Salonis Posted February 16, 2013 Author Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) Photons in a gravitational field. (Experiment of R.V. Pound and G.A. Rebka) P + R have devised very sophisticated experiment which wanted verified one of theses GTR. The Theses talking about changing the flow of time in a gravitational field according to its gravitational potential. They used very accurate Mössbauer method, so called resonant photon absorption. The principle of resonance absorption asserted Pound and Rebka is as follows: heavy photon emitted by radioactive 57Co at the core after its decay to 57Fe can be resonantly captured by other nuclei 57Fe, when the energy difference emission and absorption is zero. In other words, a photon is resonantly captured by the kernel if and only if it corresponds to the mass / energy / frequency difference of energy levels exactly to absorbent core. If it is slightly different absorption does not. In the old water tower in Harvard Institute of Physics they aired once a bottom-up, than top-down gamafotons (14.4 keV) emitted from the nuclei of radioactive 57Co element and let them fall on the Fe target. Detector placed behind the target records the intensity dependence of the absorption of photons in the target on the gravitational potential .The performed measurements leads to concluded that the intensity of absorption depends on the gravitational potential. They concluded that the photons in gravipoli changes its frequency. But they haven't measured the actual total energy of the photons! They only find out that it had changed ratio absorption energy of gamafotons towards the level energy of atomic nuclei. Dr. V. Ullmann specifies that: If the gamma quanta energy precisely equal to a nuclear energy levels, can be such a g-photon absorbed by the core. If these two values of energy emission and absorption together very, very close to the resonant absorption come . Pound and Rebka thus found that where the emitter and the absorber layer in the same gravitational potential, are the conditions for resonant absorption. Nothing more! Both scientists concluded that it caused the change in the energy of the emitted photon, so if gamafotons flies up, they are "ore" if they flies down, "turning blue." But the same differential of photon's mass to energy levels of nuclei, could occur when is changing the mass of atomic nuclei in the absorber, thereby changing its absorption level. And this is the pitfalls of interpretation the P + R experiment. They did not take into account the change in the rest mass of measuring devices, depending on their location in a gravitational field! I calculated it: The relative change in rest mass of measuring devices of Gentleman P + R in gravitational field was almost the same as the relative change in mass of the photons. The difference is up on 15. point on floating line. Is that enough? Change relative rest mass of nucleons in the earth's gravitational field by diferent of height 22.5 meters, is on the 14 decimal places equal to the value of weight change calculated mass gamafotons of P + R. So who is right? Gentlemen P+ R find out only this: with height in the gravitational field one another changes the ratio of the mass of the photon and the mass of their measuring instruments. Nothing more! Gentlemen P + R argues that changing the mass of photons, I contend that it changes the mass of their devices.Change of the rest mass of bodies stored in the gravitational field is known since Newton. The closer to the center of gravity the body is stored, the greater its gravitational binding, and the lower is its potential energy, and also, the potential mass. Formula for potential energy Wp = mo. G. Mz. Ro-1. I handpicked rest mass of neutron mn = 1,67482. 10-27 kg, G = 6,67. 10-11 and the Earth mass Mz = 5,9736. 1024 kg, Ro = 6,36275.106 m. Resulting figure for Wp with given Ro, Wp= 1, 047 136 334.10-19 Joule. For R1 = Ro + 22,5 m I have got Wp = 1,047132719.10-19 Joule. Differential value of these two numbers is Wp dif = 0,000003615.10-19 Joule. Transfer of Joule to eV gives value Wp dif = 2, 26.10-6 eV. Diff ratio Wp / neutron W0 = 2,26.10-6 eV / 9,396,108 eV = 2,40.10-15. Value changes in energy photons detected Pound and Rebka is 2, 15.10-15. Me calculated value of changing mass of neutron to its position in a gravitational field is loaded with inaccuracies knowledge of radius Ro from centre of gravity for the city of Cambridge and especially incomplete (truncated) value mass of the planet Mz. In any case, the difference between the result of P + R and of my result is on the 15. place after the decimal point.Next time I will here demonstrate the schematic of the experiment, which will be able to prove opinion of mine Edited February 16, 2013 by Salonis
