In paper [1] published recently A. L.Kholmetskii et al.argued that S.A.Podosenov et al. paper [2] wrong and cannot explain nowel Mossbauer experiment in a rotating system. However paper [1] contains a lot of principal mistakes: (i) first notice that [1] based on rejection Einstein equivalence principle (EEP) (see [3]) and misconception in basic notion of GRT. By using these misconception A. L.Kholmetskii et al.argued that: the problem of physical interpretation of observed energy shift between emission and absorption lines in a rotating system under framework of general relativity open. Ofcourse after rejection EEP under framework of general relativity one explains nothing. (ii) secondary note that paper [1] based on misleading in quantum optics. In quantum optics we dealing with probability density w(t,r),r∈ℝ³ such that w(t,‖r‖,Ω)δΩdt is probability of photon registration near point r, between instant t and t+dt by a detector with angular size δΩ≪1sr and located at point r∈ℝ³.The probability density w(t,r) is not highly localized in free space except unphysical 1D case known from literature (see [4],5B 1.2).A single photons cannot be localized by using photodetector. Nevertheless in order to disprove S.A.Podosenov et al. paper [2], A. L.Kholmetskii et al. in [1] naively argued that γ-quanta is a point particle and propagate along highly localized classical trajectory. But this is a missconcept. Remark 1. But more importantly, these authors deliberately mislead readers by reporting absolutely false information about experimental results stated in classical papers [5]-[9]. A. L.Kholmetskii et al. wrote (see [1] p.5): However, it becomes obvious that Podosenov et al. [26] did not even realize fact that Eq. (11) indicates a red shift of frequency of resonant radiation (i.e., ν_{R} ν₀. We add that same blue shift of frequency of resonant γ -quanta has been obtained in all other Mossbauer rotor experiments [1--6] (see corresponding ref.[5]-[9] in this paper) in configuration where source of resonant radiation was located on rotational axis, and resonant absorber was mounted on rotor rim. Remark 1. Note that in classical Mossbauer rotor experiments [1]--[6] only a red shift in full accordance with GRT prediction without any doubt were obtained. [Truncated by viXra Admin to <400 words]
In paper [1] published recently A. L.Kholmetskii et al.argued that S.A.Podosenov et al. paper [2] wrong and cannot explain nowel Mossbauer experiment in a rotating system. However paper [1] contains a lot of principal mistakes: (i) first notice that [1] based on rejection Einstein equivalence principle (EEP) (see [3]) and misconception in basic notion of GRT. By using these misconception A. L.Kholmetskii et al.argued that: the problem of physical interpretation of observed energy shift between emission and absorption lines in a rotating system under framework of general relativity open. Ofcourse after rejection EEP under framework of general relativity one explains nothing. (ii) secondary note that paper [1] based on misleading in quantum optics. In quantum optics we dealing with probability density w(t,r),r∈ℝ³ such that w(t,‖r‖,Ω)δΩdt is probability of photon registration near point r, between instant t and t+dt by a detector with angular size δΩ≪1sr and located at point r∈ℝ³.The probability density w(t,r) is not highly localized in free space except unphysical 1D case known from literature (see [4],5B 1.2).A single photons cannot be localized by using photodetector. Nevertheless in order to disprove S.A.Podosenov et al. paper [2], A. L.Kholmetskii et al. in [1] naively argued that γ-quanta is a point particle and propagate along highly localized classical trajectory. But this is a missconcept. Remark 1. But more importantly, these authors deliberately mislead readers by reporting absolutely false information about experimental results stated in classical papers [5]-[9]. A. L.Kholmetskii et al. wrote (see [1] p.5): However, it becomes obvious that Podosenov et al. [26] did not even realize fact that Eq. (11) indicates a red shift of frequency of resonant radiation (i.e., ν_{R} ν₀. We add that same blue shift of frequency of resonant γ -quanta has been obtained in all other Mossbauer rotor experiments [1--6] (see corresponding ref.[5]-[9] in this paper) in configuration where source of resonant radiation was located on rotational axis, and resonant absorber was mounted on rotor rim. Remark 1. Note that in classical Mossbauer rotor experiments [1]--[6] only a red shift in full accordance with GRT prediction without any doubt were obtained. [Truncated by viXra Admin to <400 words]
In this paper, we re-analyze the ingenious experiment by Kündig (measurement of the transverse Doppler shift by means of the Mössbauer effect) and show that a correct processing of experimental data gives a relative energy shift Δ E / E of the absorption line different from the value of classically assumed relativistic time dilation for a rotating resonant absorber. Namely, instead of the relative energy shift reported by Kündig ( v being the linear velocity of absorber and c being the light velocity in vacuum), we derive from his results . We are inclined to think that the revealed deviation of Δ E / E from relativistic prediction cannot be explained by any instrumental error and thus represents a physical effect. In particular, we assume that the energy shift of the absorption resonant line is induced not only by the standard time dilation effect, but also by some additional effect missed at the moment, and related perhaps to the fact that resonant nuclei in the rotating absorber represent a macroscopic quantum system and cannot be considered as freely moving particles.
By taking both the Doppler frequency shift for electromagnetic wave and the quantum energy variation of matter wave into consideration, a resonant-absorption condition based on the local-ether wave equation is presented to account for a variety of phenomena consistently, including the Ives-Stilwell experiment, the output frequency from ammonia masers, and the Mössbauer rotor experiment. It is found that in the resonant-absorption condition, the major term associated with the laboratory velocity is a dot-product term between this velocity and that of the emitting or absorbing atom. This term appears both in the Doppler frequency shift and the transition frequency variation and then cancels out. Thereby, the experimental results can be independent of the laboratory velocity and hence comply with Galilean relativity, despite the restriction that the involved velocities are referred specifically to the local-ether frame. However, by examining the resonant-absorption condition in the Mössbauer rotor experiment to a higher order, it is found that Galilean relativity breaks down.
