Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Argument with ChatGPT about that Pound-Rebka experiment was A FRAUD.
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 02:57:05 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <9962efd90527e5fabea26cd16a81c5fc@www.novabbs.com>
References: <3b78e0c128ecdc966a66fd37b6de07fd@www.novabbs.com> <ff475971506169bab3f6c59b0f266445@www.novabbs.com> <05f9aaea77b2e88a5bbfd20b5b423d90@www.novabbs.com> <06a782c98fd042e2c23407d82baf1d55@www.novabbs.com> <984342cbac12bb5aebe658e0081b2ae7@www.novabbs.com> <e9f2cde1246361a578d00b6323871d5e@www.novabbs.com> <b6405c314f9a3cc38d0c518fad8f91d3@www.novabbs.com> <b6699383da411f55d91f67b81922e016@www.novabbs.com> <e5e4d568bc03fdc16a75b6ab22a2a001@www.novabbs.com> <0a0f22aae738970f1e8ee2f04e52fd06@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="2384178"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="Ooch2ht+q3xfrepY75FKkEEx2SPWDQTvfft66HacveI";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$j9cQ6OjTDWiKaAeiNp/HsuKG.4NOjv.wua2W/lmOHMBvWy.s8vtYW
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 504a4e36a1e6a0679da537f565a179f60d7acbd8
Bytes: 8971
Lines: 178

On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 22:42:14 +0000, rhertz wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 20:28:57 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:52:29 +0000, rhertz wrote:

>>> I'll finish this discussion right here and right now.  You have to
>>> answer the following question, which is ESSENTIAL to determine if the
>>> 1959 experiment WAS AN HOAX OR NOT.
>>>
>>> QUESTION: If the emitter sent composite photons 22 meters up or down to
>>> the detector, at a rate of about 1.48 x 10^9 disintegrations per second
>>> (recoil-less 14.4 KeV photons are 2/3 of this value) OVER A SPECTRUM
>>> THAT HAS (at half value) A WIDTH OF  ± 1.43E-12 from the center
>>> frequency, HOW COME a scintillator+counter managed to count pulses
>>> during 1 msec IN A REGION THAT IS ± 20E-15 APART from the center
>>> frequency of resonance, IF SUCH REGIONS BARELY HAVE A BANDWIDTH OF ±
>>> 4E-15?
>>
>> Totally fallacious argument. Following your logic, since the cesium
>> hyperfine line used for atomic standards has a bandwidth of approx.
>> 1 Hz, it should not be possible for cesium atomic clocks to maintain
>> time to better than about 1 part in 10^10.
>>
>> The best cesium atomic fountain clocks, however, maintain time to
>> about 3 parts in 10^16.
>>
>> Is the reported stability and accuracy of the best cesium atomic
>> clocks all a lie?
>>
>> It is all a matter of how much data you collect and the skill with
>> which you analyze the data.
>>
>> <snipped invective- and innuendo-filled rant>
>
> Lame answer, paradoxically full of fallacies.
>
> Better go and FIX the content of your 86% contribution to Wikipedia, in
> particular the stupid graphics.
>
> Here, in case you forgot:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
>
> And, please, get rid of the poetic dick-sucking part praising Einstein's
> GR.
> You wrote more about Einstein than about Pound & Rebka.
>
> I know that you're under severe butt hurt with my reply, but you NEGATED
> to answer the essential question: HOW DID THAT COUPLE OF CROOKS MANAGED
> TO COUNT THE PULSES WITHIN SUCH ULTRA-NARROW BANDWIDTH OF ABOUT 20E-15
> SHIFT FROM THE CENTRAL FREQUENCY IF THE SOURCE IS IRRADIATING BILLIONS
> OF PHOTONS OVER AN SPECTRUM THAT IS 500 TIMES LARGER? DID THEY USE SOME
> KIND OF MAGICAL FILTER TO COUNT ONLY THE GAMMA PHOTONS IN SUCH NARROW
> BANDWIDTH?
>
> NOT EVEN TODAY IT'S POSSIBLE, WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT FILTERING
> PHOTONS THAT PASS THROUGH A BANDWIDTH OF LESS THAN 100 KHZ APART FROM A
> CENTER FREQUENCY OF
> 3.48E+18 HZ?

You obviously refuse to acknowledge the close analogy with the ability
of advanced atomic clocks to filter microwaves deviating by millionths
of a Hz from a center frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz. Even a 5071A does
so within thousandths of a Hz.

