The idea of the nature of time dilation. Can be checked.

[SergUpstart]

Although I believe Yanchilin's quantum theory of gravity is correct, I found one POSSIBLE error in It.
This error is not fatal to his theory.
An erroneous conclusion is that next to
with a large mass, the speed of time increases. This means that near a large mass, the rate of decay
radioactive elements should be increased, and experiments show the opposite. So don't demand it
new experiments, and understand the reason.

Considered example. The neutron flies away from the observer at the speed of v, because of the Doppler effect, the length of its de Broglie wave increases,
the natural frequency decreases, the decay constant increases according to the formula

Now let's consider the same situation, but let the neutron not fly away from the observer, but on the contrary, fly in the direction of the observer.
In this case, its de Broglie wavelength will decrease due to the Doppler effect, and its natural frequency will increase, but it is constant
the decay rate will still increase according to the above formula. Means Doppler frequency shift and deceleration
the time of a moving object is not the same.

And the fact is that the photon in addition to its frequency has another important characteristic. This is the natural width of its spectral line, which is inversely proportional to the time of its radiation. And it is this time of photon emission that determines the speed of time flow.

What is the speed of time in a physical system? This is the speed of all processes in this system. The atoms and particles that make up the physical system interact with each other through the radiation/absorption of particles that carry the interaction, both real and virtual, mainly photons. The radiation time of these particles is finite, and it determines the speed of all processes in the physical system. The frequencies of these particles, which are equal to f=E/h, do not matter in terms of the speed of physical processes.

An analogy with radio engineering is relevant here. In an amplitude-modulated radio signal, the information is carried by its envelope.For this information, the value of the carrier frequency does not matter.

Thus, near a large mass, both the time of photon emission and its frequency increase simultaneously. This means that the natural relative width of the spectral line of the emitted photons decreases. And, therefore, clocks that operate as quantum frequency standards should run with GREATER RELATIVE ACCURACY near a large mass.

On this effect, we can build an experimental test of this idea. It is necessary to set a couple of clocks at the foot of mount Everest, which
they represent a quantum frequency standard, and during sufficient time to determine the standard deviation of their measurement intervals
time. Then move them to the top of mount Everest for the same time and again determine the standard deviation, and then compare the reseltates.
If the relative accuracy of the movement of the clock at the bottom is higher, then this will be evidence in favor of my version of nature
gravitational deceleration of time, so m in favor of the quantum theory of gravity of Yanchilin.

 

[John Cuthber]

47 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

d experiments show the opposite.

That's interesting.
Can you cite a report of the effect plese?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, SergUpstart said:

Thus, near a large mass, both the time of photon emission and its frequency increase simultaneously. This means that the natural relative width of the spectral line of the emitted photons decreases. And, therefore, clocks that operate as quantum frequency standards should run with GREATER RELATIVE ACCURACY near a large mass.

How big will this effect be? In terms of the frequency stability (Allan deviation)

And why would this matter when time dilation experiments already falsify the premise?

[SergUpstart]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

And why would this matter when time dilation experiments already falsify the premise?

It can not be excluded that the slowing down of time (slowing down the flow of processes) is combined with an increase in frequency, as in the case when the neutron flux moves relative to the observer, see above.

We must admit that the experiment is either very long or expensive. If the frequency stability of the atomic line df/f=1E-14, then it takes at least 3 years to feel any effect at the frequency of 1 GHz. And for a set of statistics, you need to repeat the observation at least 100 times only at one height. The total is 300 years at one altitude + 300 years at another altitude. Or use the comparison of one source with hundreds of others at the same time for 3 years.

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

@sergupstart You have been asked to quantify the size of this effect.

Do that in your next post otherwise this thread will be closed for not meeting the expected standards of rigour. 

 

[SergUpstart]

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

That's interesting.
Can you cite a report of the effect plese?

At the bottom, the frequency should be at a relative value of 3gH/c^2 more. Hence, delta f/f=delta f/(1+3gH/c^2). If we substitute H=8000m, we get that the clock at the bottom should go to (2.4*10^-10)% more accurately. I admit, the effect is impossible to notice practically.The height of mount Everest is clearly not enough.

Edited July 30, 2020 by SergUpstart

[swansont]

2 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

It can not be excluded that the slowing down of time (slowing down the flow of processes) is combined with an increase in frequency, as in the case when the neutron flux moves relative to the observer, see above.

What does a neutron flux have to do with a clock experiment?

[Bufofrog]

2 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

At the bottom, the frequency should be at a relative value of 3gH/c^2 more.

That gives you the units of m^2/kg, how does that relate to frequency?

Edited July 30, 2020 by Bufofrog

[SergUpstart]

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

That gives you the units of m^2/kg, how does that relate to frequency?

3gH/c^2 the dimensionless quantity, relative frequency offset, g=9.8 m/s^2. And I was wrong here, the frequency of radiation at the bottom is greater by 2gH/c^2

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What does a neutron flux have to do with a clock experiment?

This is just an analogy with SR. 

Edited July 31, 2020 by SergUpstart

[swansont]

15 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

3gH/c^2 the dimensionless quantity, relative frequency offset, g=9.8 m/s^2

And which disagrees with experiment. 

We covered this in another thread, which you seem to gave abandoned. That evidence hasn’t changed just because you started a new thread.

[SergUpstart]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

And which disagrees with experiment. 

We covered this in another thread, which you seem to gave abandoned. That evidence hasn’t changed just because you started a new thread.

There may be another explanation for the results of the experiment. An increase in frequency at the bottom can be combined with a slowdown in time at the bottom ( with a slowdown in the course of processes, including radioactive decay)

[SergUpstart]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

And which disagrees with experiment. 

We covered this in another thread, which you seem to gave abandoned. That evidence hasn’t changed just because you started a new thread.

If you go back to the experiment you referred to, when the couple left the atomic clock at home and went up the mountain with other clocks. With a 99.99% probability, the atomic clock left at home did not use radioactive decay, but was a caesium quantum frequency standard. I wonder in which country you can freely buy a device that uses at least 1 milligram of a radioactive isotope. Therefore,it would be very interesting to conduct the experiment that I suggested earlier. We calculate the number of decay events for a trillion periods of oscillation of the quantum frequency standard at one height, and then at another height, and compare.

[Strange]

9 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

There may be another explanation for the results of the experiment. An increase in frequency at the bottom can be combined with a slowdown in time at the bottom ( with a slowdown in the course of processes, including radioactive decay)

!

Moderator Note

You have no evidence for these vague claims.

Do not bring this "theory" up again.