The purpose of this paper is to describe a method for observing stimulated emission of gamma radiation. Stimulated emission of gamma radiation has never been observed. Stimulated emission of gamma radiation will be essential for developing gamma-ray lasers. The method uses the ‘π phase-shift induced transparency’ of gamma radiation, previously called the ‘gamma echo’. The gamma-echo technique is based on a modification of the time-differential Mössbauer spectroscopic method, i.e. the source is moved ‘instantaneously’ during the lifetime of the excited state. Then a resonant absorber becomes transparent to the resonant gamma radiation. There is a type of ‘self-stimulated’ emission in which the radiation ‘absorbed’, before the phase shift, is stimulated to emit after the phase shift. To observe stimulated emission of the resonant gamma radiation, one performs the same gamma-echo experiment except the resonant absorber is replaced by another source. This secondary source is chosen to be in resonance with the original source. Under these conditions there will be no stimulated emission, in the secondary source, before the π phase shift because the incident radiation is absorbed. However, after the phase shift, the secondary source becomes transparent to the incident radiation. If one uses a matched pair of Co57 sources and the secondary source is 2mCi, there will be about 3 nuclei in the secondary source, in the first excited state of Fe57, that are available to be stimulated during the 97.8ns lifetime of the primary source radiation.
The analysis of the Doppler effect for photons in rotating systems, studied using the Mössbauer effect, confirms the general conclusions of a previous paper dedicated to experiments with photons emitted/absorbed by atoms/nuclei in inertial flight. The wave theory of light is so deeply rooted that it continues to be applied to describe phenomena in which the fundamental entities at work are discrete (photons). The fact that the wave theory of light can describe one aspect of these phenomena should not overshadow two issues: the corpuscular theory of light, first applied to the Doppler effect for photons by Schrödinger in 1922, is by far more complete since it describes all of the features of the studied phenomena; the wave theory can only be used when the number of photons at work is statistically significant. This disregarding of basic methodological criteria may appear to be a minor fault. However, the historical development of quantum physics shows that the predominance of the wave theory of radiation, beyond its natural application domain, has hampered the reorientation toward the photon description of the underlying phenomena.
Classical mechanics was developed in the 1600s and is considered a complete theory in that it matches observables in the macroscopic world. In the 1920s, however, it was found that different mechanical rules seem to apply to the electron in an atom. In this note we try to argue that classical mechanics is a subset of quantum mechanics i.e. it is based on partial information or the dropping of information. In (1) we noted that a classical spatial density Cdx/v(x,) where v(x) is velocit, is sometimes presented in the literature (2). This expression is proportional to dt associated with a fixed length dx so the density is a relative one. If one considers two bound classical systems (a particle in a box) with different constant speeds (in the interior) then dt is different for each, but Cdx/v(x) does not distinguish. Thus we argue that information has been lost. The higher v particle not only has a higher impulse, but an increased frequency and we argued in (1) that quantum mechanics takes note of this extra frequency by increasing the number of crests associated with higher constant velocities. In this note, we point out that quantum mechanics itself is linked to the dropping of information. If one considers free particle wavefunctions W(x) for different momenta (i.e velocities if mo is the same), one has exp(i p1 x), exp(i p2 x) etc. These clearly have different information. They describe direction, but more importantly they have an associated wavelength proportional to 1/p. P(x)=W*(x)W(x)=constant and so this information, which is physical, is lost . P(x) is related to the question: What is the probability for a particle to be at x? If one considers cos(px) as a nonlocal spatial distribution which shows motion i.e. negative and positive parts of cos(px), then sin(px) is a spatially shifted distribution which helps to indicate direction, but also shows that all x points are the same. One has a peak of cos(px) at x=0 and a lower value at x=delta, but due to the motion, the peak may later be at delta just like a classical wave. This is what W*(x)W(x)=constant captures. It shows that even though cos(px) maps to x in a certain way with sin(px) in an extra dimension, overall the free particle has no preference for one x point versus another. There are two points we wish to make. First, classical mechanics seems to be based on P(x) i.e. it drops information about a wavelength. Space is broken into tiny dx units and the particle has a constant velocity in each even if it is accelerating. This is the Newtonian picture and leads to dp/dt = Force or pp/2m + V(x) = E. This information, however, is contained completely in quantum mechanics because for a bound state with V(x) one has: -1/2m d/dx dW/dx / W + V(x) = En. -1/2m d/dx dW/dx / W is exactly KE(x) classical. Quantum mechanics, however, displays more information than the classical picture. For example, only certain En are allowed and W*(x)W(x) leads to a spatial density which does not appear in classical mechanics. This leads to a second point. exp(ipx) contains information about a wavelength which is lost if one only considers P(x) for a free particle. If there is an interaction (two electrons shifted in space, a V(x) or a single or double slits etc) exp(ipx) acts like a probability and adds in OR or interaction situations. In such a case the information regarding the wavelength becomes physically crucial. In other words for an interaction this information does not drop out as it does in the classical scenario of pp/2m + V(x) = E. Thus we argue that classical mechanics is a subset of quantum mechanics. Wavelengths are tiny in the macroscopic world and so are simply not observed, allowing the subset scenario of pp/2m + V(x)=E (nonrelativistic) to be an excellent approximation. Indeed for every energy level of a quantum bound state this relationship also holds. It is the spatial density which is altered.