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

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.