Elemental Puzzle

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by davar55

I think what you're asking me is how can a constant frequency photon of light exhibit red shift or produce the phenomenon we measure as red shift. Am I correct?

No, what I'm asking you is different.

Do you think that the emitted photon's observed frequency, as measured by an observer sharing the same motion & acceleration as the atom, can be affected by other objects' motions?

(Then I will have a follow-up question that depends on your answer to that question.)

[davar55]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

No, what I'm asking you is different.

Do you think that the emitted photon's observed frequency, as measured by an observer sharing the same motion & acceleration as the atom, can be affected by other objects' motions?

(Then I will have a follow-up question that depends on your answer to that question.)

An observor sharing the same motion ... as the atom? I don't see how
that's even possible. If you mean the spectrometer as observor, you
must be measuring in its reference frame, no? If you're asking whether
the moving photon is affected in its velocity (directionwise) by masses
it passes then sure (see Einstein's experiment). And I think you're
leading back to my question: how can a constant frequency photon
of light exhibit red shift or produce the phenomenon we measure as
red shift.

BTW the three vector components of the em-shift, which compose
into the red or blue shift, are not all explained in the monograph -
I didn't think then to explain the rel.vel. (doppler) component because
for cosmoloigical distances it was far less significant than the
distance factor I was explaining via the 4th spatial dimension.
My mistake. Next draft, if I finish it.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

An observor sharing the same motion ... as the atom? I don't see how that's even possible.

I'm sure cheesehead can correct me if I get this wrong, but it seems to me to be easily possible and, indeed, routinely done in physics labs, even with only a single atom. Here's a sketch of how it works:

Create a small cloud of isolated atoms in a vacuum chamber and cool them down using carefully directed and tuned laser beams and finely calibrated magnetic fields. The apparatus outlined so far is known as a magneto-optical trap. The remaining atoms will still be moving with a velocity characteristic of a microKelvin or so. To slow them down further, switch off the lasers and let the hotter (i.e. faster moving) atoms escape ("evaporate") from the trap until only a single atom is remaining. Very low energy photons, such as radio or microwaves, can be used to detect how many atoms are remaining through excitation and subsequent re-radiation from a hyperfine transition. This part of the process is called a magnetic trap.

Once you have a single atom you can find out where it is by turning on the laser again. The atom will absorb and re-emit a photon. The position, direction and frequency of the emitted photon tells you where the atom was and how fast it is going in which direction. Use another photon to bring the atom back to rest with respect to the apparatus.

You now have a stationary atom on which you can experiment.

As I said, this approach is relatively routine nowadays.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by davar55

An observor sharing the same motion ... as the atom? I don't see how that's even possible.

xilman has explained one possibility.

But I'm just specifying an idealized situation in which the observer has the same motion as the atom -- it's not relevant how this could be achieved in reality.

If you mean the spectrometer as observor, you must be measuring in its reference frame, no?

Let the observer be massless, chargeless, and motionless with respect to the atom. The observer could be using a spectrometer, or any other device that measures the frequency of a photon -- the nature of the massless, chargeless, and motionless measuring apparatus is not relevant to the question because it is idealized so as to have no effect itself, other than simply producing the measurement.

If you're asking whether the moving photon is affected in its velocity (directionwise)

No, I specifically and repeatedly wrote "frequency". I asked whether the frequency could be affected, not whether the velocity could be affected.

I meant just what I wrote -- why do you keep trying to change my question to something else? Why not just answer what I actually did ask? You're allowed to seek clarifications, but substituting "velocity" for "frequency" is an attempt to alter the question, not an attempt to clarify it.

And I think you're leading back to my question: how can a constant frequency photon of light exhibit red shift or produce the phenomenon we measure as red shift.

You can think all you want, but so far you're dodging my actual question. Why not just give a straight answer to a straight question without trying to change the question to something else?

- - -

Let me pose the question differently:

Suppose we have a situation (idealized as usual in thought experiments) in which an electron undergoing an energy level change within an atom (e.g., dropping from one orbital to a close one) emits a photon, and there's an idealized massless chargeless observer, motionless with respect to the atom, who has no influence on the atom, but receives the photon and measures its frequency. There's nothing else in the universe.