> I put it differently:
>
> Given fo = 348,000,000,000,000,000,000 Hz, how did/do/will COUNT
> INCIDENCES that happen at fo - 100,000 Hz? This requires a filter with a
> sensitivity that, probably, WILL NOT BE REACHED IN THE NEXT 500 YEARS!!

Given fo = 9,192,631,770 Hz, how does a 5071A detect frequency
differences of 0.001 Hz, given that the natural line width of the
cesium hyperfine transition is about 1 Hz. This would require a filter
that existed in 1992.

> And about your FALLACY over the cesium atomic fountain clocks, READ
> THIS:
>
> https://www.nist.gov/pml/time-and-frequency-division/time-realization/cesium-fountain-atomic-clocks
>
>
> QUOTE:
>
> "NIST-F4 is a primary frequency standard that is currently under
> evaluation. ....Once the evaluation is completed, NIST-F4 will
> contribute to UTC and calibrate the absolute frequency of
> next-generation optical atomic clocks.
> It is EXPECTED to reach an accuracy approaching the 10^-16 level in
> fractional frequency.
> ........
> The combination of laser cooling and the fountain design allows the
> atomic fountain clock to observe cesium atoms for longer periods
> compared to traditional atomic beam clocks, and thus achieve its
> unprecedented accuracy. Traditional cesium clocks measure
> room-temperature atoms moving at several hundred meters per second.
> Since the atoms are moving so fast, the observation time is limited to a
> few milliseconds. The fountain clock uses a different approach. Laser
> cooling drops the temperature of the atoms to a few millionths of a
> degree above absolute zero, and reduces their thermal velocity to a few
> centimeters per second."

...thus increasing the interrogation time from several milliseconds
in the Ramsey cavity of a cesium beam clock to several tenths of a
second.

> NOTE: EXPECTED ACCURACY AROUND 9,192,631,770 Hz, the frequency used to
> define the SI second. That would be about 10 microseconds around the
> FIXED (SI) frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz. I'm sure that they will get
> such precision OR ELSE. No mention on the DURATION of such accuracy (1
> usec, 1 sec, 1 hr, 1 day, etc.).
>
>
> But you better start fixing your 86% on Wiki, or found another hobby.
>
> I'll give a hand to you, so you can understand how the Mossbauer
> spectroscopy is being used in 2010, to RESOLVE the hyperfine states of
> Fe57.
>
> The FIRST THING that you HAVE TO LEARN is that the emitter IS SWEPT
> along a wide range of velocities between +/- 10 mm/sec. In THIS WAY,
> emitter and absorber are separated by A HUGE SHIFT.

You are mixing experimental procedures.

> That is: the power
> spectrum of the emitter and the absorber are, INITIALLY, completely
> misaligned. In this way, the proportional counter start and finish with
> ZERO COUNTS.

You are mixing experimental procedures.

> The SECOND THING that you HAVE TO LEARN is that the motion of the
> emitter has the form of a saw tooth that covers the entire range of +/-
> 10 mm/sec in ONE CYCLE. In this way, from left to right, the
> proportional counter start detecting photons AS THE EMITTER AND ABSORBER
> start to being ALIGNED. Counts are recorded at a constant pace. Once
> both spectra ARE ALIGNED, the bottom of the remnants of the absorption
> curve IS REACHED.

You are mixing experimental procedures.

> The THIRD THING that you HAVE TO LEARN is that THE NOISY RECOLLECTION OF
> COUNTS is processed IN ORDER TO obtain a THEORETICAL LORENTZIAN SHAPE
> that fits with the dataset of pulses count. THEORETICAL! Do you get it?

So long as the shape of the curve is approximately Lorentzian, P&R could
obtain
a good estimate of the offset.

> Mossbauer Spectroscopy of 57Fe
> Shawn Westerdale
> MIT Department of Physics
> (Dated: May 13, 2010)
>
>
> https://tp.physique.usherbrooke.ca/experiences_fichiers/Mossbauer/web/Settings.pdf
>
>
> The attached figure is a graph with recollected counts and the ATTEMPT
> to fit a Lorentzian shape into it.
>
> Once these relativists get, by statistical means, a Lorentzian shape,
> they will use the equation for whatever they want. But NOTICE HOW NOISY
> IS THE GRAPH.

You are mixing experimental procedures.

> lEARN SOMETHING WELL ABOVE YOUR BIASED, EINSTENIAN KNOWLEDGE. THANKS ME
> LATER.

You are mixing experimental procedures.

Your hatred of relativity is such that you can't even think straight
enough
to put together a valid criticism. Go and relax, watch a couple of
animated
cartoons. I recommend Moana and Moana 2. Or if you prefer live-action, I
recommend the movie Wicked, which I like better than the book.