Salonis Posted February 22, 2013 Author Posted February 22, 2013 Maximilian Schlosshauer, Johannes Kofler, Anton Zeilinger: Conference on Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality: It turned out that quantum physics is not only incomprehensible to ordinary people, but by far there is little consensus even among experts. According to 27% of the respondents are mistaken interpretation of Bohr, 30% believe that there is still need to wait and response time can be up to new experiments. Classical Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics with its uncertainty principle receives only 42% of the survey participants. Competition of quantum mechanics in the form of opinions based on Einstein's belief there received even less support. By 64% of respondents were Einstein's view of the universe simply "wrong" (though, of course, raises the question of what exactly that meant). It is interesting that, on the contrary, respondents were optimistic regarding construction of quantum computers. The greatest proportion, 42%, estimated that a quantum computer appears in practice for 10-25 years. Feynman was probably right when he said that quantum physics no one does not understand, and no one who says yes, then either lying or a fool.This survey among physicists confirms the Lee Smolin's words about the need for any other interpretation QED, or its revision. Socrates agrees only
Salonis Posted February 25, 2013 Author Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Photons in a gravitational field. (Experiment of R.V. Pound and G.A. Rebka) P + R have devised very sophisticated experiment which wanted verified one of theses GTR. The Theses talking about changing the flow of time in a gravitational field according to its gravitational potential. They used very accurate Mössbauer method, so called resonant photon absorption. The principle of resonance absorption asserted Pound and Rebka is as follows: heavy photon emitted by radioactive 57Co at the core after its decay to 57Fe can be resonantly captured by other nuclei 57Fe, when the energy difference emission and absorption is zero. In other words, a photon is resonantly captured by the kernel if and only if it corresponds to the mass / energy / frequency difference of energy levels exactly to absorbent core. If it is slightly different absorption does not. In the old water tower in Harvard Institute of Physics they aired once a bottom-up, than top-down gamafotons (14.4 keV) emitted from the nuclei of radioactive 57Co element and let them fall on the Fe target. Detector placed behind the target records the intensity dependence of the absorption of photons in the target on the gravitational potential . The performed measurements leads to concluded that the intensity of absorption depends on the gravitational potential. They concluded that the photons in gravipoli changes its frequency. But they haven't measured the actual total energy of the photons! They only find out that it had changed ratio absorption energy of gamafotons towards the level energy of atomic nuclei. Dr. V. Ullmann specifies that: If the gamma quanta energy precisely equal to a nuclear energy levels, can be such a g-photon absorbed by the core. If these two values of energy emission and absorption together very, very close to the resonant absorption come . Pound and Rebka thus found that where the emitter and the absorber layer in the same gravitational potential, are the conditions for resonant absorption. Nothing more! Both scientists concluded that it caused the change in the energy of the emitted photon, so if gamafotons flies up, they are "ore" if they flies down, "turning blue." But the same differential of photon's mass to energy levels of nuclei, could occur when is changing the mass of atomic nuclei in the absorber, thereby changing its absorption level. And this is the pitfalls of interpretation the P + R experiment. They did not take into account the change in the rest mass of measuring devices, depending on their location in a gravitational field! I calculated it: The relative change in rest mass of measuring devices of Gentleman P + R in gravitational field was almost the same as the relative change in mass of the photons. The difference is up on 15. point on floating line. Is that enough? Change relative rest mass of nucleons in the earth's gravitational field by diferent of height 22.5 meters, is on the 14 decimal places equal to the value of weight change calculated mass gamafotons of P + R. So who is right? Gentlemen P+ R find out only this: with height in the gravitational field one another changes the ratio of the mass of the photon and the mass of their measuring instruments. Nothing more! Gentlemen P + R argues that changing the mass of photons, I contend that it changes the mass of their devices. Change of the rest mass of bodies stored in the gravitational field is known since Newton. The closer to the center of gravity the body is stored, the greater its gravitational binding, and the lower is its potential energy, and also, the potential mass. Formula for potential energy Wp = mo. G. Mz. Ro-1. I handpicked rest mass of neutron mn = 1,67482. 10-27 kg, G = 6,67. 10-11 and the Earth mass Mz = 5,9736. 