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
acknowledged as potential sources of errors.
******** YET, EINSTEIN'S PROVEN RIGHT EVEN WHEN THE CONTRIBUTION
TO THE ENERGY OF PHOTONS IS ABOUT 0.1% *************
EITHER IT'S FISHY AND FRAUDULENT, OR POUND WAS A TIME TRAVELER
THAT CAME FROM YEAR 3,000 TO GAIN ONE STAR IN THE HALL FAME OF
RELATIVITY.
I'M WITH THE FISHY THING, STARTING BY THE LIE IN THE TITLE OF THE PAPER.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
To summarize about the IMPOSSIBILITY OF EXTRACTING DATA WHICH VERIFY A
SHIFT given by gh/c² ≈ 2.42E-15, in a short set of data that had a
RANDOM DISPERSION of ± 1.43E-12 (which configures NOISE 1,000 HIGHER
than what you PRETEND TO EXTRACT FROM DATASETS) was, is and will be
IMPOSSIBLE, unless you are a crook, a liar, a deceiver and else.
Fractional FWHM = |± 1.43E-12| (Pound quoted |1.13E-12|)
Had you said that Einstein's shift IS ENCODED WITH A KNOWN ALGORITHM, I
would approve the experiment, because the technique of wideband coding
of signals to hide them under noise is known since 1970, at least.
This technique was developed by Plessey and used for communications
during the Malvinas War in 1982. The signal was submerged into noise,
and it was impossible to even DETECT by the Argentinian military.
This technique, more elaborated, was used by the end of the '90s to
codify the 2G telephony, in open competition with the winner (European
GSM, based on TDM and used for more than 15 years, until the arrival of
3G, 4G and 5G.
But such pseudo-random encoding of Einstein's shift DIDN'T EXIST. Then,
to extract a shift of 2.42E-15 from a source with noise close to 10E-12
is absolutely RIDICULOUS, no matter which statistical tools you used to
COOK THE DATA. By the way, the receiver section was a GROSS MIX of
electromechanics and photonics, with a WIDE RANGE OF UNCERTAINTY for
that epoch.
I strongly believe about this HOAX, because I have a life with more than
45 years spent working into THIS KIND OF TECHNOLOGY for military
purposes, besides other works (I was very prolific).
One of the most important applications of signal extraction from noise
IS the processing of radar's received signals UNDER HEAVY JAMMING. I
worked on this too, for many years.
Pound and Rebka are fraudsters with many accomplishes. Pound, years
later, changed his NARRATIVE when he started to speak publicly that he
had proven EM blue/red-shifting.
But, by 1981, NOBODY paid attention on what he said in different
seminars. He was toasted, done, and the scientific community turned
their back on him. The price for being a crook.