In transit gravitational redshift

More
20 years 9 months ago #8472 by tvanflandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by John</i>
<br />I cannot find an explanation as to why ... there is no corresponding documentation for an 'in transit photon'<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The effect of gravitational redshift on clock rates was established so long ago that it is found now in textbooks about time service opeartions and about general relativity. The corresponding effect on "photons" is harder to measure because it does not build up the way changes in frequency do. But even so, radar signals to other planets (which technically are "photons") are found to be redshifted and blueshifted just as theory predicts. You will find those details in various analysis papers dealing with VLBI, radar and laser ranging, and spacecraft data.

But I don't see a good reason why the GPS data alone was insufficient to show this. If clock rates get faster with altitude, how can the number of photons arriving in each shortened second fail to be fewer than at sea level? -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 years 9 months ago #8486 by DAVID
Replied by DAVID on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>

But I don't see a good reason why the GPS data alone was insufficient to show this. If clock rates get faster with altitude, how can the number of photons arriving in each shortened second fail to be fewer than at sea level? -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Could you explain this mystery in a little more detail, please?


Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 years 9 months ago #8491 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
The red shift is not in time it is in frequency. Clocks never are slowed by redshift. Only the tinkering of people how think they know what they are doing make clocks work slow.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 years 9 months ago #8495 by DAVID
Replied by DAVID on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />The red shift is not in time it is in frequency. Clocks never are slowed by redshift. Only the tinkering of people how think they know what they are doing make clocks work slow.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ok, here’s my opinion:

Atoms oscillate and emit light of a certain frequency.

Strong gravity fields can cause atoms to oscillate a little more slowly and, as a result, they emit light of a slightly lower frequency.

This is the basis of an “atomic clock”.

Atomic clocks at sea level contain atoms that oscillate slightly more slowly, and thus, they emit light of a slightly lower frequency.

Atomic clocks on a mountain contain atoms that oscillate slightly more rapidly, and thus, they emit light of a slightly higher frequency.

Let’s say that atoms inside an atomic clock oscillate 10 times at sea level as they emit 10 photons, and so do the same kind of atoms outside the clock, in a light source, and that source is sending a “light beam” up to a mountain observer.

Let’s say the atoms inside the same kind of clock on a mountain oscillate 12 times as they emit 12 photons. And a light source on the mountain does the same thing.

So, the guy on the mountain compares the spectrographic color of his light source on the mountain, with the shifted color of the light beam coming from sea level, and he sees that the sea level light is shifted slightly lower than his. He calculates that while the sea level light source sends out 10 photons, his light source (which is emitted by the very same kinds of atoms) sends out 12 photons. He also calculates that while the sea level atoms oscillate 10 times, his own atoms oscillate 12 times.

That is the “gravitational redshift” phenomenon for both light and atomic clock “tick” rates. In this case, the “in transit” speed of the photons means nothing to either clock or either observer.

And yes, of course, the “tinkering” of humans does cause a lot of clocks to change rates. In fact, I think if you study the SR theory, you will find that it was Einstein himself who manually adjusted the rates of the “moving” clocks. In fact, he said in section 4 of his paper:

<b>”Further, we imagine one of the clocks which are qualified to mark the time t when at rest relatively to the stationary system, and the time t’ when at rest relatively to the moving system, to be located at the origin of the co-ordinates of k, <u>and so adjusted</u> that it marks the time t’.”</b>

See? He physically adjusts the rates of the k frame clocks so they will run slow, so their slow rate will “prove” what he is trying to prove.


Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 years 9 months ago #8588 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Is that in fact what atoms really do? Do they slowdown that way?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 years 9 months ago #8589 by DAVID
Replied by DAVID on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Is that in fact what atoms really do? Do they slowdown that way?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">




It took me quite a lot of time to find that out. I started looking for the information in modern books about 12 years ago, and all I found was that “time slows down”. But I didn’t agree with that. I'd had some experience with "time" in my own profession. I continued my investigation and I finally discovered in old books, that what happens is that atomic oscillation rates slow down in a gravity field, and for a few other reasons too. This idea goes all the way back to the Lorentz theory of the late 19th Century.

A natural “atomic” clock was hypothesized by Maxwell in his 1873 book. Lorentz’s book of 1895 discussed it in terms of oscillations of atoms or “ions”. Einstein called his 1911 atomic redshift clock, “the vibration-number of an elementary light-generator”. I figure he was talking about what Maxwell had said in 1873, which was:

<b>”In the present state of science the most universal standard of length which we could assume would be the wave length in vacuum of a particular kin do flight, emitted by some widely diffused substance such as sodium, which has well-defined lines in its spectrum.”</b>

And:

<b>”In astronomy a year is sometimes used as a unit of time. A more universal unit of time might be found by taking the periodic time of vibration of the particular kind of light whose wave length is the unit of length.”</b>

Also, an Einstein supporter, Charles Steinmetz confirmed this point of view in his 1923 book. He said:

<b>”We cannot carry a clock from the earth to Betelgeuse, but we do not need to do this, since every incandescent hydrogen atom, for instance, is an accurate clock, vibrating at rate definitely fixed by the electrical constants of the hydrogen atom and showing us the exact rate of its vibration in the spectroscope by the wave length or frequency of its spectrum lines. Thus in a strong gravitational field the frequency of luminous vibrations of the atoms should be found slowed down’ in other words, the spectrum lines should be shifted towards the red end of the spectrum.”</b>

That’s it. That seems to be a big secret today, but that’s all there is to it. The oscillation rates of atoms apparently slow down inside a gravity field, and the frequency of their emitted light goes down too. In less of a gravity field, the oscillation rates speeds up a little, and the frequency of their emitted light goes up a little.

This stuff about this slow-down and speed-up representing all of “time” in the location of the atoms, comes, vaguely, from Lorentz’s theory, but the concept was made famous by Einstein. Also, in the SR theory Einstein used mechanical “balance wheel” clocks, and he just pretended that they slowed down just as Lorentz’s atoms slowed down. But, I think by 1911, Einstein realized he was wrong about that, since balance wheel clocks operate by different laws of physics than oscillating atoms. Balance wheel clocks work more by the laws of basic Galilean and Newtonian mechanics, while oscillating atoms operate by quantum mechanics laws, which, back in the time of Lorentz and Einstein, was known as “electrodynamics”.

But, the urban legend gradually became the myth that “atomic clocks” represent “true time” and that all kinds of clocks will “slow down” at exactly the same rate as atomic clocks in a gravity field, but this is just not true. In fact, pendulum clocks will speed up in a stronger gravity field. Where atomic clocks slow down, pendulum clocks speed up. Mechanical balance-wheel clocks work by different rules.

I’ve conducted a lot of research about this. It has taken years for me to find out some of this stuff. I’ve had to go back through a lot of old books an papers that nobody remembers today.



Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.281 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum