Re: Argument with ChatGPT about that Pound-Rebka experiment was A FRAUD.

On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 11:45:07 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 6:30:23 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 4:47:21 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>

<snip>

Sorry, no. You either made a massive goof, or you were deliberately
trying to befuddle ChatGPT with inconsistent numbers.
>
If you were being honest, you would have written something like
Net Shift (x 10^15):
source at bottom, red shift = (-17.6 - 2.1) = -19.7 (weighted avg)
source at top,   blue shift = (-17.6 + 2.1) = -15.5 (weighted avg)
>
Instead, your numbers were
Net Shift (x 10^15):
source at bottom, red shift = (-17.6 - 2.1) = -19.7 (weighted avg)
source at top,   blue shift = (-15.5 + 2.1) = -13.4 WHAATTT????

>
Well, which was it, Richard? Did you innocently blunder, or did you
intentionally misrepresent Pound & Rebka's results?

**************************************************************************

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?

Did they use A BANDPASS FILTER with a Q close to 500 at a frequency of
3.482E+18 Hz?

Or they used (cooking, forging data, using deceiving statistics and
formulae, biasing results, dismissing HEAVY SOURCES OF ERROR, etc.) the
counts for the ENTIRE SPECTRUM at each of the four points?

How did they translated the pulse count to fractional frequency shifts
of the radiation NOT ABSORBED by the detector?


Here are some comments on this topic:

---------------------------------------------------------

1) Any number that I could have written IS CERTAIN, as every fucking
number published in the HOAX of 1960. The paper was cooked, forged and
full of fraudulent assertions, written in a language with excess of some
details, but LACKING the real numbers that could prove
Pound-Rebka/Einstein being right.

2) In PARTICULAR: How did they COUNT the pulses around the inflection
points of the (alleged) post-absorption Lorentzian shape? .  Your 86% of
contribution to the Wiki article lacks THE FUNDAMENTALS behind such
FRAUDULENT EXPERIMENT. You don't have A FUCKING CLUE about how the count
of pulses is related to the frequency shift table that was published.

Some numerical facts:

2a)   For the absorber, the fractional FWHM = Γ/2 = h/4πτ = ± 2,351E-09
eV = ± 1.43E-12

2b)  The predicted "gravitational shift" expected to be measured is
2.46E-15, which is 581 times smaller than the FWHM.

2c) Piston moving at v_J = ± 0.634μm/s  induces a shift v_J/c  =
2.11E-15. If V_J increases to ± 7.833 μm/s, the induced shift increases
to ± 26.11E-15. These shifts last 300 seconds for each sign, with a
period of 10 minutes.

2d) Added to 2c), a transducer driven by a 50 Hz sinusoidal signal
contributes with an additional shift of  ± 3.33E-15, caused by a motion
V_M with a peak velocity of ~ ±1μm/s.  This contribution repeats every
20 msec, but only measurements at PEAKS of the induced Doppler are
valid. So, the temporal range available TO COUNT PULSES is about 1 msec
(peak of the sine wave), IF YOU WANT that the ±V_M peak velocity be more
or less constant, on each period of the additional sine wave like
motion.

2e) The FOUR PEAK SHIFTS in the Lorentzian post-absorbing curve, where
pulses are to be counted, are:

-V_M - V_J :: (-26.11 - 3.33) x 10^-15 = -29.44E-15
-V_M + V_J :: (-26.11 + 3.33) x 10^-15 = -22.78E-15
V_M - V_J :: (+26.11 - 3.33) x 10^-15 = +22.78E-15
V_M + V_J :: (+26.11 + 3.33) x 10^-15 = +29.44E-15

In between these FOUR POINTS is the bottom peak of the Lorentzian, which
has a displacement V_D from zero, that would provide the "expected
gravitational shift" of ±2.46E-15. See attached figure.

2f) This is the formula (1) for NUMBER OF PULSES VERSUS VELOCITIES that
Pound DISCLOSED in 1965 (w/Sneider), ASSUMING that the shape is
Lorentzian.
QUOTE 1965 PAPER:

An expression for the number of counts for a standard time versus source
velocity, representing an approximation to the resonance line shape, may
be taken as

Eq.(1)    N(V) = [Nb (Ω/4π)εD] x {1 - F[1 + ((V - V_D)/V_H^2)^2]^-1}

The slope of the line is constant from  (-V_M-V_J) to  (-V_M+V_J) and
from (+V_M+V_J) to (+V_M-V_J). Four numbers for counts are obtained:

N(+V_M+V_J) = N(++)
N(-V_M+V_J) = N(-+)
N(+V_M-V_J) = N(+-)
N(-V_M-V_J) = N(--)

Solving the desired V_D  from FOUR LATERAL MEASUREMENTS gives

V_D:       V_D = V - V_H^2 {F/{1 - N(V)/[Nb (Ω/4π)εD]} - 1}^1/2

V_D: Velocity at the point of maximum absorption. Used for gravitational
shift calculation, being close to 1/500 V_H. THIS IS TO BE TRANSFORMED
INTO "MEASURED" FREQUENCY SHIFTS, in the order of 10^-15. HEAVY COOKING
HERE.

V_H:  Velocity for half-maximum absorption. About 500 x VD. Composite
velocity from V_M and V_J.(V_J/V_H)^2 ~ 0.0027. V_H = 19.24 V_J.

V_M:  Peak velocity ~ ±1μm/s. Approximates the points of steptest slope
of the curve. Induces Doppler from a 50 Hz transducer. Period: 20 ms.
Allows 100 measurements per second, at each sine wave peak.

V_J: >> V_D but << V_H. Applied through a hydraulic piston that changes
every 5 minutes. Using a hydraulic piston that imposed a precise
back-and-forth calibration velocity V_J, (enough to produce a Doppler
shift approximately equal to the predicted redshift), with a
10-minute-long periodicity (±5 minutes).

F: Fraction measuring the depth of the line

N(V): Pulses counted, during 300 seconds of each ± V_M cycle.

N: Number of decays at the source

b: Fraction of decays leading to emission of recoilless Ƴ rays

Ω/4π: Fraction of radiation intercepted by the absorber

ε: Detector efficiency and non-resonant absorption

D: Duty cycle

2g) In 1960, Pound ADMITTED having added N(V) from both sides of the
ALLEGED Lorentzian shape for remnants of absorption. He also combined
counts registered for peaks ±V_M, separated 10 ms (50 Hz).  at each
side.

QUOTE 1960 PAPER:
************************************************************************
Combining data from two periods having Doppler shifts of equal
magnitude, but opposite sign, allowed measurement of both sensitivity
and relative frequency shift. Because no sacrifice of valuable data
resulted, the sensitivity was calibrated about 1/3 of the operating time
which was as often as convenient without recording the data
automatically.
............................................
The average for the two directions of travel should measure an effective
shift of other origin, and this is about four times the difference
between the shifts. We confirmed that this shift was an inherent
property of the particular combination of source and absorber.
............................................
Although this test was not exact because only about half the area of
each absorber was involved, the weighted mean shift from this test for
the combination of all absorber units agreed well with that observed in
the main experiment. The individual fractional frequency shifts found
for these, for the monitor absorber, as well as for a 11.7-mg/cm^2 Armco
iron foil, are displayed in Table G. The considerable variation among
them is as striking as the size of the weighted mean shift. Such shifts
could result from differences in a range of about 11% in effective Debye
temperature through producing differences  in net second order Doppler
effect. Other explanations based on hyperfine structure including
electric quadrupole interactions are also plausible.
***********************************************************************

In 1960, the value of τ used in the formula ΔE_nat = h/2πτ was 0.1 usec,
instead of the modern value of 0.14 usec,  giving erroneous values for
everything else.

2h) Pound wrote that, in 1959, used a carefully prepared source Co57
(270 days) with 0.4 curie of radioactivity, equal to 1.48 x 10^9
disintegrations per second to the 136 keV nuclear level of 57Fe with
nuclear spin quantum number I = 5/2 for about 10 nsec, after which
decays (with 85 % probability) to the 14.4 keV
(I = 3/2, halflife of 140 ns) level by emitting 122 keV gamma photons.
In average, the source emitted about 1.258 x 10^9 disintegrations per
second, but only 80% of the decays were recoil free (about). Other
sources were 0.258 x 10^9   14.4 KeV photons/sec with recoil and 0.222 x
10^9   122 KeV gamma photons per second.

NOTE: Even with the care taken to fill the 22 m duct with He, the last
50 cm were exposed to aire, as well as the detector. Some of the gamma
photons suffered the Compton effect, which caused them to be
red-shifted, but this was dismissed. It also affected the 122 KeV
photons.