Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<0313b7e19d20cff5da23805fc89d9e02@www.novabbs.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD! Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 02:41:50 +0000 Organization: novaBBS Message-ID: <0313b7e19d20cff5da23805fc89d9e02@www.novabbs.com> References: <7f48b61d2779066c75b739a1afd4eb80@www.novabbs.com> <vd0t61$3lvnd$1@dont-email.me> <ebe353415ea822a2b9505c8fc635081c@www.novabbs.com> <9fddf2b19888f8325ff11b4568ba31df@www.novabbs.com> <kM_IO.774584$b6j.701697@fx11.ams4> <87ba83c89bd6f1488741edd2ec3b88a9@www.novabbs.com> <14be7832a6e83c0f83dd0b3b5c04b896@www.novabbs.com> <4818d5b3c4f06ccc707001e1f17f0a68@www.novabbs.com> <a61ca26d8d5f58c653c5942b036f8461@www.novabbs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3656387"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="hWiuCAeR3KEZYJfTvV11n0qrRi6oqW/zjvEZQQGun9A"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$FB/1DWz5SOCCdlR4F8wLRepD6z.zJCzrljmnftKttOgzZe8AL9SDq X-Rslight-Posting-User: f685b96694175b2ad43ead343ead0a9c0082fe88 Bytes: 11773 Lines: 233 QUOTE: ********************************************************************** I really don't understand why you should be against Pound-Rebka. Although gravitational redshift was one of the classical tests of general relativity, it is now universally recognized that ANY theory of gravitation that respects the equivalence principle will predict gravitational redshift. THIS INCLUDES NEWTONIAN GRAVITATION. Just because Einstein predicted gravitational redshift does not mean that it is wrong or doesn't exist. ********************************************************************** Prokaryotic, we discussed a lot about this in the former forum. Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II. https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/ak4FDh0meLQ/m/8BCY9o5PCAAJ Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/0aLXD2GNp4U/m/bkuHL3f1BgAJ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Even when I consider this a heavy task, I'll try to display the best of what I wrote. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// From https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/ak4FDh0meLQ/m/1QuaIAmvBgAJ This OP explores, with more details, the claim about the HOAX that the 1960 paper was. A cooked paper, with data cherry-picking and fudging experiments. This time, I'll use spectroscopy's jargon, abandoning the focus on gamma rays frequency, bandwidths of emission and absorption and the shift of gh/c² in terms of frequency. Instead, I'll use eV as proportional to Hz, as given by Planck's formula E = h.f. The first clue about how deceptive the 1960 paper was going to be, is visible on its title: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS". Like with modern "click-baits", the fame thirsty Pound used that deceptive but "eye catching" title. Not even ONCE, within the paper, such topic appeared, even remotely. But this first deception had "Einstein" embedded. The IDEA for the experiment came from the work and paper of the British physicists Cranshaw, Schiffer, and Whitehead, which Pound "borrowed" by+ repeating the experiment at Harvard, trying to EXPLODE the 43% error in the final result that these physicists published. Pound claimed that his paper, with a similar arrangement, was much more precise in proving "Einstein's right" on its 1911 "HEURISTIC" idea about |Δf/f₀| = gh/c² for ANY EM RADIATION, providing that the height "h" was small enough to use "g = GM/R" as a CONSTANT. In 1981, Pound enhanced the figure of Einstein claiming that his "heuristic" conception was born in 1907, 4 years before his 1911 paper. Also, in the same publication, Pound CHANGED the meaning of experiment, referring to it as a "Gravitational Red-Shifting" proof, maybe forgetting that his 1960 paper was a MIX of 14 sets of 8 measurements EACH (using only 112 measurements out of hundreds). Of these 14 datasets, 8 were about the alleged RED-SHIFTING and 6 were about the alleged BLUE-SHIFTING. Fudging the experiment one time of many, Pound didn't hesitate to MIX and AVERAGE two completely different experiments, asking for your forgiveness and comprehension, given that he obtained a "virtual height" of 2 x 22.2 m, "doubling" (he