1024 kg, Ro = 6,36275.106 m. Resulting figure for Wp with given Ro, Wp= 1, 047 136 334.10-19 Joule. For R1 = Ro + 22,5 m I have got Wp = 1,047132719.10-19 Joule. Differential value of these two numbers is Wp dif = 0,000003615.10-19 Joule. Transfer of Joule to eV gives value Wp dif = 2, 26.10-6 eV. Diff ratio Wp / neutron W0 = 2,26.10-6 eV / 9,396,108 eV = 2,40.10-15. Value changes in energy photons detected Pound and Rebka is 2, 15.10-15. Me calculated value of changing mass of neutron to its position in a gravitational field is loaded with inaccuracies knowledge of radius Ro from centre of gravity for the city of Cambridge and especially incomplete (truncated) value mass of the planet Mz. In any case, the difference between the result of P + R and of my result is on the 15. place after the decimal point. Next time I will here demonstrate the schematic of the experiment, which will be able to prove opinion of mine Here it is: Schema of the experiment is quite low-tech (do not see why not use the P+R similar way to verify the dogma of the variability of the weight of photons in a gravitational field.)The experimental group is sufficient, a highly stable frequency source technical, (generally MHz), two waveguides of equal length and two half-wave counter at the ends. Arrangement: frequency source is placed on the surface (on the floor), a waveguide with end-census to establish on elevated terrain (mountain, high construction), another waveguide placed at the same level as the source, or, if possible, run into the mine shaft that between these census was a great difference in height; hundreds of meters. After saving and linking all parts start the supply of technical waves. The experiment can continue (in contrast to exp. P+R) arbitrarily long (of the order of years). At the end, turning off sources of waves, it is necessary condition of both counters halfwave confront. If they are not among their resulting values significant differences tens half cycle, it can be said that the stability of the frequency of electromagnetic waves is independent of the direction of propagation and is therefore constant in a gravitational field. Still to the experiment P+R: In reality, the situation since the time of Newton is this: suppose that even the emitter and absorber are at the same potential-level gravitional field . Nucleons in absorbent and in the emitter have exactly the same weight and nothing prevents resonance capture of photons arising from the disintegration of the nucleus 57Cu nuclei 57Fe in absorbent. P+R put the emitter down and the absorbent up to the top of tower. They increase a little more mass of nucleons by its plotting up the top (the reduced gravitational binding ) than mass of nucleons in emitter below. If they brought the emitter up, it is now slightly heavier than nucleons in absorbent on bottom of tower, ie, at its greater gravitational binding. These facts are well known in the Middle Ages; gentlemen P+R ignored it. Why? It is hard to speculate. Probably just wanted to serve to his GTR dream. In a stronger gravitational field (below) are the nucleons in emitter's nuclei slightly lighter and therefore they emit up "lighter" gamafotons. than if emitter is at the top, where the nucleons are slightly heavier (than at the surface) and of course sending down " heavier "photons. And that was the difference in mass of the photons and the mass of nucleons in apparatus, measured by P+R. First of all, should know that all the free (ie, if they are in free motion) material objects in the gravitational field does not change its overall weight! Why should it be changed the free photons?!They do also regarded as material objects. Unfortunately, P+R prefer serving to GTR. For them is the gravitational field some mysterious deceleration of time. Resume: P+R in their calculations neglected completely change rest mass of measuring apparatus with a height in a gravitational field. By measurements they found only a relative change the mass of photon ratio to the mass of nucleons in measuring device. More specifically: mass of neutrons in the iron atoms in the target. Interpretation of the two opposing variants: a/ with increasing height in the gravitational field realistically reduce mass of photon, while mass of neutrons in the target has not changed, or b/ with height in gravitational field, with diminished gravitational binding increased mass of their apparatus, (nucleons in the target) ) while the mass of the photon with the height remains constant! In both variants, changes the ratio mn / mf. And just this change relative ratio mass of neutrons to mass of photons with the height have gentlemen P + R measured! Who knows the laws of physical binding, including binding of bodies in a gravitational field, he knows that the decline in the direction of the gravitational potential, ie to the center of the earth, there is growing size of the gravitational binding of elements which is necessarily accompanied by shrinkage (emitting) their resting energy/mass. Conversely, for distant objects out of gravitational field need them binding energy / mass to deliver. This "service" done him the gentlemens P+R when measuring apparatus carry up on the top of water tower. The apparatus thus has a slightly larger rest mass at the top than at the bottom The relative increase in mass of systems (nucleons) above has exactly the same value (2,15 .10-15), exactly the same as the calculated relative reduction in frequency/mass of the photon. The conclusion is that the experiment P+R showed the invariance mass/frequency of photons as they travel in gravitational field. What has been changed during the experiment? The mass of the nucleons apparatus! Of course, if the atoms are closer to the center of gravity, it is due to the gravitational binding "lighter," and their electrons emit "light" photons, ie, photons with lower frequencies. Cesium clocks, which are controlled by frequency radiation of cesium atoms, go at bottom slower than the clock located above. Naturally. Einstein concluded from this that the time in gravitational field, thanks to his equations is slowing. However, if he would use a pendulum clock he would have found that they would go at bottom faster than at the top!! Isn't clocks as a clocks! Edited February 25, 2013 by Salonis
