🚀 go-pugleaf

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@guesswhatuia.no> wrote in message
news:47B5E7DE.8080307@guesswhatuia.no...
> Max Keon wrote:
>> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Max Keon wrote:

>>>> If radioactive iron is chosen as the frequency generator in an
>>>> atomic clock, a GPS radius clock will run _slower_ than the
>>>> surface radius clock (all fixed with the ECI frame), by 4.55e-5
>>>> seconds per sidereal day. Not faster. The Pound and Rebka
>>>> experiment proves that gamma rays are generated in a vastly
>>>> different environment to that of lesser frequency rays.
>>>
>>> How did you arrive at this remarkable conclusion?
>>> It is wrong.
>>
>> Once again, 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%."
>>
>> Notice that this information was gathered around the time when
>> the experiment was conducted. The authors would have had very
>> detailed knowledge of a recently conducted experiment, surely?
>> It's hardly likely that their description is flawed.
>>
>> According to the description given, the emitted y ray frequency
>> reduced _as the radioactive iron sample was raised to the tower
>> top_. That is NOT how a normal Caesium driven atomic clock
>> behaves.

> According to which description?
> Certainly not the quoted one.

>> But perhaps I've just misinterpreted the description.

> You certainly have.
> Do you think the Pound & Rebka experiment would be
> considered to be a confirmation of GR if it had
> measured the opposite of what GR predicts? :-)

GR predicts that clock oscillator frequencies are slower in a
gravity well, while the frequency of an inward traveling photon
increases.

This was the purpose of the Pound and Rebka experiment
according to Brittanica;
-By Einstein's theory of general relativity a photon produced
-near the Earth's surface should be higher in frequency by 1.09
-parts in 1016 for each metre above sea level. In 1960 the U.S.
-physicists Robert V. Pound and Glen A. Rebka measured the
-difference between the frequencies of photons produced at
-different elevations and found that it agreed very closely
-with what was predicted.

Pound and Rebka were not out to prove that an atomic clock runs
slower in a gravity well at all, they were out to prove that a
photon frequency decreases and wavelength increases as it travels
upward from a gravity well.

> You can read about the P&R experiment here:
> http://luth2.obspm.fr/IHP06/lectures/mester-vinet/IHP-2GravRedshift.pdf
> http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1

>> It really
>> doesn't matter though, the theory of gravitationally redshifted
>> light is still wrong.
>>
>>> f_h/f_o = (1-(GM/r)/c^2)/(1-(GM/R)/c^2)~= 1-(GM/r)/c^2 + (GM/R)/c^2
>>
>> Which is .9999999999999919 tower top seconds per 1 second at
>> the tower base.

> No, you have got it backwards again.
> If you insert the relevant numbers in the equation above,
> (or in the equation below, f_h/f_o ~= 1 + gh/c^2)
> you get:
> f_h/f_o = 1 + 2.46E-15
>
> That is, the frequency on the top is _higher_ than
> the frequency on the bottom.

I know what the clock frequencies will be at the tower base and
tower top, but what will be the frequency of a photon that has
traveled from the tower base to the top? According to GR, it's
going to be _lower_ at the top than it was at the bottom.

>> That oscillator is running faster deeper into
>> Earth's gravity well. A Caesium atomic clock oscillator runs
>> slower. Regardless of whether that is so or not, none of that
>> has anything to do with redshifted wavelengths on the climb from
>> a gravity well, as you will see.
>>
>>> where:
>>>   f_h = frequency of gamma photon at the top of the tower
>>>   f_o = frequency of gamma photon at the bottom of the tower
>>>   r = the distance centre of the Earth - top of tower
>>>   R = radius of the Earth (at the bottom of the tower)
>>>
>>>  r = R + h, h = height of tower
>>>  f_h/f_o ~= (1 + ((GM/R)/c^2)(1 - R/(R+h))
>>>  When h/R << 1 :
>>>  R/(R+h) ~= (1-h/R)
>>>
>>>  f_h/f_o ~= 1 + ((GM/R)/c^2)(h/R)
>>>  g = GM/R^2
>>>
>>>  f_h/f_o ~= 1 + gh/c^2
>>>
>>>  Which is in accordance with the Pound & Rebka experiment.
>>
>>
>> Here's another problem for you, in your reply to Henry Wilson on
>> this thread. The experiment you have described in this excerpt
>> from that post is seriously flawed.
>>
>> -But other experiments are made.
>> -In gravity probe A, a hydrogen maser was used as a clock.
>> -It transmitted a continuous wave with frequency ca. 1.42 GHz.
>> -This frequency can easily be, and was, directly measured
>> -from the ground. Every cycle was received.
>> -(The received frequency was compared to the frequency of
>> -  a signal reflected off the probe, to compensate for
>> -  Doppler effect. The gravitational shift was thus measured.)
>> -The rocket with the maser was launched straight up, and was
>> -inertial for most of the journey. It reached an altitude of 10000km.
>> -The relative gravitational frequency shift of the EM-radiation from
>> -that altitude was ca. 4.2E-10.

> You can read about it here:
> http://luth2.obspm.fr/IHP06/lectures/mester-vinet/IHP-2GravRedshift.pdf

>> The assumption prior to conducting the experiment was that the
>> wavelengths from the ground source would extend enroute to the
>> onboard reflector carried on the rocket when the altitude
>> ceiling of 10000km was reached, and would then shorten back to
>> their original lengths on return to the point of origin.
>>
>> The next assumption was that the hydrogen maser clock was
>> running faster at the ceiling altitude, according to GM/r/c^2,
>> which has been well confirmed.
>>
>> Assumption (3) was that the wavelengths in the signal from the
>> maser clock would also shorten in the same proportions as the
>> return signal from the onboard reflector.
>>
>> So, because the frequency in the reflected transmission fell
>> short of that from the maser clock, one could only conclude that
>> the transmission from the ground source to the reflector had been
>> redshifted. But that is not the case at all.
>>
>> If the frequency of the round trip signal was constant throughout
>> the journey, and if the frequency from the maser clock was
>> constant on the journey to the ground based receiver, exactly the
>> same result would emerge. The maser clock rate is faster by
>> 4.2e-10 seconds than the ground clock second. That's all the
>> experiment is demonstrating, regardless of how the clock rates
>> are compared.
>>
>> Can you not see that?

> Sure.
> All what was actually measured was that the frequency received
> from the probe maser was blue-shifted by the factor (1+4.2e-10)
> compared to the ground maser, which is the same as saying that
> the maser in the probe was fast by the factor (1+4.2e-10) compared
> to the ground maser.
>
> Which is in accordance with the predictions of GR.

What you have described is in accordance with GR's prediction
for clock rates. It would be an elaborate experiment indeed if
that's all it was set up to prove.

The Pound and Rebka experiment is very similar to the gravity
probe A experiment, in that a photon emitted from the radioactive
iron sample at the tower base is assumed to decrease in frequency
on the climb to the tower top. Confirmation of that being the
case appears to stem from the fact that resonant absorption of
the gamma ray emitted from what was initially the tower base
material does not occur until that material has been raised to
the same altitude as the receiver. That's the only time when the
emitted frequency matches the absorption frequency. So prior to
that event, the gamma ray frequency emerging from the tower base
material was either faster or slower. As with gravity probe A,
the assumption is that it was running faster. But atomic clocks
soundly reject that assumption.

Is there is any evidence at all to indicate that the frequency
emitted from the radioactive iron sample at the tower base is
actually higher than that emitted when it's moved to the tower
top? If there is, then gamma rays are indeed generated in a
strange environment.

> What else did you think the experiment was supposed to show?

I was under the impression that the experiment was geared to
confirm Einstein's prediction that a photon's frequency slows
on the climb from a gravity well. But it has provided not one
shred of evidence to support that assumption. Apparently, no
experiment has.

That point is well demonstrated.

>> Something else you may like to explain is how the frequency of
>> the received wave crests shown in this animation can be slowed
>> enroute to the reflector carried on the rocket then contract
>> closer together on the way back if the speed of light remains
>> constant throughout. Frequencies applicable to light are used
>> for this demonstration because photons seem to be endowed with
>> a mysterious wave property that permits them to behave in a
>> manner foreign to any normal E/M wave function. i.e. Photons
>> gain or lose energy as though they belong in the matter world.
>> Notice that the "photon wavelength" extends and contracts in
>> accordance with your theories.
>>  http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/redshft2.html
>>   (Image dimensions can only be specified in html)
>>
>> That's another impossibility that is _blatantly_ obvious to
>> anyone with some measure of intelligence, by the way. Perhaps
>> you should think about that too.

> Sure, if you postulate that Galilean relativity applies,
> it is indeed _blatantly_ obvious impossible.
>
> That's why it is _blatantly_ obvious to anyone with some measure
> of intelligence that since frequencies and wavelengths factually
> are gravitationally shifted, Galilean relativity is falsified.
>
> You seem to have a lot in common with Henri Wilson. :-)

Perhaps we should all take a long hard look at ourself in a
mirror sometimes Paul.

-----

Max Keon