We synchronize 2 clocks at the top, one radiating down. We take the
>> other clock to the bottom and make a frequency comparison with the
>> radiated value.
>
>Your initial synchronization is irrelevant. Synchronization gets lost
>while moving the clock anyway (even in the limit as its speed->0,
>because it is moving to a lower gravitational potential and
>synchronization is impossible to maintain).
Don't be silly. By synchronization I meant one should determine first
that the two identical atomic clocks are in fact running at the same
rate. I don't care what time it is.
What happens to the clock in transit is of no importance so why bring
in the specious except to add bulk.
>> We want to see an increase of frequency of k%.
>
>You may want to, but the rest of us want to understand what actually
>happens in the real world, not any particular preconceived answer.
Pound and Rebka want to see k% in frequency, because it's what they
get but without an iota of data supporting it in their paper. There is
not one reference to frequency, velocity, amplitude of their speaker
cone transducer. As I pointed out it's in the region of 50 Bohr radii
at 10 hz. And they have a superfluous clockwork motor moving hydraulic
pistons for no stated purpose. One must draw on experience to deduce
what's going on.
>Note, however, that I will discuss how this is modeled in GR, as we
>inherently must discuss physics in the context of some theory. This GR
>desription is fully consistent with actual measurements.
>
>
>> It is commonly agreed that clock 2 will have lost speed of k% at the
>> bottom, due to gravity,
Why be disingenuous here? The corrections for gravity on clocks is
widely demonstrated in the case of GPS where as I showed in my gravity
paper is -60.05 us/day for the ground and -14.40 us/day for the
orbiting clock, both with respect to infinity, but the calculation is
much more obscure in relativity. That's what I mean by common
agreement.
>There is no such "common agreement". Yes, one COULD describe it this
>way, but there is no necessity to do so. The simplest description is
>that clock 2 retains its proper tick rate unchanged (after all, the
>clock itself remains unchanged). But there is no necessity to use that
>description, either. Ultimately how one describes this depends on what
>one is interested in, and what definitions one uses for the words involved.
>
> [I assume good clocks.]
>
>
>> But if as GR claims, the frequency also gained k% on the way down, it
>> will look 2k% higher by comparison.
No, the operation is purely mechanical. I take the clock to the bottom
of the tower and measure the frequency difference. The clock is and
will be running -k% slower just as it would be in the GPS.
Even without a change in frequency I will threfore read out an
apparent gain in frequency of +k% = gh/c^2 judging from our comparison
clock that we (commonly) agree would be running slow..
But relativity is saying that in addition, the frequency is also
increased by the energy drop of gh/c^2 by another k%. That is probably
is an extension of the assertion that energy responds to gravity as if
"it had mass".
If f also increases +k% I will have to report that my readings show
the frequency has increased by 2k%, a result nobody wants. But it's
what you should get by the theory of relativity.
But you won't. Therefore we have to conclude that the frequency of
light is unaffected by changes in gravity and retains the frequency of
emission.
The operation is so simple, there is nothing to be gained by abstruse
arguments.
>Your descriptions are FAR too loose, and lead you to an erroneous
>conclusion.
>
>This can be described as EITHER:
> a. the lower clock ticks slower than the upper clock.
>OR
> b. the signal gets blueshifted as it travels downward.
That's my point. From all I've heard, BOTH are true. It would be nice
algebraically if EITHER were true for then GR would be out of trouble.
The first is patently true e.g. GPS. Pound & Rebka's paper has the
flavor of the second: "The apparent weight of photons". To deny the
second one would mean to assert that photons have no weight and that
gravity has no effect on energy.
GR has constant c to screw it up, while Dual Space has variable c
which always gives a single accounting as the w/l would compress here
with f constant making a single wavelength blueshift of k% and a clock
comparison of +k%.
I'll quit if you will.
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net.
makc.th...@gmail.com
> How?
What?