Salonis Posted March 1, 2013 Author Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) It would be worth professional psychological study. The physics community distinguished for over two hundred so called elementary particles and still not clear essence of a unit of electrical charge. Or not seeks determine why this almost chaotic set of particles have one thing in common: their unit charge. This is not a coincidence, or irrelevance! This is still the most important external common feature of all the, elementary "particles as defined by physicists. What may be more important for subnuclear physics than debunk perfect uniformity charge of particles?! So what science knows and submit: An important common feature of all "elementary" particles is their electrical charge. All of these particles has only two charge states of exactly the same size: 1,602 .10-19 C, and -1,602 .10-19 C and one is zero. And that's all about it.And yet it is the most significantly mark for the classification of all elem. particles indicative of their common ground. In their base a kind of "core" (vakant) there are only 3 possible variants of eletrical charge. If it is not zero, has only two antipodean, but absolutely equal value. Socrates' Kvarton model of vacuum and elementary particles have to clear this reality and causal explanation: carriers of electrical charge are only two(from four) antipodean protoelements with numerically the same but antipodean electrical charges |1,602 .10-19 C|. If in the base of particle (vakant) is only one of this pair, cannot be his charge different from the above two values. The fact therefore confirms the validity of Socrates' model. Yes, it's that simple!Imagine that a similar model of vacuum announce an well renowned physicist. Then It will, an epochal discovery which caused, according all the rave commentators, an revolution in subnuclear physics. But If comes from a Socrates he reaps just a scornful smile: what he knows about physics?As I say, It would be worth psychological study. Edited March 1, 2013 by Salonis
Kramer Posted March 3, 2013 Posted March 3, 2013 Doesn't your theory means that Socrates was in opposite side of Demokritis? I have vague knowledge about ancient Greek philosophy. But i see that Plato is one of favored philosophies for modern physics. I don't like that, It smells fishy for me, an camouflage for religious mysticism. The realism is in the philosophy of Demokritis that universe is structured by 'atoms'.
Salonis Posted March 4, 2013 Author Posted March 4, 2013 Doesn't your theory means that Socrates was in opposite side of Demokritis? I have vague knowledge about ancient Greek philosophy. But i see that Plato is one of favored philosophies for modern physics. I don't like that, It smells fishy for me, an camouflage for religious mysticism. The realism is in the philosophy of Demokritis that universe is structured by 'atoms'. Unfortunately, I have to disappoint you. Socrates on whose ideas I refer was a wise monk. He lived in a monastery on the island of Corfu in the last century. From him comes the idea of four unchanging, stable protoelements, (protoels). Their flexibility arrangement (vakants) is the basis of all elementary particles. Basis of the Socrates ideas structure of vacuum is a 'building block' created with the triple antipodean bond of these 4 protoelements - kvarton. Can I, with some simplification, to say that monk Socrates deepened Demokritis idea of atoms.
Salonis Posted March 11, 2013 Author Posted March 11, 2013 (edited) RNDr. Vojtech Ullmann published an interesting graph of changes the potential for nuclear power on the degree of mutual approximation of nucleons inside the nucleus. For it is evident that the approximation of the nucleons distance of 0,5 fm previous drop-potential for changes in growth potential. When approaching nucleon at r = 0,15 fm, increase the potential U to zero and the next approximation steeply rising potential to positive potential U and the attraction of nucleons has significantly changed on their repulsion. The green waveform indicated potential U is clear that in the nucleon approximation point r < 0,15 fm growing potential repulsion of nucleons the relation U = 1/r4. The result of this growth potential is practical incompressibility of nucleons to prevent any collapse of massive stars to zero volume. Socrates model of vacuum also assumes halt the collapse of the star at drop her radius below Rs = Rg/2 or less than half the gravitational radius Rg. When the gravitational interaction is saturated and star lost (giant flare unleashed) almost its entire mass. There is no reason for the continuation of collapse. For more information please on url removed by mod The course of potential between nucleons Ullmanns graph is in attachement Ullmanns graph powers between nucleons.doc Edited March 11, 2013 by Klaynos url removed.