Call that situation A.

Now suppose we have a slightly different situation B, in which everything is the same as situation A, except that in addition there is another, chargeless particle passing by the atom that does not collide with, or intercept, anything.

Question: Is the frequency (as measured by the idealized massless chargeless motionless observer) of the photon emitted in situation B different from the frequency (measured in the same manner) of the photon emitted in situation A?

If your answer depends on whether or not the passing particle has mass, then please answer for both the massless case and the massful case. If there any other dependencies you wish to specify, please answer for each of those cases as well, or seek further clarification from me.

[davar55]

OK, we have an idealized observer, an atom at rest relative
to the observer, the atom manages to emit a photon without
itself moving relative to the observer, the photon travels at c
in some initial direction, with some determined initial frequency.
Is that right so far?

Now you're asking whether the frequency of the photon could
change based on some other massed or massless object's motion?
Is that also right so far?

My first reaction would be no, not in general, which agrees with
your answer to this question in an earlier post. But as I alluded
in an earlier post, the wave-particle duality must be accounted for,
as is part of my em-shift explanation (partial in the monograph).

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by davar55

OK, we have an idealized observer, an atom at rest relative
to the observer, the atom manages to emit a photon without
itself moving relative to the observer, the photon travels at c
in some initial direction, with some determined initial frequency.
Is that right so far?

Yes.

Now you're asking whether the frequency of the photon could
change based on some other massed or massless object's motion?
Is that also right so far?

Yes.

My first reaction would be no, not in general, which agrees with
your answer to this question in an earlier post.

Okay. This indicates that our split in thinking is not yet at this point, but is further down the logical chain I had in mind.

Unfortunately, right now I've forgotten the next question in the chain I was going to ask. I'll post it as soon as I remember it again.

But as I alluded in an earlier post, the wave-particle duality must be accounted for, as is part of my em-shift explanation (partial in the monograph).

Fine.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Yes.

Yes.

Okay. This indicates that our split in thinking is not yet at this point, but is further down the logical chain I had in mind.

Unfortunately, right now I've forgotten the next question in the chain I was going to ask. I'll post it as soon as I remember it again.

Fine.

Thank you. At least we agree on some things.

[davar55]

Other than the red shift data, are there any other data/observations
that contradict any part of the monograph? In particular the posited
substructure of electrons and protons based on neutrinos (the current
lack of evidence for this hypothesis might be eliminated by the right
particle bombardment experiments), the fifth dimension (which is
evidenced by the HRS and CMBR explanation), the explanation of
the strong nuclear force as being a composition of five forces,
mostly electromagnetic, the existence of a continent of stability
in the periodic table after the sea of instability, finalized by element 200,
or any other claim? I haven't claimed proof of all these, only
physical conjecture, but I have not seen any response to these
hypotheses or several others. My whole goal was/is to be consistent
and non-contradictory and as complete as possilble in a concise formulation.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

Other than the red shift data, are there any other data/observations
that contradict any part of the monograph? In particular the posited
substructure of electrons and protons based on neutrinos

Current evidence strongly supports the quark model for the substructure of nucleons, including protons. The properties measured for the quarks, such as their masses, symmetries and interactions, are very discordant with those for neutrinos.

Further, neutrinos are electrically neutral. The proton and electron carry electric charge.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by xilman

Current evidence strongly supports the quark model for the substructure of nucleons, including protons. The properties measured for the quarks, such as their masses, symmetries and interactions, are very discordant with those for neutrinos.

Further, neutrinos are electrically neutral. The proton and electron carry electric charge.

Yes, quarks are AIUI components of protons, neutrons and the like.
But the monograph suggests (w/o using the word quark) that quarks
themselves have a substructure, of finer and finer compositions of
neutrininos (a coined word)

Neutrinos (and their smaller cousins neutrinoinos) do have a small
magnetic property, which allows them to bind with others and form
larger units. The emergence of charge (separable in neutrons
as nEDM) is explained in the monograph, and explains how non-neutral
partickes can be composed of electrically neutral ones.

[LaurV]

Horton Hears a Who...