sold that) the accuracy. This is the SECOND deceiving fact, presented as a clever maneuver (not A FUDGE). For h = 22.2 m, gh/c² ≈ 2.42E-15, while average γ rays spread |Δf/f₀| varied from 4.3-15 to 18.6E-15 (a 4.3 ratio, and 2 times to 9 times the einsteinian gh/c² to be MEASURED). Using the EXCUSE of difference of temperature corrections between source and detector of γ rays, Pound did THEORETICAL corrections to narrow the |Δf/f₀| spread as 9.3-15 to 24.5E-15 (a 2.6 ratio, and 4 times to 10 times the einsteinian gh/c² to be MEASURED). This is the THIRD deceiving fact. Pound used WEIGHTED averages of his own to present: RED-SHIFTING weighted average (8 sets of data) = -15.5 ± 0.8 (x 10E-15) BLUE-SHIFTING weighted average (6 sets of data) = -19.7 ± 0.8 (x 10E-15) ------------------------------------------ Difference of averages (mixing RED and BLUE) = -4.2 ± 1.1 (x 10E-15) Net fractional shift = -5.13 ± 0.51 (x 10E-15) Difference with einsteinian 2gh/c²: better than 10%. This is the FOURTH deceiving fact. If I have to explain, you're in denial or you are a gullible moron. ************************************************** As Pound explained, in the opening of the paper, he used a Lorentzian shape: L(x) = 1/π ( Γ/2)/[(x - x₀)² +( Γ/2)²] According to him, this shape is enough to explain the dispersion of energy in the emission or absorption of 14.4 KeV γ rays. Instead of frequency f, in spectroscopy is used energy E to quantify the spread of γ radiation, due to relationship E = h.f = h/T. The values of energy are in eV. A Lorentzian profile centered on E₀ with intensity I₀ and full-width half-maximum (FWHM) Γ is given by: L(E) = I₀ (Γ/2)²/[(E - E₀)² +(Γ/2)²] = I₀ (Γ/2)²/[ΔE² +(Γ/2)²] , where I₀: Nominal peak energy of the shape (eV). Γ: Bandwidth for L(E) = ± I₀/2 (eV). The shape fall to half its maximum at E = (E₀ ± Γ/2). Fractional FWHM = Γ/2 In spectroscopy, due to the Uncertainty Principle, there are limits in the precision with which the energy of a state can be defined, depending on the lifetime of the state and the change of energy along the line width Γ (eV). The natural lifetime τ defines the certainty with which the energy E can be defined. The imprecision of the energy ΔE = Γ depends on τ and, for Fe⁵⁷: τ(Fe⁵⁷) = 100 nsec h ≈ 4.136E−15 eV.sec ΔE. τ = Γ. τ ≈ h Γ ≈ h/τ = 4.136E−08 eV Fractional FWHM = |± 1.43E-12| (Pound quoted |1.13E-12|) RATIO of Gravitational Effect to 2xFractional FWHM ≈ 0.001 (0.1%) So, the KEY OF THE EXPERIMENT is to MEASURE a 0.1% CHANGE IN THE SPECTRAL WIDTH at the absorber side, considering that: - The emitter has a Γ = 4.136E−08 eV. - The absorber also has an uncorrelated Γ = 4.136E−08 eV. - The gravitational effect IS REPRESENTED BY ≈ 4.136E−11 eV. * The detection is based on a scintillator that multiply the ionization of a γ photon by approximately 30,000 times and convert it to an electric pulse that feed A COUNTER, which count is constantly stored. Either γ photons with RECOIL or Mössbauer's γ photons without RECOIL cause ionization, hence electric signals in the scintillator. * A MINIMUM IN THE COUNT IS EXPECTED PERIODICALLY IF a slowly induced Doppler effect (by mechanical means in the source) causes that in Mössbauer's γ photons the "gravitational effect" is CANCELLED. This technique, useful for a quarter of the sine wave that moves the source, transform such recoilless γ photons in NON IONIZING ONES. * ALLEGEDLY, the entire arrangement for the generation, carrying and detection of γ photons is: ------ ISOLATED from losses of γ photons during the path, providing a CONSTANT FLOW OF γ photons. ------ Changes in TEMPERATURE at the source and detector are perfectly registered, so STATISTICAL CORRECTIONS FOR NUCLEAR RESONANCE VARIATIONS (THEORETICAL VALUES) can be used at will. ------ RANDOM CHANGES in the material and locations of source and absorber are made, in order to generate variations in measurement that ARE CLAIMED TO BE STATISTICALLY CANCELLED. ------ No discrimination about the QUANTUM ORIGIN of γ photons OR quantum absorption given by the different levels of energy, spins, etc., except for Γ. Unknown effects by then (and even now) are not accounted, like hyperfine transitions or OTHERS, which Pound ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========