Klaynos Posted March 11, 2013 Posted March 11, 2013 ! Moderator Note Salonis, please stop advertising your website we are not an advertisement board. Do not post it again.
Salonis Posted March 12, 2013 Author Posted March 12, 2013 ! Moderator Note Salonis, please stop advertising your website we are not an advertisement board. Do not post it again. Removed URL was link to the source, which is in accord with the graph of V. Ullmann but unlike him, this source gives us causal physical interpretation of Dr Ullmann graph. In protest against the discrimination by the moderator Klaynos I quit with participation in this forum. Salonis
mooeypoo Posted March 13, 2013 Posted March 13, 2013 ! Moderator Note Sadly for you, Klaynos does not stand alone. In fact, all moderation actions are done by consensus. Since you were repeatedly warned to stop pushing your personal site, this cry of 'foul' doesn't really stand. It's your choice to stay or to go, but if you do decide to stay, the only way for you to do that is to adhere to our rules and listen to our staff. Good luck.
ydoaPs Posted March 13, 2013 Posted March 13, 2013 Removed URL was link to the source, which is in accord with the graph of V. Ullmann but unlike him, this source gives us causal physical interpretation of Dr Ullmann graph. In protest against the discrimination by the moderator Klaynos I quit with participation in this forum. Salonis ! Moderator Note Also, any "protest against" moderator action is to be done via PM.
Salonis Posted March 13, 2013 Author Posted March 13, 2013 (edited) ! Moderator Note Sadly for you, Klaynos does not stand alone. In fact, all moderation actions are done by consensus. Since you were repeatedly warned to stop pushing your personal site, this cry of 'foul' doesn't really stand. It's your choice to stay or to go, but if you do decide to stay, the only way for you to do that is to adhere to our rules and listen to our staff. Good luck. I gave a link to Socrates site, because only his model of vacuum is in accord with Ullmann‘s graph and only he is able to interpret it causally. Is it perhaps, presentation of own opinion on the discussion forum banned? And what else is a website?! If I would put 1000 links to pages in which authors claim that body such as star, may collapse to zero volume and other similar antiphysicum, you will be satisfied. No progress of physics, but to freezing the status quo. Thinking? Why? I don't envy you your destiny the humble footman of science without own thoughts I feel sorry for you. Edited March 13, 2013 by Salonis
swansont Posted March 13, 2013 Posted March 13, 2013 I gave a link to Socrates site, because only his model of vacuum is in accord with Ullmann‘s graph and only he is able to interpret it causally. Is it perhaps, presentation of own opinion on the discussion forum banned? And what else is a website?! If I would put 1000 links to pages in which authors claim that body such as star, may collapse to zero volume and other similar antiphysicum, you will be satisfied. No progress of physics, but to freezing the status quo. Thinking? Why? I don't envy you your destiny the humble footman of science without own thoughts I feel sorry for you. ! Moderator Note It doesn't matter that you feel justified in breaking a rule. You didn't give a link to a specific relevant piece of material, you gave a link to your website. Rule 7 don't go around making threads to advertise (your site). Links in posts should be relevant to the discussion
Salonis Posted March 15, 2013 Author Posted March 15, 2013 ! Moderator Note It doesn't matter that you feel justified in breaking a rule. You didn't give a link to a specific relevant piece of material, you gave a link to your website. Rule 7 don't go around making threads to advertise (your site). Links in posts should be relevant to the discussion Only for Dr. Swansont: Socrates' websites are the only ones in this Galaxy, which at agreement with the graph of Dr V.Ullmann predicts the limit of incompressibility of elementary particles. Which links should be now relevant to the discussion? If the link to Socrates' sites is here disabled, I have no reason be on this forum
swansont Posted March 15, 2013 Posted March 15, 2013 If the link to Socrates' sites is here disabled, I have no reason be on this forum Indeed. This is a discussion forum, not an advertising platform.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now